701»

Can a Manwhore Ever Really Settle Down, Even If He Wants To?

Thinking of cheatingSusan,

Your post about emotional prudery really hit home with me.

Quick intro summary: I’m worried that due to my promiscuity (as a guy) over the past several years, I’ve stunted my ability to truly, deeply care for somebody. 

A quick background: I’ve always been pretty good with women, and in college I slept with more than most guys (9 girls, and hooked up with many more), but I wasn’t completely at the level of man-whore yet. I was always fairly detached, and while I kept some girls around for a few months, it was only as a booty call, and I had really no emotional investment whatsoever.

I still had a romantic side though, and I ended up falling head over heels for the last girl I was sleeping with in college. Having never experienced this before, I acted like a needy little boy, and after a couple months she ditched me. I was pretty crushed to say the least. I hooked up with a few more girls before I graduated, but nothing at all serious.

Just after graduation, I met a girl who I started sleeping with. She was funny, snarky, and a ton of fun to go out with. I pretty quickly fell for her, ignoring blaring warning signs (flakiness, extreme mood swings, fighting with other girls a lot) that my friends pointed out, probably because I was so desperate to rediscover that emotion I had before. Long story short, she went back for her masters that fall. We weren’t together per se, so I slept with some other women, but I was still extremely into her and we’d talk every day. I assumed (and we talked about) us dating for real when she moved back to NYC after her masters. Then I found out that she’d been with a boyfriend the whole time we’d been hooking up, and had spun a web of lies to a truly impressive (I’m awed by it today) degree. I spent the next 18 months or so sleeping with more women than I had in all of college. My count now is around 23-24 (can’t remember exactly).

Some of the girls I kept around for a bit as hookups, others were ONS whose names I didn’t know. However, there was no emotional involvement at all. About 10 months ago, I had finally gotten sick of this, and decided I was actually going to look for a girlfriend. After 4 months or so of dating, I found one, who I’m dating now.

Let me set something straight first: I love being with this girl. I’m really happy when I’m around her, we have fun together, she’s kind, thoughtful, reliable, smart, and hot. I’m physically attracted to her, and I enjoy seeing her and miss her when she’s not around. My friends all love her and think I’ve gotten very lucky. However, I just don’t feel the absolute head-over-heels feeling I had with the other girl. It’s just not there, and as much as I try and convince myself it should be, it isn’t.

I’ve tried to convince myself it’s because she’s not intellectually curious enough (she’s very smart, she works in trading at a bank but it’s just work for her and she doesn’t really read or investigate other things, which I do all the time) or that she’s too submissive, but it can’t be just that. I’m worried that my emotional shutdown for the 2 years prior, and my sleeping with all these women who were honestly not much more than warm bodies has emotionally stunted me and prevented me from falling for her.

Also, while the sex is good, I find myself increasingly comparing it some of the wild and varied sex I had when I was single. Even though she’s hot, I find myself comparing her physically to some of the other hot girls I slept with while single, not even because they’re hotter, but because they’re DIFFERENT.

Now, I’ve shared these feelings with a couple friends who’ve been in a few LTRs (this is my first of any significance). I’ve been advised that this happens when the honeymoon phase wears off. Things can get boring, routine can set in. I’m trying to fight it, and I know she is too. She’s asking to borrow books I read so she can get up to speed on some topics I’m into, and while I hugely appreciate that and find it endearing, it rings false to me, as I want to be with someone who’s passionate about the same things. I feel like I never had the true honeymoon phase of being head over heels. It was more like I was really into her, and I was hoping that would come, and it hasn’t.

I know I’d be less happy without her than with her, and the thought of breaking up with her makes me sad, but recently a few of my guy friends have become single, and I’m starting to miss the thrill of the chase and the chance to get something strange. Maybe I was wrong, and I wasn’t ready for a relationship. I started dating her because I really liked her, and was waiting for what you might call “love” to come, and it’s been 7 months and it just hasn’t. Now I know it’s possible that despite how great she is, she’s just not for me, but I’m really worried that my emotional prudery for 2 years and my sexual promiscuity has had the dual effect of rendering love quite hard for me and of making me too hard to please sexually.

Ben

Dear Ben,

Your letter raises some interesting questions about the way humans experience emotions relating to sex and love. The most important one is whether promiscuity has a long-term, negative effect on one’s ability to fall in love. I don’t think it does have a causal effect, though there is a correlation between past promiscuity and compromised relationship quality. I waded into the research on this one and found it extremely informative, so at the risk of seeming pedantic, I’ll summarize it here.

Helen Fisher is the foremost authority on the chemistry of the brain in love. Her work focuses on the three distinct emotional mating strategies that comprise human mating. They are Lust, Romantic Love, and Attachment. These strategies evolved separately to achieve different goals, and they are not mutually exclusive, but act independently of one another. Fisher says that one person can experience all three simultaneously with different people in mind – she describes it as a “committee meeting in your head.” Obviously, humans can feel sexual desire for individuals for whom they feel no romantic attraction or emotional attachment. We are also capable of falling in love with a person other than someone to whom we are attached, though we are not capable of being in love with more than one person at a time.

 
  Characteristics Purpose Brain Chemicals
Lust             Sex drive Motivates seeking of sexual union               

Testosterone

Estrogen

Romantic Love

Attraction

Increased energy

Focused attention

Exhilaration

Intrusive thinking

Craving for emotional union

Facilitate mate choice

Dopamine

Norepinephrine

Phenylathelamine (PEA)

Serotonin

Attachment

Closeness

Calm

Comfort

Security

Emotional union

Enables parenting 

Promotes positive social behavior

Vasopressin

Oxytocin

Looking at your history, a few things seem pretty clear:

  • Of the women you hooked up with in college, only one inspired feelings of romantic love in you. The rest obviously excited your sex drive, but were contained within the single mating strategy of lust.
  • You had strong feelings of attraction, or romantic love, for one woman your senior year. It should be noted that the emotional state of “being in love” is not necessarily positive. It may reflect anxiety as well as calm, despair as well as joy.
  • The snarky, lying cad chick clearly met the criteria for romantic love as well, though she was obviously a poor choice, which is very clear in retrospect.

In short, I see nothing here that would impede your ability to fall in love if the right woman came along. In your current relationship, you made a clear decision to seek a girlfriend, and found her in four months. The odds of finding “the one” in that time period seem remote, though it’s obviously possible. Clearly, you feel lust for her, and you also like and respect her. However, the characteristics of romantic love are conspicuously absent from your description of your relationship, which you acknowledge in saying that the feeling “is just not there.” I don’t think this has anything to do with your sexual history – I think you simply did not fall in love with this particular woman.

While I do think it’s possible to will oneself into an emotionally unavailable state, you don’t appear to have done that. You are very emotionally available, in fact – you crave the emotional union of attachment, but there is no love object with whom to experience it. It’s therefore not the least bit surprising that you would feel sexual desire for other women, or just a general urge to get access to variety. If you were in love, you would be pouring your energy and focus into creating the emotional union you craved, and in that state of limerence you’d be far less likely to feel the itch to be with someone else. 

The economist Robert Frank has suggested that emotions serve the purpose of sustaining commitments that require forfeiting immediate rewards.

When one experiences feelings of love for a romantic partner, for example, the immediate positive reward the emotion produces counteracts the pull of desire for an attractive other… In doing so, emotions help us to stick with strategies that lead to rewards in the long run despite the fact that they often necessitate forgoing smaller immediate gains. For example, if one were drawn away from every possible romantic commitment by the prospect of finding a still more attractive mate, one could never reap the fitness benefits of long-term mateship, including cooperative child rearing (Hurtado & Hill, 1992; Marlowe, 2003; Pillsworth & Haselton, 2005) and assurance of mutual care in times of dire need (e.g., Nesse, 2001).

I don’t think we can say why we fall in love with some people and not others, nor can we talk ourselves into that heightened emotional state by breaking the relationship down into specific behaviors, and try as she might, I don’t think your girlfriend’s reading list is going to create that rare magic for you. 

However, there’s another risk associated with male promiscuity. It’s generally not an issue for men who are wired strictly for short-term mating. In this culture, though, plenty of guys have lots of casual sex while young, fully intending to settle down later, marry and have a family. They may find the transition to monogamy especially difficult.

The more women a man has had sex with, the lower the odds that he can be sexually gratified by one woman. Ever.

I. You’re likely to experience a more dramatic drop in your physical attraction to a woman after having sex with her.

Males get a huge dopamine rush upon “getting it in,” and that fades once orgasm has occurred. In general, men find their partners less attractive after sex, while women find their partners more attractive.

Evolutionary psychologist Martie Haselton explains that high-count men lose even more attraction for their mate after sex:

For men who pursue a short-term mating strategy, first-time sex signals both that a goal has been achieved and that there is a possibility of becoming entangled in an unwanted long-term relationship. After first-time sex, the feelings men and women experience do indeed differ. Women more than men experience a positive affective shift toward increased feelings of commitment for their partners (Haselton & Buss, 2001), whereas, men who have had many sex partners (defined as 6+), (and therefore successfully pursue a short-term strategy) experience [an especially] negative affective shift marked by a drop-off in physical attraction to their partners (Haselton & Buss, 2001). These effects are hypothesized to prompt behaviors to secure investment (for women) or to extricate oneself from a potential romantic entanglement (for short-term oriented men). 

