The Feral Female

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.

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • INTJ

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

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

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

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

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

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

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

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

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

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

  • BuckeyeBri

    @Lokland

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Buckeye Bri

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

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

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

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

  • Abbot

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

  • Herb

    @BuckeyeBri

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

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

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

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

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

  • Herb

    @Susan

    giving and receiving generously

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

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

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

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

  • deti

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

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

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

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

  • http://loveashley.net Ashley

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ashley

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

  • Harkat

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

  • BuckeyeBri

    @Susan

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

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

    Now that clarification is out of the way…

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BuckeyeBri

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

      Agreed.

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

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

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

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

  • deti

    “Athol Kay, a rational male blogger”

    Heh. I see what you did there.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “Athol Kay, a rational male blogger”

      Heh. I see what you did there.

      Huh? What do you mean?

  • asdf

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

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

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

  • Just1X

    @Harkat

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

    FWIW

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

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

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

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

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

  • BuckeyeBri

    @asdf

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

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

  • reformedmalenerd

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @reformedmalenerd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • http://www.marriedmansexlife.com Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life

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

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

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

  • Harkat

    @Deti

    Rollo?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

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

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

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

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

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

    Anyway.

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

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

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

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

  • Lokland

    @Susan

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

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

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

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

  • Jet Tibet

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jet Tibet

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

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

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

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

  • Herb

    @Susan

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Herb

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

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

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

  • Lokland

    @Susan

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

    No.

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

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

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

    I’m willing to take that risk.

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

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

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

  • Lokland

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

  • Underdog

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

  • deti

    Harkat 21, SW 23:

    Yeah, Rollo.

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

  • deti

    Underdog @ 36:

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

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

  • Harkat

    @Underdog

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

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

    /rant, but hopefully you get me.

  • Wudang

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Wudang

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

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

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

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

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

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

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

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

    Blame on something like this is inevitably toxic.

    But if we’re playing it anyway:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Like pets, or amoebas.

    You said this earlier:

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

    *Your words with the genders switched.

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dogsquat

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

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

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

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

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

      The most common definition today:

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

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

  • http://theprivateman.wordpress.com The Private Man

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Private Man

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

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

  • Underdog

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

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

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

      Feminists do it to men.

      The manosphere does it to women.

      I reject the notion of supremacy for either sex.

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

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jacob Ian Stalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Todd

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Todd

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

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

  • Rum

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rum

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

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

  • deti

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

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

  • Underdog

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

    Feminists do it to men.

    The manosphere does it to women.

    I reject the notion of supremacy for either sex.

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Underdog

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

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

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

  • OffTheCuff

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

    What casualties?

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

      What casualties?

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

  • College Kid

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

  • Richard Aubrey

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

  • Pingback: A Man Expressing Emotions « The Private Man

  • Rum

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rum

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

  • truthseeker

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

  • Wudang

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

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

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

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

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

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

  • Todd

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

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

  • College Kid

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

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

    Current American culture has a deep disrespect for parents.

  • Mike C

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

    Susan, just curious…

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

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

      Susan, just curious…

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Underdog

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Underdog

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

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

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

  • College Kid

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

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

  • http://hunter-gatherer.com John

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @John

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

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

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

  • Underdog

    “Its called the folly of youth.”

    It’s called slutting it up to assholes.

  • OffTheCuff

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

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

  • Mike C

    It’s called slutting it up to assholes.

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

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

      It’s called slutting it up to assholes.

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

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

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

  • Underdog

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

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

  • SayWhaat

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

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

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

  • OffTheCuff

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

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

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

  • Jones

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jones

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

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

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

  • SayWhaat

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

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

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anacaona

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

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

  • SayWhaat

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

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

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

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

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

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

    Tada!!

  • SayWhaat

    @ Jones:

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • SayWhaat

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

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

  • Jones

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

  • OffTheCuff

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

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

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

  • SayWhaat

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

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

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat 85

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

    And these girls are not abnormal, just immature.

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

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

    That is all it takes.

  • OffTheCuff

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

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

  • Wudang

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • SayWhaat

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

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

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

  • College Kid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • BroHamlet

    John said it best-

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

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

    @truthseeker

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

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

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

  • Wudang

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Lokland

    @Susan

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

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

    Women don’t want that.

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

    @College Kid

    +1

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

    @Saywhaat

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

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

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

  • Abbot

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

  • College Kid

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

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

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

  • SayWhaat

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

    Fixed that for you.

  • SayWhaat

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

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

  • Abbot

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

  • SayWhaat

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

  • College Kid

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

  • Wudang

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

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

  • College Kid

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

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

  • Abbot

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

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

  • Abbot

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

  • Dogsquat

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

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

    _______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Susan said:

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dogsquat

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

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

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

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

  • College Kid

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

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

  • OffTheCuff

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

  • Herb

    @Susan

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Herb

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

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

  • Mike C

    John,

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

    Wudang,

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

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

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

  • College Kid

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

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

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

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

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

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

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

  • Underdog

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

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

    Stick around.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

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

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

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

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

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

  • Herb

    @SayWhaat

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

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

    Try that one on for size and repeat that statement:

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Herb

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

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

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

  • Herb

    @Jones

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

    Actually, that’s a good analogy.

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

  • Mike C

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

    That isn’t my position

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

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

      That isn’t my position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Underdog

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

    No, you will start thinking along the time of:

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

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

  • Underdog

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

    To add to your point:

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

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

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

    Okay, then:

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

  • Courtley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Courtley

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

      Dominant men do better with women than supplicating men.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • INTJ

    @ Courtney

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

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

  • INTJ

    @ College Kid

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

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

  • Herb

    @Courtley

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

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

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

  • Herb

    @Courtney (even though I’m quoting INTJ)

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

    Additionally, there’s just individual variance.

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

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

  • Herb

    @College Kid

    Take it up with the evo-psych guys.

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

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

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

    Susan wrote in response to Mike C:

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jacob

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

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

  • Courtley

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

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

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

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

  • Courtley

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

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

    My spiders senses feel a Plain Jane tell…

  • Herb

    @Courtly

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

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

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

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

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

  • Herb

    @Ana:

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

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

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

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

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

    Funny :)

  • truthseeker

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

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

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

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

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

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

  • Herb

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

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

  • Courtley

    *whoaw should be “whose.” Obviously.

  • pvw

    What is the suspicion about “Plain Jane” about?

  • Herb

    @pvw

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

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

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

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

  • Herb

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

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    What is the suspicion about “Plain Jane” about?

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

  • Herb

    @Ana:

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

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

    (credit to L. Antoniou for her parody).

  • Kathy

    This is a brilliant post Susan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • pvw

    Susan quoting Athol:

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

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

    My reply:

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @pvw

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

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

  • Sassy6519

    Take it up with the evo-psych guys.

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

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

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

    Aside from that:

    **Major News**

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

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

    Good god, someone pinch me….

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sassy

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

  • Lokland

    @Susan

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

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

    I agree with you 100%.

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

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

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

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

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

  • Kathy

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

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

    Wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole.

    What, he expected a virgin.???

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

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

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

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

    Jason needs to wake up!

  • deti

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @deti

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

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

  • Underdog

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Underdog

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

  • Wudang

    “Jason needs to wake up!”

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

  • OffTheCuff

    K: ‘Jason needs to wake up!’

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

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

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

  • Sassy6519

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

    Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

  • Lokland

    @Susan

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Kathy

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

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

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

    Men inevitably marry women with similar partner counts.

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

    Just sleazy. Certainly not husband and father material..

    Sex is not rocket science. ;)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

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

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

  • Lokland

    @Susan

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

    Now I’ll play along.

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

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

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

    ———————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

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

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

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

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

  • Underdog

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

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

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

  • Lokland

    @Kathy

    Just to make you puke again.

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

    *Hands over clearplastic bag*

    Enjoy.

  • Underdog

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

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

  • Wudang

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

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

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

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

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

  • Kathy

    To each his own..

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

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

    Umm, yeah, good one Dude.

    Come back to me in ten years. ;)

  • Courtley

    @ pvw

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

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

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

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

    This rings completely true to me (though I’m not married). Of course we all have powerful biological drives, but socialization and environment and uprbinging ARE important, people! Neither nature nor nurture stand alone in human development–they’re entangled in a complicated relationship, one feeding the other, back and forth. Only focusing on one’s theories about our “animal” side is unwise, as is the feminist insistence (until very recently, perhaps) of only analyzing nurture for answers into human behavior, especially mating strategies.

  • Lokland

    @Kathy

    “Come back to me in ten years. ”

    No thanks. I don’t do expired goods.

  • Wudang

    “How can there be a George Clooney who’s more alpha than another George Clooney”

    Well twins tend to end up with one being more dominant than the other within their relationship. If all the Clooneys needed to get some hunting done or organize som coconut picking they wuld need to make some sort of hierarchy etc. Some Clooneys would lead a bit more than others.

    I think the Island example is very interesting and have thought about similar stuff myself. I think there is a combination of objective attraction and hierarchy based attraction. If the only thing that mattered was the hierarchy based attraction women today would be just as happy with the men in general as women where 50 years ago and western women would feel just as much tingling for a guy displaying the level of dominance that is a 5 in relative terms in the west as a Russian woman would for a guy displaying a level of 5 in relative dominance amongst Russian men. I think that is obviously not true. The guy on the middle of the dominance ladder 50 years ago or in Russia is dominant enough to make her see him as wrthy of respect and as a leader and he would not put up with her shit. The level 5 guy in the west today is not dominant enough to enspire the same respect. At the same time the Russian woman with the 5 or the woman 50 years ago with the 5 still isen`t all to happy that hubby is not as high up as her sisters hubby who is an 8 or a 9. So I think things do get better overal once men learn more game and that will to some extent calm down the female desire to trade up but it will never end it as the Clooney who gets to lead the other Clooneys always will be more attractive. I think it is key though that more harmony is not necessarily achieved unless the culture is fairly monogamous. If you look at the afircan american community or any place arround the world that has a highly promiscuos culture and frequent LTR partner changes and the men are dominant you get a rather exreme competition between the males but not much improves other than women tinglind more for the guy they are with at any moment. You need a monogamy dominant culture and guys with more game to achieve more harmony. But the culture can not be as strict on divorce as to make it extremely rare because then guys become lazy and forget their game abilities over time.

  • Ceer

    @Susan’s OP

    I’ve noticed that reading the mannosphere more than a little at a time can make me quite depressed. Judging by the PUA strategy, I think they tend to assume women prefer to go through dating in what Athol calls the unconscious state. Think along the lines of Selena Gomez’s song “Naturally” as an example. Women can certainly make a shift to dating in a more conscious and deliberate manner. Most don’t. Then again, the reason PUA sites exist, is to give the red pill to blue pill men, so they can start to take more conscious control over their actions.

    As far as my own experience with women goes, I’ve noticed the pattern that only women I’m not very attracted to wind up being attracted to me. After a while, you start to get the clue that they apparently hate it when you smile at them.

  • Lokland

    @Underdog

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

    First. Things are never equal. As Wudang said, even amongst twins.
    So lets say we did have people who were all 10/10.

    In reality that nots gonna happen. Someone would be a 10.00000001 someone else might be a 9.99999999999. These minor differences would become exagerated to form the SMV hierarchy.

    However I don’t doubt more people would be happy and in relationships but the dude who is a 9.8 would probably be SOL.

    So the bar would raise. Yes.
    Still more people would fit over the bar.

    Its a strange and totally unnatural situation and my armchair analysis probably has a million holes in it but thats where I’d put my money.

  • Kathy

    “Come back to me in ten years. ”

    No thanks. I don’t do expired goods.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha… Touched a raw nerve have I?

    I have my man, (my kids) and a good solid marriage.

    Best of luck to you..

    You are gonna need it!. :D

  • OffTheCuff

    Court: “What attracted me biologically to the husband? … This rings completely true to me (though I’m not married). ”

    How can you not be married, but have a husband?

  • OffTheCuff

    Kathy’s insistence that all good women will always avoid players, is very much like the beta male delusion that players abuse women, women don’t really like them, and they’re always hurt by them. Blue pill thinking 101. You sound like me from age 15-35.

    Some well-adjusted women do get with ex-players. It might not be the best bet, but it happens.

  • Lokland

    @Katy

    “Touched a raw nerve have I?”

    Yup. Writhing in emotional turmoil.

    “Best of luck to you..”

    You to cupcake.

  • deti

    Susan:

    “One thing I often hear is that women hate Game b/c it gives men sexual agency, it returns power to men.”

    You have some who comment here who say pretty much exactly this. I think many times men don’t realize the power they have in the market.

    But we’re seeing more and more of it — through withholding of commitment and investment. And I think women would do well to understand this. But I don’t believe some are connecting the dots –not because women are stupid, but because I think they don’t want to see it or they just can’t see things from men’s perspective.

    Men are increasingly saying “Women are the gatekeepers of sex. That’s fine. I’m the gatekeeper of investment and commitment. If I can’t get sex, I won’t commit or invest. If I have no reasonable shot at winning, I just won’t play. Or, I won’t commit or invest until I get sex. If she starts withdrawing sex, I’ll start withdrawing commitment and investment.” It’s just a rational response to the marketplace men see and have to operate in.

    “As someone who is biased towards relationships, I confess it’s hard to stomach the idea of all the guys with Game demanding no-strings sex.”

    I don’t think you’ll have to stomach that idea, because it’s never going to happen for many reasons. First, most men who learn some game will never get proficient. Second, men who learn game have different reasons for it — some for PUA, some for relationships, some for marriage.

    I think this notion of America becoming this vast wasteland of pick up artists spitting game in bars and parties and at work and in church, and taking innocent girls back to lairs for ONSs and pump & dumps, is wild overreaction.

    We’ve already seen our future. It’s 35 year old men in their parents’ basements playing Halo and Mortal Kombat.

    It’s 30 year old men who work good jobs, are reasonably fit and attractive, who can’t even get the 26 year old HB6 secretary or the HB 7 Sunday school teacher from church to share drinks after work (and who 35 years ago would have been married at 24 and been able to date within his sex rank easily).

    It’s 39 year old attractive women (who are still pretty attractive) who threw away perfectly good men dropped in their laps and then write articles in national magazines wailing about where all the good men are.

    It’s 40 year old female lawyers and bankers and accountants going on and on about their fabulous careers and six figure salaries and vacations and BMWs, and blinking incredulously when told that men don’t find any of that attractive at all.

    It’s 28 year old waitresses who are 50 pounds overweight, wearing flip flops and sweatpants, with a 10+ partner count, talking about how once a few years ago, she sexed an alpha 8, when she’s now a 4 at best, but still holding out because “I deserve the best and I’m never gonna settle, nope, not ever.”

  • Jet Tibet

    Susan says: Since Athol is the only blogger who appears to get feedback of marriage improving, I consider his the only tried and tested method.

    A while back Roissy reposted some interesting stuff that “Hawaiian libertarian” wrote about his improved marriage.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jet Tibet

      Yes, Keoni Galt did write a series of posts about relationship Game, which he credits with saving his marriage. Vox Day is another married Game blogger I respect, though I don’t think he applies Game intentionally – he’s more of a natural. And there are several married bloggers who write about Game from a Christian perspective.

      But Athol is the one who specifically prescribes Game in marriage and has the results to show for it. That’s his mission.

  • this is Jen

    OffTheCuff April 22, 2012 at 9:26 am

    K: ‘Jason needs to wake up!’

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

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

    dang! some people have good memories!

    yep, just like the fairy tale—-must have been dumb luck…. he found” low number” me, and I found “alpha ready to commit” him

  • deti

    @ SayWHaat:

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

    Just because you can’t see it, or don’t want to see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. This site alone is replete with men sharing their stories of women ruthlessly wielding sexual power — giving it up to assholes as younger women, wasting their prime years on assholes, then acting the part of the “nice girl” and demanding a beta commit to her and holding out for that commitment. Meanwhile she is backed up by a feminist culture that tells her all this is good and right and the natural order of things.

    We men come here and say the same things over and over and over again. I just don’t think this message is getting through. What I described in the paragraph above is a prominent feature of the current SMP and has been for a very long time. And a lot of women have been doing this with no accountability for a very long time. This is a fact of life for many men in the SMP. It was for me until about a year ago.

    Women are bristling at having this pointed out to them and being called out for it.

    And given all this, it makes perfect sense that men would withhold investment, demand up front sex as an indicator of interest before committing or investing further, and refuse investment if the IOIs aren’t there.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @deti

      I just don’t think this message is getting through. What I described in the paragraph above is a prominent feature of the current SMP and has been for a very long time. And a lot of women have been doing this with no accountability for a very long time. This is a fact of life for many men in the SMP. It was for me until about a year ago.

      Women are bristling at having this pointed out to them and being called out for it.

      The problem is that you’re preaching to the choir. Often when I point this out, a male commenter will say, “Well, just look at the women over at Jezebel!” That’s why the message isn’t getting through – most of the women here can’t relate. We don’t have a single female commenter who left her husband because she wasn’t haaaaaapppppppy. So it’s hardly surprising they’re going to say they haven’t seen EPL divorce up close. I haven’t either.

      If you want to call women out, call out the women who are having sex with assholes. I really don’t think you’ll find them here.

      A lot of us feel at a complete loss when the gross generalizations about female nature don’t resonate for us, but when we say so, we’re told we’re hamsterwheeling or that we have no understanding of our own sexuality. In any case, it’s all about assigning blame and responsibility. I think that’s looking in the rearview mirror. I understand that may be a natural part of swallowing the red pill, but at some point, we have to move forward. I’m more interested in moving forward than figuring out why men were lied to. I don’t blame men for wanting to work through all of that, but HUS isn’t the place for it. I’d prefer to check our weapons at the door.

  • Jet Tibet

    As far as my own experience with women goes, I’ve noticed the pattern that only women I’m not very attracted to wind up being attracted to me. After a while, you start to get the clue that they apparently hate it when you smile at them.

    Indeed.

    Which makes the “exotic animal” comparison not that far off the mark.

  • this is Jen

    @Sassy

    I am soooo thrilled for you. Your exitement is palpable!

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “You really can’t blame men for going for it when women are fighting to give them lap dances at parties, as I’m sure they were in his case. In fact, if he’d been disinterested I would suspect he was asexual or gay.”

    These words, out of a Chrisitan woman’s mouth, is probably the most potent force for atheism there is. Sin is OK, if you’re hot enough, otherwise you are a loser. I’m glad I’m deconverted, but I’m still living with the mind wreckage.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      These words, out of a Chrisitan woman’s mouth, is probably the most potent force for atheism there is. Sin is OK, if you’re hot enough, otherwise you are a loser. I’m glad I’m deconverted, but I’m still living with the mind wreckage.

      First, I’m a mostly lapsed Catholic, not a Christian blogger. Second, I’ve never concerned myself with questions of sin here, for either sex. I don’t view casual sex as immoral in and of itself, and I don’t apply a double standard to it. I simply point out that there is a male double standard that women should be aware of.

      I do think many women are repelled by guys with very high numbers, but that too will be determined by market dynamics. No need for me to weigh in on the morality, even if I were inclined to do so.

  • Abbot

    ““You had been dating woman X for a few months she hasn’t had sex with you because “she wants to take it slow, you are important to her” then you find out that she regularly used to have no strings sex in the same night or shortly after meeting other men when she was younger or just right before she meet you or/and that she is still having sex with other men while she doesn’t has sex with you, because the other men are just “toys” but she “values” you and want to “make it work” how does that makes you feel?””.
    .
    Man “feels” like he learned a lesson and will never again allow a woman to waste months of HIS precious important time. Case closed.

  • http://hunter-gatherer.com John

    @Susan The Old Money / inheritance framing is also useful because people already view receiving an inheritance = GOOD and squandering an inheritance = BAD. So judicious sexual behavior is not about imposing sharia law, which is how some women seem to view it, it’s about making wise choices for the long haul. I’ve done a few posts translating Old Money financial advice to sex/dating advice.

    Enjoy your site a lot, important message.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

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

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

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

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

    But that’s the thing. Most PUAs don’t pretend to want a relationship. They’re pretty straightforward that they want a one-night-stand. PUA =/= cad.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But that’s the thing. Most PUAs don’t pretend to want a relationship. They’re pretty straightforward that they want a one-night-stand. PUA =/= cad.

      Agreed, I’ve always distinguished between players and cads, and the dividing line is deceit. I think there’s a female corollary to this as well.

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        @Wudang, @Dogsquat

        The female corollary also involves the deployment of deceit. It could be any of these:

        1. Pretending interest in a guy to get material goods, e.g. drinks, expensive dates, gifts, etc.
        2. Pretending interest in a guy to get attention and validation. This can be short-term, like at a party, or it can be truly torturous for the guy in an LJBF situation.
        3. Pretending no interest in a relationship and then making drama when the guy doesn’t want one.
        4. Pretending interest in a relationship, then casting the guy aside when someone with perceived higher status comes along.
        5. Having sex with more than one person at a time without full disclosure.
        6. Failing to disclose STD.
        7. Cheating on an SO. If you meet someone new, you should break up to pursue it. No overlap!

        I’m sure there are more, but you get the idea. By the way, Ricky Raw has a very interesting post about “gray area,” opportunistic mating.

        http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-double-messages/

  • Herb

    @Susan

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

    I’d say my ex-wife did a reverse form of it. She lost the weight she’d always had (I married her with it) and then traded up (in her estimation).

    She also points out the fallacy of putting so much emphasis on virgins and the number. When we married her number was 1, me. I’ve wondered if I’d been 2 or 3 if she wouldn’t have felt she settled for the first man to show interest.

  • Abbot

    “That is so valuable he can have his cake and it it too. In fact it is very difficult to find a guy that has what he has and who has not taken advatage of it to the extent he has or more.”
    .
    Do feminists acknowledge this phenomenon among their female constituency? Men who can reap these particular “Benefits” of feminism and later spit them back at their discretion get the wink and nod from feminists. Out of fear of being humiliated [mud in their faces] or out of desire to have a crack at them? Either way, these feminists are a twisted group with an agenda guided by the wind and their own monthly ups and downs. Obviously

  • Abbot

    “Players “play” people. Cads deceive outright. Women should engage either at their peril, and should be held accountable if the man’s true nature or reputation is known.”
    .
    Women tend to avoid accountability like it was a disease. When a man then enforces that accountability based on her past actions, she cries foul, aka crying slut shamer, as if he is the bad guy.

  • Abbot

    “women ruthlessly wielding sexual power — giving it up to assholes as younger women, wasting their prime years on assholes, then acting the part of the “nice girl” and demanding a beta commit to her and holding out for that commitment. Meanwhile she is backed up by a feminist culture that tells her all this is good and right and the natural order of things.”
    .
    Then, are feminists and their followers a tad freaked over the new messages being fed to men: its okay not to want these woman. its okay in the same way it has always been acceptable for men to not want to marry prostitutes. Its a fine line to cross and proudly state that you prefer to avoid marriage with ho-lite women

  • Wudang

    “I think there’s a female corollary to this as well.”

    What would that be?

  • Herb

    @Susan

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

    You don’t shout them down or delete their comments.

    Despite the “women want you to listen and men try to solve problems” sometimes you just want a “representative person” to hear what you’re saying.

    This is why “but these people have it worse” sometimes gets people riled up. It’s a way to invalidate the initial person’s pain. Feminists, who will point out male privilege and end with “just because you fucked up your life doesn’t mean women aren’t oppressed” are really bad about that.

    You, on the other hand, acknowledge the reality of these men’s complaints. You may tell them they’re missing X and Y or assuming everyone else is getting what they can’t and it’s wrong but you never claim their experience isn’t real or invalid. You don’t even when you challenge their extrapolations from it.

    I know your target audience is 20 something women trying to find commitment but I think you do a lot for 20 something men just by letting them bitch. To the extent you turn them away for the worst of the PUA world that also serves your goal although indirectly.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Herb

      Thanks so much for the feedback. I do want to be available and provide support for young men too. It’s true that it’s not my mission per se, and I’ve been asked to recuse myself from advising men, but I feel that the group here, consisting of me, other happily married women my age, guys of various ages, and younger women is a diverse group and offers a variety of views that people can think about. That’s why I love the posts that are requests for advice – I’ll give my .02, but I always encourage the commenters to chime in, and I always encourage the reader to join the discussion in the comment threads.

      I haven’t done one of those posts in a while. When I come back next week I’ll try and do one.

  • BroHamlet

    @SayWhaat

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

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

    Yeah, I read it. I don’t agree that the only ones acting that way are roommates with Snooki and Jwoww. We’ve seen posts even by Susan herself about frivolous divorce, etc. which is the perfect example of being a “dangerous pet” and that’s obviously not limited to women from eastern Monmouth County. Clearly guys need to choose wisely because it’s a risky environment when the law stacks the deck in favor of making this type of behavior possible, and society encourages more responsibility for one party versus the other. Personally, my view is that some women are introspective, and some aren’t. The latter are a good bet to succumb to some “exotic” traits, so they should be avoided, if only to avoid unnecessary hassle in a relationship, nothing more, nothing less. The “manosphere” is overblown with some of their characterizations, but they’re preaching to people who need to be slapped in the face with reality. No need to be knee-jerk with me, because I’m not the one writing those blogs. There’s an element of truth to the whole “exotic pet” thing, but I think it has more to do with the effect of social incentives on female behavior than women’s true nature.

  • Abbot

    “all the women getting wet over the story of the good virgin girl being deflowered by the damaged man-slut.”
    .
    Is it possible that this theme has feminist heads exploding?

  • Lokland

    @Herb, 221

    +1

    Its nice to come somewhere (actually the only place in the whole wide world) where your pain isn’t considered wrong because you have a penis while also not driving you over the edge with anger.

    I think Susan does a helluva lot for your average 20 year old guy even if she doesn’t realise it.

  • Sassy6519

    I was browsing youtube today, and I came across this video. It’s by a group that makes comedic mock rap videos. The subject matter of this one fits the discussion at hand, so I figured I’d share it with everyone. Enjoy!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajcGDaLy4Zw&feature=relmfu

  • Wudang

    One thing that bugs me about the manosphere and which leads to PUAs getting a much worse recpetion amongst those who encounter the manosphere than they should it that the manosphere is so limited in scope interms of the PUAs it draws upon. It sometimes feels like they haven`t read anything other than mystery method and David Deangelo. But in the book the Game itself there is a chapter devoted to Zan and in some but not all of the editions of the book there is a chapter about Juggler. Zans game is diametrically oposed to most of what the manopshere talks about when they talk about game. He is a natural whose game is all about a combination of extreme outcome indepdence and worship of women in the style of classical seducers like Don Juan and Cassanova. Jugglers game is all about authentically expressing yourself and making her authentically express herself while leading and passing shit tests. Instead of hiding weakness he unabashedly and feearlessly dsiplays them (so she can`t complain about them later on as he says). Juggler was the first PUA to teach infield workshops. Representing game, or even the begining period of game, without taking this into account is historically inacurate.

    There are also a multitude of other PUAs that teach very different things.
    The authentic man programe is utterly brilliant and has been arround for several years now:

    http://www.authenticmanprogram.com/igtp/InnerGameStickingPoints.pdf

    RealSocialDynamics have moved in a entirely different direction from where they started and are almost as close to Eckhardt Tolle as to mystery now.

    Pookie wrote some of the best stuff about game ever written. The book of Pook is very insightfull and a lot of fun to read:

    http://www.jbspencer.com/djb/Downloads/The%20Book%20of%20Pook.pdf

    The disucssions I have come across at various game FORUMS have been better than a lot of the game discussions I have come across in the manosphere because at the forums there are PUAs that are into a wider range og PUA litterature than the key manosphere bloggers seem to be.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Wudang

      That Authentic Man Program looks awesome. I love it because it comes at the subject of attraction from a positive place, an attitude of abundance rather than scarcity. It doesn’t rely on “taming the bitches.” It’s about improving oneself – who can’t get behind that?

      I don’t know anything about PUA forums, but I do feel that the Game blogs have drifted strongly toward the negative in the last year or two. They were always there, but several of the newer blogs are quite nasty to the point where the bloggers seem to loathe women. Toxic is really the word for it.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Women don’t need providers anymore.
    I think technically women don’t need them but still desire them, you going to have a hard time finding women bragging about their stay at home husband’s or how they are the principal breadwinners even Athol’s site has a lot of women losing attraction for their husbands out of them making less money or not having a “good” job. So the instinct is still there the bad boy that steals money from your purse no matter how much it makes you tingle gets tiresome after a while, YMMV.

    I don’t know if this is a cliche, or if it really happens all the time, but I hear this a lot.
    TIME FOR DOMINICAN HORROR STORY!
    I knew a girl that was cassually hooking up with this guy (idiot) for about a year he always had an excuse for no committing (he needed to make his business thrive more, he needed time to introduce her to his family because she was lower class…) and one day he simply disappeared my friend was talking to a mutual friend and when she casually mentioned that the pictures of his wedding made it to the news. He was on his honeymoon with his brand new his own class wife. I think that was a time when she attempted suicide.
    I know another that did the same at work he was an executive when I was working on telemarketing, he was a Buffy fan so we talked a lot but just about the show, he was dating one of my co-workers really pretty but stupid as usual (I remember she advising me to be less picky and that you can accept a guy as a boyfriend just after one meeting) so he was her boyfriend till he also left for his honeymoon, she was devastated she went from one of the best sales person and her way to get a promotion as supervisor to several calls out by HR because of lack of productivity and tardiness and a demotion in less than three months after the wedding, he of course pretended not to know her after that.

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

    IME surrounded by Alpha males it depends on what the culture is about in low classes a lot of this women find themselves serial monogamy with bad boys trading up more dominance or even paying the most dominant ones once their beauty doesn’t hold interest anymore but in the interclasses or among the ones that want to climb to a better status they become a sign of low status and the few Beta guys are sought after and competed for fiercely. You will need a societal context for you to know which way it goes.

    Get her screaming and seizing on your wang, and you’ll bond her to you for life.

    I think the point is that even if an Alpha gets with its virgin bride there is no garantuees he will be able to be satisfied only with her. The guy that has had variety also reaches a point were one woman is settling, two thirds of the guys I knew that married chaste women and cheated on them weren’t happy about it and wish they could stop but at that point they were too used to have a new punani every certain time and couldn’t get off the variety carousel. Is the flip side of the Alpha carouseler that tries her best to move on to Beta guys but find herself unable to let go her Alpha days. I know for men the number is higher but no one knows what their number is till they decide to try monogamy for a long period of time. Better safe than sorry for both genders, YMMV.

    These words, out of ONE Chrisitan woman’s mouth, is probably the most potent force for atheism there is. Sin is OK, if you’re hot enough, otherwise you are a loser. I’m glad I’m deconverted, but I’m still living with the mind wreckage.

    So I get to judge all atheists for the few assholes that I had encounter and write it off as a valid philosophy?! SWEET!

    When we married her number was 1, me. I’ve wondered if I’d been 2 or 3 if she wouldn’t have felt she settled for the first man to show interest.

    As a number 1 woman I can tell you that in the same way there are wrong reasons to have sex there are reasons not to. It seems that your ex was an carousel watcher and as soon as she find a way to get in she did. That is a lot different than a woman that chooses chastity because she has tons of reason to do so because once you get married the reasons stay. I’m sorry that it happened to you that way but this is the sort of thing that happens when a woman is a virgin because she can’t lose it not because she doesn’t want to, YMMV.

  • Abbot

    “Men who are loosing sleep over their gf’s numbers should dump them ”
    .
    Men have better things to do. Learn slut tells.

  • Herb

    @Ana

    Women don’t need providers anymore.
    I think technically women don’t need them but still desire them

    This is the date that told me, “I’m a feminist and I demand equality but still expect to be treated like a princess.”

    The problem is “I’m independent and don’t need you to take care of me” devalues men who are providers. To turn around and demand a man pony up something your routinely disparage is a no win game for him and in the long run for the woman demanding it as well.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan

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

    I don’t mean this as a personal dig at you Susan… but this line of thinking really shows that there is very little grey area for guys between “Alpha Getting Laid” and “Beta Getting Nothing.”

    What about the guys who actually don’t want to get public lap dances, but instead just want to find a nice girl to have a serious relationship? You’re quote illustrates that they’re basically screwed. And again, I’m not trying to single you out here… I honestly believe 90% of girls 18-25 would think the same thing.

    It’s embarrassing for me to even think it now, but back in my beta days I absolutely did appear to be disinterested in girls grinding on me on the dance floor or any other public sexual escalation. And it’s not because I was gay or asexual ( I certainly enjoyed it), but just that I was raised to believe a good guy wasn’t supposed to engage in that kind of public behavior…. only assholes and douchebags did that stuff.

    Back then, I was definitely most interested in just being a good guy and finding a nice girl to be in an exclusive relationship with… one where I’d be happy to give as much time as she needed to feel comfortable having sex, and where we’d hopefully consider marriage in the future if things went well.

    Needless to say I got FZ’d like it was my job.

    My game is 100x better today. But the funny thing is, I’ll be the first one to admit that I’m not nearly as good of a relationship bet as I was back then.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jimmy Hendricks

      I don’t mean this as a personal dig at you Susan… but this line of thinking really shows that there is very little grey area for guys between “Alpha Getting Laid” and “Beta Getting Nothing.”

      Except that Jason got all that attention because he is very handsome. No doubt he brought some dominance, but let’s face it, some people are good looking enough that they’re going to get hit on all the time. So it’s more like 9s and 10s getting laid. You said yourself that women tried to hit on you – you were very beta then but you could obviously have had ONSs. Your own mindset was what held you back, not lack of interest from girls.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Women don’t need providers anymore.

    They don’t need providers, but they still need boyfriends and husbands for status reasons.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      They don’t need providers, but they still need boyfriends and husbands for status reasons.

      They do. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. Some have suggested that women will get status by bringing around boy toys. Perhaps our standards for status will change, e.g. cohabitation is as good as marriage.

  • Abbot

    “most feminists I know (which are a lot!) are sex-positive and believe that it’s a sign of women’s growing power that they feel more entitled to seek out what turns them on.”

    –Amanda Marcotte
    .
    Sex positive? Entitled? aka feels-like-fucking-around-because-its-effortless-fun couched in cutesy shameless rhetoric. Marcotte is effectively supporting the few sexually successful males / most sexually active females system.
    .
    And here Marcotte arrogantly pats herself on the back:
    .
    “women feel less need to apologize for their sexual desires than ever before, thanks to feminism”
    .
    As always, this is fuzzy. To whom did they apologize to before and to whom now? Thanks to feminism! Expect to see more of these self congratulations as their ship sinks. “Thanks to feminism” for all the fucked up shit.
    .
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/17/roiphe_s_newsweek_article_on_masochism_misses_important_trends_and_nuances_.html

    .

  • PutMeBackIn

    Oh showing vulnerability…and does a-holism work on normal, well adjusted, women…

    An accidental experiment of sorts:

    I have an issue with this concept of showing vulnerability, or doing it I should say. I didn’t use to be like this, but one horrible divorce (having to paternity test your kids = horrible, if anyone was wondering) and a lot of water under the bridge later, changes you. This new fortress of steel around me ended a recent budding relationship, if that’s what it can be called.

    I was never mean or rude to her, but I wasn’t mushy, I was aloof and a bit of a self focused a-hole. I never gave one single compliment. It was like I was acting in a play. I was going down a mental checklist and it worked. I enacted the PUA script of attraction generating behaviors (minus fuzzy hats, retarded palm reading, and cheesy crap – I’m too old for that shit.) to a tee. Before any women call me a sociopath (and get the hots for me), understand that I did not consciously find this woman, and say “Okay, let’s try this…” It was more of doing a lot of reading and absorbing and thinking “Hmm, well I guess this is how it’s done these days…” Then I just happened to me her, and off we went…

    When I say it worked, I mean every step of the way, every action and reaction, each text, every turn of phrase designed to generate attraction worked just like the PUA blogs described. It was difficult for me though. I was like George Constanza in that one episode where he does the opposite of his natural instincts and everything starts working out for him.

    Some may say that “Oh, you just have to find the right woman and a good one will respond to your gentler nature.” Bullshit. Maybe that was true twenty or thirty years ago. It’s not true now. It’s just not. As someone reinserted into the dating Matrix, I can tell you that kinder and gentler are two words that have no traction at all in the current market.

    If I say that I was a sweet guy in the past, don’t confuse that with being a “nice” guy or a pussy. Far from it. I was a person with a gentle heart, a lot of empathy for others and I always strove to live up to the calling of my higher nature. In my life I have been a soldier, a man who has traveled overseas quite a bit, I put myself through school, I was a business executive and now I run my own firm, among many other things. I was not and am not a fat, mouth breathing, x-box addicted, doughnut eating, do-nothing basement dweller. Prior to my marriage I had girlfriends short and long term and sex. Gasp.

    After a couple of months of dating this woman, I knew that if I didn’t offer some beta mush, she was going to dump me, but I just couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. (I should work on that) The ‘getting dumped’ happened as predicted and expected. She was by no means an “exotic pet” type at all. She was pretty much the furthest thing from it and she was actually a very sweet girl.

    The more I reflect on this and what I learned, the more I don’t feel great about it. I feel like kind of a heel. I did not lie, and I never promised anything nor said I was looking for anything long term but I knew that she was. I have this unfortunate ability to put myself in the other person’s shoes. So, I can imagine that she felt hurt and disappointed that she met this ‘wonderful’ person and was very excited that this could be the start of something good. And there I was with my little mental checklists and rules: don’t do this, don’t say that, respond like this, only text back this much, etc. etc., knowing that these things were dooming the outcome from the start. It felt very mechanical and mathematical, but it worked if you classifying working as: getting a woman out on a date, getting repeat dates, progressing to a physical relationship, making her very, very attracted to you to the point where she was like a high school girl again writing bad poetry.

    So I have read the post over at Athol’s that sparked this discussion, and yes, like the guy who wrote into him, that is how I feel in many respects. I feel this way in part because of my past experience of being married to a “dangerous pet.” In my new experiences with dating in this market I have come to see things with a pretty dour outlook. My rational mind tells me that yes, NAWALT, and I know that is true factually in my brain, but I don’t see it in front of me on the street, so to speak.

    But the funny thing is, this woman I was dating you could classify her in the category of NAWALT, yet she responded just like AWALT. So which is it? I just don’t know. Maybe I’m blind and she is NAWALT and only responds to me AWALT. But, I don’t know about that, I’m too old too think I’m such a unique snowflake.

    The dilemma is that being too, let’s just call it beta/nice/’emotionally there’, and being too ‘a-hole’ is that they both get you to the same relationship place: alone. The difference is that being too ‘a-hole’ at least gets you laid these days.

    Susan did you not recount a story on here of how a boy showed some emotion in front of you and well, it pretty much repulsed you? You strike me as a very nice lady, rational and very balanced. Yet, you are saying that it’s okay to show emotion or to be human in front of a woman but you recount how it repulsed you. So I guess I’m saying that if I’m going to get rejected, I’d rather get dumped for being too unemotional and at least be having sex with women as opposed to never getting inside the gates.

    So it seems from reading a lot of peoples posts and comments and blog articles the SMP these days is perhaps forcing women to do things they don’t want to to do to remain competitive, and the same is happening to men. An arms race to the bottom. I think it’s probably not very emotionally satisfying for either, but I don’t know what to do. I’m not going to live like a monk.

    Yep, I have issues. Working on it…and trying to find a better balance.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @PutMeBackIn

      Thanks, I really appreciate your comment.

      To me, your story sounds like what Athol describes – you display alpha traits for sexual attraction and beta traits for attachment. Women do want both, and sure enough, this woman dumped you when the emotional intimacy failed to materialize.

      I’m not saying women don’t respond to dominance, or that we don’t want to work for the cookie, i.e. commitment. We do! It’s about timing – if you show attachment before attraction has been confirmed, it’s unattractive. If you generate attraction, but never move toward attachment, it’s also unattractive. This is why I say that women indeed do take a Goldilocks approach to mating. If this woman was only interested in a sexual fling, your aloof routine would have worked indefinitely, until the affair petered out. But for long-term mating, it’s a jump start, and real connection must develop for the relationship to have any traction.

      To be clear on my own experience with witnessing vulnerability, here’s the post:

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/03/21/relationshipstrategies/why-we-shit-test/

      In it I describe a situation I recall from my youth. I was going into the 8th grade, and my family had just moved into a new neighborhood. He was starting high school. We met and talked in our yards a couple of times. We were both smitten. One afternoon, I’m guessing around the third time I hung out with him – maybe the second week, he talked about having lost his father the year before. Of course I felt enormous sympathy, and I understood that he was still grieving. But he began to sob so powerfully and convulsively that I was completely freaked out. I think he’d pent up all that grief for so long, that when he got the chance to spend time with a girl, his vulnerability found an outlet and he released it. I rose to the challenge in the sense that I held him for a very long time, and talked with him for hours. But when that day was over, I had lost attraction to him. It was just way too much, too soon.

      The reason I wrote the post was to describe the shit tests I put him through after that, which were wrong and manipulative. However, to this day, I wouldn’t really expect more from a 14 year-old girl. The truth is, I was in way over my head that day and I knew it. I couldn’t be that outlet for him.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan
    I guess what I’m saying is that once you get the “beta stink” on you, you can’t shake it. Not only do the girls making moves on you suddenly see you as gay/asexual, but now all the other girls that witnessed it do to. Then their friends hear about it, etc….

    A guy that wanted to follow a traditional model of dating, emotional intimacy before physical intimacy, etc. is DOA even with the good girls because of the beta reputation that’s been given to him.

  • Abbot

    “Some have suggested that women will get status by bringing around boy toys.”
    .
    In the same way that men currently get status by bringing slim women with long shiny black hair and captivating “where is this woman from” accents to parties to meet co-workers and friends?

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    Perhaps our standards for status will change, e.g. cohabitation is as good as marriage.

    Among my generation I see this happening already. I have a family friend that has kids with a girlfriend that he lives with, and a former co-worker that has 3 kids by his girlfriend. Neither seem to have any desire to officially tie the knot. I could see this becoming a whole lot more common.

  • PutMeBackIn

    A followup to my own post:

    After the end of my marriage I spent a great deal of time deconstructing what went on and trying to learn something from it. I stumbled upon Athol, which leads to Dalrock, which leads here, to Badger, then Roissy and Roosh, etc. It was all very illuminating. I really try not to have such negativity towards women but I will say that I find it disconcerting to discover that the PUA tactics do work in many respects, even on women that you would expect it would not. When I was younger and dating pre-marriage I did not consciously employ any of these attraction generating/PUA things, though I did some naturally and recognize them now that I have seen spelled out in black and white in print. These days it seems that having a solid repertoire of this information is a necessity to even get in on the ground floor with a woman.

    Again, you may say that I’m meeting the wrong women. Well then, where shall I go? I meet them through business, through Church, at the grocery store, school events, etc. I’m out and about at normal places in normal society. Is there a special place I should be looking? Tell me, and I’ll go there.

    Also, in my post above when I state that I was being a bit of an a-hole, I will clarify that I was not in any way being mean or doing things to cause dread, etc. I was just very unemotional and purposefully suppressing my natural ‘sweet’ inclinations which I suppose gave the appearance of being a challenge. For example, I wanted to tell her that I really like her. But I felt that if I did, I could forget about continuing to see her.

    I suppose I have formed for myself the impression that in today’s SMP since women no longer need men for anything, any bonus points I get for a great career, good character, solid Dad credentials, etc. are secondary or not considered. If women don’t need men for any of the traditional roles anymore then the only reason they seek to have a man around is for entertainment value. A solid track record of career stability, parenting and being responsible isn’t very entertaining.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    They do. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. Some have suggested that women will get status by bringing around boy toys. Perhaps our standards for status will change, e.g. cohabitation is as good as marriage.

