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?
{ 281 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2
@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.
@ Dogsquat 145
Sounds like every head coach, general manager, goalie and captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs since 1994.
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.
“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.
@Emily
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.
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?
@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.
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.
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.
@ Lokland
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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.
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 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”.
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.
@ Richard Aubrey
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.
Sassy.
I repeat, “FREAKIN VIDEO GAME?”
Okay. He’s a great guy. But a “FREAKIN VIDEO GAME” is extra???????
@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.
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.
@ Richard Aubrey
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
@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.
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?)
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…?
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.
Feral Employee, did you know that atheism was actually originally a Hindu philosophical idea?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism
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.
@ Richard Aubrey
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?
@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.
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.
@ Richard Aubrey
We are definitely defining “edgy” differently, hence the confusion. Thanks for clarifying.
“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.
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.
FE,
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.
Hey, look, I’m not really trying to have an argument here. I don’t disagree with you on this point.
Agreed. I think atheism arose in the West as more of a reaction against the more fervid religious thought.
Nope. Hindu.
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.
Fascinating stuff, SayWhaat.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
@ 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
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.
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..
@ Obsidian #192
Preach brother……PREACH!
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.
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.
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?
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@Bastiat Blogger
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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@bb:
Your sideline gig sounds very interesting! I would be very keen to hear more. Do youu discuss anywhere online?
O.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>> ““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!
+1.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
@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?
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
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
@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.
“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.
@ 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
“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.
Ozzie said:
“Bullshit. We attract who we are.”
__________________
God I hope not. I’m 6’3″ with a penis.
¨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
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.
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.
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
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.
We attract who we are.
Absolutely!
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.
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)
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.
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”.
@Ted D
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.
@dogsquat
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.
@Liza207
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.
@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.
@Richard
Hey, now, don’t go lumping D&D in with video gamers. We are an entirely different breed of loser.
@Emily
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.
I initially read that as “a house with a Kardashian”.
Your call, Dogsquat, which would you rather deal with?
@SayWhaat
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?).
why didn’t female engineering students look like that 30 years ago?
Hey, I think you guys finally found something to thank feminism for!
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.
“”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.
@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.
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?
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/
@GudEnuf
That has to be a joke.
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.
@Wudang
I wrote a post on that a couple of years ago:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/04/12/hookinguprealities/those-freaky-japanese/
@Wudang, Susan
Did the men drop out due to lack of women? Or some other factor?
@Lokland
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.
@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”?
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.
@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.
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.
Sometimes Fisher is wonderful and sometimes silly. 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.
« 1 2