Helen Fisher on Three Diverse Mating Strategies

April 25, 2012

 

Helen Fisher is the most prominent social scientist studying attraction and mating from an evolutionary perspective. She’s that rare combination of brilliant researcher and star power. 

I found her remarks on the high dopamine types especially interesting, since we know that this is the chemical that rewards promiscuity and other impulsive, addictive behaviors. It lends additional credence to my claim that promiscuous types are drawn to one another and pair off accordingly.

Your thoughts?

  • FeralEmployee

    Guess I’ll start taking blood samples of all the women I encounter and test for serotonin expression levels.

  • http://www.lifetheroughdraft.squarespace.com Rone

    Saliva sample first. Blood is second base.

  • Alex Mosby

    This is a great post. I really liked the video you shared. It should teach us to be more careful and stay aware.

    -Alex

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    (A picture of Bill and Hillary should definitely make us be more careful and stay aware. Sorry–couldn’t resist.)

    I was waiting for the part where she takes the 4 hormonal types as identified by the Chemistry.com data and then compares these with the actual hormone levels found in these individuals…but that part never came. Do you know, Susan, if this form of validation has actually been done? It seems pretty obvious as something that should be tested.

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

      @David Foster

      She wrote a whole book on that experiment, I’m not sure if it included blood work and the like. I see if I can find out.

  • Herb

    First, I have to admit she just justified all the “Hillary’s balls” jokes over the years. :)

    I think she’s interesting but I also think it’s clear she’s at the beginning of understanding (not a complaint because she’s a pioneer).

    My reasoning is there are multiple reasons WHY people are expressive of things, at least with dopamine (the one I’m familiar with). I’m very risky behavior/novelty oriented (high dopamine in theory) but not because I’m high dopamine but because I deficient in it. Like a lot of ADD/ADHD types I’m a thrill seeker to wake up not because I’m craving a dopamine high but a dopamine normal.

    I wonder if for dopamine (and serotonine) expression actually covers several personality types but on a psychological level we have a harder time distinguishing between OUR dopamine types versus other dopamine types.

    That could very much explain the people who chase the promiscuous while not really wanting that and confusing (and annoying) everyone else.

  • J

    It lends additional credence to my claim that promiscuous types are drawn to one another and pair off accordingly.

    It does, and, more than that, it answers when and why “opposites attract” and when and why “like attracts like.”

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

      @J

      it answers when and why “opposites attract” and when and why “like attracts like.”

      That’s true, it needn’t be one or the other. Of course, that’s been obvious to me whenever I’ve had the conversation. I’d say my husband and I are opposites, but there are examples here, like Hope and her husband, where similarity works best.

  • Herb

    Also, I’m a little confused. High dopamine function correlates to high impulse control and behavior inhibition. Deficient dopamine is correlated to the opposite.

    So how are those with high dopamine the promiscuous?

    Or by dopamine expressive does she mean those who seek out dopamine flooding events and thus are probably naturally dopamine deficient when not in dopamine flooding activities?

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

      Or by dopamine expressive does she mean those who seek out dopamine flooding events and thus are probably naturally dopamine deficient when not in dopamine flooding activities?

      I’ve read that there are people who are highly sensitive to dopamine – addicted, if you will. I am not familiar with the correlation to baseline levels, but she’s clearly talking about people who seek novelty and risk, two of the characteristics often associated with short-term mating.

  • J

    That’s interesting, Herb. I do a lot of non-sexual novelty-seeking when I’m feeling low–food, clothes, weird manicures (metallic olive green with gold French tips). I can see how someone single could make that sexual.

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

    That’s interesting, Herb. I do a lot of non-sexual novelty-seeking when I’m feeling low–food, clothes, weird manicures (metallic olive green with gold French tips). I can see how someone single could make that sexual.

    I also novelty seeking in other aspects ( I get bored of eating the same very quickly so I learn new recipes constantly also with books, TV, singers if is start becoming repetitive I lose all interest) but never sexually. I think that can be blamed on the culture given that first world have a…weird relationship with sex it manifest on seeking out this highs from sexual encounters more than any other way, YMMV.

  • J

    Sure, but also sex no doubt delivers a bigger rush than a new pair of shoes.

  • Herb

    @J and Ana

    I can see how someone single could make that sexual.

    I also novelty seeking in other aspects ( I get bored of eating the same very quickly so I learn new recipes constantly also with books, TV, singers if is start becoming repetitive I lose all interest) but never sexually.

    I have little doubt that my ADHD/dopamine deficiency has a strong role in the fact I enjoy being and S&M bottom…it’s a strong rush or high and I’ll admit I feel more alive and awake than during almost anything else.

  • J

    I would imagine so.

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

    Sure, but also sex no doubt delivers a bigger rush than a new pair of shoes.

    You would be surprised. I remember one MTV special that asked the women if they rather have sex with the most attractive man in the world or get the most perfect dress (perfect cut, color, fabric, flattering to your body and so on..) and there was a lot of conflict on that one. I think one said that she will have sex with the man and fantasize about wearing the dress during it…

  • Jason773

    Seems to confirm a lot of what I’ve intuitively thought. I’ve been classified as the leader/testosterone type, and I’ve always been attracted to the very feminine estrogen type. Explorers are too lax for me, and builders are generally too rigid.

  • Abbot

    “promiscuous types are drawn to one another and pair off accordingly.”
    .
    Well, pair off temporarily. Promiscuous men can easily select among the massive global population of non-promiscuous women when its time for a wife. And they certainly do. With pride.
    .
    Promiscuous women who want to change do not typically hold good cards

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Abbot, will you give it a break with the foreign women thing? Yes we get it, you think they’re amazing. But you make it sound like there are no good woman anywhere to be found in America. That’s just not true, and your continued harping on this subject is getting old.

    I’m an immigrant born and raised in China, and I don’t want to have a bunch of guys pitting “foreign women” against “domestic women.” I’m friends with tons of great American women who were born and raised here. I’m also an American speaking fluent English and with American citizenship.

    Don’t forget that you are also American… unless you’ve given up your citizenship.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan, interesting topic on neurochemistry. I like Dr. Fisher’s work a lot, but I always thought the four types were a bit simplistic.

    I’m basically the opposite of what Herb said. I find that I dislike over-stimulation and anything too intense. For example I absolutely cannot stand horror movies, or any show involving lots of drama and tension. I dislike risk and impulsivity, and I tend to keep to a regular schedule. Does that mean I have plenty of dopamine already or that I am overly sensitive to it, or I’m just dopamine-normal?

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I’ve read that there are people who are highly sensitive to dopamine – addicted, if you will. I am not familiar with the correlation to baseline levels, but she’s clearly talking about people who seek novelty and risk, two of the characteristics often associated with short-term mating.

    Okay, sensitivity more than levels. So if I’m sensitivity, I get a much better high from x amount of dopamine, I’m more likely to seek it out than someone who isn’t and probably in ways more addictive than someone seeking it out of deficiency. Also, I suspect the sensitive are more susceptible to habituation (needing more for the same effect) than the merely deficient with normal sensitivity because the sensitive’s transmitters overload easier.

    So, unlike testosterone and estrogen we’re talking less about levels (because she specifically mentioned levels for those) and more about sensitivity.

  • Sassy6519

    Abbot, will you give it a break with the foreign women thing? Yes we get it, you think they’re amazing. But you make it sound like there are no good woman anywhere to be found in America. That’s just not true, and your continued harping on this subject is getting old.

    I’m an immigrant born and raised in China, and I don’t want to have a bunch of guys pitting “foreign women” against “domestic women.” I’m friends with tons of great American women who were born and raised here. I’m also an American speaking fluent English and with American citizenship.

    Don’t forget that you are also American… unless you’ve given up your citizenship.

    OMG. THANK YOU!!!

    I’ve wanted to say this so many times, but I always bit my tongue.

    There are plenty of good American women left, and quite a few of them comment on this blog. It would seem that his message is better suited for places like Jezebel and the like, but instead he pelts this blog with his message ad nausea. News flash, but we aren’t the women causing massive destruction in this SMP. He’s preaching to the choir and it’s extremely redundant. I wish that some of the men who relentlessly rag on “evil women” would actually go speak their pieces to the women who are causing the problems, not us.

    Also, there is not a doubt in my mind that the good American women could just as easily find a foreign guy to date if they wanted to, but you don’t see us constantly bringing it up. American men aren’t the holy grail either, and I have no doubt that I could snag a foreign guy in a heartbeat. The idea that I should lament the thought of American men dating foreign women is laughable. I can date foreign men as well. What else is new?

    Rant over.

  • Maggie

    I used to think that the high dopamine types were the luckiest people. They raced cars, skied down mountains and went from one adventure to another without fear or neurosis. I so wanted to be like that.

    I hadn’t thought about the negavtives that went along with it. Thank goodness I didn’t marry a high dopamine man; it would have been a disaster for my “type”. I think Dr. Fisher’s research may be on to something.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Article on dopamine and over-eating…

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-food/201201/why-is-obesity-so-hard-defeat

    …suggests that eating *a lot* of tasty food (fats+sugar) causes the person’s sensitivity to dopamine to be *reduced*, hence instigating them to eat *even more* such foods, in a positive feedback loop, aka vicious circle.

    Not clear from the article whether this phenomenon is specific to food or whether it also applies to other dopamine-related activities such as sex or drag racing on the highways…

  • Sassy6519

    In regards to the topic at hand, I am definitely in the dopamine category. I’m constantly having to rein in my desire to go out and do strange things on the spur of the moment. I love adventure, and I take a fair amount of risks.

    I could see myself ending up with another person from the dopamine category or a member of the serotonin category. I might like having someone from the serotonin group to pull me back and provide stability. We might be able to balance each other out.

  • Ted D

    Sassy – “I wish that some of the men who relentlessly rag on “evil women” would actually go speak their pieces to the women who are causing the problems, not us.”

    The unfortunate part is the woman at Jezebel and the like don’t and won’t listen. Some men out here in the wasteland would like you reasonable women to go pound the shit out of them, hence we bitch and complain to you, because we have NO WAY to get through to them at all. I personally would LOVE to see Susan and you all here gather more women and start a serious attack on Jezebel and their ilk. Any attempt from a man to do so would be shot down in an instant as “men being oppressive” and misogynistic, when everyone here knows that is completely false.

    So, some men figure if they can’t browbeat the real bitches, we can browbeat the more reasonable women left to go and browbeat the bitches. I’ve been here running a similar campaign myself, but finally realized that even the more reasonable women of the world won’t stand up against “team woman” in any real capacity. It is disappointing considering that men are often (and have been historically speaking) expected to stand up to other men on behalf of women across the world.

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

      @Ted D

      So, some men figure if they can’t browbeat the real bitches, we can browbeat the more reasonable women left to go and browbeat the bitches. I’ve been here running a similar campaign myself, but finally realized that even the more reasonable women of the world won’t stand up against “team woman” in any real capacity.

      It’s refreshing to hear you admit it, I’ll give you that.

      First, I’ve done my share of browbeating sex-pos feminists, and so have other female commenters here when given the opportunity. Second, as you said, they’re entirely unreasonable, why even engage them? I think it’s much more useful to discredit their ideas among young women, and that’s my approach. Third, I cannot think of a more thankless and unpleasant way to spend time than trading snarky remarks with those wenches.

  • Ted D

    Sassy – “I might like having someone from the serotonin group to pull me back and provide stability. We might be able to balance each other out.”

    While that may be beneficial for you, as someone that is likely in the serotonin camp, I can tell you that living with someone that is addicted to “fun” and “excitement” is a horror story. I had to either participate (which depending on the activity would put me WAAAAAYYYY out of my comfort zone), or stand by the sidelines hoping your mate doesn’t die on his/her latest “adventure”. (as a side note, I did actually enjoy white water rafting, up until the point we tipped our raft and had to “swim” out of the rapids…)

    You don’t want children, so my suggestion would be look for another thrill seeker. Two-income, no-kids – you two would be able to travel the world doing whatever crazy shit you could come up with. I would envy you if the thought of all that “excitement” didn’t cause my anxiety level to rise.

  • Sojourner

    I don’t know how this works because I cover three of those types excluding dopamine, though perhaps most with seratonine. Fascinating stuff though. I’d be curious what my ex wife falls under but I’m guessing dopamine which might actually explain a few things.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ted D

    The unfortunate part is the woman at Jezebel and the like don’t and won’t listen. Some men out here in the wasteland would like you reasonable women to go pound the shit out of them, hence we bitch and complain to you, because we have NO WAY to get through to them at all. I personally would LOVE to see Susan and you all here gather more women and start a serious attack on Jezebel and their ilk. Any attempt from a man to do so would be shot down in an instant as “men being oppressive” and misogynistic, when everyone here knows that is completely false.

    So, some men figure if they can’t browbeat the real bitches, we can browbeat the more reasonable women left to go and browbeat the bitches. I’ve been here running a similar campaign myself, but finally realized that even the more reasonable women of the world won’t stand up against “team woman” in any real capacity. It is disappointing considering that men are often (and have been historically speaking) expected to stand up to other men on behalf of women across the world.

    The problem is that women like us won’t get any farther than men do with that crowd. If women like us tried to speak our pieces with those women, we would be vilified as “sexually repressed prudes” or “fighting for team man”. Our arguments would fall on deaf ears too. There really is no reasoning with a group who views anyone with differing views as the enemy, regardless of gender.

    At some point, you have to learn when to pick your battles. Arguing with hardcore feminists is about as useful as wading through tar. You have to understand that they won’t listen to women like myself, Hope, Anacaona, Saywhaat, etc either. We are also the enemy because we aren’t on “team woman”. We’re on team “happy relationships”. We aren’t trying to have the upper hand. Unlike them, we love and appreciate men. We would be wasting our breath, hence why we don’t try to argue with them either.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ted D

    While that may be beneficial for you, as someone that is likely in the serotonin camp, I can tell you that living with someone that is addicted to “fun” and “excitement” is a horror story. I had to either participate (which depending on the activity would put me WAAAAAYYYY out of my comfort zone), or stand by the sidelines hoping your mate doesn’t die on his/her latest “adventure”. (as a side note, I did actually enjoy white water rafting, up until the point we tipped our raft and had to “swim” out of the rapids…)

    You don’t want children, so my suggestion would be look for another thrill seeker. Two-income, no-kids – you two would be able to travel the world doing whatever crazy shit you could come up with. I would envy you if the thought of all that “excitement” didn’t cause my anxiety level to rise.

    True.

    Let me just say that I don’t expect a man to come on all of my adventures with me. As long as he is open to doing some of the things I like, there shouldn’t be a problem. If a man is a little more reserved, I don’t have a problem with it. If he were a complete stick in the mud, however, that would be a recipe for disaster.

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    “Arguing with hardcore feminists is about as useful as wading through tar.”

    Fixed it for you.

    Arguing with hardcore feminists is about as useful as wading through tar with a broken femur while Amanda Marcotte shoots at you with flaming arrows and a rhinoceros with horns dipped in AIDs chases you through said tar while a nuke hurtles toward you.

    Ohh no. I need to find something productive to do.

  • Ted D

    Sassy – “You have to understand that they won’t listen to women like myself, Hope, Anacaona, Saywhaat, etc either. We are also the enemy because we aren’t on “team woman”. We’re on team “happy relationships”. ”

    Oh I do understand, but it took my awhile. Some guys may never figure it out. Many blame you (not you personally but “you” as in women, and unfortunately again, you actually listen…) for not fixing this, since they see it as a wholly women caused issue to start with. They (we as I have done so before) incorrectly place the blame on all women, and expect the women that realize the truth to go and inform the rest. If indeed women will not even listen to their own kind (sorry to make that sound odd, at a loss for better words) there is little to no hope at all for wide sweeping change. The best we can do is fix this with the next generation and let all the old, bitter bitches die off.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Women do listen to their own kind. That’s where they discover they’re supposed to say they want a good man, a nice guy, a kind, sensitive man.

    So I went to jump school. Boooring. Fell asleep before the first jump–we had a weather delay–so I must be lacking something. How about no ride at the wildest amusement park is remotely interesting?

    Is there such a thing as being adrenalin-challenged? Or is it a lack of imagination?

  • J

    and I have no doubt that I could snag a foreign guy in a heartbeat. The idea that I should lament the thought of American men dating foreign women is laughable. I can date foreign men as well.

    I don’t want to imply that every foreign person who marries an American is trouble, but I know a number of people who imported spouses from “the old country” and encountered a lot of difficulty. In fact, when I was in college, my family and I went back to country from which my father’s family came. Some of my cousins, both male and female, had made the same trip and had come back with spouses who essentially married them for green cards. Divorces ensued. I had a proposal that came to my father through the guy’s father. My father, who would have normally been tickled by the idea of my marrying someone of his own background, turned it down.

  • J

    I personally would LOVE to see Susan and you all here gather more women and start a serious attack on Jezebel and their ilk.

    Jezebel is very heavily moderated. I have attempted on several occasions to leave a little motherly advice there. There never publish my posts.

  • Brendan

    Jezebel is very heavily moderated. I have attempted on several occasions to leave a little motherly advice there. There never publish my posts.

    Yes, one of the main differences between the femisphere and the manosphere is that the former really, really, *really* doesn’t tolerate much debate. In the latter, you will get abused for disagreeing with the party line, but bans and non-publishings due to moderation are much rarer than in the former, where it is more or less the rule. I suspect this has to do with the greater appetite men seem to have for conflict and debate in general, whereas the same can “make women uncomfortable in their own space due to men trying to exercise their male privilege” (by merely stating their point of view strongly, mind you) and so on.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Sassy, yeah. I’ve been shown tremendous kindness and generosity by American women, and to have someone continually bash all American women was really starting to get to me. >.>

    More on topic, my husband is way more impulsive than me, is more of a risk-taker (though he also likes security) and doesn’t get scared easily like I do. But he clearly didn’t care to sleep around or have a ton of casual sex.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sass: “The problem is that women like us won’t get any farther than men do with that crowd.”

    True. One does simply not walk into Mordor. Jeez.

    You can make far more of a difference by talking to women who are “ambient” feminists, or who are confused and looking for help. They are everywhere. That is where you can make a difference, if you can actually empathize with men, then you are poised to deliver a very good message to those who might be willing to hear.

    Young, flitty women don’t want to listen to men – but they might listen to older women who aren’t screwed in the head.

  • J

    My sense is that the Jezebels want everyone to be “nice” and that people don’t perceive me as a nice person. Happens to me IRL with other women as well. I’m too forthright and perhaps a bit tactless.

  • Dogsquat

    J said:
    “My sense is that the Jezebels want everyone to be “nice” and that people don’t perceive me as a nice person. ”
    ___________________

    I think you’ve been nice to me.

    You tell all those bitches Dogsquat said to piss up a rope.

  • Emily

    >> “they … expect the women that realize the truth to go and inform the rest.”

    FWIW, I do sometimes try to pass along ideas from these sites to my friends (both male and female). That being said, I’m not about to waste my day arguing over at Jezebel. I believe very strongly in choosing your battles wisely, especially when arguing over the Internet.

  • Emily

    >> “My sense is that the Jezebels want everyone to be “nice” ”

    …except when dealing with Christians and/or males.

  • Jackie

    @Emily (#42)
    Amen ;)

    If you are going to be more than a Christian Of Convenience –preaching at people while conveniently ignoring your hypocrisies and weaknesses, ostentatiously talking up your attendance in MegaChurch, Prosperity Gospelling and annoying everyone to death, you know the type– you’re going to get it from all sides.

    Evangelical Atheists will tell you how stupid you are for believing in a “sky fairy,” calling you a sheep and insulting your intelligence. Feminists will be exhausted by your “stupidity” of morals, sexual and otherwise. Most everyone else will think you’re a total freak for saving yourself for your husband….

    I feel like Jesus was quite clear when he told his followers they were not going to have an easy time of it! And one of my friends put it this way, The more you react to them, the more it is about your ego and how their perception of you matters. You really have to let it go.

    (I do hate the “Sky Fairy” thing, though.)

  • Herb

    The biggest problem with the Jezebels isn’t their websites, it’s that everything from Freshman orientation at universities to sexual harassment training has to kiss their ass and repeat their “truths”.

    They do more damage to women in one major university freshman orientation than the manospher could do if it tried.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Jackie & @Emily

    Most everyone else will think you’re a total freak for saving yourself for your husband….

    Not everyone. It’s a minority that gets smaller every time I look around.

  • Jackie

    Hi Joe! (#45)

    You’re right– not everyone, by a long shot! The last guy I dated, though, was purported a Christian and pressured me at every turn. Really disappointing.:(

    To me, that is much worse than some PUA macking on girls. At least Tucker Max is honest about it.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hello Ms. Walsh,
    Long time, no hear!-and once again, you have made a powerful contribution to the ongoing, never ending discussion surrounding dating, mating and such. Bravo!

    I’ve heard of Prof. Fisher, but now after seeing the presentation you posted, I think I’ll spring for her book; sounds like a must-read.

    And, since this is a post about mating strategies, I thought you and your readers might be interested in what I’ve been up to:

    Cafe Date Theory http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/88661

    All the best to you and yours,

    O.

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

      @Obsidian

      Good to see you blogging again! Your ears must have been burning, I mentioned you here over the weekend. The Sith Gamers have been gaining traction in the sphere, and I was lamenting the loss of Jedi Knights like yourself. I can’t believe I’m saying it, but Roissy seems about as dangerous as a pup these days.

  • http://www.happypuppysunshineblog.com/ Jane

    It could be an effective way to filter the jerks! By the way, I’ve really enjoyed the article and the video as well!

  • Ted D

    susan – ” It’s refreshing to hear you admit it, I’ll give you that.”

    I’ve only recently become aware of this tidbit.along with many others. It is far easier to see when anger and frustration arent in the way.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh,
    Thank you for the warm welcome-back – it feels good to be back in the saddle again! And yes, I see what you mean, as I’ve been taking a bit of time to peruse the ‘sphere of late. Much pain there you will find.

    It is the breeding ground of Sith Game, and as I tried to point out to Lady Raine a few years back, her way of going about “dealing” with Roissy would only result in creating more Roissys; this “Chateau Heartiste” seems to be just that.

    I’ll do my part to present the better parts of Game; of this you can count on me. ;)

    O.

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

    I personally would LOVE to see Susan and you all here gather more women and start a serious attack on Jezebel and their ilk. Any attempt from a man to do so would be shot down in an instant as “men being oppressive” and misogynistic, when everyone here knows that is completely false.

    It wouldn’t work. I used to play “nice” when I was on gathering info stage that lasted for about a year and it took me one comment that was classified as “victim blaming” to de-star me. When Gawker did the transition to the horrid website new look Jezebel was one of the last and many starred commenter from io9 emigrated there briefly and were de-starred the moment they said something that was not nice. Is so heavy that even the writers get demoted or not called again if they displease the masses somehow. I do have a secondary starred account from io9 but at the point they de-starred my Jezebel account I was sick of the whole Gakwer group biggest bunch of uneducated idiots I ever seen. There are better places to fight the good fight, although I’m not sure yet were. I’m learning more here to see the best way to spread the message actually but it takes me sometime to come up with plans, Eureka moments can be slow to arrive.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Everyone,
    Fear not, Ms. Walsh has struck a powerful blow against the more radical elements of the Feminist establishment. Just consider the events of the past few years, where every “third wave” feminist worth the name – Friedman, Marcotte, Thorn and others – have taken time out of their lives to attack, sometimes personally, Ms. Walsh and HUS. That very fact, proves that she has struck an extraordinarily raw nerve.