    I know I’m out of the age range you target but for me I can imagine cohabitation but not really marriage anymore. I don’t think I can trust enough and can’t figure out what marriage offers to make the risk. After call, clearly the permanence that marriage had for our parents is dead today.

    If we view 20 somethings today suffering the same death many divorced people do but instead of one big hit the current SMP delivers the death of 1000 cuts I think we might see it.

    Actually, I hadn’t thought of it, but is the current SMP basically 1000 tiny divorces instead of one big one leaving the walking wounded who can’t love and trust again.

    In convos about marriage this week when my sister blanched at the fact I’ve been dating poly women I asserted when monogamous women decide to give me a shot I’ll date them my mother suggested I wouldn’t. Poly women are safer to the divorced me.

    I’m both afraid she’s right and that we’re raising an entire generation that hurt from the start.

  • Wudang

    “I’m a feminist and I demand equality but still expect to be treated like a princess”

    IF you treat me like a KING I treat you like a princess.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “The whole point of the post is to stop the blame game.”

    I don’t think you’ll ever accomplish that. To admit the other side isn’t all bad is to show some weakness, and nobody’s going to do that. Hence the constant repetition and collective use of “we” in describing the SMP. Certainly an internet phenomenon. It’s kind of funny, given the fact that a majority of women don’t even consider themselves feminists, and most likely a majority of men don’t call themselves MRAs or some equivalent term.

    It is interesting that the standard for who’s “right” seems to be which side hates less. Ms. SayWhaat said feminist sites were not as bad. Guys naturally said the opposite. There are more F sites vs. M sites (web stats, anyone?). But does it all really matter? I feel like many people in Europe probably did in the early 1930s: to make the world a better place, choose either fascism or communism. I’d choose neither.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Megaman

      “The whole point of the post is to stop the blame game.”

      I don’t think you’ll ever accomplish that. To admit the other side isn’t all bad is to show some weakness, and nobody’s going to do that. Hence the constant repetition and collective use of “we” in describing the SMP. Certainly an internet phenomenon.

      Hmmmmph. Maybe it’s more like a chronic condition that requires periodic treatment. Every little while I’ll need to put up a post like this just to bring things into the light a bit more.

      I’ve received advice along the way just to ignore the stuff I don’t like (or the things people may be saying about me) and keep doing my thing. I tried it briefly, and dug myself into a very deep hole. I learned something then about dealing with men in competitive mode – weakness is like blood in the water to a shark. I can’t hold my own unless I push back hard against the things I don’t believe in. One would think I’d have figured this out in b-school or my subsequent career in business, but I’ve never encountered men as aggressive as some other bloggers. I suppose that too is an internet phenomenon.

  • Herb

    @Wudang

    “I’m a feminist and I demand equality but still expect to be treated like a princess”

    IF you treat me like a KING I treat you like a princess.

    What feminist, especially one with that attitude, is going to treat a man as a person, much less a KING.

    In some ways that one “date” fueled my mistrust of women almost as much as my marriage. If that sounds extreme she was a long term member of my social circle and knew a lot of context and yet didn’t even consider it a date, just her due (despite knowing the key to the evening, my Boston Ballet season tickets, were bought as a pair for dating instead of a single to just enjoy the ballet…she was the first and last time they were used for dating).

  • Abbot

    “Again, you may say that I’m meeting the wrong women. Well then, where shall I go? I meet them through business, through Church, at the grocery store, school events, etc. I’m out and about at normal places in normal society. Is there a special place I should be looking? Tell me, and I’ll go there.”
    .
    Did you know that 3% of Earth’s women live in the US? It is 2012 and the age of the Modern Man has begun. No, it does not mean you save some poor former cock-hopper from her fate or stay home and raise the kids. It means you blow the dust of your passport but if you are like most Americans, you don’t have one. Send in the $50 and get one of the few benefits available to men from the government. Or stay put as the feminists want you to and be part of the captive audience they so desperately need.

  • PutMeBackIn

    Final followup to my own post: Lol. Self Therapy via blog comment.

    After reading what I wrote I was struck by the thought that perhaps my inability to show this woman any vulnerability was caused by the methods I used to attract her. Meaning, that because I was very consciously employing attraction generating behaviors and very consciously trying to avoid making any tactical ‘mistakes’ the entire process felt completely unnatural and contrived. Therefore, I doomed the whole thing from the get go by in effect turning her into a pet, and I was the lab technician in the white coat trying this and that. I think this was truly a case of “It’s not her, it’s me.”

    Well, I’m glad for her actually that she dumped me. I’m probably not in a good frame to be inflicting myself on a woman right now. I’ll have to think on this and figure out how I can apply the positive aspects of what I’ve learned this past year and incorporate it into my life in such a way that it doesn’t feel like I’m running a con. I need to work on this so that it becomes a natural part of my way of being, but without becoming a source of negativity internally or towards others by creating self fulfilling doom and gloom scenarios.

    Susan I think you are spot on in your analysis of my original post. It was time for some beta if I wanted to continue seeing her, but for whatever reason, I just couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. Perhaps leftover debris from my marriage. Gah. Humans, we’re so messy.

    I’m out. Peace.

  • pvw

    Underdog

    … 2 of the boys she had ONS with were in frats, so I’m pretty sure they were assholes. She had LTRs with 2 “nice” boys until her junior year and dumped both because they didn’t tingle her…I guess my insecurity comes from the fact that her threshold for dominance is so high because of her sexual history….I think if she hadn’t gone through her “I’m a hot girl having sex to empower myself” phase and allowing herself to taste the alpha cock, she’d still be with one of those 2 “nice” boys, because I’ve met one of them and he wasn’t “weak” nice at all — he was just an average guy — an average girl would totally be all over him. He just couldn’t give her the tingles.

    My reply:

    Now that is interesting. Was there a disparity between her smv and that of the alpha guys? Was she pursuing hypergamy? Thus, she found it hard to go with beta guys? Was she of higher status than the average guys or was she of the same status?

  • Wudang

    “What feminist, especially one with that attitude, is going to treat a man as a person, much less a KING.”

    Not a single one and that is what my intention with the reply would be meant to make her reflect upon. Princess treatment requires king treatment. It is a contract and the wanabe princesses has broken their part of the contract. Upholding their part of the contract automatically makes them non feminists.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “Every little while I’ll need to put up a post like this just to bring things into the light a bit more.”

    Fair enough. Though I don’t agree with MikeC on much, he did ask a good question about why you’d want to stir the pot. But I can see where you’re coming from most of the time. FWIW, I don’t see a lot of diversity of opinion amongst the guys here at HUS. Diversity of personality, yes.

  • Wudang

    Putmebackin I recomend reading the authentic man programe link in my previous post and also the book of pook and the no more mister nice guy book. All those focuse on becoming the man you naturally need to be. Also David Deidas works, especially way of the superior man should be helpfull to you.

  • Rum

    OffThe Cuff

    The discovery that the female human hindbrain is at least as much turned on by displays of “evil” male trait as virtuous ones is certainly corrosive of a placid, conventional belief in a family-friendly Diety.
    However, there are counter-balances. Real old-time religions did NOT pedestalize the female id any more than the male id – which everyone knew could be a problem. Both needed to be held in check with equal stern-ness.
    Likewise, how would you like to be reborn as a woman with a heart of gold, a bright shinning disposition, the best will in the world – and with microscopic boobage?
    If you are looking for fairness you have come to the wrong shop.

  • Abbot

    “The discovery that the female human hindbrain is at least as much turned on by displays of “evil” male trait as virtuous ones is certainly corrosive of a placid, conventional belief in a family-friendly Diety.” However, there are counter-balances”
    .
    Then it is up to each man to decide what he wants, and know what types of women are available and where to find them. For Western men especially, intense due diligence is required. The counter balance may not be there in the local area. There is enough information now and a host of slut tells for those who insist on shopping in the Western market. No more excuses. If you choose unwisely you have yourself to blame. Hint – nearly all women on Earth are rightly counter balanced.

  • VH

    Susan, the manosphere’s characterization of women is an amalgam of a wide array of female behaviors or inclinations. Sure, you don’t find women who encompass all these behaviors, but most assuredly you find that all women exhibit some of these behaviors/inclinations. Since a female SO won’t disclose these inclinations, as I wrote on MMSL, the best male relationship strategy is hoping for the best but gaming her for the worst.

  • Jones

    I’m impressed by your level of energy, Susan…kudos for putting so much effort into this blog.

    @Susan (159)

    I agree that the guy as depicted was utterly cringe-worthy…but this is a TV show, so everything is dramatized to make a strong statement. I am loathe to think that any guy actually behaves like that, though I’m sure there are handful out there. I’ve never acted like that; most of the discoveries of “Game” I had more or less worked out for myself, intuitively, through experience. But none of it made sense, because of the confusion in the broader culture and in other people’s, especially women’s, minds. (I don’t mean that women are uniquely deluded, only that they suffer most directly from the contradictory messages of feminism.) So I never quite understood what was going on, or trusted my intuitions, or put it all together.

    I think what’s disturbing about the scene is that at this point a fair number of guys aren’t aware that they’re being judged on these grounds. In other words, they haven’t grown up with any strong or clear idea of manhood, and of what’s expected of them as men. They have come of age in a culture committed to the pretense of gender equivalence. They have a vague sense, reinforced by the culture (until recently!), that this “beta” behavior is the right way to do things. In many spheres of life, someone with this mindset blindly “learns” behavior from women as well as men, on the pretense that the gender distinctions don’t matter. The disturbing part is getting mugged by reality.

    The underlying problem is that, despite all of these “red pill” discoveries, there is still nothing like a coherent and stable role/identity for men in society. (And the same goes for women.) The hard work is creating and stabilizing society around a set of clear expectations, that young people can actually know and prepare for. It bears repeating that the economy and the law have to enter into this discussion.

  • Jones

    I have to say this because I think this discussion ends up being interminable…

    Personally I’ve veered between two poles, neither of them satisfactory. One is the dominant man, who is basically an asshole – thinks and acts like one. Sometimes it appears that that is who you have to be to succeed in this culture. On the other hand, the sensitive, humane, intelligent, and civilized person – but one who does not want a place in the existing power structure.

    There is something missing in between these extremes: the legitimate authority. Neither the rapacious brigand, nor the pensive milquetoast. I accept that the legitimate authority is almost invisible in our culture. You have to use your imagination. But that’s the sweet spot that would reconcile these extremes, the thing that Susan keeps describing when she tries to depict women’s ideals. The legitimate authority exercises power, doesn’t abuse it. In the absence of legitimate authority, the choices are dismal, and one unhappily settles for the brigand.

    I think this is what the Art of Manliness has figured out. I highly recommend that site and its approach, which is also well-grounded in philosophical thinking and historical understanding.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jones

      I think this is what the Art of Manliness has figured out. I highly recommend that site and its approach, which is also well-grounded in philosophical thinking and historical understanding.

      I love The Art of Manliness. They’re trying to restore the old, masculine virtues. They are clearly on record as objecting to any and all “dark” manipulative tactics – I think they’ve written posts about dating with integrity and respect.

  • SayWhaat

    It is interesting that the standard for who’s “right” seems to be which side hates less. Ms. SayWhaat said feminist sites were not as bad. Guys naturally said the opposite.

    I didn’t mean to imply that feminist websites were “more right” than MRA sites. I was simply trying to point out that both sides have enough to share in the blame game. Apologies for the miscommunication.

  • SayWhaat

    There is something missing in between these extremes: the legitimate authority. Neither the rapacious brigand, nor the pensive milquetoast. I accept that the legitimate authority is almost invisible in our culture. You have to use your imagination. But that’s the sweet spot that would reconcile these extremes, the thing that Susan keeps describing when she tries to depict women’s ideals. The legitimate authority exercises power, doesn’t abuse it. In the absence of legitimate authority, the choices are dismal, and one unhappily settles for the brigand.

    +1.

  • Courtley

    Thanks for the reply, Susan. I doubt I’ve read as much about this as you have, and while I don’t find it very relevant to my real life or that of my friends it’s interesting in theory.

    I can understand the concept of men with some level of “dominance” getting more women than a man who’s truly supplicating. But, again, most of the men in their 20s that I know personally don’t really seem to fall into either category in this dichotomy. They just seem like nice, normal dudes who may have had a ONS or two but generally seem to prefer steady monogamous girlfriends to exclusively hooking-up, and they have female friends they enjoy without all this underlying “nice guy” resentment. It’s not unusual in my circles for friends to turn into lovers/couples, either–happened very recently with one of my guy friends and a longtime friend of his from university.

    To be fair, I went to a university that didn’t even HAVE frats/sororities and in general, and the club/hookup scene is not my scene now. I’m just not orbiting in that sphere. I seem to end up with a lot of married/LTR friends, especially the women–but this could be because, not being a sort of laissez-faire chick who hooks up at clubs I naturally gravitate away from women who are into this. Who you self-select to spend time with influences your take on reality quite a bit! But that brings me to what you wrote here:
    “In this case, which women are you missing out on when you run asshole game?”

    I think this is the million-dollar question and one that I’ve only read PUA deal with in a very quick, offhanded way. I think Roissy’s acknowledged that yeah, some chicks are like awkward or religious and shit and you can’t let that hurt your gaaaaaaame, man. What he and other PUAs underestimate and seem to not really grasp is how many people out there are still unimpressed with shallow mainstream American culture and try to maintain some level of depth and authenticity in their lives and try to care about things besides money and celebrities. Even attractive women do this sometimes! :D

    They’re pretty clearly self-selecting a certain cultural “type” of woman–pretty, vain, spoiled, shallow, not especially intellectually inclined even if she’s “educated,” etc. I have no doubt their theories correctly apply to THESE women and the assholes they apparently prefer. Using spoiled Kim Kardashian wannabes as a measuring stick for all young women, or even all Western women, just seems myopic and lazy to me and an exercise in intentional cynicism.

  • Mike C

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

    No point in me trying to explain how you’ve misunderstood it. To the part I’ve marked with asterisks, you’ve been clear and firm on what debate YOU do NOT really want here. I’m fine with that. So I’ll take that discussion elsewhere. It is nonsensical to say on the one hand you don’t want any of the “toxic” discussion here, but then criticize taking the discussion elsewhere. I believe there are blogs where it is more appropriate for MEN to engage other MEN in unfiltered, uncensored conversation where they can let “it all hang out”.

    I’ve noticed that each time I’ve directly challenged a concept or principle in the manosphere, you’ve wondered why I choose to deal with it at all. The reason is because my own comment threads are full of these topics,

    Well…if you don’t want your comment threads full of those topics, it probably isn’t a good idea to resurrect certain debates by posting on them. You had a good number of posts recently that had more contentious stuff absent from comment threads simply by leaving certain stuff alone.

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

    Agree. So there is no point in trying to start fires and/or fan fires that are going to signal people.

    If you could tweak human nature in some way – let’s say you got rid of female hypergamy, as an example. The species would not survive.

    Why? One sentence assertion isn’t evidence or a logical argument for anything.

    Same if women could magically take away the male preference for sexual variety. It’s the tension, the balance, and the negotiation of compromise between male and female mating strategies that makes people desire one another.

    Not really. This makes really no sense. The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.

      Perhaps, but to me that’s a bit like saying that there would be less war if we lobotomized all the men.

      I suspect SayWhaat is right:

      The way I see it, if you remove the base biological desires of hypergamy/variety, people would just be…asexual.

      The fact is, we want the friction. Sex is about tension, a critical component of desire and anticipation. Here are my thoughts about what would happen if we could get rid of hypergamy and sexual variety:

      Hypergamy:

      Women would not seek higher status males because they would feel no desire to submit to a more dominant male.

      Women would not select men based on their ambition, drive or work ethic, all indicators of their ability to provide.

      =======> Men would have no incentive to achieve or lead.

      Sexual variety:

      Men would not desire multiple women, so oneitis would be the norm. Women would have no incentive to maintain their attraction or relationships, because there would be no risk of infidelity.

      Preselection would not exist, so women would select men on different criteria. Any notion of men having options would be moot, as men would have no desire to exercise those options.

      No woman would feel special or chosen – since men do not desire variety, their standards for commitment are low. Any woman providing regular sex who meets a minimal attractiveness threshold will suffice. Therefore, getting a man to commit would be no achievement at all, and would therefore have little value.

      It might be true that such a change would produce more monogamous relationships, but I feel certain they would be of much lower quality.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Courtley

    Using spoiled Kim Kardashian wannabes as a measuring stick for all young women, or even all Western women, just seems myopic and lazy to me and an exercise in intentional cynicism.

    That’s very astute, Courtley. But after seeing that episode of Girls recently highlighted here on HUS, I’m not sure how much they can be blamed.

    I can’t believe that’s real life. But if that’s the kind of entertainment 20-somethings feel represents them, oh yeah, we have a problem, Houston.

    Kim Kardashian wannabes seems a perfect description of nearly all the characters in that world. It left me – unsettled.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SayWhaat
    Sorry, didn’t mean to imply you were in that camp. I know your take on things pretty well by now. Susan at least tries to maintain a moderate zone here at HUS, not always successfuly. The blame game usually devolves into which side is worse, which isn’t a reason to support either. Particularly when terms like “genocide” start getting thrown around.

  • Brendan

    Not really. This makes really no sense. The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.

    I agree as well. Matt Ridley’s book “The Red Queen” talks about this in describing men and women, in terms of genetic replication terms, as “resources” to each other, each with their own genetically programmed agendas — which are often at cross-purposes. So, of course there are aspects of the “programmed strategies” of each that undermine the pair bond model. The likely reason is that these are behaviors that developed to continue to potentially maximize the individual advantage for individual males and females once pair bonding entered the species as a norm (which can be deduced from the time that the physical dimorphism in the species began to shrink — indicating less physically brutal direct competition among the males for mating access to the females, which in turn suggests the appearance of a more equitable means for dividing the females among the males — hence, the pair bond). But, the older strategies of monopoly for men (i.e., impregnating as many of the women as possible, which we now call “variety” seeking) and hypergamy for women (i.e., being sexually available only to the most choice male specimens who have clobbered the other males to death) survived in the form of “pair bond cheats”. Now these cheating strategies optimize the return for the propagation of the genes of the cheating individuals, potentially, but certainly are threats to the pair bond, and therefore make pair bonds less stable and more difficult to maintain over extended periods. Again, it’s likely that this was the basis for the extensive set of social, philosophical and religious strictures against pair bond cheat behavior — belts and suspenders that were necessary in order to suppress, to a significant (but of course never a complete) degree, these naturally occurring pair-bond-threatening behaviors. Therefore, I would agree that these behaviors and inclinations, while “natural”, are nevertheless big threats to the pair bond, and given the importance of the pair bond to the development of our species since H-G times, a threat to the continuation of the species as a whole (again, leaving aside the individual benefits which can accrue in specific cases of undetected and unpunished cheat behaviors) — and can therefore properly be classed as “negative”, even from an objective point of view, leaving aside any questions of morality per se.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Sexual dimorphism might have waned because of the development of weapons. I’m a pretty big guy, but what the fencing coach referred to as “tempo” allowed me to watch quicker guys moving the point toward me while my directions to parry were still being finalized.

  • Mike M.

    Susan, I have to disagree about the manosphere being two-headed. The Game community is fissioning. Evolving into a distinct PUA Game community and a Courtship/Marriage Game community.

    And I find the latter a good, cheering development. Precisely because it rejects both feminist misandry and PUA misanthropy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike M.

      The Game community is fissioning. Evolving into a distinct PUA Game community and a Courtship/Marriage Game community.

      And I find the latter a good, cheering development. Precisely because it rejects both feminist misandry and PUA misanthropy.

      That’s welcome news! I actually think Game as applied to relationships is huge, because the truth is most of the guys wanting to learn Game are relationship-oriented. Some may choose the casual sex route, but I think the majority of beta guys will prefer relationships – that’s their strength.

  • Courtley

    @ Joe

    I don’t know, is “Girls” really all that representative of reality for most young women? I don’t get HBO and haven’t seen it, but I have read quite a lot about it and I understand it’s generated quite a backlash. I think a lot of the praise on its “reality” is just the fact that people like that it portrays sex–the actual act of it–in a more realistic, gritty sort of way than much of popular culture does (or so goes the argument). And gritty realism when it comes to sex is a bit of a trend in indie-type media right now.

  • Courtley

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phoebe-robinson/not-one-of-lena-dunhams-g_b_1435664.html

    As just one example…fave quote:
    “Maybe it’s just me, but when I had roommates, the bathroom was my alone time aka where I texted or stared at my afro, willing it grow, or practicing my Inside the Actors Studio interview. I wasn’t hanging out in soft lighting and chatting it up, Sex and the City-style about boys. And I most certainly wasn’t eating while sitting mere inches away from my roommate grooming herself. #Trifling.

    Basically, what this show and all the fan girls need is a strong, hard dose of Robitussin aka #realtalk. This show is not groundbreaking. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not a game changer. And for the love of God, it is not the female answer to Louie. I’m talking about you, AV Club. Girls is an occasionally funny show and decently written (the pilot episode does move at a fairly brisk pace) about a particular and narrow POV that I like to call EWW (Entitled White-Girl Whining). And you know what? If you want your show to be about such a tiny, niche demographic, go for it. Just don’t try and fool everyone and say it’s for everyone when it’s clearly “for us, by us.”

    I mean . . . there are reviews that say it does resonate with other Gen Y-ers. As it will–I mean again, these women DO exist. But they’re one demographic out of many in the West. That’s my point.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Courtley

      Girls is an occasionally funny show and decently written (the pilot episode does move at a fairly brisk pace) about a particular and narrow POV that I like to call EWW (Entitled White-Girl Whining).

      Agreed, and it’s even a narrower slicing than that, it’s NYCEWW, which is a genre all its own. To me, watching Girls is like watching a show about meerkats or the honey badger. It’s a close-up look at a particular species, and it’s interesting, if affected. As I’ve said before, I think its saving grace is that Lena Dunham is very happy to laugh at herself, at least in the show.

  • Brendan

    Sexual dimorphism might have waned because of the development of weapons.

    Certainly a possibility, but the effect would have been the same: to result in a more egalitarian (among the males) distribution of sexual access by relatively de-privileging the “silverback alpha” equivalents of our species in terms of being able to maintain sexual monopolies because of their size (likely it was a group of males who maintained that status, not one, in our species).

  • http://aplace-formythoughts.blogspot.com/ Renee

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

    A couple of things:
    1) Concerning the bolded part – people change and learn from past mistakes, especially if those mistakes were made when they were young. No one is perfect. I understand that there are those who don’t want to take that risk, but women and men who used to have ONS shouldn’t be seen as forever tainted in general (once a slut always a slut). I believe in seeing changed people are they are now rather than who they used to be.

    2) …or/and that she is still having sex with other men while she doesn’t has sex with you, because the other men are just “toys” but she “values” you and want to “make it work” how does that makes you feel?

    I see this line of reasoning used by guys whenever they group females in different categories. Like how certain girls are just toys and some are the “more valued” group, and the valued females are told to not be offended if a guy doesn’t want to sleep with them.

    Can’t it be possible for a girl to take it slow on a particular guy because she does indeed value him more than as a simple sex toy or a person with benefits? He isn’t used for just sex. But hey, maybe this is one of those “it’s different” instances….

    Now of course if she’s having sex with other guys WHILE she’s with him, then that’s a problem. The same goes for guys dating a girl while they’re having sex with other girls (I’ve seen comments from guys who do this exact same thing and see it as ok).

  • Brendan

    Can’t it be possible for a girl to take it slow on a particular guy because she does indeed value him more than as a simple sex toy or a person with benefits? He isn’t used for just sex. But hey, maybe this is one of those “it’s different” instances….

    The issue tends to be that the guy is normally a guy who hasn’t had the same degree of sexual access as the girl has, so he feels like he is much *less* valued to her than the other guys were, because he’s been placed in the waiting room while the other guys went right to the appointment directly. It gets at how men and women view (and value) sex and commitment differently. Most guys in that situation (lower sexual opportunity than the woman .. which is normal for most guys) are not going to feel very good about being the guy she made wait for it — just not going to be the case for most guys, because sex is seen by guys, among other things, as a reward, and he isn’t being given that reward as quickly — he feels like a chump as compared to the other guys, like he is being emotionally used by her to satisfy her emotional needs for romance leading to commitment, while she puts his own needs on the shelf in a way she didn’t for the other guy. All of the rhetoric in the world about him being “more special” isn’t going to make him feel any better about being placed in the waiting room when other guys were not — guys compete sexually with each other, and he experiences this as a relegation, sexually, as compared with the other guys.

    In some cases, like the poster above who also was a casual sex type before settling down with another former casual sex type, the situation is different, because the two had equal sex access histories before they decided to have a relationship with each other which went slower. For *MOST* men, it’s simply the case that their sexual access history is going to be quite a bit lower than the guy who was posting above, so the “differential pricing” issue burns them in a way it doesn’t burn the poster above (he had casual sexual access when he wanted it and left it behind, unlike most guys, who never had it to begin with).

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Courtley

    I mean again, these women DO exist. But they’re one demographic out of many in the West. That’s my point.

    I don’t think anyone’s disputing that they exist. But everyone seems to be arguing about how much or how little they represent Gen-Ys right now, and how important they might be – both those female AND the male stereotypes on the show.

    Just how important is Kim Kardashian anyway? From my vantage point, I’d say, not at all, except that someone keeps throwing her up the flag pole and a lot of someone’s keep saluting.

    Is there any particular reason the “Kim Kardashians” (and the Snookies and the Bachellorette-Courtneys of the world, to name a few) are so influential for so long?

  • Underdog

    “Now that is interesting. Was there a disparity between her smv and that of the alpha guys? Was she pursuing hypergamy? Thus, she found it hard to go with beta guys? Was she of higher status than the average guys or was she of the same status?”

    I’ve never met the “alpha” guys, so I don’t know. I think it was just a case of a dumb hot girl who thought slutting it up was empowering until she figured she wanted a little respect with it also. Then she became FB with 2 dudes who didn’t treat her like shit but also didn’t want to commit. Then those 2 “nice” guys who both committed and respected her put her on the pedestal and she figured didn’t want that either. In terms of looks, she’s pretty hot. An easy 8. 9 when she dresses up. She models for the local film school all the time.

  • http://Dannyfrom504.wordpress.com. Dannyfrom504

    I mentioned the male hamster a few days ago. I’m glad Athol backed it up.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Danny

      I mentioned the male hamster a few days ago. I’m glad Athol backed it up.

      Yes, you did! Now I have backing from two superstar bloggers ;)

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Joe
    “Is there any particular reason the ‘Kim Kardashians’ (and the Snookies and the Bachellorette-Courtneys of the world, to name a few) are so influential for so long?”

    They’re about as influential as the Flat Earth Society. I’d say they’re in the news often, entertainment news that is (an oxymoron), because they have very good publicity agents. You can’t separate the profit motive from how these ridiculous celebrities behave. And they’re particularly adept at staying in shape, getting made up, and making fools out of themselves : )

  • Richard Aubrey

    Brendan

    You reversed it.
    Certainly a possibility, but the effect would have been the same: to result in a more egalitarian (among the males) distribution of sexual access by relatively de-privileging the “silverback alpha” equivalents of our species in terms of being able to maintain sexual monopolies because of their size (likely it was a group of males who maintained that status, not one, in our species).

    The first comment on the subject said that dimorphism declined due to egalitarian ways of matching up male and female. IOW, the egalitarian came first, allowing or promoting the reduced dimorphism. IMO, humans are too bloody-minded for that. Why give up a good thing when nobody can take it from you?
    I suggested the use of weapons promoted the reduction, which would have the effect. IOW, it wasn’t egalitarian first, but second. Then you equally matched up.
    Now you say we have the same effect. Same as what? Which comes first?

  • Brendan

    The first comment on the subject said that dimorphism declined due to egalitarian ways of matching up male and female. IOW, the egalitarian came first, allowing or promoting the reduced dimorphism. IMO, humans are too bloody-minded for that. Why give up a good thing when nobody can take it from you?
    I suggested the use of weapons promoted the reduction, which would have the effect. IOW, it wasn’t egalitarian first, but second. Then you equally matched up.
    Now you say we have the same effect. Same as what? Which comes first?

    I don’t think it matters much, because the result was egalitarian in the end, which was my point in talking about the reduced dimoprhism to begin with.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Not really. This makes really no sense. The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.

    ITA. The only thing that will suffer would be porn and romance novels: Boy meets girl, they get married, have children, those children grow up and get married too. Not a lot to write or act about, but then who knows marriage people porn and romance after the wedding like dealing with a couple reconnecting after a long period of hard work could become the new norm. I would love to live in that universe in fact I have transhumanist leanings and this should be the first two erased from the list of “human” traits. No hypergamy no variety need. World would be a better place if we could pair off for life and we can afford it now that our lifetime is four times longer and we have conquered the planet, YMMV.

    but women and men who used to have ONS shouldn’t be seen as forever tainted in general (once a slut always a slut). I believe in seeing changed people are they are now rather than who they used to be.

    You can date those if you want to I will abstain and suport anyone that doesn’t want to get involve with them who knows maybe if enough people do that people might think twice before opening their legs or dropping their pants at the first sign of arousal.
    I had never seen a person that loooves casual sex doing a 180 unless they had a really bad fall out from it: a near death experience, time in jail or felt a deep and genuine religious conversation, aside from that “perro huevero aunque le quemen el hocico sigue comiendo huevos (Egg stealer dog even if it gets its snout burned in the act will keep stealing eggs), YMMV.

    Is there any particular reason the “Kim Kardashians” (and the Snookies and the Bachellorette-Courtneys of the world, to name a few) are so influential for so long?

    I think is the Cinderella aspect of it, legitimate famous people, singers actresses…need to work to be famous and compete with others so normal people can’t dream to be famous if they have no skills or talents Snooki and the Kardashians have no talent or skill except letting people in their personal lives so any nobody can dream that their stupid meaningless personal shenanigans are as valuable as theirs and worth it of attention and money they are just a camera away from stardom, just look at all youtube people attempting to do similar things. I might be wrong though but is the closest thing I had come up with.

  • Courtley

    “Kim Kardashians” and other sort of mainstream-American-modern-female-culturea-icons are extremely influential in the Manosphere conception of “Dangerous Women.” Manosphere bloggers are far more influenced by media and pop culture archetypes than they seem to realize. Often, when I read these bloggers’ descriptions of interaction with real women they often seem to be women like this–and if you look for it, references to these cultural icons and archetypes are numerous in the PUA blogosphere. To be fair though, Kim Kardashian is simply the first name I came up with and certainly isn’t the only influential pop-culture example here–a better one might be a “Sex and the City”-wannabe type of woman. THAT show and those characters are given explicit references in “Girls” (according to a couple of Lena Dunham interviews) partly because of the inevitable comparisons between the two shows, but also because Dunham is trying to write a sort of “girls-with-SATC-dreams-moves-to-Brooklyn-and-confronts-reality” thing.

    All of that to say, I think the extent of the real influence of these types of cultural icons (god, I hate using the word “icon” for these people, it’s far too complimentary, but I can’t think of a more suitable turn of phrase) is indeed more limited than a lot of Manosphere bloggers tend to believe. Many of them really do seem to think that “American women = those women I see on TV and can’t respect. Also, I knew 5 chicks who were like that in college, so yeah, this is just what women are like now.”

    In a way, they’re sort of unwilling to draw the ol’ virgin-whore dichotomy, which is kind of weird given their overall perspective on gender. Even women who “appear” to be good are still subject to their not-very-well-nuanced theories of sexual evolutionary psychology, and there’s a lot of what looks like increasing paranoia about this–the whole idea that even your evidently loving, faithful wife/girlfriend realllllllllly only gets wet for assholes. It can get quite cagey and neurotic. It’s very similar to women who believe all men would be cheating assholes if they could get away with it and who can’t ever really accept that some men ARE trustworthy and commitment-oriented. Again, this goes back to my original point–it has been made really well before on this blog–that a certain percentage of women ARE hardwired for hardcore ‘hypergamy’ and men for being playas. But some of us have evolved to really be wired for monogamy, and this does make sense according to evo-psych, as the monogamous family structure has been very beneficial to human development and survival for a long time now and many of us have ancestors who have been doing things that way for generations. What’s toxic now is that we in the West live in a culture that does encourage and rewards these sort of poorly-evolved particular individuals’ indulgence and tries to make the rest of us feel inadequate for not joining in. Fortunately . . . not everyone buys it. If you only hit on and interact with people who do your views will be tainted.

    Maybe Joe and others actually agree with the gist of this, not sure.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    I suggested the use of weapons promoted the reduction, which would have the effect. IOW, it wasn’t egalitarian first, but second. Then you equally matched up.

    Well the weapons technology is a side effect of our brains growing bigger and you forget other factors that had attracted females that are also part of our mating strategy. Like musical or painting talents. So the reduction of diphormism is a consequences of us becoming smarter, but the females have to be at least smart enough to see that the skinny guy fencing the strong one shows good genes too regardless of how he looks so brains are the answer, IMO, YMMV.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    I believe so. Someone needs to force feed that woman her meds.

    Maybe we should raise money, hire a hacker to locate her and call her family so they can give her the help she needs. I mean at this point I think we are her only friends and this is the closest thing to attention she gets. I feel lots of pity for her.
    Unrelated question:
    Do you ever feel guilty about getting many opportunities/free stuff just because of your looks?

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Courtley
    In my mind, celebrities are only influential (i.e. contribute to society) if they’re heavily involved in philanthropy. Paul Newman comes to mind. His various enterprises donated ~$300 million to charity over the years, and I believe he rarely acknowledged this publicly.

    You’re on the right track, though. These young people are pretty much “famous for being famous” and that’s it. And they’re usually wealthy already, or looking to make it big. Their publicity is mostly manufactured. I think the vast majority of Americans, young and old, view them more with amusement than actual admiration or respect.

  • Brendan

    But some of us have evolved to really be wired for monogamy, and this does make sense according to evo-psych, as the monogamous family structure has been very beneficial to human development and survival for a long time now and many of us have ancestors who have been doing things that way for generations. What’s toxic now is that we in the West live in a culture that does encourage and rewards these sort of poorly-evolved particular individuals’ indulgence and tries to make the rest of us feel inadequate for not joining in. Fortunately . . . not everyone buys it. If you only hit on and interact with people who do your views will be tainted.

    My view: most of us (other than the high sociosexuality scoring) are wired both for monogamy and for opportunistic cheating on the monogamous bond for personal gain.

    A rational system recognizes the benefits of the monogamous urge, and the detriments of the cheating urge, and rewards one while punishing the other (and while at the same time shunning the high sociosexuality people as detrimental to the overall ordering for everyone else, which they well and truly are as Susan has pointed out numerous times quite well). We do not have this system, precisely because we have exalted personal sexual initiative to one of the most ultimate human freedoms — you can’t do that at the same time as rewarding monogamy and punishing cheating and high sociosexual behavior — it contradicts. Our civilization made a choice a few decades ago in favor of one side over against the other — in my opinion (and I daresay Susan would agree), in favor of the minority report on this issue. But be that as it may, it was a society-wide-impacting decision. The genie isn’t going back into the bottle anytime soon.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      A rational system recognizes the benefits of the monogamous urge, and the detriments of the cheating urge, and rewards one while punishing the other (and while at the same time shunning the high sociosexuality people as detrimental to the overall ordering for everyone else, which they well and truly are as Susan has pointed out numerous times quite well). We do not have this system, precisely because we have exalted personal sexual initiative to one of the most ultimate human freedoms — you can’t do that at the same time as rewarding monogamy and punishing cheating and high sociosexual behavior — it contradicts. Our civilization made a choice a few decades ago in favor of one side over against the other — in my opinion (and I daresay Susan would agree), in favor of the minority report on this issue. But be that as it may, it was a society-wide-impacting decision. The genie isn’t going back into the bottle anytime soon.

      +1

      This is exactly how I see it.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    Do you ever feel guilty about getting many opportunities/free stuff just because of your looks?

    No. Why would I?

    People giving me things of their own volition is completely on them. Who am I to stop them?

  • Sassy6519

    Also, thanks Susan and This is Jen for the good wishes regarding my date from last night.

    In accordance with the topic at hand, I figured people would find it interesting that he told me he doesn’t kiss on the first date.

    I closed the date by kissing him on the cheek, but we left it at that. It was actually quite quaint.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    No. Why would I?

    People giving me things of their own volition is completely on them. Who am I to stop them?

    Guilty because you got lucky with the looks, you could had been ugly if genetics would had worked differently and then get nothing, you never had an ugly friend/relative that was treated completely different?

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Sassy6519
    No drama? No games? Boring! You shouldn’t contradict the time-honored stereotypes about men vs. women that are so much a part of HUS : )

    Seriously, congrats. Hope things progress for you and the lucky guy.

  • Courtley

    @Brendan

    That seems like a reasonable and nuanced description–less pigeonholing than many evo-psych theorists for sure. I suppose I wouldn’t actually say some of us are so exclusively hardwired for monogamy that we CAN’T cheat. I just think monogamy and the traditional family structure has enough benefits that it has to have some biological basis, too–and indeed, oxytocin and pair-bonding indicate that it does. Some people are going to have less of this than others, and I agree, they are a now an over-glorified minority in our culture and sadly, many people for whom monogamy and something more traditional are in their best interests try to emulate them.

    But not everybody. :)

  • SayWhaat

    Not really. This makes really no sense. The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.

    That…doesn’t make sense to me. The way I see it, if you remove the base biological desires of hypergamy/variety, people would just be…asexual. Or, we as a species would simply sputter out — we would have women and men mating with the mentally-disabled, inbreeding, etc. There would be no evolutionary success for our species because people would have no motivation to mate with better prospects.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Oh boy we talk about how realistic is the views of the manosphere about rampant hypergamy and then I got this in my inbox:
    HOT DAD’S CONTEST!
    http://www.ivillage.com/hot-dads-contest-2/6-j-435775

  • Dogsquat

    @Susan:

    Please forgive me, as I do not have time to read Ricky Raw’s article right now, although I like that dude a lot. I wish he’d been my big brother – my life would have been a lot easier. I will read it tomorrow evening when I get done with school.

    I agree with most of what you’ve said in our discussion. Again, my intent is not to argue who is right, or play Oppression Olympics with anyone at all. I’m attempting to highlight an inconsistency that probably got lost in the clutter of competing contexts.

    It’s a stinger, too – like somebody who drops his shoulder a half second before throwing a punch. You know that’s gonna get him knocked out one day.

    Awright….

    Forget I am a dude. For the remainder of this post, I am Robot Dogsquat, Destroyer of Worlds, Devourer of Chimichangas, He Who Has No Bias.

    Here’s the Cliff’s Notes on two diametrically opposed ideas posited by you in this post and/or the comments:

    1. Women are sometimes seduced by men. Men can act in certain ways that force/compel/cause women to abandon their best interests against their will.

    2. Women are not exotic pets. They possess free will, and to think of them as manipulable/simple-minded/devoid of agency is incorrect and demeaning.

    I am also not only talking about when women are directly lied to by men – of course people get hookwinked once in awhile. And yes, there is nuance and grey area involved. However, these two statements as written are inconsistent. Both cannot be true simultaneously.

    Fucksocks. I wish I had more time.

    In closing, I will caution you again that I am not arguing with you about good or bad, or which gender is “better”. I’m asking you to be mindful of these contradictory ideas. As we say in counterinsurgency operations, Credibility Is King, and this is a matter of credibility. You can convince anyone of almost anything as long as your message is consistent and applicable. The above is not.

    I believe that this contradiction is a side effect of having multiple simultaneous conversations. I also believe that if I caught this, other people will notice as well. I humbly suggest you present a HUS Unified Theory reconciling or refuting these ideas, lest they be used against you in the Court Of Public Opinion.

    Pedantically Yours,

    Robot Dogsquat

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    Guilty because you got lucky with the looks, you could had been ugly if genetics would had worked differently and then get nothing, you never had an ugly friend/relative that was treated completely different?

    I don’t think I’ve ever had an “ugly” friend, but I’ve had friends/relatives who were 5s, at the time. They weren’t ugly. They were just rather plain looking or overweight. They definitely got treated differently than I did, but most of their problems were fixable.

    The overweight girls could have lost the weight. The plain looking women could try different hairstyles, clothing choices, or makeup palettes to spruce up their looks.

    Aside from that, I don’t understand the idea of feeling guilt over the looks I was given. That would be like me expecting white people to feel guilt over simply being born white. That makes no sense whatsoever. We can’t choose what we are born with or as. We can only control what we do with the raw materials we are given.

  • Courtley

    @Megaman
    “Their publicity is mostly manufactured. I think the vast majority of Americans, young and old, view them more with amusement than actual admiration or respect.”

    And we view the people who genuinely emulate them with lots of amusement, too! There is always going to be that loud, obnoxious, attention-seeking blonde at the bar . . . and there’s usually 10 disgusted women starting at her as they try to have a nice chat at quieter tables with friends or a date, acting much more respectably. Let’s not pretend these people are representative of our entire society.

  • Dogsquat

    Sassy, I beg of you to keep your HUSness to yourself with this guy. Don’t even mention the Manosphere or anything, and maybe change your avatar for a bit. You’ve revealed quite a bit of stuff on here that guys don’t want to learn about their Ladies.

    Congrats, and Happy Hunting! I hope you end up as happy as my goofy ass is.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    @Sassy
    Okay, thank you for the answer.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Dogsquat

    Sassy, I beg of you to keep your HUSness to yourself with this guy. Don’t even mention the Manosphere or anything, and maybe change your avatar for a bit. You’ve revealed quite a bit of stuff on here that guys don’t want to learn about their Ladies.

    Congrats, and Happy Hunting! I hope you end up as happy as my goofy ass is.

    Haha! You have a point there Dogsquat.

    The photo I have up now may actually be the best one to use. I look like a man in it, so it’s a good distraction.

    I can see how some of the things I have written would freak some men out. Operation “Covert Commenter” is a go.

  • Brendan

    But not everybody.

    Indeed not everybody. And therein lies the key to this blog.

  • Courtley

    @ Susan

    Thanks Susan–that’s a line from a quote from a review of “Girls,” though, not my own inspired turn of phrase. :D

    But I do agree, it’s about a very specific “species.” And there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but when people with only thin connections to average Americans and perhaps other people in general begin to watch it and assume ‘this is how women just are these days’ I think it can be unnecessarily discouraging. Taking too many cues ABOUT the cultural milieu from popular culture can give anyone a distorted view of reality, in my view, especially for many of the young men who seem drawn to the Manosphere and/or pickup “artistry.”

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan
    think girls enjoy the “friction” and ups and downs of a relationship a lot more than most guys, hell it’s one of the tenants of game.

    I honestly believe that most beta guys would be more than happy with “Any woman providing regular sex who meets a minimal attractiveness threshold will suffice…” I know I would’ve been happy with that in my beta days. Definitely the scarcity mindset illustrated.

    But then again, I’m a lot happier now that I’ve rid myself of that thinking and raised my standards. So you might have a point…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jimmy Hendricks

      think girls enjoy the “friction” and ups and downs of a relationship a lot more than most guys, hell it’s one of the tenants of game.

      Let me clarify that. I am not talking about friction in relationships. I am talking about the sexual tension that is part of attraction and builds anticipation. In other words, mating is a dance, with many steps and millions of neurochemical occurrences. Attraction includes so many emotions – inspiration, longing, obsession, desire, joy, euphoria, anxiety, pain, fear, elation, investment, jealousy, curiosity, optimism. I contend that if you take away hypergamy and the male desire for variety – which reflect the reproductive priorities of each sex – then you dial these emotions way down, and eliminate many.

      Life would become easier, but boring as hell, and the birthrate would plummet. People wouldn’t bother.