II. Marital sexual satisfaction declines more than 5% for every partner a man has been with other than his spouse.

As far as I know, there has only been one study that looked at partner count and sexual satisfaction, which I first referenced in the post Manwhores: For Casual Sex Only. The study measured the effect of promiscuity on later degrees of marital sexual satisfaction. The sample was national and random, from the National Health and Social Life Survey. It included 313 married men and women, aged 18-40, all with their first spouse.

88% of males and 85% of females indicated that they were “very satisfied” with their marital sex life. However, results indicate that for every additional premarital sexual partner an individual has, not including the marital sexual partner, the likelihood that they will say their current marital sexual relationship is extremely satisfying versus only being moderately satisfying goes down 3.9%. 

When running models separately for males and females, the male model was more significant at 5.3%. This means that a man with a number of 10 before marriage is 53% less likely to be describe himself as extremely satisfied in marriage. By implication, all men with 20 previous partners will feel moderately sexually satisfied in marriage at best.

Women’s partner count had a lesser effect, with the likelihood of being extremely satisfied decreasing 4.6% for each partner. The females’ result did not meet the criteria for statistical significance, while the males’ did. From the study:

This may be due to the evolutionary biological theory that males tend to be more invested in or notice more the physical aspects of the sexual relationship, while women tend to be more invested in or notice more the emotional aspects of the sexual relationship (Buunk, Angleitner, & Buss, 1996).  Due to this difference, premarital sexual promiscuity may not influence females as much because the past emotional connections are no longer salient and the focus is on meeting the needs of the current relationship.

Further, women tend to be aroused more and are more likely than men to report attraction increasing in long-term relationships, indicating that having previous sexual experiences may in fact lower the overall comparison levels and comparison level for alternatives for women in a marital sexual relationship (Knoth, Boyd, & Singer, 1988).

III. The Paradox of Choice: Missed Opportunities
 
The primary reason that people are less satisfied the more partners they have is that they have more opportunities to recall or imagine greater sexual satisfaction in prior or future sexual encounters. 
 
When people are faced with having to choose one option out of many desirable choices, they will begin to consider hypothetical trade-offs. Their options are evaluated in terms of missed opportunities instead of the opportunity’s potential. …One of the downsides of making trade-offs is it alters how we feel about the decisions we face; afterwards, it affects the level of satisfaction we experience from our decision.
 
This may explain evidence of a Reverse Sexual Double Standard. An ongoing study of more than 20,000 students demonstrates that the sexual double standard increasingly cuts both ways:
 

A majority of college men still judge their female colleagues more harshly than they do fellow male classmates for the same sexual behavior: 63% of men say they lose respect for women who hook up frequently, and only 41% say they feel the same way about men who engage in the same behavior. But the majority of women hold a reverse double standard, assessing men’s casual sexual behavior more harshly then other women’s. More than 70% say they lose respect for men who engage in casual sex, while less than 60% lose respect for other women.

Given that a minority of students engages regularly in casual sex, this is not surprising. Of course, there may be an element of “sour grapes” or disappointment reflected in these numbers. Whatever the reason, it suggests that women who have previously not engaged in much casual sex may disqualify men with a promiscuous past.

Here’s my advice, assuming you still wish to fall in love:

First, while it’s possible that you will fall in love with your girlfriend in the future, I believe it’s extremely unlikely. It sounds like she may have some sense of this already, but if not you owe it to her to tell her the truth about your feelings. If she’s also approaching her mid-20s, she deserves to make an informed choice about dating a man she will almost certainly not marry. I also believe you owe it to yourself to see who else is out there. You have little incentive to maintain a committed relationship to a woman you’re not head over heels for.

Second, while I can find nothing that suggests you are less likely to fall in love because of your history, it sounds to me like you could benefit from an emotional detox. The last couple of years sound like an emotional roller coaster with some high moments of drama. I would recommend getting back to a state of emotional equilibrium. That means no emotional prudery, i.e., casual sex, and no emotional promiscuity, i.e., jumping into a relationship when you’re not totally feeling it. There’s a significant opportunity cost to pursuing a short-term mating strategy when your goal is long-term mating.

Third, I don’t know if the long-term sexual satisfaction issue can be addressed or remedied, but I do have one idea. I know that when young men develop erectile dysfunction from watching porn, it’s because their brains have linked arousal to specific images, and they lose the ability to become aroused without the presence of that stimuli. The “cure” is to swear off porn completely to rid the brain of the association, and this is generally successful.

Perhaps it can work this way with sexual variety as well. If you can break the habit of casual sex, you may be able to rid yourself of the preoccupation with previous sexual experiences. This may also mitigate any dropoff in attraction you feel toward a woman you do have feelings for. I think this would amount to hitting the reset button on the dopamine reward system, which would be helpful if it’s possible.

Of course, there are no guarantees, and none of this applies if you want to get back to the chase and the novelty of new partners. You’ve got a choice to make – at least now it will be an informed one. 

In closing, I will share a quote from Helen Fisher’s TED talk:

I don’t think we’re an animal that was built to be happy. We’re an animal that was built to reproduce. I think the happiness we find, we make, and I believe we can make good relationships with each other.

Susan

Readers, what do you think? 

 


2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Benton

    I agree with Susan that Ben probably is not with the right person, and is otherwise capable of being in a more fulfilling relationship. However, there is one part of the post that really caught my attention:

    “It should be noted that the emotional state of “being in love” is not necessarily positive. It may reflect anxiety as well as calm, despair as well as joy.”

    It may not be the main part of this article, but can you give some more info about this statement? As someone who tends to be emotionally promiscuous, I find that “being in love” is definitely not all positive, but I don’t understand exactly how it relates to anxiety and despair. Susan, can you elaborate a little more?

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

      @Benton

      As someone who tends to be emotionally promiscuous, I find that “being in love” is definitely not all positive, but I don’t understand exactly how it relates to anxiety and despair.

      The most obvious example is unrequited love. And even when things do work out, there is usually some uncertainty in the beginning, which creates both anxiety and anticipation.

  • Senior Beta

    That has to be the mother of all red pill guy confessionals. As to Susan’s advice: well done.

  • SayWhaat

    Solid advice from Susan.

    Ben’s got a fairly good shot at getting the relationship he desires. Although, he needs to keep 2 things in mind: the one girl that he fell head-over-heels for was a Walking Red Flag, and his sexual past. He’s going to have to “reset” things and do some introspection to fix whatever is causing him to pursue these drama-filled relationships before he can find himself the Quality Girl that he can truly fall in love with.

    The other thing is that he’s going to have to do some major work to prove to that Quality Girl — when he finds her — that he’s a reformed manslut. I’m kind of at a loss for this one…I don’t know what it would take for me to “overlook” a man with 20+ sexual partners, if I could even overlook it in the first place.

  • VD

    Readers, what do you think?

    1. Good call on Ben. He’s just not in love with her. There are men with 10x the sexual experience who wind up falling in love… this sometimes hits them harder because they’re not only not looking for it, they don’t even want it.

    2. Interesting data on lack of sexual satisfaction in marriage for sexually successful men. Rings true and explains the much higher propensity for unfaithfulness.

    3. The Reverse Double Standard is most usefully addressed by the Game principle of paying heed to what women do and not what they say. It’s true that virgins, religious women, and women of very little experience will tend to steer away from sexually successful men. Most other women won’t, no matter what they tell their friends. No amount of attempted shaming and public posturing is going to prevent the faux disgusted girl from slipping the charming cad her telephone number or showing up at his place unannounced later that night. I’d even go so far to say that the more they act repelled by a “manwhore” in front of their girlfriends, the more of a sure thing they are.

  • VD

    I’m kind of at a loss for this one…I don’t know what it would take for me to “overlook” a man with 20+ sexual partners, if I could even overlook it in the first place.

    Exactly the same thing that causes most other women to overlook a man’s past history. Have sex with him before you know there is anything to overlook.

  • pvw

    Benton:

    As someone who tends to be emotionally promiscuous, I find that “being in love” is definitely not all positive, but I don’t understand exactly how it relates to anxiety and despair. Susan, can you elaborate a little more?

    My reply:

    Perhaps it has to do with emotional promiscuity being used as a means of filling a vacuum of loneliness? Rather than feel anxious and despair at being lonely, chase down the next relationship just to fill the void.

    Saywhaat:

    I don’t know what it would take for me to “overlook” a man with 20+ sexual partners, if I could even overlook it in the first place.

    My reply:

    Yes, quite true.

    VD:

    Exactly the same thing that causes most other women to overlook a man’s past history. Have sex with him before you know there is anything to overlook.

    My reply:

    But I don’t get the sense SayWhaat is going to do that; her approach might be more levelheaded, that she wants to know what she is getting into before she goes there. Not all women leap in without verifying and looking beforehand….That was my strategy when I was dating, wanting to know and understand first.

  • OffTheCuff

    He should leave his current grilfriend if he wants out.

    Unless he wants children and thus perhaps marriage, I don’t see why he should change a thing. Go ahead, be “in love” for any length you deem useful and get out when it isn’t. If you meet a woman who changes your mind, great. If not, you still are on top.