    Ms. Walsh has aptly demonstrated how to engage the enemy – not by getting down in the muck and mire with them, but instead by crafting well researched and sourced posts chock full of factual information from the cutting edge of relationship, love and sexual science. She doesn’t need to personally attack anyone; the information she brings to bear on all matters of the SMP is unassailable. This is because again, what she presents is factual, and she presents it without any dogma on her part. She has made it clear time and again that she has nothing against the socalled “sex-positive feminists” – indeed she has made it clear time and again that it is the right of every Woman to does as she pleases sexually; but she makes no bones about the facts – that Women are hardwired to favor longterm commitment over short term sex, more often than not. It is this, that the feminists loathe about Ms. Walsh, and they take every chance to attack her.

    HUS has grown in a big way; I remember it was barley a blip on the blogosphere. Now, it is a force to be reckoned with. Young Women now truly do have a choice – they can listen to what the feminists have to offer, or they can give Ms. Walsh an audience. If the feminists truly value “a Woman’s right to choose”, they would be good with letting the ladies decide who has the better path. But by their actions shall they be known – yes?

    The Truth, is the most powerful weapon any warrior can have.

    So long as Ms. Walsh has that, the Feminists don’t stand a chance.

    O.

  • Abbot

    “Yes, one of the main differences between the femisphere and the manosphere is that the former really, really, *really* doesn’t tolerate much debate.”
    .
    Because rationally defending feminism is implausible and they know it.
    .
    “I suspect this has to do with the greater appetite men seem to have for conflict and debate”
    .
    OK, no more attempts to draw “tom” out. But you’ll all be sorry!
    .
    ” men trying to exercise their male privilege”
    .
    Who exactly does not want privilege?

  • Abbot

    “she makes no bones about the facts – that Women are hardwired to favor longterm commitment over short term sex, more often than not. It is this, that the feminists loathe about Ms. Walsh, and they take every chance to attack her.”
    .
    Could it be that feminists don’t like this truth about female sexual nature because they do not want men to see it as the benchmark norm used to evaluation women for a relationship?

  • Courtley

    @ Abbot

    I’m not sure, really, where the hostility towards this comes. There was a time in feminism when I feel like men casually using women for sex was looked down upon, and women who chose to participate in a promiscuous lifestyle were seen as self-destructive victims of the patriarchal system of oppression. Which has some implications of its own that I dislike, but it at least acknowledged that most women really don’t want to be sperm receptacles for men who don’t respect them.

    I think a certain amount of sex-positive feminism is a reaction to extreme “rdaica feminism”–the sort of Andrea Dworkin idea that most if not all heterosexual sex is rape because women by default have an unequal position in society.

    I can see some good aspects of sex-positive feminism. On some level, I think sex-positives disliked the sort of “victimology” that permeated radical 60s-style feminism, and they disliked men being portrayed as predators because they like sex. They disliked that women who were known to be promiscuous were seen as deserving of rape and sexual assault. They dislike the way attractive, naturally feminine women who like men were barred from the feminist establishment.

    I couple core issues with sex-positive feminism as it’s being expressed today. The first is that they seem to shy away from the fact that often, for I think a significant portion of young women, promiscuity IS a form of self-destructive, acting-out behavior. Women I know personally who become very promiscuous in high school and college often had other family issues going on, or used it as a way to deal with their first bad break-up, often from the guy they lost their virginity too. I don’t see sex-positives discussing any of this very honestly. It’s one thing to say that promiscuous women should be legally free to do what they want and their promiscuity doesn’t justify assaulting them; I get that. It’s another to claim that there’s empowerment in promiscuity. This may feel true to a small percentage of women, but it’s simply not true for the majority. Sadly, the small percentage has become increasingly influential over how people think of and define what ‘empowerment’ means for women. The fact that I refuse to do ONS, at all, ever, is taken as an indication by several women I’ve met as a sign of sexual repression. My closest friends have naturally become women who are, if not maybe AS conservative as me, at least more on the same page.

    My second complaint with “Jezebel.com feminism” is the ridiculous place that the anti-victim-blaming, Slutwalking ideology has gone. I agree that how a woman dresses never justifies violent assault. And neither does being drunk. What this has translated into on a lot of campuses, though, is that ANY advice to women on about how to stay safe when going out is “victim blaming.” I’ve read that advising girls to take self-defense classes is “victim blaming.” That any acknowledgment that certain outfits get more attention than others is “victim blaming.” That telling women to watch their drinks in a bar is “victim blaming.” It’s just gotten ludicrous and divorced from reality. And it’s creating an environment where women are looked upon as precious, repressed, old-fashioned little girls if they dare to suggest they find sex in a romantic relationship more fulfilling than a hook-up.

  • http://www.geekandjock.com/blogs/thegeek/5-relationship-tips-you-can-learn-charlie-sheen Martin Cooney @GeekandJock

    Oh no, now I’ve got to take a swab test kit when I go out meeting women :)

    Thanks for the great video and comments

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    And it’s creating an environment where women are looked upon as precious, repressed, old-fashioned little girls if they dare to suggest they find sex in a romantic relationship more fulfilling than a hook-up.

    +1000

    After the latest Jezebel that starts off with all men are potential rapists and the first proof is putting your arm up as she goes in and saying “how about a kiss” constitutes sexual assault if she feels you’re blocking her exit.

    I mean, really? That makes the Jane argument in the other thread look rational.

  • bytheway

    For those who are in the mood for a deeper view, the following lecture series should be a treat:

    http://www.virtualprofessors.com/stanford-bio-250-human-behavioral-biology

    You’ll need to set aside more than a few of minutes for this though.

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

      @Bytheway

      Thanks for that link, that looks awesome! I’m going to figure out a way to listen in the car perhaps? It’s a huge commitment, but I got very enthused looking over the lecture summaries.

  • chris

    @Jackie
    “(I do hate the “Sky Fairy” thing, though.)”

    Just reply to them that they’re spiritually autistic, or, (if one doesn’t wish to refer to them as autistic), refer to them as spiritually sterile.

  • Herb

    @chris

    Just reply to them that they’re spiritually autistic, or, (if one doesn’t wish to refer to them as autistic), refer to them as spiritually sterile.

    I tend to ask them if heavy objects fall faster than light ones (it’s amazing how often they do) and when they ask why that matters I explain I figure if they have a 5 year old’s theology they might have a 5 year old’s physics.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Re: dopamine/explorers/sensitivity. Imagine a garden hose with a sprinkler at the end. The sprinkler is inside your brain. Replace the water in the hose with dopamine. The spigot at the supply end is the external stimulus that floods the hose with dopamine.

    An explorer type might have a kink in the metaphorical hose; to get the same dosage or hit of dopamine as a normal person receives from life events, the explorer’s spigot—risk, novelty, adventure in the environment—may have to be turned open a bit more. Another way of looking at it would be to say that a conventional life script might leave the explorer’s brain feeling dopamine-starved; under “normal” conditions, this person could be highly susceptible to boredom.

    One might be tempted to speculate that the contemporary SMP rewards the explorer, who is adapted well to it and would emphasize the opportunities for bespoke lifestyle design and freedom, while it punishes the builder, who would probably wish for a return to *traditional family values* and might even be inclined to equate the SMP with the fall of Rome or some other equally apocalyptic scenario of socioeconomic collapse. I suspect that directors and negotiators would sort of muddle through, perhaps by looking for ways to harness the powers of social networking technology to help them to find each other in a confusing landscape of increasing inequality between the sexual haves and have-nots.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      One might be tempted to speculate that the contemporary SMP rewards the explorer, who is adapted well to it and would emphasize the opportunities for bespoke lifestyle design and freedom, while it punishes the builder, who would probably wish for a return to *traditional family values* and might even be inclined to equate the SMP with the fall of Rome or some other equally apocalyptic scenario of socioeconomic collapse. I suspect that directors and negotiators would sort of muddle through, perhaps by looking for ways to harness the powers of social networking technology to help them to find each other in a confusing landscape of increasing inequality between the sexual haves and have-nots.

      One might be tempted indeed! This is very much how I see things. I had to laugh, because we have a lot of builders here, and they do seem fond of apocalyptic scenarios. :)

  • Tom

    I dont think is is so black and white, obviously. No one is “just” testosterone driven or estrogen driven. you will have testoserone people with a side of serotonine or maybe a side of dopeamine. Several types of combinations possible AND probable.
    Thats why with some people opposites do attract, while other similar types need a similar type to hang out with. Some promiscuous people loth promiscuous types while some chaste look for the players to change….

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    I’m not a religious person, but I find the evangelical atheists to be extremely irritating. A particularly irritating segment is those who have branded themselves as “brights”, which branding absolutely guarantees that they will attract obnoxious and non-self-aware people like some kind of fiendish magnet.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    Anyone who would use the Clinton’s as an example of a marriage, ANY MARRIAGE, is insane. The Clintons are, and have alawys been, political animals. Their alliance can be seen as one of mutual convenience, like the Axis Pact. He got a wife who would not only tolerate but defend his constant philandering, she got a political “leg up” to propel her otherwise dreary personality onto the national stage. Now that each has acheived more or less what they want (Hilary has one more goal) each is free to pursue their interests in the context of the “shell” of a marriage i e her’s to be president, his to fuck every single living thing moving slower that he does. I’ll give this to the Gore’s: they at least owned up to the fact that they no longer had a marriage, drew the necessary conclusions and took the necessary steps. The Clintons are as incapable of this type of moral distinction as a pair of pit vipers and with considerable less charm.

  • http://ritakunnan.blogspot.com/ Rita Kunnan

    I really enjoyed the video. When I tried to relate Helen’s research results with how most of my friends have chosen their partners, it just seemed so accurate. It’s quite interesting to see how some chemicals in brain can play such a major role in our attraction and mating orientation.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Important to note that hormone levels are not just a *cause*, they are also an *effect*…ie, experiences and actions can change them. For example, testosterone in men in increased when they win a competitive contest, and even when they watch a favorite sports team win…this article (only skimmed it) seems to suggest that watching a video of one’s *previous* victory can also increase T. There are probably parallel effects for similar hormones.

  • Jones

    Everyone here should read this…

    http://postmasculine.com/a-new-masculinity

    And the site would be a great addition to your blogroll, Susan. Just so on point.

    I’ve often been upset at the lack of awareness of cultural variation in these discussions.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Jones, I posted that link in the previous discussion thread, too. It is indeed a great blog, and I check it regularly.

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

    Just reply to them that they’re spiritually autistic, or, (if one doesn’t wish to refer to them as autistic), refer to them as spiritually sterile.

    I tend to ask them if heavy objects fall faster than light ones (it’s amazing how often they do) and when they ask why that matters I explain I figure if they have a 5 year old’s theology they might have a 5 year old’s physics.

    Filing this witty comebacks for future uses. I rarely know how to answer and most evangelical atheists just want the opportunity to vomit their knowledge and show how superior they are. Thanks guys ;)

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

    his to fuck every single living thing moving slower that he does.
    Well he used be really into jogging…:)

  • Ted D

    Jones – Great article. But here is my issue: (snippet of article below)

    “Our canvas is ourselves and we’re all artists. The developmental blueprint is that there is no blueprint. There’s an individuality and eccentricity that we must all cultivate and contribute back to society. Throughout human history, men always had a clear a concise path laid out before them. We’re one of the first generations that doesn’t. You can do or be anything you want in any capacity that you want. So create your own standard and then surpass it. ”

    This to me is a real problem. If men are supposed to be the ones to “approve” a young man’s passage to adulthood, how can we do that if there is no “clear and concise path”? I don’t think we can all just set out on our own to “make our way” into adulthood. We need something that all men can collectively look at and say “yes, you are now indeed a man”. Otherwise we will all still be looking around waiting for that validation that will never come.

    Put another way: If I spend years of my life dedicated to basket weaving, and even master it beyond all human comprehension, does that make me a man? Would all men agree with my assessment that it does? I think it is unfair to tell young men “make your own way” and then expect them to succeed. Everyone needs some instruction to become a master. And if there is no standard to measure by, we can never be measured at all. It would be great to live that way, but for men being measured is important. Being measured only against yourself proves nothing.

  • Abbot

    “promiscuous people loth promiscuous types…”
    .
    …when selecting a life mate

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

      Interesting excerpt from the Mark Manson article:

      I toyed with assortment theory a bit when I returned to the US. I decided to be more sensitive and vulnerable around women. And sure enough, I began attracting sweet, sensitive girls who appreciated those qualities in me. Crazy. And even though my PUA instincts thought that I’d be attracting far fewer women by acting this way, it turns out that wasn’t the case. In fact, it seemed like I was attracting the same women, just instead of them behaving in a crazy party girl way around me, they were behaving in a sweet and vulnerable way around me.

  • J

    the first proof is putting your arm up as she goes in and saying “how about a kiss” constitutes sexual assault if she feels you’re blocking her exit.

    Actually, I can see how that behavior could be either very innocuous or very threatening depending on the guy and/or the context.

  • Ted D

    “I had to laugh, because we have a lot of builders here, and they do seem fond of apocalyptic scenarios. ”

    Hey! I resemble that remark… ;-)

    So if this is true, then the solution is what, molding a society where explorers, builders, directors, and negotiators all have an even shot? Is that even possible?

  • Abbot

    @Courtley
    .
    “There was a time in feminism when I feel like men casually using women for sex was looked down upon”
    .
    It still is looked down upon if the men doing the using are deemed unacceptable by feminists or dupe women into it. After decades of futile asinine bellyaching to get men to change [sound familiar?], the feminists resorted to telling women to change by embracing casual sex with the most highly desirable men to compensate for the natural female feeling of being “used.”
    .
    “it at least acknowledged that most women really don’t want to be sperm receptacles for men who don’t respect them.”
    .
    These feminists never discuss this “respect” thing. Have they given up on it as some lofty goal? Takes too much work for women to ferret out men who respect women? No room or time for such when going for an easy fuck. Therefore, respect cannot be factored in. Problem is, ya now got a woman who has lost all appreciation for the respect/love connection and no good man would ever put such a hollow feminist-created automaton on his wife list.
    .
    “I think a certain amount of sex-positive feminism is a reaction to extreme “rdaica feminism”–the sort of Andrea Dworkin idea that most if not all heterosexual sex is rape because women by default have an unequal position in society.”
    .
    Then we have “rape positive” feminism? Since nearly all people act on behalf of their self interest, what exactly is the self interest these sex poz asshats have in promoting all this dribble?
    .
    “They dislike the way attractive, naturally feminine women who like men were barred from the feminist establishment.”
    .
    Well, that is a mighty huge population of women. Doubt they feel “barred.” The majority don’t even speak English.
    .
    “I couple core issues with sex-positive feminism as it’s being expressed today. The first is that they seem to shy away from the fact that often, for I think a significant portion of young women, promiscuity IS a form of self-destructive, acting-out behavior. Women I know personally who become very promiscuous in high school and college often had other family issues going on, or used it as a way to deal with their first bad break-up, often from the guy they lost their virginity too. I don’t see sex-positives discussing any of this very honestly.”
    .
    The profile of the sex pozoid and nearly all WOEs, promiscuous can be traced back to very bad parenting and non nurturing homes. Those women with family issues today are the sex pozzies of tomorrow.
    .
    “It’s another to claim that there’s empowerment in promiscuity. This may feel true to a small percentage of women, but it’s simply not true for the majority. Sadly, the small percentage has become increasingly influential over how people think of and define what ‘empowerment’ means for women.”
    .
    Some make comments here on this site. But it would be difficult to find such a mouthpiece for women who is not promiscuous and pretty much disqualifies their arguments. The new goal is to get men to accept some twisted notion of what empowerment means for women lest there be very few cock-empowered women who can attract a future marriage partner.
    .
    “The fact that I refuse to do ONS, at all, ever, is taken as an indication by several women I’ve met as a sign of sexual repression. My closest friends have naturally become women who are, if not maybe AS conservative as me, at least more on the same page.”
    .
    When wisdom is seen as oppression the entire society is screwed
    .
    “ANY advice to women on about how to stay safe when going out is “victim blaming.” I’ve read that advising girls to take self-defense classes is “victim blaming.” That any acknowledgment that certain outfits get more attention than others is “victim blaming.” That telling women to watch their drinks in a bar is “victim blaming.” It’s just gotten ludicrous and divorced from reality.”
    .
    Telling a woman that a man will reject her for a LTR based partly on her sexual activity today is also victim blaming. So what is the problem with victim blaming?

  • J

    @Jones #70

    Thanks for posting that link. It was good to see a male blogger who is forward-looking as opposed to the usual “Life was good back in 1962; let’s do it again” mentality. The future of relationships rests on forging new roles and and ways of relating, not on trying to recreate a past that is not even based on first hand memories, but on Mad Men episodes. Perhaps this chaotic century will be remembered as an exciting time to be a man as masculinity is defined in new ways as it adapts to new conditions. Who knows?

  • J

    it seemed like I was attracting the same women, just instead of them behaving in a crazy party girl way around me, they were behaving in a sweet and vulnerable way around me.

    So people respond to others based on what the others are putting put there? Amazing…..Leads one to believe that the PUA view of women might be based on the expectations they broadcast….

  • Alias

    “You can do or be anything you want in any capacity that you want. So create your own standard and then surpass it. ”
    —-
    Ted D”
    “This to me is a real problem”
    ————–

    I agree because what we’re getting is a lot of stumbling around.

    ____________
    Ted D:
    “If I spend years of my life dedicated to basket weaving, and even master it beyond all human comprehension, does that make me a man? ”
    ——-

    Yes, you will be THE MAN if you can market your brand of baskets to a large company like Sears or Walmart. I’ll let you know baskets are quite popular and expensive too. :-)

  • J

    Spiritually sterile….Nice!

    I rejected religion when I couldn’t bear with a “Sky Fairy” view of God and then tired of materialism to the point that I had to revisit the idea of religion in a more adult way. I really hate it when people equate religiousness with stupidity and immaturity, especially since I meet a lot of people like myself who have come full circle.

  • http://eradica.wordpress.com Firepower

    Been reading Helen Fisher
    – and David M. Buss –
    since the early 90’s.

    ALL this talk about HBD, hypergamy – like it’s new – is amusing.

    Go read “Sexual Bargaining” by John Scanzoni – from the 80’s, I think.
    Or even earlier: Male & Female by Margaret Mead

  • Ted D

    Alias – “Yes, you will be THE MAN if you can market your brand of baskets to a large company like Sears or Walmart. I’ll let you know baskets are quite popular and expensive too. ”

    I actually know more than I care to admit about baskets, but only because my ex-wife is from Newark Ohio, home of Longaberger baskets, and those things are DAMN expensive.

    But I still beg to differ with you on this. Perhaps it would make me a ton of money, but I don’t see that as making me any more or less ‘manly’ by today’s standards. There has to be some way men can compare themselves to their peers in at least a semi-equal way to rank themselves. Is it really a surprise to anyone that young men spend tons of time playing online games with each other? I’m not surprised at all because by doing so, they are indeed ranking themselves with each other. I used to be amazed at how seriously some of them take leader boards and scores, until I realized what was really at the core of it. It used to be men competed in sports and careers, but for many sports isn’t an option, and there is very little “value” to be found in a career today. Most people I know are lucky to work at one place for more than five years, and most jump many times throughout their working history. But Xbox and PS3 are available to anyone with some money and and internet connection, and once online they can compete, rank, brag, and argue about who is the best sniper.

    I’m afraid to say it, but I think we are looking at the “new” masculinity right there. Men giving up on trying to beat the real game, and instead turning to the virtual variety to prove their masculinity. After all, if the game isn’t fair, why bother playing?

  • FeralEmployee

    Just reply to them that they’re spiritually autistic, or, (if one doesn’t wish to refer to them as autistic), refer to them as spiritually sterile.
    Those evangelical atheists most often equate “spiritual” to “retarded”. Now going to work, you’d be flattering them (except the annoying hippie atheists). Just as moderate believers are sick of evangelical atheists, us moderate atheists (though I must admit to having no respect for any belief system) are sick of religious fundamentalists.

    That said, it’d hurt more if you said something like: “Your may preach freedom from religion, but I still have freedom of religion, and you’re no better than a fundamentalist if you try to take it away from me.”

    or

    “We share more dogma’s than you can imagine, but you’re clearly not able to see those you adhere to.”

    or

    “I know people like you say you can be good without god, but you seem to have failed nonetheless.”

    Those would hurt more. And they’ll probably gain you respect from both moderate sides.

  • Sassy6519

    There has to be some way men can compare themselves to their peers in at least a semi-equal way to rank themselves. Is it really a surprise to anyone that young men spend tons of time playing online games with each other? I’m not surprised at all because by doing so, they are indeed ranking themselves with each other. I used to be amazed at how seriously some of them take leader boards and scores, until I realized what was really at the core of it. It used to be men competed in sports and careers, but for many sports isn’t an option, and there is very little “value” to be found in a career today. Most people I know are lucky to work at one place for more than five years, and most jump many times throughout their working history. But Xbox and PS3 are available to anyone with some money and and internet connection, and once online they can compete, rank, brag, and argue about who is the best sniper.

    I’m afraid to say it, but I think we are looking at the “new” masculinity right there. Men giving up on trying to beat the real game, and instead turning to the virtual variety to prove their masculinity. After all, if the game isn’t fair, why bother playing?

    That makes sense to me.

    As weird as it was, I used to tingle at watching my ex dominate his friends in shooter games. He was the best player, and he would get this really aggressive and focused look on his face while concentrating. I admired his ability to be good at those games because I sucked so badly at them.

    When men no longer fight to the death with each other in the gladiator arenas of yore, violent combat video games seem to have picked up the slack.

  • Alias

    Ted D:
    “It used to be men competed in sports and careers, but for many sports isn’t an option, and there is very little “value” to be found in a career today.”
    “. After all, if the game isn’t fair, why bother playing?”
    ——-
    I was being facetious about the baskets.

    What has changed from the past is that there’s nothing compelling anyone to work hard anymore. Yesterday’s people worked hard because THEY HAD TO, *survival* was the incentive.
    When our survival is no longer in danger, we need new incentives.
    What would’ve been considered a luxury (like an X-Box system) can now be attained easily by the masses- so there’s no need to work hard.
    I believe this is one of the roots of some of our current problems, but I don’t know how we can change it.

    One thing about the 4 types- we only need a small number of explorers.

  • El Marqués

    I had to laugh when “Dr.” Helen got to the point where she claimed Bill Clinton as an example of high oestrogen. This alone tells you she’s in on the game.

    For those who think I’m being too cryptic here: another “hormone” having strangely similar effects to what she describes sustains much of the economy of Colombia…

    Anyway, I’d be interested to hear more from (human behavioural biology) people about this surprisingly deterministic theory, which to my humble mind seems to confuse cause and effect… in other words, do hormonal systems really drive human behaviour or merely react to it?

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

    I rejected religion when I couldn’t bear with a “Sky Fairy” view of God and then tired of materialism to the point that I had to revisit the idea of religion in a more adult way. I really hate it when people equate religiousness with stupidity and immaturity, especially since I meet a lot of people like myself who have come full circle.

    Likewise I’m also in full circle mode and is amazing how many educated people do end up back in some way.