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        I’ve actually been meaning to write a post about friction for a while. Not friction as in disagreement, hostility or angst. I’m talking about both the physics and metaphysics of friction.

        The friction that occurs when two things touch and create energy. This happens at every stage of human interaction, and of course friction is necessary for reproduction in the literal sense as well.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Tabletop second Episode is Settlers of Catan!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3WJTlDa7oo&feature=g-all-u&context=G280e4bcFAAAAAAAAAAA

    I will be in my bunker. :D

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Slightly OT

    Speaking of “famous for being famous,” check out this experiment:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=C9Ko6Xfa84w

    Gotta love social proof.

  • Jones

    …That ivillage “hot dads” contest is adorable enough to melt a PUA’s heart…

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    think girls enjoy the “friction” and ups and downs of a relationship a lot more than most guys, hell it’s one of the tenants of game.

    Add me to the few girls that don’t want friction I just want to have my husband to grow old with me and raise my kids, have sex with me regularly and watch a couple of movies once in a while, play some video games and talk about crazy stuff. That is my idea of heaven. I never saw marriage as some sort of victory over others, but victory over being lonely and childless forever.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Ana
    Ditto on the friction angle. I think Susan was probably referring to the initial stages of dating and relationship interaction. Who wants to have anxiety, uncertainty, and doubt WRT his or her SO for decades? I don’t think anybody who’s married that long wants to. Couples tend to settle into comfortable, secure routines. That’s not to say they don’t try to spice things up once in awhile, and shake off some of the montony that can set in.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Ditto on the friction angle. I think Susan was probably referring to the initial stages of dating and relationship interaction. Who wants to have anxiety, uncertainty, and doubt WRT his or her SO for decades? I don’t think anybody who’s married that long wants to. Couples tend to settle into comfortable, secure routines. That’s not to say they don’t try to spice things up once in awhile, and shake off some of the montony that can set in.

    The only reason I allowed myself to fall in love with my now husband is that he was completely honest, open, never played games and was reliable I’m sure any level of doubt wouldn’t had made our relationship progress heck the crisis I had that almost made me break up my engagement was for a comment from another guy that made me feel dread not even him someone else said a passing comment and I was on the edge of just calling everything odd I don’t do dread or friction at all. I might be an outlier or maybe all my experiences about “friction” has ended with bad outcomes and heartbreak but no. Security is my aphrodisiac.
    That being said I’m “crazy” enough that the hubby doesn’t get bore and in everything else I do change up and spice things up. But I never do dreadful things and I certainly avoid fighting unless the consequences of bottling up my feelings are worse than resolving them, YMMV.

  • Kathy

    “The only reason I allowed myself to fall in love with my now husband is that he was completely honest, open, never played games and was reliable”

    This is exactly how I felt too, Anacaona.

    My husband was honest and upfront. No games, no negging, no deception or pretence. He was a breath of fresh air. Have been married 16 years now and still going strong. :)

    “I think the point is that even if an Alpha gets with its virgin bride there is no garantuees he will be able to be satisfied only with her. The guy that has had variety also reaches a point were one woman is settling, two thirds of the guys I knew that married chaste women and cheated on them weren’t happy about it and wish they could stop but at that point they were too used to have a new punani every certain time and couldn’t get off the variety carousel. Is the flip side of the Alpha carouseler that tries her best to move on to Beta guys but find herself unable to let go her Alpha days. I know for men the number is higher but no one knows what their number is till they decide to try monogamy for a long period of time. Better safe than sorry for both genders, YMMV.”

    Well said, I agree. The risk is not worth it for a high count partner.

    BTW when is your baby due, Ana ?

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    This is exactly how I felt too, Anacaona.

    My husband was honest and upfront. No games, no negging, no deception or pretence. He was a breath of fresh air. Have been married 16 years now and still going strong. :)

    Two for the no DRAMA! Please club :)

    BTW when is your baby due, Ana ?

    Mid October although knowing my luck it will be a week before of after, just for the lulz. :)

  • INTJ

    @ Kathy, Anacaona

    This is why I like HUS. The comments here are a breath of fresh air. I can read your posts and say to myself (“there are women out there who value what matters”).

    I find Dalrock’s posts just as informative as Susan’s, but the commentators there are the opposite of the commentators here.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan,

    “One of the strangest things I’ve encountered as a blogger overlapping with the manosphere is a view of women as rapacious man-eating vixens, cold-blooded fiends who suck the life out of men and should be caged during ovulation.”

    It’s not surprising to see this. A good percentage of the Manosphere are guys who have been hurt by the modern SMP. Even the most docile dog will bite after being kicked so many times. The thing is, the Manosphere is the only place you’ll see the “Dark Side” of female attraction described. We already know the dark side of male attraction (which ironically, can be an attractor to women, as long as it’s “alpha-like” males displaying it), but the equivalent female side is actively denied or praised by modern culture. Here’s a perfect example that Dogsquat pointed out:

    “1. Women are sometimes seduced by men. Men can act in certain ways that force/compel/cause women to abandon their best interests against their will.

    2. Women are not exotic pets. They possess free will, and to think of them as manipulable/simple-minded/devoid of agency is incorrect and demeaning.”

    These statements above are at odds, but when womens’ promiscuity is seen as the “fault of cads”, rather than their own preferences, while at the same time arguing that women are not exotic pets, it serves to strengthen some of the Manosphere arguments about women, that you need to watch their actions and not listen to their words (revealed preference).

    The incentives in the modern SMP are heavily skewed to the female side. In the past, a variety of societal forces were deployed to mitigate this, but they have been effectively removed. The modern SMP does not have those restrictions, and the endgame of this is pretty clear…we have several communities here in the USA which have been bellweathers for the last 40 years…

    I’ll end this post with the words of one of the more perceptive female commenters from a past post:

    “This also sort of explains why my husband had little luck in romance. He acts way closer to the nice guys than to the jerks. He didn’t play games, called me and texted me all the time, and he is really cuddly and touchy-feeling. How other girls don’t appreciate this is truly beyond my comprehension.”

    The guy in question is a smart, good looking, solid guy. He wasn’t alone in having little luck in romance. A society where that difficulty becomes the norm for men is not a society with a positive future…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dogsquat, @Ex New Yorker

      1. Women are sometimes seduced by men. Men can act in certain ways that force/compel/cause women to abandon their best interests against their will.

      2. Women are not exotic pets. They possess free will, and to think of them as manipulable/simple-minded/devoid of agency is incorrect and demeaning.

      I am also not only talking about when women are directly lied to by men – of course people get hookwinked once in awhile. And yes, there is nuance and grey area involved. However, these two statements as written are inconsistent. Both cannot be true simultaneously.

      Your first statement does not correctly reflect what I said. If the woman abandon’s her own best interests, she does it very much according to her will. In fact, I’ve argued that is a perfect description of promiscuous women today. They are making poor choices, and no one is forcing them to do so. The goal of seduction is to bend the other person’s will to one’s own – you can’t remove their agency. Well, you can, and that is rape.

      I do not give those women a free pass. They are responsible for self-control, no matter how tempting the lure, and should be judged by their actions.

      But I do hold seducers accountable – specifically, men who target a woman who is unwilling or previously inexperienced and attempt to bend her to their will for sex knowing they will inflict harm in doing so. This is usually and commonly achieved by pretending to be interested in a love relationship when their only intent is short-term or no-strings sex. Again, the critical element here is deceit. In short, a cad.

      I do not apply this judgment to men who have sex with women without pretending they are offering anything more than a ONS. As I’ve said before, don’t ask, don’t tell is on the woman. It is her responsibility to suss out the intent of any man she has sex with. If she fails to do so, the man is blameless for her decision, though he may still be an immoral man.

      History and literature are chock full of rakes who seduced women into sex and ruined them during times when there were daunting social forces keeping women chaste. In the contemporary SMP, there are many willing women, but there are also still plenty of rakes who enjoy the hunt and seduction, and view the activity of breaking hearts as one of collateral damage. In fact, I’ve seen a commenter here say that very thing. Collateral damage.

      Your summary of the second point is correct.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ENY

      We already know the dark side of male attraction (which ironically, can be an attractor to women, as long as it’s “alpha-like” males displaying it), but the equivalent female side is actively denied or praised by modern culture.

      I get it, but at the same time have no intention of being a punching bag for those disaffected males. Truth? Sure. I’m just asking people to maintain perspective and communicate with decency.

      Please keep in mind that I have thousands of female readers everyday who know nothing of the experience of young males. I’m doing my best to inform them, but I have no intention of telling them they’re hypergamous bitches in the process. If they’ve come to HUS (despite great linkage, the vast majority of people still find me via Google search) they’re looking for a solution to a problem. They’re already aware, and they may even be self-aware. I’d rather clue people in without assaulting their sensibilities in the process by dishing up a view of all women that is hostile and judgmental. As I’ve said, I prefer to deal with matters of biology in a dispassionate way – the mating process may not be perfect, but it’s as close to perfect as it’s ever been, and we have no idea what we’re talking about when we make value judgments. AFAIC, it makes no sense.

      That’s the fine line I’m always walking, and it’s my problem. I’m just sharing the blogger perspective.

  • Courtley

    Dogsquat and ExNewYorker…can you expand on the way you see those two statements existing in such stark contradiction with one another that they are mutually exclusive in your eyes?

    I think the use of “force” and the phrase “against their will” was too strong in the first sentence. Women (some women!) may indeed be compelled and convinced by seductive masculinity to do things that are harmful to them from a pragmatic perspective. They may indeed not have total control over what their body responds to sexually (neither do men) but ultimately, the CHOICE to go to bed with someone is a free-will choice. You can walk away from a hook-up potential even when aroused, if you so choose. Anyone can.

    I’m not seeing the contradiction here. Can you expand on your interpretations and assumptions here?

    I agree the Manosphere is pretty damn enlightening as far as helping women understand the emotional turmoil that too much sexual rejection puts men into. It can be rather traumatizing to wade through, sometimes, for a lot of women, but I think the Internet is invaluable in giving people places to vent and share unfiltered emotions.

    What’s problematic, though, is when these wounded young men extrapolate airtight, grandiose theories about femininity and human nature from their own personal experiences. In that sense, I think the Manosphere has been very negative in encouraging self-defeating overthinking and existential depression for a lot of young guys, who I suspect probably just needed some kind of parental-style wisdom and guidance on ways to find, attract and keep commitment-minded women.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      In that sense, I think the Manosphere has been very negative in encouraging self-defeating overthinking and existential depression for a lot of young guys, who I suspect probably just needed some kind of parental-style wisdom and guidance on ways to find, attract and keep commitment-minded women.

      +1

      This is exactly what I meant when I referred to overdosing on the red pill.

  • this is Jen

    Courtley says

    What’s problematic, though, is when these wounded young men extrapolate airtight, grandiose theories about femininity and human nature from their own personal experiences. In that sense, I think the Manosphere has been very negative in encouraging self-defeating overthinking and existential depression for a lot of young guys, who I suspect probably just needed some kind of parental-style wisdom and guidance on ways to find, attract and keep commitment-minded women.
    ——————————————————————————-

    That right there is gold. Men are looking for ( and finding) . the wrong kind of women.

  • deti

    “while at the same time shunning the high sociosexuality people as detrimental to the overall ordering for everyone else, which they well and truly are as Susan has pointed out numerous times quite well).”

    Every society everywhere has high sociosexuality people who can do whatever they want sexually, and they do. There will always be sluts. There will always be beautiful women who walk between the raindrops. There will always be football team captains and Rhett Butlers. They will always be able to get whatever they want, whenever they want.

    The culture has convinced not only the high sociosexuality people that they can pursue NSA sex with impunity. Now, the average Jane with a sex rank of 4 is convinced that she’s Miss America, entitled to do whatever she wants sexually with whomever she wants, with no consequences and no judgment.

  • deti

    “parental-style wisdom and guidance on ways to find, attract and keep commitment-minded women.”

    Here’s how I (and a lot of men coming of age in the 1980s) were told how to “find, attract and keep commitment-minded women” by pastors, parents, teachers, Scout leaders, and persons in authority over us (men and women):

    “Be nice. Be yourself. If you cannot find or keep a commitment minded woman, it is because you are not being nice enough. If girls are breaking up with you or you can’t get past one date, you are not being nice enough. You have to be nicer.

    “When you go on a date, it is your DUTY to pay for EVERYTHING. You are to do what she wants. You are to ask her what she wants and then do that. You are not to do anything that she does not want to do. You are to ask her for permission before doing anything.

    “With sex — DON’T. Keep your d**k in your pants. If you want to kiss her, you must ask her first. If you want to hold her hand, you must ask first. You must never, never, NEVER escalate to anything physical unless you ask first. You are not to take anything sexually. You must ask for it.”

    “Sex is a Beautiful Experience for a woman. You must never do anything to ruin it for her. You must make sure she orgasms and if she is not it is YOUR FAULT. Women do not like rough, vigorous sex. They like slow, romantic sex with candles and soft music. You must always have sex the way SHE wants to have it.

    “Women are always looking for husbands. You are being evaluated all the time for your suitability as a husband. You must show that you are husband material. The way you do that is through immediate investment and commitment. You must go all in immediately on a woman you like.

    “You must tell her everything about yourself — your likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, plans and desires. You must not hesitate to show your emotions, that you are in touch with and understand your emotions, and that you will come to her for emotional support when you need it. Women love that. You must reveal, be an open book so you have no secrets from her. In this way she will know that it is safe for her to show her emotions, and that you have shown the requisite level of commitment to her and her alone.

    “Do all this, and the women will be beating down your door to date, marry and have sex with you. Now go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.”

    So that’s what I was told. And that’s why I’ve become an active participant in the manosphere.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “inspiration, longing, obsession, desire, joy, euphoria, anxiety, pain, fear, elation, investment, jealousy, curiosity, optimism.”

    This has gotta be a chick thing. The only time I ever felt some of these was at my most beta.
    Currently its more of do it my way or NEXT.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “inspiration, longing, obsession, desire, joy, euphoria, anxiety, pain, fear, elation, investment, jealousy, curiosity, optimism.”

      This has gotta be a chick thing.

      Really? I think that’s sad – in my experience the best orgasms result from a heady emotional mix including some history with all of the above. I know that women are more emotionally inclined during sex than men are, but do men have no variation in the intensity of their orgasms as a result of emotional depth and connection? For me the most important sex organ has always been the brain, and I don’t mean doing calculus proofs.

  • Lokland

    Question for the ladies.

    How do we find a commitment minded women?
    What are the tells?

    Purple hair? Polka dots?

    What is it that a man can use to tell an actual good wife apart from both pretenders and sociopaths. You all look exactly the same.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      I clipped a comment by Dogsquat a while ago about finding good women. To save him the trouble of rereating it, I offer it here:

      First, get to know people in general. I’ve used this analogy here before, but it bears repeating:

      Imagine a scientist who sat by a watering hole in Africa for five years, writing down everything the hippos did. Then, the scientist moved to a different watering hole for another 5 years and wrote down everything a different group of hippos did. Then, that scientist goes back to their university and spends a year collating data on hippos, writing two papers, and finally a book entitled,”Hippos in the Mud – My Time Being Bored out of my Gourd in Africa”.

      Now, imagine the phone rings a year later – “Hey Scientist – we’ve got these hippos at this watering hole you’ve never seen before. What are they going to do in XYZ situation? The fate of the world hangs on your answer!”

      That scientist is going to have a pretty goddamn good idea, even though he’s never been to that watering hole. The key is he payed attention to hippos for 10 years, and then digested and applied what he learned.

      So pay attention to people. Learn. Be friendly, ask questions, and file the info away. Your information will be more high-yield if you can observe people in high stress environments, because much of the polite BS is stripped away.

      Go volunteer in an Emergency Department or Volunteer Fire Department, or work for the Red Cross in a disaster area. Alternatively, working in retail, food service, or in the bar industry will expose you to a lot of the petty avariciousness of our fellow humans, and that is a good eye opener for the kind of realizations you need to have as a young person. You want to be around everyday, normal people under a little stress (real or perceived) to strip the fairytaleness from your eyes.

      The key there is you’ll see what assholes most people are most of the time – but you’ll also see how heroic, selfless, and flat-ass GOOD some people are. It’ll stick out because it’s rare, but it does exist. If you don’t internalize that, you’re going to end up miserable.
      Nice/good people tend to have common traits – they are not wrapped up in themselves.

      For example, the other day I was working a car accident in the rain. We were super busy across my city and help was far away, so it was me and my partner for the injured, and a couple cops busy directing traffic. A young woman was driving her brother somewhere and got into a car accident. She wasn’t hurt badly, but the brother busted his legs up pretty good. I was working on the brother, packaging him up/doping him up for transport, and that young girl dug up an umbrella from somewhere and held it over me and her brother while I was busy. This was despite the fact that I’d asked her several times to sit where it was warm and dry, and assured her I was taking care of everything. She got cold and wet, I was half cold and wet, and her brother was neither.

      She actually chose that situation. The part that struck me was that nobody was judging her, one way or the other. The brother was doped up and going into shock, the looky-loo motorists don’t know her, and I don’t give a shit. That behavior doesn’t come from the same place as putting on a charity event, or doing some event so you can put a bumper sticker on your car. She did it because it was the right thing for her to do. She could have taken the easy and comfortable way out, but didn’t.

      That is rare behavior for young folks these days, and even more rare in young women. Eminently datable, in my opinion.
      Another personality trait I look for is the ability to be honest about their own mistakes. Ask a girl if she’s ever been fired from a job. If you get an answer like,”Oh, yeah, these people were assholes and they fired me for no reason,” then start paying close attention. That ain’t good, brother. That kind of thing happens, but not very often.

      On the other hand, a girl who says,”I feel a bit bad about it, but I hated the work. I wasn’t really giving it my all and they canned me,” is someone you can work with. Granted, she might be lazy (she’ll show you that in other ways) – but at least she’s honest and realizes she’s not perfect. Bonus points if she follows up with something like,”I’m going to think long and hard about getting a customer service job ever again. I do much better work in a quiet office,” or something.

      That girl has realized what she needs to be successful (at least at work) and understands she has to find an environment that she fits into, not focus her effort on bending the Universe to better suit her moods.

      A third tell I look for is delayed gratification. Is the girl willing to forgo instant pleasure in light of a distant reward? A girl who will stay home and study to get into the graduate program she wants rather than party every weekend is a good bet. This also means she’ll be more aware of The Tingle influencing her toward dumb decisions. All girls do dumb things s/p Tingle, but some are worse (much, much worse) than others.
      A good check and balance to the delayed gratification thing is to pay attention to what the girl orders for desert. If you watch what you eat and exercise (delayed gratification), then there’s no reason to forgo a piece of cheesecake once in awhile. You want somebody who enjoys stuff, not a soulless robot. It’s more sustainable and healthy, too. Nobody can eat salad 24/7 – that’s code for an eating disorder or someone who’s playing a role they won’t be able to fulfill indefinitely.

      If you value chastity in a girlfriend, poke around the edges of the subject a bit. You’re going to need a working knowledge of how people communicate in general, and how your girl communicates specifically to make this work. Also, don’t try this right away in a relationship, for many reasons.
      While you are laying in bed, hopefully sweaty and smiling after some mutually satisfying slap-and-tickle, float something out there about not being attracted to promiscuous women. Seriously, bring the Madonna-Whore thing up, then preemptively absolve her of it. Pay very, very close attention to her (without seeming to) once she realizes what you’re talking about.

      A girl who is convinced she’s not promiscuous will sigh, relax, and settle in to you. She’ll be happy that you both agree, and that you find value in her.

      A formerly promiscuous girl will stiffen briefly or close off her body language. She realizes she’s disqualified if you ever find out the truth, and is now stressed. Typically, she’s deciding if it’s possible to maintain the lie, or if you’re attractive enough to be worth that effort. What she says after 30 seconds (it’ll be questioning your definition of promiscuity, though probably in an oblique way) isn’t as important as what she did right after you said it – she’s already given you a big red flag. There are reasons she may do this other than promiscuity, like virginity and abuse (not conflating the two, just listing) so you’ll have to take it in context with everything else.

      A very confident promiscuous woman will tease, then argue with you about your statement. Typically, the phrases “Not fair”, “made me what I am today”, and “you sure seem to like what I learned in college” will come out. She’s been promiscuous, doesn’t have a problem with it, and is now judging you for your preference. That’s fine, and eminently fair. It’s a two-way street, after all.

      Those are a few things you can do to screen for “good” girls. All this comes with a few caveats:

      You’d better have your shit together. Seriously.

      You aren’t going to luck into, and subsequently keep, an excellent girl if you’re fat, stupid, broke, directionless, and undisciplined. Sure, you might Game one of them for awhile, but long term? No way, Jose. There are thousands of guys like me out there, and sooner or later “your” girl is gonna meet one of ‘em.

      Girls like the ones I’m describing, who also happen to be attractive, fun, smart, and single are very high-value. Odds are, she’ll have pretty high standards for any man she chooses to be involved with. Hell, I’m over six feet tall, reasonably good looking, kind to children and animals because I like to be, funny (if you don’t mind a dark sense of humor), smart, on a good career path, a decorated combat vet, in shape – and I don’t measure up sometimes. That’s life.

      It’s been a good thing in the long term, because it’s forced me to be the best man I can be. I like being around excellent people. To achieve this, I have to become excellent myself.

      It’s also tempting to fall into the “I deserve” mentality. You do all this work on yourself, put a lot of effort and time into this area of your life, and now you want something from it. That is the wrong mentality. If you do meet someone worthwhile, it’ll be a transactional relationship. That sucks – a little for you, and a lot for the other person. High value folks won’t take that for very long.

      Instead, look for women worthy of respect, and be someone they can respect (with Game always in mind) in turn. It is a mutual, symbiotic relationship. You and her will create something greater than the sum of it’s parts. That is beautiful and good.

      Last thing -

      Men have hamsters, too. It’s easy to allow yourself to get snowed by a great ass, or pretty smile. Without discipline, self confidence, and self knowledge, you can get stuck in a relationship you don’t really want because you think it’s the best you can get. If you’re willing to be a lotus-eater, more power to you. I don’t think that’s a recipe for long-term happiness, though.

      Punch out and go looking for someone better. Have a few girls in mind, especially at the beginning of a relationship.
      Learn people. Pay attention. Act on your information. Choose to be happy.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Saywhaat

    That…doesn’t make sense to me. The way I see it, if you remove the base biological desires of hypergamy/variety, people would just be…asexual. Or, we as a species would simply sputter out — we would have women and men mating with the mentally-disabled, inbreeding, etc. There would be no evolutionary success for our species because people would have no motivation to mate with better prospects.

    I agree with you Saywhaat.

    I don’t see how people can say they want the desires of hypergamy and sexual variety to be eradicated from human nature. It’s those two natures that allowed humans to evolve so efficiently in the first place.

    If women didn’t select the best mate that they could get, the evolutionary process would have been much slower. The selection of evolutionary good traits (intelligence, physical attractiveness, etc) would have been coincidental instead of intentional. Humans would be fairly mediocre, in my opinion, if human females didn’t strive to get good quality males and good quality sperm.

    The same is the case for sexual variety. If men didn’t value different types of women and characteristics, our species wouldn’t be as varied as it is. There would probably be less genetic diversity, which would probably be the downfall for the entire species. Without genetic diversity, diseases and natural disasters would wipe out catastrophic amounts of humans. If everyone was similar, and everyone had relatively the same immune system, one very well mutated form of bacteria or virus would do us in. It’s genetic variations and mutations in our genomes that have allowed people to survive this long in the first place.

  • deti

    Lokland, SW:

    “inspiration, longing, obsession, desire, joy, euphoria, anxiety, pain, fear, elation, investment, jealousy, curiosity, optimism.”

    I’ve felt all these things. It’s when you start showing them to your woman that they become detrimental. Many women (NOT ALL) can’t handle a man being overly emotional — overly happy, sad, anxious or in pain.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Susan/friction…there’s an old SF book about a comet that passes near earth and its tail includes a substance which increases friction so greatly that all mechanical devices cease to work and civilization is destroyed.

    It strikes me that if there were a substance in the comet’s tail that *totally eliminated* friction, it would have the same destructive effect….clutches wouldn’t work, belt drives wouldn’t work, tires wouldn’t grip the road, etc etc.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    There is a difference. And yes its within the context of a relationship.
    Which is not what you were talking about.

    You said the intial stages of attraction.
    I’ve never felt any of those things. My sole directive was to find a vagina capable of child bearing.
    All that other nonsense came much later. (as in >6 months, of course when I was still very low beta I was more like what you describe.)

    TMI time.

    My fiance is the only woman who has ever made me moan during sex. It started after doing a year of LD (serious LD, none of this across the country crap) and we met up in her hometown. Emotional connection was probably more important then.

    inspiration- this is not unique to one woman
    longing- no
    obsession- maybe as a virgin
    desire- not unique
    joy- only when I’m finished
    euphoria- see above
    anxiety- why, one didn’t work out. Only 3,499,999,999 more to go,
    pain- I hope not
    fear- this only comes later
    elation- no
    investment,- definetely no
    jealousy- yes. This is an every situation case.
    curiosity- Yes.
    optimism- No.

    “mean doing calculus proofs.”

    Ohh no… I seem to be hot and bothered.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      I understand what you are saying. I’m sure men experience it differently. Focusing on the initial stages of attraction, weren’t you more excited if the vagina was not just capable of child-bearing, but honing in on your penis to get the job done? IOW, the exchange of mutual attraction creates energy. And I am simply using the word friction to describe it. You could say combustion or some other word to describe it. My point is that your going after any and all vaginas is part of what made you exciting to your fiancee, who ideally secured commitment from you before having sex. Her wanting the best man possible and selecting you made you feel incredible – I recall you saying it’s like walking around on a cloud 24/7.

      Without hypergamy and male sexuality, neither of those things could happen.

  • Lokland

    And I really need another coffee. That writing was atrocious.
    If it needs clarification just ask.

  • Thoth

    “do men have no variation in the intensity of their orgasms as a result of emotional depth and connection?”

    Technically, it probably does happen: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/07/08/sperm-attractiveness.html
    Although it seems to have more to do with hotness than emotional attachment.

    But speaking from personal experience, the difference is negligible. Personally I’ve always found it to be much more dependent on proper physical stimulation. Women need a fair amount of practice too, though it doesn’t have to be with multiple partners. :)

  • Courtley

    @ Deti

    I think much of what you wrote are at least somewhat accurate for what I’d say the commitment-minded women I know desire in a man, or value about their significant other–the gist of it anyway, obviously without your added underlying emphasis on perceived female privilege. Non-spoiled, sensible women don’t want an all-about-meeeee relationship. But the ideas of romance, thoughtfulness, sharing your emotions and dreams, etc. sounds bang-on to me. You could probably describe these women as the type who are at least somewhat biologically wired to be attracted to faithful “beta” characteristics in men.

    @Lokland, do you not notice any difference women’s personalities? Are you just seeing one collective giggly mysterious female personality? How do you personally assess women’s character? And, also, what’s your age range/the age range of girls you spend time around?

  • Benton

    “we have exalted personal sexual initiative to one of the most ultimate human freedoms”

    Instead of looking at the society level, it is more important to look at that one person at a time. Some people are always going to act on personal sexual initiative regardless of the consequences, so it is best to avoid those people. Everyone else will be tempted to act on them, but they ultimately will choose what they will do (it’s called free will and individual responsibility, people). A spouse can reduce these temptations through their behaviors, but no one can make them disappear completely.

    It is all about finding people who are mature and committed enough both to avoid temptation themselves, and also reduce the temptation for their spouse. Fortunately, both of those things are usually self-reinforcing. Unfortunately, most of us are not great at realizing how to do that. That is why “red pill wisdom,” by itself, is not the only answer. It must be accompanied by maturity and self-restraint in both of the partners.

    I think that all successful couples understand this naturally, but failing couples don’t understand it at all. That is why websites like HUS and MMSL are so valuable- they give the rest of us a clue of what we can do!

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan
    My fault, I didn’t write that the way I meant to… I actually meant that yes, most guys don’t enjoy friction in the initial stages of the relationship. “The Chase” as it’s so often called.

    I think this idea that guys enjoy “The Chase” is mostly projection on the part of girls. It’s well documented that they girls the emotional roller coaster. They love the ups and downs and unexpected nature of new relationships. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But most guys don’t.

    Other than the borderline sociopathic alphas I’ve known, most guys would rather just “get the girl and get on with life.”

    Boring? Sure. But that’s beta in a nutshell. Dependable and borderline boring.

  • deti

    Courtley 336:

    This is going to sound really cynical. But — Are you serious?

    Please tell me you’re not serious.

    I wrote that comment at 322 as exactly what NOT to do when attracting women. My point was that I got exactly the wrong advice on how to attract and date women. I was doing everything wrong but I was doing it that way because my parents, pastors, teachers, SCout leaders, etc. were telling me to do it that way. And when it failed (as it was destined to fail), I was just told that it must have been because I was not nice enough and that I needed to be nicer.

    I learned more about women in a year in the manosphere than I had learned in the previous 30 years from my parents, pastors, teachers, and from trial and error.

    I think you’re wrong about a man showing immediate signs of commitment by spilling his guts about himself. Men just cannot do that if they want their women to be attracted. It kills attraction.

  • Thoth

    @Courtley
    “I think much of what you wrote are at least somewhat accurate for what I’d say the commitment-minded women I know desire in a man”

    Absolutely. Every woman deserves a beta chump after her exhilarating ride on the carousel.

  • Alias

    Susan:
    “FWIW, I know several Game bloggers who have admitted to cold or even hateful relationships with their mothers. I would be amazed to find a single practitioner of Dark Game who had healthy relationships anywhere, including with family.”
    ———-
    If you’re referring to dark triads:
    Ironic, in my experience, dark triads tend to actually be mollycoddled by family, especially their mothers. My suspicions are that some are like that due to biochemical imbalances + the absence of a very firm hand.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Alias

      Ironic, in my experience, dark triads tend to actually be mollycoddled by family, especially their mothers. My suspicions are that some are like that due to biochemical imbalances + the absence of a very firm hand.

      I’ve read that many narcissists experienced insecure attachment in childhood. Their NPD is in fact an attachment disorder. But I think you’re right – we can pump our kids up so drastically with delusions of grandeur that they can reach the same place. I’m thinking of a couple of people who have openly stated that they have a cold, even hateful relationship with their mothers. Their dark views of women are probably just a subset of their generally dark views about everything.

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        Going through all my files and clippings, I came across this old quote from Roissy, which is relevant here:

        Some men, particularly the ones most desired by women, are devoid of the moral sense, or sustain a cartoonish, wilted version of it, and can live side by side with lies and not give it a moment’s doubt or self-reflection.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Just coming back from a nice weekend. I see we’re back to debating female nature. :P

    Lokland, how are you beta if your count is higher than 40? You gave the impression that you and your fiance had similar past partner counts.

    Courtley, I agree that the show doesn’t represent all of us 20-somethings. But my life would be too boring to last more than an episode. Also, I’m the token Asian good with computers and Photoshop. :<

    Anacaona and Kathy, I agree with the certainty of love from the man, but I had lots of uncertainty with regard to circumstances. We were long distance, and I was moving several states away, quitting my job and starting over with no friends or acquaintances to be with him. He had to make me totally comfortable with the idea first, because it was definitely scary.

    deti, my husband did most of the things on that list, and he was unsuccessful with most other girls, but quite successful with me. In particular the open about emotions and telling everything about himself part got him friendzoned with other girls but total devotion from me. I think it's a matter of numbers. There are way more girls who don't want that than do, so the manosphere advice is better for the average guy catching the average girl.

  • deti

    Hope:

    Then you’re an outlier. I have not met a single woman — including my wife and my mother — who wanted to hear me talk about my feelings. Not one. None of my past GFs either. They were either repulsed, or disgusted, or creeped out, or (in the case of my wife) mildly irritated.

    “I’m not your therapist.”
    “If you need to talk about your feelings, get with some guys from church.”

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    deti, my husband and I are both INFJ, which you are right is outlier territory (estimated 1-3% of the population). If we don’t talk about our feelings with each other we feel disconnected and lonely.

    As I recall you’re an NT? Could it be the women you know are SJ or SP types? As an NF, I’ve had fruitful discussions about feelings with NTs.

  • Thoth

    “in my experience, dark triads tend to actually be mollycoddled by family, especially their mothers. My suspicions are that some are like that due to biochemical imbalances + the absence of a very firm hand.”

    Possibly. Sociopaths, bullies, narcissists are known to have very high levels of self-esteem. That may be caused by everyone telling them how wonderful they are while growing up.

    I have a niece who is coddled by most people in my extended family. She is an unbearable, entitled brat.

  • Ted D

    Deti – “So that’s what I was told. ”

    That was exactly the same “instruction” I was given as a boy and young man. It sometimes amazes me that my marriage lasted 12 years with all that nonsense knocking around my head.

    Susan – I know I am not even close to representative of the average man, but I do indeed derive great pleasure from emotional intensity during sex. Sex with my SO is always good, but sometimes a massive dose of emotion can really take things to another level. Of course there is “make up sex”, but we’ve also had “the car needs $1500 in repairs stress” sex, “I got a great bonus at work so we can live it up on vacation” sex, I can go on and on, but the point is that at least for me any increase in emotion between us often results in mind blowing sex.

    And as a guy that has never had a ONS or casual sex buddy, every one of my sexual experiences has had some level of emotion and connection. I honestly can’t say how much better emotional investment makes sex, but I can tell you that damn good sex with SOME emotional investment can be turned into something stellar with a heavy dose of emotional tension or friction (positive or negative). To me, this means casual sex must be about as fulfilling as a saltine cracker to a starving man.

    Of course, I would never blame a starving man for gorging himself on saltines…

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Susan

    For me the most important sex organ has always been the brain, and I don’t mean doing calculus proofs.

    It really is different for men, Susan. The vocabulary is much different and, truth be told, it’s an experience that is not expressed in words. There is *no* vocabulary.

    The best I can do is tell you that it’s almost the opposite of what I’ve copied above (and I don’t mean been doing calculus proofs either). It’s almost like turning your brain completely off and experiencing almost nothing but sensory input. No words, no thoughts, just images, sounds and sensations.

  • http://www.lifetheroughdraft.squarespace.com Rone

    Cosign to Jimmy on the “friction” angle. I find this to be a very important part of building sexual tension in a relationship. It’s something a man must learn and know how to manufacture to keep things sexy.

    It’s not friction in the sense of “Will he still be here next week?” or “Does he still love me?” That’s bad friction.

    It’s more along the lines of playful butting of heads, challenging and teasing, knowing how “rough” to be at the appropriate time. The flirting could be in the form of a challenge or a purposeful, playful comment or action to put her “in her place” and exert your caveman dominance, i.e. the tried and true swat on the ass.

    Nurturing and stability has is key, but I believe a man has to always have a raw side to keep up the “come get it” and “I bet you can’t handle this ;)” dynamic. If you’re super cuddly guy and she just KNOWS she has you wrapped around her finger, well there’s just no fun in that. Gotta learn how to keep that push/pull chase going while having it understood that you’re not some jerk on the street.

  • Tom

    @ susan
    As someone who’s been happily married for 27 years without a single harem or hypergamy crisis, I think it’s all about carefully selecting a partner, giving and receiving generously, getting creative and practicing gratitude. It’s also about embracing the idea of constant self-development, avoiding complacency and deterioration as much as possible.”
    _________________
    Exactly!…This may not apply to you, but it might. Some people wonder if they missed out on anything by having only one or two lovers before marriage. People with a little experience do know and understand it is the emotional connection that is what really counts. No need to wonder about what they missed, they have been there, done that and hopefully learned from their experiences… Someone mentioned 3-1 ratio of good girl to slut behavior.. Boy are they hanging out with the wild ones. Most stats say only about 5% or less are showing slutty behavior.
    This was a well written article. It supports my contention all along that both men and women ARE conscience thinking people, for the most part, and that past behavior is NOT a good predictor of future behavior, for MOST people. For the exotic animal woman who thinks with her vagina, sure, but she is to be avoided if one is looking for a relationship. Not all promiscuous people go about it in a destructive or harmful, thoughtless way. Most I have encountered are discerning, picky, level headed and responsible with their actions. The true exotic animal sluts, in my opinion are pretty easy to pick out of a crowd.
    Obviously not everyone is OK with their potential mate having experienced others sexually. That`s A-OK. But as Athol relates, not all women are the exotic animal types who follow their instincts only.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Boring? Sure. But that’s beta in a nutshell. Dependable and borderline boring.

    Boringness is relative I must add. I find my reliable beta husband a thousand times more entertaining that all my promiscuous friends whose only theme was “women” and “sex”. Even the writers couldn’t talk about anything without mentioning some writer sexual description or sexual life. It was a one track minded and yes they called me boring for wanting to discuss different things and not look at every human as walking genitals, so boring beta is a very first world thing spent some times with men that love banging more than breathing and see how boring they can be, YMMV.

  • Alias

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

    Many students remain in their home state because of financial/personal reasons and the majority of the undergrad kids are single and available. So, very many college kids are missing out on one of the best opportunities to find someone they’re compatible with.

    I’m speaking as someone who attended school full-time, worked 30 hrs/week, lived independently, kept a bf throughout college (now my husband), and even managed some extra-curriculars- as did many other people I know. Even the ones who graduated cum laude managed a similar schedule. It’s doable.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    It’s doable.

    But is cool? Desirable? What the popular kids are doing in mass? There is your answer as to why its not the mindset few modern kids want to be the first of their group to marry or be the one that marry their first boyfriend. That is for religious freaks, unambitious women and losers!

  • Alias

    Susan:
    “I’ve read that many narcissists experienced insecure attachment in childhood. Their NPD is in fact an attachment disorder.”
    ————

    Yes, it is a detachment disorder. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s due to the parent. Some infants/toddlers with disorders actually pull away and don’t like to be carried. IOW, the child lacks the ability to attach. It’s actually a sign for parents that something might be amiss.

    Narcissists can have a superficial connections to their family members, but the don’t feel deeply for anyone. That’s what I’m saying- they’re not necessarily at odds with family members and don’t have to be abused.

    Now, I’m not arguing that some dark gamers don’t have abusive relationships with their mothers, I’m just saying that many of the ones I know don’t. I don’t want people to think that’s always the case.
    I wonder if JesusM is reading and can share what the relationship was between his mother relationship to his DT brother.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    I wonder how much mothers influence sons in regard to attachment styles and whether or not they’ll turn out to have “dark triad” traits. I remember a series of posts by Ricky Raw at The Rawness on this subject.

    My husband’s mother is also INFJ, and she was the closest female figure to my husband for a long time. He was able to talk about feelings and emotions with her, as well as ideas and philosophy. It makes sense he would look for the same in a woman.

  • Lokland

    @Hope

    “Lokland, how are you beta if your count is higher than 40? You gave the impression that you and your fiance had similar past partner counts.”

    Alpha has nothing to do with getting your penis wet.
    Alpha is the leader, the god among men. Its the guy whose very presense doesn’t just catch female attention but gathers the hearts of other men to follow him. For good or evil. I’ve only ever encountered one and my immediate instinct was to begin following where was irrelevant.

    I have no desire to lead anyone but myself. (And my fiance and children but that should be implied. And possibly the people who work for me but I have no delusions that their dreams do not revolve around mine.)

    As for misleading on my count. My mistake.

    @Susan

    “weren’t you more excited if the vagina was not just capable of child-bearing, but honing in on your penis to get the job done?”

    No. The honing on my penis bit was more like a requirement to even be acknowledged.
    To put it really cynically. A women who doesn’t show enough interest is more useless to me than a slut. Atleast the slut is good for sex.

    And yes, knowing my fiance is dedicated to me is like walking on a cloud. But that didn’t matter to me or even register in my thought/feelings until I devoted myself to her. Which took ~6 months. I promised her exclusivity before that but that was merely delving into a good prospect not any type of I wuv u 4ever statement.

    I didn’t feel much of anything until much later in the relationship. The intial stages were mechanical steps involved in finding the right person to devote myself too.

  • Alias

    Susan,

    Re: attachment disorders
    Children can become attached to abusive/neglectful parents, and most often do. In order for a child to form a secure attachment to their parents, it must be 2-way. Both parent and child must have the capacity.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Wow that comment by Dogsquat needs to go up as a post and be bookmarked in the Best of HUS section. Really good advice.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Lokland, I see. You’re using a stricter definition of alpha. I guess this shows how assumptions can be so off.

    Interesting that it took you 6 months to reciprocate your fiance’s feelings. My husband and I fell in love within two weeks (before we got physical). Different couples are definitely different!

  • Mule Chewing Briars

    I think that the masculinist commentators are facing some of the same challenges that feminism experienced early on; it is impossible to weave an ideology into a tent large enough to cover every misbehavior committed by members of one sex against members of the other.

    Watching my two older kids navigate the minefield has left me awestruck at just how ideology-ridden the SMP has become even in the last twenty years. Even though the last two relationship crises in our household (my son with a long distance relationship that couldn’t hold up because of the mileage, and my daughter breaking up with a “Him Kardashian” because of his stultifying self-absorption) could have happened to anyone since Adam and Eve, they were all minutely dissected according to the sexual orthodoxies in place among their peers.

  • Alias

    Sorry for posting this in installments. ha

    Susan,
    You’ve written many times that the number of narcissists has increased because our culture is permissive and indulgent. If we were living under stringent social and cultural mores, the number of narcissists will decrease.
    This is similar to what I’ve seen in narcissists. Their families coddle them.

  • Tom

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

    There are a lot of guys out there who would give their left nuts to be a cock on the carousel.
    ____________
    Then there are those of us who were a cock on the carousel and understand it is a lonly, shallow way of life when compared to a great relationship.. There are women who have also had similar experiences.

  • J

    OT, but interesting

    I saw E.L.James on “Access Hollywood” over the weekend. She was asked why she chose to make the hero so “dominant” and if she thought men like that were really so attractive to women. She laughed and ansewered, “On paper, yes.” She added that IRL women like men who will help with the dishes. I though that was really revealing that she admitted in essence that there’s a huge difference between fantasy and reality and that even she knew where to draw the line.

    I was oddly charmed by her. The photo is SW’s post is clearly a “glamour shot.” E.L. is an overweight, middel-aged hausfrau who is aging Britishly, but she looks like she’s be a hell of a lot of fun to hang out with. She laughed through the whole interview and acknowledged that she was a lousy writer and had no idea how she became so successsful. She exhibited a lot of gratitiude to whatever providence awarded her book and movie contracts worth millions, seemed to be enjoying what she deemed as unmerited good fortune and said that she planned to use some of the money to remodel her kitchen. I got a kick out of her.

    Also, I wasn’t on the net over the weekend, but just I answered some posts addressed to me on the Girls thread in case people were expecting responses from me.

  • Lokland

    @Hope

    I take a long time to trust people and that applies to everybody.

    And yes my defintion of alpha is very strict.
    I tend to use the short-hand version we do here for discussions sake but thats not my personal defintion.

    To make it more clear. I believe being an alpha (my defintion) will let you get your dick wet. I also believe there are other ways to get your dick wet but those don’t make you a leader.

    PUA reverse cause and effect. Being an alpha gets you laid (though its not the only way). Getting laid does not make the man an alpha. It might make him appear alpha to women but they don’t determine the hierarchy they just want what men determine to be the best.
    (The slight exclusion to this is the gaining of hierachal status by getting the hot women. However this doesn’t exist nearly as much anymore.)

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Interesting that it took you 6 months to reciprocate your fiance’s feelings. My husband and I fell in love within two weeks (before we got physical). Different couples are definitely different!