  • FeralEmployee

    I wonder what the mechanism behind this drop-off in physical attraction is linked to. A ways of maintaining genetic diversity? Wouldn’t seem right, since promiscuous males still have sex. Perhaps an optimization strategy: they know they can get the sex, so why not suppress the urge to create bonds and just go full-fuck mode.

    Only the future will tell. Or Susan. Or Fisher.

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

      @Feral Employee

      Perhaps an optimization strategy: they know they can get the sex, so why not suppress the urge to create bonds and just go full-fuck mode.

      Yes, from a reproduction standpoint, it makes sense for the male to feel sated after he gains access. However, the study did show that while men did lose attraction, they did not lose a sense of commitment. So there is that battle where the tradeoff between sexual variety and commitment takes place.

  • Abbot

    “plenty of guys have lots of casual sex while young, fully intending to settle down later, marry and have a family.”
    .
    Because they can and they know it.
    .
    “They may find the transition to monogamy especially difficult.”
    .
    But not because his past is a roadblock for her. Very few if any worthy women would even put a man’s sexual past as a criteria for life-mate consideration on her list. Thus cads are competing will all other men for the best wife material.
    .
    “previous sexual experiences may in fact lower the overall comparison levels and comparison level for alternatives for women in a marital sexual relationship ”
    .
    Hey look, thats a good promo for the “give the sluts a break and marry one” crowd, some of whom lurk and comment on this site. Won’t help but at least they can feel good about something. “Hey Bob, I like your new girl there but if you really want here satisfied later on, throw her back in for a few more rounds. Works wonders”

  • Dogsquat

    Ben said:

    “Maybe I was wrong, and I wasn’t ready for a relationship. I started dating her because I really liked her, and was waiting for what you might call “love” to come, and it’s been 7 months and it just hasn’t.”
    ____________

    Ben, I wonder if you aren’t still a little beat up from getting dumped in college and getting tangled up with the liar. That stuff is terribly painful, and permanently alters your outlook. It takes something out of you that never fully heals.

    You may be over/past those two individual women, but your brain knows how bloody awful that pain and embarrassment and rejection and self-doubt and broken trust actually is. It’s like a horrible disease that’s more debilitating with each reinfection.

    Now I’m going to sound like an arrogant asshole, because I am an arrogant asshole and that’s what I sound like:

    I think you subconsciously settled for a woman who couldn’t harm you. Your market value (or whatever) is a little higher than hers. You’re content but not proud. You’re fond of her and respect her as a person, but you are not awed by anything about her. I’ll bet she’s never once given you The Fear – that moment when you realize that another autonomous human being has a tremendous amount of power over you – and there’s not much you can do about it. Surrendering something.

    Sure, you’ll be bummed for a while if you break up, but she lacks the power to devastate. She’s like a very nice gift from The Universe, not a prize you wrested from It’s grasp.

    Ben said:
    “Now I know it’s possible that despite how great she is, she’s just not for me, but I’m really worried that my emotional prudery for 2 years and my sexual promiscuity has had the dual effect of rendering love quite hard for me and of making me too hard to please sexually.”
    _________________________

    Could be. It could also be that you haven’t really come to terms with how bad those relationships messed you up. Your behavior indicates that, I think – you’re extremely risk averse mentally/emotionally. For you, maybe banging a bunch of casuals is like like taking pain medication when you need surgery for a definitive fix. You might be distracting yourself from a deeper issue – all the while getting hooked on pain meds.

    People often say time heals all wounds, but that’s retarded. Healing is what heals all wounds. Maybe you haven’t done the work you need to heal.

    As an aside:

    I’ll bet if you met a girl who potentially could really give you what you’re looking for tomorrow, you’d run like hell or sabotage things. It would feel too risky.

    That’s my opinion, anyway. Worth almost what you paid for it.

    Good luck, dude – you’ve got some really shitty decisions to make. I do not envy you one bit.

  • Dogsquat

    Feral Employee said:

    “I wonder what the mechanism behind this drop-off in physical attraction is linked to. ”
    ____________________________

    Maybe time and resources? Some threshold that, when passed, causes the lizard brain to decide the price is too high?

  • Herb

    @Susan

    It should be noted that the emotional state of “being in love” is not necessarily positive. It may reflect anxiety as well as calm, despair as well as joy.

    I haven’t read all the way through, but thank you.

    Our culture has blown what is an overwrought state that even when healthy needs to be see as a temporary one that may energize a relationship but can’t sustain it.

    I’m so sick of “I love you, but I’m not in love with you” being a reason to end what began with a solemn vow I want to scream. Plus, we chase it like a drug.

  • ExNewYorker

    “The other thing is that he’s going to have to do some major work to prove to that Quality Girl — when he finds her — that he’s a reformed manslut. “

    Not really. With the current girl he’s with, who he has a high opinion of, and who sounds like a “Quality Girl”, he’s not had to “do some major work”.

    For some subset of women, yes, the reformed manslut would be an issue. But as VD points out, this is a subset of the larger group of women who like their men to be “sexually successful”, even if it’s an unconscious motivation.

  • Doc

    Being “in love” lasts about 2-4 years – long enough to have a child and give it a pretty good chance of survival. So genetically speaking that is its purpose. Now some may disagree, and if that works for them – great. But from an evolutionary stand-point for the species to thrive it would be best for a woman to have children by as many men as possible – as long as the children survive. Of course, a man has competing traits – he wants to ensure the child is his (no need to waste resources on someone else’s spawn), and he wants to get as many women pregnant as he can.

    So it makes sense for “love” to occur – guaranteeing the child is his, but no need to lock someone up for life. Genetically, it’s best to move on after a while.

    So, I would say don’t worry – enjoy life. Your time to settle down is measured in decades – enjoy your time. When you are older you can “settle down” with a hot young babe – of course make sure your assets aren’t available to her via a trust to keep her around and ensure that it’s in writing. Then you can enjoy life while you’re young, and when you get older you can have a brood of children – just genetic test, and you’ll be good to go. Stop worrying about “what if” – just enjoy…

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

    Perhaps an optimization strategy: they know they can get the sex, so why not suppress the urge to create bonds and just go full-fuck mode.

    That is my guess and my experience if you think about is like a muscle the more you use it the better it gets and the human body is smart if he knows the guy can seed many women successfully it makes more sense for him to continue to do so till death and play the numbers game than trying to make sure some of them survive. Is like fishes having thousand of eggs.

    The thing is the number is not the best indication I know men that found themselves in sexual frenzy with just a taste of the pool of women. My guess is genetic the sons of Alpha seeders (like most of my friends) will have a harder time settling down if the conditions show that they can get away with numbers instead of quality, the sons of more Beta guys probably will need higher numbers to reach their limit before the body activates “seed everything that moves!” mode, YMMV.

  • .this is Jen

    come on is this even a real question? Of course a man who has slept around can have a successful marriage, why the heck not? Does anyone really question this?

  • El Marqués

    Decent advise. Probably the most important part nowadays is the paradox of choice. Yohami has a great post and video about some TED talk on his site.

    I don’t think Ben will lose his capacity to bond to a female even if he decides to add a few notches and flags over his twenties and thirties. Men and women being different and all that. If a woman wants a man to bond to her, she’d better have his back in the trenches of life, rather than trying to have him bond over sex – like her projecting little self.

    And since language matters. I came across the word “manwhore” first on this site, being European, I simply had not heard it before. First I thought it was a new synonym for “Puto” (male whore in Spanish), but then I realized that it’s connotation clearly is one of shaming male promiscuity with a rather unfortunate term, one that does seem ridiculously misnamed. Now every time I see the expression, the word “penis envy” pops up in my mind somehow…

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

      @El Marques

      I believe the term manwhore (variations include manslut and trash dick) arose due to the increased number of men in today’s SMP who have racked up very high numbers – 50, 100, 200. My sense is that the prevalence of STDs makes these men less attractive, as well as their avoidance of relationships. I have described this as the boomerang effect of preselection.

  • SayWhaat

    Saywhaat:
    I don’t know what it would take for me to “overlook” a man with 20+ sexual partners, if I could even overlook it in the first place.
    My reply:
    Yes, quite true.
    VD:
    Exactly the same thing that causes most other women to overlook a man’s past history. Have sex with him before you know there is anything to overlook.
    My reply:
    But I don’t get the sense SayWhaat is going to do that; her approach might be more levelheaded, that she wants to know what she is getting into before she goes there. Not all women leap in without verifying and looking beforehand….That was my strategy when I was dating, wanting to know and understand first.

    Thanks, PVW. I may still be in the “less sexually experienced” category of women, but I wouldn’t blunder in with my skirt up and pussy out without having some idea of knowing what I’m dealing with. And I think that there are a lot of women who behave exactly the same way — at least, the ones I’m friends with (and yes, they’re much more sexually experienced than I am).