    That said, it’d hurt more if you said something like: “Your may preach freedom from religion, but I still have freedom of religion, and you’re no better than a fundamentalist if you try to take it away from me.”
    or
    “We share more dogma’s than you can imagine, but you’re clearly not able to see those you adhere to.”
    or
    “I know people like you say you can be good without god, but you seem to have failed nonetheless.”
    Those would hurt more. And they’ll probably gain you respect from both moderate sides.

    Good ones clipping it for future references. :)

  • Jon

    Hey Jackie,

    You’re right– not everyone, by a long shot! The last guy I dated, though, was purported a Christian and pressured me at every turn. Really disappointing.:(

    I know where your coming from. The first person I slept with was the girl I married, but it wasn’t easy getting there. At least one of my girlfriends in college broke up with because I wouldn’t have sex with her, and that really sucked.

    Once I was married though, I didn’t have any regrets. It was very special to know that I shared something with my wife that I hadn’t shared with anyone else.

    So hang in there and don’t let anyone pressure you into doing anything you don’t want to do.

  • Jon

    @Sassy

    “When men no longer fight to the death with each other in the gladiator arenas of yore, violent combat video games seem to have picked up the slack.”

    That reminded me of a book I’ve wanted to read for several years: “A Case for Television Violence”

    The author basically makes the same point:

    Taking the provocative stand that television violence has been misinterpreted, this book posits that rather than undermining the social order, television supports order by providing a safe outlet for aggressive impulses. Fowles demonstrates that the scientific literature does not support what many believe; asks readers to question their viewing habits; explains that the anti-violence critique is best understood as the key issue in the conflict between high and popular culture; situates the arrival of televised violence within the historical context of the disallowance of traditionally sanctioned targets of aggression.

  • Zen Zach

    “That said, it’d hurt more if you said something like: “Your may preach freedom from religion, but I still have freedom of religion, and you’re no better than a fundamentalist if you try to take it away from me.”
    or
    “We share more dogma’s than you can imagine, but you’re clearly not able to see those you adhere to.”
    or
    “I know people like you say you can be good without god, but you seem to have failed nonetheless.”
    Those would hurt more. And they’ll probably gain you respect from both moderate sides.”

    If she’s religious why would she want to hurt anyone?

  • Iggles

    Susan,

    Wow, that was a very interesting video! I’m not sure which fits me, but I know I’m not high dopamine! I’m pretty risk-adverse, lol.

    Bastiat Blogger,

    An explorer type might have a kink in the metaphorical hose; to get the same dosage or hit of dopamine as a normal person receives from life events, the explorer’s spigot—risk, novelty, adventure in the environment—may have to be turned open a bit more. Another way of looking at it would be to say that a conventional life script might leave the explorer’s brain feeling dopamine-starved; under “normal” conditions, this person could be highly susceptible to boredom.

    Thanks for this analogy! Definitely helps me to understand this more.

    I like trying new things, but I’m not drawn novelty for it’s own sake. And risks (such a gambling) doesn’t appeal to me. So, I much me either dopamine-normal or dopamine-rich *shrugs*

  • Jones

    In response to Ted D:

    Yeah, I hear you. It would be wrong to see the open-endedness as an entirely good thing, though the postmasculine blog is extraordinary for not merely giving in to an all-too-easy pessimism.

    Essentially, men will have to do more work to define their own values and to stand by them. By no means does that require abandoning the cherished values of the past: see Art of Manliness for a great attempt to refresh those older values and make them speak to men in the present.

    But being a man has always meant exercising leadership, and in times like these that means moral leadership, especially. We can’t count on people sharing those values everywhere we go, however. But this means that smaller scale community, and having a close circle of friends who share your values, is all the more important. Look for respect from the people you respect. There’s no shortcut to figuring out for yourself what is worthy of respect.

    The real disservice is being done by certain strains of our culture that obscure these issues and make it harder for men to take up these tasks. I would target the absence of moral education in colleges and universities. It comes out in all of these discussions that happen here as well. People are embracing a kind of amoral social science as their way of navigating these issues, also drawing heavily on biological determinism. To me all of that is mostly mistaken. That’s why I celebrated the fact that the postmasculine blog draws attention to cultural variation, and also to the severe limitations of evo psych and biological determinism, which have flooded into the vacuum left by the absence of moral education.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Jon…” the anti-violence critique is best understood as the key issue in the conflict between high and popular culture; situates the arrival of televised violence within the historical context of the disallowance of traditionally sanctioned targets of aggression.”

    But high culture has always contained plenty of violence…think about Macbeth or Hamlet or Faust. (Although the first two of these probably weren’t thought of as high culture when they were first written/produced.)

    I think the difference isn’t so much the amount of violence as the type…motivated violence, which makes sense within the context of the story, versus violence for the sake of violence.

  • Zen Zach

    “That said, it’d hurt more if you said something like: “Your may preach freedom from religion, but I still have freedom of religion, and you’re no better than a fundamentalist if you try to take it away from me.”
    or
    “We share more dogma’s than you can imagine, but you’re clearly not able to see those you adhere to.”
    or
    “I know people like you say you can be good without god, but you seem to have failed nonetheless.”
    Those would hurt more. And they’ll probably gain you respect from both moderate sides.”

    A truly religious person doesn’t want to hurt anybody.

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

    A truly religious person doesn’t want to hurt anybody.

    A truly religious person appreciates silence as much as anyone.

  • J

    Likewise I’m also in full circle mode and is amazing how many educated people do end up back in some way.

    Sooner or later, people start looking for meaning in their lives.

    Interesting discussion with my son this afternoon. He came home from school angry because he overheard a classmate say that he hoped to die young. My son felt the comment was “stupid, selfish and materialistic” because his peer couldn’t see beyond “satiating his physicality, like an animal.” My kids is tired of dealing with people to whom “all the wrong things matter.” I can’t blame him.

  • Zen Zach

    Silencing is one thing, seeking to hurt someone is another.

  • Sassy6519

    So, I just got back from my second date with the guy I mentioned in another thread. After getting to know him a bit more, I think it’s safe to say that he is a dopamine/explorer type like I am. We had dinner and walked around the outskirts of the city together. He’s quite the thrill seeker, and I like that. He mentioned that he’s planning on buying a motorcycle within the next few months.

    The tingle compels me!!

  • Zen Zach

    I’m all 4 of these in almost equal amount.

  • Zen Zach

    “Women do listen to their own kind. That’s where they discover they’re supposed to say they want a good man, a nice guy, a kind, sensitive man.”

    Do women tell each other that? Or is it nice guys who are peddling that shtick?

  • Jackie

    @Religion/Atheist Discussion

    Wow, I really liked reading this discussion thread and opinions. :)

    I just want to clarify: I don’t hate Evangelical Atheists– who knows, maybe someone used religion to abuse them? We just don’t know.

    All I want is to be left in peace, without people saying “put downs” about personal beliefs. Jesus said something interesting, “By their fruits [deeds] you shall know them.” In this way, atheists can be a lot more Christ-like and awesome than many Christians! (I have an atheist friend like this, who is really generous and good.)

    My dad said this to me (quoting St Francis, I think): Preach the gospel, but only use words if necessary. The gospel is about love. Sp whenever we express a drop of kindness or an ounce of compassion, just one hand extended in friendship, we are doing all the “preaching” we need. :) That’s my 3 cents, anyway!

  • Dogsquat

    Sassy, don’t you ever get on that bike of his until he’s taken a motorcycle course and you have a helmet on your melon.

    If he’s had even one drink and he offers you a ride, you treat him like he’s attempting to murder you – because he is.

    If you don’t believe me, I’ll send you pictures.

    Oh, yeah – Happy Hunting!

  • Jackie

    @Sassy

    Wow, Sassy, this sounds awesome. :D Best wishes and keep us posted, for sure!

  • Sassy6519

    @ Dogsquat

    Sassy, don’t you ever get on that bike of his until he’s taken a motorcycle course and you have a helmet on your melon.

    If he’s had even one drink and he offers you a ride, you treat him like he’s attempting to murder you – because he is.

    If you don’t believe me, I’ll send you pictures.

    Oh, yeah – Happy Hunting!

    Thanks Dogsquat. I’ll make sure to be careful. I don’t want to end up as a mound of roadkill.

    @ Jackie

    Wow, Sassy, this sounds awesome. :D Best wishes and keep us posted, for sure!

    I will! I can feel that things are slowly building between us. We have a ton of things in common, and we also have the same goals/values. We are taking things very slowly, and it feels amazing. He has an edge to him, and I like it, but he also seems very genuine. I’m screening him like crazy too.

    Things seem to be falling into place quite nicely, for a change.

  • Zen Zach

    I’m going through her other videos. The study with long married couples still in love is interesting. They had all the same components as newly in loves with one exception; anxiousness was replaced by calmness.

  • Jackie

    @Counselor Munson (#67)

    Hey Uncle Tom!
    I always look for your comments in the thread– it’s nice to “see” you. :) How are you doing and is this chemo going OK?

    Your writing page at PrivateMan is bookmarked and checked each morning for updates– it is a privilege to read your writing and hear your story! (I am still holding out for a podcast/tv show/column/movie with you and Just1X, or another of the HUS Dramatic Circle as a sidekick, tho ;) )

    Sending lots of good wishes your way, Uncle T–
    :)

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    I have a question – it’s a little OT, but not for this group.

    Did anyone see tonight’s Big Bang Theory? I ask because I couldn’t help but see it in light of the discussions here and at Roissy’s.

    [Quick summary: at Howard's bachelor party and with some teasing from Penny, Leonard finds that he's not led a very sexually adventurous life - just the opposite. He's an admitted and self-aware beta.

    But he is involved with Penny (again), and it's going well. Except maybe that he's not sure he likes her seeing him that way.

    Penny seems to be determined to not be involved with the kind of guys she was always involved with before. Call them alphas. She seems "reformed."

    Everything is done as a caricature, for comic effect (and quite well, too, I might add), so any semblance to reality may be coincidental or accidental.]

    My question is, should Leonard be flattered/buoyed-up by Penny’s attentions or insulted that she thinks he’s been a sexual loser (which is an accurate assessment)? Both? Neither?

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

    My question is, should Leonard be flattered/buoyed-up by Penny’s attentions or insulted that she thinks he’s been a sexual loser (which is an accurate assessment)? Both? Neither?

    They are probably going somewhere in the show with that but if I were real life I would say is a red flag. Any woman that finds a man lack of sex life a point against him specially if he led that life out of free choice, doesn’t share the same values and is going to end up seeing him as a lesser man in the short or long run, YMMV.

    @Sassy
    I didn’t congratulate you before because I didn’t wanted to jinx it (I’m still a product of my culture and I still have some superstitions I didn’t even mentioned anything about my husband to anyone till we agree to meet in person for the same reasons) but I think second date is a good mark to congratulate you. So congratulations! :)

  • Richard Aubrey

    wrt motorcycles: I have some relations who had three sons in the military. SeaBees, armor, cavalry scout. Eight or nine deployments plus TDY between them. Two died in motorcycle accidents in the last year.
    My brother, when in college, worked in a hospital as an orderly. Sometimes hosed down the ER loading dock after a biker had been brought in.
    Picture what happens when a human body skids across the concrete. Picture surgeons crying, “There’s nothing I can do for her.”
    If you’re going to take a risk, for heaven’ s sake, make it for something worth while. Or take the Demon Drop at an amusement park.
    Maybe somebody could design a pill to cover the need so the person wouldn’t have to do stupid things.
    Enlist. Be a firefighter. When stuff hits the fan, you’ll see people from all over the world assembling. “Heavy construction rescue” types go to Turkey recently. Or Haiti. Be useful. If it’s not too beta.
    As a guy, I find the idea of tingling at the sight of somebody doing fake dangerous stuff…hard to either understand or consider virtuous or useful.
    My Navy relation’s unit brought his folks to their place and showed them around, showed them their equipment, let them ride in their…vehicles…put them on scene when a live-fire extraction-in-contact exercise was being run, then had the memorial. A “auditorium full of handsome men in uniform”, said his mother, gathered to honor her son. Her new family.
    And we hear of a woman who tingles watching a guy on video games. EEEWWW.
    Ordinary guys can be excused for either being grossed out–as we used to say–or cynically getting the message.
    You really want to send guys that message?

  • Shannon

    I love that insightful video. Now if there is a way I can discreetly test that.

  • FeralEmployee

    A truly religious person doesn’t want to hurt anybody.

    Incorrect, a truly good person wouldn’t want to hurt anybody. That said, stopping an annoying person from verbally attacking you by pressing his nose on his/her own hypocrisy is generally a good deed. Better than letting them keep up an elitist attitude.

  • Emily

    “Game” concepts seem to come up quite a bit in Big Bang Theory. I almost wonder if they do it on purpose.

  • Na

    Suzan.

    I’m turning 37 in May. I am still a virgin. I had my chances. I never took them. Because I never had a decent qualification. My life has been a failure up to now. I am finishing my B.Sc in Mathematical Statistics in May. I’ve meet the most beautiful pharmacist. But she’s a bit taller than me. When the exams are over I’m gonna try to take her out, and if I fail, I’m gonna get drunk.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    Emily, I’m not so sure they’re really using game concepts in TBBT, but they sure do fall back on a male alpha/beta notion a lot. They seem to divide the women into 3 camps; sluts, geeks and Catholic school girls.

    I did notice that The Mentalist explicitly used game and PUAs in more than one plot line this past season.

  • Ted D

    Joe – “I did notice that The Mentalist explicitly used game and PUAs in more than one plot line this past season.”

    To me that is no surprise. The main character Jane is a con-artist. Seems that a lot of PUA gimmicks can be put to good use for selling snake oil as well as getting laid.

    As it happens I’m a fan of that show. One of the few I watch regularly in fact.

  • pvw

    Hmmm….

    Builder married to a builder, it is what attracted me in the first place; husband is an engineer, and I recall the fun days when were dating and he, being the chivalrous boyfriend, would come by with his tools and fix something. He’d wink at me and I’d practically drool.

    I think this grew out of childhood memories, I remember my dad being the type of dad who would show his little girl how to do practical things around the house, ie., identify different types of screwdrivers, holding them for him while he worked. I was his little helper. Mom, in turn, taught me how to run a household.

    As for excitement levels, hubby needed, had more of it when he was a much younger man–a testosterone thing–he spent about 8 years in the military, traveling all over the world. Nowadays, he is more mellow. I never needed the high excitement kind of life. He is without question, masculine, competent, capable, strong, but he is of a lower t than the alpha types; he is definitely beta.

    As for testosterone, estrogen, I believe I might be a high t woman, but not overly high, in that I look and act feminine, but it is not the craziness of some high t women. It is grounded in certain values we might ascribe more so to men—integrity, logic, reasoning, competence, but my competence is balanced, I can do the feminine competence thing of being a good wife and running a household, at the same time I have been able to excel in my field of academia.

    So our building is focused on our family (the day to day, the short term and long term planning) and work efforts, organizing things at those ends, and in our community efforts–building up our local communities through our extracurricular activities.

    I’m more in tune as an INTJ to build up our church communities of faith, ie., organizing programming around church milestones (baptism, confirmation, reception), all of it family-oriented; he is more in tune as an ISTJ to do the literal building work of our community–he serves on the building committee, planning long term maintenance needs and so forth–his engineering background.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Ted D

    Seems that a lot of PUA gimmicks can be put to good use for selling snake oil as well as getting laid.

    Yeah, I’m a fan too. They had Jane describe game disparagingly, but at the same time, the writers presented it in a pretty balanced way. Kimball Cho was used to portray it positively in the story-line.

    That was the first time I noticed Game portrayed at all in the media. I suspect it won’t be the last.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Richard Aubrey

    As a guy, I find the idea of tingling at the sight of somebody doing fake dangerous stuff…hard to either understand or consider virtuous or useful.
    My Navy relation’s unit brought his folks to their place and showed them around, showed them their equipment, let them ride in their…vehicles…put them on scene when a live-fire extraction-in-contact exercise was being run, then had the memorial. A “auditorium full of handsome men in uniform”, said his mother, gathered to honor her son. Her new family.
    And we hear of a woman who tingles watching a guy on video games. EEEWWW.
    Ordinary guys can be excused for either being grossed out–as we used to say–or cynically getting the message.
    You really want to send guys that message?

    How is riding a motorcycle “fake dangerous”? It is clearly a dangerous activity, or else you and Dogsquat wouldn’t feel the need to remind me to be careful.

    Look, I know you may find the things that I tingle for weird or gross. It doesn’t bother me. I have never made qualms about liking adventurous, dominant, edgy, or high T men. That’s what I’m attracted to, and I know I’m not alone in that by a long shot. Some of the other women on here may not like what I like, when it comes to men, but I have met more than my fair share of women who like or chase after the men I’ve described above. Women who like or chase after “Alpha males” are attracted to those qualities about them.

    Why is that disheartening or “gross”, as you put it?

  • Ted D

    Sassy – “Why is that disheartening or “gross”, as you put it?”

    I was never in the military or any kind of “dangerous” profession, but I know plenty of men that were/are. Most of them feel similarly to Richard in that they feel people who “choose” to do dangerous things (such as sky diving, riding a motorcycle, etc.) are in effect posers: that is, faking that they are indeed bad boys. If guy rides a motorcycle because he enjoys it, all good. If he rides a motorcycle for the “cred” it gets him? Poser. And as far as video games, well, military guys play them as well, but I can’t tell you how many rag on young men that get their “danger kicks” from them exclusively.

    I think this is a man thing, which would explain why you are confused by it. What I think Richard is saying is: you are falling for false goods. Because to a man that has actually lived real danger, a motorcycle is tame by comparison. And one way we rank each other is by how much real danger we’ve successfully lived through. It isn’t by far the only way we rank, but for guys that have been there, it is one they use frequently. But my friends that have served don’t look down on my because I didn’t. However I also never try to present myself as a bad ass anyway…

    Richard – feel free to tell me I’m full of shit. I’m totally basing this on my circle of friends.

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

    Because to a man that has actually lived real danger, a motorcycle is tame by comparison.

    I think is also because there is no guarantee that the bad boy won’t run from the hills when there is the need to protect the ones he “loves”. Like Dogsquat story of the guy that let the girl he was going to bang pinned against a tree just so he could live. And as side note I agree with you guys most of the Alpha’s I know won’t face a real threat not even when their loved ones are in danger ( I had seen them on their knees crying after some of their shenanigans went to far away not a pretty sight, somehow amusing though) I guess deep down they knew they were just good to fake it till someone suck them but they are not the real deal, YMMV.

  • Dogsquat

    Ted D said:

    “Because to a man that has actually lived real danger, a motorcycle is tame by comparison. ”
    __________________________

    Well said, man. Granted, I work for a 911 ambulance service, too, and I’ve been to a fatal motorcycle accident within the last 2 weeks.

    However, I used to ride bikes myself (Honda VFR Interceptor, a Ninja, first bike was a used Honda VTR1000) and I totally understand guys who love it. It’s a very Zen thing, and it makes even the most boring commute fun. It is a good way to pick up women, too. Just wander around with your leather on and carrying a helmet – instant conversation starter, and fun way to change venues.

    I look at riding a bike like I do skydiving or a cocaine habit – fine for somebody else, but not an acceptable risk vs reward ratio for me. I must be a beta in my core, to, because these days I think to myself,”What are those guys risking everything for? A little fun? Unacceptable!” I expect men to risk it all in the service of a greater good, but for enjoyment? Selfish!

    Like I said, probably a holdover from my Blue Pill days.

    And Ted, I never, ever look down on men who weren’t in the military. Mostly I am jealous of them. For guys who came of age post 2003, I think the guys who stay out are smart. I hope they look at me like I do bike riders – fine for them, but not for me, and not a super-big deal anyway.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ted D

    I was never in the military or any kind of “dangerous” profession, but I know plenty of men that were/are. Most of them feel similarly to Richard in that they feel people who “choose” to do dangerous things (such as sky diving, riding a motorcycle, etc.) are in effect posers: that is, faking that they are indeed bad boys. If guy rides a motorcycle because he enjoys it, all good. If he rides a motorcycle for the “cred” it gets him? Poser. And as far as video games, well, military guys play them as well, but I can’t tell you how many rag on young men that get their “danger kicks” from them exclusively.

    Ah, okay.

    For what it’s worth though, the guy I’ve been seeing told me that he has always wanted a motorcycle. I don’t think he wants one for the cred.

    Aside from that, does this imply that military men, or men with dangerous professions, feel that they should be regarded as the most alpha men? Are they miffed when they see some women who prefer to date men who are adventurous and risk takers outside of a job? This is interesting to me.

    I have always been attracted to guys who ride motorcycles. I have distinct memories from around the time of puberty where I would see a guy speeding by on a motorcycle and I would swoon. It’s just attractive to me. The thought of riding on the back of one with him, wrapping my arms around his waist and allowing him to control the situation entirely, is erotic to me. I have no desire to drive/steer a motorcycle by myself. I’m too afraid to do so. Allowing a man to control the situation, putting my safety in his hands, and entrusting that he’ll take care of the damsel on the back is a turn on.

    It’s akin to riding in the passenger seat of a sports car (which I did with my ex), or riding with a man on a horse. He has complete control over the situation. He is dominant, and I am submissive, in that scenario. It’s one of the few times I’m comfortable letting a man have complete control over a situation that involves me. Perhaps that’s why it’s attractive to me.

  • Dogsquat

    PVW said :

    “As for excitement levels, hubby needed, had more of it when he was a much younger man–a testosterone thing–he spent about 8 years in the military, traveling all over the world. Nowadays, he is more mellow.”
    _________________________________

    I was talking to Dannyfrom504 about military guys and selfish women. I made this comment:

    Doc, I think young military guys (at least the good ones) are conditioned to be beta as hell.

    I’ve been out for awhile, but I was a grunt Sergeant for many years. An average civilian thinks of a Marine LCpl as some kind of Super-Warrior, but I (and you) know the truth.

    A good grunt Lance Coolie puts his mission first, his buddies second, and himself last. He does what he’s told without complaint, even if it doesn’t make sense to him. He’ll endure incredible hardship without faltering, because that’s his job. He gets a lot of his self-esteem from suffering:

    “Fuck that, Dog! That ain’t shit! This one time, we was up by MSR Sword. It was hot as fuck, and we was almost out of water. The fuckin’ Ell Tee was runnin’ us back and forth, chasin’ some bullshit S-2 fantasy. I din’t get no chow that day on account of Gunny fuckin’ up the head count and Sarn’t P makin’ sure us Team Leaders gave our chows to our guys. Shit was fuuuuucked up, dude! W’unt you know it, I sees Ali Baba talkin’ on a cell phone, all suspicious and shit…right when I get oneathem badass leg cramps. I chased that fucker until I puked blah blah blah…”

    The guy who has it the worst gets the most respect.

    You drop that kid into a marriage with a selfish young woman and he’s going to get his guts ripped out. Not only is he immature in most respects (he’s 18 or 20, after all), but he’s been conditioned to subordinate his ego/desires, put others first, and embrace being miserable.

    What makes him a good Marine at work is exactly the wrong stuff to do in a relationship, especially with an equally immature woman. I’ll bet the young Sailor is exactly the same way, except with more grey paint.

    Edited to add:

    Give that same Conditioned Beta a little Game and he’s quite a catch. If that guy lucks out and lands a Good Woman, even without Game he could make her very happy.