    It took me around that time to get to fall in love with my husband too. But that is usually my threshold with people in general in six month I can tell how our relationship is going to be for the rest of our natural lives , hubby tells me he had strong feeling but he wasn’t properly hooked till after the end of the first trip, of course it most be six months of constant and regular contact. My best friend that is like a sister to me and I shared a class on college but she was busy being pregnant with her first child and I was too “tomboyish” and with too many classes per day for us to talk more than once or twice we didn’t register in each others radars back then. Then two years later when we were doing the thesis after more or less six months of time sharing we “fell in friendship” and never stopped we had been friends for almost twelve years now. :)

  • Alias

    deti:
    “There are a lot of guys out there who would give their left nuts to be a cock on the carousel.”
    ——–
    If carousel = lots of casual sex, then it’s important that relationship oriented people who aren’t into casual avoid both those who enjoy being on the carousel and all of the wannabes.

  • Tom

    susan.
    It’s about timing – if you show attachment before attraction has been confirmed, it’s unattractive. If you generate attraction, but never move toward attachment, it’s also unattractive
    __________
    Perfectly put. A very easy concept to understand, but some of my friends just dont get it. It works both ways. No one likes the air of desperation in either gender, and a relationship seeker does not appreciate a person who is totally noncommittal(especially after they say they were)

  • Tom

    The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.
    ___________
    This has basically been done by the couple participants themselves in most successful relationships.. Their love for one another trumps biological desires of variety and hypergamy. At least those desires are normally buried very deep.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      This has basically been done by the couple participants themselves in most successful relationships.. Their love for one another trumps biological desires of variety and hypergamy

      Great point, Tom! This is essentially what Athol said in his post as well. We need those forces to optimize selection, and then we can set them aside. I think this is exactly what successful couples do. It promotes stability and satisfaction within relationships. Those who continue to indulge these drives, even in fantasy, are probably much likelier to be dissatisfied with their partner over time as the novelty wears off.

  • Stingray

    Hey Ted. I hope this finds you well.

  • Stingray

    I believe there are blogs where it is more appropriate for MEN to engage other MEN in unfiltered, uncensored conversation where they can let “it all hang out”.

    Obviously Susan, I agree with Mike C. on this. Men need to take a topic to the Nth degree to fully understand it. They will not mince words as it will blur the objective. If the objective is to understand women then it has to all hang out and it will be talked about in a general manner as the time wasted to keep saying this is a generalization is simply tedious. In someone else’s house (blog) this is acceptable and even necessary for the discussion. For your house, you have made it obvious that this is a blog directed at women and it is unacceptable. The Nth degree, as regards women, is going to be different from woman to woman and lie, as everything else discussed here, on a sliding scale.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stingray

      I believe there are blogs where it is more appropriate for MEN to engage other MEN in unfiltered, uncensored conversation where they can let “it all hang out”.

      Obviously Susan, I agree with Mike C. on this. Men need to take a topic to the Nth degree to fully understand it.

      I don’t disagree with that at all. I do find it amusing that you are often the only female present for those conversations. :)

      In any case, I absolutely do insist that both misogyny and misandry are filtered out of conversation here. Reports of this debate being hostile were premature, though, as you can see. This thread has been civil, informative and engaging from my POV.

      In someone else’s house (blog) this is acceptable and even necessary for the discussion. For your house, you have made it obvious that this is a blog directed at women and it is unacceptable.

      I have zero interest in what gets said on other blogs unless I am specifically referenced, quoted, or vilified. Even then, as you know, I would rather live in blissful ignorance, since catty name-calling and jealous (male) bitches are what I find tedious. In the specific instance I was referring to, Mike C specifically advised Ted not to bring his relationship conversation to HUS anymore. (Actually, he said, “you know where I mean.”) Unfortunately, this was emailed to me by a reader – it is very difficult to escape the hate even when I decide to avoid looking. This morning another reader clued me in to more haterade from Dalrock and his followers. When people offer their opinions online, it’s bound to get out one way or another.

      What I do care about is two-faced behavior. If one doesn’t support my mission, and does not consider HUS a good place to discuss relationships, one shouldn’t be here at all. It’s entirely disingenuous to come here and pretend you’re not dissing HUS elsewhere.

      I’ve made a choice that HUS will be a place for people who share the same values and goals in the SMP. We will disagree and debate many topics here, but I won’t allow anyone to hang out here and destroy what I and many others have built over time.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Jimmy Hendricks

    “I think this idea that guys enjoy “The Chase” is mostly projection on the part of girls. ”

    +1.
    There are some guys who like the “chase”. These are usually the cads and related figures. Your average beta doesn’t want that drama.

    “Other than the borderline sociopathic alphas I’ve known, most guys would rather just “get the girl and get on with life.”
    Boring? Sure. But that’s beta in a nutshell. Dependable and borderline boring.”

    Yeah. Can’t argue with this.

    Unfortunately, “the chase” is something most every guy will need to deal with. That’s the burden of being the gender that’s expected to act first. You’ll never see any significant number of women be the “initiators” (though they can improve their “invitation” skills).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      In talking about the friction, or energy created by mutual attraction, I’m not talking about a chase, being hard to get, or any other kind of manipulation of another person. I’m talking about the limerence stage of attraction (from Wikipedia):

      Attachment theory emphasises that “many of the most intense emotions arise during the formation, the maintenance, the disruption, and the renewal of attachment relationships”. It has been suggested that “the state of limerence is the conscious experience of sexual incentive motivation” during attachment formation: “a kind of subjective experience of sexual incentive motivation” during the “intensive…pair-forming stage” of human affectional bonding.

      Limerence is considered as a cognitive and emotional state of being emotionally attached or even obsessed with another person, typically experienced involuntarily and characterized by a strong desire for reciprocation of one’s feelings – a near-obsessive form of romantic love. For Tennov, ‘sexual attraction is an essential component of limerence…the limerent is a potential sex partner’.

      Limerence is sometimes also interpreted as infatuation, or what is colloquially known as a crush; but in common speech, infatuation includes aspects of immaturity and extrapolation from insufficient information, and is usually short-lived. ‘Tennov notes how limerence may dissolve soon after its initiation, as in an early teenage buzz-centered crush’

      Limerence is characterized by intrusive thinking and pronounced sensitivity to external events that reflect the disposition of the limerent object towards the individual, and can be experienced as intense joy or as extreme despair, depending on whether the feelings are reciprocated. Basically, it is the state of being completely carried away by unreasoned passion or love, even to the point of addictive-type behavior. Usually, one is inspired with an intense passion or admiration for someone. Limerence can be difficult to understand for those who have never experienced it, and it is thus often dismissed by nonlimerents as ridiculous fantasy or a construct of romantic fiction.

      I guess not everyone has this experience, but I know that some men do, and I very much felt this way about my husband.

  • J

    Two for the no DRAMA! Please club

    Three. DH and I purposely selected each other for no drama.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    “No woman would feel special or chosen. . . . Therefore, getting a man to commit would be no achievement at all, and would therefore have little value.”

    I’m in complete agreement with Anacaona – I don’t see marriage as some sort of victory, I see it as being able grow oldwithout being lonely. (while sharing a bunch of lovely experience)

    You’re statement that women require friction further instills my belief that women don’t want a man willing to commit – they want one unwilling, to commit. Thus rendering the men who are willing to provide want women say they truly want as valueless.
    If I reliquish my desire for variety, which I believe a lot of men now-a-days have done to appease womens’ desire for monogamous-commitment, I’ve essentially rendered myself as valueless.

    To reference HBO: Girls, women do truly prefer a guy who “can afford to treat [them] poorly.”

    I want to believe otherwise, but isn’t coming easy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Cooper

      Please see my comment about limerence.

      I guess what I’m saying is that I believe if you remove the biological imperative from women and men, which is what hypergamy and variety represent, we wouldn’t have any more limerence.

  • Cooper

    Susan, I just want to say that I think HUS is a wonderful blog, despite me thinking of the facts and conclusions of todays’ SMP are hard to swallow.

    And whether it’s hard to believe or not, I actually don’t frequent a single other blog related to dating.

    Not saying that sometimes I think I may be limiting my learning by exclusively viewing a blog written towards women.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Cooper

      Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate them very much.

      And whether it’s hard to believe or not, I actually don’t frequent a single other blog related to dating.

      Not saying that sometimes I think I may be limiting my learning by exclusively viewing a blog written towards women.

      I actually encourage you to look around at other blogs. You can certainly learn different things at an all-male blog than you will here, and the emphasis will naturally differ.

      My only advice in reading any relationship or SMP blog is to ignore any blogger who doesn’t have what you want. Every blogger describes his or her life in some detail. If that’s a life you’d like to have, that’s a blogger you should be reading.

      I trust that this advice alone is enough to keep the readers I care about away from “dark Game” blogs, as the relationships those people describe sound positively dysfunctional and dreadful.

  • Cooper

    @Susan

    Has a man that seeks a monogamous-relationship reliquished his biological imperative, thus forfeiting any potential for limerence (from a women)?

    Must a man have an apparent choice of variety of women in order to obtain limerence from another?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Cooper

      Must a man have an apparent choice of variety of women in order to obtain limerence from another?

      Well, that’s preselection and it helps. Remember, you are the prize. You need to qualify a woman who is worthy of you. I know that’s hard to accept when you don’t feel that you really do have options, which is why the self-development that Dogsquat talks about is so important.

      That frame of self-worth and self-respect conveys that you feel confident that you have options. This is necessary.

  • Cooper

    Furthermore, is it my goal of seeking*one* that has hindered me from finding any?

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan, I definitely had the limerance stage with my husband, and he was the same way at the same time.

    I think what men want to avoid is having one-sided limerance for a female, or “unrequited oneitis,” because that is generally a recipe for disaster.

    Cooper, your problem is the same one my husband had. Most of the girls who respond well to the monogamy-seeking male are already in a relationship. The few who are single are not single for long.

    I would second other posters’ suggestions to expand your social circle and be generally in contact with more potential females on your own, as opposed to being in the same group you are in now that has brought no success.

  • Mike C

    I have zero interest in what gets said on other blogs unless I am specifically referenced, quoted, or vilified. Even then, as you know, I would rather live in blissful ignorance, since catty name-calling and jealous (male) bitches are what I find tedious. In the specific instance I was referring to, Mike C specifically advised Ted not to bring his relationship conversation to HUS anymore. (Actually, he said, “you know where I mean.”) Unfortunately, this was emailed to me by a reader – it is very difficult to escape the hate even when I decide to avoid looking.

    Since once again I’m specifically mentioned I feel the need to respond. This sort of thing really disappoints me. Especially the hyperbole about “hate”. I’ve tried to be respectful of what conversation you do not want here, and now you are going to get pissed off about conversation elsewhere. No, I don’t think Ted should be trying to figure stuff out on conversations here, or at least using it as his primary source, but he is a big boy and can decide what he wants. I’d say alot more, but it is probably best left for e-mail if you want to e-mail me.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      For the benefit of other readers, let me be clear. You have every right to say whatever you think at other blogs. Feel free to talk shit about me wherever you like. But you can’t play both sides.

      As for disappointment, you have no idea.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    “I actually encourage you to look around at other blogs.”

    I knew you’d say this, but as I’m sure you know the PUA-advice can be hard to swallow as the best of times. (hense the pill analogy)

    “My only advice in reading any relationship or SMP blog is to ignore any blogger who doesn’t have what you want”

    And well, sometimes I feel that PUA-advice is completely void of what I seek – that being love, of course.
    That being said, a guy will always choose what works over anything, so I can’t say I completely dismiss it entirely.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “If one doesn’t support my mission, and does not consider HUS a good place to discuss relationships, one shouldn’t be here at all.”

    That’s a breath of fresh air to read. Not sure how many here are on your side. You should have regulars sign an oath to that effect : )

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Megaman

      That’s a breath of fresh air to read. Not sure how many here are on your side. You should have regulars sign an oath to that effect : )

      Apparently there are commenters bitching at Dalrock’s that I told them to get lost because I didn’t like their insults. I find that hilarious. I guess they thought they were negging me. :)

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Cooper, my husband looked at the PUA stuff back in college, tried it, and realized it wasn’t for him. But he did internalize some of the core concepts like inner game, confidence, authenticity, get in the mentality that you’re the prize and the one choosing/filtering females, and going after what you want.

    Here’s a great article from Post Masculine about the intersection of PUA concepts and male self-development:

    http://postmasculine.com/a-new-masculinity

    It’s also relevant to this topic in general. The author does not “hate” women, and he does not blindly follow the PUA community. Instead he offers a new solution.

  • Stingray

    As I was part of that conversation with Mike C and Ted, I did not detect any “hate” from Mike at all. All I got was that Ted was understanding more there and that it might be a better place for him to ingest what he was wanting to learn. Again, the men there need to understand things on a different level and from a different perspective than what you are offering here. What you are offering here is for women and comes from that perspective. That often means leaving the mens perspective out or at the very least offering it in a way that the younger women can begin to understand it.

    No, I don’t think Ted should be trying to figure stuff out on conversations here, or at least using it as his primary source,

    Given what your objective it here and what Ted was trying to figure out, I fully agree with this statement.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      As I was part of that conversation with Mike C and Ted, I did not detect any “hate” from Mike at all

      In saying this:

      Unfortunately, this was emailed to me by a reader – it is very difficult to escape the hate even when I decide to avoid looking.

      I was referring to a recent conversation you and I had here. You asked me why I still read Rollo’s blog, and I expressed that I’d rather not know what goes on there, as he rarely writes without finding a way to slander HUS. No sooner had I said that, when I started hearing about convos there from others. My readers consider it a service to me – they want me to know what’s being said, so I can respond. And it is a service, as I feel like a fool now. In any case, I do not consider Mike’s remark hate.

      Frankly I feel that Ted has extracted every bit of insight he could here, and will undoubtedly be happier in less depleted soil. I hope he finds a way to get that red pill down, and wish him all the best.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Here’s a great 3-part series on emotional needs from the same author (Mark Manson), which is quite relevant to the discussion at hand.

    http://postmasculine.com/emotional-needs-part-3 (this is part 3 and has links to part 1 and 2).

    So if you feel like all women are untrustworthy
    bitches, and you feel like you find evidence for this
    in all of your interactions and everywhere you
    look, then chances are you have some deep anger
    towards women as well as fear of intimacy, and
    meanwhile your brain is consciously looking for
    and finding reasons to justify this anger in the real
    world.

    I check this blog quite a lot because the writing is fantastic, and there are some solid theories about psychology and culture.

    If you come away from reading an article feeling despair, negativity, hatred or self-pity, that’s not good. Mark Manson’s articles make one feel empowered, more knowlegeable and with better understanding. That’s value-added for the manosphere (though, he’s more or less on the periphery of this part of it, as I don’t recognize any of his links).

  • BroHamlet

    @Cooper

    And well, sometimes I feel that PUA-advice is completely void of what I seek – that being love, of course.
    That being said, a guy will always choose what works over anything, so I can’t say I completely dismiss it entirely.

    PUA seems void of what you seek because PUA is just a means to an end, whether what you want is just ass, or love, or anything in between. The tactics work, no doubt. But I’ll tell you what- I have watched guys try out PUA and end up coming full circle only to realize that actually becoming an interesting person is much, much more effective than pickup tactics (many of which encourage you to bend over backwards for a slice of the pie). Going at it in a more natural way makes it much LESS work to attract women than trying to dance on cue- that’s not what a man should be doing. Maybe try adopting the attitude that you will do what you want, when you want in every arena of your life, and if women show interest, they can come along for the ride. And forget the idea of “one woman” making you whole. These days, the “one woman” mentality won’t get your foot in the door. And further, no single person in your life will make you whole. But as a man, your mission will be the closest thing. That’s what I have learned about handling the environment we’re faced with, and staying true to me. I’m sure plenty of other guys on here (and elsewhere) will tell you something similar.

    The “manosphere” is writing for people with the wool still over their eyes. If you were never one of those guys, just taking control of your image and your mentality will be about as effective, and less depressing.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    I’ve always been puzzled by how much negativity there is directed at women in general… on a female-oriented blog. Certainly there are other places for that. Blasting specific women who harbor nasty opinions, I can understand. I think Mike M mentioned that men’s sites were starting to differentiate a bit in terms of message and content. Yet women’s blogs seem to be viewed as one big monolithic anti-male zone. HUS (among others) is proof that isn’t the case.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    One last link and I’ll stop for a while. In this article Mark Manson talks about vulnerability vs. strength. Deep and advanced stuff, and not your run-of-the-mill Game 101.

    http://postmasculine.com/the-fake-alpha-males

    When a guy has spent his entire life being needy
    (or “beta”), magically transforming himself into an
    “alpha” is much easier said than done. One must
    develop genuine confidence, self-respect, a healthy
    sense of boundaries among other things. It’s often a
    painful long-term process that entails quite a bit of
    introspection, questioning, doubt, anger,
    frustration, personal development, lifestyle
    changes, and so on.

    But there’s a shortcut. And that’s to objectify
    women. When a woman becomes merely another
    conquest, a number, something to treat like a
    trophy or a toy, it suddenly becomes extremely
    easy to assert yourself around them, to prioritize
    your own values and beliefs over theirs, to risk
    rejection around them, and dominate any
    perspectives they may have — all attractive “alpha”
    traits, merely expressed in horrible ways.

    Think about it, a real alpha male would have no
    issue opening up emotionally with a woman. He
    has nothing to fear from it. He has nothing to lose.
    If she doesn’t accept him, he’s unfazed. He’ll
    always prioritize his own belief in himself over
    hers, and so there’s nothing to hide, ever, in any
    circumstance, no matter what. And THAT creates
    attraction on a deeper level than anything else I’ve
    ever found.

    This goes back to what I said about my husband not being afraid to be emotional, to be open and honest, and to show vulnerability. His frame is one that attracts a woman who is capable of receiving it.

  • Cooper

    Thanks BroHam, Hope, and SW.

    I do have the “prize” mentality, maybe so much that I’ve never felt compelled to have to display it – it wouldn’t be as genuine if I felt other must verify how good I think I truly am, would it?

    Re: PUA-tactics.
    As much as I support the core concepts, like Hope had listed #389, I do feel if one would blinding follow all of it that it would borderline misogynistic.
    Oddly though, I have noticed first hand the increase in attraction from women when I’m feeling particularly bitter towards the opposite sex, at that time.
    Surely that can’t be the trick – despising the opposite sex to trigger interest.

    Sometimes it seems like all the PUA-stuff is about getting guys to accept that that is ‘what works.’

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Cooper

      Surely that can’t be the trick – despising the opposite sex to trigger interest.

      Apparent indifference to a particular woman triggers interest. However, I feel compelled to point out that the woman who is most likely desirous of a relationship is the most likely to step back and give up when treated in an aloof manner. Just remember your target market.

      Also, aloofness or asshole Game will get the job done for a ONS, but unless you intend to feign indifference forever, it’s not going to work for a LTR. However, I don’t mean to encourage you to spill your feelings early. Hold your cards close to the vest and reveal yourself gradually – you don’t want to scare her away with unearned affection or adoration. This is the biggest risk for beta guys who want a gf. You have to make her work for it. I wish it weren’t true, but it is.

  • Stingray

    Susan,

    Understood.

    as I feel like a fool now.

    Are you accomplishing what you are setting out to accomplish?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stingray

      as I feel like a fool now.

      Are you accomplishing what you are setting out to accomplish?

      Yes, I think I am. I have found it necessary to play hardball in recent months, something I never anticipated. I can tell you I’ve never encountered this kind of hostility before – not at a top business school, not working as asst. to the CEO of a huge company, not working as a management consultant who was mostly hated by client employees, for fear I’d recommend their jobs be eliminated. Not even as the PTA president at the high school. :)
      People can get pretty vicious online – I guess I was lucky to avoid the snipers as long as I did.

      I confess I do get hurt feelings, though. My husband doesn’t understand this – he can’t figure out why I care. I do care. I’ve formed relationships that have been important to me, but things change and people change.

      Haha, I’ve been ridiculed elsewhere for saying, “Everything changes. You will be surprised.”

      Everything does. And I am.

  • http://www.avacado.org Avacado

    “Girls, women do truly prefer a guy who “can afford to treat [them] poorly.”

    Women prefer a guy who can afford to treat them poorly but chooses not to. The afford part means he’s sought after because he’s such a high quality man. The chooses not to part means he’s a man of character who values her.

  • Cooper

    @Avacado

    “Women prefer a guy who can afford to treat them poorly but chooses not to.
    The afford part means he’s sought after because he’s such a high quality man.
    The chooses not to part means he’s a man of character who values her.”

    It still seems that women seem to place a higher importance on the former rather than the latter.

    @Hope
    “But there’s a shortcut. And that’s to objectify
    women.”
    That would explain much of PUAs’ success. Very interesting, I will definitely remember that one. Thanks again.

  • http://www.avacado.org Avacado

    Cooper, being beloved by women is a symptom not a cause. The cause is being a high quality man. That is what women want. We determine a disease first by observing its symptoms.

  • BroHamlet

    @Cooper

    Sometimes it seems like all the PUA-stuff is about getting guys to accept that that is ‘what works.’

    Yes. This is true. But Hope’s link is correct, you don’t blindly follow the pied piper of PUA, and you don’t sit and do nothing. You choose your own path that gets you what you want. And the key here is what YOU want, not what women want, not what your mom told you you should want, or what anyone else tells you to want. The reason you get more attention when you’re feeling that bitterness is probably because your behavior is a bit more selfish, i.e. it’s about you. You’re probably too altruistic when you’re not behaving that way. So there’s your first note- for lack of a better way to describe it: be more self-interested.

    @Susan

    I understand your heartburn over all of these manosphere dudes talking shit, but you have to understand that they’re just re-flinging all of the shit that’s been thrown at them for years. I don’t exactly fit into their same category for various reasons, but as someone who has watched from the sidelines, I don’t envy their situation. A lot of those guys are the ones treated with the most contempt. I get treated with contempt for other reasons, and that sucks, but having watched friends who didn’t know the drill get disrespected by women, I really couldn’t tell them not to be mad.

    You’re doing the equivalent of walking into the locker room and getting mad because you saw somebody’s pants down (LOL). This is how men roll- we talk about stuff like this in clear, unflattering terms. And if someone needs to get some sense slapped into them, that’s exactly what happens. You think you’re being singled out as a punching bag, but you personally are not. You’re watching the guy who was lied to cursing out everyone that had a hand in the lie. And you know what, this too shall pass. You might not like the new system that will result, but they’ll get over it and times will change.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BroHamlet

      I understand your heartburn over all of these manosphere dudes talking shit, but you have to understand that they’re just re-flinging all of the shit that’s been thrown at them for years. I don’t exactly fit into their same category for various reasons, but as someone who has watched from the sidelines, I don’t envy their situation.

      I guess I make a good target :) I get it, I would just like to remind people that I’m a girl. Actually, old enough to be a grandma! I’m not at all sure I can handle it. I’m not asking for special treatment, just awareness that this form of communication is foreign to me. Women do not communicate this way, and I’m finding it hard to hold my own in the locker room.

  • pennies

    Courtley, you are on FIRE!

    Giant +1 to everything you are saying!

    I don’t know a single Kardashian-inspired shallow young woman but that’s because I’ve always avoided bars and clubs that attract that crowd.

    I do know a plethora of well-educated, amazing young women in several service-oriented and academic fields. They usually match or exceed their husbands/boyfriends/same-sex partners in terms of income. They do chores and do not expect to be treated like princesses. They pay for half of everything except for on date one or two. They identify as feminists but I don’t hear them complain about gender inequality or bring gender politics into many conversations at all. Honestly, they’re living their lives and not thinking about it much day-to-day. This is clearly a niche blue state demographic but I put it out there to counter some of the representations of women and feminists I see on this blog.

    I worry a great deal that impressionable young men and woman are reading the manosphere / the negative comments about women here and becoming prematurely jaded when there are courses of action beyond Internet rumination that could benefit them greatly.

    Rather than complain about how shallow women are, why not make moves to be around people of substance? Like Courtley, I attended a school that did not have (in my case, much — there was some) of a fraternity/sorority scene. I chose that for myself as an eighteen year-old. And yays! I completely bypassed a lot of the assholish behavior I’ve seen described here. The men I met valued me for my character and my intellect. Everyone dated despite the fact that we were not super-hot. Most of my friends got serious with a compatible person fairly quickly. Most of the men were kind and the women liked it. We all had plenty of same-sex friendships and still do. My best friend since college is a man. We have never entertained dating — we just respect each other and have a mutual appreciation of each other’s sense of humor. Young people, if you want this, you can get the ball rolling by choosing a school environment that has this vibe. Stay away from schools that emphasize partying, status dressing, shallow behavior, gross frat hazing ala Dartmouth, etc. Those schools still exist.

    There is a lot of great research out there about social contagion; friendship circles can have a dramatic impact on your physical health and your relationship prospects. Find people who can keep you on track via positive peer pressure.

    The outside culture at large — majority though it may be — doesn’t have to negatively impact our dating lives if we surround ourselves with people who reflect the values we care about most.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Pennies

      I worry a great deal that impressionable young men and woman are reading the manosphere / the negative comments about women here and becoming prematurely jaded when there are courses of action beyond Internet rumination that could benefit them greatly.

      Noted. I share your view that it’s good for people to get out and mix it up. There are great conversations to be had online, but if you want another person in your bed you’ve got to get out and meet people. Make eye contact, initiate conversation. Random encounters is the fourth most common way people meet their spouse!

      The outside culture at large — majority though it may be — doesn’t have to negatively impact our dating lives if we surround ourselves with people who reflect the values we care about most.

      +1 that’s brilliant.

  • Alias

    Alias:
    “It’s doable.” (finding a mate in college)
    —-
    Anacaona:
    “But is cool? Desirable? What the popular kids are doing in mass? There is your answer as to why its not the mindset few modern kids want to be the first of their group to marry or be the one that marry their first boyfriend. That is for religious freaks, unambitious women and losers!”
    ______

    Yes, it was totally cool!
    Lots of the popular kids were the ones in relationships.
    The ones who married- didn’t actually marry in college but a few years afterward. They weren’t religious freaks. And most everyone went to grad school.
    These “losers” had jobs, went to school and contributed towards or fully paid their education/room & board.

    I will say though, that several people tried to discourage my husband and I from “getting too serious” because we were “too young.”
    Well, we were “serious” people- even at 18 and 19, it couldn’t be undone.
    This is not to say that we were/are better than anyone else, in fact, it’s to encourage others that it can be done.
    Only, you have to choose very wisely and then stick by your choice. Stop thinking the grass is greener- take care of your own lawn.

  • Jonny

    “The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy”

    The problem is not necessarily one or the other. It is that women have “disproportionately” preferred hypergamy over men who preferred variety. It is as simple as that.

    The fact that women are responsible (although they have not yet claimed such responsbility) for the greater majority of marital failure has caused the problem that they have created, which is men who decide to forgo long term relationships. The fact that women want to be in committed relationships without the commitment is a puzzlement.

  • http://www.avacado.org Avacado

    “The fact that women want to be in committed relationships without the commitment is a puzzlement.”

    They want to be in them for a time, not a lifetime. A lifetime is a prison sentence.

  • El Marqués

    Slightly OT, sorry ’bout that, but good news for Susan:

    Bettina Arndt mentions you (and Dalrock, and Whiskey, the whole happy family, hehe) in a mainstream article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

    Thought I`d pass along the link for readers:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @El Marques

      Thanks for linking that article! J emailed me today or I would not have even known about it! I’m not familiar with Bettina Arndt, but I gather she is a friend to men, so I am pleased to be included.

      She picked up on the 80/20 statistic from me – that is especially gratifying, because that is the single most important stat to raise awareness of female hypergamy. I assume she got it from the Atlantic article – I worked hard to sell Kate Bolick on the need to highlight that, so it’s awesome that it was picked up all the way across the world!

  • Ted D

    Stingray/Mike C- I am doing fine but mostly still just taking a break from the ‘sphere (including here). I’m not totally gone, but I am really just sorting through a bunch of stuff.

    However Athols’s post was no coincidence as I went to him for advice regarding my concerns from the conversations elsewhere. I’m flattered that he thought my issue was important enough to use as a post subject, but what I really wanted and received was some advice from a man that by all accounts has been happily paired with a woman for years. I’m not convinced Athol or any other blogger is 100% correct, but my guess is the truth is somewhere in the middle of each one’s perspective, including our host here. It doesn’t mean I believe any of them are wrong, but simply that each one has a slightly different view of the scene. The more views I can collect, the larger the scene is for me.

    Thank you both (as well as some of the other regulars here) for being concerned about my well being. In truth, I feel better today than I have in months. I am not thrilled with everything I’ve found in my search, but I have a solid idea of where to go next and am cautiously optimistic (imagine JM’s surprise when he reads that!) that I will figure this all out with minimum emotional turmoil.

    Susan – Fear not, I am no Sith. But, there is some truth that the Jedi did indeed hide information to minimize the “pull” of the dark side from thier pupils. That probably worked for a large majority of the student body, but some people simply need to know the whole of it so they can decide on their own which path to take. I can’t stand being “guided” to a solution, I want to know the whole of the problem so that I can find my best course. In this case it meant I needed to know thw worst of it. Just how bad can female nature actually be? How many women are really that extreme? Is there more to this than I can see? The answers are: pretty bad, probably not as many as suspected, and indeed I wasn’t seeing the forest for the trees. I needed a good ass kicking, and to be honest I think they went easy on me, but it definitely got me moving along, which was what I needed more than anything else.

    If nothing else, I feel less angry now than I have in months, and that alone is allowing me to think clearer and make better decisions.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      You sound great, I’m happy for you. I did wonder if you were Athol’s reader, but concluded you were not. Interesting to learn I was wrong. I think you’re right that exposure to all views is a good thing. When I was still a news junkie, every day I read the NY Times and WSJ, watched CNN and Brit Hume on Fox News at 6. I felt that I was better informed than 99% of MA residents, just because they screened out everything except Rachel Maddow.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Three. DH and I purposely selected each other for no drama.
    And if I’m not mistaken we all wanted to pass the genes of our “boring” beta husbands. I really don’t think taking away the hypergamy and variety seeking will take away the sex or the reproduction. Most of the Alpha chasers are in the same cohort of the ones that don’t want children or want the less amount so no Hypergamy and childbearing cannot related so of with its heads! :)

    Susan, I definitely had the limerance stage with my husband, and he was the same way at the same time.

    Me too. I don’t think love and attraction are only fueled by uncertainty I actually think of hypergamy and variety seeking as our wisdom tooth. A left over from when we lived short dangerous lives thus the most women a man seeded the better chances for him to have offspring because a mammut could stomp on him in a few hours and many women died during childbirth, and women picked the best genes because it was too dangerous to take the risk for an offspring not strong enough to survive and to have a strong mate to defend her and feed her during the pregnancy.
    We had not been living in this state for millenium’s now we don’t need them anymore we can select our mates knowing that they will last long and we will survive the pregnancy and our kids don’t have the face the same harsh conditions and we all could spent more time doing better things than finding a mate, YMMV.

    Bettina Arndt mentions you (and Dalrock, and Whiskey, the whole happy family, hehe) in a mainstream article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

    Wow I don’t know why people keep talking about it, there was another one about how natural babies rabies are also shitstormed by the childfree group. People want to hear that every choice they make is valid, natural and consequence free. Anything else is offensive when will this kid’s learn the truth is for suckers. /sarcasm.

  • Courtley

    @ deti

    I’m completely serious. Coming on too strong initially might freak someone out, though–there’s a sort of unspoken timeline for how these things work and declaring love and commitment shortly after meeting someone or a few dates isn’t part of that code.

    Also, if your mother and other women in your life always shamed you for sharing your feelings…you were given unhealthy messages about masculinity from some pretty important figures, and that’s very problematic in many respects. I wouldn’t discount how much that may have influenced how you see women now.

    @Hope
    Y’know…I don’t think women who want commitment are all that rare. I think it’s a majority. I think that a good chunk of the most attractive and extroverted ones may spend some time doing hook-ups because that’s the cool thing to do now, unfortunately, but they aren’t ‘most women,’ at least not where I’m from. Maybe it seems that way in certain parts of big cities if you spend a lot of time at college parties or nightclubs but I’m not buying it as far as what I’d consider to be the average American woman.

    @ Thoth
    Again, no, the friends I’m thinking of weren’t that into ‘riding the carousel.’ We’re all in our mid to late 20s now, but I think they were mostly LTR-or-looking-for-one kind of girls in high school and college. Not saying that no one EVER had a hook-up, but frathouse/club skanks giving it up to every jock that asked they certainly were not. Decently cute, ordinary, often-athletic girls from nice-ish families. If you don’t know any women like this, then you’re self-selecting a very small number of people to represent “women” to you. Which is a big part of the problem in the Manosphere IMO.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Courtley

      Again, no, the friends I’m thinking of weren’t that into ‘riding the carousel.’ We’re all in our mid to late 20s now, but I think they were mostly LTR-or-looking-for-one kind of girls in high school and college. Not saying that no one EVER had a hook-up, but frathouse/club skanks giving it up to every jock that asked they certainly were not. Decently cute, ordinary, often-athletic girls from nice-ish families. If you don’t know any women like this, then you’re self-selecting a very small number of people to represent “women” to you. Which is a big part of the problem in the Manosphere IMO.

      It’s good to have a report from someone who had that experience in college. You were in the majority, but you’d never know it by observing cultural cues. It’s not just the blogs, it’s the rom coms, and the sensational articles. Even college students grossly overestimate the frequency of hooking up.

  • deti

    Courtley:

    “I’m completely serious. Coming on too strong initially might freak someone out, though–there’s a sort of unspoken timeline for how these things work and declaring love and commitment shortly after meeting someone or a few dates isn’t part of that code.”

    I wish you the best; I really do. I think that your approach will not work in some situations and that others might try to take advantage of you. Be aware and keep your wits about you.

    It would have been nice if someone would have clued me into the “unspoken timeline” and “that code” at age 10, 11 or 12 instead of at age 42 and 15 years into a marriage. Part of why I’m here is to help my children learn how to navigate that timeline and code.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @deti

      Part of why I’m here is to help my children learn how to navigate that timeline and code.

      I hold a special place in my heart for parents. Mule Chewing Briars has shared some of his experience here, and there are other regulars who are parents as well – OTC, J, Alias, Stingray, Kathy and soon Hope and Anacoana! It was parenting that got me interested in this topic in the first place, much to the chagrin of my kids.

      I mentioned once before that my daughter went on a date and in getting acquainted mentioned generally her mom was a blogger about hooking up. The guy said, “Whoa, Hooking Up Smart? Susan Walsh is your mom? That’s crazy!” She was kind of mortified. Sorry, sweetie!

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Courtley, I didn’t spend a lot of time around women who weren’t commitment-minded. But almost all the women I knew were already in LTRs, engaged or married. It’s really hard for a man to find a woman like this who is single, and that is part of what I was trying to say.

    Also, many of the women who want relationships and are single tend to be on the overweight side. There was a girl who showed interest in my husband before we had met, but she was below his attractiveness threshold because of her weight. Sure, it’s superficial, but attraction is not a choice. This contributes to a lack of attractive, commitment-minded and single females, from the male perspective.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan, it does suck to be on the receiving end of it, but guys do it to each other all the time online. Maybe I see it more because I also frequent video game forums. People get pretty nasty. :P Try not to let it get to you personally. There’s a Buddha quote, “Those who are free from resentful thoughts will surely find peace.”

  • Stingray

    Yes, I think I am.

    Women do not communicate this way.

    If you are accomplishing what you set out to do then when the men communicate in the way that is necessary, keep your eye on that goal. You have no reason to feel foolish for accomplishing what you set out to do. Always keep that in mind. But, also keep in mind that the men have another goal and a lot of times that goal goes down a rabbit hole that is not in line with what you set out to do. They are going to get angry with that and in a lot of ways, understandably so. But I think most of it all boils down to how women feel the need to communicate vs the way men feel the need to communicate.

    Don’ t feel foolish. Unfortunately, as a woman entering the locker room it is an inevitable feeling. That doesn’t mean you have a reason to feel it. If you are accomplishing what you wish, then you are not a fool. On the same token, neither are the men who are accomplishing their goals in the same locker room.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stingray

      Thank you. That is excellent advice. I think you communicate very well with men – better than I do – and I defer to your expertise. I appreciate it.

  • deti

    Stingray:

    “But, also keep in mind that the men have another goal and a lot of times that goal goes down a rabbit hole that is not in line with what you set out to do.”

    Sometimes, to get to the truth, we men have had to get all the way down to the ugly, dark, dank pit. Many times we have had to go further and find more than we ever thought was there. Many times what we find is hideous. But it must be faced and addressed nonetheless. That’s what I’ve had to do. It’s what Ted had to do. It was like an out of body experience watching Ted coming to hard-won truths literally in real time.

    It’s not easy facing the truth about ourselves . It’s not easy facing the truth about the “dark sides” of attraction, for men and women. It’s not easy learning that everything you were told about women wasn’t true. But we’re learning it, and we hope to be better for it.

  • Stingray

    deti,

    Thanks. I was struggling to explain everything I wanted and that was a great help. Perfectly said.

    Without that rabbit hole, I am not sure that men would be able to grok what is necessary for the changes they wish to see in their lives and in their marriages. I am not sure men could face the truths you speak of without it. It’s almost like basic training in the Marines. Not until you are broken down do you start to become who you were meant to be. (Sorry, too hokey?)

  • Courtley

    I’d like to see stats on the 20/80 thing as well. It doesn’t seem to equate to the reality I live in. I could see it being true maybe on big college campuses or something.

  • Stingray

    Susan,

    Thank you.

  • Richard Aubrey

    On the way back from a Navy funeral–that makes the Big Three, still lacking Coasties and jarheads–I discovered a young relative is enlisting in the Navy.
    The object of the attention today had impressed his comrades. Sixty of his closest friends showed up, including half a dozen officers including an admiral, and a few SEALs. Then there were the chaplain and the honor guard and the Survivor Assistance guys.
    The sailors lined up on each side of the church aisle as the casket and the family processed forward.
    What they all said about the guy was astonishing. In addition, he was a loving uncle, had a smile that lit up a room and was always ready to help a friend.
    Thing is, although I’m a guy and I have no direct experience of tingles, none of what impressed the hell out of his sharp-end buddies overlapped what has been described here as tingle-inducing.
    Perhaps the clowns with the dark triad fell overboard one dark night. Those heads–restrooms–are tricky that way.

    Point is, it’s really, really hard for a good guy to figure this stuff out, and if he does, he has to accept that he has to accept it. It sure as hell doesn’t make, you know, sense.

  • Courtley

    @ Hope

    Yes, obesity in America is a big health problem and I’m pretty sure it’s more common among women (haven’t seen stats on this, but matches up with general observation). As far as the commitment-minded women all being taken . . . many of them are, but I know a lot of single women who would love to find a nice guy and settle down, but haven’t. And they aren’t 35-year-old reformed sluts, either, as the Manosphere wants to believe. Actually, none of them fit that description and most of them are definitely not fat, either. They’re also not 8-10 range hotties and could probably glam it up a bit and that part is their responsibility, but again, that’s a side-note when we’re talking about how these guys make their theories to begin with.

    The Manosphere defines “women” by this narrow subset of vapid, shallow and generally extremely attractive women in their 20s out there right now. I think a lot of their theories, again, describe THESE particular women pretty well, but aren’t as applicable to the rest of as they really seem to want to believe. I think the Manosphere is comprised of guys who like to categorize everything because that is what makes life more easy to navigate for their specific personality types. Humans all do this to some degree–we need to see and distinguish patterns of behavior in people around us. That doesn’t mean our theories about such patterns are always as accurate as we want to think they are, though.

  • Dogsquat

    Apologies to all if I am being redundant. I’m super busy the next couple of days, and haven’t been able to perform my due dilligence by reading all of the posts/recommendations.

    @COurtley and Susan:

    Courtley said:

    “Women (some women!) may indeed be compelled and convinced by seductive masculinity to do things that are harmful to them from a pragmatic perspective. They may indeed not have total control over what their body responds to sexually (neither do men) but ultimately, the CHOICE to go to bed with someone is a free-will choice. You can walk away from a hook-up potential even when aroused, if you so choose. Anyone can.

    I’m not seeing the contradiction here. Can you expand on your interpretations and assumptions here?”
    __________________________________

    I agree with you.

    Therefore, it’s wrong to blame men for “seducing” women. Who women bang is 100% the gal’s responsibility.

    Upthread, Susan mentioned PUAs causing women to bang them (her definition of seduce). The implication was that these women were manipulated by the PUA into sex, despite the women’s best interest.

    For this to be possible (PUA basically hypnotizing a chick), then (some/most/all – who knows?) women really are exotic pets. All you’ve gotta do for sex is to push specific buttons. Flip the PUA switch, and the woman is no longer in control – the PUA is to blame.

    To blame the PUA is to imply that women are powerless before tight Game, and are innocent victims.

    I doubt Susan meant to imply that women are so similar to Pavlov’s dogs.

    This issue is critical to understand. It’s not a grey area, or a matter of degree, either. Women either choose (sometimes badly or with poor foresight) who they sleep with – in which case women are soley responsible…

    or

    PUAs are capable of presenting certain signals that compel women to bang them, no matter what the woman wants. If this is true, then the PUAs are indeed to blame for abusing their exotic pets.

    I hope someone who’s a lawyer or trained in philosophy or something understands what I’m saying and can present this in a better way. I know about guns and car crashes and penetrating trauma, not rhetoric. I know incongruity when I see it, though, and I want Susan to be mindful of this issue.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “But I do hold seducers accountable – specifically, men who target a woman who is unwilling or previously inexperienced and attempt to bend her to their will for sex knowing they will inflict harm in doing so. This is usually and commonly achieved by pretending to be interested in a love relationship when their only intent is short-term or no-strings sex. Again, the critical element here is deceit. In short, a cad.”
    ___________________________

    Yes, guys who lie are dicks. Forget about that for a second.

    What do you call a guy who doesn’t lie, but is aware of the Rationalization Hamster and uses it to his full advantage, though? He’s not lying, just adept at applied psychology.

    I submit to you that, if no overt lying is committed, then who the woman bangs is entirely the woman’s responsibility. The guy is giving her a sales pitch, she’s writing a check drawn on Booty Bank.

    It’s a nominally free country, and nothing’s stopping her from saying,”Slow down, Turbo – You’ve never directly answered my question about exclusivity. What’s the answer?”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dogsquat

      I submit to you that, if no overt lying is committed, then who the woman bangs is entirely the woman’s responsibility. The guy is giving her a sales pitch, she’s writing a check drawn on Booty Bank.

      I agree 100%. The grey area can be a bitch, though. Here’s a real example I know:

      Tom and Jane got together at the end of the summer, but did not have sex. They went to their different colleges, saw one another at breaks. They had no agreement to be exclusive. Tom invited Jane to visit him at school for Valentine’s Day. When she arrived Friday afternoon, they went for a walk around the city. At one point Tom said, “Let’s sit down on this bench for a second.”

      “Listen, I know it’s long distance, and I don’t want to hold you back, but I need to know if you have any other boys at your school.”

      “No. I haven’t hooked up with anyone.”

      “That makes me really happy. I like you so much.”

      They grinned at each other like a couple of fools, he hugged her tightly, and they walked back to his apartment, where they had constant sex for three days.

      Jane later learned that Tom’s girlfriend was out of town for Valentine’s Day, and he’d needed a date for his formal. When she confronted him, he pointed out that he had not ever used the word exclusive or relationship.

      His was a lie of omission. Is Jane to blame? Should she have parsed the vocabulary on that brilliant winter afternoon?

      What is Tom’s responsibility? Is he just a guy who is adept at applied psychology?

  • Dogsquat

    @Susan regarding friction:

    For a little inspiration, you may want to spend a half hour or so reading what Karl von Clausewitz had to say on the matter of friction. I know he wrote about war, but with the “combat dating” metaphor being so widely accepted, you might find a few concepts that help crystallize an otherwise nebulous idea.