    Besides, I’m gettin’ it in twice a night and once in the morning so as far as I’m concerned I’m making up for all that lost ground with few to zero regrets to spare, aww yeah. :P

  • SayWhaat

    “The other thing is that he’s going to have to do some major work to prove to that Quality Girl — when he finds her — that he’s a reformed manslut. “

    Not really. With the current girl he’s with, who he has a high opinion of, and who sounds like a “Quality Girl”, he’s not had to “do some major work”.
    For some subset of women, yes, the reformed manslut would be an issue. But as VD points out, this is a subset of the larger group of women who like their men to be “sexually successful”, even if it’s an unconscious motivation.

    It’s interesting to me how so many of HUS’ regular “reformed betas” continue to espouse this notion that players will always have success in this regard, no matter what. Fine, don’t take it from me — I’ve heard numerous girls of my acquaintance and good friends who reject manwhores alike.

    There’s a wide gap between “manslut” and “man with [more] sexual success [than me]“. Full disclosure: even when I was a naive college freshman, I said that I preferred a guy with a little more sexual experience than I did, just so that he could teach me. That doesn’t mean 20+ partners than me, that means “maybe just one more” than my own history. Even my boyfriend (who is as beta as you can get) has more sexual experience than I do, but it’s a normal number.

    Girls won’t mind if you have one or more partners than they have. 20+ is a different story.

  • SayWhaat

    First I thought it was a new synonym for “Puto” (male whore in Spanish), but then I realized that it’s connotation clearly is one of shaming male promiscuity with a rather unfortunate term, one that does seem ridiculously misnamed. Now every time I see the expression, the word “penis envy” pops up in my mind somehow…

    *shrug* Suit yourself. Like it or not, you don’t have a say in dictating female preferences.

  • Abbot

    “the larger group of women who like their men to be “sexually successful”, even if it’s an unconscious motivation.”
    .
    Is that why such women are aghast upon “discovering” that men universally desire the exact opposite when its time for commitment? Most women are inherently and effortlessly “sexually successful” and therefore modesty and restraint is highly valued for a woman to be considered special.

  • Dogsquat

    SayWhaat said:

    “I’ve heard numerous girls of my acquaintance and good friends who reject manwhores alike.”
    ____________________
    SayWhaat, do your friends ever define why they make that choice? Visceral distaste, or a lack of trust? Some combination?

  • Abbot

    “you don’t have a say in dictating female preferences.”
    .
    That would be way too much work. Just look how hard those feminists strain themselves.

  • ExNewYorker

    @SayWhaat
    “It’s interesting to me how so many of HUS’ regular “reformed betas” continue to espouse this notion that players will always have success in this regard, no matter what.”

    This is not what we said. What we said is:
    “For some subset of women, yes, the reformed manslut would be an issue.”

    VD put it this way:
    “It’s true that virgins, religious women, and women of very little experience will tend to steer away from sexually successful men. ”

    Obviously, we’re not saying “that players will always have success in this regard, no matter what.” It’s pretty clear that we’re not saying that.

    But the question is, how big is this subset is. From the experiences of the original poster, it seems a minority. I’m sure we’ll disagree on that, but the existence of this blog does seem to suggest certain things…

  • Abbot

    “Of course a man who has slept around can have a successful marriage, why the heck not?”
    .
    As long as there are numerous and various women willing and available for him to select from, he has a pretty good chance.

  • El Marqués

    Actually, SayWhaat, now that you argue it, I’ve heard women say the same thing, that they have or will reject a promiscuous man. Never seen it, though. Actions, words, and the tricky thing in between…

    The other thing I noticed is that somehow, inexplicably, these women always seem invisible to men with the options to be promiscuous in the first place…

  • Todd

    Hey, I can relate to the original letter. In my case, I was dumped by a girlfriend because she didn’t want to bring a Black man home. (For the record, the girl is White.) After that, I went on a reign of terror. Of course, then I found the swing world. Excellent times. Of course, I did end up married, though to someone who has…issues. Severe mental ones. Even still, commitment is still possible. Just learn to not date for a while. It’ll clear your head.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    THE ASS MAN COMETH

    I had some minor surgery today and am unable to comprehensively address the myriad issues and concerns detailed above. I will confine myself to a very small part of the narrative, indeed, not even the narrative-the photo. Clearly we have here the “ass man”, and as one I must explicate not simply in his defense but in defense of ass men everywhere. Unlike the outgoing, extroverted, Kiwanis-joining, joi d’ vre and all that breast man, the ass man is the thoughtful, introverted one, nay pensive, and he carries a burden so deep and profound it is rarely, if ever, spoken or referred to. And that is this-the ass man is charged with looking at every single delectable female behind that crosses his path-NO EXCEPTIONS. Do not denigrate it by calling it an obsession; it is no more an obsession than Michaelangelo’s dedication to the Cistine Chapel. It is an obligation, a duty, yes, a labor of love but that does not diminish its power one iota. For an ass man to NOT turn and look at a woman’s behind is a dereliction of duty, one that haunts him all day, seizes his imagination, makes him ask “what if? What if that was THE perfect one and I for want of a mere turning of the head have missed it, gone forever in a sea of epicene flesh, never to be glimpsed?” It is too terrible even for idle contemplation.

    I believe there is an eschatological componet (oh yes I do!). I think in Heaven there’s going to be a big sign saying “ASS MEN ONLY”. We’ll all queue up, and God will meet with each one of us individually. GOD: “Did you look at every nice ass I put in your way?” ME: “Yes”. God (dramatically looking over both shoulders, then returning to face me) “Oh, you were addressing Me? I thought for a second some asshole had looked in, ‘cuz there’s no way you’d be dumb enough to say that to Me, me who can still recite the circumference of your circumcision foreskin.” God then hits the switch, and I see reel after reel of missed opportunities, beautiful upside down Valentine asses that I missed. My punishment? On eternity on the boulevard, unable to turn my head.

    BTW I know you gals can tell an ass man. Oh yeah. You see me coming a block away. Your inner radar says “ass man 12:00 o’clock”. You then pass by nonchalantly, but suddenly turn your head as if to say “Was that a giraffe?” , not all the way around,not even 180 degrees even, but with your feminine perspicacity and keen eye you can tell yep he’s right on the button, checking out my money maker. And I am.

    Glad to clear this up. Please continue with the discussion. Pay especially close attention to those who advise you to enjoy your time: ahh my children, much wisdom that.

  • GudEnuf

    tvmunson: Props from another booty lover. If a woman has a baby face and slappable ass, she’s near perfect in my book. (Physically at least.)

  • Ted D

    Ass and leg man here. Which is why I love high heels… And short skirts… Together in fact.

  • Herb

    Hmmm, while ass and boobs are nice, I’ve always been a leg and back man. Long gowns with an exposed back and leg slit need to come back in style.

  • Lokland

    +1 on the ass being most important

    On the manwhores can’t get commitment.
    Seen it work more times than I’ve seen it not. Doesn’t mean they chose to stick around but they had the option to.

  • INTJ

    I guess I’m going to be the exception to the norm here. I care very little about ass size (or boob size). Face and low BMI (i.e. athletic body) are most important to me. After that, having that female form which involves having large hips, small waist, and visible breasts is a bonus.

  • Senior Beta

    I am an ass man like Munson. But then we are both INSJ’s.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    It’s interesting to me how so many of HUS’ regular “reformed betas” continue to espouse this notion that players will always have success in this regard, no matter what. Fine, don’t take it from me — I’ve heard numerous girls of my acquaintance and good friends who reject manwhores alike.

    I’d like to think this is true, but my experience has shown otherwise. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a girl say a guy was “gross’ or “dirty” because of his high number, only to put out later…. well, I’d have a shit load of nickels.

  • Ceer

    @Ben

    Thanks for writing in.

    I’d like to emphasize something that you said in relation to hookup culture. It made you sick to have only the physical aspects of a relationship, and none of the emotional attachment…in other words, you’ve always been looking for something more. This seems to be the telltale sign of a natural beta.

    Judging from what you’ve been saying, you’ve got plenty of manliness. Keep that. It’s pretty typical for a man to loose it while he’s head over heels in love. Tends to be a big reason why guys get dumped. Young women are typically unforgiving in this area unless they feel the same way too. The signs are obvious to anyone who’s not in love. You can basically do no wrong.

    Your new girlfriend asked you what type of stuff you’re into. I’ve had a couple girlfriends ask me this, and I figure it’s typically a sign of interest in you as a complete individual. My guess is that she’s searching for an activity you two can enjoy together. It’s a pretty common way that men interact with each other, and can serve to help create an emotional bond.

    Keep in mind that this sort of thing is more of a general interpersonal bond, rather than a sexual type thing. I myself have had conversations with friends where they mention activities that I’m unfamiliar with, and I’ve opened up discussion along those lines.

    I like Susan’s idea of taking a sexual break. I know one guy who tried to not view women sexually at all for an entire year. Not just no sex…but no sex, masturbation, romantic contact, etc…for a year. Afterwards, he said his relationships with women improved. In retrospect, it allowed him the time to focus on improving himself as a man and healing his emotional baggage, so he could move forward from a position of confidence.

    I see three immediate options for you.
    1) Try to have it all — Tell your GF you need space to regain your frame as a man. Non-sexual time. It’s not about her. It’s about you. Do your healing, then reengage if she’s game.

    2) 2 in the bush — Dump her. This means that you value strange pussy + potential bliss of mutual head over heels love (rare, but does happen) more than your current girlfriend.