  • Ted D

    DogSquat – ” I must be a beta in my core, to, because these days I think to myself,”What are those guys risking everything for? A little fun? Unacceptable!” I expect men to risk it all in the service of a greater good, but for enjoyment? Selfish!”

    Children is what did this for me. And actually, now that I think back on it, I don’t think it was getting married that sent me into betatude as much as becoming a father. Not that I was ever really a risk taker, but I used to ride dirt bikes once upon a time, and have always wanted to get a street bike. Every time I got close to buying one, I would hear or read about someone crashing and simply chucked the idea out the window.

    And I wasn’t trying to imply that my former military buddies looked down on anyone for not serving. I just meant that I in NO WAY even try to compete with them on “bad assedness” because I would lose, hands down. But, I hold my own against every single one of them in some traits, and kick ass on others. It’s all about the guy ranking thing. Most real bad asses know it isn’t for everyone and they don’t expect it. But, don’t show up playing “bad ass” and expect them to take it on the chin…

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Sassy,

    Good luck. I hope things work out with the new guy– do your due diligence.

    I too, get weak in the knees for guys who ride motorcycles–ridiculously hot.

    I understand that the men here have been disappointed by women who chose alphas, assholes, jerks, players or whatever over them in the past. But, jumping on, Sassy, just because she likes a guy with a little edge does not make her the spawn of satan. Jeez guys.

  • Ted D

    Sassy – “Aside from that, does this imply that military men, or men with dangerous professions, feel that they should be regarded as the most alpha men?”

    I don’t think this is just for men with dangerous professions. All men do this to some extent. I’m in IT, and I can tell you beyond all doubt that the “hard core” IT guys rag on people that call themselves “hackers” while using other people’s programs and designs to pull off their so called hacks.
    The difference is, us IT guys know that we are not getting alpha cred for being good at computers.

    Guys that are level headed and in dangerous jobs do not assume they are alpha. As DogSquat pointed out above, most of the military guys I know are rather humble about their abilities to kick ass and chew gum, until the shit hits the fan and then they spring into action. I don’t see any of them expecting credit from others, but they are quick to point out when someone else expecting it doesn’t deserve it.

    That being said, I give them credit for what they did/do. And in return I get their respect for acknowledging that they are doing shit that needs done that I am either unable or unwilling to do. Male hierarchy is a pretty complex beast when I think on it. I have a few really “rough” friends (former Army and Marines). Even though I’ve never once in my life been enlisted or in a dangerous profession, we have mutual respect based on varying criteria. They all know I’m in no way their match in regards to combat, but they find things about me that they can relate to and respect regardless. They know to call me when they need help with something I’m good at, and they know I’d call them if I ever needed a few “heavies” for some backup. Of course, they also know that IF I ever called for backup, things are serious. As in “I need help hiding the body” serious.

    Hey, it’s always good to have a friend or two that would help with that. ;-)

  • Ted D

    Liza – “But, jumping on, Sassy, just because she likes a guy with a little edge does not make her the spawn of satan. Jeez guys.”

    I’m by no means jumping on Sassy. I know she is very interested in this kind of stuff, and I’m just giving her my view on it.

    The problem here is this: women rank men’s attractiveness based on their own criteria. Men rank each other on their own criteria. The two sets of criteria aren’t even close to matching. So, what women consider “hot”, many men consider “poser” or “fake” or “scam”. Which only helps to fuel a lot of contempt for PUA/Cad types. Many guys see them as a poser and not the real deal.

  • Dogsquat

    Sassy said:

    “Aside from that, does this imply that military men, or men with dangerous professions, feel that they should be regarded as the most alpha men? Are they miffed when they see some women who prefer to date men who are adventurous and risk takers outside of a job? This is interesting to me.”
    ____________________________

    Sassy, it’s more complicated than that but I can remember feeling something like what you’re describing when in uniform.

    Combat Arms guys (infantry, armor, arty, SOF, Division MPs, etc) exist to impose the will of their nation on people. Do what I say or you’re going to die is a pretty alpha way of looking at the world. These guys get a tremendous sense of identity from their professions, too. Marines, paratroopers, SF/SOF bubbas, and those nasty Cav Scouts especially can come off as a little arrogant and entitled.

    The paradoxical thing is that to be very good at one’s job, one must be extremely Beta (see above comment).

    Plus, there is a lot of propaganda out there about how women love a guy in uniform, etc. There needs to be, or no young men would sign up. And yes, some women tingle for a set of Class A’s or Dress Blues or whatever – but when the rubber meets the road, the whole package ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. The guy who wears that uniform spends years away from home, willingly subordinates himself to 300 million other people, and makes a lower/lower middle class living.

    The fact that he could kill some CEO or PUA in about 7 seconds with his bare hands doesn’t make up for the rest of it.

    Plus, as Richard said somewhere else here, most Been There, Done That types I know don’t feel like exhibiting any outward signs of badassery. I’m no Badass, but I’ve been around a little bit. I’ll also walk away from a fight, dislike extreme sports, am careful to the point of paranoia about personal security, dress to blend in with my surroundings, and a slew of other things that communicate Fear. I’m not necessarily scared all the time, I just know what can happen when things get Interesting, and I prefer to mitigate those consequences.

    Compare me to some hipster with a trust fund and a Devil-may-care attitude, and A LOT more women will tingle for the hipster.

    The resentment comes from the Warrior seeing the Hipster as taking more than he’s earned. The Warrior has sweat and bled for what he sees as the Greater Good, while the Hipster went to awful parties and followed crappy bands. The Warrior still believes that things like Honor and Commitment matter, and the Hipster is a post-modernist fop. When the involuntarily celibate Warrior sees the Hipster banging hot women, reality clashes with his conditioning. He gets pissed and resentful.

    More complicated and nuanced than that, but this comment is long enough.

  • Dogsquat

    Ted said:

    “The problem here is this: women rank men’s attractiveness based on their own criteria. Men rank each other on their own criteria. The two sets of criteria aren’t even close to matching. So, what women consider “hot”, many men consider “poser” or “fake” or “scam”.”
    ___________________________

    Steel on target.

    Goddamnit, forget my bazillion-word meanderthons above. Ted said it in a paragraph.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Hi Ted,

    Don’t men rank women on their own criteria as well? I know a lot men who love thin women with big boobs but a lot of women don’t naturally fit the bill.
    Women have learned to accept that men have preferences for certain physical attributes on women. We don’t like it especial when we don’t possess them but we have come to realize that there is not much we can do about it because we get that men like what they like and that is it. I just wish men would just accept that women like what they like as well.

  • Dogsquat

    Liza of the Prime Numbers said:

    “But, jumping on, Sassy, just because she likes a guy with a little edge does not make her the spawn of satan. Jeez guys.”
    ________________________

    Just wanted to say that I’m not doing that. You like what you like, and go try and get it for yourself.

    I just don’t like motorcycle wrecks.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ted D

    The problem here is this: women rank men’s attractiveness based on their own criteria. Men rank each other on their own criteria. The two sets of criteria aren’t even close to matching. So, what women consider “hot”, many men consider “poser” or “fake” or “scam”.

    Interesting.

    It’s akin to how women rank other women vs how men rank women. Women have a habit of ranking each other on a whole slew of things, not just looks (education, hobbies, possessions, etc). Women are then confused to learn that most men rank women on physical attractiveness alone, or predominantly. Hence why there are a lot of so called “fabulous” women (women who are fabulous in their own minds and in the eyes of other women) who are single that don’t understand why. They rank themselves on criteria far different from what men rank them on.

    You’ll also find that the women men rank the highest, typically the most physically attractive, are viewed as “bimbos” or “vapid” in the eyes of other women.

  • Dogsquat

    @Liza:

    “I just wish men would just accept that women like what they like as well.”
    ______________________________

    That’s what the Red Pill is all about.

  • FeralEmployee

    @Dog, 131

    A lot of alpha men I know are complete posers, and it takes a hard worker to know it. It remembers me of a team project, where I was often asked for advice because I gained the reputation of being a good coder and problem solver. The “team leader”, as he designated himself, was popular mostly outside the working environment of the project. But when it came to solving problems, he had no expertise and often gave the worthless pep talk that didn’t contribute anything to solving a problem. And that includes the sub-team he was in.

    What irritates me the most, is when you point out that a guy is just a lot talking and no action, and the women that fawn over them try to silence the critique with: “You can’t say that, he needs support. He’s just a good guy under all that, he can flourish”. They then proceed to shower him with lots of “support”, while the hard working grunts who have come up with the most ingenious solutions and have earned their merit get hardly any. All this rubbish talk about guys with an edge not getting enough loving support from society is rubbish, they get loads and still not get their act together. In the mean time, the guy they don’t even notice has a track record of accomplishments and doesn’t even twitch by a lack of attention.

    Times have changed indeed.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Dogsquat

    Lisa of the prime numbers…

    Huh? 207 *is* divisible by 3.

    Sorry. Now that’s *really* off-topic! ;-)

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

    You’ll also find that the women men rank the highest, typically the most physically attractive, are viewed as “bimbos” or “vapid” in the eyes of other women.
    I don’t know I never ranked a woman that all men stared at as a bimbo or vapid unless she acted/talked like a bimbo or vapid. I do think that a hot woman that is a bimbo and vapid will not get rejected for having that as part of her package by men while she will be by women.
    Of course there are women who intrasexual competition instincts lead them to label all women hotter than her as bimbo or lesser someway. But that depends on the woman, YMMV.

  • Ted D

    Liza – “I just wish men would just accept that women like what they like as well.”

    The saying goes: if wishes were fishes we could walk on the sea. :P I get what you are saying, but the truth is getting out there. Red Pill men know this, but it doesn’t stop us from seeing some guys as posers any less.

    Sassy – Sure, that makes perfect sense. But, remember that even though men may put looks at or near the top, “looks” doesn’t necessarily mean any specific version of “hot”. For example, I tend to find most “popular” women to be scrawny or too thin, or at best just barely thick enough. So, although I want a “hot” women, MY idea of “hot” isn’t necessarily what other women, or even other men would agree with. If nothing else, women should know this so they don’t feel too badly when they come up short next to some runway model or movie star.

    And I realize the EXACT same thing can be said of women in terms of required dominance, dress, or even a motorcycle. But it really is a hard lesson to learn and internalize.

  • Dogsquat

    Liza said:

    Huh? 207 *is* divisible by 3.
    ______________________

    I don’t believe in your so-called “3”.

  • Emily

    >> “The problem here is this: women rank men’s attractiveness based on their own criteria. Men rank each other on their own criteria. The two sets of criteria aren’t even close to matching. So, what women consider “hot”, many men consider “poser” or “fake” or “scam”.”

    Random question: does the male ranking/hierarchy system (with each other) still exist in the way that it existed in previous generations? As in, does this generation of guys still feel the need to compete and establish dominance amongst themselves? (Not for women but for its own sake.) If so, then what does it look like/what forms does it take?

    These questions are kind of abstract, but I’m curious to hear people’s thoughts. This is something that I don’t know very much about.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Sassy. An “edge” because he gets really wired into a video game. The problem with that is…he’s no damn use to anybody. Not even to himself. He may have other virtues but those weren’t mentioned.
    The point is not that he’s an alpha or beta or anything else, it’s the picture of a guy playing a video game raising the tingle.
    You gots to be kidding me.
    Do your own thing, not my problem, but the question is whether you think ordinary guys look at this and go WTF? Freaking VIDEO GAMES?
    You want a world of gamers when the SHTF? Or when earning a living just got really, really tough? Or the cocoon falls apart?
    Back in the day, when we thought nuclear war would end civilization but not all life on earth, folks used to think about post-nuke living. Sort of like the Dark Ages without the Church but with radiation. You know how close we really were to that? Damn’ close, as I found out in my unfortunate year in Air Defense. That’s when we’d find whether “edge” was restricted to smart-ass comments at parties.
    Thing is, the virtues that my young relative’s friends thought of as paramount do not, according to HUS, raise the tingle. From which, ordinary guys are going to take a lesson.

    Wow. Planet check? Earth, right? No? Um, I thought it was. Does reason apply here? No? I was getting that feeling.

    Over on Dr. Helen–via Instapundit–is an interesting discussion of men going John Galt. I figure they can actually go, or accomplish the tingle via D&D. Either way is the same result.

    It isn’t necessary to be military to have this question arise. It just so happens that, among other things, The Navy Hymn lays me out, this is the second military funeral in that church in less than a year, and so I was thinking about it. I figure the lesson is that my young relative had an oversupply of what traditionally has been thought of as necessary and sufficient to impress young women and according to HUS, he’s a cross between a guard dog and a plow horse, worth a Gainesburger from time to time but no female interest because he’s not a fake biker or a gamer.
    I know! I know! Call on me!
    “Edge” has to be fake or it’s Boooooring.

    Got it now.

    I don’t have plans to go John Galt, but I surely sympathize with ordinary guys wno do.

  • Dogsquat

    @Feral

    I’m older now, and a little wiser, but still remember that feeling – like a mental spit-take.

    In thinking about your (and my) situation, I wonder what Thomas Sowell would say. Probably something about not understanding the incentives properly.

    I thought outcome driven fields like engineering or IT wouldn’t have much of that crap, but there are parallels to your experience in healthcare (all about outcomes) as well. The no-shit best docs aren’t always the folks that people think they are. Just because he smiles at you and asks about your family doesn’t mean he’s the guy you want fixing your spine.

  • Dogsquat

    Emily said:

    “As in, does this generation of guys still feel the need to compete and establish dominance amongst themselves? (Not for women but for its own sake.) If so, then what does it look like/what forms does it take?”
    ______________________

    That’s an interesting question.

    Here’s what I’ve noticed:

    In a situation where there isn’t a defined hierarchy (work, military, etc) and a bunch of guys are presented with a problem/obstacle, there will be a moment’s pause after the issue is presented.

    Usually, the first guy to talk will be given status as Temporary Leader. He’ll say his piece, and there will be another, shorter pause. This is when somebody can come up with a better plan. If the first plan sucks comparatively, the Temporary Leader is deposed in favor of the guy who comes up with the better idea.

    This can go on for awhile, but ends when a guy not vying for Temporary Leader gets up and starts on a task that’s been delegated to him. After that, vying for leadership is usually viewed as mere shit-talking.

    If a guy has a good track record as Temporary Leader, he’ll be looked at as Permanent Leader of the group.

    Leadership is not the only way for a guy to get status in a group, though. As Ted said earlier, guys will give a lot of credit to someone with a talent for something, say…computers. Say that computer guy was instrumental in solving a problem the group faced. The other guys will acknowledge the Leader’s position, but they’ll know that the Leader couldn’t have done shit without Computer Guy. Good Leaders know this, too.

    Fail enough, or prove to be incompetent in a spectacular enough way, and the Leader will be deposed.

  • Emily

    >> “You’ll also find that the women men rank the highest, typically the most physically attractive, are viewed as “bimbos” or “vapid” in the eyes of other women.”

    +1. I also think that overall people are much better judges of character when it comes to their own gender. Girls are much better at spotting a fake bitch, and guys will usually be able to identify a douchebag instantly.

  • Emily

    Dogsquat 145,

    That’s interesting. Do most guys care about whether or not they’re Leader, or is the task/obstacle their only concern?

    (I hope these questions aren’t completely stupid. I’m just trying to learn a bit about male psychology. :) )

  • Sassy6519

    @ Richard Aubrey

    Sassy. An “edge” because he gets really wired into a video game. The problem with that is…he’s no damn use to anybody. Not even to himself. He may have other virtues but those weren’t mentioned.
    The point is not that he’s an alpha or beta or anything else, it’s the picture of a guy playing a video game raising the tingle.
    You gots to be kidding me.
    Do your own thing, not my problem, but the question is whether you think ordinary guys look at this and go WTF? Freaking VIDEO GAMES?
    You want a world of gamers when the SHTF? Or when earning a living just got really, really tough? Or the cocoon falls apart?
    Back in the day, when we thought nuclear war would end civilization but not all life on earth, folks used to think about post-nuke living. Sort of like the Dark Ages without the Church but with radiation. You know how close we really were to that? Damn’ close, as I found out in my unfortunate year in Air Defense. That’s when we’d find whether “edge” was restricted to smart-ass comments at parties.
    Thing is, the virtues that my young relative’s friends thought of as paramount do not, according to HUS, raise the tingle. From which, ordinary guys are going to take a lesson.

    Wow. Planet check? Earth, right? No? Um, I thought it was. Does reason apply here? No? I was getting that feeling.

    I never said a guy who played video games had an “edge”. Notice how playing video games was not on my list of attributes that constitute “edge” on the other thread.

    If you had actually read what I have written, you would have noticed that I didn’t tingle just because he played video games. I tingled because he dominated and obliterated his friends in competition. He was the best player, by far, and it impressed me. I suck horribly at shooter games, so I could appreciate watching a man dominate his friends repeatedly in competition. Competition between males is attractive to females in general, not just to humans either. There are countless examples of the males of various species pitting themselves against each other in an activity to attract a female.

    Why does that bother you so much?

    It’s hard for me to believe that men are this flabbergasted and disassociated from what traits and concepts women find attractive in men. Why is it such a shot to the heart for men to learn that some women like dominant men, or adventurous men?

    What would you rather women be attracted to?

  • Richard Aubrey

    Emily. I think this may apply to your question, or it may reflect a different issue altogether.
    A commenter on another blog–I believe–referred to a task the HS gym teacher required of guys and of girls. Groups of ten of each.
    Make a pyramid on hands and knees, 4, 3, 2,1.
    Invariably, said the commenter, the guys were done while the women were still trying to figure out how and who.
    If you’re into ev psych, see Ardrey’s “Hunting Hypothesis” and its presumed differential effect on men–hunt, and women–gather.
    You wouldn’t believe, and some people think it’s dangerous, the group loyalty you’ll find among a dozen guys thrown together for as long as, say, a quarter of an hour. Not only in-group loyalty but suspicion of other groups.

  • Lokland

    @Dogsquat

    Just to point out.

    You just described the selection process of selection for the alpha male and who becomes the beta male SIC types. That leaves the deltas, gammas and omegas still.
    Although the omega is the shit talker.

    Overall I think you put it very well.

  • M3

    @ Dogsquat 145

    Fail enough, or prove to be incompetent in a spectacular enough way, and the Leader will be deposed.

    Sounds like every head coach, general manager, goalie and captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs since 1994.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    What would you rather women be attracted to?

    I guess we should only want feminized men with no dominance.

    I doubt 40 ago a woman would get all of this pushback for saying that they desire a dominant man. We are women and women want men who behave as such. I doubt many men here see masculine women as ideal.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    “Fail enough, or prove to be incompetent in a spectacular enough way, and the Leader will be deposed”….although if he changes jobs frequently enough, or if he focuses on picking jobs that are hard to measure, he may get away with it for a long time. Which implies that when he finally does fail visibly, it is likely to be on a large enough scale to have catastrophic results for a lot of people.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Emily

    Do most guys care about whether or not they’re Leader, or is the task/obstacle their only concern?

    I think Richard has it right. Guys do recognize who the leader is, and sometimes they want to be that leader.

    But not all the time. Guys tend to recognize the value of teamwork (and just “getting it done”) and will gladly pitch in to do the unrecognized grunt work to see that it happens. But they won’t do that forever without some recognition.

    And most want that recognition to sometimes be in the form of being recognized as the leader themselves.

  • J

    I think is also because there is no guarantee that the bad boy won’t run from the hills when there is the need to protect the ones he “loves”.

    I actually think there is a guarantee that the bad boy will run for the hills when there is the need to protect the ones he “loves” The biggest talkers I’ve known have also been the biggest cowards. It’s the quiet ones that you need to watch.

    This is how Vox Day describes alpha: “At a social gathering like a party, he’s usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha’s gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.”

    Who’d trust a guy like that?

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    “What would you rather women be attracted to?”

    Its not really a problem. Its kinda of like a ‘c’mon really?’. And I say this as a guy like your ex who can dominate shooters. My fiance gets this whole, “you look like your going to kill people” thing going on and starts trying to curl up on my lap or sits between my legs.

    Frankly, its cool that it works because pretty much because any guy can do it. Thats also why its pathetic. Any guy can do it.

    Anything that makes a women appear less selective is going to get a wtf response from men.

    Not to mention playing video games is absolutely fucking useless in the grand scheme.

  • Dogsquat

    Emily asked:
    “That’s interesting. Do most guys care about whether or not they’re Leader, or is the task/obstacle their only concern?”
    _________________________

    Please don’t take what I’m saying as Gospel. I’m just one guy. There are as many opinions about this as there are stars in the sky. Good places to look for information about leadership (distinct from management) are in the chapter entitled “Core Values and Leadership” in the Guidebook for Marines. Another source that’s shaped me quite a bit is “The Handbook for Marine NCOs”.

    Again, there is a distinct difference between management and leadership.

    A General is a manager. He ensures that everybody is organized, trained, and equipped. He makes sure they have a ride to the fight, then turns his boys loose.

    A squad leader is a leader. He looks a rifleman in the eye and says,”Pop smoke and run across the street. Ali Baba has snipers in the area, and I’ll be watching to see where the guys who shoot at you are.” Then, the other guy does just what the squad leader told him to.

    There is a lot of cross-contamination between skill sets, but they remain two distinct disciplines.

    To your question:

    No, I don’t think being the leader is important to all guys all the time. Guys want to be admired and respected. Sit a young teenage boy down in front of a bank heist movie, then ask him which member of the gang he identifies with most. Some will say the leader, but others will find fascination with the safecracker, the driver, or the martial artist.

    At some level, most normal guys want to fit in somewhere, make a contribution, and have that contribution valued. Where they think they can contribute is shaped quite a bit by early life experience.

    For example, I am a natural follower/subordinate leader. In my bones I am a Sergeant and always will be. For me to be most happy and effective, I need a cause bigger than myself to fit in to. I have no desire to be King, but I’d be a hell of an Earl. I enjoy being in a relationship for this reason – my girl and our relationship are much more important to me than me alone.

    There are some guys, though, that desire what they think of as “leadership” to the exclusion of all else. If they’re talented enough, they go far. Most of those types end up alienating truly talented people, though, and fall by the wayside. Those types never learned to be good followers (one of the most important skills a leader has) and they piss others off.

    Still other dudes fall under what Vox Day classifies as Sigmas. These guys are true lone-wolf types, distrustful of hierarchy and almost entirely internally motivated. Again, if they’re talented enough, those types go far. Most people aren’t, and I think it’s a mistake for an average guy to aspire to Sigmadom. A guy like Vox might walk away from the problem solving group and come back 3 hours later with the problem already solved, patents in place, and 2 profitable companies founded to help others with the same issue. Most dudes will just disappear for three hours, waste a bunch of resources, and piss everybody off.

    I think an interesting question for you to ponder when taking the measure of a man is “What does this individual want to be valued for?” The answer will tell you more about him than his leadership potential.

  • Dogsquat

    Lokland said:

    “You just described the selection process of selection for the alpha male and who becomes the beta male SIC types. That leaves the deltas, gammas and omegas still.”
    __________________

    Yeah, some of those types don’t volunteer to do anything, or they are purposefully overlooked when tasks are assigned. The competent ones are told what to do, with no thought given regarding what’s good for them.

    Unfortunately for them, they are also forgotten/hidden when credit is meted out.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Lokland

    Frankly, its cool that it works because pretty much because any guy can do it. Thats also why its pathetic. Any guy can do it.