    One such concept that translates well to human relationships is “fog of war’. In relationships, there is often a dearth of information, of absolute, objective Truth. Instead, we’re left with assumptions, feints, ruses, and protective smokescreens. The people best at relationships are often possessed of an intuition Erwin Rommel called “fingerspitzengefuhl”. They instinctively know what’s going on, and aren’t as subject to the debilitating Fog.

    Alternatively, you have my express written permission to explain (gently please, I’m fragile) that I spent too long in the hot desert sun, and am officially an Infantry Nerd.

    And goddammit – tell these idiots to stop getting sick and hurt so much on days you post this good stuff. I’d rather argue with you than go on another hobo vs hobo stabbing call. Their feet stink so bad it hurts.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dogsquat

      You’ve definitely piqued my interest re the concepts of fog of war and “fingerspitzengefuhl.” I’d be lying if I said I had the time to read about them anytime soon, but I’ve clipped your comment for future reference. Thanks.

  • Jones

    Yes, sometimes the conversation gets dragged into unhelpful quarters by certain guys. Getting out of a bad psychological state is one of the hardest things to do. It’s almost entirely a matter of will. You just have to start doing things that are good for you.

    Overall, reading blogs is terrible for you – it’s addictive and it’s not going to help you all that much. But in small doses it can be very interesting and useful. Ultimately you have to get out there and meet people, and improve your own life. Also, that’s not going to happen by focusing all of your efforts on getting girls. Work on yourself, and other things will fall into place.

  • Richard Aubrey

    If women are helpless before a slick PUA, that means they have no agency and PUAs (men) can be blamed.
    Feminists hate PUA, or many do. Which is a problem. If the woman has the choice, you can’t blame PUA. If you want to slag PUA, you imply women are helpless when it hits them. No agency. Do feminists want to claim that?
    No?
    Then PUA are not to blame.
    That’s a toughie.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If women are helpless before a slick PUA, that means they have no agency and PUAs (men) can be blamed.

      PUAs cannot be blamed for a woman’s consent to have sex. They can be blamed for lack of character in the same way that a used car salesman can be blamed for selling lemons. Both salesmen are knowingly engaging in a transaction that leaves the other party worse off without their knowledge. In the case of the used car salesman, he may employ various strategies to deceive the buyer, such as mentioning another customer who is interested in the car, saying he’ll get fired if the price goes any lower, claiming the car was only driven to church by a little old lady.

      In the same way, the PUA attempts to make the women feel insecure and off-kilter via negging and incongruent behavior. Additionally, he is pretending to be something he is not – a naturally dominant male with options. The “buyer” has been misled re the quality of what’s being offered.

      Note: this is not an anti-Game argument, I am specifically talking about PUA tactics for short-term sex.

  • BroHamlet

    Avacado

    “20% of the men get 80% of the sex. It’s true.”

    How?

    Because 80% of women want to bang the same 20% of men (the most desirable ones), and that’s exactly what they do, especially when they’re at their most desirable (in their 20′s), until they settle down.

    @Courtley

    I’d like to see stats on the 20/80 thing as well. It doesn’t seem to equate to the reality I live in. I could see it being true maybe on big college campuses or something.

    The 80/20 rule holds in most progressive, urban places, and even if women don’t have the opportunity to act this out due to social circumstances (or whatever), they still want to get (and keep) the top men. Susan has a few articles that demonstrate that 80/20 is real, and I’ll let her speak for herself.

    I can tell you from both my experience and those of several female friends I have, all of whom are mid to late 20′s and unmarried. I have not only watched this happen, but been in the game myself (and still am). It starts in college and it keeps going until people settle down. If you’re married, don’t go out (or do social events with groups of single friends), or are otherwise not in or around the non-conservative single 20-35 demographic, you don’t really have the perspective to see it at work. I can tell you as a guy who is dating these women, that from my perspective not only does that rule hold, but if you get into that top 20%, you will get laid really regularly as a guy. It’s not only real, it’s the law of the land until you get married.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Courtley, yeah there are some really wonderful girls here on this blog who are in their 20s, want a relationship but don’t have a relationship.

    I don’t really agree with the manosphere observations, which is why I have stopped posting on those types of blogs. I’m mostly reporting observations of 20-something guys I’ve met throughout my Internet travels (mostly via online video games).

    If a 20-something single woman wants a man, playing video games is probably the easiest way to find a whole bunch of 20-something single guys. :P

  • Jones

    Also, thought it was worth saying – men do experience limerence! Certainly, this man does. We should all shut up and go read Stendhal’s On Love. “Half – the most beautiful half – of life is hidden from him who has not loved passionately.”

  • Courtley

    @ BroHamlet
    “The 80/20 rule holds in most progressive, urban places, and even if women don’t have the opportunity to act this out due to social circumstances (or whatever), they still want to get (and keep) the top men. Susan has a few articles that demonstrate that 80/20 is real, and I’ll let her speak for herself.”

    All women want this? Really? What about all those boring ordinary but seemingly cheerful 3-6ish range-attractiveness-level couples I see at like, the mall and the grocery store and know in real life?

    I do get what you’re saying about urban cultures have more of a hook-up culture and I would suspect probably being havens for Sex-and-the-City-type hypergamous women. Isn’t this its own subculture, though?

  • Courtley

    @ BroHamlet

    Actually I think you’re essentially saying what I’m saying. Manosphere observations are spot-on for a certain type of American coed or single urbanite. A certain type, though, that’s the key. They are accurate observations on a specific demographic of Americans, but these guys think they are accurate for all people everywhere.

  • http://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Courtley
    “I’d like to see stats on the 20/80 thing as well. It doesn’t seem to equate to the reality I live in.”

    Don’t ask for facts, they don’t matter here : )

    Seriously, I think Susan’s posted some sources on this one in various discussions. Around 20-25% of guys are having a majority of NSA sex, and probably contracting the majority of STDs too.

    But if one were to quantify the frequency and volume of sex, and this has been done in numerous large-scale nationwide studies, married and committed couples (over half the population) are having the lion’s share of sex by far.

  • Courtley

    @ Dogsquat
    “PUAs are capable of presenting certain signals that compel women to bang them, no matter what the woman wants.”

    Yeah, no, not buying that. But manipulation and deception are very real things, even if the women fully consent. And practicing manipulation and deception is unethical and makes you a lame-ass human being, as far as my standards for character go.

    But, yes. I’m all for giving women full responsibility for the sexual choices they choose to make.

  • Courtley

    @ Megaman

    If we’re talking about NSA sex then that makes a lot more sense. But if we were to tally up, you know, all the sex that all the people are having in and out of relationships there’s no way it’s 80/20. More than 20% of American men are married or in a LTR.

  • Iggles

    This is an interesting thread! Am catching up, but wanted to respond to an earlier comment….

    @ Courtley:

    Basically, what this show and all the fan girls need is a strong, hard dose of Robitussin aka #realtalk. This show is not groundbreaking. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not a game changer. And for the love of God, it is not the female answer to Louie. I’m talking about you, AV Club. Girls is an occasionally funny show and decently written (the pilot episode does move at a fairly brisk pace) about a particular and narrow POV that I like to call EWW (Entitled White-Girl Whining). And you know what? If you want your show to be about such a tiny, niche demographic, go for it. Just don’t try and fool everyone and say it’s for everyone when it’s clearly “for us, by us.”

    +1

    As I wrote on a previous thread, I like the show and find it entertaining. However, I think of the characters like caricatures! In real life people like them would annoy me. They’re very self-involved!

    While I can relate to some facets of their experience due to being also Gen Y living in NYC, my own experiences are nothing like these characters. At 24 I supported myself and had my own apartment. I’ve never been part of the carousel nor ever desired to be (at the time I had a long term bf). And as a black woman, EWW has never been part of my reality! Thanks to my parents I’ve always known I’d have to work hard to accomplish my goals in life. I align myself with like-minded people who share this value as I have little patience for those who don’t!

    To me, girls is a newer grittier version of SATC — and I loved that show. Neither depicts real life, but they’re fun to watch. The topics they tackle are fun to discuss (i.e., the Post It break up will live in infamy!). But I wouldn’t go deeper with either show. I don’t think they “capture” the voice of a generation. Moreso they echo the sign of the times, in showing the modern experiences of one niche group.

  • http://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    Sorry, post cut off. Anyway, check out the Kinsey Institute under “frequency of sex”:

    http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html

    That’ll tell you who’s having it and how often. Pretty lopsided in favor of married and partnered couples. Drops off with age, though. For Susan’s target demographic (single, 18-29), there are a lot of people doing without.

  • BroHamlet

    @Courtley

    Actually I think you’re essentially saying what I’m saying. Manosphere observations are spot-on for a certain type of American coed or single urbanite. A certain type, though, that’s the key. They are accurate observations on a specific demographic of Americans, but these guys think they are accurate for all people everywhere.

    Well, I’m a guy who knows girls that are like that and girls that aren’t like that, and I can tell you that the manosphere is correct in saying that most single girls no matter where they’re from, have at least some of those characteristics- they’re built into them from a very early age and reinforced by tons of social conventions. And from a functional perspective, it’s better to assume more are “like that” than not, whatever environment you are in. I’ve found that to be true from smaller places I’ve lived in to larger ones. Fact of the matter is, that demographic isn’t some isolated patch of women on an island somewhere, it’s not some abstract in a far off land they way you are talking about it. It’s a whole lot bigger than you know. The manosphere is a whole lot more hard-edged with their characterizations than they have to be, but truth be told, there’s a whole lot of “like that” women out there, and unless a guy is sitting back waiting for girls to come to him through his social circle or whatever else he’s into, I’m going to guarantee you he’s going to run into plenty of them. The manosphere’s preparing them for the worst- it’s not as bad as they claim, but you will run into plenty of the characteristics they describe, not all girls will have all of them, but most will have some, regardless of background. Keep in mind they are preaching to people who don’t know what’s up, but need to have it beaten into their heads.

  • OffTheCuff

    High school never ends, it just goes underground, PJ

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @BroHam
    Agree completely. I’ve lived in big cities, out in rural areas, college towns, and suburbs… I’ve rolled with high class SWPL people, blue collar people, college people, rural people, inner city people, and everything in between….

    Some places and demographics are worse than others… but as you said, to some extent that behavior is everywhere. There are obviously exceptions to every rule. But in my mind, there’s enough of it going on that you’re putting yourself in a bad situation to assume otherwise.

    If everything was going fine, blogs like Susan’s wouldn’t be very popular.

  • Courtley

    @BroHamlet

    “I can tell you that the manosphere is correct in saying that most single girls no matter where they’re from, have at least some of those characteristics.”

    Which characteristics do you find to be this universal? Wanting a guy who’s at least somewhat attractive and has some social skills? Probably universal. Wanting to be mistreated by her man? Simply not universal. That’s especially the part I object to in Manosphere theories and find quite disconcerting.

    And I’m curious about where you and “Manosphereists” live and hang out and what you’re interested in! This is what I’m really curious about, how some of this looks when you start breaking it down into smaller and more specific social sets.

  • https://twitter.com/#!/MarkTrueblood Mark Trueblood

    The manosphere does go overboard a lot.

    But keep in mind I can count on two hands the # of women I’ve known who will admit unequivocally that women are capable of making mistakes. On top of that, I can only count on one hand the number of women who demonstrate real empathy for what men and boys are going through right now in society.

    So let’s not get too critical of the mote in the manosphere’s eye…

  • Herb

    @deti

    So that’s what I was told. And that’s why I’ve become an active participant in the manosphere.

    Pretty much…

    @Courtney

    But the ideas of romance, thoughtfulness, sharing your emotions and dreams, etc. sounds bang-on to me. You could probably describe these women as the type who are at least somewhat biologically wired to be attracted to faithful “beta” characteristics in men.

    How many women have you attracted that way (yes, I know you’re a woman).

    I’ve had plenty of women tell me that…I’ve had women I’ve been attracted to tell me that and they, to a woman, friend zoned me at best (or at worst, depending on POV).

    Telling men who’ve been doing that their whole life and got nothing is only increasing their cynicism by giving them one more “lying bitch” to blame. I know you’re not trying to be one nor am I calling you one, but that’s the pattern statements like yours only reinforce.

    Why? Because you’re saying to someone their experience and the pain from that experience is wrong. Once you do that, especially to someone with multiple trips through the wringer they’re only going to shut you off.

    PUAs get laid and lots of guys who do what you describe get nothing at best and are used as emotional tampons at worst. The way to combat the PUAs is not to tell men the things that failed that drove them to PUAs but to present an alternative new strategy.

    @thoth
    It’s funny you talking about beta guys ;)…speaking of, if you’re interested look for mdarcy on the expect place.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    I’m completely serious. Coming on too strong initially might freak someone out, though–there’s a sort of unspoken timeline for how these things work and declaring love and commitment shortly after meeting someone or a few dates isn’t part of that code.

    What is that timeline? Do women ever reveal it?

    Or is this one of those thought reading things men are supposed to do?

    If women have unspoken rules that are violated by the advice they offer they are only feeding the fires.

    That’s one thing I like about Susan and some of the female commentators here: they will say “this is when, more or less” or “no, you don’t want to do that”. The reality is most women, knowingly or unknowingly, lie to men about what most women want.

    The longer it takes men to figure that out the more bitter they will be when they do. That is the essence of the red pill and as I said, telling guys on the verge of taking it or who have taken it the same thing feeds cynicism. Given them an alternate plan B to the PUAs.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

    I don’t doubt your experiences are true. At all. I’ve seen some very sweet dudes get burned by spoiled and manipulative women. I understand the dynamic the Manosphere refers to and it is very real.

    But it IS important to understand that they don’t define reality for everyone. I can’t think of one married friend of mine who is not married to a very, very nice man. They seem happy as far as I, as a close friend, can tell. So, obviously, it can and does work. Don’t you know any married couples who fit that definition?

    What would you say to a sort of stereotypical angry-at-the-menz radical feminist if she said her anger came from growing up with an abusive father, being sexually assaulted, stuff like that? Probably something similar–yes, her experience is real, yes there are men who do get off on hurting and dominating women and yeah, there might be some sort of biological explanation behind that. But still, her experiences aren’t really the best place to start from if she’s trying to construct some sort of comprehensive theory of masculinity.

    I do get what you’re saying about being shut off by angry people and this is why I don’t go and argue with people on Manosphere blogs, and I like the idea of an “alternate strategy” for these guys. I think the first part of that, personally, should be them examining the kinds of women they’re drawn to, and why they might be attracted to toxic, controlling personalities or women who simply don’t want them or something. Women who have been abused get this sort of thing in therapy–i.e., how to recognize signs of potential abuse and try to root out why it’s attractive to you in the first place.

  • Herb

    @Richard Aubrey

    Thing is, although I’m a guy and I have no direct experience of tingles, none of what impressed the hell out of his sharp-end buddies overlapped what has been described here as tingle-inducing.

    I think if you want to explain the SMP of today versus even 1970 it’s that fact.

    Up thread Avocado said:

    Cooper, being beloved by women is a symptom not a cause. The cause is being a high quality man. That is what women want. We determine a disease first by observing its symptoms.

    Forty-five years ago your uncle was a quality man. Today many people think he’s a joke. It’s men like him and my father (for who I will endure the same on Thursday) who used to make things work. Not I don’t think they’re very wanted.

    As someone said up thread, a society that does that does not have a good future.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

    I think we both know that “OMG I love you let’s be together forever!” after like one date is a bad idea, no? I dunno, most solid couples I know said “I love you” after at least a few months of being in a relationship. And this isn’t a woman-enforced thing–most guys would be weirded out by a girl declaring her love after one date, or one hook-up too.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “And I’m curious about where you and “Manosphereists” live and hang out and what you’re interested in! This is what I’m really curious about, how some of this looks when you start breaking it down into smaller and more specific social sets.”

    Really, the only difference between me and most guys is that I just do not give a shit if I get rejected by a woman. The idea of it mattering just doesn’t even register in my head anymore. I also have a substantial instinct to flirt with damn near everyone, and it’s impossible to see women as perfect little snowflakes. Don’t see you all as monsters, but definitely as deeply flawed creatures just like men.

    Also, apparently, I am a HELL of a lot more sexual, both in quantity and quality, than most guys. Which may fed into the rest of this. But then again, I’m not really a big “manosphere” guy, I am just a guy that lived through what most men would consider a horror story and came out the other side mostly okay. Still recovering. Gotta work on all these pounds I added. But still here.

  • Courtley

    “Don’t see you all as monsters, but definitely as deeply flawed creatures just like men.”

    I LOVE that. I think that’s a very, very healthy perspective!

    What does a HELL of a lot more sexual than most guys mean? Aren’t most guys pretty darn sexual especially when they’re young? Can you elaborate?

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    What would you say to a sort of stereotypical angry-at-the-menz radical feminist if she said her anger came from growing up with an abusive father, being sexually assaulted, stuff like that?

    I’d say she needs to get help to work out the damage men have done to her. Once she’s done that, I’d say “this is how to find better men”.

    I have my hours of therapy. Trust me, you weren’t around for the truly bitter me (“all women are whores, but a lot want gifts so they can pretend they’re not”, “if you have a bitch over, make sure you nail down everything first”, “the law doesn’t care if you have an alibi when she accuses you” [1]).

    I’ve done the therapy and yet, when I try to date my choices are the very “hit the wall” women the PUAs talk about, single mothers who like the fact I have a steady job, and poly women. Those three options plus MGTOW are the only options I’ve found. Age may be a part of it…if you’re single at 45 and don’t want to be you have issues (I have said more than once I include myself there).

    But you know, no one has told me how to attract women without being an asshole, buy them (which is essentially what many single mothers come across as…I’ll date you for the job), or share them.

    I have a deep affection for my current GF. Enough that the emotional connection does provide for better orgasm (I’m one of those guys who enjoys attached sex more).

    Yet more and more when we break up, I think I’ll quit dating. Every year it’s harder to attract for less reward.

    So I’d REALLY like a fifth option.

    [1] And they didn’t put my alibi in their report. I pretty much had to quit frequenting entire towns in CT after that because it was clear the police had already decided I was a stalker.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

    Why do you think you’ll break up if you have deep affection? How did you attract this woman you love and have great orgasms with?? :D

    And I am in my mid-20s and writing from that perspective, I can’t speak to a 45-year-olds or women of that generation.

  • Herb

    @ADBG

    Don’t see you all as monsters, but definitely as deeply flawed creatures just like men.

    I’ve become very bifurcated about women.

    Tailhook and an incident over a calendar has made me skiddish about them at work (I’d rather be in a woman free environment).

    I’m very distrustful once romance/sex comes up.

    But outside of that, in terms of platonic, non-work interaction I enjoy them. Some of my favorite hashers are women (they are vicious at namings). I like most of the women I’ve met in the tri club, especially the swim coaches I’ve worked with. In fact, that’s one place where apparently I like women more because with one exception all the swim coaches who have taught me the most valuable things are women.

    @Courtley

    I dunno, most solid couples I know said “I love you” after at least a few months of being in a relationship.

    I work very hard not to say it, stopping myself when I want to say it more times than not. In fact, I only told my current GF the first time by accident and got a long period of silence even then. It was weeks before the topic came out, much less reciprocated.

    I spent most of the time in between expecting to be dumped. Once you say it, she’s won and it’s just counting most of the time.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    I want to clarify that as much as I hate my cad friends that lied their way to many women’s pants. This women were choosing to believe blatant lies that not even my little sister that has had no boyfriend would had or just not do any check up before getting in too deep.
    I just believe this is a beast with two heads.
    Cad’s lying or omitting info and women not asking the hard questions, doing their homework and make sure they have the much amount of info possible before compromising themselves with sex and/or feelings.
    I had a really hot friend that was supposedly really smart, like me she was a married idiot’s magnet but she always asked before anything if they were married or had a girlfriend (95% of the cads work with denial of information blatant lying about having a wife or girlfriend takes away the whole “you didn’t asked and I’m a man “speech of the tearful reveal later on and most of them wait till the woman is in love to reveal there is another one as a way to assure her staying around, so they are very likely to tell you the truth if you ask straight), but then there was this guy at work (tall, dark, police officer with a nice car) and she completely forgot the filter and just went after him with all the power of her hot teenager body, she later found out he had a girlfriend and after accessing her looks decided that she was hotter so she could steal him, well she went from “that hot girl that seems to be nice” to “slut” pile for 90% of the men we both used to work with, and in the end he never left his girlfriend and got married to her later on, not that she was in much luck he naturally, was cheating on her before the one year mark.
    I always say that this is akin to a bank robbery the guys that steal the money get more years in prison once caught, but the guy that drove the car gets a lower punishment but he is not absolved as non-guilty.
    So yeah cads and the women supplying them with sex “just because we had a natural connection” are both at fault I will blame the women more but the cads are surely feeding class A hamster’s food to this women knowing exactly what will happen, YMMV.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    Why do you think you’ll break up if you have deep affection? How did you attract this woman you love and have great orgasms with??

    1. She’s poly
    2. She’s divorced nearly a decade and her other current BF is the first one to break the 18 month shelf life relationships since the divorce have lasted.
    3. I figure most women will leave eventually. Of the 13 women I’ve had sex with prior to her all but two were done with me before I was done with them (and one of those was a ONS).

    Based on #2 & #3 I’d be insane to figure we will last, despite what I might want.

  • DarkTriadReally

    “Dark Triad” PUA (of the hardcore variety not the “one foot in one foot out” variety) checking in.

    “But if 75% of the women you know are rapacious beasts, you’re hanging out with a slutty crowd, and you’re not selecting for long-term mating.”

    This is just the classic “that might work on those slutty college girls but that would never work on a mature woman with her act together like my co-worker Janice!” bullshit reworded. You don’t want to accept that your friends and family can behave in a way that’s so morally reprehensible to you that you categorize them differently. It’s the same as the parent of a bully saying “my little Johnny would NEVER do that, you must be lying” or the wife who refuses to believe her hubby is molesting their daughter despite blatant signs. This “those are OTHER people who do those bad things no one I know is like that trust me” belief is extra strong the closer someone is to you. For instance which squigs you out more to read: that a bar slut is into anal or that your mom was?

    It’s so weird, NO one I know has ANY friends who do ANYTHING wrong. What are the odds of that. Hint: low.

    “I can tell you that if my husband had ever embraced this view we would certainly never have gotten together.”

    Classic “don’t you DARE learn game or try to improve your skills with women or we’ll all cut you off from sex!!!” threat reworded to shame men into feeling scared that if they learn game the “good ones” won’t want anything to do with them. What’s the difference between someone who’s really good at game (not a weekend dabbler newbie) and a guy who’s naturally charismatic and attractive to women? Hint: nothing. That’s why you wouldn’t “never have gotten together”, because you wouldn’t suspect anything is going on because it’s all congruent and attractive.

    What are the odds a woman who says in 16 years her husband has never negged her isn’t (unknowingly) full of shit? Really? He hasn’t teased you in a way that made you laugh in 16 years? He hasn’t ONCE, in *16 YEARS* joked around when you asked him for his opinion about something? Really? You’ve never disagreed about something without being mad at him for not sharing your opinion? In *16 YEARS*? Which is more likely, that that’s the case or that you like him and he makes you feel good so when he does tease you in a fun way about something that makes you go “oh YOUUUU!!!” as you laugh? Hint: It’s not the former.

    “While it may be true, it essentially says that beta males are hapless even at learning Game.”

    They’re not hapless. The concept just so completely offends their entire lifetime of social conditioning and the threats from women that if they dare improve themselves and the stereotyping gamers with exaggerated cartoon character beliefs by people who aren’t actually guys who game, that they reject Game as a whole.

    There is a ton of social pressure against you if you try to learn game. Even fr close friends and family who don’t even care if you neg or anything they just don’t want you to change your behavior at all or they’ll have to re-evaluate and re-label you. But of course those are just “bad friends” and no one YOU know would comment on someone changing their style or attitudes or anything. You could go to work dressed like a goth tomorrow and no one would say anything and everyone would high-five you.

    “He even said that Game is good for short-term, but often targets women not oriented toward long-term mating, and therefore not a great way to get a relationship.”

    Jeremy Whoever is an idiot that no one who actually studies game has heard of. I think until you’ve actually been a guy who’s learned game and been in LTRs from it you should stop commenting on what the strategies are capable of or what sort of relationships they can produce.

    There are plenty of PUAs in LTRs. But most of us just don’t see the need to be in one.

    “There’s being up front, there’s lying outright, and there’s that murky area known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” or lies of omission.”

    Modern pickup is extremely honest and up-front. I even have a picture of my GF on my nightstand. Maybe you should read some newer stuff than The Game before pushing false stereotypes and ideas across as representative of PUAs.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      DarkTriadReally is a textbook example of the male rationalization hamster. His is spinning so fast, it’s a blur.

  • Jackie

    @Susan, Dogsquat

    ““But I do hold seducers accountable – specifically, men who target a woman who is unwilling or previously inexperienced and attempt to bend her to their will for sex knowing they will inflict harm in doing so. This is usually and commonly achieved by pretending to be interested in a love relationship when their only intent is short-term or no-strings sex. Again, the critical element here is deceit. In short, a cad.”
    ___________________________

    Yes, guys who lie are dicks. Forget about that for a second.

    What do you call a guy who doesn’t lie, but is aware of the Rationalization Hamster and uses it to his full advantage, though? He’s not lying, just adept at applied psychology.

    I submit to you that, if no overt lying is committed, then who the woman bangs is entirely the woman’s responsibility. The guy is giving her a sales pitch, she’s writing a check drawn on Booty Bank.

    It’s a nominally free country, and nothing’s stopping her from saying,”Slow down, Turbo – You’ve never directly answered my question about exclusivity. What’s the answer?”
    ———————
    DS, I think your answer was revealed already in the question: Someone who exploits people by “using the Rationalization Hamster to his full advantage” is just that– a user. A user can be male or female. Lack of integrity and manipulation knows no gender.

    Are these girls responsible for their actions? Absolutely! 100%! They need to own their behavior.

    Just as much as the men do. Because some guy who views romantic relationships as a “sales job” (selling what? Flesh? Sex? Tweaking emotions for personal gains?) is speaking volumes about his character through his actions.

    Just like there are “slut tells” for promiscuity, there are “character tells” as well. The guy doing this is pretty weak, character-wise, in my opinion. To me, his actions are telling the universe, “Who I am is not enough. I have to ‘use her hamster to the fullest’ to get what I want.”

    Maybe he’ll get some short term copulation with someone he manipulates. Pretty sad (and cheap) trade-off for integrity, though. :(

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

    Ugh, the polyamory trend is…such a bad trend IMO. I’m sorry to hear your GF has been hoodwinked into believing it’s a more fulfilling lifestyle than a healthy monogamous relationship.

    @ DarkTriadReally

    No one’s ever said that NO ONE they know fits into these categories! People can be in denial about others they’re close to, absolutely. But not everyone’s little Johnny is a bully, either.

    I’ve encountered PUAs before, like they had gone to a Game conference and everything, and they did not cast a magical spell over me, though they did make me start doing quite a bit more googling on the topic. But I also don’t do ONS, on principle.

    Also, you seem pretty angry.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    Ugh, the polyamory trend is…such a bad trend IMO. I’m sorry to hear your GF has been hoodwinked into believing it’s a more fulfilling lifestyle than a healthy monogamous relationship.

    She had he other two SOs when I met her.

    What saddens me is apparently I’m not enough for a woman to want a monogamous relationship. That’s certainly part of my diminished interest in relationships in general. There are things where I’m good enough. Perhaps they should be where I put all, not just some, of my energy.

    But I do expect poly to be more common. It’s how the walking wounded of this SMP will coast. For some it is more fulfilling than an impossible to obtain monogamous relationship on the half a loaf theory.

  • Herb

    That should be “how the walking wounded of this SMP will cope.”

  • Jackie

    @Susan

    Fascinating blog post tangental to this discussion:

    http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-double-messages/

  • Jackie

    @Herb

    “What saddens me is apparently I’m not enough for a woman to want a monogamous relationship.”

    Herb, respectfully, this is not true. You are a man from an excellent family, a tri-athlete with an excellent job. It’s obvious you have intelligence, depth and drive. You are MORE than enough. :)

    Please don’t sell yourself short– you sound like a total catch!

  • http://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @DogSir
    “I hope someone who’s a lawyer or trained in philosophy or something understands what I’m saying and can present this in a better way.”

    I’m neither a lawyer nor philosophical, but I caught your meaning. No one can be compelled to act against his or her nature. I’m totally on board with taking personal responsiblity for cold, sober choices made. Where I think the gray area does come into play is when alchohol permeates the social scene. Normally rational individuals choose to drink (underage or otherwise), some graduate to binge drinking, and then end up doing things they do regret afterwards. Not excusing it by any means, as drinking is as much a choice as sleeping with someone.

    If all the “honest” hooking up was occuring in the absence of intoxication, there’d be a lot less of it IMO. Sexual inexperience and low tolerance seemed to be big factors. Back in college, I recall senior guys “fishing” for freshmen girls pretty aggressively. Typically, they tried to get the girls as drunk as possible, even to the point of passing out. It was never the other way around.

  • BroHamlet

    @Courtley

    Which characteristics do you find to be this universal? Wanting a guy who’s at least somewhat attractive and has some social skills? Probably universal. Wanting to be mistreated by her man? Simply not universal. That’s especially the part I object to in Manosphere theories and find quite disconcerting.

    Here’s a short list:

    - First of all, no girl, even the one without options, wants a guy who’s “somewhat” attractive or has “some” social skills. If she’s even marginally attractive, it’s a really good bet she believes she’s much more attractive than she actually is, and chances are she only wants someone (much) higher up on the totem pole. It’s almost comical how many of the most average girls think that they deserve the guy at the top of the pyramid to the exclusion of all others regardless of what they actually have to offer. I’ve even heard guys talk about this happening in church settings. You can thank her parents and the media for making her think she’s more “special” than most guys, even if she’s quite average herself. This is where the “negging” advice comes from. If a girl has a big head, you might have to take her down a notch. For some girls, you have to be extreme about it- those girls have a really high threshold for dominant behavior. You need to pull a dick move with those girls. And for what it’s worth- the jerk move even makes a good amount of nice girls like you more. Mistreatment (in measured amounts) is actually a better bet than being nice, because most girls are just plain sick of “nice”.

    -Two Prices for the same item: If you are nice and don’t push for sex right away, not only will you not get it, you won’t get a relationship with her either. Best case, you’ll move forward under the pretext that she “values” you more- meaning that you have to put in a whole lot of work for the same relationship she’s gladly jump into with someone else (and she probably has before). Before you say anything, allow me to preempt you by telling you that I had a girl that used to come over every day to sleep with me, and she told me how she was dating a guy and making him wait so she could “see where this goes”. That’s why, true to manosphere advice, you should never keep at it with a girl who is consciously making you wait- best case, she’s not really attracted to you, just enjoying the attention, worst case she’s probably getting it somewhere else. I have seen this all up close.

    -Flaking: See above. If she thinks that she’s more important than you are, she’ll also treat your time as less valuable than hers. This is VERY common, even for guys who are really good with girls. There’s just no believing what they say unless the right emotion is behind it. See my first bullet- you better have kept her ego in check when you met her.

    And I’m curious about where you and “Manosphereists” live and hang out and what you’re interested in! This is what I’m really curious about, how some of this looks when you start breaking it down into smaller and more specific social sets.

    I live in a pretty urban area like most of them probably do, but this isn’t limited to just those types of areas. Girls will exhibit those common traits almost regardless of where we’re talking about. It’s based not on location, but on how high they perceive your status to be. For example, if you’re visiting overseas, you’ll probably be a rockstar by comparison to your local spot- no cold shoulders, no flaking, no nothing, virtually no games required- you have just become more attractive because you’re scarce. If you’re at your local bar or a friend’s housewarming, you need to do more, because you’re more familiar, and familiarity is boring, so your behavior needs to send the message that you value yourself more than anyone else.

    I might be coming off plenty harsh, but I really don’t want anyone to get depressed here. None of this is impossible to get around (or even that hard if you have real confidence). Just understand the realities of what is behind the behavior. Courtley- you seem to think this is an isolated phenomenon, but it’s not, and the more girls perceive their status to be the same as guys, the further it will go and the more they will ignore all but the highest status guys unless more guys learn to make adjustments.

  • Jones

    We’ve swung to the other extreme now, of underrating the value of Game. None of these ideas were invented by Game; read Stendhal, for example. His plot features the same, universal phenomenon: there is a perverse dynamic that potentially sets in once a woman knows she has your love – the risk of becoming diminished in her eyes, or drifting into beta-tude. By the same token, these are much broader issues and the whole Game approach is a limited take on these things. I really like this article:

    http://www.thepointmag.com/2010/essays/love-in-the-age-of-the-pickup-artist

    “Several painful months later, she told me in a parked car—we were already having frank philosophical conversations about our past—that once upon a time she had seen me in the library, at the head of a group of my friends, and thought: “That guy is a badass.” She thought that I was a man, just like her powerful father. The implication of the statement was obvious: I once was a man, but I wasn’t anymore. To be honest, I can’t say I disagreed with her at the time.”

    Maybe it is all only relevant to the brave new world of elite young coastal singles scenes. Maybe the only people complaining here on this website are those for whom things have simply not (yet) worked out. I know I fit that category. If I was in a successful relationship I wouldn’t be obsessing on this damned blog.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

    “I spent most of the time in between expecting to be dumped. Once you say it, she’s won and it’s just counting most of the time.”

    Uh . . . what now? Won what?

    Did ya ever try dating any of the women at the swim club? Were any single? Were any attractive to you?

  • Wudang

    ” but do men have no variation in the intensity of their orgasms as a result of emotional depth and connection?”

    Sure we do. Massive difference.

  • Thoth

    @Herb
    “It’s funny you talking about beta guys ;) …speaking of, if you’re interested look for mdarcy on the expect place.”

    Well, the whole alpha/beta marketplace thing isn’t really my scene. In more ways than one. But I am aware of the phenomenon. And seen it play out lots of times. So I do poke fun at it from time to time.

    I am from a very different culture too, but women are women everywhere (as men are men too, I must add). So yeah, I can attest that NAWALT (nearly all women are like that). :)

    Will find you mdarcy.

  • Courtley

    @ BroHamlet

    You wrote, “First of all, no girl, even the one without options, wants a guy who’s “somewhat” attractive or has “some” social skills.”

    But, BroHamlet, what about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life? The guys are somewhat attractive–not ugly, not gorgeous–and probably have average emotional intelligence and an average level of extroversion. Most dudes I encounter with girlfriends in real life aren’t Tom Brady and their girls seem happy. Most happy couples seem pretty well-matched physically–people actually tend to marry people of about equal attractiveness. Hell, I feel like a lot of people end up with partners who sort of resemble them!

    Everything else just reads like a recycling of the basic tenets of pickup-artistry. I get the concepts, but I think you guys need to back them up a little more. Because when I like, hang out with my friends and encounter real people in real life I’m just not seeing this as very typical. Probably more common in urban areas but sorry, it’s still a group of characteristics limited to a certain type of spoiled, generally upper-middle-class gal in her 20s. I think they’re a growing number–we know that narcissism a growing problem among women–and in general entitlement is a problem among Gen Y-ers (both genders!). Still, this idea that women have no inkling of their “market value” and think they’re all super hot stuff seems like the fantasy of someone who doesn’t know very many average, not-super-hot, not-super-wealthy young women very well.

    Let me ask you how you narrow down girls to hit on/run Game on and how it works. Give me some cold hard logical specifics here–how old, where do you meet them, what do they look like (what do you typically aim for on the 1-10 scale?) and what do you do initially to get their attention? I like theory, but since I don’t feel like I see this in my real life I want something more concrete.

    Also, if you feel comfortable revealing which urban area, or even what region of the country’s it’s in I’d like to know that as well, for my own mental frame of reference.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Courtley

      But, BroHamlet, what about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life? The guys are somewhat attractive–not ugly, not gorgeous–and probably have average emotional intelligence and an average level of extroversion.

      I infuriated a male reader once by mentioning that when I take a walk in my own urban neighborhood on a Saturday morning, the park is chock full of beta dads with their wives and kids. I see families talking, laughing, living their lives. The notion of the beta being scooped up as second best after a woman has ridden the cock carousel is ridiculous. Beta males comprise 80% of the male population, and probably 90% of married men. And they’re marrying women of similar traits, whom we might call beta females.

      I agree that the market is very segmented, and both sexes need to stop vying for “alphas.”

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        Athol Kay emailed me a clarification of a point I made, and I think it’s important, so I am going to paste it here:

        I lost track of the comment you had made in relation me on the Dangerous Women post. Something to the effect of I agreed that female hypergamy and male desire for opportunistic partner sex draws the couple together and then once married you can put all that aside.

        It’s somewhat close to my viewpoint, but not quite. Both those needs never go away in a marriage and I think you have to actively manage them.

        Jennifer and I manage the hypergamy thing via the Captain and First Officer model. I’m always “above” her, thus she’s always more turned on by me. Personally I’m not crazy dominant in real life, but it clearly works for Jennifer so I do it happily.

        The opportunistic sex thing is trickier. The biology driving it is intense dopamine spikes. So say I see an attractive and available 25-year-old girl who is interested in me, my body is going to give me a shot of dopamine to get me in motion to go chase her. So the trick is to get me reacting with a major dopamine spike in relation to Jennifer. I’ve mentioned it a couple times on the blog, but once in a while we use a combination of edging / orgasm denial on me for several days in a row. After 4 days of that I’m pretty much following Jennifer around like a lost puppy. Not very Inner Game, but whatever. Longest we’ve gone is 5 days and it was pretty much an out of body experience by the final session. So I’m literally flooded with dopamine in relation to Jennifer when we do that.

        So the trick isn’t to try and deny these impulses, or to use moral willpower to repress them, but to use your bodies own impulses to eroticise the marriage. It’s all pretty counter-initiutive though.

        One of the things I love best about Athol’s work is that he is dispassionate and science-based. He has no use for political correctness of any kind. He’s realistic, but also incredibly positive, and he has a great marriage to show for it. It helps that he and Jennifer are open in their identity and both participating in the project. The testimonial is real. We don’t have to wonder if Athol is some Lex Luthor wannabe making stuff up.

  • Thoth

    Also, I think this Avocado person is a sock-puppet of that College Kid fellow.

  • Thoth

    @Herb
    “She had he other two SOs when I met her.

    What saddens me is apparently I’m not enough for a woman to want a monogamous relationship. That’s certainly part of my diminished interest in relationships in general. There are things where I’m good enough. Perhaps they should be where I put all, not just some, of my energy.”

    Well it isn’t fair to expect a poly person already in a relationship to drop the others and become monogamous with you. I don’t think that will ever happen. You already knew the situation. However, you do seem to have “settled” by dropping your insistence on monogamy. You might have found someone monogamous perhaps if you looked around a little more. I’m only saying that because monogamy seems to be a big requirement for you and repressing that is probably not going to work in the long term.

    But, if you are happy with your poly arrangement, have fun.

  • OffTheCuff

    This article and comment thread is a strawman shitstorm.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      This article and comment thread is a strawman shitstorm.

      No, it’s a response to the strawman shitstorm that is a fixture of the manosphere.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Herb. Not sure I get your meaning. But if you think the Navy funeral was for an old fart, not so. He was twenty-five. That was the average age of the EM at the funeral, not counting the chiefs. Actually, they look like they’re in junior high these days. I don’t think we did. Did we?

    “”@Richard Aubrey

    Thing is, although I’m a guy and I have no direct experience of tingles, none of what impressed the hell out of his sharp-end buddies overlapped what has been described here as tingle-inducing.

    I think if you want to explain the SMP of today versus even 1970 it’s that fact.

    Up thread Avocado said:

    Cooper, being beloved by women is a symptom not a cause. The cause is being a high quality man. That is what women want. We determine a disease first by observing its symptoms.

    Forty-five years ago your uncle was a quality man. Today many people think he’s a joke. It’s men like him and my father (for who I will endure the same on Thursday) who used to make things work. Not I don’t think they’re very wanted.

    As someone said up thread, a society that does that does not have a good future.””

    When I was much younger, one woman or another might puzzle me. I recall the time when I thought there was something wrong with the entire species.
    I had gotten a minor scar on my forearm playing lax. It was, iirc, about three inches long, a quarter of an inch wide, eighth of an inch deep. IOW, nothing.

    I was seeing a woman I’d known in HS, visiting at her home, leaning against the refrigerator talking to her mother. (Note to self. Leaning against somebody’s refrigerator is probably not polite.)
    The girl came up behind me, saw the scar, hissed through her teeth and traced it gently with one finger.
    I was disappointed:

    1. She was trying to impress me with her sympathy. Lame. It was a minor, superficial ding. No stitches, no first aid, zip.

    2. She was viscerally reacting to the battle-scar thing. Lame. I had been playing a game, not defending the ville against Viking slave raiders.

    3. She was shocked by the physical insult to my forearm. Lame. Superficial, and what was she going to do if she saw a serious injury?

    Caused me to rethink a number of assumptions. The results were…disappointing. Weren’t we all issued with brains?

  • Emily

    Re: Alpha/Beta/Goldilocks/Whatever

    A good rule of thumb might be that guys shouldn’t show any more interest/affection than the girl is already demonstrating.

    So if a girl is acting more reserved, then it might be a good idea to be more aloof. But if she’s acting like an overeager puppy, then you’re probably free to be as “beta” as you want.

    Just a suggestion.

  • Thoth

    “But if she’s acting like an overeager puppy, then you’re probably free to be as “beta” as you want.”

    No. Being beta will kill her over-eager puppy-like excitement. The thing to do is to treat her like a puppy (who’s grown, and female and probably described better by another word for canines instead of puppy). That should keep her tail wagging.

  • Lokland

    @Susan and Courtny

    I agree that theres a significant number of couples that involve a beta male.
    What about on your average college campus?
    Most of the betas are sitting it out completely. (As are most of the beta females.)

  • Emily

    Thoth,

    You’re right, it was an overstatement for me to say that they’re free to have unlimited beta-ness. But I do think that once a girl starts to show some vulnerability, then it’s okay (and even preferable) for the guy to let his guard down to at least some extent.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Alias,

    Now, I’m not arguing that some dark gamers don’t have abusive relationships with their mothers, I’m just saying that many of the ones I know don’t. I don’t want people to think that’s always the case.
    I wonder if JesusM is reading and can share what the relationship was between his mother relationship to his DT brother.

    My brother isn’t very self-aware. I’ve spoken to him a few times since I broke my engagement and had my whole “red pill” experience, and he seemed genuinely puzzled that I had any issues with women at the time. (This from a guy who once said that the ultimate conquest would be to bang his brother’s fiancee.)

    I’m pretty sure my brother’s hatred and aggression toward me as a child had to do with my being born at all. I represented competition. I’ve heard my mother discuss with other moms how bad she felt having a second child, how much resentment my older brother felt at the time, and how she sought to appease him.

    So yea, I think there was an insecure attachment between them–at least as he experienced it. It was a battle for attention in his eyes. He may have won consistently, but he always felt the need to engage.

  • Mule Chewing Briars

    I think Courtley may be having a problem understanding male attraction.

    Most of the aggregate masculine attention DOES go to the top 15-20% of women, so you have kind of a hypergamy thing working there as well. I know that frustrates women, because there ARE some women who every man finds attractive. Where men and women differ, though, is that men appear to me to be more idiosyncratic in their choices than women are.

    Some women look like they can scratch you where you itch. Other men may not be able to understand why you like cross-eyed girls, or girls with 15 extra pounds, or girls with pronounced ankle tendons, or flat-chested girls, but it kind of makes the world go ’round.