    3) 1 in the hand — Status quo. I’ve seen many couples who just decided to marry their best friends. They tend to be happy, even into old age.

    Yours is essentially a choice. Which do you prefer.

  • Ceer

    @INTJ

    That’s a common misconception. The typical ranking is:
    1) waste to hip ratio
    2) facial beauty
    3) overall weight
    4) breast size/shape
    5) ass shape

    Your mileage may vary. For instance, I prefer 1 and 2 switched.

  • INTJ

    @Ceer

    Well then I’m 3-2-1-5-4.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @El Marques
    The other thing I noticed is that somehow, inexplicably, these women always seem invisible to men with the options to be promiscuous in the first place…

    I agreed with this when I read it (and still do), but didn’t realize until after I had scrolled back up to quote that it can be taken two ways.

    The first is the way you probably intended it, which is as a subtle neg, reminding the women in question that the men they preemptively reject don’t even notice them anyway.

    The second is the way I originally read it, which is as a recognition of a right order to things. If the women in question really do want to steer clear of such men (I refer to VD’s group of “virgins, religious women and women of very little experience”), then their invisibility is a kind of blessing. This is not to say that one group is “good” and the other is “bad” . . . just that neither seems to have anything to offer the other, so it’s fitting that they don’t get the chance to. As Lokland would say, it’s a feature, not a bug.

  • pvw

    Saywhaat:

    Thanks, PVW. I may still be in the “less sexually experienced” category of women, but I wouldn’t blunder in with my skirt up and pussy out without having some idea of knowing what I’m dealing with. And I think that there are a lot of women who behave exactly the same way — at least, the ones I’m friends with (and yes, they’re much more sexually experienced than I am).

    My reply:

    You’re welcome; that is exactly what I was getting at!

    SayWhaat:

    Besides, I’m gettin’ it in twice a night and once in the morning so as far as I’m concerned I’m making up for all that lost ground with few to zero regrets to spare, aww yeah.

    My reply:

    That is how I felt when I got married!

    El Marques:

    The other thing I noticed is that somehow, inexplicably, these women always seem invisible to men with the options to be promiscuous in the first place…

    Bellita:

    If the women in question really do want to steer clear of such men (I refer to VD’s group of “virgins, religious women and women of very little experience”), then their invisibility is a kind of blessing…neither seems to have anything to offer the other, so it’s fitting that they don’t get the chance to. As Lokland would say, it’s a feature, not a bug.

    My reply:

    I read it the same way Bellita. But I will take it further, that the promiscuous men might not have noticed them because they don’t give off the “I’m DTF and put out” energy, which is all the better for the “virgins, religious women and women of very little experience”.

    Dogsquat

    SayWhaat said:

    “I’ve heard numerous girls of my acquaintance and good friends who reject manwhores alike.”
    ____________________
    SayWhaat, do your friends ever define why they make that choice? Visceral distaste, or a lack of trust? Some combination?

    My reply: I can’t speak for SayWhaat, but I was in a similar category as she was “way back in the day,” in that I had a lower count for a woman of my age, and my visceral reaction was the same.

    I knew a few manwhores who were buzzing around me back then, but I wasn’t interested.

    Why? Several reasons: by being promiscuous, they left themselves open to a greater possibility that they might get stds and thus infect me. This indicated a blatant lack of respect for their own bodies and the bodies of the women (their future wives) who would give birth to their children.

    They were likely to be the types that only wanted to “pump and dump,” when I wasn’t looking for casual.

    They were likely to want the sex that came with a much more experienced woman and so would compare me to them and dump me because they thought I was lacking in some fashion.

    Instead of trying to grow sexually with me, they would have been more likely to want me to act like a porn star from the first night. All of this indicating, once again, that my genitalia would have been all that mattered; forget character, personality, etc.; will I “put out” in the way they want?

    They might have wanted me to be part of a harem of women servicing them.

    Yet, if they felt ready to settle down and were looking for a “wifey,” my thought was “sure, get your wife amongst your hoochies!” I made the sacrifice, living a decent life and keeping myself chaste, so why should they get the benefit of that when they did not live accordingly?

    Could a manwhore have ever redeemed himself in my eyes back then? Yes, if he experienced the equivalent of a “true conversion,” several years of celibacy and a thorough assessment of the evil in his prior lifestyle, and none of this “the she-devils did me wrong,” but that they wanted the she-devils in the first place.

  • VD

    I may still be in the “less sexually experienced” category of women, but I wouldn’t blunder in with my skirt up and pussy out without having some idea of knowing what I’m dealing with.

    Some idea? Are you claiming that you’ve always known how many women your partners have been with prior to having sex with them? If so, that’s great, but that is also not the norm. I’ve certainly never discussed any numbers prior to sex, except of course for the virgins. Let’s make this a general question: how many here have always known their sexual partners’ N prior to having sex with them? Or, more precisely, how many here have always THOUGHT they knew their sexual partners’ N prior to having sex with them?

    It’s interesting to me how so many of HUS’ regular “reformed betas” continue to espouse this notion that players will always have success in this regard, no matter what. Fine, don’t take it from me — I’ve heard numerous girls of my acquaintance and good friends who reject manwhores alike.

    Because the players continue having observable success in this regard. Now, I’m sure you have heard it… but I’m also sure you have no idea with whom your female acquaintances and good friends are actually having sex. I suspect it would surprise you. Remember, it’s a mantra of Game that any woman who makes open statements about “no more games” or “no players” is tacitly admitting her own vulnerability to them. Keep that in mind when you consider with whom your friends who are saying such things have been in the past.

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

      Are you claiming that you’ve always known how many women your partners have been with prior to having sex with them? If so, that’s great, but that is also not the norm.

      This is an area where things are dramatically different in college. There, only a few men rack up a high body count – only 2% over 10, 6% over 5. Everyone in that scene, e.g. Greek, athletics, knows who they are. Ben was in that group, and most likely his partners were too. I believe it’s very rare for a frat rat to get some “strange” in chem lab, for example.

      After graduation, when most people gravitate to large cities, getting this information from a stranger is obviously unreliable. This is why social circle dating is always best for women. There’s at least some degree of vetting that can take place.

  • FeralEmployee

    @SW, 33

    However, the study did show that while men did lose attraction, they did not lose a sense of commitment

    Isn’t that what you’d expect though? Kind of like an addict in need of a justification, or an incentive to keep pursuing the habit? How dull would life be if it’s just “penis goes in, penis goes out, you can’t explain that”. Instead there’s the desire for commitment that keeps driving a manwhore towards women. Not that it matters anyway, since the likelihood of actual commitment has dropped, more importantly: right after sex. After the “seed is in”, it’s time to switch.

    In no way am I implying that the future of manwhores is fatalistic. Habits can be broken, but people underestimate the work required to do so.

  • Ian

    I disagree somewhat that he should leave the current GF. Dating math:

    There’s a much greater reward difference between Nothing and Anyone, than between Someone and Anyone Else. The first time you feel deep attachment or wild lust feels like a deeper strike than the other times. I’m skeptical of those who say they felt something better in later N’s, unless they were feeling something specific for the first time.

    Sample size increasing, you’re more likely to experience a higher rush on your Best Sex and Deepest Affection. Best Sex is best had with Crazy Women, and will not work out long term. Deepest Affection kills Game, makes women sugar-sick, and will not work out long term.

    Geeking a bit, If she’s head-over feet for him, there probably isn’t a histamine incompatibility. A month or two without climaxing might dial back any cravings, open up more constructive ways of getting oxytocin blasts. Dao, tantric, karezza. Nobody ever follows that advice, but it could work.

    It’s the sucky male paradox that you can have any woman you want, so long as you don’t want her. Imperfect world, imperfect biology; our “hand” is better with women we value less, and Ben’s woman seems like a catch despite. Make it work.

  • Ramble

    If she’s also approaching her mid-20s, she deserves to make an informed choice about dating a man she will almost certainly not marry.

    Susan, I thought that this was the most interesting line in the whole piece.

    approaching her mid-20s

    She is not in her mid-20′s, but approaching them, and so she deserves to know that he is not going to marry her. (For the record, I do not disagree with that advice.)

    But, if I were a different person, and were to focus on only that point, I might think that you were a little nuts.

    This is all just my way of saying that by the time this blog has run it’s course, the advice that you will be giving to young women will be little different from the advice that our great-great grandmothers were giving at the turn of the previous century.

  • Ted D

    My rank list:
    1) ass shape
    2)waste to hip ratio
    2) facial beauty
    3) overall weight
    4) breast size/shape

    VD – “Let’s make this a general question: how many here have always known their sexual partners’ N prior to having sex with them? Or, more precisely, how many here have always THOUGHT they knew their sexual partners’ N prior to having sex with them?”

    I always ask before getting intimate with a woman. One of them was a virgin, so at least I know she wasn’t lying…

  • Ben

    Thanks to everyone for the feedback. As an update, I broke up with her in the past 2 days. It hurt like hell, almost as bad as being broken up with myself. I’m going to miss her, but I’ll get over it eventually.