    It’s true that any guy can play video games. The key is, however, that not every guy can play them well and not all men can be the best at video games. There is a hierarchy there, with regards to competition, and some women like the domination of that competition.

    I’m aware that video games aren’t that important, in the grand scheme of life. I’m fully aware of that. With that being said, men don’t compete with each other in activities that carry much weight anymore, except for sports. It explains why athletes notoriously get laid like tile, especially if they are on a winning team.

    As I mentioned earlier on in this thread, men no longer fight to the death in gladiator arenas. There aren’t many instances of male competition that can be viewed and assessed by surrounding females. When the capacities for competition between males diminish, the avenues of which women seek to spectate male competition becomes more varied and more miniscule.

    Is it wrong for a woman to feel aroused at the sight of a man being the top dog in video games? Is it wrong for a woman to tingle at the sight of a man running circles around his competition on the basketball court? Was it wrong of women in the past to throw themselves at the champions of the gladiator arena?

    There’s nothing new to this at all.

  • Dogsquat

    DiggetyDavid Foster said:

    “although if he changes jobs frequently enough, or if he focuses on picking jobs that are hard to measure, he may get away with it for a long time.”
    _________________________

    Oh, man – it’s like you can see into my life.

    I am in a motherfucking WAR with this dumb ass ER manager at one place I work. Her duties involve typing schedules…..and that’s it as far as I can tell. Her two assistants do everything else. She’s an RN and makes about $90,000 per year, but hasn’t touched a patient in a decade.

    I will probably lose, because I only care about unimportant shit like evidence-based medicine and my patients living. She, on the other hand, has a black-belt in buzzwords and that new DuPont BlameSlick™ blame resistant epidermis.

    In a year she’ll be at another hospital across town, fucking up those people’s shifts.

  • Lokland

    @DS

    “Unfortunately for them, they are also forgotten/hidden when credit is meted out.”

    Thats dependent on the leader. Good vs. Bad of AMOG usually determines who gets all the credit.

    When you have an asshole at the top who takes all the credit the turnover rate of his followers is usally pretty quick. Good leaders tend to have a core group of talented beta-SIC types that stick with them for years. Those are the groups most guys dream of being a part of.

    @Sassy

    I think you might want to lock men on an island and have a Battle Royale or some such nonsense to see whos the best.
    Not happening.

    Judge whatever you want to give you tingles. Thats not going to stop other dudes from thinking some guys a loser for being able to pull of a headshot.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Guinevere, in the musical Camelot:

    Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
    Are those sweet, gentle pleasures gone for good?
    Shall a feud not begin for me?
    Shall kith not kill their kin for me?
    Oh, where are the simple joys of maidenhood?

    Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
    Are those sweet, gentle pleasures gone for good?
    Shall two knights never tilt for me?
    Or let their blood be spilt for me?
    Oh, where are the trivial joys,
    Harmless, convivial joys
    Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?

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

      @david Foster

      I saw the movie when I was 11, and I thought Vanessa Redgrave singing that was the most beautiful woman imaginable. I know the movie is not highly regarded, but I adored it then. In fact, I’ve had a soft spot for Arthurian legend ever since.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Sassy.
    Let me refine my view:

    Men dominating in FREAKIN’ VIDEO GAMES? Obliterating other guys in FREAKIN’ VIDEO GAMES?

    What would I prefer women be attracted to?
    Apparently that doesn’t matter, but for the record; competence in dealing with the meat world, including other people who might be a problem. Integrity. Sufficient experience with actual, real, genyoowine, Bad Things that he doesn’t have to fake it with cycle leathers and a permanent stubble and copping an attitude with people not capable of calling him on it. Wit without malice and conversation without betrayal. Being grounded and not swayed by others’ opinion. Loyalty. Manners in the sense of never offending anyone inadvertently.
    I suspect I’m describing somebody who ought to take Holy Orders for all the good it’s going to do him.

  • Sassy6519

    Also, it goes without saying that instances of masculinity and dominance have a way of compounding and reinforcing one another.

    A woman’s first impression of a man is primarily visual. We, just like men, have our first interaction with someone by seeing them. Subconsciously, women are able to pick up on biological cues that signal health and vitality in a man (height, build, youthfulness, hair quality, facial symmetry, etc). She then notices more cues once she begins to interact with him (scent, tone of voice, mannerisms, etc). She gets a pretty good idea subconsciously of whether or not he would be a compatible match by feeling attraction to those cues.

    Later on, his behavior and talents can compound upon or reinforce her original thoughts/feelings about him. If she feels attracted to him physically, his actions can reinforce her opinions of him or shatter them.

    Watching a man that a woman finds physically attractive doing an activity well, especially in comparison to other males, is major catnip. His domination or prowess of an activity reinforces her idea that the man before her is of good quality.

    @ Lokland

    I think you might want to lock men on an island and have a Battle Royale or some such nonsense to see whos the best.
    Not happening.

    Judge whatever you want to give you tingles. Thats not going to stop other dudes from thinking some guys a loser for being able to pull of a headshot.

    I understand that. It still doesn’t make it any less important to some women. Who would you rather impress, your buddies or women? That question is irrelevant to you somewhat, considering you have a fiance, but I’m sure you catch my drift.

    In all honesty, why would I care about what some women deem important if my objective is to date men? If I paid as much attention to what some women wanted men to find attractive, I’d be running around weighing 250 lbs and sporting a pixie cut. I don’t though. Instead, I keep a trim figure, keep my hair long and healthy, and maintain a feminine frame.

    Other women might think it’s dumb for me to cater to a man’s attractions. I call it, “playing for one’s audience”.

  • Dogsquat

    Lokland said:

    “When you have an asshole at the top who takes all the credit the turnover rate of his followers is usally pretty quick. Good leaders tend to have a core group of talented beta-SIC types that stick with them for years. Those are the groups most guys dream of being a part of.”
    ___________________________
    Agreed.

    This was always one of the hardest concepts to teach to my young Marine NCOs.

    Say you, Corporal Lokland, are squad leader of 2nd Squad, and I am your Platoon Commander.

    To me, YOU are 2nd Squad. If one of your guys goes out and gets busted fucking a hooker, well, YOU just fucked a hooker in my eyes, and I don’t want to hear about some asshole named PFC Smith. You’d better get your hooker problem under control, Corporal, or I will take a giant shit on your forehead. Are we clear?

    Now, if 2nd Squad rescues some kittens, kills some Bad Guys, and brings in a pile of actionable intel – THAT’S when I want to hear about how you couldn’t have done it without LCpl Johnson and PFC Jones, and those guys are badass, and blah blah blah…

    I’ll already know about you being a good squad leader because your squad did some badass shit. It’s a given. I want to know who I can count on for future leadership positions, and if I need to get a medal for any of your guys to incentivize Badass Behavior.

    This also helps you as a squad leader. Your guys (who are young and don’t know how the system works) will see that you’re looking out from them. PFC Smith, the whoremonger, sees you get an asschewing because of him, and not once did you attempt to sell him out. He knows he owes you, and he’ll take whatever punishment you mete out. He’ll also have more respect for you, and think of you as looking out for him.

    It’s kind of weird to write out like that, and seems grossly unfair to the Corporals like Lokland, but it works pretty well.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Richard Aubrey

    Men dominating in FREAKIN’ VIDEO GAMES? Obliterating other guys in FREAKIN’ VIDEO GAMES?

    What would I prefer women be attracted to?
    Apparently that doesn’t matter, but for the record; competence in dealing with the meat world, including other people who might be a problem. Integrity. Sufficient experience with actual, real, genyoowine, Bad Things that he doesn’t have to fake it with cycle leathers and a permanent stubble and copping an attitude with people not capable of calling him on it. Wit without malice and conversation without betrayal. Being grounded and not swayed by others’ opinion. Loyalty. Manners in the sense of never offending anyone inadvertently.
    I suspect I’m describing somebody who ought to take Holy Orders for all the good it’s going to do him.

    I take it that you never read the lengthy recounts of my ex boyfriend in previous threads. I did not, under any circumstances, like him only because of the fact that he dominated in video games.

    He was very alpha. He was handsome, smart, and driven. He had a good career and he made a substantial amount of money. He was a leader amongst his friends. He was very dominant, to a fault sometimes.

    He drove a sports car way too fast, which I kind of enjoyed. He was dominant/aggressive in bed and was by far the best sexual partner I had ever had. He oozed masculinity, and I was very devoted to him

    I got a taste of all of that before actually sitting down and watching him play video games. When I saw that he dominated those too, my response was “Duh, of course he would”, and it only fueled my desire for him even more.

    Being good at video games was by no means the reason I was attracted to him. Watching him dominate others in video games, however, was a little extra lighter fluid to an already raging inferno.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Sassy.
    I repeat, “FREAKIN VIDEO GAME?”
    Okay. He’s a great guy. But a “FREAKIN VIDEO GAME” is extra???????

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    Now, neither. Before, neither.
    I have more important shit to worry about.

    Guys have this wonderful thing. If we don’t want to be on display then we are not on display. Women don’t get that option.

    Another bonus is that lets hypothetically say a woman gets approached X number of times per month. I can realistically double to quadruple X number of approaches in an afternoon if I want to (but fuck would I need a nap afterwords).

    Theres no need for us to be “on” all the time. If one piece of tail walks past its not the end of the world. Whereas for women that might be baby 1 of 3 that just slipped away forever.

    Note: Core game tenet is to never not approach. In the beginning thats important because classic excuse for the guy with approach anxiety is I’m to busy or I’ll get the next one. After you know you can and do your able to take your foot off the gas.

    @DS

    I’ve seen that same dynamic play out in both business and academia. Admitedly no one gets shot at but when someone fucks up its on the “leaders” head. Though some of those leaders are just managers and those teams are genuinely screwed.

    I will agree that having a real leader who takes shit for his team is probably one of the best ways to foster loyalty (to a point, obviously).

    Women won’t ever get it though. I’ve tried. No matter how masculine. Their definition of loyalty, good leader and alpha are fundamentally different than mens.

    Even worse is most men won’t either because our society doesn’t foster creation of these types of men. (I know nothing about military so that could be a different story.) Which is why I think a lot of talented beta guys would kill to be part of a good group but theirs simply not enough leaders to go around.

  • Richard Aubrey

    What is it with this thing? Anyway, if a great guy enthused about his gaming skill and energy, he’d be off my list of anything but, possibly, ballast if I were sailing, which I don’t.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Richard Aubrey

    I repeat, “FREAKIN VIDEO GAME?”
    Okay. He’s a great guy. But a “FREAKIN VIDEO GAME” is extra???????

    What do you want me to say man? It is what it is. No matter what I bring up, the men on here seem to take offense to it. I mention that I find men who ride motorcycles attractive, and there is a slight disturbance. I mention that I found it attractive that my alpha ex dominated in competitive video games, and this conversation happens.

    I’m not sure what I’m expected to say to appease you guys, honestly.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Sassy. Nobody’s asking for an explanation or appeasement.
    I/possibly we/ are suggesting that ordinary guys look at that and wonder WTF. As I say, it’s your business.
    It is what it is, which is the problem.
    What ordinary guys value–some of which I referred to above–does not raise the tingle. That’s the point. The disconnect. In fact, some of what ordinary guys think is pretty rotten–dark triad, assholish, etc–does raise the tingle.
    Okay. We get the message. Now what? Well, it wasn’t our idea, was it?

  • J

    Still other dudes fall under what Vox Day classifies as Sigmas. These guys are true lone-wolf types, distrustful of hierarchy and almost entirely internally motivated. Again, if they’re talented enough, those types go far. Most people aren’t, and I think it’s a mistake for an average guy to aspire to Sigmadom.

    As the wife of one sigma and the mother or another, I would say that sigmas are born, not made. It’s not something you can aspire to, or should aspire to. It’s also not the easy personality type to relate to. My DH was dumped by a number of women who loved him but eventually found him too aloof. It became painful for them to be with him. As a sigma, he took it philosophically, but he also did some heavy screening to see if I could deal with that before before getting involved with me.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Dogs…”To me, YOU are 2nd Squad”

    There was a fire on a USN aircraft carrier a while back….started because an idiot sailor was smoking in a paint locker.

    The Captain wasn’t the one doing the smoking, nor was the the sailor’s immediate supervisor, nor was he the one who had accepted the guy into the Navy in the first place. But he was still relieved of command.

  • Emily

    I think women respond to “fake” Alpha triggers (motorcycles etc.) because our current culture doesn’t really offer very many opportunities for men to demonstrate the real thing.

    Overall, women do tend to respond favourably to the professions that evoke a primal “protector” role (ie. firemen, policemen, and based on reports here even bouncers).

  • OffTheCuff

    Sassy 170 – more likely, there will be one man disagree. You’re pretty clear on what you want, so what you said makes perfect sense to me. (My wife always called the saxophone a “fuck me” instrument. Who am I to disagree?)

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Interesting comments and observations re: alpha males, dangerous skills, etc. I think you could imagine a 2×2 matrix depicting male skills or traits with “Respected by Men: YES/NO” on the vertical axis and “Attractive to Women: YES/NO” on the horizontal. The result would be four quadrants:

    1. YES: YES (things that men respected AND women found attractive);

    2. YES: NO (things that men respected, but women did not find attractive);

    3. NO: YES (things that men did not respect, but women did find attractive);

    4. NO: NO (things that neither sex found compelling)

    It would seem that most guys would be best off identifying and developing the Category 1 traits.

    The general overlay that men tend to use when evaluating an alpha male is how “badass” he is, i.e., how he would perform in some wildly violent close-range fight in a bar, a pit, a prison cell, or a house in Kandahar.

    There are, in my experience, two apex predator archetypes in the badass game: elite military operators and professional MMA fighters. Being in the presence of these men will reliably cause other men (not 100% of the time, but close) to react with a degree of honest genuflection/deference or, in some cases, immediate defensiveness. In a more extreme example the two can be combined in one example—pro fighter and Army SF veteranTim Kennedy would be one guy like this, but there are others.

    Of course, women do not typically have immediate access to a man’s DoD214 or NFL Combine scores or mixed-martial arts training background or whatever, so she may have to make judgments based on what she can actually observe and how congruent those features are with her mental picture of an exciting, dangerous badass. This may be where things like the motorcycle come in.

    I think one sense of male confusion may be this: some of the popular PUA gurus that have posted clips on youtube and elsewhere do not have a “command presence” or athletic physicality that suggests an ability to survive very long in one of those violent alpha male crucible environments. Yet these men are, despite these apparent handicaps, allegedly good enough with the ladies that their advice is worth purchasing (note: clearly successes are often self-reported and difficult to verify, there are many incentives to lie, and supporting evidence may be subject to heavy editing, artifice, mutual tugjobs, and manipulation, so who knows. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt in the interests of moving the argument forward).

    Now, according to that Procreate/Provide/Protect framework, being a physically dangerous badass would satisfy a Protector role, but it would not necessarily mean that a man was hot (Procreation stud) or had the money/education/social resources to provide the woman with a glamorous, perhaps even aristocratic lifestyle (Provider stud). So an effeminate PUA using a behavioral correlate strategy that did not indicate that he was a badass could still be effectively signaling on the other two dimensions and providing evidence of looks (high-quality sperm) or money.

    I think some posters here may be troubled by the thought that women are not being equipped with the best tools to differentiate a legit badass from a pretender (not that our best-case example of a powerfully-built, yoked-up combat athlete with “Sua Sponte” and winged-skull tattoos, a remarkably good tan, short hair, an expensive dive watch, paramilitary kit items and MMA training gear in his trunk, unusually efficient physical movements, etc. is going to be particularly subtle). If so, might this be an opportunity for the boys to share their insights into “badass detection” with the girls, in the interests of making the girls better comparison shoppers in the SMP…?

  • Richard Aubrey

    Emily. You may be right about the opportunities for demonstrating a certain rough competence in the meat world today. Up until about a hundred and fifty years ago, there were a hell of a lot of small farmers in any population. That meant, among other things, bossing around refractory draft animals, including whole males who were needed for breeding and generally didn’t take well to direction. Then some had to be killed as a matter of routine. The physical accomplishments included using all the old hand tools for farming.
    Then you had to run off the predators and pests and at least once in a while team up with the neighbors against the two-legged variety.
    I had an old, old book called “Old Tales and Legends of The New England Border”. In the first quarter to third of the book, most men were referred to by a military–either courtesy after one war or another or current militia–rank.
    The whole business required imposing oneself on one’s environment in a pretty overt way. This is part of alpha.
    The same might be true of many jobs, although the miners and millworkers and railroad guys didn’t do it in the presence of women as farmers did–their wives and other women of the area who might be on their way by on errands or visiting–and were known by other men by their skill and resolve or lack–and the women heard it. Still, the forensic anthropology of guys gone only a couple of hundred years tells of pretty serious musculature, not to mention injuries borne with.
    So, yeah, today not so much.

    Bastiat. It doesn’t bother me–now that I’ve calmed down–directly that some women fall for the fake badass package–leathers and stubble–as much as it bothers me that ordinary guys are getting the message that fake badass attracts women. That message has two pieces. One is that an ordinary guy has to get his leather (metaphorically speaking) to deal successfully with women. The other is that a woman so attracted looks kind of…shallow, frivolous, dumb…and so the guy is faking badass in order to succeed with women whom he does not respect.
    Well, as Sassy says, it is what it is.
    Great.

  • SayWhaat

    us moderate atheists (though I must admit to having no respect for any belief system)

    Feral Employee, did you know that atheism was actually originally a Hindu philosophical idea?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

  • SayWhaat

    Yeah, I’m a fan too. They had Jane describe game disparagingly, but at the same time, the writers presented it in a pretty balanced way. Kimball Cho was used to portray it positively in the story-line.
    That was the first time I noticed Game portrayed at all in the media. I suspect it won’t be the last.

    A couple weeks ago, I grabbed a few drinks with buddies from improv (I was the only woman). Somehow, we got onto the topic of Game. These guys were more than a little familiar with it; one of them had tried it out and given “The Game” by Neil Strauss to one of his friends who needed the extra help. According to my friend at GA Tech, all of the nerds there use Game. It’s not surprising to me that Game is popping up in the media; Game has gone completely mainstream.

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

      It’s not surprising to me that Game is popping up in the media; Game has gone completely mainstream.

      I agree. Back in 2003, my son and his high school friends passed around Neil Strauss’s The Game – everyone read it. I think this explains the explosion in behaviors like negging, often done poorly, i.e. calling a girl fat.

      I’ve noticed that when I write posts or comments objecting to Dark Game, several male bloggers will say “Walsh overestimates how many guys know this stuff. She’s acting like there’s a real risk of this going mainstream.” Of course, that’s not a valid logical argument, but it’s also untrue. The fact that there’s a bestselling book about Impostor Assholes proves it.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Richard Aubrey

    Bastiat. It doesn’t bother me–now that I’ve calmed down–directly that some women fall for the fake badass package–leathers and stubble–as much as it bothers me that ordinary guys are getting the message that fake badass attracts women. That message has two pieces. One is that an ordinary guy has to get his leather (metaphorically speaking) to deal successfully with women. The other is that a woman so attracted looks kind of…shallow, frivolous, dumb…and so the guy is faking badass in order to succeed with women whom he does not respect.
    Well, as Sassy says, it is what it is.
    Great.

    This is what is bothering me. You are running off on tangents and putting words in people’s mouths just because you don’t like what you’re hearing. That’s on you.

    Also, you and I went around and around before on a different thread when I discussed my thoughts on the concept of “edge”. I said specifically that any edge a guy has needs to be authentic. He should have the edge of his own accord, not solely because he wants to attract women. Men who like motorcycles simply because they enjoy motorcycles, like the guy I’ve been recently seeing, are attractive. Men that play sports because they have a genuine love for the game are also in the category. The same thing goes for musicians.

    If a guy wants to get tattoos because he wants tattoos, how is it fake? Also, why would a man not respect a woman who is attracted to certain qualities about him? Why is that bad in your eyes?

    I never said that I wanted a guy to peacock around with fake traits. I want a guy to be happy in his own skin. I just happen to be attracted to men with edgier or more rugged skin.

    You seem to think that all types of “edge” are fake. Why is that?

  • FeralEmployee

    @SayWhaat

    A nice little detail, albeit one coming from Wikipedia. But what’s your point? If you are implying that I wouldn’t be atheist without the help of Hinduists, you must be mistaken. Because:

    1. Atheism was most likely present long before that, but not in an organized manner on large scale. Many people denounce religion under the stress of war, famine, losing relatives. For others it’s a nuisance and unimportant.

    2. It’ll pop up in advanced cultures that have progressed in science and have found explanations for various natural phenomena. If the Nords knew about electrical potential and capacitors, there wouldn’t be Thor, or Zeus for the Greeks. When atheism became more widespread in Europe, I doubt it was because of Hinduism philosophy.

    3. In the same I can hold up a mirror to your own religion (Christianity right?) and point to the fact it plagiarizes on many elements present in geographically neighboring religions. Virgin birth, sun god, … they’re far from unique.

    Nice detail though.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Sassy. You and I may have different views of “edge”. IMO, if it’s authentic, it’s not “edge”.
    Note the PUA advice, the dating advice, the comments here and otherwise telling men they need “edge”. Now, that presumes that the men addressed don’t have edge. So if they get it, they get it retail. IOW, fake. And it’s supposed to work, or why the advice.
    If a guy is a rock climber for real, it’s within his limits, doesn’t stress him beyond his abilites, and thus looks about as edgy as being modestly skilled in contract bridge. For example, when I played lacrosse…I played lacrosse. I was fit, enjoyed contact and the cheerful brigands on the team. But when I wasn’t playing lacrosse…I wasn’t. Moving as if I were fit was offset by moving as if I were injured one way or another. No “edge” to it.

    When I was in the Army, airborne qualified, I was qualified to jump out of an airplane and kill people, or run a platoon doing it. When I wasn’t doing that…I wasn’t. As it happened, by shattering bad luck, I never did. So, other than flat belly, thick arms, tight haircut and most recent shower, I looked like a sillyvilian when not in uniform. No edge there. Maybe I had posture going for me. Big deal.
    Closest thing I had to edge was when in a field project which, for reasons of ancient history, selected for heart and against mesomorphs, me being an exception to the latter. It was in genuinely dicey area and some of the women in the group–I found out later–were seriously interested in me. If I’d figured that out, I’d have figured it was the uterus telling the brain, find us somebody to take care of business and we’ll worry about table manners later, and would have been OVER when we were twenty miles on the road home. So the mesomorphic, martial arts “edge” did me no good and if I’d noticed that it had, so to speak, I’d have avoided the results.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Richard Aubrey

    Sassy. You and I may have different views of “edge”. IMO, if it’s authentic, it’s not “edge”.
    Note the PUA advice, the dating advice, the comments here and otherwise telling men they need “edge”. Now, that presumes that the men addressed don’t have edge. So if they get it, they get it retail. IOW, fake. And it’s supposed to work, or why the advice.
    If a guy is a rock climber for real, it’s within his limits, doesn’t stress him beyond his abilites, and thus looks about as edgy as being modestly skilled in contract bridge. For example, when I played lacrosse…I played lacrosse. I was fit, enjoyed contact and the cheerful brigands on the team. But when I wasn’t playing lacrosse…I wasn’t. Moving as if I were fit was offset by moving as if I were injured one way or another. No “edge” to it.

    We are definitely defining “edgy” differently, hence the confusion. Thanks for clarifying.