    There are very, very few women who aren’t in some man’s crosshairs because of what she probably considers a beauty flaw. The biggest problem is when there are is no overlap. Like I keep telling my daughter – you get to choose from the boys who are interested in you, not from those who aren’t.

    My older daughter has a friend who is, uh, pectorally challenged. I told her (my daughter, not the friend), that there are lots of boys and men who are attracted to gamines, but my daughter said that her friend “doesn’t like the kind of boys who like flat-chested girls.”

    That one had me puzzled.

  • this is Jen

    second.”

    “Listen, I know it’s long distance, and I don’t want to hold you back, but I need to know if you have any other boys at your school.”

    “No. I haven’t hooked up with anyone.”

    “That makes me really happy. I like you so much.”

    They grinned at each other like a couple of fools, he hugged her tightly, and they walked back to his apartment, where they had constant sex for three days.

    Jane later learned that Tom’s girlfriend was out of town for Valentine’s Day, and he’d needed a date for his formal. When she confronted him, he pointed out that he had not ever used the word exclusive or relationship.

    His was a lie of omission. Is Jane to blame? Should she have parsed the vocabulary on that brilliant winter afternoon?

    What is Tom’s responsibility? Is he just a guy who is adept at applied psychology?
    ——————————————————————————
    this is jen
    I ain’t buyin that.
    As someone who had a long distance relationship in college ( 2000miles) I would have taken that opportunity right then and there to say ” and how about you?”

    she didn’t want to know, or she already did know

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    I’m with Jen.
    It just doesn’t sound right.

    I also did LD for awhile.

    She just had some guy say he really liked her and decided to fuck him and assume monogamy. Her vagina also spouts unicorns!!!

    Whereas the bar slut just had some hot guy show interest in her and she decided to fuck him assuming monogamy would result. Her vagina also spouts unicorns too!!!

    Note: Without a doubt that dudes an ass. He cheated on his girlfriend.

    But she is still an idiot for making such a ridculous assumption.

    Heres a good starting appoint. Assume non-monogamy until articulated otherwise.
    Oughta clear up a lot of problems.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Note: Without a doubt that dudes an ass. He cheated on his girlfriend.

      But she is still an idiot for making such a ridculous assumption.

      There’s no question the girl is an idiot. That’s not what I asked. The question is whether the guy is a douche. Forget cheating on his gf – was his intent to deceive Jane? He didn’t just not bring it up. He brought it up in a way that was meant to give comfort when that was the last thing she should be feeling.

      The problem is that women don’t want to turn a lovely romantic moment at the park into a DTR talk. That’s on them – having that conversation is a necessity. She brought it on herself by failing to do due diligence.

      What do we think about his character as demonstrated in his behavior towards Jane?

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Courtley
    “What about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life?”

    The true believers are never going to acknowledge successful couples exist in any great number, even though they’re a majority of the population. That would contradict the view that society is going to hell in a handbasket. Coupled with the belief that “most” women in the SMP are the equivalent of Mata Hari, and “most” men are their hapless victims, and you’ve got one giant self-fulfilling prophecy at work.

  • Lokland

    @MM

    Just to point out I believe society is going to hell. I don’t particulrly care if it arrives via handbasket or FedEx but thats where its going.

    Its got nothing to do with PUA/game/female hypergamy and more to do with the time of Western economic supremacy is over.

  • Thoth

    @Courtley
    “What about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life?”

    Soon to be EatPrayLove’d

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @LL
    I understand the economic concerns, especially these days. I’m not as pessimistic about that, either. Market economies are more dynamic than people give them credit for (i.e. Germany, Israel). You and the fiancee could always relocate if that’s a concern?

  • J

    I can tell you I’ve never encountered this kind of hostility before …People can get pretty vicious online – I guess I was lucky to avoid the snipers as long as I did.

    I can’t say don’t take it personally because it’s hard not to, especially when the attacks are personal in nature. But I do think that you have to consider the source. You had a particular goal in mind, helping young women, when you started this blog. In writing this blog, you advanced a conservative approach to hooking up while still being understanding of the fact that young people would still continue to have pre-marital sex. Your conservatism and your adoption of ‘sphere terminology made some members of the ‘sphere feel like they had an ally, as did your being attacked by Marcotte and company, but your gender and mission do not allow you to take as radically conservative a stance as many would want you to. That makes them angry; they feel betrayed, I suppose. But what can you do? There are even a few odd guys in the ‘sphere who long the days when women didn’t vote and 13 year olds could marry. They are chronically angry, and only turning back the clock 400 years will make them happy. In the meantime, the rest of us can only push forward in the hopes that new and better forms of relationships will evolve.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Susan. The guy’s the reason even people without horses sometimes own horsewhips.
    That said, there’s a maxim that you can’t cheat an honest man. Not exactly true. You can cheat an honest rookie. And it’s so easy to cheat somebody who wants to be cheated that it’s hardly any fun. The woman in question was either a rookie–which means you learn the hard way or you listen to all those fun-ruining, blue-nosed, slut-shaming old folks and their nasty, repressive advice–or she wasn’t sufficiently concerned about being cheated that she didn’t bother with due diligence.

  • Lokland

    @MM

    We are. I’ve been offered lead on a project overseas in a few years.

    @Susan

    Let me put an analogy to it.

    She got hit by a car. Theres no doubt about it.

    However in the eyes of the law theres a big difference between letting someone walk infront of a car (even intentionally) and pushing someone infront of a speeding car.

    His intention was to no doubt let her walk infron of that car. That doesn’t make it a crime.

    People can believe whatever they want to believe. If it puts the outcome in my favour over theirs it would make me a good person to point out their flaw. It however is definetly not a requirement and it doesn’t put me at fault for letting someone be an idiot.

    So yes, his character is quite low. Despicable. He let someone walk infront of a speeding car. That doesn’t mean he is to blame, even the teeniest lil bit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So yes, his character is quite low. Despicable. He let someone walk infront of a speeding car. That doesn’t mean he is to blame, even the teeniest lil bit.

      He did a bit more than that. He invited her out and led her to an intersection when he knew a speeding car would be coming by. He took her by the hand and led her across the street at the precise moment the car came by.

      He invited a woman for the weekend when he already had a gf without telling her. Should she have been expected to say, “I’d love to visit, as long as you don’t have a gf who’s going to be away that weekend.”

      Intent is the key. In my view, when you seek gain at the expense of another you are behaving immorally if they have incomplete information. This applies in all areas of life, for both sexes. In fact, I can think of two examples in our criminal justice system:

      1. Intent can make the difference between Death Row and two years with good behavior.

      2. The defense is entitled to all evidence gathered by the prosecution.

      IRL re relationships, don’t ask, don’t tell is not immoral, IMO. It is the responsibility of both parties to ask for the information they need. In this case, however, we have:

      Boy: Ask, but don’t tell. Suppress relevant information.

      Girl: Tell, but don’t ask. Avoid relevant information.

      That makes her stupid and him evil.

  • Emily

    I think it depends on whether or not Tom’s deception was deliberate. In this case, I’d say that it was. Therefore, he is a douche. And of course she was an idiot as well.

    Also, I hate the idea of open relationships, even if they’re long-distance. Either you’re in or you’re out. She should have initiated the DTR talk before they left for college.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    My favorite male rationalization hamsters:

    Women don’t care about men’s looks. And yeah, most young women (including older women) are really into old dudes.

    I could make a list of them but I will stop right here.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “What do we think about his character as demonstrated in his behavior towards Jane?”

    Opportunist at best. Con man at worst. It’s clear that young women are expected to have zero margin of error out in the SMP, even the inexperienced ones, lest they be eternally unworthy of a relationship. Guys on the other hand, well, anything that gets them in those pants is a-okay, because “boys will be boys” : |

  • Jackie

    Re: Tom & Jane
    I was reading somewhere that the source of all lying was either “fear” or “lack.” No one overtly lied in this scenario, but I feel like T&J were both acting from those same places:

    Jane, if she wanted more than NSA sex, is afraid at some level to clarify. She is afraid to ask because she doesn’t want to know. If she stays ignorant, she can believe the best– for a little while, at least. I think this position is crazy: She is putting her health at risk (STI’s), possible pregnancy, potential heartache and wrecking her self-respect, in my opinion. To me, this is MUCH scarier than asking a guy, Hey, are we exclusive?

    Tom is also acting from fear. (See comment #465 for clarification on his character) He *knows* that if he was honest and told her the truth– let’s face it, the guy is lying by omission– that he wouldn’t get sex. He is afraid to be honest about a huge swath of his life. (BTW, My brother was assigned a “Tom” for a roommate his freshman year of college. My dad remarked, He’s not a real man.)

    As for Tom’s girlfriend– who he has promised exclusivity– we can only hope she has been informed of the situation and can kick him to the curb. UGH! So much needless hurt for weekend of sex and a date to the dance. :(

  • J

    But, BroHamlet, what about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life? The guys are somewhat attractive–not ugly, not gorgeous–and probably have average emotional intelligence and an average level of extroversion.

    SW: “I infuriated a male reader once by mentioning that when I take a walk in my own urban neighborhood on a Saturday morning, the park is chock full of beta dads with their wives and kids. I see families talking, laughing, living their lives.”

    I had an interesting experience on Saturday afternoon. The weather was lovely, so DH and I went to the botanical gardens. He heard something move in the bushes, and I joked it was probably a tarantula and starting doing spider hands up and down his back. He grabbed me and hugged me, playfully pinning my hands at my sides so that I couldn’t tickle him. We were both laughing loudly enough to attract the attention of a young women who said to her bf, “Aw look at all the cute old people in the park today.” After the comment stopped rankling, I looked around and noticed several other middle-aged couples walking hand in hand together. Most looked comfortably married, not like dating couples. We were the norm, not the exception.

  • OffTheCuff

    Liza: “Women don’t care about men’s looks. And yeah, most young women (including older women) are really into old dudes.”

    It’s easy to make someone else’s ideas look silly, when you get them entirely wrong in the first place. What you said is obviously wrong, but. Obey is claiming that. What is true that women, in aggregate, care about men’s looks less than men care about women’s, and lots of women will date older men, far more than the other way around.

    I know personally at least 4 women who have married or cohabitiating men 20 years older. One is my cousin, who could be a bikini model. Men? I know none dating women that old.

  • OffTheCuff

    *obey = nobody. Yay iPad.

  • Jackie

    @MegaMan

    “It’s clear that young women are expected to have zero margin of error out in the SMP”

    MM, it appears this way, unfortunately. :( This may sound lame, but couldn’t people dodge a lot more bullets by refusing to give in to the lowest common denominator? Is it really that hard to say No, I’m not ready for this yet?

    When some guy pressured me for sex and wouldn’t back off, I asked, How would you like to handle a pregnancy? It definitely changed the tone of the conversation. :)

    The reason I asked was because I had friends get pregnant on the pill, condom, IUD, and *combination* in college. I said the same thing to some guys. If they dumped me, GOOD. They weren’t truly interested me as a person and saved me a bunch of time. I’d call that a win (even if it felt like a lose at the time).

    I’m not going to act from fear (of knowing the truth) or lack (that I better “get it while you can,” or I’ll end up alone). Fear, to quote Dune, is the mind-killer.

  • J

    That makes her stupid and him evil.

    Yes, indeed. Hopefully, she will learn from this mistake. My guess though is that he will continue in this tactic as long as the reward is sex.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Megaman, that’s why I feel semi-lucky to have gotten the harsh talks from my mother about how all men are liars, cheats and out for sex… before I hit puberty. Yeah it wasn’t the healthiest view, and certainly my own view is not that, but I definitely grilled the hell out of every guy who was interested in me. I never got pumped and dumped or used.

    But if that’s the kind of preparation a girl needs to not be hoodwinked, that says something sad about male nature as well.

  • Ted D

    Susan – Thanks for the well wishes. All in all, I feel a bit sad, but better informed. And the truth is, I’m not really sad about MY situation at all. I won’t say that I’m not concerned, but I’m no longer anxiety ridden and worried that my world will come crashing down again. But, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be prepared in case things go wrong, and that single idea alone puts me in a WAY better position than I was in before. I mistakenly believed that a promise made is a promise kept, and as much as I believed I was keeping my promise during my marriage, I realized that I didn’t even know what the promise actually was, and in turn my ex was not able to keep hers.

    That won’t happen again. I can’t say that my current relationship will be any more or less successful than my marriage, but I damn well surely won’t be short-changing my SO on my side of the promise. That means I need to adjust some of my behaviors and attitudes which as you know has been a sticking point for me, but no longer. I finally realized that no matter what, I need to do what is best for *me* before I can do anything for someone else, even the ones I love the most. Of course that doesn’t mean I intend to become a selfish asshole, because that isn’t best for me anyway. However, it does mean that I need to put more effort into simply doing and being a better person, and by doing so I position myself to be able to help the people I love and care about.

    When I and my SO agreed to become exclusive, she put her trust in me to do what is best for us, as I did in her. However, I’ve realized that how we do “what is best” for our relationship may turn out to be very different. She is an adult, and certainly has her own agency to make decisions for herself. But, it is also my task to “look out” for her, and part of that means looking out for myself. That doesn’t mean I intend to remove her agency in the least, but that I intend to do what *I* believe is best for us regardless of her agency. If she truly trusts me, then she will know that my motives are true, and will accept that although she may not feel *my* way is best, my way is how we are getting to our destination. If she doesn’t trust me to steer the wheel, well, we don’t have anything to build on and it’s best we part ways.

    And I finally realized that I don’t have to announce this. I don’t have to make some proclamation that I am going to do the right thing, since technically I should have been doing it all along anyway. And, in many ways I have. I’m not a total loss, clueless and helpless. I simply wasn’t seeing everything clearly. I was mired too much in the details to see the entire picture. I can see now that I am filling my role in our relationship, but just didn’t consciously acknowledge it. And, now that I am finally beginning to see my “role” more clearly, I am also much less apprehensive to step up and fill it fully. I don’t need my SO’s permission to lead our relationship, she granted it when she agreed to be with me. I don’t need to be explicit about our roles either, since it is likely that they will change throughout the entirety of our relationship. But, the thing that will never change is: I will always do what *I* feel is best for me, her, and us.

    I hope you understand that my desire to seek knowledge elsewhere was in no way a sign of my lack of respect for you and your work. The simple truth is that I couldn’t find everything here. And not because of any lack of honesty, but because of limited perspective. You and the majority of the female regulars here, although very supportive, are still very much women, and because of that there really is an issue of perspective to consider. If it means anything, it was and remains HUS that reminds me NAWALT, and why I sought advice from Athol and a few others as well. If I hadn’t found this place first, (actually second after MMSL, but I’ve remained here more than there or anywhere else) things may have turned out far differently. I can’t say for sure if it would have been better or worse, but if the end result was a cynical and overly negative me (it’s hard to believe but I can be more negative. :P) then I think it would have been for the worse. So if nothing else, thank you Susan and the regulars at HUS for making me look at you as individuals first, and women second. In the end, THAT is how I intend to approach my relationship with my SO. She is the person I love and trust, but she is also a woman. She can and does rise above her basic instincts, but I need to provide an environment that encourages her to continue doing so, and at the same time promotes our growth together. I’m not responsible for making her a better person, I’m responsible to show her how to be a better person, and that was the small piece I’ve been missing all along. And, without even knowing it, she is already showing me how to be a better man. If there is anything that can help a relationship last a lifetime, it has to be becoming better people together.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      I hope you understand that my desire to seek knowledge elsewhere was in no way a sign of my lack of respect for you and your work. The simple truth is that I couldn’t find everything here. And not because of any lack of honesty, but because of limited perspective. You and the majority of the female regulars here, although very supportive, are still very much women, and because of that there really is an issue of perspective to consider. If it means anything, it was and remains HUS that reminds me NAWALT, and why I sought advice from Athol and a few others as well.

      I commend you for doing the research necessary to find your solution, wherever it has taken you. I don’t want the responsibility or control of limiting readers to HUS, nor do I consider it a sign of failure if people go elsewhere. I think most of us, including myself, read a number of blogs. It sounds like you’ve reached understanding, acceptance, and have an idea of how to proceed. I’m glad for you.

      And, without even knowing it, she is already showing me how to be a better man. If there is anything that can help a relationship last a lifetime, it has to be becoming better people together.

      That’s a lovely thought – and a healthy way to view your relationship, IMO. Best of luck.

  • Jackie

    @Hope

    “that’s why I feel semi-lucky to have gotten the harsh talks from my mother about how all men are liars, cheats and out for sex… before I hit puberty.”

    Hope, she was telling you this… at the same time she was comparing you to other girls about prettiness and impressing the importance of appearance to attract men? This seems very dissonant, to me. :( What were her expectations for you? To marry, with the expectation you’ll be treated like crap?

    I remember my parents impressing on me to “stay a kid” as long as I could, dating-wise. No formal dances until 17. Any boy who wanted to come over knew he would be expected to meet all of us. Group dates were encouraged.

    I was *extremely* shy about boys and couldn’t even talk to one at the time, so all their concern was for nothing. ;)

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    OffTheCuff,

    The looks “thing” always seems to touch a nerve in men.

    The claim from men is that women don’t care about looks AT ALL. And, no matter how much women say we care about looks–men refuse to believe it and simply choose to be in denial about it. Why?

  • J

    Megaman, that’s why I feel semi-lucky to have gotten the harsh talks from my mother about how all men are liars, cheats and out for sex… before I hit puberty. Yeah it wasn’t the healthiest view, and certainly my own view is not that, but I definitely grilled the hell out of every guy who was interested in me. I never got pumped and dumped or used.

    Conversely, loads of girls hear that talk, know it’s unrealistic, dismiss it totally, and then are easy prey for cads because they’ve decided that mom or dad is an old fool who can not be believed. Kids, particularly adolescents, have a huge drive towards independence that makes them ignore good advice when given to them in a way that provokes fear and drives them back into dependence.

    I don’t mean this as a criticism of Hope or her mom, but as a comment about how to reach kids.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    Did ya ever try dating any of the women at the swim club? Were any single? Were any attractive to you?

    You have the wrong last question: were any attracted to me?

    As for them attractive to me, what swimmer isn’t…talk, lean, with some drive, interested in triathlon…certainly there is enough for one date to see, but it has to be reciprocal.

    As for won what, welcome to combat dating…the one who shows HV and thus can leave when they want wins.

    @Thoth

    Well it isn’t fair to expect a poly person already in a relationship to drop the others and become monogamous with you. I don’t think that will ever happen. You already knew the situation. However, you do seem to have “settled” by dropping your insistence on monogamy. You might have found someone monogamous perhaps if you looked around a little more.

    I have no expectation for her to change. I have in fact given up monogamy as a requirement. As for more time, my divorce was final on July 31, 2001. That’s a long time.

    @RA

    Herb. Not sure I get your meaning. But if you think the Navy funeral was for an old fart, not so. He was twenty-five. That was the average age of the EM at the funeral, not counting the chiefs. Actually, they look like they’re in junior high these days. I don’t think we did. Did we?

    Ah, I did think it was for an old fart.

    And when I drive by a base today or see pictures I wonder when they started letting kids play with rifles and reactors.
    .
    @Mule Chewing Briars

    There are very, very few women who aren’t in some man’s crosshairs because of what she probably considers a beauty flaw. The biggest problem is when there are is no overlap. Like I keep telling my daughter – you get to choose from the boys who are interested in you, not from those who aren’t.

    That does seem to be the biggest difference between men and women. Men should a much greater variance in what their big thing is. Then again, in most psychological measures men show more variance.

    My older daughter has a friend who is, uh, pectorally challenged. I told her (my daughter, not the friend), that there are lots of boys and men who are attracted to gamines, but my daughter said that her friend “doesn’t like the kind of boys who like flat-chested girls.”

    Yeah, well, hopefully she’ll get a clue before 40. People need to get over “there is someone for everyone” and “the perfect person for you exists”. You’re lucky if anyone finds you interesting and your choice is to choose between the people available or choose to be alone. Nothing wrong with choosing the later, but to demand people who don’t like you start doing so because you don’t want to choose it is the common entitlement.

    @Megaman

    The true believers are never going to acknowledge successful couples exist in any great number, even though they’re a majority of the population. That would contradict the view that society is going to hell in a handbasket

    I acknowledge they exist. I’ll even give that at any given time slice they constitute a majority, or at least have historically. They may still, but I believe that number is declining.

    What worries me is how many of those couples will be together in 10 years. I didn’t say “how many are unhappy” because even the happiest couples have unhappy periods. The issues is the willingness to work through them. We have plenty of research that says if you do you’ll be happier than you were in a few years.

    But we’re failing on that. First, the culture at large endorses leaving marriage if you’re unhappy for both women and men. That women seem to reach that point more often is curious and is probably related to the “you deserve it all culture”, but men are picking up similar messages. I think men are more reacting to a culture “you’re optional anyway” message.

    My biggest worry, though, is we’ve baked in divorce. Children of never married mothers and children of divorce are much less likely to form lasting marriages (a red flag I ignored in choosing a mate). Every generation these people are a larger proportion of the population. In fact, they are a majority and soon the first group alone will be the majority.

    Finally, I look at my own family. Prior to me there were no divorces and only one old maid in the 20th century. Forty percent of my generation divorced. Another forty percent never married. The last one (there are five of us) was, the last time we heard, a drug addict married to a drug addict. On the two who divorced only one (my sister) has remarried. Sure, it’s anecdote but it’s enough to tell me something has changed that makes happy couples that last much less likely.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Jackie, she was painting a harsh, bleak version of reality for me so that I wouldn’t be entitled or disappointed. In Asian culture girls are less valued than boys. It is indisputable. Girls had to be slim, light-skinned, have big eyes, be pretty, be smart, be obedient, be virgins, work hard, and always be aware of her place in the hierarchy. I was not slim enough, light enough, pretty enough or obedient enough. I got the opposite of the “you’re special” treatment.

    Her expectation for me was to marry a rich, high-status man whom I did not love, so that I did not have to suffer poverty or work in physical labor as a housekeeper or servant (which my mother did). She wanted me to be as manipulative, selfish and cunning as I could be, because in her view that is how to get ahead in life. It’s not exactly dissonant with her own experiences, since my father was a womanizer, physically abused her, cheated on her and eventually left her for a younger woman, and she fell into poverty. This was commonplace in Asia, where men held much higher status, and the only thing uncommon was that he actually got a divorce instead of just having mistresses on the side.

    So I can’t really blame her, although she was a crappy mother, for trying to warn me about what she saw as the horrible reality of the world. I did not have a long childhood. I knew about sex early and wanted to grow up early so that I would get away from her.

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    The claim from men is that women don’t care about looks AT ALL. And, no matter how much women say we care about looks–men refuse to believe it and simply choose to be in denial about it. Why?

    I know no man who believes that. We’re compared to the flavor of the day too much to not know it.

    What I’m much more familiar with is women’s anger that men do care about looks and the belief they should be allowed to care.

    Prime example is my sister. She’s told me I should lose some weight to attract women. She has a point and I had be losing when she told me that. I’ve lost since. She’ll still tell me I need to lose more even though I can outrun, out bike,and out swim a significant fraction of men a decade younger (possibly the majority but I’m not sure). Yet her fat and obese female friends get plenty of sympathy about how men should quit caring looks and see personalities.

    This matches with pop culture. We have Shallow Hal about a man learning it does matter if a woman is morbidly obese because in the end she’s just as attractive as the thin version. I have yet to see Shallow Jen about a woman learning to not care a man isn’t Hugh Jackman.

  • Jackie

    @Hope

    “She wanted me to be as manipulative, selfish and cunning as I could be, because in her view that is how to get ahead in life. ”
    ——
    Hope, you have really done an amazing job with your life, especially in regards to character. I’m so sorry your mom was so difficult.

    ((((((Hope)))))

    BTW–Does your mom have NPD? Because she sounds like my grandmother :(

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    J, that talk was not unrealistic for me, since I grew up in Asia, my grandfather had a whole other family by his mistress, and it was the norm. American culture might be more Puritannical, but I also grew up on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

    Of course I never believed that women were all nice and sugar and spice, because my mother was not. I got a huge dose of reality pre-puberty that stayed with me throughout life. Of course I still dated guys, but for most of my youth I had a deep wariness of them and didn’t trust them. My husband is the first man I ever really trusted.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Jackie, I’m fairly certain at this point that my mother has NPD. She has 90% of the list of traits on this page:

    http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html

    I remember her being paranoid that the FBI/CIA were spying on her, and she was convinced there were people outside going through her garbage to see what she was up to. She had strange grandiose delusions.

    It’s possible that life just kind of broke her. She didn’t exactly have an easy life in adulthood, and although she was smart and beautiful by Chinese standards, and born into a relative life of privilege in China, she was a nobody in America and living in poverty. I suppose she insisted on continuing to be important in her own mind.

  • OffTheCuff

    Liz: “The claim from men is that women don’t care about looks AT ALL.”

    OK, show me an example of that claim if it’s so common. I rarely see this, unless it’s from a deranged commenter, not any respected blogger. Most of what I read is “looks do matter, so get to the gym, fatso!” Athol says so, as well as Rollo.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Herb: “Yet her fat and obese female friends get plenty of sympathy about how men should quit caring looks and see personalities.”

    I have mentioned before that I have a friend who thinks like this and she is constantly seeking my validation and sympathy for this line of thinking. However, she will never ever receive it from me.

  • J

    Hope, Jackie, et al.

    I wonder how many of the women who comment in the ‘sphere with some regularity had mentally ill or problematic mothers? There seems to be a disproportionate number.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Jackie, thank you for the hugs. :) Don’t feel bad for me though. I feel so much luckier than a lot of people in the world. Regardless of my mother’s flaws, she did work hard, provided for me, and sent me to school so I’d have a better future. I’m in a really good place now, and I’m grateful to be here. I do wish I could help my mother get better psychologically, but I don’t think I can.

    I remember my own takeaways from what happened to her. 1) Mate choice in one’s youth and 20s have a big impact on one’s life. 2) Ignore Mr. Big who’s super successful, greedy and ambitious. 3) Good character and ethics trump money and status any day.

    In another conversation thread, someone mentioned my husband could have gone into banking making six figures with a math degree. My husband actually refused to go work for a bank for the big bucks. It was one of those things that really impressed me about him and made me think, “Wow!” I’d rather live a frugal middle class life and have a happy family than risk my future and the future of my children on a Dark Triad a-hole. Middle class American lifestyle is already better than the vast majority of people have it on Earth. I have no need for more.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Perfect Christmas present for the avid HUS commenter: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster

    You are welcome ;)

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Okay, I am glad that a couple of male bloggers have driven home this point to men. I remember one of the bloggers you mentioned doing a post on the topic and the response from men was almost overwhelming.

    Men really get their tightie-whities in a bunch over this subject.

  • Iggles

    Liza207,

    My favorite male rationalization hamsters:

    Women don’t care about men’s looks. And yeah, most young women (including older women) are really into old dudes.

    I could make a list of them but I will stop right here.

    True! Yet it’s amazing how many men in the ‘sphere are adament that men don’t have hamsters — only women…

  • INTJ

    @ Courtley

    Again, no, the friends I’m thinking of weren’t that into ‘riding the carousel.’ We’re all in our mid to late 20s now, but I think they were mostly LTR-or-looking-for-one kind of girls in high school and college. Not saying that no one EVER had a hook-up, but frathouse/club skanks giving it up to every jock that asked they certainly were not. Decently cute, ordinary, often-athletic girls from nice-ish families. If you don’t know any women like this, then you’re self-selecting a very small number of people to represent “women” to you. Which is a big part of the problem in the Manosphere IMO.

    Where are those girls? How do I find them? Every girl I know except one in college is either hooking up or going from boyfriend to boyfriend. The one girl who actually wants commitment is already in a relationship.

  • Iggles

    J,

    I wonder how many of the women who comment in the ‘sphere with some regularity had mentally ill or problematic mothers? There seems to be a disproportionate number.

    You know, I remember this being discussed on a previous thread awhile back. I think the consensus was due to hearing harsh criticism growing up, such women had thick skin. As such they did not take all the awful comments made about women personally.

  • pvw

    Iggles:

    You know, I remember this being discussed on a previous thread awhile back. I think the consensus was due to hearing harsh criticism growing up, such women had thick skin. As such they did not take all the awful comments made about women personally.

    My reply:

    I think this had to do with them not being overly bothered when men in the manosphere attacked them directly, they were more empathetic to men’s perspectives on abuse at the hands of women, or to abusive situations in general.

    As for me, I’m an INTJ, so I don’t spend my time being overly worried about the perspectives of anonymous rants about women. Beyond that, I don’t tend to hang out in the “locker room,” in that I respect boundaries; certain spaces appear to be primarily male-only, and I as a woman should observe but not necessarily participate, ie., when I might glance at a manosphere blog post, ie., Dalrock, etc., but not participate. The old joke I can remember from chatting with girlfriends at the gym was about avoiding “testosterone poisoning…”

    By the way, Iggles, I liked your observation about not experiencing “EWW girl syndrome,” in that my background is similar–my younger 24 year old black girl self knew that no matter how entitled I might have thought I was, the world was not likely to agree!

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    J, Iggles and pvw, it is interesting to me how many females who are non-white and/or non-privileged in background we have here at HUS.

    None of us could have been a protagonist on one of these “modern dating” TV shows.

  • Stingray

    Ted @ 517,

    You’ve got the whole thing now Ted. All of the pieces. Well done, man and I wish you the very, very best. I hope you BOTH enjoy the journey of becoming better people and a better couple, together. It is an awesome thing.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Iggles,

    Of course, men have ralationization hamsters. And their hamsters appear to run at super duper speed too. The poor little things appear to be near cardiac arrest because they are always running so damn fast all. of. the. time. It seems that when women tell them what we actually desire and actually want is when it goes into overdrive.

  • Jackie

    @J, Iggles (#529)
    “Hope, Jackie, et al.

    I wonder how many of the women who comment in the ‘sphere with some regularity had mentally ill or problematic mothers? There seems to be a disproportionate number.”
    ——–
    Hey J!
    My mom was actually a really nice person– *her* mother (my maternal grandmother) was the NPD. Sometimes I think if I hadn’t lost my mom at a young age, I would be a lot more mentally healthy. Because the “manosphere” had nothing on my GM when it came to criticism of women!

    Now I can laugh about it –albeit in a gallows humor way– but at the time she made me cry buckets. She’d make me stand in front of the mirror and point out my deficiencies, ugliness and call names until I was just a puddle of tears. Some of her criticisms were bizarre (“asymmetrical!” “I can see the ugly German blood in you” from my dad’s side).

    We were her only living relatives– her only daughter’s children– so we couldn’t just cut her off. My dad just told me to avoid her as much as possible — a plan I followed to the letter. :)

    PS: In a happy ending, when my sister inherited her share of that estate, she used a bunch of the money to send anonymous gifts to the people (besides family!) that my grandmother had hurt, with apologies. It was a pretty huge lesson: Her life brought unmitigated misery; her death brought tons of happiness; be the opposite of NPD grandmother!

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    I wonder how many of the women who comment in the ‘sphere with some regularity had mentally ill or problematic mothers? There seems to be a disproportionate number.
    —–
    I believe most of the women who comment regularly in the manosphere and find the company of those men appealing are usually women who are attention whores with mama issues.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan

    What is Tom’s responsibility? Is he just a guy who is adept at applied psychology?

    Obviously the dude’s a scumbag in this situation.

    I obviously don’t know these people, but I’ve seen situations like this play out many times before.

    It’s pure speculation, but I’d be willing to bet that if she knew the guy long enough, there were plenty signs he was bad news before this happened, and she just chose to ignore them.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jimmy H

      It’s pure speculation, but I’d be willing to bet that if she knew the guy long enough, there were plenty signs he was bad news before this happened, and she just chose to ignore them.

      No doubt. She was a college freshman, so probably naive to boot.

  • pennies

    @INTJ – “Where are those girls? How do I find them?”

    How old are you and where do you live? Are you on a campus? It all depends on context.

    I would say…

    Go to lectures, bookstores, and coffeeshops.

    Take up a hobby that involves teamwork (producing a radio show, promoting a band you enjoy, putting on a show for your university, organizing a conference.)

    Take a leadership role running an event that forces you to interact with the public.

    You could also try out online dating sites that ask people to clarify their views on monogamy, having children, interest level in marriage.

    Which of these have you tried already?

  • ExNewYorker

    “It seems that when women tell them what we actually desire and actually want is when it goes into overdrive.”

    Ah, there’s the problem. With women, it’s better to observe what the “revealed preference” is, rather than blindly accept what you say.

    I take it you’ll see “revealed preference” as yet another male rationalization :-)

    I do wonder what to call the male version of the hamster (typically seen in beta guys who get LJBF’d or white knights).

  • pennies

    @Jackie

    “In a happy ending, when my sister inherited her share of that estate, she used a bunch of the money to send anonymous gifts to the people (besides family!) that my grandmother had hurt, with apologies.”

    This seriously rocks!!!

  • Jackie

    @INTJ (#534)
    “Where are those girls? How do I find them? Every girl I know except one in college is either hooking up or going from boyfriend to boyfriend. The one girl who actually wants commitment is already in a relationship.”
    ——-
    I think a lot of really great people, both guys and girls, have a hard time finding each other due to social circles not overlapping. For me, my major was mostly female and many of the guys were not interested in women (i.e. wanted to date other guys). I knew a *ton* of great girls who all kind of hung out together but didn’t see much of the opposite sex in a way for dating potential.

    The ones who did meet boyfriends were involved in extra-curriculars, met people through roommates and were extroverted in seeking out other social circles. If you, INTJ, live up to your handle, it will probably be more challenging for you.

    Are there any groups or activities you are a part of? Are you open to expanding your social circle?Are you part of a faith community? That is one place I have seen guys *clean up*– they met tons of girls, it was like they added about 4 points to their “number on the 1-10 scale” just by showing up.

    I think that sometimes it takes a bit of extra effort and luck for certain personalities. GL and keep us posted, OK? :)

  • Jackie

    @pennies (#545)

    Hi pennies!

    Thanks for the kind words towards my sister :D I think you would like her tons, with the feeling being mutual I am sure!

    (BTW, my grandmother told her she “Had a black heart” and “Would never, ever marry!” My sister, who is older and probably healthier, just laughed and said, Like she’s worried about competition! ;) )

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    I do wonder what to call the male version of the hamster (typically seen in beta guys who get LJBF’d or white knights).

    ENY,

    This comes after the “looks” things which is number one, in my opinion. I would say that “revealed preference” is definitely them rationalizing.

  • Iggles

    pvw,

    Indeed, like-wise I tend to stay away from primarily male-only forums. Occasionally I might find it interesting to read but I’m not moved to participate. Not every place is for me and vice-versa.

    By the way, Iggles, I liked your observation about not experiencing “EWW girl syndrome,” in that my background is similar–my younger 24 year old black girl self knew that no matter how entitled I might have thought I was, the world was not likely to agree!

    Yup! :lol:

    Hope,

    J, Iggles and pvw, it is interesting to me how many females who are non-white and/or non-privileged in background we have here at HUS.

    None of us could have been a protagonist on one of these “modern dating” TV shows.

    I agree! I never fully identify with any character on TV. (The closest is the web series Awkward Black Girl, and even then I differ from the protagonist in a number of ways!) There are always parts of characters I can relate to, regardless of ethnicity/gender. Still, I think more diversity in media is needed because the symbols & stereotypes seen on TV do matter.

  • pennies

    @Jackie – “Like she’s worried about competition!”

    You two sound hilarious together! Love it!

    And yes, I thought about adding church to my rec list for INTJ if that applies…

  • Mule Chewing Briars

    Liza -

    Men aren’t angry about women being attracted to visually appealing men. What frustrates them is average women ignoring a sure thing with them in favor of a 3% shot at a much better looking man.

    I may be biased, but I think in the current Sexual Marketplace, men have a better bead on their relative attractiveness than women. The majority of guys have gotten over the head cheerleader with the shampoo ad hair and the 34C not being impressed with their level 20 Rogue by their last year of high school.

    What does rankle, though, is to find a cute-enough girl supporting a “poet” or a “musician”, paying his bills while he pursues his muse and cheats on her, or the pretty girl from the research department going into rotation in Chad McChin’s harem.

    Yeah, we’d love to be one of those great-looking guys, but these are not your grandfather’s great looking guys, who married great looking girls that fought off all her rivals, and had great looking kids. The sexual script a lot of young women are following now is to sign up for a rotating harem with the possibility of ending up in the top spot when the music stopped. What men are saying now is that they don’t intend to be around to pick up the pieces when Scheherazade gets to the 1,002nd night.

  • Cooper

    Can someone please explain to me the ‘hamster’ analogy?

    Is it a certian thought-process that men/women tend to not give up easily – as though it goes through their head endlessly, like a hamster on a wheel?

    If so, what is the thought that females endlessly think? and males?

  • Mule Chewing Briars

    Oh, yeah. There s also OK Cupid where 70-80% of men’s photos were rated “below average”.

  • Emily

    >> “Beyond that, I don’t tend to hang out in the “locker room,” in that I respect boundaries; certain spaces appear to be primarily male-only, and I as a woman should observe but not necessarily participate, ie., when I might glance at a manosphere blog post, ie., Dalrock, etc., but not participate.”

    This is exactly how I feel. And if the posters there find it therapeutic to vent their anger, then good for them. I only have a problem with the “angry manosphere” stuff when too much of it is carried over here.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Mule Chewing Briars,

    I agree with most of what you said. However, I am not quite sold on this: “The majority of guys have gotten over the head cheerleader with the shampoo ad hair and the 34C not being impressed with their level 20 Rogue by their last year of high school, ”

    I have often observed men who are low on the attractiveness scale hitting on women I would consider way out of their league all. of. the. time. And in some cases these men become very indignate when rebuffed by those women.

    This brings me to another male rationalization, I want to add: being in denial and clueless about their own SMV. I believe this affects males way more than it does women.

  • Pixie

    “I’ve had plenty of women tell me that…I’ve had women I’ve been attracted to tell me that and they, to a woman, friend zoned me at best (or at worst, depending on POV).”

    Just because you do all those things doesn’t mean she’ll be attracted to you personally. It simply means those are the general qualities she likes in a man she’s attracted to. Should I expected every man who likes smart blondes to want to date me personally? Your mistake is thinking that because a woman doesn’t want to date you that means she automatically wants to date bad boys.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    INTJ, the thing is, we can’t possibly “know” everybody at college or work or anywhere really. Dunbar’s number is somewhere around 150-200. Beyond that we can’t realistically keep track. Also most of us only interact with about 5-50 people on a regular, personal basis (a good talk at least once a week), depending on how introverted or extroverted.

    The key is to get to know people you don’t normally know. Other commenters had good ideas. It’s good to be where you’re comfortable, but also good to branch out a bit. Ideally you want a setting where you can interact with the same set of people for at least several hours a week, but where new people come in and go as well. That’s why people often suggest church, volunteer work, groups and organizations, etc. Virtual spaces also count.

    If you’re single and looking, you should be getting to know at least few new people every month. Not just casual introductions, but a good one-on-one talk. Nowadays people often do this in the way of “dating,” but a lot of relationships don’t start out that way. They often start out with two people including each other in that small but regularly in-touch group.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “Your mistake is thinking that because a woman doesn’t want to date you that means she automatically wants to date bad boys.”

    ——-
    This is also a very common beta male rationalization.

  • J

    None of us could have been a protagonist on one of these “modern dating” TV shows.

    LOL. That’s for sure!

  • Alias

    Mule Chewing Briars:
    “you get to choose from the boys who are interested in you, not from those who aren’t.”
    ——–

    I’m lucky because I was never interested in a guy if he wasn’t reciprocating, so I don’t relate to the unrequited love phenomenon. If a guy didn’t show interest in me or if he was showing interest in me + even 1 other girl- I became instantly disinterested- just like that! (snap)
    ____________________________

    Hope:
    “”that’s why I feel semi-lucky to have gotten the harsh talks from my mother about how all men are liars, cheats and out for sex… before I hit puberty”
    —–

    I received the same talks during puberty by my father but I also had the fortune to witness those types of men with my very own eyes from an early age.

  • J

    Now I can laugh about it –albeit in a gallows humor way– but at the time she made me cry buckets. She’d make me stand in front of the mirror and point out my deficiencies, ugliness and call names until I was just a puddle of tears.

    Wow, that’s really insane, egregiously so. You should be proud of yourself and your late mom for overcoming this.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    By the way, more on Dunbar’s number and social groups. The rise of mass media, celebrities and pop culture have caused some people to think of the fake characters they see on TV as those they know personally and interact with on a regular basis, even though it is just one-way. Undoubtedly that shapes people’s psyches about what kind of mate they seek, what kind of relationship they want, and what kind of life to live. We are social creatures, and even if the “peer” is just someone on TV, that has definite influence and subtle peer pressure.

    I heard some commentator talking about the anchor on morning news shows, how that’s the person we wake up to in our bedrooms, spend our mornings “naked, just coming out of the shower with,” and how there’s an intimacy there for most people. So they get very attached to a particular news anchor. I thought that was interesting, partially because I cannot relate to it at all after a decade-long break from TV.

  • Alias

    Emily:
    “A good rule of thumb might be that guys shouldn’t show any more interest/affection than the girl is already demonstrating.

    So if a girl is acting more reserved, then it might be a good idea to be more aloof. But if she’s acting like an overeager puppy, then you’re probably free to be as “beta” as you want.”
    ———-

    That’s the exact advise I give for relationships. Mirror the other person’s behavior.
    It’s give and take – you’re to make sure you keep the input and output balanced or else either you’ll be taken advantage of or the other person will keep an account of what you owe them- either way the relationship will fall apart.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    The rationalization hamster is just another way of calling out cognitive dissonance, holding conflicting views simultaneously and how we deal with this. For a classic example, the story of the fox that can’t reach the grapes, and rationalizing that the grapes must be sour and not worth it (sour grapes syndrome). Another example is people judge harshly others who are overweight or are smokers, but many people are overweight or smokers themselves (hypocritical cognitive dissonance).

    Men and women both engage in these mental gymnastics. In fact, it is very difficult for anyone to never have done such (though one can be aware of it). To claim otherwise would be silly and, well, ignoring real-life data points, and to engage in cognitive dissonance in itself. :P

  • Mule Chewing Briars

    @Liza207

    We’ll probably have to agree to disagree. According to most women, most men (70-80% of them) are “low on the attractiveness scale”, whereas most women consider themselves “above average” and “out of their league”. You can see where this would cause some resentment.

    Notice this video clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM9WSElLklw

    I thought the law student was above average in looks (needs a better haircut), and thought he’d have made a good couple with the better looking, longer-haired girl on the right. I know I’d be thrilled if my daughter brought him home for inspection.

    The girl on the left strikes me as being completely average for a young woman in her age group.

    I am very glad that my daughter truly finds a wide variety of young men appealing. It gives her a considerable advantage over her competition. As a doting father, she’s the most beautiful girl in the world to me, and she hasn’t brought home a truly ugly one yet, although I had to warn her about a couple of players….

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    It’s give and take – you’re to make sure you keep the input and output balanced or else either you’ll be taken advantage of or the other person will keep an account of what you owe them- either way the relationship will fall apart.

    Alias,

    This is excellent advice and should be practiced in all relationships not just romantic ones.

  • Cooper

    @Hope

    Ah, not exactly what I had thought.

    Thanks

  • ExNewYorker

    @Liza207

    ” I would say that “revealed preference” is definitely them rationalizing.”

    Well, no point in discussion, then. Odd that you read HUS considering Susan uses other economics principles. You can lead a horse to water…

  • pvw

    Liza207

    I have often observed men who are low on the attractiveness scale hitting on women I would consider way out of their league all. of. the. time. And in some cases these men become very indignate when rebuffed by those women.