    Feedback:

    @Dogsquat 10

    Don’t worry about it, I’ve been called an arrogant asshole more than once. However, in your case, I don’t see much arrogance. And yes, I’ve given quite a bit of thought to how those two previous experiences scarred me, and it’s quite possible I tried to play it as safe as I could. She wasn’t lower SMV (probably about equal), but I did filter for the most trustworthy, reliable and loyal girl I could find, which she was. I did completely ignore a walking red flag on No 2, probably bc I was trying to rebound from no 1 (they were pretty much consecutive). As for “healing”, I have no idea what does that but time, so that doesn’t occupy much of my mind.

    @Ceer 39

    I think you got the wrong impression from my email. I got sick of just the physical part of it after essentially 2 straight years of banging random chicks. I was very happy doing it for about the first 20 months or so. I love strange p*ssy. I’m a big fan of it. And nothing gets me quite as excited as the thrill of the chase. I just got tired of it after that much time. Also probably didn’t help that most of my friends were in LTRs at the time. The night I decided I was going to try and look for a gf was after I’d had 2 one night stands that weekend, with 2 girls whose names I didn’t even remember. Remember, with girl no 2 (the liar) I didn’t even formally date her, and when she was back at school, despite being emotionally involved w/her, I was hooking up with other random girls in the city. Also, when I decided to be exclusive w/my (ex) gf, I was hooking up with another girl who I had to break it off with. I would say that I fall in your (2) category. I enjoy both, at different times, and would say that after a couple weeks to get over this, I will be joyfully back in full bar pickup swing.

    @All

    She did know I had a pretty extensive sexual history. Even though we didn’t go to the same school, I’d already hooked up with 2 older girls in her sorority before I met her (was a total coincidence they knew each other), and I wasn’t exactly tight-lipped on my opinions about my friends picking up girls, and what they were doing wrong etc. She knew I knew what I was doing around women and had had experience.

    A further note. I’m not looking to “settle down” for good here at all. I wasn’t when I decided I wanted a gf. I’m 25, and have noooooo intention of getting married anytime soon. I wanted a girlfriend, someone who I really cared about, instead of a series of warm bodies. That was my preference at the time. Likely, it will now shift back to warm bodies for quite some time.

  • Ben

    Oh, and I’m an ass man. Big time. One thing I’ll be looking forward to post-gf is more bjs (she wasn’t too enthusiastic), and a nicer ass (hers was just ok).

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

      @Ben

      Hi, thanks so much for joining in. It sounds like you are no longer concerned about being emotionally limited, which is great. I also think you made the right call in breaking up, and while I’m sure that was a very difficult conversation to have, it sounds like you’re already enjoying being single again.

      Likely, it will now shift back to warm bodies for quite some time.

      I am curious to know what you think of your original stated concern that you’re difficult to please sexually, and what impact you feel that might have on you over the long term. Do you think you might simply avoid monogamy in future?

      Also, I’m interested to know whether you care about a woman’s N. Based on your description of the two women you did fall for, I assume they were fairly promiscuous themselves. Also your most recent relationship having been based primarily on partying.

      To be honest, I’m having a little trouble seeing your original letter and your comments here as entirely reconcilable – is it me, or have you had a change of heart?

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

      One thing I’ll be looking forward to post-gf is more bjs (she wasn’t too enthusiastic), and a nicer ass (hers was just ok).

      Ouch. Glad you’re not too broken up over all this.

  • Ben

    @ Ian

    Not an issue of “making it work”. I wasn’t unhappy in any way. In fact you could say I was pretty happy. But I knew that I wasn’t in love, and wouldn’t be, so the trajectory was a long downward slide. I didn’t want to put her through that.

    As for sex, the issue with having a high N count is I have so many clips in the “greatest hits” reel in my head to compare to. And whatever was going on outside the bed, those hits started to intrude on my thoughts more as time went on. She was good in bed, and had a great body and pretty face, but thoughts such as “well she doesn’t do this as well as X” or “I wish her ass was as nice as Y” would start to come in from time to time.

    And for all of you, the relationship was really built on having a great time partying w/her (we went out for dinner, drinks, bars, etc probably 3-4 nights a week together), sex, some shared TV shows, and small talk. There just wasn’t enough deeper compatability. It showed the most during dinner, where in the last couple months the conversation could get forced at times, because there just wasn’t enough to talk about. I don’t think she noticed/it bothered her as much as it did me, but it stood out quite a bit.

  • Ted D

    Ben – “She was good in bed, and had a great body and pretty face, but thoughts such as “well she doesn’t do this as well as X” or “I wish her ass was as nice as Y” would start to come in from time to time.”

    Yeah this is what tells me you really weren’t in love with her. Of course, I’m at the opposite side of the spectrum from you with a small N, but I know how I behave when I’m with someone, and when I am single. And I can honestly say that when I am “in love” with a women, other women just don’t seem so attractive. I can see a woman when single, and be VERY attracted, and then run into her four months after I started a relationship and wonder why I thought she was so hot. Sure, I will still think she is physically appealing, but the actual desire for her is gone. It is because when I really love a women, I only desire her. I may find other women to be plenty attractive, but my thoughts don’t go any further than that.

  • Abbot

    “grow sexually with me”
    .
    This is one of the strongest reasons [right up there with avoidance of the universal natural visceral feeling] men steer clear of commitment with promiscuous women
    .
    “They might have wanted me to be part of a harem of women servicing them.”
    .
    Well, there you have it. “Say Brent, why don’t you go down to the local harem and get yourself a pre expressed and explored “lady” who was only rode on Sundays by the same 15% of men for five years and then summarily rejected”

  • Sassy6519

    She did know I had a pretty extensive sexual history. Even though we didn’t go to the same school, I’d already hooked up with 2 older girls in her sorority before I met her (was a total coincidence they knew each other), and I wasn’t exactly tight-lipped on my opinions about my friends picking up girls, and what they were doing wrong etc. She knew I knew what I was doing around women and had had experience.

    A further note. I’m not looking to “settle down” for good here at all. I wasn’t when I decided I wanted a gf. I’m 25, and have noooooo intention of getting married anytime soon. I wanted a girlfriend, someone who I really cared about, instead of a series of warm bodies. That was my preference at the time. Likely, it will now shift back to warm bodies for quite some time.

    You sound like a real charmer.

    **Barfs in bag**

    You probably don’t know it, but you did that girl a HUGE favor by breaking up with her.

  • Ben

    @Susan

    I am, and was pretty broken up about it. Given that this is the internet, I’m going to let you know I cried for a good 20 minutes after she left. I felt awful. My comments are crude, but I’m trying to move forward and get over it, and that means focusing on what there is of the bright side, gross though it may be.

    I know I’m going to avoid monogamy for the near future. I’m applying for bschool next fall, so I don’t see the point of a relationship now when in a little over a year I could be anywhere.

    The change of heart may relate to the fact that the more people I’ve talked to, the more I’ve realized that my situation was not that untypical, and was just the wrong person for me. However, I am still concerned about my ability to be satisfied with a girl, given my past history, and also my ability to emotionally open up. I was pretty guarded with this girl, and I think dogsquat at #10 is right in a way, I may have emotionally cauterized myself after my previous experiences. I shut down my emotions so fully when I was sleeping around that I’m not sure I can really open them up again easily.

    And yes, Susan, you’re correct in that the first two girls were pretty promiscuous. My (ex) girlfriend, I’m not sure how much she was. I could never really get a feel. I think she made out with a fair number of guys, but from everything I could gather she didn’t sleep around a ton.

    @Sassy

    Sorry, next time I’ll lie to her and hide from her something that all my friends know about her. I met her at a bar; it was a complete coincidence that she was in that same sorority from that same school. Sometimes New York is a small world. Maybe I should have disqualified her on the spot because she chose the wrong sorority and school…

    And I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware it was illegal to date people before you’re ready to get married. I’ll update my processes accordingly.

    And yes, I’m a guy. When I’m single I sleep around. I know that comes as the news flash of the century, but there it is. Sorry, next time on hooking up smart, I’ll refrain from mentioning that I hook up.

    I never cheated on my girlfriend and never even entertained the thought of doing it. I never flirted with a single other girl. Cheating’s for losers. I treated her extremely well. I got her diamond earrings for valentine’s day. For her birthday, I remembered her favorite dish which she’d mentioned months ago and cooked it for her at home. We got in one fight, ever, and it lasted for 10 minutes and was over. I think she’s an amazing girl, I’m just not in love with her. You don’t know sh*t about how our relationship was, so shut up about it.

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

      @Ben

      I don’t think anyone judges you for having casual sex – I don’t. I think the crudeness of the comments was a bit much for the women here – perhaps this is how you need to think of her to move on, but after reading in your letter how much you dreaded hurting her, hearing you say her ass wasn’t that great is a bit…harsh. I’m assuming she was in love with you – if so, she’s likely devastated right now. The guy who gave her diamond earrings only three months ago has tired of her and is dissing her online. She doesn’t know it, but we do.

  • Herb

    @Ben

    A further note. I’m not looking to “settle down” for good here at all. I wasn’t when I decided I wanted a gf. I’m 25, and have noooooo intention of getting married anytime soon. I wanted a girlfriend, someone who I really cared about, instead of a series of warm bodies. That was my preference at the time. Likely, it will now shift back to warm bodies for quite some time.