  • Wudang

    “What do you want me to say man? It is what it is. No matter what I bring up, the men on here seem to take offense to it. I mention that I find men who ride motorcycles attractive, and there is a slight disturbance. I mention that I found it attractive that my alpha ex dominated in competitive video games, and this conversation happens.

    I’m not sure what I’m expected to say to appease you guys, honestly.”

    I highly apreceate your descriptions of what you find attractive in men. It is very educational and i find it refreshing and a good quality that you are able to see it so clearly. I don`t think there is anything wrong in liking dominant men, that a man drives a motor cycle, that he has a credit card that requires a ton of money or dominates in a video game. I perfectly get that that is attractive and besides women don`t get to choose what men find attractive and men don`t get to choose what women find attractive. I rather enjoyed reading how just being into some thrill seeking sports or a martial art or riding a motorcycle could provide quite a lot of edge and tingle. Those are fairly easy things to add for a guy if he wants add in a little extra. I also much rather know how things work than be led astray again.

    I think guys also should consider that learning that reality, and to a reasonable and healthy degree adapting to it, might be good for you. When I was 14,15,16 the nice guy shaming hadn`t hit me that hard yet and it was at that time girls really started to interest me. I felt compelled at the time to compete with other boys, be acepted in a group, take a lot of (insane) risks, be tough, be fearless, be strong, be “alpha” etc. All of that felt natural. It felt both like something I was drawn to for the sake of it but also for the sake of competing over girls. Instinctively I knew what was attractive in those regards and I didn`t feel sory for myself in any way whatsover. It did not even occur to me. At the same time as I naturally felt girls would be attracted to all those traits it felt instinctual to be nice to the girl I was interested in. What did not feel instinctual was how to flirt and escalate sexually, I didn`t get that at all, so the first few girls I fooled arround with had to seduce me because I lacked that initiative. Then the nice guy shaming started to really hit me from teachers, media, girls, parents etc. and this combined with my desire to be a good person and my teenage willingness to do whatever it took to get into girls pants lead to me developing a bunch of the classic nice guy traits and nice guy behaviors towards girls in addition to being quite “alpha” in a general sense. Only after years on being on that mental track did I in any sort of way feel pissed that my “niceness” wasen`t enough. Genuine nice still has high value when combined with strength (marriedmansexlife) so there is no reason really to mope that it doesn`t matter at all because it does in the right context. My 15 year old self was perfectly happy with both the role of alpha and beta in that sense. And I think the reason why that was so instinctual was that it actually tends to be that way for at least a lot of guys unless they receive bad programming. It does make sense that we would come equipped with both an instinct for understanding and LIKING what we need to do in order to attract women. And indeed the more I return to my old understanding the more I enjoy the process, myself and life. Some of the zombie like deadness I assosiate with the nice guy state is gone and replaced with a much crisper clearer feeling. I think that is because the strategy of using niceness and comittment and all of that as THE strategy to get women is an ESCAPE. The reasoning is that “oh instead of doing all of these difficult things that might cause me pain and that I might loose at I can just be extra, extra nice”. The problem is that your subconcious and your body knows thats bulshit on some level and so you will never actually feel as good following that route as the realistic route.

    The absolute king of first world problems would have to be the problem that men today “have to” compete in videogames. I`d say it`s vastly preferable to competing as a real Gladiator or any of the other extremely violent ways men used to have to compete.

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

    I actually think there is a guarantee that the bad boy will run for the hills when there is the need to protect the ones he “loves” The biggest talkers I’ve known have also been the biggest cowards. It’s the quiet ones that you need to watch.

    Yeah I seen that a lot in my country the “Alpha asshole” cares about only one thing: Himself. Reminds me of Wesley Snipes in a movie where he played the bad ass drug dealer and when someone started to shoot him he used the body of a 6 year old girl to cover himself.

    For example, I am a natural follower/subordinate leader. In my bones I am a Sergeant and always will be. For me to be most happy and effective, I need a cause bigger than myself to fit in to. I have no desire to be King, but I’d be a hell of an Earl. I enjoy being in a relationship for this reason – my girl and our relationship are much more important to me than me alone.

    I wonder if this is part of the attraction trigers I consider myself a “power behind the throne” kind of girl (the results is what matter no the praise) and my husband is the type that will do the right thing even if he doesn’t get the credit. I don’t find overtly powerful men or men that seem to have a hunger for status attractive maybe because they are not my natural counterpart? Of course that will put the Game and the women falling for it in the same level, interesting though.

    Is it wrong for a woman to feel aroused at the sight of a man being the top dog in video games? Is it wrong for a woman to tingle at the sight of a man running circles around his competition on the basketball court? Was it wrong of women in the past to throw themselves at the champions of the gladiator arena?

    Maybe part of the the problem is that if this guy ever finds another guy that beats him why would a woman that wants the top dog only will stay with him? Men value loyalty as much as beauty.

    I wanted to comment that Dogsquat description of male hierarchy formation applies very well in a culture with a lot less Alphas than Betas. In my culture were every man is “born to lead” there is not such a thing as organization at least on the lower classes more like when Rome was constantly killing Ceasar’s. They might swear loyalty to the leader but they are secretly plotting to undermine him, regardless of if he is the best man for the job or not.

  • SayWhaat

    FE,

    A nice little detail, albeit one coming from Wikipedia. But what’s your point? If you are implying that I wouldn’t be atheist without the help of Hinduists, you must be mistaken.

    Nope, not implying that you wouldn’t be atheist without the help of Hindus*. I just thought you might find it interesting that a “religion” (I don’t consider Hinduism to be a religion so much as a philosophy/lifestyle choice) accepts and in fact owns atheism, to some degree.

    Also, a study found that Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica.

    1. Atheism was most likely present long before that, but not in an organized manner on large scale. Many people denounce religion under the stress of war, famine, losing relatives. For others it’s a nuisance and unimportant.

    Hey, look, I’m not really trying to have an argument here. I don’t disagree with you on this point.

    2. It’ll pop up in advanced cultures that have progressed in science and have found explanations for various natural phenomena. If the Nords knew about electrical potential and capacitors, there wouldn’t be Thor, or Zeus for the Greeks. When atheism became more widespread in Europe, I doubt it was because of Hinduism philosophy.

    Agreed. I think atheism arose in the West as more of a reaction against the more fervid religious thought.

    3. In the same I can hold up a mirror to your own religion (Christianity right?)

    Nope. Hindu. :D

    and point to the fact it plagiarizes on many elements present in geographically neighboring religions. Virgin birth, sun god, … they’re far from unique.

    Dude, preaching to the choir here. I am fully aware of all of this. Christianity had to adopt pagan characteristics in order to become accepted as part of the local culture, hence why the birth of Christ is celebrated on the winter solstice even though Jesus was actually born in the spring or summer.

    Anyways, like I said, I wasn’t looking for an argument. I just thought it might spark an interesting (albeit off-topic) discussion.

  • OffTheCuff

    Fascinating stuff, SayWhaat.

  • FeralEmployee

    @SayWhaat

    I understand, not trying to start an argument here. Just one thing though: no idea just owns another idea. The context of how one arose in the middle of another can be very complex. As a counter example, rendering your statement somewhat… hypocritical:

    Galileo had to retract his discovery of heliocentric planetary motion, because the Church (I’m more familiar with Christianity) had a geocentric model in place and didn’t allow for any critique. Was he a devout Catholic, or was he keeping up appearances because an massive archaic institute high on power was waving the proverbial gun in his face? Likewise for many other early European scientists. They needs funds, and see that the Church has all the money.

    Now say many have somewhat of an atheist mindset, but in the middle of a religious society somewhat hostile to them. What strategy can be used to defuse the bomb? If you can’t beat them, join them. Many people are gullible, and if you dress it up nicely it might just pass under the radar of the Church.

    Though what I am saying is purely hypothetical, it shows there are many ways for atheism to become accepted in a religious culture. So I’m skeptical whether Hinduism genuinely “owned” atheism from the beginning. I’d be more inclined to say it is the equivalent of a patent troll.

    On the article: Nature is a scientific magazine, would it not surprise you if they focused on the areas that are relevant to them? I don’t see atheism popping up as a point of discussion in their magazine (I should know, I’m subscribed to it). When it comes to mathematics, science, I can agree that Wikipedia is somewhat reliable. Though I’d prefer to consult Scholarpedia first (peer reviewed).

    On hot topics… not so much. Be aware that many of the basic concepts in mathematics are static and unlikely to change over time. There are laws and proofs. When it comes to say feminism, there is a rich plethora of opinions, not necessarily in unison. Which one makes it to Wikipedia, and what controversial content will be allowed on their wiki page?

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    You know, ive been just quietly reading along here and would like to make a few observations.

    Most discussions here often turn into moral indignation-fests, where either guys, gals, or both, get their backs up in moral rectictude and want to tell the other side “how it is”. Aside from from the fact that its an utter waste of time, its also a massive display of lower value like a mfer. Whining, moaning and complaining about why men/women are *sexually attracted* to whoever, only marks you out to be a bitter loser in the rat race that is the mating game of life. Real rap, nothing personal.

    The real reason why game and its close cousin, evolutionary psychology gets so many howls of derision on both sides of the gender divide, is because…wait for it…

    Its true.

    In fact, it so true that many of game/evopsych’s biggest critics will tell you proudly that they are woefully and blissfully ignorant of what either body of knowledge even has to say. For example, socalled sex positive feminist clarrisse thorn, on her socalled “ethical pickup artistry” post on her blog, told me flatout that she “fucking hates evopsych” and then proceeded to highly recommend “sex at dawn” to her readers-*even while she freely admits that she hasnt even read it*. She endorses the book unseen (and unread!) because it reinforces her worldview, not because it poses any legitimate counterargument to evopsych.

    And the same can be said for a not insignificant number of guys too-no one here needs me to recount the various and sundried enclaves within the manosphere that are chockfull of deeply bitter men, furious that they lack what it takes to be successful in todays mating market, and worse, refuse to do anything about it. They can pontificate on their high horse till the cows come home-nobody, least of all women, are fooled by the act.

    The reason why i love game/evopsych is because it strips away the veneer of “pretty lies” and lies bare the naked truth for all to see. It forces you to be brutally honest with yourself-which is one reason why, when it comes to game, that it has a relatively high attrition rate. Because lots of guys simply dont want to do whats necesary to truly win out there on the smp.

    In many ways, the same is true for some women, especially the more vocal ones (like feminists)-they know better than anyone why their relationship lives suck but its too painful to openly and squarely admit that they simply are not hot enough to get the guys they really want; so its easier to launch into all these silly tirades.

    This is why a number of people get upset with me when i say as a first principle, that game is amoral; “morality” has nothing to do with sexual attraction. Being a socalled good guy isnt enough (and we can say the same for the female version). You simply must be sexually attractive-and achieving that is just plain harder for some than others.

    If you havent done so already you owe it to yourself to read “the evolution of desire” by david buss. His interactions with naysayers repays close study. The bookf first came out in 1994. Nearly 20 years later, its a classic-despite all the efforts by feminists etc et al to shut him down. The same can be said for “the game”, itself a longtime nyt bestseller, and more. Heck even lady raine couldnt stop roissy-only put a slight cramp in his style.

    Nothing will stop the truth from coming out-that not only who we are sexually attracted to is basically hardwired into us, but THERE ARE NOW, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, AND WILL ALWAYS BE, LOSERS IN THE MATING GAME RAT RACE. If it means anything to the ladies reading along, there will be twice as many bachelors as spinsters. But all losers just the same.

    Only by courageously facing up to these facts of life can we ever have any hope of doing something about them. As it stands, game is the guys standing on the outside looking ins last best hope.

    Either get with the program, or kiss your bloodline goodbye.

    I am not joking.

    O.

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

      @Obsidian

      I find your straight talk refreshing and necessary. I have been trying to communicate this recently – there are no “bad” things about female or male sexuality. It just is, and it’s the product of evolution. It’s so much more productive (and encouraging) to address what we can, even if it’s a steep climb. As you say, it’s a total waste of time to complain about how the other sex is wired. I went so far recently as to claim that if you removed female hypergamy and the male desire for sexual variety from the species, we’d die out in no time. I stand by that claim.

      And of course you’re right about winners and losers. It’s not surprising that some men simply resign themselves to not attempting to reproduce (figuratively speaking, not describing men who don’t want kids). And now women like Kate Bolick are banding together to celebrate their single status – because it beats the alternative of spending the second half of your life miserable.

  • SayWhaat

    Though what I am saying is purely hypothetical, it shows there are many ways for atheism to become accepted in a religious culture. So I’m skeptical whether Hinduism genuinely “owned” atheism from the beginning. I’d be more inclined to say it is the equivalent of a patent troll.

    You’re right, I worded that poorly. What I meant to say was that Hindu philosphical thought* includes atheism in its thinking. I think the overall point I was trying to make was that atheism doesn’t necessarily have to be devoid of spiritual practice — I was simply pointing to Hinduism as an example of how it was done.

  • Dogsquat

    Obsidian said:
    “It forces you to be brutally honest with yourself-which is one reason why, when it comes to game, that it has a relatively high attrition rate. Because lots of guys simply dont want to do whats necesary to truly win out there on the smp.

    In many ways, the same is true for some women, especially the more vocal ones (like feminists)-they know better than anyone why their relationship lives suck but its too painful to openly and squarely admit that they simply are not hot enough to get the guys they really want; so its easier to launch into all these silly tirades. ”
    ______________________

    For many guys, Red Pilling themselves is like that moment on a road trip whence you discover you took a wrong turn – 6 hours ago.

    At the moment of discovery, everybody pounds the steering wheel in frustration. You pull off the road, impugn the Roadtrip Gods for forsaking you, and start doing some math:

    Is the destination still worth it? By fucking up 6 hours ago you might have just added 12 hours to your trip – the time you’ve already wasted, 6 hours back to the mistake, and THEN start driving the right way.

    Some dudes don’t think so. The calculus has changed, and they begin to wander. They stop at roadside attractions and pick up those pamphlets at rest-stops, going to whichever one is most interesting.

    Other guys say,”Fuck this, I’m going home.” They might be influenced by many things – their car not being in good shape, lack of funds for the 3 additional tanks of gas, fatigue, time constraints making the delay a dealbreaker, or simply quitting out of plain sheer cussedness.

    Yet another set of guys buys better maps or a GPS at the closest truck stop. He wants to get where he was going, but realizes he’s got to be a lot more careful now. That dude will check in with gas station attendants and make sure he’s still headed the right way. Sometimes he’ll find a shortcut. He’s resolved to get there – better late than never.

    The hardcore feminist, upon realizing her mistake (pardon! Not her mistake, that’s shaming language! I meant to say that a geo-temporal injustice was committed against her), gets on the phone to her congressional representative. She tells that representative to have her destination moved to where she is RIGHT NOW. If she should ask a gas station attendant for directions, she will lash out upon hearing she’s in the wrong place, accusing the attendant for being too judgmental and close-minded about geography. She will start a blog about how sexist Dwight Eisenhower was, as evidenced by the deleterious effect the Interstate Highway System had on her vacation.

    Goddamn you, Dwight Eisenhower.

    God Damn You To Hell.

  • Linseed

    @ Obsidian. The problem isn’t with evolutionary psychology. It’s with what happens to it when it gets into the minds and fingertips of lay bloggers. A former gamesman writes about that here.

    http://postmasculine.com/evolution and
    http://postmasculine.com/a-new-masculinity

  • Iggles

    Obsidian @ 192,

    Excellent comment. I agree with you. Life isn’t fair, but you have to KNOW and actively PURSUE your objective if you want it. All talk, no action isn’t going to get you anywhere. I know those in the man-o-sphere are angry and blowing off steam but complaining alone isn’t productive.

    I’ve always been relationship-oriented. I know that it’s not just societal pressure or the media — I’m happiest when I’m in a relationship. Having a “partner in crime” to share my life with is very important to me. However, I’ve been involuntarily single for long periods of time. Did not date during my teen years. Had a LTR that last thorough my early twenties (4yrs) followed by another period of not dating (roughly 18 mos).

    When I finally “woman-ed up” and realized a new relationship wasn’t going to magically drop from the sky. That I would have to put in some work to find the right guy, which included putting myself out there socially (I’m a shy, introvert) and learning dating rules I missed out on during my formative years — yes, it was uncomfortable but I knew I had to make changes because my old way of doing things wasn’t working. Like on Athol’s site, when he tells men to become a better version of themselves, I put the same principle into motion (though interestingly this was before I heard of MMSL or HUS). Ironically, the best piece of advice I got from from a friend who told me point blank that I needed change the way I dressed in everyday life (her words, “Stop dressing like a child” Lol, I relied on jeans + t-shirts way too much, combined with my babyface didn’t help me look my age!).

    Anyway, I took a more active role in dating and surprise, surprise – went on dates! Five month into this process (or rather new state of being) I met my current boyfriend. I went through a lot of personal growth in a small period of time, and it’s definitely been worth it.

    Nothing will stop the truth from coming out-that not only who we are sexually attracted to is basically hardwired into us, but THERE ARE NOW, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, AND WILL ALWAYS BE, LOSERS IN THE MATING GAME RAT RACE. If it means anything to the ladies reading along, there will be twice as many bachelors as spinsters. But all losers just the same.

    Actually, that does mean something to me, lol! Only because society seems so much harsher and judgmental towards woman who aren’t/never marry — I’ve always assumed there are more women in this camp than men..

  • Sassy6519

    @ Obsidian #192

    Preach brother……PREACH!

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    Dogsquat

    Excellent points made re: manager/leader and it made me think of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee who was something of both (in the circumstances of the Civil War). He too surrounded himself with very very good subordinates, none greater then Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Some historians have argued that if Jackson had been with Lee at Gettysburg he’d have understood Lee’s somewhat vaguely worded charge to Ewell as a COMMAND and taken Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill, changing the entire narrative of the engagement. I’d add my 2 cents; if Stonewall had been there instead of Longstreet, I think it very likely that he’d have convinced Lee to abandon the investment of the Union position, take the Army of Northern Virginia around it and on to Washington, thus forcing Meade to fight like a real soldier, come off the hills and attack Lee to prevent Washington D.C. from being torched to the very ground.
    This of course would have played right into the Confederates hands, as maneuver, sudden deployment and swift tactical responses were their forte, not grim mano a mano attacks on fortified positions. If that had happened, there’d be a border crossing at the Mason Dixon Line and no SEC football in the U.S. Anyway, “Mar’s” Lee illustrates all you to discuss here.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Sassy. Ref edge. I happened to think of an example. We started the lax club at Mich State in 1962. Several years ago, the guys who played the first few years had a reunion at a restaurant. I went into the place and asked the host for “the loud old guys”. He had hesitation in directing me toward a corner in the rear. As I went, I watched young couples at tables and booths, probably college kids dating. We had a good time and when I left, I watched the youngsters again.
    I addressed the young guys collectively and silently thus” “I bet you don’t cast a shadow. I bet you have a handshake like a slab of raw bacon. You’re lucky we’re all married or you’d be going home alone.”

    It strikes me that guys who have some kind of “it” genuinely may not know it. And, as I said earlier, they probably don’t even show it, it being so seamlessly a part of who they are. The SEALs at the funeral I referenced were like that. Except for a certain forcefulness in the gaze, you wouldn’t know. And if they’re not SEALing for Uncle Sugar, they look like ordinary guys who happen to be in shape.
    What annoys me and a good many men is that men who don’t have it are commended to–generically speaking–buy a Harley and a leather jacket and grow a stubble and cop an attitude and the women will be all over you. The hell of it is…it seems to work.
    And some of the guys who really have it don’t show it because it’s not relevant to their daily lives, and they watch the fakers….

    Dog. Hell of a thing to have to tell Snuffy to pop smoke and draw fire. Too bad you can’t drop something on the end of the street.
    George Patton said his idea for artillery was that they should be shooting. One WW II division commander said he saw his job as moving his FOs across Europe.
    My father was an Infantry platoon leader, shot in Holland, Belgium and Germany. When I got home from Benning, trying to explain restricted fire zones and no-fire zones and the authorization process for calling supporting fires, he didn’t believe me. Then he burst out, “What traitor made up that stuff?”
    Lot of our guys got hurt for lack of supporting fires and others got hurt some other time by Charlie who wasn’t killed when he should have been.
    And, I gather the ROE are worse now.
    Shame.

  • J

    Yeah I seen that a lot in my country the “Alpha asshole” cares about only one thing: Himself.

    Well, isn’t selfishness part of what defines “alpha”? Dark Triad traits, etc?

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @j:
    You know ive always been of the view that what really bothers (some) women about guys who aggresively lookout after their own interests is the fact that such guys go “off-script” as it were; theyre not supposed to do that. Only women are supposed to be able to lookout for their own interests-and in fact, men are supposed to subordinate their own interests to women’s. This of course, is born out of evolutionary reality-eggs expensive, sperm cheap-and which forms the basis of chivalry.

    Think about it.

    I teach my guys that theres a way to lookout for your own interests w/o being a butthead about it; a princely warlord, if you will.

    For example: women-especially those whom most men most of the time will agree are highly attractive, can and will use their looks to get things from men, from seats on mass transit to free drinks, meals, gifts and so on, *without putting out*. They do this largely because, men allow them to. When a guy like obsidian comes along and casually upsets the apple cart, these gals absolutely go ape doo-doo.

    For example: if im waiting on the bus/train and a seriously fine gal is waiting with me, i simply use my body language to be sure that i board first before she does; in fact if theres an elderly woman waiting with us, ill position my body such that she will board first, then me, then finally said hot babe. Then, once im on the bus ill make sure the elderly woman gets a seat and then find myself one-all the better if said hot babe winds up the loser in a kind of mass transit musical chairs. The message, while not verbal of course, is nevertheless loud and crystal clear:

    Your looks dont entitle you to special treatment.

    Another example: the club. Many hot chicas go there knowing full well that the vast majority of guys there are afc’s and will pay for all their drinks. I like striking up a convo with them just so they can ask me that one special question:

    “arent you going to buy me a drink?”

    Obsidians eyes light up; its showtime.

    O: *look of amused mastery* why? *says nothing else*

    HB: because thats what gentlemen are supposed to do, thats why.

    O: ah, i see. I have a better idea-how about you tell me an interesting story, & ill buy you any drink you want. Fair enough? *sly grin*

    HB: dissimulating look on her face

    O: ill be back in five minutes. Have an interesting story ready. *backturn, strides off*

    Now, see what i did there? ;)

    O.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @ms walsh:
    Thanks! Much appreciated.

    Yea, i recall very well your piece about ms kate bolick, “all the single ladies” it was called, yes? Named after one of beyonce’s hit songs (which in itself is a kind of cruel joke, given that she does NOT look like the average sista AND has snagged one of black americas most eligible brothas-god how women can be so gosh darn gullible). Ive been meaning to give my own take on your piece for sometime now-just been mad busy. But i should get around to it one of these days.

    Your remark about steep uphill climbs brings to mind something that i try to make clear to my guys: that not only is what youre doing not easy and takes lots of work, but it may not quite comport with the actual roi you get back. In other words, you put in mad work only to be able to get a 6, maybe a 6.5-is that something you can live with? Because if it isnt youre better off just staying where you are.

    The reason why i say that is because of the simple, brutal fact that dimes are always in short supply, and if youre not anywhere near what they want you wont even have a chance of getting next to her. Youll have to set your sights a bit lower, for something a bit more achieveable, and for some guys its just going a bridge too far, which i for one am completely cool with. One of the biggest mistakes many in the community make is to promise all this pie in the sky stuff to guys who need lots of work just to be able to sexually appeal to the average gal let alone the really hot ones. Itself something of a cruel joke.