    This brings me to another male rationalization, I want to add: being in denial and clueless about their own SMV. I believe this affects males way more than it does women.

    My reply:

    Here is my observation. It seems that women believe they are affected to a far greater extent than men are about looks, and there is greater criticism from certain quarters about oppressive media standards and their effects upon women. Thus, might more and more women be conscious of their failure to live up to the standards as compared to men? Is it that men traditionally have had to prove their ability to provide as a means of attracting a mate?

    Growing up, I was never talked to about “SMV,” my parents would not have imagined such a concept existed; again, they grew up in a different time and place. If a woman presented herself well, that is all that mattered–making a pleasant and attractive appearance.

    But with media imagery, more and more women are given the message that if they don’t measure up to some impossible standard, they are absolute losers, and thus, more parents might consciously tell their daughters that “those standards” don’t apply to them? Or, in rejection of the craziness of some mothers, ie., what some discussed here, of mothers humiliating their daughters by calling them ugly, they go the opposite way and try to build up their daughters before they fall victim to the societal pressure and criticism?

    A case in point, a perfect example. I was chatting recently with the minister and children’s ed coordinator at my church where we were thinking about baptism gifts for two little girls in the congregation. I’m the adult ed coordinator, so I was getting gifts for the adults who just finished their programming this year, getting ready for confirmation and reception (they are becoming Episcopalian).

    I was doing research and I saw that there is a female minister who developed a line of dolls, Rev. Barbie, Episcopal priest, Malibu, California. I thought it was too cute, stylish Rev. Barbie in her cool clerical garb.

    Rev. Lisa and Denise, the children’s ed. coordinator howled, no Barbies! They talked about how Barbies impose an oppressive standard of beauty upon little girls from a young age, to value their looks over everything else and to feel bad about themselves for not fitting in.

    In the end, I got each one “Episcobear,” a teddy bear wearing the Episcopal church colorsand crest. It went over well….

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Here are some classic cognitive dissonance scenarios:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification
    Example: A guy justifying to himself putting in so much time and effort into getting one girl by putting her on a pedestal. A girl justifying to herself spending money on a guy as she must really like him.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_handicap
    Example: A guy deliberately not approaching a girl he likes because he fears failure. A girl deliberately avoiding eye contact with a guy she likes because she fears failure.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error
    Example: A guy who has rejected a few girls in his past thinks all girls are terrible because a few girls have rejected him. Vice versa for a girl.

    These types of list can go on and on, but basically the idea that both men and women have rationalization hamsters is sound and backed by psychological research.

  • Pixie

    “I was doing research and I saw that there is a female minister who developed a line of dolls, Rev. Barbie, Episcopal priest, Malibu, California. I thought it was too cute, stylish Rev. Barbie in her cool clerical garb.

    Rev. Lisa and Denise, the children’s ed. coordinator howled, no Barbies! They talked about how Barbies impose an oppressive standard of beauty upon little girls from a young age, to value their looks over everything else and to feel bad about themselves for not fitting in.”

    What nonsense. I don’t know who started that crazy idea but I played with Barbie for years without giving a single thought to the way I looked or thinking I want to look like Barbie when I grow up. Its just a toy.

  • Tom

    It works both ways. In college I got the distinct feeling some of the ladys who approached me, didnt really want to get to know me, they wanted a notch on their bedpost that included an athlete. Humph.. me, a piece of meat….lol

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “It seems that women believe they are affected to a far greater extent than men are about looks, and there is greater criticism from certain quarters about oppressive media standards and their effects upon women. Thus, might more and more women be conscious of their failure to live up to the standards as compared to men? Is it that men traditionally have had to prove their ability to provide as a means of attracting a mate?”

    PVW,

    This is exactly it. This is why, I don’t buy men making the claim that women are the ones overestimating their SMV. Women are under way too much pressure to live up to unrealistic beauty standards set by the media, as you pointed out. Most of us will never be able to live up to those standards even some of the hottest women will always feel that something is not quite right concerning their appearance. Men have never been under this kind of pressure when it comes to their looks therefore, they are way more prone to overestimating their SMV in terms of appearance.

  • Alias

    @ Jesus Mahoney
    “So yea, I think there was an insecure attachment between them–at least as he experienced it. It was a battle for attention in his eyes. He may have won consistently, but he always felt the need to engage.”
    ———

    Thanks for weighing in.
    What I was getting at is that narcissism isn’t caused by parental/maternal abuse.
    It seems like you’re saying that your mom tried to help your brother with his insecurity (jealousy). Other guys have younger brothers whom they love to bits and protect. I’m sorry you didn’t have that kind of relationship with your brother.

  • Emily

    >> “Rev. Lisa and Denise, the children’s ed. coordinator howled, no Barbies! They talked about how Barbies impose an oppressive standard of beauty upon little girls from a young age, to value their looks over everything else and to feel bad about themselves for not fitting in.”

    My bf recently told me about the Computer Engineer Barbie that came out a few years ago. I personally think it’s awesome, but it turns out that the feminist bloggers were mad that she was too attractive (of course). That being said, I think they would have been just as pissed off if Mattel had made her ugly.

    I personally think that Barbie’s bad rap is undeserved, but that’s JMO. (…those Bratz dollz on the other hand…)

  • BroHamlet

    @Courtley

    But, BroHamlet, what about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life? The guys are somewhat attractive–not ugly, not gorgeous–and probably have average emotional intelligence and an average level of extroversion. Most dudes I encounter with girlfriends in real life aren’t Tom Brady and their girls seem happy. Most happy couples seem pretty well-matched physically–people actually tend to marry people of about equal attractiveness. Hell, I feel like a lot of people end up with partners who sort of resemble them!

    Maybe one day, I will be one of those couples. But today is not that day lol. Considering almost 6 out of 10 of those “average” dudes will probably get divorced in a legal action initiated by his wife, I’m not in a huge hurry to tie the knot, either. All’s not roses and sunshine for many of those guys, hence why blogs like Susan’s and Athol Kay’s exist. You should start reading some of the archives both there and here, then come back to us.

    Everything else just reads like a recycling of the basic tenets of pickup-artistry. I get the concepts, but I think you guys need to back them up a little more.

    You wanted to know what basic characteristics most 20-30 something women have, and I told you, point blank. I’m not going to draw up some sort of proof for you only for you to continue to be myopic. If you don’t date women, you should be listening, not telling me I’m crazy. I have been around them and dating them across multiple environments and cities since I was 17 haha, and I know what I’m talking about. How many women have you dated? Please learn when to listen. You don’t see me here challenging you on something I know little about but you know a lot about.

    Because when I like, hang out with my friends and encounter real people in real life I’m just not seeing this as very typical.

    Again, how many women have you sat across from in a romantic situation? Trust me, they’re very different when they deal with us versus with you.

    Probably more common in urban areas but sorry, it’s still a group of characteristics limited to a certain type of spoiled, generally upper-middle-class gal in her 20s. I think they’re a growing number–we know that narcissism a growing problem among women–and in general entitlement is a problem among Gen Y-ers (both genders!). Still, this idea that women have no inkling of their “market value” and think they’re all super hot stuff seems like the fantasy of someone who doesn’t know very many average, not-super-hot, not-super-wealthy young women very well.

    Again, that demographic is not that limited. Many girls of all status levels do think they can get and keep Mr. Big, and that is the reason blogs like this one exist in the first place. Ask Susan about how many emails she gets from girls wanting to tame douchebags- she even wrote a post telling girls to stop putting out for dickheads. In fact, the whole reason for the rise of “Game” is because girls standards for what is attractive have risen much higher- they always want someone that offers more than what they have. It’s rare that the average 20-30 something girl is paying attention to guys “in her league”, barring girls raised well in the right type of environment. The girls that have been raised right are now in the minority, so now guys need to be on their p’s and q’s.

    Let me ask you how you narrow down girls to hit on/run Game on and how it works. Give me some cold hard logical specifics here–how old, where do you meet them, what do they look like (what do you typically aim for on the 1-10 scale?) and what do you do initially to get their attention? I like theory, but since I don’t feel like I see this in my real life I want something more concrete.

    Ok, I’m humoring you here because you seem to genuinely not know what is going on. I have my preferences, but several other guys here have different ones and they will tell you the same things I have seen. I’m not writing you a thesis on this, but I will briefly run it down. I typically date early to mid-twenties girls that I meet either out or through friends. It’s about equal from each pool. I am involved in music outside of work so admittedly, I’m not that average from the standpoint of having something to talk about that interests people, and I’m more natural than not. These game bloggers are just teaching dudes with no game to do what naturals have learned to do from day one. If you’re doing it right, you’re not approaching every girl you see- in situations that call for it, you step up and make it happen, but most of the time they come to you through connections with friends or they make it clear that they want you to talk to them.

    Also, if you feel comfortable revealing which urban area, or even what region of the country’s it’s in I’d like to know that as well, for my own mental frame of reference.

    NO, lol. Randoms on the internet don’t get that much info, but I will tell you that I am in a major (top 5 population) US metro area. You have now heard from a few different guys that are agreeing with my every word, and I’m pretty sure none of us are neighbors. If you live in an area where everyone’s coupled up and happy, fine. I am very happy for you, but me and other guys are telling you that this is not the world the average dude lives in before he settles down. And even settling down and getting married is kind of a shitty deal for many guys these days because of the legal risks and social implications. I have said it before and will say it again. This is the entire reason the “Game” phenomenon exists, and all of the blogs we’re referring to, including the one we are speaking on right now, are even around. Welcome to what the reality is for many men- some embrace it and make it work for them like I have, or bitch about it, or some combination of the two- it’s an adjustment for most men, and it will continue to be that way until things settle out again. Female preferences are shifting with the cultural tides, and we’ll adapt.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Liza

    Men have never been under this kind of pressure when it comes to their looks therefore, they are way more prone to overestimating their SMV in terms of appearance.

    I’m afraid that this is an open invitation to play the My gender has it worse than yours! game. I’ll try to resist, but I still have to point out that this doesn’t describe an analogous position for men.

    If women don’t select men based on appearance the way men select women, then it’s not necessary for men to try to glam it up. Coincidentally (or not!), they don’t (excepting certain rock ‘n rollers in the ’70s ;-) ).

    What men have to do is different. They have to be “the quarterback”. They have to be the lead singer in the band. They have to be the guy with the corner office and they have to be the guy with a distinguished service medal.

    Of course, if you say “No they don’t! Women don’t expect that from every man they meet!” then you have to realize the men don’t expect all women to be Kate Upton (or insert this year’s model of choice here). That was never the problem.

    And seriously, the problem isn’t the model selling the hair coloring. It’s the phrase “…because you’re worth it.” that has become a sore point.

    It’s time to give everyone a break, I think.

  • Pixie

    Liza, women who don’t plug into media may overestimate their looks but once we see what advertising is trying to push on us (underarm whitener anyone?) we probably underestimate them.

  • Alias

    @ Liza207 # 569

    Thanks.
    Relationships are just like balance sheets, with debits and credits.
    People want unconditional love, but it’ll only happen if they’re willing to give it. Inversely- they should hold back on giving it unless they receive it. It may sound unfair- but that’s the only way to have a healthy relationship.
    Of course, you’re not keeping a tally for every.single.exchange. but overall- both sides need to balance out because if one member’s in the red, the relationship’s going out of business.

  • BroHamlet

    @Pixie

    “underarm whitener”

    I LOL’d….What if you’re not white? Sometimes the products out there being pushed to people are just hilariously nonsensical.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Underarm whitener? Hilarious.

  • OffTheCuff

    Guys, give it up. I don’t think I’ve changed my stance much here in the last few months, but I do notice the moderate guys dropping out one by one. Soon only Tom will be left.

    Until next thread…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Guys, give it up. I don’t think I’ve changed my stance much here in the last few months, but I do notice the moderate guys dropping out one by one. Soon only Tom will be left.

      What do you mean by moderate? The “instill dread” guys? I’d love it if they went away and never came back.

  • Senior Beta

    Susan @ 483 & 485

    I am sure you are not trolling for lawyer comments but the “due diligence” remark at 502 pushed me over the edge. Tom engaged in misrepresentation by omission; part of the English common law for centuries. But that presupposes he had a duty to tell Jane he had a GF. A car salesman must disclose if he knows he has a lemon. Surely you are not suggesting Tom had to disclose he had a girl friend before he fucked Jane. The SMP is not regulated by Congress — yet. Thank God. Your due diligence comment was right on. Jane should have asked. If the guy lied then he would be weasel. If not, it’s something my veteran heros on here – Dogsquat, Richard, Herb – would instantly understand: take no prisoners.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Senior Beta

      Your due diligence comment was right on. Jane should have asked. If the guy lied then he would be weasel. If not, it’s something my veteran heros on here – Dogsquat, Richard, Herb – would instantly understand: take no prisoners.

      Then it seems it boils down to one’s stance on lying by omission. Including, in this case, a deliberate attempt to mislead by implying the opposite of what was intended. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any girl who, after being in regular contact and having dates with a boy from another school, and upon being asked to travel to his school to be his date on Valentine’s Day, would wonder if he has a girlfriend.

      If you don’t think his behavior is shady, I can’t help you. If the SMP isn’t regulated by honesty and integrity, then perhaps we should introduce polygraphs. Just think – we could get the facts re STDs, intent, previous number of sexual partners, etc. I wonder how far we are from that portable technology.

  • Pixie

    Porn has created a new aesthetic with its hairless and bleached a-holes. There’s both a vagina and an anal bleach on the market now.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Mule Chewing Briars,

    I believe the issue she was having with that guy was that he was a bit of a dork. I don’t think his looks had much to do with why she was rejecting him. He just had no game.

  • Alias

    Hope,
    We (my family) weren’t told that women were sugar and spice, we were told to watch out for everyone. To learn to defend/protect ourselves because predators were out there camouflaged among the crowd- waiting to take advantage of anyone who allows them to be taken advantaged of.

  • Senior Beta

    Susan at 590

    But Tom didn’t “imply” anything. He asked if she had a BF. She said no. That made him happy. She didn’t use due diligence. You say “shady.” I say “Game”.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But Tom didn’t “imply” anything.

      You don’t think inviting a girl to a weekend formal and telling her how much you like her implies availability?

  • Senior Beta

    He was available. For that weekend.

  • Abbot

    “Some people wonder if they missed out on anything by having only one or two lovers before marriage”.
    .
    If they live in a place or culture surrounded by people who have had more. It is purely culturally driven. If you do not want to be with such a person, switch cultures [shop elsewhere]. You see, all are happy and there is someone for everyone after all. Happy happy

  • Abbot

    “Then there are those of us who were a cock on the carousel and understand it is a lonly, shallow way of life when compared to a great relationship.. There are women who have also had similar experiences.”
    .
    well, good for them. any takers?
    .

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Forgive me for asking a simplistic and rather remedial question, but I am new to these discussions.

    Are there assumed to be (net of common costs) “winners” and “losers” in the current SMP? Who are they? What controlling assumptions about human happiness are commonly made?

  • Pixie

    “But Tom didn’t “imply” anything. He asked if she had a BF. She said no. That made him happy. ”

    Why? If all he wanted was NSA sex then what does it matter if she has a bf or not?

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Alias, yep. I was also taught to be wary of potentially bad people.

    Susan, I can see how she got fooled. The lesson here to girls is that a guy saying “I like you” doesn’t mean squat. Always be skeptical. Use best judgement, discernment and mind-reading prowess. Don’t ignore little nagging feelings and warning signs.

    I also agree with you that intent is key. It is the biggest difference between an ethical and an unethical person, a sheepdog or a wolf.

  • Abbot

    “Are there assumed to be (net of common costs) “winners” and “losers” in the current SMP? Who are they? ”
    .
    In this order from winners down, and not an assumption:
    .
    Sexually successful men [10 to 20% of men]
    The women who cock hop the above [nearly all women]
    The rest of the men who are left to pick over the above women years later

  • Brendan

    Are there assumed to be (net of common costs) “winners” and “losers” in the current SMP? Who are they? What controlling assumptions about human happiness are commonly made?

    A very simple baseline is this: how many people are getting what they want, as they define that, out of the SMP? The ones who are doing so are the “winners” — the game of the current SMP is giving them what they want from it, and so it’s a “win”. The ones who are not doing so are, in varying degrees, the “losers” — the game of the current SMP is not giving them what they want from it, so their participation is a “loss”. An analogy would be winning and losing investors (over more than a short period … chronic winning and chronic losing).

  • Pixie

    “Sexually successful men [10 to 20% of men]
    The women who cock hop the above [nearly all women]”

    That’s possible only if those men have no standards and are willing to have sex with any and all unattractive women.

  • Emily

    >> “The women who cock hop the above [nearly all women]”

    Why does everybody insist on ignoring the statistics?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      >> “The women who cock hop the above [nearly all women]”

      Why does everybody insist on ignoring the statistics?

      Thank you Emily!

      My own estimate is this: The biggest winners in the SMP are alpha males, either born or made. Also women who snag those men for ST sex, usually a couple of notches lower in attractiveness.

      Biggest losers: The most attractive women, whose “natural, assortative” mates are now preoccupied with banging 7s. And of course the least attractive members of both sexes, unless they get with each other. I have no idea if that’s happening. Based on a recent trip to Walmart I would say yes, but YMMV.

      The guys getting easy sex on demand represent 20% of the male population, and the women having sex with them also represent about 20% of the female population. These numbers come up again and again, in every study of sexual behavior at college, in CDC data, even in Vox Day’s informal survey.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    I don’t mean this as a criticism of Hope or her mom, but as a comment about how to reach kids.

    As coming from a four siblings household I will say it depends on the kid. I worked pretty hard with criticism to avoid them and turned out more or less “sane” my sister was practically destroyed by similar parenting so I think is better to observe and see what works with every kid and apply as needed, YMMV.

    I have yet to see Shallow Jen about a woman learning to not care a man isn’t Hugh Jackman.

    If I ever get my movie production house I will totally do that sequel. To the notebooks ideas.

    Middle class American lifestyle is already better than the vast majority of people have it on Earth. I have no need for more.

    Offering to make your sister’s wife would be to unfunny given that you like on Utah so what about if you have a boy and I have a girl we could arrange a marriage for them so we can be family? :)
    I absolutely love this comment, best one in the decade. If only more people understood this half our problems would be solved. :)

  • Courtley

    @ Mule

    I don’t disagree with your explanation about male attraction, so I’m not sure what you think I don’t understand.

    A lot of the anger around this topic in the Manosphere seems to really boil down to, when you strip away all the Rationalization rhetoric, the simple fact that women can say “no.” Women have the agency to factor their attraction to men into their dating/sex choices. I get the impressino these dudes really want a world where women to jump at the chance to date or hook up with a guy solely because he-wants-her. If a plain Jane woman rejects an Ordinary Joe guy, it’s always immediately taken as evidence of their “hypergamy.” The concept that it could happen for ANY other reason is never entertained.

    I’ve personally rejected men who I thought were too swaggering/dominant or just a bad match personality-wise, while favoring more “beta” guys. I screen guys OUT for high levels of dominance. “Beta” men are the ones I personally feel most comfortable with and connected to and it’s my right and responsibility as someone who wants to find a life partner to develop a sense of what a good match is for myself. In Manosphere theory, this way of thinking, for women, is totally alien. Never happens. All about ze status. Which again is weird to me, because most mature women I know in their 20s who want a life partner are MOST intensely concerned with compatibility, not having the hottest or richest guy.

    I respect Susan for giving women with unrealistic expectations about men a dose of reality (and those women certainly exist and are hella annoying) but it doesn’t excuse Manosphere hostility towards the fact that women have the same freedom they do to ultimately choose or reject sexual partners.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Anacaona, thank you for that! <3 Setting up our kids sounds fun, although we can only try to subtly set them up and not make it too obvious. :P

    By the way do you miss your siblings? I have two cousins I grew up with, and sometimes I wish they were living closer.

  • Abbot

    “That’s possible only if those men have no standards and are willing to have sex with any and all unattractive women”
    .
    Most likely they will have sex with many women they would not consider keepers in terms of looks. How many women do that? hmmm. These women need to learn [like from this blog] that it is not in their future best interest to participate. They are learning and will continue to learn

  • Brendan

    I get the impressino these dudes really want a world where women to jump at the chance to date or hook up with a guy solely because he-wants-her. If a plain Jane woman rejects an Ordinary Joe guy, it’s always immediately taken as evidence of their “hypergamy.” The concept that it could happen for ANY other reason is never entertained.

    It isn’t this as much as it is seeing the same woman’s choices, as they play themselves out. Almost all men get over the idea in HS that they can’t get the hottest women, and that any woman may reject them. If they saw these women rejecting them and partnering up with another “Ordinary Joe” type, there wouldn’t be the same observations being made. It’s that Jane is rejecting Joe, but having a “OMH it just happened, I don’t know what came over me” ONE with Mr. Big — that’s the source of the consternation, because it creates an inequality of SMV within the same “objective” rank due to the way the SMP works today.

    The way I have experienced this over the years (I am nearly 45 and divorced about ten years ago, so I’ve been in the market in the 1980s and 90s and then again in the noughts to present) is that it is a sliding scale of sexual power. Women have a lot of it in their early 20s, and most men don’t have much of it. That is, not only “hot” women have superior sexual power in that time frame (although they have the most), but all women relative to their objective SMV peers among men have superior market power. The power curves meet someplace in the late 20s/~30 time frame, and thereafter men begin to have, on average, more power than women do in the market. So it *does* balance out, but the timing of it means that many/most guys have an absolutely horrific time in the SMP until they are mid to late 20s, and a completely different experience than their peer value women. That creates resentment and anger in many guys. Just a fact. And an understandable one. It’s this discrepancy, more than the actual rejections (which guys expect), that fuels this, because men *do* notice “where the sex is going”, when it isn’t going to them. So it makes sense that many of the Game bloggers are guys in their mid 20s — it’s when they are really ticked at what the market has been showing them relative to their female peers.

  • OffTheCuff

    court: “Women have the agency to factor their attraction to men into their dating/sex choices.”

    That definitely is true. But the thing is, men have agency over commitment and provisioning, as you do over attraction. If women have the unfettered freedom to maximize attraction, then men have the freedom to minimize investment. They are attached at the hip, pull one, and the other comes right along. Push one, and other moves likewise. If you’re cool with that, then welcome to the future!

  • Abbot

    “many/most guys have an absolutely horrific time in the SMP until they are mid to late 20s, and a completely different experience than their peer value women”
    .
    There are TWO distinct sexual cultures in the US. The two do cross and the results are horrific for women and men. More so for the former. The men at least CAN, if they make an effort, enter into the SAME culture as they are in by going into Latin America or other similar places. The female culture in the US is unique, isolated and represents a very very small portion of women on this planet. Wake up!

    .

  • Courtley

    @OfftheCuff

    Uh…I’m cool with people having the freedom to make choices, including unwise ones. Are you?

    @ Brendan

    Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Women who allow themselves to be used sexually by men they know don’t care about them are definitely acting against their own interests repeatedly in the SMP and are, in my opinion, their own worst enemy.

    My only objection is that I just don’t get the impression that every guy out there in the Manosphere HAS accepted the fact that he won’t land a top-20%-babe. I feel like there’s underlying resentment against very attractive women for wanting very attractive men because those men are–in the Manosphere contruct–less deserving of female attention because they are assholes. To me it makes sense that 8-10s would naturally get together, and so on.

    I’ve thought a lot about the idea that the 5-8 girls are getting in on the 8-10 guys’ action and I have two responses.
    1) No way this is true–why would an 8-10 guy sleep with a 5-8 woman if he could get an 8-10 girl? If 100 people go to nightclub, 50 men 50 women, and 10 men and 10 women are 8-10s, isn’t it likely they’ll find each other and go home with one another?
    2) The only possible explanation I have for how this might work out is if there are actually fewer women out there–of any “rank”–regularly having casual sex than there are men seeking it. So sometimes there aren’t enough 8-10 available women and some alphas will take a 5-8 home instead of spending a Friday night without sex.

    This would also reinforce my theory that there are many women out there–including a certain percentage of the very attractive ones–who want a loving relationship and aren’t “riding the carousel.” I don’t think there’s as many women out there doing regular ONS as there are men, and this feeds the sense of discrepancy. Despite BC, casual sex is still riskier for men than for women.

    Thoughts?

  • Jones

    @BroHamlet (578):

    “Considering almost 6 out of 10 of those “average” dudes will probably get divorced in a legal action initiated by his wife”

    First-marriage divorce rate among the college-educated is 11%.

    That’s really not that high.

  • Courtley

    @ Jones
    Yep–divorce stats need to be broken down by demographic a little more to give people a more realistic perspective. Some demographics have VERY high–like over 50% high–rates of divorce and some, like you said, are very low. Waiting until you’re at least 26 and having a university degree cuts the percentage down a LOT.

  • El Marqués

    Susan, if the number of promiscuous males and females is equal at 20%, how do you explain the obvious power dynamic of “alphas” owning the market and setting the rules?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @El Marques

      Susan, if the number of promiscuous males and females is equal at 20%, how do you explain the obvious power dynamic of “alphas” owning the market and setting the rules?

      Pluralistic Ignorance. It’s been shown in studies that when you ask guys in college what percent of the guys on campus got laid the previous weekend, they estimate 75-80%. In reality, the number ranges from 5-10%. The damaging force is hookup culture, even though the data does not confirm that the majority is having casual sex. Virgins of both sexes feel like total losers. 80% of each sex is essentially boxed in, sitting on the sidelines because the culture is not compatible with either their values or their personalties.

      TV, films, and music all promote the hookup culture as universal and ubiquitous – and it is, because no viable alternative exists. But it’s a minority of people who are participating.

      The biggest opportunity, IMO, is to get this information out to the 80%, and to foster their connecting. I think it happens more easily after college, but it’s not easy. Even then, there is not much of a dating culture, and of course, fewer people than ever have any experience with dating.

  • Courtley

    @INTJ

    Susan’s post “57 Ways to Meet the Love of Your Life” has great ideas about places to look for women who want a life partner.

    I’d say stay out of meat-market nightclubs if you want something serious. Some couples do meet there or get together after hook-ups, and I’m not saying every woman who likes to go out dancing sometimes is a poor marriage prospect, but in general it will be full of all the people and the social dynamics that I think many guys find toxic and frustrating.

    Force yourself to notice and interact with quieter, less glamorous, less attention-seeking women. I’m not saying you have to aim for 1-2 level obsese women or people who never shower, just be mindful that there are plenty of women out there not getting tons of attention, either.

    And remember that this isn’t a science and no one can guarantee results and people can surprise you or be unpredictable. We’re just talking strategies here and ways to increase your chances.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

    I understand. I think a tri club would be a great place for a guy in his 20s to meet cool, down-to-earth women but I definitely can’t speak to the dynamics of dating in your 40s after a divorce.

  • Jones

    Yup. And median age at first marriage for the college-educated is 30 and 31 for women and men, respectively. Phew, I’ve got a few more years!

    Still, 10 years between graduating college and getting married…that’s a long time. No wonder we have these problems.

    People don’t really talk about this…but ultimately the problem is that it now takes longer for people to figure out their lives and careers. Also people move around too much, generating uncertainty. All these things work against commitment. That’s really the basic problem.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jones

      Still, 10 years between graduating college and getting married…that’s a long time. No wonder we have these problems.

      How about this? Today, the average person spends 17 years between puberty and marriage. 17 years! This is unprecedented in history. Very, very few people are going to remain celibate for this length of time. It’s hardly surprising that premarital sex is the norm. Serial monogamy is the only, and in my opinion, best viable option for people to develop relationship skills. It would perhaps be better if people married earlier, say in the 22-25 age range. I do believe the pendulum will swing back to that at some point, but at present it’s not feasible, as men are struggling financially and women are still being groomed for career superstardom.

  • Brendan

    I’ve thought a lot about the idea that the 5-8 girls are getting in on the 8-10 guys’ action and I have two responses.
    1) No way this is true–why would an 8-10 guy sleep with a 5-8 woman if he could get an 8-10 girl? If 100 people go to nightclub, 50 men 50 women, and 10 men and 10 women are 8-10s, isn’t it likely they’ll find each other and go home with one another?
    2) The only possible explanation I have for how this might work out is if there are actually fewer women out there–of any “rank”–regularly having casual sex than there are men seeking it. So sometimes there aren’t enough 8-10 available women and some alphas will take a 5-8 home instead of spending a Friday night without sex.

    Your second point is close but not quite there.

    The issue isn’t the total number of women up for casual sex, it’s where they are in the bands of attraction. It’s quite true that within each band more men are up for it than women are — numerous studies have shown this to be the case. But what follows from that is that the women in the top bands who are interested in supplying casual sex to their peer SMV men are outnumbered by the men who are interested in casual sex, with a peer SMV woman or otherwise — such that the men in the top bands “reach down” to tiers below them for casual sex, again because their own interest in casual sex outweighs that of their own very high SMV female peers. So, as a result, in effect what happens is that the guys in the top bands who are up for casual sex (and it isn’t a small % of them) are having such casual sex with the women in the top 40-50% or so of all the bands — certainly not *all* women in those bands (lol), but the point is that in the *sex* market, the women who are having casual sex in those 40% bands are concentrating their, ahem, effort in that area in the top tiers of men (say top 15-20%). It isn’t so much that male tens are with female fives, but the top 20% is male 8-10s, and some of the 8s will get with a 5 if she’s on offer and he’s horny — just a fact. It’s much moreso the case if a woman is a 6 or a 7. So what you have is that men in the 5-7 range are seeing the women who are having casual sex in their own peer bands doing it with men in higher bands, because the men in the higher bands will do so, again because they want casual sex more than their peer SMV women do, and so have to reach “down” below their own SMV bands to get it — and they find plenty of willing women there.

    It has a trickle-down effect, too, in that men in the 5-7 band can also reach “down” to women in the 3-5 band for casual sex to some degree (if they want to), but I tend to think that for both men and women there is an “attraction floor” that is probably somewhere around 3 or so for both sexes, regardless of the person’s *own* objective SMV.

    Susan’s point about this being ~20% of each may be right (I am dubious of sex history surveys, to be quite honest), but even if true, the percentages are not equally distributed among the SMV ranks — that is, the ~20% of men having it are concentrated in the top attractiveness ranks, whereas the ~20% of women who are having it are not so concentrated, and so men in most of the top 50% SMV ranks will see rank peers hypergamizing their casual sex lives, and note this.

    I don’t think there’s as many women out there doing regular ONS as there are men, and this feeds the sense of discrepancy.

    Sure, that follows, I think, from what I wrote: the men who are having casual sex out there are having a LOT of it, scattered across women from all of the top SMV ranks, which tends to get the notice of men scattered across these ranks as well.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I cosign everything that Brendan has said, as I generally do. This:

      the percentages are not equally distributed among the SMV ranks — that is, the ~20% of men having it are concentrated in the top attractiveness ranks, whereas the ~20% of women who are having it are not so concentrated, and so men in most of the top 50% SMV ranks will see rank peers hypergamizing their casual sex lives, and note this.

      I just want to add that the most attractive women, in general, are loathe to sell themselves short. There are exceptions – some women, regardless of beauty, are just oriented toward short-term mating. (However, if testosterone levels play a role here, as is suspected, then the most beautiful women, who tend to be high estrogen, are unlikely to be in this group.)

      My own sense from my focus groups is that the best looking women will eventually pair with reformed alphas. They’ll snag the players when and if they’re ready to marry. I maintain that the most promiscuous men – with counts over 50, say – will experience some loss of MMV as a result. Of course, this may not be much of an issue, b/c those guys are probably the least like to pair off in any case.

  • this is Jen

    Author: Susan Walsh
    Comment:

    Note: Without a doubt that dudes an ass. He cheated on his
    girlfriend.

    But she is still an idiot for making such a ridculous assumption.

    There’s no question the girl is an idiot. That’s not what I asked. The question
    is whether the guy is a douche. Forget cheating on his gf – was his intent to
    deceive Jane? He didn’t just not bring it up. He brought it up in a way that was
    meant to give comfort when that was the last thing she should be feeling.

    The problem is that women don’t want to turn a lovely romantic moment at the
    park into a DTR talk. That’s on them – having that conversation is a necessity.
    She brought it on herself by failing to do due diligence.

    What do we think about his character as demonstrated in his behavior towards
    Jane?
    —————————————————————————

    And, think about it. He had to have been lying all along. YOu cant tell me that there wasn’t a time when they were apart when she asked ” so what did you do this weekend?” and he certainly didnt say “I was with my gf”

    so, yeah, hes a D-word

    but shes still and idot… thats an obvious question she needed to ask BEFORE she opened her legs

  • El Marqués

    @Courtley,

    You see the 8-10 men don’t have to sleep with all those plain Janes aggressively trying to hook up with them (it’s happening, and a lot. We have eyes to see. Don’t negate male experience, that comes across as very nasty) in order to take them out of the market for other guys. It’s enough to allow them to orbit for a while and let them indulge in their fantasies of locking you down. The official term around here is, I believe, carousel watcher. The effect on the market is the same as if they were sleeping with those men, which they aren’t.

  • Courtley

    @ Jones

    Yeah, I think it’s kind of sad that people aren’t mature enough to get married until the 26-30 age bracket anymore, I think it would be healthier if the average age that also corresponded to a low divorce rate were brought down to the 22-25 bracket.

    @ Brendan

    That’s a detailed breakdown and makes a lot of sense, thanks.

    I think my issue is that some dudes in the Manosphere seem to interpret this data as “80% of all women in their late teens and 20s–like literally, 80% OF ALL YOUNG WOMEN–are having casual sex with the top 20% guys. Like, ALL of those women..”
    This doesn’t quite add up in reality because I don’t think even the studliest alpha out there could actually handle THAT much sex unless he lived entirely inside his bedroom, haha. He would be having sex with multiple partners every day.

  • Abbot

    “how do you explain the obvious power dynamic of “alphas” owning the market and setting the rules?”
    .
    Are women in any way embarrassed about being passed around by just a minority of men? Maybe that is what frustrates men. Its that these woman don’t care because they are getting what they want, even if it means debasing themselves by sharing these men with many women.

  • Brendan

    I think my issue is that some dudes in the Manosphere seem to interpret this data as “80% of all women in their late teens and 20s–like literally, 80% OF ALL YOUNG WOMEN–are having casual sex with the top 20% guys. Like, ALL of those women..”
    This doesn’t quite add up in reality because I don’t think even the studliest alpha out there could actually handle THAT much sex unless he lived entirely inside his bedroom, haha. He would be having sex with multiple partners every day.

    Yes, that claim is quite exaggerated. If there is any truth in it, it is that it is possible (likely?) that the 1-2 ONSs a typical woman (outside the “promiscuous 20%”) has is probably more likely to be with one of the male top 20% than other men. But it isn’t 80% of women — the female 2s are too low SMV rank for that to apply, to be honest. I think for guys the relevant “vector” by which they tend to view these things is what they see the peer women around them doing. As you have rightly pointed out, this has quite a few variables in it: SES, location. I would add SMV rank as a variable as well as upbringing. But I think beyond the “80% of women are having sex with 20% of the men” exaggeration is the very real truth that on the top 50% or so SMV levels women have greater access to casual sex, if they want it, in their 20s, whereas men tend to have greater desire for such casual sex, on average, but less access than their peers. That’s a key part of what drives the issue, I think.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      FYI, when I did the analysis on the 80/20 rule, I found that 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex, as in incidents of sex in a given period of time. They are definitely not having sex with 80% of the women.

      The Justice Dept. survey on sexual assault revealed that 43% of men and 38% of women in college are virgins. So the notion that 80% of women are having sex is ludicrous, much less with the top males.

      Promiscuous males tend to have a social scene with promiscuous females. While there are some reports of guys hooking up with good girls or church girls, the truth is that alpha male groups in college attract females who want to hook up with them, and that generally is no more than 20% of a college population. They tend to pair off within Greek organizations, or as athletes and groupies.

  • El Marqués

    Cosign Brendan’s analysis 100%.

    This: “the percentages are not equally distributed among the SMV ranks — that is, the ~20% of men having it are concentrated in the top attractiveness ranks, whereas the ~20% of women who are having it are not so concentrated, and so men in most of the top 50% SMV ranks will see rank peers hypergamizing their casual sex lives, and note this.”

    is actually the only explanation that makes sense if the numbers really are equal. Still doesn’t really explain the apparent socio-sexual power dynamic requiring asymmetry though, does it?

  • Jackie

    @Senior Beta (#593)
    “He was available. For that weekend.”

    Interesting perspective. Do you think Tom’s girlfriend would agree with you?

    And if the situation had been reversed: If Jane’s boyfriend was out of town and she failed to mention this fact to Tom before he came to visit and the subsequent hooking up, is she “available. For that weekend.”?

    Would all this be OK if Jane was your girlfriend? Or is she just applying psychology to the male hamster?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jackie

      Just to thicken the plot, Tom’s gf did learn about Jane, but not for some time. Nine months later, in a bizarre twist, Tom’s gf and Jane met through a mutual friend. As they were not even from the same part of the country, it was an amazing coincidence. The gf confessed that she had suspected something was amiss, having heard rumors about the weekend. However, she chose not to confront Tom (facepalm) and even when she learned the truth, said to Jane, “I just really love him, you know?”

      He cheated on his gf frequently, including over the next winter break. When she found out and confronted him, he said, “I was thinking we’d break up soon, so in my mind I thought it was OK to move on.”

      So yeah, Tom was a total dick. I hope he plays in traffic.

  • Brendan

    Still doesn’t really explain the apparent socio-sexual power dynamic requiring asymmetry though, does it?

    No, I think that’s explained by hypergamy, and differing levels of sociosexuality (promiscuity) among women. So, while hypergamy is relatively constant, it plays out differently in specific women based on their individual level of sociosexuality (and SMV): so some women will have high sociosexuality and decent SMV and have a lot of casual sex, others will have the same SMV, but have lower sociosexuality and less casual sex (or none).

    The reason why there is an asymmetry is that women’s average SMV in their 20s at pretty much every SMV rank level is higher, on average, than their peer men — due to “market skew”. That is, the “objective” SMV is equal, but because of the way the market works, at any given point in time during their early to mid-late 20s, women have a higher on average “market” SMV than peer “objective” SMV men — i.e., she is more in demand than he is. That switches over time in favor of men as things move into the 30s (at least on a peer basis), but there is a very significant asymmetry at the earlier ages, and these ages tend to be formative as well.

  • Jackie

    @MCB (#567)
    “Notice this video clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM9WSElLklw
    ——–

    Hey MuleChewingBriars,
    I love that clip– thanks for the great YouTube! :) I agree that the guy is handsome — I think they had to dorkify him to fit the role and character. He would definitely be a good catch– and I think had a PhD in Russian Lit besides! ;)

  • Richard Aubrey

    What didn’t work for me–because I missed what I am now certain were substantial IOIs–was to get involved in extra-curriculars in college. There weren’t any women on the lax team, but the judo club was mixed. The part-time work was mixed. Having randomly assigned lab partners in science classes was an opportunity. Civil rights work was mixed. I worked in a sorority group–I look dumb but it’s a disguise–in a poor neighborhood running a community center.
    The women are there for a reason other than to meet guys. You see each other focusing on whatever it was. You see the real people, or at least more real than in bars and clubs. They see the real you, or closer than when you’re strutting into a classroom trying to impress the freshmen women.
    There are non-college equivalents, but not in the Infantry, which was my next gig.
    Point is to be moving more or less parallel with the woman/women instead of meeting head on. If you’re a competent, initiative-taking, cool-headed problem solver–which are all a matter of effort–with useful skill sets (fighting served me in one case, thx dogsquat), first aid, a bit of wiring, seat a toilet, start a VW by pushing, et tedious cetera–which are all a matter of effort–you don’t have to go all alpha on the women. They already know.
    And if you concentrate on the work instead of staring at the women, you look non-needy (“which is really half the trick”). Just get caught a civilized number of times forgetting to talk to the eyes. Don’t get all drooly about it. Just checking and appreciating, and on to the next chore.
    And if you have at least a half-way, or even a quarter-way satisfactory dating life, so you’re not, perforce, slobbering, you can, in effect, let the women do the work. You’ll be a lot closer to knowing her and whether a relationship will be the kind you want.
    But pay attention to the IOIs.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    None of us could have been a protagonist on one of these “modern dating” TV shows.
    Thank God for that I will be really embarrassed if a Dominican character was added to that type of shows.

    I received the same talks during puberty by my father but I also had the fortune to witness those types of men with my very own eyes from an early age.

    Yeah parents speeches backed up by reality are really a powerful way to learn about sex, love and life.

    I personally think that Barbie’s bad rap is undeserved, but that’s JMO. (…those Bratz dollz on the other hand…)

    Yeah Barbie is a clear case of “don’t hate me because I’m beautiful” the woman has worked every single career ever and she hasn’t left Kent for a GI Joe. The Bratz doll on the other hand “shrugs”

    Liza, women who don’t plug into media may overestimate their looks but once we see what advertising is trying to push on us (underarm whitener anyone?) we probably underestimate them.

    I think it might be that the effect the media has is that women that don’t look like a magazine cover require a hugely attractive man (like the man those women easily get) to convince themselves that she is as worth it and as attractive as the “cover girl” because she landed a similar man even if she will never have her looks…just thinking out loud.

    Anacaona, thank you for that! <3 Setting up our kids sounds fun, although we can only try to subtly set them up and not make it too obvious.

    What is the point of having kids if you can’t brainwash them to your liking? :p

    By the way do you miss your siblings? I have two cousins I grew up with, and sometimes I wish they were living closer.

    I talk to my mother and sisters almost everyday, my little brother is not the talking type so I talk less with him the same issue with daddy. I see their pics on facebook and they see mine so I try not to dwell in the the lack of personal contact and to enjoy the electronic one.

  • Jackie

    @J (#562)
    “Wow, that’s really insane, egregiously so. You should be proud of yourself and your late mom for overcoming this.”
    ——
    Thanks, J! :D
    There were so many strange things that she did, that in retrospect make perfect sense when filtered through an NPD. Charity prevents me from elaborating!

    And I wish I could say my mom and I overcame that. But my mom had perpetually low self-esteem and mine isn’t especially high either. It *did* force me to work on having a good personality and good character, as my parents were big fans of being “pretty on the inside.”

    PS: The hilarious thing was, she still saw herself as a 9 or a 10– the beauty standard. Still the belle of the ball– at 70+ years old! Have you ever seen “Sunset Boulevard”? I’m ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jackie

      OMG, your grandmother was Norma Desmond?

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    The reason why there is an asymmetry is that women’s average SMV in their 20s at pretty much every SMV rank level is higher, on average, than their peer men — due to “market skew”. That is, the “objective” SMV is equal, but because of the way the market works, at any given point in time during their early to mid-late 20s, women have a higher on average “market” SMV than peer “objective” SMV men — i.e., she is more in demand than he is. That switches over time in favor of men as things move into the 30s (at least on a peer basis), but there is a very significant asymmetry at the earlier ages, and these ages tend to be formative as well.

    Agree 100%. I think the “formative years” aspect is a big part of the problem that gets lost in the shuffle.

  • Courtley

    @ Brendan
    “But I think beyond the “80% of women are having sex with 20% of the men” exaggeration is the very real truth that on the top 50% or so SMV levels women have greater access to casual sex, if they want it, in their 20s, whereas men tend to have greater desire for such casual sex, on average, but less access than their peers. That’s a key part of what drives the issue, I think.”

    Totally agreed, that’s a succinct and clear way of phrasing it IMO.

  • Jackie

    @Ana
    “I received the same talks during puberty by my father but I also had the fortune to witness those types of men with my very own eyes from an early age.

    Yeah parents speeches backed up by reality are really a powerful way to learn about sex, love and life.”
    —-
    Hey Anacoana Cullen!