    Ben, I was with you until the bold part.

    Have more respect for yourself than going back to that. It hasn’t fucked you up in forming attachments yet, but why risk it.

    If you’re really worried about being a manwhore being bad for your future, stop being one. I think you’ll enjoy life more to be honest.

  • http://T SayWhaat

    Don’t have much time except to leave a drive-by comment, but I’d like to address a few concerning me:

    1. Yes, I do know my boyfriend’s N, and I knew the N of a few other guys I dated.

    2. My girlfriends expressed visceral distate at the thought of manwhores. One evenrefuses to date guys more than 2 years older than her because she doesn’t want his N to be much higher than hers (she doesn’t have a high N, she’s a fairly classy girl). I know the N of most of my girlfriends. We discuss our sex lives at brunch.

    3. If you aren’t meeting girlswho dislike manwhores you’re meeting the wrong girls, or eliminating th right ones from your scene.

  • Herb

    @Ben

    But I knew that I wasn’t in love, and wouldn’t be, so the trajectory was a long downward slide. I didn’t want to put her through that.

    See my comments on being in love as well as those of others. If you want to chase it, just start doing coke instead. You’ll get high more often and reliably at a lower cost.

    As for sex, the issue with having a high N count is I have so many clips in the “greatest hits” reel in my head to compare to. And whatever was going on outside the bed, those hits started to intrude on my thoughts more as time went on.

    See my comment above about breaking things.

    @Susan and Sassy

    Ouch. Glad you’re not too broken up over all this.

    You sound like a real charmer.

    **Barfs in bag**

    Yeah, who wouldn’t want to pass that up.

    @Ben again
    Dude, when guys agree with that, you might want to rethink things.

  • Iggles

    Ben – From reading your follow up comments, you did the right thing by ending your relationship with your girlfriend. You weren’t in love and didn’t have deep feelings for her, so I agree it’s best not to drag it out.

    I’m sure she’s hurt right now, but if she truly knew how you feel and what you think of her she’d realize it’s for the best. Really, you set her free.

    That said, honestly I wouldn’t wish a guy like you on any of my friends (who are all LTR-minded). The reason being, if you find the right girl and fall in love you might be able to make things work. But it will likely be an uphill climb since you enjoy the thrill of the chase and new “strange”. That’s completely fine with regards to short-term dating, but in long term relationships there are ups and down.

    When things are “down”, you may find yourself itching to play to the field again to fill that void and/or replaying “greatest hits” in your head. Neither is conducive to maintaining a relationship and may lead to a break up or infidelity.

    Ceer’s comment below may be a good strategy for high number men to employ when they feel ready to settle down:

    I like Susan’s idea of taking a sexual break. I know one guy who tried to not view women sexually at all for an entire year. Not just no sex…but no sex, masturbation, romantic contact, etc…for a year. Afterwards, he said his relationships with women improved. In retrospect, it allowed him the time to focus on improving himself as a man and healing his emotional baggage, so he could move forward from a position of confidence.

  • Sassy6519

    Sorry, next time I’ll lie to her and hide from her something that all my friends know about her. I met her at a bar; it was a complete coincidence that she was in that same sorority from that same school. Sometimes New York is a small world. Maybe I should have disqualified her on the spot because she chose the wrong sorority and school…

    And I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware it was illegal to date people before you’re ready to get married. I’ll update my processes accordingly.

    And yes, I’m a guy. When I’m single I sleep around. I know that comes as the news flash of the century, but there it is. Sorry, next time on hooking up smart, I’ll refrain from mentioning that I hook up.

    I never cheated on my girlfriend and never even entertained the thought of doing it. I never flirted with a single other girl. Cheating’s for losers. I treated her extremely well. I got her diamond earrings for valentine’s day. For her birthday, I remembered her favorite dish which she’d mentioned months ago and cooked it for her at home. We got in one fight, ever, and it lasted for 10 minutes and was over. I think she’s an amazing girl, I’m just not in love with her. You don’t know sh*t about how our relationship was, so shut up about it.

    **Slow claps**

    Are you finished?

    Okay.

    No one is expecting you to lie to women, and I could give a rat’s ass as to whether or not you hookup with other people. That’s on you.

    The issue I have is the haphazard approach you have been taking to the dating world, in general. It seems like you don’t even truly know what you want or need. You don’t have a goal or a purpose. You have no driving desire to strive for. Instead, you are running around like a bull in a china shop, causing damage. You do what you want, without really giving a sincere iota of thought about the potential consequences, and the chips fall where they may.

    What you don’t realize is that you are harming yourself, as time goes on, and harming other people. You got into a relationship on the spur of the moment, admittedly after having ONS with random girls a few days beforehand. You are doing things in the dating world out of whimsy instead of conviction. That’s the problem I have with this situation.

    If you’re so willing to be a drunk driver on the “road of love/relationships”, that’s on you. Just don’t be surprised that people are shocked/appalled when you run over people.

    Get off the road, sober up, then try to drive again. Do some self reflection and don’t get involved with anyone for awhile. Figure out what you truly want and what you are capable of doing, then move forward.

    @ Susan

    I don’t think anyone judges you for having casual sex – I don’t. I think the crudeness of the comments was a bit much for the women here – perhaps this is how you need to think of her to move on, but after reading in your letter how much you dreaded hurting her, hearing you say her ass wasn’t that great is a bit…harsh. I’m assuming she was in love with you – if so, she’s likely devastated right now. The guy who gave her diamond earrings only three months ago has tired of her and is dissing her online. She doesn’t know it, but we do.

    That too.

  • Iggles

    @SayWhaat:

    1. Yes, I do know my boyfriend’s N, and I knew the N of a few other guys I dated.

    2. My girlfriends expressed visceral distate at the thought of manwhores. One evenrefuses to date guys more than 2 years older than her because she doesn’t want his N to be much higher than hers (she doesn’t have a high N, she’s a fairly classy girl). I know the N of most of my girlfriends. We discuss our sex lives at brunch.

    3. If you aren’t meeting girlswho dislike manwhores you’re meeting the wrong girls, or eliminating th right ones from your scene.

    +1

    Emphasis added with the bold part.
    Promiscuous people always tend to overstate/overestimate how promiscuous everyone else is, so those who aren’t are invisible to them. Their neighbor might be a virgin but they’ll perceive her not to be one because they assume she isn’t!

    My friends and I care about this kind of stuff! One of my best friends and I can count on one hand the number of partners we had (including kissing/making out). Both of us are repelled by manwhores and view them as as bad bets for LTRs.

    Regarding #1, I actually don’t know my bf’s N but given what I know about him — before we dated he went several years without a serious gf and he doesn’t like casual sex — our values align on this issue.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @SayWhaat
    3. If you aren’t meeting girlswho dislike manwhores you’re meeting the wrong girls, or eliminating th right ones from your scene.

    In fairness to anyone who can’t find such a girl, VD already pointed out that we already actively avoid them; and El Marques has observed that even when we’re around them, we’re invisible.

  • Iggles

    @ Sassy6519:

    What you don’t realize is that you are harming yourself, as time goes on, and harming other people. You got into a relationship on the spur of the moment, admittedly after having ONS with random girls a few days beforehand. You are doing things in the dating world out of whimsy instead of conviction. That’s the problem I have with this situation.

    If you’re so willing to be a drunk driver on the “road of love/relationships”, that’s on you. Just don’t be surprised that people are shocked/appalled when you run over people.

    Get off the road, sober up, then try to drive again. Do some self reflection and don’t get involved with anyone for awhile. Figure out what you truly want and what you are capable of doing, then move forward.

    + 1

    I couldn’t agree more!

    I get that for a lot of guys, they’re primarily living in the present. Doing what feels good at the time. But, I don’t think they understand how hurtful it is for the girl when a guy does “boyfriend-like behavior” when he actually doesn’t have any plans to fulfill that role. His actions don’t add up. He gives off the appearance of wanting to stick around, when he’s still making up his mind and will likely bolt when commitment is brought up.

    I’ve been on the receiving end of that before. It’s confusing and it sucks.

    In Ben’s case, he was “the boyfriend” and by his account played that role well. Giving a girl diamond earrings for V-Day implies permanence, the idea that you can see a future with her. That may have not been your intention, but it’s hurtful all the same when the “good guy” she’s with suddenly dumps her because he “not that into her”…

    Feelings do change. It doesn’t make you a villain to change your mind. But if you’re going to get close to someone, intimately so, make sure you know what you want before choosing to do so!

  • AnonForNow

    Ben doesn’t want love, he wants infatuation. He is chasing a feeling. He thinks this feeling is love, but he is wrong. It’s one step higher than chasing sex, but it’s not going to lead to real love.

  • Abbot

    “Promiscuous people always tend to overstate/overestimate how promiscuous everyone else is”
    .
    Misery loves [wants] company? Well, this is exactly the premise or desired premise of all that “sex positive” mass confusion and anguish. There are probably no women claiming to be “sex positive” who were raised by caring and nurturing parents. Case closed. Men, please choose wisely.

  • http://T SayWhaat

    AnonForNow, that’s exactly it.

    This should be a clear warning to Ladies: guys with high partner counts = automatic deal-breaker.