    Yes, there are indeed real limits to what game can do and more importantly, said limits largely depend on what a guy is bringing to the table to begin with. And here again we face an ugly truth: that all men are not created equal; that some men are considerably “less than” than others.

    In order for a man to get the biggest bang for his game buck, he first has to know, understand and then accept, the limits of what game can reasonably do. If he does that he will be just fine; if not he will wind up one of those deeply bitter guys in the manosphere…

    O.

  • OffTheCuff

    Good post, Obs.

    But one thing to think of is, how you define success – you have any kids? I have three (2 boys, 1 girl) so if you go strictly by propagating bloodlines, I am likely ahead. Not only that, all my non-game-aware, low-partner-count, beta, married STEM friends are doing the same. 2 or 3 kids is most common. By most game standards, we are the failures since our counts are low.

    Sometimes I wonder if we are not discussing winners vs. losers, but rather winners vs. super-winners. Some lucky folks have their cake and eat it too, like our host here. Most people have to choose – either eat their cake, or just have it. A few have no cake at all.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @otc:
    Good questions.

    As ive said above, it is an human evolutionary fact, that most men dont reproduce. History records that there are twice as many bachelors as spinsters. That holds constant no matter where you go on the planet, regardless of culture or timeframe. This is due primarily to womens sexual psychology (men have proven to be far less discriminating than women when it comes to mating particularly of the short term kind).

    So, i guess my answer to you would be a kind of reiteration of what i said earlier-there have always been,and are now in our time, entire swaths of men who are shut out of the mating game entirely, and by extension the chance to sire kids. Hard to believe i know, but i think its fair to say, given the rise of the manosphere, that it is also hard to deny, yes?

    Most of the guys i ran into in the seduction community werent aiming to be mackdaddy of the year; they were just trying to find a girlfriend. Again, this truth runs counter to what many think they know of the community, largely because they have preconceived notions that have heavily invested in-in other words, they need to believe what they do about the sc. But those whove spent any amount of time there know the real deal. The number of guys who are just shut out entirely are just ridiculous.

    Trying to explain this fact to women, regardless as to how much evidence you bring to bear on the discussion, is like trying to explain quadratic equations to a salamander. Most women just cannot conceive of such a thing, largely due to their “tunnel vision” that f roger devlin has talked about, among others. Women honestly do have a kind of evolved filtering system that weeds out the undesirable males to such a highly refined degree, that they dont even notice them at all.

    Ill hold here.

    O.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Obsidian, you make a good point about men needing to look out for their own interests. Roy Baumeister’s newest book discusses how many concepts of manhood involve the expectation that a man produces more than he consumes; this reserve, or surplus, is then made available to the tribe or society. In exchange for this, the traditional man is given respect and viewed as a guardian, head of household, etc.

    Baumeister notes with some sadness that core assumptions that went into the surplus concept have been eroded by a variety of modern factors. In fact, it is possible that a man who deploys his surplus in the interests of others will lose out sexually to a more self-absorbed man who re-invests his surplus back into his own professional and personal development (the dividend/comfort vs. retained earnings/organic growth analogy may be obvious).

    At one point, this probably was policed by the expectations of older men: young guys would enter a life script pipeline that involved a steady if somewhat tedious job, marrying the HS or college sweetheart, buying a home, starting a family. A man could be told something like, “Ok, you’ve had your fun, now it is time to settle down and responsible.” Think of the implicit message involved here—“you’ve HAD your FUN” implies that part of becoming a man is, frankly, doing a lot of things that are not fun. The man becomes the society’s stoic shock absorber, and he puts up with this because he has to if he wants to be respected by his peers.

    If that model isn’t dead, it is certainly dying.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      Think of the implicit message involved here—”you’ve HAD your FUN” implies that part of becoming a man is, frankly, doing a lot of things that are not fun. The man becomes the society’s stoic shock absorber, and he puts up with this because he has to if he wants to be respected by his peers.

      If that model isn’t dead, it is certainly dying.

      Feminism has given women the “opportunity” to become shock absorbers. We’ve redefined women’s roles without addressing male roles (or maybe just usurping them). Current feminist response to the continued ascent of females in the workforce is enthusiastic.

      Meanwhile, incentives for men to fight for this role are few. Men’s peers are in the same boat, so they don’t really risk loss of respect. In addition, with fewer financial resources men are less likely to invest in family or property.

      It’s as if women tried to switch roles, and men are saying no thanks. Which puts women in a bad position, because most of us still want marriage and families. There’s no way we can be the shock absorbers and bear children without considerable assistance, which men do not seem particularly inclined to give.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @bb:
    Yes im quite familiar w/baumeister and very much like his work. However, i must ask about a certain tone in your post that really gets at the nub of all the teeth gnashing on the male side of things today:

    Who says that you cant be BOTH, sexy AND responsible? Since when did congress pass this law? I must have missed that one.

    I teach my guys that it is very possible to be a gentleman without also being a doormat, patsy or simp. Indeed, it is a symbol of strength for a man to do this, wrt his dealings w/both men and women alike. Because i lookout for my interests first and foremost does not mean that i cant or wont take a womans into account; that depends on several other factors, starting with whether she has any actual realworld connection to me. The problem here is that many women still think (and often, demand) that men owe it to them to subordinate their agendas/desires/interests to women, even when its clear said men have little if anything to gain in the excercise. An excellent case in point is the whole “can men and women just be friends” nonsense…

    …now, most men already know the answer-if a womans even remotely aattractive to you, “no”. Yet women will defend this notion all day everyday and for good reason: because women derive many (nonsexual) bennies from the association.

    Aside from confirming that she is very much desirable, having male friends gives her valuable intel into the male psychosexual psyche that she would not otherwise have; this helps her with her dealings with men she actually is interested in sexually. See how that works?

    Of course, because men get little if anything out of the experience, they cling for dear life to the orbiter strategy which has proven to have an 80% failure rate-hence one of my favorite maxims:

    Unless sex is on the table, it profits me nothing to spend large amounts of time around women.

    Now, that statement may sound as a bit harsh-but only if you buy into the idea that whatever is good for women must also by default, be good for men too.

    Moreover, it gives women unilateral power to dictate the terms of such associations-something that wouldnt be tolerated for one moment if the shoe was on the other foot. Think about it.

    As a man, i have every right to bring my sexual agenda with any woman i find desirable; and, in the event she declines my advances, i then retain the right to remain on “friendly” terms with her…or not.

    What do you think i do…hmm?

    ;)

    O.

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

    Your looks dont entitle you to special treatment.

    Isn’t this a bit of a pipe dream like hoping that women will judge Alpha’s as harsh as they judge Betas in mass? Like in the thread of sexy girls getting more gifts?
    I mean we have here a few outliers that will shame Alphas or at least don’t reward them with sex and attention, but in general terms like in the case of the stupid Tom’s girlfriend she will will put up with cheating because “she loves him” which is translated to “he makes me tingle” or like I heard in my country “He can have as many whores/sluts as he wants I’m the girlfriend” Go hamster go!
    So maybe you are just using a form of negging that probably works wonders but in the end I don’t think men can do this unless they get something out of it like sex, YMMV.

  • Lokland

    @Obsidian
    Three things:

    1. The mass transit story is very good. Especially helping the little old lady bit. I tend to just imagine shes my grandmother.

    2. “life to the orbiter strategy which has proven to have an 80% failure rate-”

    Bullshit. Theres no way that it works 1 in 5 times.
    Evidence or conjecture?

    3. I’ll agree with you. Most guys who turn to game are simply after A girlfriend. Not to become a man-whore. I also agree that the man-whore route is not the most workable strategy.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Obsidian, sorry about my tone—it is more for theatrical effect than a reflection of vehemence. My post was not actually arguing for any given life script. For various reasons that are irrelevant here, I am well-adapted to the modern SMP and personally find it rather liberating. However, I am torn on this: while ethical introspection has never been my strong suit, I do realize that it is in my enlightened self-interest to care about how those who are unhappy about the current environment may feel.

    Just to add local color on this second point: I moonlight as a college professor and teach a multidisciplinary course on evolutionary psychology, applied strategic thinking/game theory, and neuromarketing, so I have a front-row seat to how some of these social concerns are playing out on campus. For male students, the statistical distribution of sexual partners appears to be following a power law; for female students, it is more Gaussian. The difference between the two distributions probably correlates with growing social tensions, but that’s just a guess.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @lokland:
    1. Thanks! Yea, i have very specific rules as to how i should be “chivalrous” to and under what conditions. Old/infirm women, or women w/kids in tow &/or pregnant, i tend to give a pass. Same goes for women who are a bit homely. Ive found that they tend to be quite grateful for a display of recognizing their existence.

    But hot chicas? Nah. They dont say “thank you”-ive seen such women take advantage of a guys largesse as if he werent even there. So entitled they are.

    I recall a recent bus incident where the gal was visibly livid that i would do what i did; and the killer was that i executed it in such a flawless, nonchalant way. Delish!

    2. Lol! Yea i see what you mean. I got that stat from buss’ book the evolution of desire. He has an entire section devoted to the question “can men and women just be friends?”. I think youll like it.

    Whatever the actual number is, i think youll agree with me that its just not a good strategy for guys to pursue-right?

    3. I dont have any position on socalled “man whores”-so long as they adhere to the players creed (“managin expectations”) i am neutral on the matter. I think thats another reason why some get upset with me-because of my relatively neutrality on such matters. Its my view that each man has to decide for himself what he will use the pickup arts for; as it just so happens to turn out, most seem to want to get themselves a girlfriend. Which is completely cool by me.

    O.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @anacaona:
    Ive read your comment in rely to me several times and still cant make heads or tails of it lol. Could you please rephrase?

    Thanks!

    O.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @bb:
    Your sideline gig sounds very interesting! I would be very keen to hear more. Do youu discuss anywhere online?

    O.

  • Mike C

    I agree. Back in 2003, my son and his high school friends passed around Neil Strauss’s The Game – everyone read it. I think this explains the explosion in behaviors like negging, often done poorly, i.e. calling a girl fat.

    How did he get a copy 2 years before the book was published? :) The book was released in 2005. Perhaps things have changed, but at least when I was bouncing back in 2005-2006 it was clear “Game” concepts were still not understood or widely utilized. My sense is with the TV show, things like routines are now similar to asking what a girl’s sign is and more cheesy than anything else. Roissy had a good post on the differences between feminine Game and masculine Game:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/masculine-game-vs-feminine-game/

    In my opinion, guys who have a core masculine presence (such as physical stature) shouldn’t waste time with feminine Game techniques.

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

      How did he get a copy 2 years before the book was published? The book was released in 2005

      Good catch! I was figuring he must have read it before he got a gf (2003) but now I realize he must have read it just before he broke up with his gf (2005). Coincidence? I think not.

  • this is Jen

    I’m not sure what I’m expected to say to appease you guys, honestly.”
    ………………………………………..
    I highly apreceate your descriptions of what you find attractive in men. It is very educational and i find it refreshing and a good quality that you are able to see it so clearly.
    =======================

    I agree with wudang , here. I think its great that she has so much insight. Sometimes I think that kind of thing might ( MIGHT) have saved my first marriage.

  • Mike C

    Sassy,

    For the record, I’m with Wudang and have no issue whatsoever with what you find attractive. A takeaway for guys should be to try and develop something where they can demonstrate some competitive expertise, and at least cultivate some outward appearance of “edge”.

    I think the problem some guys are having on this thread….and it really is their problem…is they think there should be perfect overlap between the traits MEN RESPECT and WOMEN FIND SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE. There is NOT. Get over it.

  • Mike C

    I think one sense of male confusion may be this: some of the popular PUA gurus that have posted clips on youtube and elsewhere do not have a “command presence” or athletic physicality that suggests an ability to survive very long in one of those violent alpha male crucible environments. Yet these men are, despite these apparent handicaps, allegedly good enough with the ladies that their advice is worth purchasing (note: clearly successes are often self-reported and difficult to verify, there are many incentives to lie, and supporting evidence may be subject to heavy editing, artifice, mutual tugjobs, and manipulation, so who knows. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt in the interests of moving the argument forward).

    Now, according to that Procreate/Provide/Protect framework, being a physically dangerous badass would satisfy a Protector role, but it would not necessarily mean that a man was hot (Procreation stud) or had the money/education/social resources to provide the woman with a glamorous, perhaps even aristocratic lifestyle (Provider stud). So an effeminate PUA using a behavioral correlate strategy that did not indicate that he was a badass could still be effectively signaling on the other two dimensions and providing evidence of looks (high-quality sperm) or money.

    BastiatBlogger, regarding your comments here…be sure to read the Roissy post on masculine versus feminine game that I linked to. It is directly related to the themes you are talking about above.

  • Emily

    >> ““arent you going to buy me a drink?”

    Yikes! There are girls that ask that? Seriously guys, these girls do no deserve your free alcohol!

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Sassy,

    For the record, I’m with Wudang and have no issue whatsoever with what you find attractive. A takeaway for guys should be to try and develop something where they can demonstrate some competitive expertise, and at least cultivate some outward appearance of “edge”.

    I think the problem some guys are having on this thread….and it really is their problem…is they think there should be perfect overlap between the traits MEN RESPECT and WOMEN FIND SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE. There is NOT. Get over it.

    +1.

  • this is Jen

    I think the problem some guys are having on this thread….and it really is their problem…is they think there should be perfect overlap between the traits MEN RESPECT and WOMEN FIND SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE. There is NOT. Get over it.

    +1.
    ———————————————————-

    ————————————————–
    this is hard to get over- at least from the female side of it. I was so sure my education, intelligence, ability to “run the show”, be independent, etc was soooo attractive to men. But, its turns out there area lots of things men value above this. Some completely opposite things! I understand the difficulty of “getting” this concept. I am still trying to impart this knowledge to my daughters.

  • Anonymouse

    “I think the problem some guys are having on this thread….and it really is their problem…is they think there should be perfect overlap between the traits MEN RESPECT and WOMEN FIND SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE. There is NOT. Get over it.”

    David Gilmore wrote a book about how the sexes are basically the same but elites have to brainwash men into being aggressive in order to do their dirty work for them, fighting their wars, mining their coal, etc. Bottomline, men want a secure, chilled out, peaceful life just as much as any woman. And this is why aggression, ok we’ll call it assertiveness or social dominance, is so attractive to women, and why men simply don’t get it.

  • Richard Aubrey

    “I think the problem some guys are having on this thread….and it really is their problem…is they think there should be perfect overlap between the traits MEN RESPECT and WOMEN FIND SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE. There is NOT. Get over it.”

    The problem with this is pretty much laid out in the paragraph. That is, to attract women, men have to do that which they find either not respectable or irrespectable (patent pending). They have to get down with the concept that women want men who act in an irrespectable fashion. Then they have to figure how to value a woman who wants that which is not respectable.
    So, in order for me to, in effect, reduce my expectations of myself, what do I get?
    Keep in mind that ev psych tells us that many of the items men respect should be attractive to women. But, according to some of the folks hereabouts, they do not, absent some fakery on top. Or, for that matter, they don’t matter and can be absent as long as there is some fakery going on.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Coincidence? I think not.”

    Curious are you implying that the book ended a good relationship? Or that he was able to do better because of it?

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

      @Lokland

      Curious are you implying that the book ended a good relationship? Or that he was able to do better because of it?

      He was the one who bought it and lent it out to everyone. I figure he must have been feeling restless at that point, as he was preparing to graduate high school and go to college. I think he sought information about how to get casual hookups from it – I have no idea how that panned out.

  • Dogsquat

    Richard, you don’t have to do that at all. I have a similar background – military and emergency medicine – and there’s not a lot of BS fakery tolerated in either of those fields. Both lines of work kind of get into your blood, and I don’t think i’d be able to adopt some affected style or hobby even if I wanted to.

    The biggest thing I had to change was in my conversation. Think “playful” and “fun” – nobody likes a Warrior all the time…not even the Warrior himself. I also changed how I dress a bit – I have a gay buddy I go shopping with once every six months or so.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Okay. There are some things mothers just shouldn’t know but thank you for more back story.

    @DS

    Ohh forgot to answer you before on the purse thingy.

    Long time ago now.
    Improved much since then. Like the cookie bit though, I’ll give that a go at some point in the future.

  • Courtley

    Interesting discussion. I also like Obsidian giving some straight-talk–I still don’t really necessarily identify with this sort of woman who wants a super dominant man. But, from a wider perspective, this makes me reflect on one of my pet theories about the Manosphere and contemporary sex-positive feminism, which is that a lot of it owes far more to the entitlement-minded way Americans/Westerners have been raised since WWII than it does to real feminist philosophy.

    I mean, yes, feminist philosophy has been influential in American thought and culture, no doubt about it. But one of the big problems out there now, in my opinion, is that a lot of people who in past generations would have been the spinsters/confirmed bachelor–the “losers” in the mating game, if you will–are responding with rage born out of a thwarted sense of entitlement. This didn’t used to happen. I’m sure the men who failed to reproduce and the women who failed to find husbands were unhappy about their circumstances, but I get the impression–literature or history–that there was a certain sort of resignation about the whole thing. Now there’s this sense–very overtly among the Manosphere, and manifesting itself more covertly in feminism–that Someone out there has taken away something rightful from the unlucky-in-love person, and their anger is justified. That “Someone” could be men who want conventionally beautiful women or women who don’t like “beta” men, or patriarchal society, or feminized society, or just All Men or All Women–it gets broken down in different ways, but it all seems to go back to this sense of one not getting something (sex, a partner) that one is ENTITLED to. We read a lot about Gen Y (and Gen X’s) sense of entitlement and overblown self-esteem, which is certainly true and problematic (I say this as a Gen Y-er myself), but I think you can see some of this entitlement even in Baby Boomers–compared to past generations of Americans or even most people in the world today, they were given unprecedented material goods and leisure time and less discipline.

    What I feel like Susan has been advocating, overall, is that people learn about what the opposite gender wants and then adapt themselves as necessary to attract a mate. We can argue about which ways of doing this are ethical and which are not–I definitely think some methods aren’t ethical, but seeking to adapt is fundamentally amoral. I think this is right approach–addressing the issue of furious thwarted entitlement with pragmatic steps one can take to change things instead of creating complex social theories justifying (and therefore intensifying) the anger.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Mike C, thanks for the recommendation re: the Heartiste site. I enjoyed the piece and had a chance to read some of the other essays, too. That guy has a superb turn of phrase (a small sample of highlights: “meaty intrusion”, “alpha fucks and beta bucks”, “Meat Lay Rove”). He brings to mind the fin de siecle romantic hero, the outsider who observes social problems, writes provocative critiques, and operates in the shadows of the cafe culture.

    I think that he should really turn that poison pen to an occasional work of straight-up satire. I bet he could create some extraordinary material.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Dog. Thanks for the advice, but I think the subject matter on the blog may have fogged over a particular fact. I’m the oldest guy here. Went exclusive in 68, been married since 71.
    I don’t do warrior all the time, and in fact, I’m so relentlessly cheerful, I have to remind myself to ratchet it back at funerals.
    Even L.L. Bean has trouble dressing me. Since they outsourced some of their stuff to the Orient, the boys and girls looking at, say 17 1/2 37 shirt patterns are applying common sense and deciding there’s something wrong and are adjusting toward the more normal. I have a brother in law in the hospitality biz who gives me stuff from various events. So I walk around in baggy jeans advertising five-star resorts and PGA tournaments.
    My young friends at the bump shop–physical therapy–where I go after one or another faulty judgement tell me I have excessive lateral torso movement and they want to take away my swagger. No sir. Not me.
    But I turn on the warrior, as, for example, helping my wife chaperone students overseas. Four trips and the worst that happened, outside the entire crew except me getting the Toltec Two-step, was a kid getting his wallet lifted. No assaults, no gropes, no robberies. The good citizens of Mexico City, Madrid, Valencia, Barcelona and other places are still recovering. I think it’s because I’m the first Aubrey in several generations to go to Europe without the express purpose of killing Europeans. Racial memory I suppose.
    One thing you will note in various blogs about this–I am trying to educate myself in current relationship issues so my fiction which I will damsure have published sometime isn’t dated–is the fact, and it is a fact, that some guys who take up the dark side to one extent or another feel bad about it. It isn’t them, but it is what it takes and it works.
    They feel bad about it. It isn’t them, but it’s necessary.
    Speculate about how that makes a guy feel about the woman for whom he has to…go dark.

  • Dogsquat

    “Speculate about how that makes a guy feel about the woman for whom he has to…go dark.”
    _____________________

    Brother, I don’t need to speculate. I effing KNOW.

    I’d much rather have things be the way I was brought up to believe. It’s a lot nicer in that little fantasyland. Hell, I’d be a lot nicer, too.

    It’s a waste of time and calories to wish, though. This is my environment, and I’m going to change it to the extent I can, and operate effectively in it regardless. The Universe doesn’t care how we feel about it, so I’ve chosen not to feel bad.

    I will do what I have to do to succeed, and have a few laughs and get a little Grade A BootyTime along the way. To do otherwise is folly.

  • Dogsquat

    Courtley said:

    “But, from a wider perspective, this makes me reflect on one of my pet theories about the Manosphere and contemporary sex-positive feminism, which is that a lot of it owes far more to the entitlement-minded way Americans/Westerners have been raised since WWII than it does to real feminist philosophy.”
    ______________________

    As an experiment, I propose this:

    Attempt to find a definition of Real Feminist Philosophy. You ask a thousand feminists, you’ll get a thousand answers – not all of which are bad. When you get down to the real nitty-gritty application of their ideas, you’re going to get a metric shitload of No True Scotsman type objections.

    I’ve been thinking and reading and taking classes about this for years now, and I think we’re closer to a grand unified theory in physics than a grand unified theory in feminism.

    I’ve got my own ideas about why, but they’re not really conducive to your personal understanding of the subject, I’d wager.

    Anyhow, try that experiment. I’ll buy you a bottle of Balvenie 33 year old single malt Scotch whisky if you get a universally applicable answer.

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

    @Obsidian
    Sorry now I feel I most be devolving in my english people used to understand me back in the day. :(
    I meant that your statement “Your looks don’t entitled you to special treatment” might be true for you but is not the way most guys will treat a hot woman as demonstrated here many times.
    The same way the hot Alpha gets all “he is just misunderstood” or “I can change him” when he does something like cheating.
    The rest was examples of Alpha’s getting away with murder (the same way hot women get away with bitchiness and unpleasant personalities) and I used an example of a recent case Susan talked about in “Dangerous female” post concerning to people named “Tom and Jane” not sure if you read it.

  • Ozzie

    “Speculate about how that makes a guy feel about the woman for whom he has to…go dark.”

    Time to find a different sort of woman.

    “But one of the big problems out there now, in my opinion, is that a lot of people who in past generations would have been the spinsters/confirmed bachelor–the “losers” in the mating game, if you will–are responding with rage born out of a thwarted sense of entitlement. ”

    Bachelors and bachelorettes have it better than ever. Back in the day all their peers would have been married by 25 and stayed that way for most of their lives. Now, with divorce being what it is, they have a wide variety of singles to choose from and can play the field until the day they die.