    ITA (I Totally Agree) about talking and then backing it up by reality. I mentioned this long ago on another thread, but someone I know with a pre-teen (and teenage) daughter watches that MTV “16 and Pregnant” and “Teen Mom” show and then discuss it afterward.

    The mom will ask, “What did you think of the way that boy treated her?” “Does he keep his promises– call back when he says he will?” “Does he respect her family?” etc

    Then she (the mom) will ask her daughter about the girls on the show: “How much work does this look like, getting up non-stop to care for a baby? How do you think she will go to college? Did the baby bring them closer together?”

    Obviously, the people on the show are total trainwrecks :( But it brings about a good discussion with *tangible results*. It’s a lot easier for a teenager to understand a girl having to miss her prom because her baby is crying than just talk.

    I can’t imagine anyone watching the show for entertainment, but it sounds like it provides a valuable service.

  • El Marqués

    @Brendan & Jimmy Hendricks

    Great explanation, cheers. I was going to say the same thing as Jimmy when I saw his comment. Funny how we all think alike and seem to speak “with one voice”…

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Re: alphas. The economist Tim Hartford discusses a game theoretical construct called “The Marriage Supermarket” in one of his books. The experiment goes something like this: 20 single men and 20 single women are placed in a room and told to pair off (mixed-gender pairs) and negotiate a split on a $100 payoff. When a man and woman successfully reach a deal, they go up to the front, collect their $100, split it as they agreed, and then leave the pool (they are “married” in game terms).

    With the 20 men and 20 women involved, the average split becomes, unsurprisingly, 50/50. The game is clearly very simplistic and it assumes that the only factor involved in marriage is the negotiation over the payday.

    …but the equilibrium case of strategic detente is surprisingly fragile. Now remove a single man from the pool. Given 19 men and 20 women, we would expect the men to have a slight negotiation advantage due to their new-found scarcity; the next average split might be projected to be, say, 55/45 in favor of the men.

    IIRC, Hartford writes that this assumption would be incorrect. In the Marriage Supermarket game, the removal of even a single man causes the remaining men to achieve much higher benefits from the game. Average splits of 90-10 or even 95-5 become common. Why? Because of the law of one price (commoditized products on offer at the same time, in the same place, will go for the same—i.e, lowest—price).

    In this Supermarket scenario, one woman looks around and sees that she will be left without a chair when the music stops. She begins a process of undercutting the others and her choice then kicks off a spiral. Men learn quickly to step aside and delay commitment so that these intense competition dynamics can more fully work themselves out.

    I suppose that herein lies one potential issue in the SMP: insofar as it resembles the ruthless, unemotional, and transparent price-war situation just described (we know it isn’t perfectly representative, but is it close?), the SMP solution matrix would suggest that the rational strategy for an attractive/alpha man (he would be one of the 19 who enjoys being “inside” the game construct and having the relative scarcity working in his favor) is to avoid commitment until competitive forces working in his favor have peaked. This calculation does not even include the costs/frequency of divorce, the difference between male and female reproductive windows and how they might create competitive pressures and desperation, or other factors.

    Like an insurgent, the man wins if he can simply avoid the entanglement of a decisive, open-field loss in the early days and wage a protracted, grinding, attrition-style campaign full of probing, hit-and-run type attacks.

    This would be particularly true in cases where natural experiments actually came close to duplicating the factors of the Marriage Supermarket (perhaps one such natural experiment is taking place with the current cohort of college students, where the numbers may be truly skewed and education-focused hypergamy may create an “island” effect that traps many women in the game, even if they might be better off in some ways by casting a wider net—if the men have no problems doing this, by the way, their advantage would become even more profound—and considering non-college males).

    Thoughts? Does this create a potential dilemma in terms of the advice that should be ethically given to highly-advantaged young men vs. the advice that should be given to everyone else? Does one need to inevitably “take sides” and advocate for a particular demographic subset, or can recommendations vary depending on the recipient..?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Bastiat Blogger

      I love Tim Harford – have just placed The Undercover Economist on my night table.

      In this Supermarket scenario, one woman looks around and sees that she will be left without a chair when the music stops.

      This makes sense to me intuitively. I have used the musical chairs metaphor myself, for this scenario:

      American colleges are near 60% female enrollment, 40% male enrollment.

      Therefore, a full third of American women with a college degree will not have the opportunity to marry a man with a college degree.

      That’s going to be mayhem, a stampede. Musical chairs with 33% of the women left standing. Of course, some may marry or cohabit with a male without a college education, but it will be a move to satisfice. Studies suggest that female hypergamy decreases when the sexual ratio favors men, but I wonder whether hypergamy won’t rear its ugly head at some point in the marriage.

  • http://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Emily
    “Why does everybody insist on ignoring the statistics?”

    Fact vs. belief? Very few people, past a certain age, ever alter their preconceived notions. Especially after investing years advocating them.

  • http://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Hope
    Interesting, your mom sounds like the classic overprotective matriarch. My father-in-law told his daughter (my SO) very similar things when she was younger. Guys will just try to get in your pants, be on guard at all times. Luckily, she didn’t take it all the heart, and I wasn’t (just) interested in getting in her pants. I even remember my mom telling me when I was a teenager: 1) there are girls who will make you happy, they’re worth your time, look for them carefully, and 2) there are girls who are nothing but trouble, avoid them like the plague : )

  • Herb

    @Pixie

    Just because you do all those things doesn’t mean she’ll be attracted to you personally. It simply means those are the general qualities she likes in a man she’s attracted to. Should I expected every man who likes smart blondes to want to date me personally? Your mistake is thinking that because a woman doesn’t want to date you that means she automatically wants to date bad boys.

    Your last sentence when you go off the rails. As I said before I want an alternative to the PUAs. If I believed the bad boy theory I wouldn’t think there was an alternative.

    As I’ve put it other places, I don’t know what women want but I know what they don’t want and they don’t want me.

    As for the general qualities issue, perhaps I haven’t been clear. This wasn’t just general qualities but it was “you a great guy and any woman would be lucky to have you” while telling me why they weren’t interested. Nor is this isolated, but a reoccurring pattern. It if wasn’t an almost universal I wouldn’t be so confused and angry about it.

    @Liza207

    I have often observed men who are low on the attractiveness scale hitting on women I would consider way out of their league all. of. the. time. And in some cases these men become very indignate when rebuffed by those women.

    This brings me to another male rationalization, I want to add: being in denial and clueless about their own SMV. I believe this affects males way more than it does women.

    I have no illusions about my SMV. I’m a fat girl’s consolation prize. I married at that level (although I didn’t think of it at that time). My wife was 5’4″ and north of 180 when we met and north of 220 when we married. She had a very pretty face (although her attitude by the end of our marriage had stolen that) but the weight killed her SMV. Perhaps I did punch above my weight. Certainly I must have after she lost the weight because she moved on to what her SMV would buy.

    @Courtley

    A lot of the anger around this topic in the Manosphere seems to really boil down to, when you strip away all the Rationalization rhetoric, the simple fact that women can say “no.” Women have the agency to factor their attraction to men into their dating/sex choices. I get the impressino these dudes really want a world where women to jump at the chance to date or hook up with a guy solely because he-wants-her. If a plain Jane woman rejects an Ordinary Joe guy, it’s always immediately taken as evidence of their “hypergamy.” The concept that it could happen for ANY other reason is never entertained.

    I have no issue with women having agency. I have an issue with their lack of truthfulness.

    Look, every women who rejected me has the only valid reason they need: they weren’t interested. What’s interesting of the two women I know who most align with the PUA attitude about what women are like and want one had a very understandable reason to reject me, a large age difference (ironically, she’s the one our common social circle was convinced we were dating or should be with a married couple in it trying to play matchmaker). Of the two, she was also the least attractive (overly skinny gamer chick…the other was more the urban progressive blonde girl).

    But as I said above, more than once I got “you a great guy and any woman would be lucky to have you”. If you get repeatedly told that for a while you’ll keep doing what you’re doing figuring that you’ll meet someone where it does click. After a while, though, you realize they’re lying. I used to get mad they were lying to me, but not I suspect a lot of them were lying to themselves as much if not more.

    Still, would it be that hard to say, “you’re a troll who can only land fat chicks who stay fat so ask them out”?

    Also, the other PUA woman, the urban progressive blonde girl is the one I’ve mentioned as a feminist who demands to be treated like a princess. She also accepted a date after being involved in a week long email thread about how I was hoping to use my tickets to that season of the ballet to start dating after my wife left me. After over $200 spent on her between flowers, ticket, and dinner she said she didn’t think it was a date, just a friend being nice to her.

    That’s lying right up there with Tom. How hard would it have been to say, “Herb, I know you want to date but I’m not interested” before collecting the cash and prizes instead of after.

    So, the ladies quoted above, I know I’m a loser, slightly overweight, troll who plays D&D (sorry, Jackie, I appreciate you saying I’m a catch, but I know better even if I didn’t in the past). Would it be that hard to say that upfront so maybe I could change it or decide it wasn’t worth changing to meet a woman and do so before taking the cash and prizes?

    So, no, I have no problem with women having agency. I have problems with them exercising it without admitting the real reason and only after getting what they can from me.

  • Herb

    @De

    “The guys getting easy sex on demand represent 20% of the male population, and the women having sex with them also represent about 20% of the female population. ”

    You said earlier 80/20 so which is it?

    I think you’re misunderstanding 80/20. It’s from the Pareto principle. In this case it means 20% of the people are getting 80% of the sex, not 20% of men are and 80% of women are.

    Susan’s had pretty good numbers that both sexes have about 20% getting casual sex, but for various reasons we seem to think more are. The issue, as I think Brendan explained, is both these don’t line up…it’s the top 20% of men getting it from a wider range of women and also, because the women are taken from a wider range more women hold off on chasing men from the 80% because they think they can get the 20%. So in terms of availability I think the 80% of the men realistically only have a chance with 50-60% of the women with the difference being those who “hold out for what they deserve”.

    This leads to a couple of problems. First, the past 40 years didn’t see a sustained war until this decade and even then those wars had amazing low casualties from a historical view. So the 105 boys who are born for every 100 woman survived at the same rate as women. When we take the top 20% of men and 40% of women off the general SMP for either casual sexing or holding out for the kind of men who can we wind up with 84 men chasing 60 women. That means 24 men per hundred, just shy of a third (which would be 26) of those men won’t find a partner regardless of what they put into it.

    These are the guys who learn Game because women are exotic animals. The exotic animals are those 20 women who aren’t doing the casual sex thing but are holding out for the men who can. Because the decent women partnered off early with the other men in the 84, they are left in an environment where all that is left are the 5-6s holding out for the 9 they deserve.

    That’s what’s skewing the manosphere. It isn’t that AWALT but because the breakdown of assortive mating left them with nothing to chase but women who would “naturally” be their partners.

    This is also where the idea of women grossly overestimating their SMV comes from. They are working from a skewed sample, but the 60 who didn’t are hidden because they paired off early.

    Still, we’re talking 20% of men and women who aren’t going to find partners in a happy way if at all. That’s not the majority, but it’s still not healthy for society.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “His was a lie of omission. Is Jane to blame? Should she have parsed the vocabulary on that brilliant winter afternoon?

    What is Tom’s responsibility? Is he just a guy who is adept at applied psychology?”
    _____________________________

    Been covered, but you asked me:

    First, Tom is an asshole for cheating. He didn’t behave honorably.

    Jane, on the other hand, was dumb. Being dumb is painful, as she now knows. In your example, she made some unfounded assumptions and failed to develop adequate situational awareness. In some lines of work, that would get her killed.

    Hopefully Jane learned a lesson that day, and is a little smarter for it.

    I wouldn’t lend either of them any money.

    To answer directly:

    Tom’s responsibility is to his girlfriend. I’d help her drown Tom in bloody diarrhea for the princely sum of two beers.

    And yes, Jane is to “blame” for her situation. The Universe is a hard place. It’s naive bordering on suicidally insane to do as she did – traipse blithely through the flowered fields of life, expecting every other human animal she meets to put her desires before theirs.

  • INTJ

    @ Anacaona and Hope

    Your best bet might be to use reverse psychology on your kids. Tell them to stay away from each other, and watch them rebel against your authority.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “In my view, when you seek gain at the expense of another you are behaving immorally if they have incomplete information. This applies in all areas of life, for both sexes. ”
    _________________________________

    I have sought to “gain” by looking for a non-promiscuous girl for an LTR. Had I offered “complete information” (promiscuous girls are ruled out for all Vitamin Dogsquat therapies) I would have been duped. More than once.

    Had I not been oblique in my approach, subtle in my methods, I would have been lied to. Instead, I ended up walking away from some women who would have made me miserable.

    I guess I’m like Tom in your Tom vs Jane example. I just had a different goal.

    Crap, I just thought of this little misery:

    One of those girls still drunk dials me and cries, a year and a half after the fact. She’s a good person, just not a good fit for me. I feel sorry for her.

    In contravention to your view, I believe it was cruel and unnecessary to tell her why I dumped her. She can’t fix it, and her self esteem is shot. I should have been “immoral” and not offered total honesty. She’d be a lot happier, and I wouldn’t have another fucking stain on my soul.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    but I definitely can’t speak to the dynamics of dating in your 40s after a divorce.

    I’d rather be beaten bloody with a carbon rod cane.

  • Herb

    @Dogsquat

    Jane, on the other hand, was dumb. Being dumb is painful, as she now knows. In your example, she made some unfounded assumptions and failed to develop adequate situational awareness. In some lines of work, that would get her killed.

    Hopefully Jane learned a lesson that day, and is a little smarter for it.

    Jane has hopefully learned that grand military lesson in a non-lethal way: it’s not what you know can kill that will kill you, it’s what you don’t know that can kill you.

    Tom’s responsibility is to his girlfriend. I’d help her drown Tom in bloody diarrhea for the princely sum of two beers.

    I’m more a hard cider guy (or a snakebite…meaning a pint made of equal amounts of both) but otherwise, yeah, I’m there with boots and gloves.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “In the same way, the PUA attempts to make the women feel insecure and off-kilter via negging and incongruent behavior. ”
    ___________________________

    So what?

    Those women are free to leave at any time. Instead, they CHOOSE TO stick around. The PUA is exhibiting a type of behavior. These women are obviously into it, OR THEY’D LEAVE. Alternatively, some bouncer with a low, sloping brow would happily justify his paycheck by tossing said PUA right out of the bar.

    To state anything else is to imply that women are not fully developed, rational human beings.

    There is no grey area. Women are either autonomous humans, or they’re not.

    It is not both, or dependent on the situation.

    Either/or.

    Susan said:

    “the PUA attempts to make the women feel insecure”
    ___________________________________

    So effing what?

    What other nebulous, subjective emotions that women experience would you hold men accountable for?

    Women are not children. They ought to be able to take care of themselves, especially in this day and age.

    Susan said:

    “Additionally, he is pretending to be something he is not – a naturally dominant male with options. The “buyer” has been misled re the quality of what’s being offered. ”
    _____________________________________

    No argument from me on this one.

    If you lack discipline, foresight, and are too lazy to do a little research on an important purchase, though – it’s your fault. No. One. Else’s.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dogsquat

      You are focusing on the responsibility of the target to suss out bad motives and figure out who would do them harm. That’s fair, assuming that information is discernible.

      I’m arguing that it’s not a question of agency, or rationality, or being fully developed.

      Manipulating another individual for personal gain at their expense is immoral. Period. Where there is intent to deceive there is a failure of character. Always.

      Most of us have done it.

      Presumably your motive for telling a woman why you dumped her was not personal gain, so I don’t think that example applies. Though sometimes discretion is kindness – we really don’t need to tell people they look fat in those jeans.

      When a person’s heart is at stake – honesty is required.

  • Jackie

    @Susan
    “OMG, your grandmother was Norma Desmond?”

    Just without the international movie stardom, decaying mansion and Erich von Stroheim. ;)

    It was more like this: She had been the most popular and quite a beauty in her youth. She refused to accept that could ever change. It was basically the lens through which she viewed the world.

    She still wore all her clothes from her 30′s, which all still fit. (In her defense, classic stuff from a good maker will last *forever*.) Her hair was naturally raven black –no dye, ever– until the day my mom died. Then, she went completely white within a year– crazy, huh?

    The day after her husband (who was king of the alphas, but that’s a story for another day) died, she went out and found a job, and proceeded to work 70-80 hours a week until her death. Customers *loved* her and gave gratituties heavily –which she accepted as only natural. ;) You would think she would be joking or ironic about how much people loved her, the attention and how attracted to her they were. I assure you: She was absolutely sincere!

    The loss of my mom was like the picture in Dorian Gray’s attic: When she went, so did everything else. Her hair went white within a year, she was asked to leave her job for errors, things started getting stranger…

    NPDs have a lot of rage and delusion. When she needed me to run her errands, I was kind of her target for both. She would use her rings and shoes to demonstrate how “huge” I was (she was only 5 ft tall– I was more than 9 inches taller!) and how my bone structure was inferior to delicacy and “classic beauty.” CRAZY.

    At that stage, I would bet when she looked in the mirror, she really did see a belle staring back at her, instead of a senior citizen. When I told my dad of her words he said, “Consider the source!” ;)

    Sorry for running on so! Back to regularly scheduled HUS programming :)

  • Dogsquat

    Jackie said:

    “Just like there are “slut tells” for promiscuity, there are “character tells” as well. The guy doing this is pretty weak, character-wise, in my opinion. To me, his actions are telling the universe, “Who I am is not enough. I have to ‘use her hamster to the fullest’ to get what I want.”

    Maybe he’ll get some short term copulation with someone he manipulates. Pretty sad (and cheap) trade-off for integrity, though.”
    __________________________________

    Yeah, this one reason so many men get angry and sad when they’re Red Pilled – I couldn’t have said it better myself. Damned if they don’t, but accused of low morals if they do.

    I am aware now of the Hamster, and I know a little bit of Game. My relationship currently is the best one I’ve ever been in – I am so goddamned happy I can barely believe it. I can see in my girl’s face how much she loves me – I catch her staring at me smiling once in awhile, and she’d rather cook me dinner and have sex than sleep (saying a lot right there if you know any medical people).

    I’ve been in love a few times before. When I get like this there is nothing I am not willing to do for my girl. I will fight dragons, or build a skyscraper with my bare hands. If she obliquely mentions something that may possibly please her, I will break my ass to obtain it/do it.

    Without a little Game and Hamster Knowledge, though, I was just another Beta schlub who got cheated on and dumped.

    It’s too bad you think of me as having no integrity or a weak character. I assure you that is a problem with your outlook, though, and not any reflection of reality.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

    But come on, no one says things like “you’re a fat troll who deserves only fat chicks” to the faces of people they don’t know well! Social niceties aren’t really the same as being deceptive, surely you know that.

    If you were only asking out/noticing women much more attractive than you with a significantly higher SMV (according to your own descriptions) doesn’t that prove the point that men in the Manosphere who believe really negative things about ‘women’ are often putting themselves into scenarios that confirm their perceptions? I think it’s outrageously bad behavior to string a man along just to get free shit, but if you run a much higher risk of that happening if you’re not very conventionally attractive yet insist on only noticing/asking out more conventionally attractive women, or women who are much younger than you.

    Also, this paragraph confused me:
    “What’s interesting of the two women I know who most align with the PUA attitude about what women are like and want one had a very understandable reason to reject me, a large age difference (ironically, she’s the one our common social circle was convinced we were dating or should be with a married couple in it trying to play matchmaker). Of the two, she was also the least attractive (overly skinny gamer chick…the other was more the urban progressive blonde girl).”
    If she had an understandable reason to reject you how does that make her a typical PUA-style woman?

  • Jackie

    @Susan again :( (#641)

    Wow, it was like the Universe was doing everything in Its power to bring her the truth! Yikes.

    The thing about Tom is– How can he trust *anyone*? How can he even trust himself? How can he ever relax or enjoy anything when he has to keep a million angles going– tell her x, don’t tell them y, don’t let z see me with v.

    To me, that would be the far worse hell (although being cheated on is WAY down there). And karma seems to be a universal law: What you put out there is returned to you. Often several times over.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    So yeah, Tom was a total dick. I hope he plays in traffic.

    He already is…I’ve seen a guy with genital warts and a guy with four clap cancors at once (including one on his eye). Neither were pretty.

  • SayWhaat

    Women are not children. They ought to be able to take care of themselves, especially in this day and age.

    Dogsquat, you’re forgetting one very important thing: the 18-year-olds of today are not the same as 18-year-olds of 1980, 1970, or even 1940. Our society has extended adolescence until our mid-20s. Yes, some of us may be more mature for our age group, but NAPALT. :)

    So, to answer your point more directly: no, women are not children. But the demographic that HUS is addressing is not exactly full-grown adults, either. My generation is still growing up, making mistakes, and learning from them. You shouldn’t mollycoddle us, certainly, but you can’t expect us to make zero mistakes from the get-go, either.

    And by “us”, I am referring to both men and women of my generation.

  • Courtley

    @ Susan

    Thanks for expanding on the 80/20 thing!

  • SayWhaat

    It’s too bad you think of me as having no integrity or a weak character. I assure you that is a problem with your outlook, though, and not any reflection of reality.

    The difference between your situation and Tom’s, Dogsquat, is that your situation did not lead to an outcome where you won at the expense of the girl. You did not mislead her in the way that Tom did; you’re trying to conflate the two when in reality they are degrees apart.

  • SayWhaat

    MCB,

    I have yet to see Shallow Jen about a woman learning to not care a man isn’t Hugh Jackman.

    13 Going On 30
    Spiderman
    Bridesmaids
    When Harry Met Sally

    Those are just off the top of my head. I’m sure Netflix could help you find more!

  • SayWhaat

    I wonder how many of the women who comment in the ‘sphere with some regularity had mentally ill or problematic mothers? There seems to be a disproportionate number.

    I don’t consider myself a ‘sphere commenter, do I still count? :P

  • Jackie

    @Dogsquat

    Hey Dogsquat,

    Question: Where did you see me refer to your relationship in post #465? Tom is the person with no integrity that I am referring to. I disagree with your defense of him, but in no way did I conflate your relationship with his.

    Congrats on being in a wonderful position in life– it sounds like everything is going well for you. Truly, I am glad to hear this, Dogsquat. I wish you all continued success.

  • SayWhaat

    Bastiat Blogger, I’m beginning to fall in love with your comments.

    In this Supermarket scenario, one woman looks around and sees that she will be left without a chair when the music stops. She begins a process of undercutting the others and her choice then kicks off a spiral. Men learn quickly to step aside and delay commitment so that these intense competition dynamics can more fully work themselves out.

    EXACTLY. FUCKING. EXACTLY.

    This is why Susan, myself, and a myriad of other female commenters can say, “beta boys are cleaning up in college” until we’re blue in the face–because there is a REAL scarcity, and women everywhere are feeling it!

    That’s why it’s not just the “Alpha Males” who are having fun in college. The betas in college can have relationships if they choose to — the odds are in their favor. It doesn’t matter if there’s one or two alpha guys who are getting sex with hot girls. The sheer dearth of men on college campuses is giving ALL MEN a MASSIVE advantage! Look no further than NYU for an extreme example: the M/F ratio is 30:70, and that’s including gay males. So the ratio of straight M: straight F is actually much lower. That leads to my next point…

    This would be particularly true in cases where natural experiments actually came close to duplicating the factors of the Marriage Supermarket (perhaps one such natural experiment is taking place with the current cohort of college students, where the numbers may be truly skewed and education-focused hypergamy may create an “island” effect that traps many women in the game, even if they might be better off in some ways by casting a wider net—if the men have no problems doing this, by the way, their advantage would become even more profound—and considering non-college males).

    This is exactly the path that my friends and I pursued when we were in our junior year of college. We all started casting wider nets by dating older men and/or dating men outside our college (a strategy employed even by my gay friends, btw). Guys at NYU were basically out of the question — not by our choice, though, they were too busy hooking up. Even the omegas were getting some.

    It is a really good time to be a man right now.

  • Courtley

    @ SayWhaat

    Totally agreed. I went to a small liberal arts university that was 75% female. In retrospect, that was a dreadful way to spend my 18-22 years, not to mention how expensive and fairly unimpressive my degree is.

    But it does make post-college dating in the “real world” SEEM at least a little bit better by comparison for women who want commitment, which is nice.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    If she had an understandable reason to reject you how does that make her a typical PUA-style woman?

    Sit down, this will take a while.

    University gaming club whose membership draws on the entire community not just students.

    She had just finished her graduate degree in CS. She was kind of cute, but at 28 looked like an unfed 18 year old. Still, she had something very attractive about her…not physical beauty (I have dated more attractive physically by most men’s standards) but just something.

    We hung out a lot. As I said people thought we were dating or were encouraging it. She was openly talking about it was time to find a husband and look to start a family. At the time I was still hoping for remarriage and kids. I thought she was attractive. Our mutual friends thought we were a cute couple.

    I asked her out. Her reason to say no was age difference. It was 12 years. Sounds perfectly valid.

    However, for the remaining two years she was living there she turned down another member of our social circle who was only in his early 30s (33 if memory serves) who was looking for the same thing. I don’t know why she said she was not attracted to him.

    What she did do was continue to sex up an ex-bf who was a felon. She also hooked up with a 23 year old player who would call her over for sex then kick her out so he could get some sleep. Great guy (he was also in the gaming club) and a blast to hang out with. Had I know the term then I’d have called him a Game natural.

    She also had the audacity to call me for comfort when player guy didn’t want to cuddle. I fell for it a couple of times (at 40, trust me I’m blushing writing it).

    So, the reason she gave me would fly, but the choices in men to invest in were 100% different from what she claimed she was after.

    I’ll see her at the end of May for rejected 30 something guy’s wedding. She’s 33 and alone. I’ll admit I’m hoping to see she’s hitting a wall.

    If you were only asking out/noticing women much more attractive than you with a significantly higher SMV (according to your own descriptions) doesn’t that prove the point that men in the Manosphere who believe really negative things about ‘women’ are often putting themselves into scenarios that confirm their perceptions?

    As I said, my ex-wife was obese from the moment I meant her, which fair or not is a huge SMV killer. I honestly thought for a long time I punched my weight there. I still do because I don’t think her second husband is better than me overall, especially by what women as a whole claim to desire.

    As for no one is willing to say “you’re a troll who should date fat chicks” why is it easier for me to say that to the mirror than a woman who will never see me again to say it?

    FWIW, last time I checked “Hot or Not” I was rated over 8…I can’t see what my picture at OkCupid is rated. It’s new (Hot or Not was back in 2003). If someone could tell me how, I’d check.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Your best bet might be to use reverse psychology on your kids. Tell them to stay away from each other, and watch them rebel against your authority.

    I know how we are already plotting to run our kids lives and the poor ones are not even born yet. I don’t know about Hope but I want grand kids and given the liberal/feminist place I live I should start early. I think she will do fine in family friendly state though.

    Tom’s responsibility is to his girlfriend. I’d help her drown Tom in bloody diarrhea for the princely sum of two beers….

    I’m more a hard cider guy (or a snakebite…meaning a pint made of equal amounts of both) but otherwise, yeah, I’m there with boots and gloves.

    Ohh that is so sweet reminds me of how my friends offered to beat “the gringo” to a pulp during my husband first trip if he demanded something I wasn’t willing to give. Luckily for all of us hubby is a gentleman and I was willing to give without him even asking ;)

    @Jackie
    Sadly this is the way women that had nothing but their beauty to offer to themselves and the world end up, complete denial. At least she didn’t had the means to get plastic surgery to keep herself “young” that usually ends up even worse.

  • Herb

    @SayWhaat

    Dogsquat, you’re forgetting one very important thing: the 18-year-olds of today are not the same as 18-year-olds of 1980, 1970, or even 1940. Our society has extended adolescence until our mid-20s. Yes, some of us may be more mature for our age group, but NAPALT.

    At 21 I was responsible for reactor and submarine safety affecting over 100 lives (over 10,000 in port with the reactor).

    I’m a piker for responsibility compared to Dogsquat.

    My whole life I’ve been told women should be held to the same standard as men. I’ve tried to oblige.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “It is a really good time to be a man right now.”

    If that were the case you wouldn’t see men literally screaming their lungs that the whole damn system is broken.

    It is really good if you have some game.

    If you have no game, it is a nightmare. And not “oh no, I couldn’t keep my pants on and thought this guy was my boyfriend” drama, I am talking not getting laid in YEARS kind of nightmare.

    I know because literally every single male I know is living in it except for the one guy in a relationship.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    I’ll see her at the end of May for rejected 30 something guy’s wedding. She’s 33 and alone. I’ll admit I’m hoping to see she’s hitting a wall.

    Please tell me that you are over her and if she starts making puppy eyes at you, you won’t even bother. It might sound cruel but if she wants you after trying every other man but you, chances are she will become your second ex-wife I don’t think you can handle that much bitterness without your body exploding killing all western hemisphere life and part of Central America in the process.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb
    “As for no one is willing to say “you’re a troll who should date fat chicks” why is it easier for me to say that to the mirror than a woman who will never see me again to say it?”

    Social convention, Herb! People just don’t say those things to other’s faces. Especially women. It may not seem logical but it’s a deeply ingrained part of our Western, British-based sense of politeness.

    Again, I’m not making judgment calls on your attractiveness, if other people rate you highly don’t call yourself an ugly troll.

    Otherwise, thanks for the story on the first chick…She sounds, like, a TEXTBOOK Manosphere woman.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    “Dogsquat, you’re forgetting one very important thing: the 18-year-olds of today are not the same as 18-year-olds of 1980, 1970, or even 1940. Our society has extended adolescence until our mid-20s. Yes, some of us may be more mature for our age group, but NAPALT.”

    Our generation may not be “mature”, but it can’t claim ignorance…

    Kids now are pretty damn aware of hookup culture by the time they’re 13-14 years old. By the time they’re 18, they’ve already seen and heard plenty, even if they haven’t participated.

    Now if you plopped an 18 year old from previous generations into today’s world, I truly would feel sorry for them. They wouldn’t knew what the hell hit them. Mature or not.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @ADBG
    “I know because literally every single male I know is living in it except for the one guy in a relationship.”

    My circle of friends and co-workers is almost the complete opposite. In fact, most of the singles are women. What does that prove?

  • Senior Beta

    Jackie (@625) and Susan (@641)

    Now you are adding additional facts to the original Tom-Jane story. This is the kind of thing that drove students nuts starting their third week in law school. Not fair.

    Tom liked Jane. He liked her even better in the sack. What is the expression “all is fair in love and war?” For Tom, given the original facts, I say “mission accomplished.” I know Dog thinks there is some dishonor here. But was a Marine. I was Navy. Big difference.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Now you are adding additional facts to the original Tom-Jane story. This is the kind of thing that drove students nuts starting their third week in law school. Not fair.

      I didn’t mean to muddy the waters re the original question. I just spilled the ending to the tale because it was interesting. It doesn’t change my view of Tom when the incident first occurred – I recall hearing the story then and being disgusted by his opportunism and narcissism.

      What is the expression “all is fair in love and war?”

      If that’s true, then infidelity is OK, as is stealing your brother’s wife, or keeping one’s medical status a secret.

      How about we follow the Golden Rule? It’s the central tenet of the great religions and the most important prescription for leading an honorable life. That doesn’t mean supplication, obsequiousness, oneitis or killing someone with kindness. It just means not being an asshole.

  • SayWhaat

    Our generation may not be “mature”, but it can’t claim ignorance…

    I think it can. I was extremely ignorant of male sexuality until I started commenting at HUS.

  • Herb

    @SayWhaat

    13 Going On 30
    Spiderman
    Bridesmaids
    When Harry Met Sally

    Those are just off the top of my head. I’m sure Netflix could help you find more!

    I’ve only seen #2 and #4. Neither fit the bill.

    Shallow Hal is specifically about how Hal has to be hypnotized to see Paltrow as she is, not in the fat suit, to learn that her personality is worth more than her looks.

    While certainly the less attractive man gets the cute girl in When Harry Met Sally she never rejects him over his looks nor is the point of the movie that she needs to do so.

    Same with Spiderman but in addition, are you kidding me. Tobey Maguire is a pinup boy. At least in WHMS I think we’ll all agree Billy Crystal isn’t better than average.

    So, again, name me a film specifically about learning the ugly guy is a good person and loving him without him, during the film transforming into someone physically attractive. As someone pointed out about Don’t Buy Me Love the geek fluffs his hair and turns into Patrick Demsey.

    I freely admit most movies are like that regardless of the ugly person’s gender. That’s why Shallow Hal stands out. It’s just as fake with women. As Lisa Michaud pointed out in the excellent Guy’s Guide to Geek Girls 15 years ago, the geek girl turning beautiful by taking off her glasses isn’t real. In reality she trips over the furniture when she does that.

  • SayWhaat

    At 21 I was responsible for reactor and submarine safety affecting over 100 lives (over 10,000 in port with the reactor).

    I’m a piker for responsibility compared to Dogsquat.

    My whole life I’ve been told women should be held to the same standard as men. I’ve tried to oblige.

    You’re also in your 40s.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Now if you plopped an 18 year old from previous generations into today’s world, I truly would feel sorry for them. They wouldn’t knew what the hell hit them. Mature or not.”

    Hahahahaha, explaining the concept of hooking up to my parents was an interesting time.

    Dad: “You mean you actually have to have a conversation about whether you are boyfriend or girlfriend after you had sex?”
    ADBG: “Yes”
    Dad: “That’s fucking pathetic”

  • SayWhaat

    So, again, name me a film specifically about learning the ugly guy is a good person and loving him without him, during the film transforming into someone physically attractive.

    Beauty and the Beast? She confessed she loved him before he turned back into a human.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “My circle of friends and co-workers is almost the complete opposite. In fact, most of the singles are women. What does that prove?”

    Not sure. What is your age range?

  • Mike C

    My favorite male rationalization hamsters:

    Women don’t care about men’s looks. And yeah, most young women (including older women) are really into old dudes.

    I could make a list of them but I will stop right here.

    Regarding male looks and male age differential…

    I don’t believe most young women “are into really old dudes”. What I do believe and I’ve got plenty of experience, both my own and guys I know is that age difference doesn’t really matter if you are attractive enough on other aspects (looks and personality). I know a 29 year old guy who literally cleans up with 18-20 year olds. I was 31-32 when I was bouncing and I had no problem getting interest from 21-22 year olds once I developed some basic Game. One thing an older guy can have working for him is the status thing. The 29 year old guy I know drives a Cadillac STS. The average 22 year old guy is driving a beat up jalopy.

    Regarding male looks. I think if we surveyed a bunch of guys only a very small percentage would say looks don’t matter to women. Firstly, many guys are going to engage in projection so they are going to assume looks matter to women simply because looks matter A LOT to men for sexual attraction. Inside the “Game community” where guys are aware of just how powerful psychosocial dominance is as a sexual attraction trigger, you’ll get more debate on the importance of looks. Only a small minority of guys believe looks are 0%, and they tend to believe in some kind of Jedi magic with Game which I think is total bullshit. If you gave me the choice of

    A. Tall, handsome, well built with just some very basics of Game
    B. Short, balding, dweeby looking but SUPER-TIGHT Game

    I’d take A 24/7. In the years, I’ve spent following this stuff, what I’ve seen with below average looking guys with really tight Game is they do really well with 5-6 to maybe 7ish girls, but they are not pulling 8-9s at all.

    Anyways, bottom line is looks matter for guys. Now what I’ve found that is different from women to men is women have “A LOOK” they go for while a guy can find a variety of looks appealing. For example, I could find the tall, athletic girl with A cup attractive, and also find the shorter, more curvy girl with D cup physically attractive. I’ve found this not to be the case with women. If a woman likes a physically muscular guy, odds are she isn’t going to be into skinny guys. If she likes blondes, she probably isn’t going to be into Mediterranean looking guys.

  • Herb

    @Ana

    Please tell me that you are over her and if she starts making puppy eyes at you, you won’t even bother. It might sound cruel but if she wants you after trying every other man but you,

    Here’s the thing. When I met her and thought she was cute the fact she was “bones sticking out of her ass thin” didn’t register. Now I can list a ton of physical flaws (head too big for neck, slightly bulging eyes, etc).

    Male standards of attractiveness, as Susan loves to point out, are malleable. One big way they are is attraction. The woman I’m seeing now is incredibly beautiful. Some times I look at her and it overwhelms me. She also has flaws (which I won’t list out of politeness) that I intellectually know but don’t register if that makes sense.

    Gamer girl has gone from “she’s cute but needs to eat a sandwich” to “so skinny I’d break her during sex and not aging well.” That’s not really about looks but attraction.

    chances are she will become your second ex-wife I don’t think you can handle that much bitterness without your body exploding killing all western hemisphere life and part of Central America in the process.

    Don’t get me bitter…you don’t want to see me bitter :) (although maybe the clothes ripping would be sexy and alpha…hmmm). :)

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    While certainly the less attractive man gets the cute girl in When Harry Met Sally she never rejects him over his looks nor is the point of the movie that she needs to do so.

    Actually I think 30 going on 13 does qualify, when she is 13 she ignores chubby best friend because she wants to be part of the popular girl group and make out with the hot guy. After getting tricked by this girls she decides to blame the chubby guy and part ways with him and becomes part of this horrible girls group (we don’t see this because part of the magical plot device that transports her to her 30′s) at the end she learns that living the “superficial life men included” had made her a terrible woman and that her chubby ex- friend (engaged at this point) is actually a lot better person and that she should had grow up to be the kind of woman he would marry. She of course go back to be 13 learns her lesson and marries the friend. So I will say that SayWhat is right about this one. Haven’t watched Bridesmaid though so anyone feel free to chime in.

  • Herb

    @SayWhaat

    You’re also in your 40s.

    True, but Dogsquat isn’t. Also, there are still over 80 subs in the fleet and my heirs on them are 19 and 20 just like I was (although two of my boats are gone and the last won’t be around longer…talk about making me feel old).

    Your generation can do it, but they aren’t. Perhaps that’s because we don’t expect it of most of you but that doesn’t change the fact you can.

    Beauty and the Beast? She confessed she loved him before he turned back into a human.

    Half credit, as he does turn into a prince, but only after she admits to loving him.

    Last scene in Shallow Hal is them hoping in bed AFTER the hypnosis is reversed and her throwing her sixty inch thong past the screen.

  • OffTheCuff

    SayWhaat is right, it is totally awesome being a beta man. We have FFM threesomes and women propose one-night stands, sometimes both at the same time.

    It’s good to be the king!

  • Jackie

    @Susan, Dogsquat

    It seems like the crux of this issue is not the jerk Tom, but the truth and how much of it we should tell. This is my opinion:

    Follow the golden rule and tell people the truth you would like to know in their shoes, the way you would like to hear it told to you.

    If you were Jane, wouldn’t you prefer to hear, “I like you a lot… but I do have a girlfriend” before having sex with him? (BTW, this in no way absolves her of her actions. She has to own her behavior, 100%.)

    For me, my experiences affect my viewpoint: Being lied to and manipulated through the deliberate omission of important information is *awful*. Being used is beyond painful.

    When I see other people doing what Tom did (manipulation and cheating, self-gratification at the expense of others ), there is no way I am going to stay silent. Silence = Tacit Acceptance. He could have told the truth in a million different ways– casually mentioning his GF could have been a piece of cake.

    As for telling the truth, you can clarify and be completely forthright without ever crossing over into cruelty. If someone’s values aren’t a match, that’s that. I would be relieved if someone rejected me that way, instead of just fading off.

    One person I know who is good at delivering truth will always use “and” instead of “but.” (He said: “but” negates everything before it; “and” links the good quality and criticism smoothly.)

    This reminds me of debates from a class on ethics, so I’ll stop now. :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @JAckie

      Whoops, just saw that you already posted about the Golden Rule! That’s what I get for trying to catch up on comments in order. :P I’ll leave my comment up though – double whammy!

  • Iggles

    SayWhaat,

    Dogsquat, you’re forgetting one very important thing: the 18-year-olds of today are not the same as 18-year-olds of 1980, 1970, or even 1940. Our society has extended adolescence until our mid-20s. Yes, some of us may be more mature for our age group, but NAPALT. :)

    So, to answer your point more directly: no, women are not children. But the demographic that HUS is addressing is not exactly full-grown adults, either. My generation is still growing up, making mistakes, and learning from them. You shouldn’t mollycoddle us, certainly, but you can’t expect us to make zero mistakes from the get-go, either.

    And by “us”, I am referring to both men and women of my generation.

    +1

    I think you hit the nail on the head! I’m a different person at 27 than I was at 24, when my last serious relationship ended. I met the dude when I was 20, and so much about me has changed — from my hair to my political views! My outlook on relationships has completely different! I have a much better idea of what qualities I need in a partner for a relationship to work in the long term. (Believe me, at 20 I thought I had it all figured out, but nope! Life experience taught me otherwise!)

    I’ve made plenty of mistakes when it came to love and settled when I should have move on. When you’re young and inexperienced you make rookie mistakes and hopefully wisen up.

    I understand having little sympathy for the willfully ignorant, but I don’t think it’s fair to paint all youth with such a wide brush. Getting burned and learning from the experience is different from making the same so-called “mistakes” repeatedly expecting the outcome to change IMO.

    I’m not defending carousel riders, but I don’t think kids of either gender should be judged so harshly for rookie mistakes in dating. (There’s a learning curve)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Iggles

      I’m not defending carousel riders, but I don’t think kids of either gender should be judged so harshly for rookie mistakes in dating. (There’s a learning curve)

      I just saw a video with Helen Fisher, the world’s foremost authority on the brain in love, and she says some interesting things about both men and women falling in love as a direct result of having sex together. Maybe I’ll slap it up as a post this morning.

  • SayWhaat

    Half credit, as he does turn into a prince, but only after she admits to loving him.

    Last scene in Shallow Hal is them hoping in bed AFTER the hypnosis is reversed and her throwing her sixty inch thong past the screen.

    Nope. They’re actually the same win from different sides of the coin.

    Male lesson and win: he still has sex.

    Female lesson and win: she still gets the love.

  • SayWhaat

    SayWhaat is right, it is totally awesome being a beta man. We have FFM threesomes and women propose one-night stands, sometimes both at the same time.

    Heh. That’s exactly what ex-Fake BF was up to. (His threesome was MFM though.)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC, @SayWhaat

      SayWhaat is right, it is totally awesome being a beta man. We have FFM threesomes and women propose one-night stands, sometimes both at the same time.

      Heh. That’s exactly what ex-Fake BF was up to. (His threesome was MFM though.)

      I think there are a couple of things going on here. One is a full generation between you. The SMP has changed a lot in 20 years. The sex ratio in college has definitely worked in favor of college guys in general – more guys are going to get action than previously because the demand exceeds the supply.

      I’ve said this before – I personally know a couple of dozen beta guys who have ONSs, choose when to get into a relationship, etc. even as they struggle with inevitable oneitis. I recall saying that most of them have a count over 10 and OTC said that means they’re alpha, not beta. But that is not the case. They’re nowhere near players, and they have a lot of beta traits. They’re routinely described as “nice” and “sweet.” I’m not saying it’s easy for beta guys to be manwhores – the young players I know have been with 50-100 girls. But they’re not in the sexual desert, by any means.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Half credit, as he does turn into a prince, but only after she admits to loving him.

    Do you remember the beauty and the beast TV series with Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman I know it was the 80′s and things were not as bad but she (and all of us) loved Vincent in spite of his looks and the fact that he lived on a sewer.

    Don’t get me bitter…you don’t want to see me bitter :) (although maybe the clothes ripping would be sexy and alpha…hmmm). :)

    Someone should make that superhero: Barnabas Bethany: the Beta guy becomes and Asshole hot Alpha out of the bitterness every time a woman rejects him. He them