  • Courtley

    @ Dogsquat

    I actually agree with you Feminism is an extremely fractured “ism,” and it includes not just a variety of viewpoints but opinions that stand in pretty direct opposition to each other. Which, you know, is fine and very interesting from a casual student’s point of view, but is VERY confusing and unhelpful in conversations (particularly online) where lots of people throw the term around while using it to mean completely different things.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Ozzie. The existence of game or at least the darker versions presume an insufficiency of a different sort of woman. If there were enough of them, the dark thingy wouldn’t be necessary.
    By definition, or something.

  • this is Jen

    Richard Aubrey April 30, 2012 at 8:27 am

    Ozzie. The existence of game or at least the darker versions presume an insufficiency of a different sort of woman. If there were enough of them, the dark thingy wouldn’t be necessary.
    By definition, or something.
    ——————————————————————

    but instead of staying away from that kind of woman, men change to accomodate her

  • Ted D

    O. – “This is why a number of people get upset with me when i say as a first principle, that game is amoral; “morality” has nothing to do with sexual attraction. “

    My problem here is I firmly believe that we should have “moral” limits placed on our sexuality across the board. The exact same kind of limits that keep us from killing each other over a parking space. I don’t buy the amorality of game at all. Yes, “game” itself is amoral, just like a handgun. However, a handgun used to kill in cold blood is still a weapon of murder. I don’t prescribe to stricter gun control, however. I prescribe to the “teach people how to control their anger and how to use a weapon correctly” camp.

    To me, teaching PUA is a bit like teaching someone how to load and operate a gun without teaching them how to responsibly control it.

    Richard A. – “That is, to attract women, men have to do that which they find either not respectable or irrespectable (patent pending).”

    HOLY CRAP YES! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen some little bit of “game” knowledge that just made me cringe

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ted D, yeah the gun analogy is pretty apt. There are some people who shouldn’t own a gun, because they’re quick to get nutty and fly off the handle at little things. Then there are the criminals, the psychopaths, the mentally ill, etc.

    Still, I think that it’s better for the good, ethical and even-tempered person to have own firearms and have a concealed carry permit, to know all the relevant laws, and only use in dire and necessary situations for protection of self and loved ones. And it’s a good idea in general to be peaceful and not make enemies.

    The best protection is to be also armed. It’s sad but that’s the world we live in and have always lived in. In countries that don’t have lots of firearms people still carry knives and train in self-defense, and tell their kids not to walk off with strangers. Samurais used to sleep with their swords at their bedside, too.

  • Ted D

    Hope – I’m a big fan of gun ownership which I tried to make clear but failed. I’m also a fan of knowledge. But I can’t help but think that many PUA/MRA sites are a bit like someone shouting FIRE in a movie theater, or perhaps more like the guy standing in the middle of an angry mob trying to start a riot.

    Yes, guys need to learn SOME of this stuff for their own good. We should all know about ourselves as well. But there is a huge difference between telling guys about women’s nature, and teaching guys how to take advantage of women’s nature. Again, I am fully in support of some kind of moral guidelines to keep humans from becoming our worst. It used to be religion that held our darker natures in check. Now that the West has killed God, what morality is left to protect us from ourselves? I’m not a “bible thumper”, and I’m not suggesting we should burn promiscuous people at the stake, but I really fear that our society is morally corrupt at its core now. We’ve tried so hard to remove religion from public life that we wiped out almost all signs of decent civility in many ways. Pop culture is amoral at its best, and completely immoral at its worst. The Federal government can’t even balance a budget, and looking at the type of people that are in office (I don’t think I need to give examples of immoral behavior from elected officials, do I?) I certainly wouldn’t want them to dictate morality even if they could. Some parents try their best to teach morals, but even those meet with limited success when their children are surrounded by kids whose parents idea of “parenting” is trying to avoid being bothered by their children.

    Are we honestly trying to see what happens to people if there are no limits, no guidelines, and no fear of repercussions? I can answer that question with much less heartache than we will get actually trying this social experiment.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ted D, those PUA/MRA sites serve a purpose, too. Both men and women can learn from taking the red pill. Most of it is Internet posturing anyway, and people exaggerating/lying to make a point. Better to learn in the theoretical than have to face real gunfire.

    I believe in multiple paths to wisdom, mistakes and bad experiences included. Trying to shield children from all that is “bad” will only shelter them. And as bad as America has it, there are definitely worse places to be, no matter what Abbot tries to sell you. :P

    People experimented with shielding the population from the truth for a while. That’s being stripped away as the Internet allows new and alternative sources of information to flourish. I don’t see anything inherently wrong about this. Disclosure and seeking of truth should be encouraged. Even if something sounds wrong or immoral, people are still free to choose right and morality. If they don’t, that is on them.

    The best protection against those who would seek to do harm is knowledge. The Internet promotes knowledge, and so I endorse it fully.

  • Lokland

    @Hope

    “In countries that don’t have lots of firearms people still carry knives and train in self-defense”

    Anectodal evidence but I have never met anyone who carries a concealed weapon (or atleast bothered to mention it), I don’t know anybody exlucing myself who knows self defense.

    There was a murder in my city last year sometimes. First time in 12 years.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Lokland, I don’t mean first world countries that are known to be safe.

    In China one of the most common ways of murder is poison. It’s also frequently used as a method of suicide. People find ways.

  • Ozzie

    “The existence of game or at least the darker versions presume an insufficiency of a different sort of woman. If there were enough of them, the dark thingy wouldn’t be necessary.
    By definition, or something.”

    Bullshit. We attract who we are.

  • Dogsquat

    Ozzie said:

    “Bullshit. We attract who we are.”
    __________________

    God I hope not. I’m 6’3″ with a penis.

  • Abbot

    ¨Feminism is an extremely fractured “ism,” and it includes not just a variety of viewpoints but opinions that stand in pretty direct opposition to each other.¨

    That is how we like it and it makes a great low-hanging-fruit topic for easy ridicule. Nothing like feminists grinding teeth, snapping pencils and otherwise raging over one losing battle and then another. Their struggle to control the message about how men really feel about a womans sex past when its time to select a life partner has been the MOST fun to watch

  • J

    When you have an asshole at the top who takes all the credit the turnover rate of his followers is usally pretty quick. Good leaders tend to have a core group of talented beta-SIC types that stick with them for years. Those are the groups most guys dream of being a part of.

    This is a really important insight that explains why social dominance and leadership are often far important than technical skill. One thing I’ve observed on a variety of sites in the ‘sphere is an association of “beta” status with positions like “project manager” coupled with a resentment that less technically skilled men that employ them. Along with that I often see some inflexibility in how these managers describe their interactions with their own underlings. “It’s my way or the highway” or “I don’t have the patience to explain things twice.” are typical remarks.

    As I’ve said before, my husband is a senior manager. I can not begin to explain how much of his day is spent coaching project and middle managers in dealing with people and on general mentoring/helping people we the best they can be. Managing people can be a more demanding skill set than managing things. I think that helps explain why “people persons” and politicians are often more powerful/influential than STEM types and why women are attracted to socially dominant men. It also argues that it’s better to develop real people skills than the sort of game that just mimics people skills.

  • Ted D

    J – ” Along with that I often see some inflexibility in how these managers describe their interactions with their own underlings. “It’s my way or the highway” or “I don’t have the patience to explain things twice.” are typical remarks.”

    I resemble that remark, so I’ll comment from my perspective. Generally my previous teams did not have much turnover at all. But, I was also careful about selecting people that were rather self-motivated, task oriented, and need a minimum of micro management. In short, I look for guys like myself. I told them what the goals were, and guidelines for how it must be done, and let them do their thing. it is “my way or the highway”, but my way is “figure it out for yourself as best you can, come see me if you can’t”. I’ll help anyone a few times, but repeated trips to me for information or confirmation generally resulted in reassignment to another team.

    I see myself as the air traffic controller of projects. I make sure things are running smoothly, redirect when things aren’t running smoothly, and generally keep things going. But, I fully rely on the “pilots” to fly the planes going through my airspace. If I need to tell a pilot how to fly, I simply find another pilot.

    Of course I realize that this means my upward climb into management is limited, as I do NOT have the patience or ambition to truly “mentor” anyone. I don’t like to teach, and I hate to repeat myself. Plus, I really, truly, utterly hate office politics.

    All that being said, ask anyone that has worked for me for some time and they generally say I’m a great manager. But, that is only because they actually do their jobs without me having to push them. Ask them how my relationship with people that need a babysitter or full time teacher goes, and you will probably get a chuckle and a “those folks don’t last long” type of response. I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t expect anyone working for me to do a single thing I wouldn’t do myself.

  • J

    Reminds me of Wesley Snipes in a movie where he played the bad ass drug dealer and when someone started to shoot him he used the body of a 6 year old girl to cover himself.

    LOL

  • J

    I resemble that remark, so I’ll comment from my perspective.

    I know you do. ;-) Part of my reason for posting was to be helpful to you (and some others).

    Generally my previous teams did not have much turnover at all. But, I was also careful about selecting people that were rather self-motivated, task oriented, and need a minimum of micro management. In short, I look for guys like myself.

    The positive is that I’m sure you hired some good employees. The negative is that you lost people who might have had complementary strengths that would have compensated for your weaknesses or brought in new perspectives.

    I’ll help anyone a few times, but repeated trips to me for information or confirmation generally resulted in reassignment to another team.

    I can understand that, but when you transfer people out, you lose your “investment” in them. My husband is slow to get rid of all but the worst of his employees because he has invested time, effort and money in training them. This also keeps morale and loyalty to him.

    Of course I realize that this means my upward climb into management is limited, as I do NOT have the patience or ambition to truly “mentor” anyone. I don’t like to teach, and I hate to repeat myself. Plus, I really, truly, utterly hate office politics.

    It does. Now I personally lack many of these skills as well, so I too won’t be climbing the coorporate ladder. However, my objection to what I read in the ‘sphere is that “STEM betas,” who I do understand often feel underappreciated, do not appreciate how hard it really is too manage people or understand why the business world so highly rewards those who can. OTOH, Ted, if you understand your limitations, you have truly learned something helpful.

    All that being said, ask anyone that has worked for me for some time and they generally say I’m a great manager. But, that is only because they actually do their jobs without me having to push them.

    I get that, and I know that it’s hard to deal with people who are truly unmotivated. OTOH, I have seen my DH turn people who were downright hostile into valuable employees and allies. That’s who the business world rewards.

  • J

    We attract who we are.

    Absolutely!

  • J

    Yes, guys need to learn SOME of this stuff for their own good. We should all know about ourselves as well. But there is a huge difference between telling guys about women’s nature, and teaching guys how to take advantage of women’s nature. Again, I am fully in support of some kind of moral guidelines to keep humans from becoming our worst.

    This is a very sane and balanced viewpoint.

  • Ted D

    J – “I have seen my DH turn people who were downright hostile into valuable employees and allies. That’s who the business world rewards.”

    I’ve actually seen this occur with people I passed on to other teams, so I know it is true. I’m just not the right person to foster such people. I don’t know how to motivatethem without sounding like a condescending asshole, which may get them moving short term, but totally wrecks our working relationship in the process. The funny part is, I’ve been told by several upper-management types at a few different employers that I have a great mix of technical and people skills, which either means I’m pretty damn convincing, or my technical peers are truly horrible with people. (I believe it is a combination, but mostly the latter, LOL)

  • J

    I’ve actually seen this occur with people I passed on to other teams, so I know it is true. I’m just not the right person to foster such people.

    Too bad. It’s a really valuable skill. I don’t have it either, but I’ve seen my DH do amazing things with people. I wish I was good at that sort of thing, but I know I’m not.

    I don’t know how to motivate them without sounding like a condescending asshole, which may get them moving short term, but totally wrecks our working relationship in the process.

    I think part of it is empathy, understanding what people need and being willing to provide it in exchange for good work performance. It’s nurture really.

    The funny part is, I’ve been told by several upper-management types at a few different employers that I have a great mix of technical and people skills, which either means I’m pretty damn convincing, or my technical peers are truly horrible with people. (I believe it is a combination, but mostly the latter, LOL)

    I’m sure it’s true, though I think that they are comparing your social skills to those of the other IT guys as opposed to the “politicians.” Also, they are comparing your tech skills to their own. IME, senior managers have weaker tech skills, usually just enough to hire good tech people and understand some of the jargon that comes up in working with them.

  • Dogsquat

    I’m reading Ted and J’s discourse with interest. What do you all think of my pet theory:

    Ted is practicing management, and J’s husband is practicing leadership. Ted is putting the right people in the right place at the right time – then getting out of their way. He sifts through workers until he finds the right one.

    J’s husband is attempting to mold people into the “right one”.

  • Herb

    @Ted D

    I think this is a man thing, which would explain why you are confused by it. What I think Richard is saying is: you are falling for false goods. Because to a man that has actually lived real danger, a motorcycle is tame by comparison. And one way we rank each other is by how much real danger we’ve successfully lived through. It isn’t by far the only way we rank, but for guys that have been there, it is one they use frequently.

    There is one flaw with this theory: motorcycle gangs emerged from groups of vets seeking the very thrills they found in war when they had a hard time adapting to the low adrenaline (dopamine) post war world. So at least some people aren’t doing it for cred.

    I think a good rule of thumb would be how much do they make sure you know, in detail, they do a dangerous thing versus how enthusiastic when it doesn’t have obvious social gain. People who do little of the former but a lot of the latter are probably in it for adrenaline, not cred.

  • Herb

    @dogsquat

    Plus, as Richard said somewhere else here, most Been There, Done That types I know don’t feel like exhibiting any outward signs of badassery. I’m no Badass, but I’ve been around a little bit. I’ll also walk away from a fight, dislike extreme sports, am careful to the point of paranoia about personal security, dress to blend in with my surroundings, and a slew of other things that communicate Fear.

    Very much this…in fact, if there is one thing I noticed in the military it’s how much the “it’s just my job” attitude infects you. Even having people with very good killing skills who are happy to swim out a torpedo tube on board showed they were very much “it’s my job” type even if they were the textbook example of military alpha (SEALs never brag…they don’t see the point…they know what they can do and they know you know it…which, come to think of it is very male).

    This is the kind of thing I was trying to describe in separating people who do dangerous stuff for fun because that’s who they are instead of trying to be bad. They aren’t doing it to prove something so they have no interest in proving anything to you (among themselves, however, the Dogsquat patented “oh yeah, here’s how I had it worse, seems common”). You even see it in the triathlon world. Serious triathletes don’t brag to prove how tough they are. Nor do they do it to prove anything to you (although a lot do it to prove something to themselves).

    Despite John Collins’s famous quote about bragging for the rest of your life, most don’t.

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    I just wish men would just accept that women like what they like as well.

    I do, I just wish they were more honest about it.

    Remember, men in general are problem solvers. If a man wants to attract women and doesn’t he asks “what do women want” and works at being more of that.

    The Red-Pill has, as a huge component, learning that women are lying (to you or themselves, doesn’t matter in the long run) about what attracts them. Having done that, men have options (although, to date, too few to be healthy for themselves or women) on how to deal with what they have learned.

  • Harkat

    @This is Jen

    Ability to “run the show” is very unusually attractive to men, but many value intelligence. Well, the intelligent value a similar – but not much higher – level of intelligence, the less intelligent probably want more relatable partners.

  • Herb

    @Richard

    I figure they can actually go, or accomplish the tingle via D&D. Either way is the same result.

    Hey, now, don’t go lumping D&D in with video gamers. We are an entirely different breed of loser. :)

  • Herb

    @Emily

    I figure they can actually go, or accomplish the tingle via D&D. Either way is the same result.

    A lot of guys do not want to be the leader. Such guys often make up a good percentage of the specialists Dogsquat mentioned. They’ve decided to focus on talents other than leadership that command the respect of other men which they are better suited to learn.

    I’ll be the leader if no one else can, but in general I’m much better at a list of 10 things that match my skills. I work hard to be good at what I do but acknowledge that’s not being the leader.

  • Herb

    The general overlay that men tend to use when evaluating an alpha male is how “badass” he is, i.e., how he would perform in some wildly violent close-range fight in a bar, a pit, a prison cell, or a house in Kandahar.

    I initially read that as “a house with a Kardashian”.

    Your call, Dogsquat, which would you rather deal with?

  • Herb

    @SayWhaat

    According to my friend at GA Tech, all of the nerds there use Game. It’s not surprising to me that Game is popping up in the media; Game has gone completely mainstream.

    Interesting…I watch these guys everyday from my office and see the women at GA Tech when we go to lunch (speaking of, why didn’t female engineering students look like that 30 years ago?).

  • J

    why didn’t female engineering students look like that 30 years ago?

    Hey, I think you guys finally found something to thank feminism for! :P

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Leadership/motivation…it’s a vast subject, of course. While there are so people who are so uncaring or outright lazy as to be un-motivatable, I believe there are many more who do basically want to do a good job and whose motivation and performance can be substantially improved by good leadership and management.

    My leadership vignettes series may be relevant for those interested in this topic. Just start at the first post and click the “previous” links for earlier posts.

  • Richard Aubrey

    “”We attract who we are.””

    So how does game or PUA affect that? Guys who are who they are–odd phrase–sometimes report simultaneous increase in success in the SMP and feeling bad about doing what they have finally learned they have to do.
    Seems to me that they’re not being who they are, or they’re layering a fake on top for practical purposes.

    As I said before, I’m 98% certain that I missed at least half a dozen IOI when I was in college, IOI so overt that I remembered them for years as a one-off whose memory gave me a warm fuzzy from time to time. “I guess she thought I was okay.” Such as, “You have very attractive eyes.” And so forth. They were all different types, so I didn’t attract those who were like me, since they weren’t like each other and thus only one could be like me, tops.

  • J

    @Dogsquat

    J’s husband is practicing leadership. …J’s husband is attempting to mold people into the “right one”.

    I agree with your theory but with a few refinements. One, my DH would love to be able to plug ideal candidates into appropriate jobs. He’s aware though that there are no ideal people and that he’ll have to work to mold everyone to one degreee or another. Two, while I’d call what my DH does leasdership as opposed to management, I’d emphasize that DH is a reluctant leader. He’s not much into gaining power for its own sake or self-aggrandisement. He accepts having to lead people as something that comes with his paycheck.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Reformed. I know the PUA ads tell you how you can pick up tons of beautiful women in bars and clubs.
    Okay.
    So that leaves game, which is more broadly employed, no?

  • GudEnuf

    Susan: “There’s no way we can be the shock absorbers and bear children without considerable assistance, which men do not seem particularly inclined to give.”

    Don’t worry Susan! The Democrats are drafting a law right now that will give all women the right to be stay-at-home moms.

    http://clarissasblog.com/2012/04/30/the-democrats-have-gone-completely-nuts/

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

      @GudEnuf

      That has to be a joke.

  • Wudang

    Susan, I`d really like to see a post about the Japanese herbivoire men. What I have read about them mkaes it seem that is some sonse tey are fare ahead of us in messed up consequences of the current SMP. It would be interesting to see the extreme end point and it also serves as a warning to people that quite large portions of men actually dropping out conciously is a realistic possiblity given the right conditions.

  • Lokland

    @Wudang, Susan

    Did the men drop out due to lack of women? Or some other factor?

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

      @Lokland

      Did the men drop out due to lack of women? Or some other factor?

      I speculated about the reasons in the post. I recall that when I went to research it, I was surprised at how little information there was, at least in English. I really, really had to dig. I think most people in the West just dismiss them as total weirdos. I don’t see such a thing happening in the West to that degree, but we might see some versions of it under certain circumstances.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan,

    “I don’t see such a thing happening in the West to that degree, but we might see some versions of it under certain circumstances.”

    There’s probably some culture specific issues, but I’d image a Western version might involve video games, porn and dropping out of the rat race. And it won’t take a huge percentage of guys doing this to affect the SMP in significant ways. For many, it’ll be involuntary, but for some guys, the question will be “what advantage does being with woman bring”?

  • Dogsquat

    Herb said:

    “I initially read that as “a house with a Kardashian”.

    Your call, Dogsquat, which would you rather deal with?
    ________________________________

    The lawyer or the socialite?

    Nightmare scenario, either way.

  • Lokland

    @Susan. Ex New Yorker

    I don’t know dick about Japanese culture but I know their economy is immobile. Not sure if that indicates lack of jobs or everything is just running as it should.

    Interesting idea,

    What if economic stagnation in a devloped nation + feminism (or the pill or some other factor) lead to PGTOW. Its obvious that hookup culture hit is stride in the mid-90s and then skyrocketed after 911. Interesting dilemma.

    Also are the women riding a carousel or also going their own way? If I recall when I looked into it back when you posted they were pretty much also GTOW. Not sure if thats true.

  • pvw

    Dogsquat:

    Doc, I think young military guys (at least the good ones) are conditioned to be beta as hell.
    You drop that kid into a marriage with a selfish young woman and he’s going to get his guts ripped out. Not only is he immature in most respects (he’s 18 or 20, after all), but he’s been conditioned to subordinate his ego/desires, put others first, and embrace being miserable.

    Give that same Conditioned Beta a little Game and he’s quite a catch. If that guy lucks out and lands a Good Woman, even without Game he could make her very happy.

    My reply:

    Interesting take on young men in the military. Funny, the husband once said he had no interest in marrying when he was in the military because he saw that the military marriages he saw around him never seemed to work out. Husband always had “game;” he was a beta who could always get a girlfriend if he wanted one. For him, as he matured, it was a matter of finding “quality” amidst the “quantity”. And I must say, “ahem,” that he certainly isn’t complaining. :)

    Susan:

    Feminism has given women the “opportunity” to become shock absorbers. We’ve redefined women’s roles without addressing male roles (or maybe just usurping them). Current feminist response to the continued ascent of females in the workforce is enthusiastic.
    Meanwhile, incentives for men to fight for this role are few. Men’s peers are in the same boat, so they don’t really risk loss of respect. In addition, with fewer financial resources men are less likely to invest in family or property.
    It’s as if women tried to switch roles, and men are saying no thanks. Which puts women in a bad position, because most of us still want marriage and families. There’s no way we can be the shock absorbers and bear children without considerable assistance, which men do not seem particularly inclined to give.

    My reply:

    I’ve thought about this recently when I ran into an old student; he graduated several years ago—he was in one of our classes, although he wasn’t in our program, he was in one of the other schools. I recall that he remained in the community, but I had not seen him around. When I last saw him, the semester was ending and his wife had just given birth to their first child. When I saw him the other day, he was going into the Y, I was just leaving. It was good to see him and to meet his little boy. Former student is a stay-at-home dad. I know that is becoming more and more common. Perhaps he graduated and couldn’t find a job or they made the deliberate decision he would stay home, so mom goes out to work doing whatever it is she does, and he takes care of the baby while she pays the bills. In the community here, I notice it is not much of a big deal; if anything, it is something seen as admirable, although of course, mostly women are stay-at-home parents. A current student, the same thing; he was a stay-at-home dad before the children started school, he then went back to work as a school teacher. He is now in graduate school. I get the sense he is still the primary caretaker. His wife works at some time of corporate job.

    Builder types, it seems to me, where the wife and husband can exchange roles and it works, because they are dedicated to their building project–building up their family unit.

  • Nicolas

    Sometimes Fisher is wonderful and sometimes silly. This sort of chemical reductionism is akin to astrology. It is hooey.

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

      This sort of chemical reductionism is akin to astrology. It is hooey.

      Her research is based on the scientific method. She has studied chemical levels as well as brain activity using MRIs.