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

    @Ben
    You did the right thing by breaking up with her as much as invested she was now it would only get worse and if she is around your age she should be thinking on finding a guy to marry to avoid hitting the wall. She will nurse her wounds now and move on, probably to a guy that can give her what you couldn’t. So can you.

    I read it the same way Bellita. But I will take it further, that the promiscuous men might not have noticed them because they don’t give off the “I’m DTF and put out” energy, which is all the better for the “virgins, religious women and women of very little experience”.

    I will say that I have had my share of dogs that of course assume all women fall on their laps with asking them for a beer. They usually label you a lesbian if you don’t react as usual and move on really quickly I will say this is better than having one trying to convince you so be happy if you are invisible to manwhores less time wasted on avoiding them.

    Let’s make this a general question: how many here have always known their sexual partners’ N prior to having sex with them?

    I know the number and even know names and have seen pics and I meet one in person. But again this is outlier club it seems like, anyway. ;)
    I do agree that when a woman is really attracted to a guy almost nothing matters (married, manwhore and in one occasion even if the guy is gay) but there is a subset of women that don’t place themselves in the position of being that attracted to anyone till they know what is the deal. That is the missing key if you fall for a guy for looks and shallow dominance you have to accept what it comes with him, but if you need something deeper chances are this things are harder to ignore, YMMV.

  • Ben

    @ Herb

    Yeah, some guys don’t like it. It generally follows the expression “those who can’t do, teach”. In dating, with men, it goes “those who can’t do, disapprove”. Most men who disapprove of casual sex do so because they can’t get any.

    @Sassy

    I knew exactly what I wanted. For 2 years, I wanted nothing to do with a relationship. Then I wanted one. 4 months later, I was in one. There was a 4 month gap between when I decided I wanted one and when I got into one, during which I went out with quite a few girls, looking for the one I thought would be right for me. I thought it was this girl (my ex). I was wrong. I’ll try batting 1.000 next time. And yes, I know people get hurt. I felt fucking horrible enough about breaking up with her without your input. I could barely keep myself together when I did it, and I broke down and cried for about 20 minutes after she left. News flash: these things happen to plenty of people who know exactly what they want. I have a few friends who are dedicated serial monogamists, who’ve had one gf after another almost in succession for years. They have broken far more hearts than I have with all the girls I’ve slept with. I don’t lie to girls I have casual sex with. I don’t promise them anything in terms of a relationship, and I’m not cruel or douchey to them. I don’t use “dark triad” to pickup women. I don’t use “game”. I use simple, good old fashioned charm, confidence and humor. When I’m single, I enjoy casual sex. When I’m in a relationship, I’m fully committed to that relationship until it’s not working anymore. I don’t see a problem there. And believe it or not, most of the women I know in my life think I’m a pretty damn good person. Yes I’ve been called a douche, because I’m pretty open with my thoughts and can be a bit sarcastic, but on a several occasions my roommate’s girlfriend (who he’s been dating for 3 years and is deeply in love with), who I see 5+ times a week, has aggressively gone to bat for me with other girls as a good guy without me even asking her to. It’s generally girls who haven’t taken the red pill and aren’t really self-aware who don’t like what I have to say.

    @Susan

    Well most of what I can talk about is personal experience, and so that’s what I’m doing. I would never put enough detail on here so that anyone could identify her. As far as talking shit, I’m trying to get over her, so part of what I’m doing is trying to look at the positives. I may have been a little crude there, but it’s not going to help me by concentrating on how great she is (which she is). I expect she’s doing the exact same thing. I probably right now am being painted as a villain, and that’s her prerogative. I have no interest in doing that to her, but I’m going to try and concentrate on any positives I can find here, because really the only one I focused on was not leading her down a barren path, which doesn’t do much for my happiness going forward.

    @All who’ve suggested I take a sabbatical:

    Not going to happen. I’m a man, and I like to have sex, so I’m going to have sex. My right hand isn’t a very attractive partner believe it or not. Luckily as a man I don’t really have to face the prospect of my sexual history being a major disqualifier for relationships in the future. It may be a double standard, but it’s there. And yes, I know from some women on this thread you say I’d be discarded, and that’s true, you’re generally the exception vs. the rule. Preselection works in my favor in this scenario.

  • Ben

    @AnonforNow

    Couldn’t agree more. I’m 25, and I’m not looking for companionate love at this point. I think settling for that at my age is just giving up. I want what the psych profs call romantic love, which is heavily characterized by infatuation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love . Commitment comes with time, but for me it has to start there. This past relationship just didn’t have the intimacy aspect.

  • http://www.twoinfps.com Chris

    What a great article. The statistics regarding martial sexual satisfaction in accordance to how many partners someone had were of real interest to me, especially as I have a friend who has slept with many more women than Ben and I often talk to him about relationships and long-term happiness.

    Interestingly enough, I’ve also been looking up information on porn addiction and how it can affect sexual gratification, so it was nice to see that pointed out as I think it correlates in a similar manner to sleeping with lots of women as well. Too much of either porn or sex with multiple women seems to overload the brain and numbs you to the pleasure over time.

    Not only did I think this was some great advice for this particular situation, but it is some of the wisest I have read from the myriad of love and relationship blogs out there which all too often rely on cliche and typical advice that paint with much too broad of a stroke to help people with their issues. Bravo :)

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

      @Chris

      Welcome, and thanks for the kind words. I also appreciate the tweet! Congrats on the new blog, it looks great. Be sure to sign in with Comment Luv if you want to promote your newest post!

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Susan
    To be honest, I’m having a little trouble seeing your original letter and your comments here as entirely reconcilable – is it me, or have you had a change of heart?

    I’ve felt the same cognitive dissonance, to the point that I wondered whether Ben had trolled you with the letter. (Hahahaha! But I was clearly just paranoid there.) I think that now that several men have chimed in to assure Ben that sleeping around does not hurt a man’s ability to pair-bond, and that his lackluster relationship with his former girlfriend is not proof to the contrary, Ben no longer sees anything to worry about.

  • Iggles

    @ Ben:

    @All who’ve suggested I take a sabbatical:

    Not going to happen. I’m a man, and I like to have sex, so I’m going to have sex.

    Your mind seems made up, so keep doing what you’re doing. It’s no skin off any of our backs. We’re only commenting and offering our thoughts/advice.

    However, as Dr. Phil says: “How’s that working for you?”

    Can’t say I’d be surprises after you’ve got your fill of empty sex – i mean warm bodies – that in a few years you might find yourself in the same spot again. Wondering if being an emotional prude is a detriment to finding real love.

    Just for laughs, and because I think we would all agree that liking to have sex isn’t the problem I could resist making a substitution:

    @All who’ve suggested I go on a diet:

    Not going to happen. I’m a human being, and I like to eat, so I’m going to keep eating.

    :lol:

  • pvw

    Anacaona:

    I will say that I have had my share of dogs that of course assume all women fall on their laps with asking them for a beer. They usually label you a lesbian if you don’t react as usual and move on really quickly I will say this is better than having one trying to convince you so be happy if you are invisible to manwhores less time wasted on avoiding them.

    My reply:

    Oh my, I recall one of them early in my graduate school career, before I met the husband, who wanted me in his harem as he had a long distance girlfriend. We were acquaintances; we might have had lunch or dinner once. He never acted as though he was interested in dating, so I didn’t chase, even though I liked chatting with him and eventually got to know him as a peer and colleague.

    One day, we were chatting and he said that he would be open to taking things in that direction–sexually. He started talking about “terms,” meaning the terms of engagment so to speak, and I asked, would your girlfriend know about it? He said no, and I just listened, becoming more and more horrified at an obvious manhore who knew how to juggle multiple women.

    The funny part is that he always had black women in the community falling over themselves to help him as he had a very well developed “decent black man trying to do good” persona. Long after, one of the older ladies I knew at the school who worked in support staff seemed shocked that I wasn’t chasing him–”the single appearing black man in graduate school.” If she only knew.

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

      One day, we were chatting and he said that he would be open to taking things in that direction–sexually. He started talking about “terms,” meaning the terms of engagment so to speak,

      He sounds like Christian Grey :)

  • Sassy6519

    @All who’ve suggested I take a sabbatical:

    Not going to happen. I’m a man, and I like to have sex, so I’m going to have sex. My right hand isn’t a very attractive partner believe it or not. Luckily as a man I don’t really have to face the prospect of my sexual history being a major disqualifier for relationships in the future. It may be a double standard, but it’s there. And yes, I know from some women on this thread you say I’d be discarded, and that’s true, you’re generally the exception vs. the rule. Preselection works in my favor in this scenario.

    There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

    You worry that lots of casual sex will hinder your ability to bond with someone later, yet you want to run right back out and do it some more.

    Brilliant.

    It’s generally girls who haven’t taken the red pill and aren’t really self-aware who don’t like what I have to say.

    Uh huh.

    You must be new here.

    I’m probably the woman who is most at peace with her dose of the red pill.

    I’m also not afraid to identify and call someone out over crappy behavior.

    If you want to be haphazard and run back out without a plan based on introspection, go right ahead. Don’t be surprised if it keeps rendering the same results.

    @ Iggles

    Your mind seems made up, so keep doing what you’re doing. It’s no skin off any of our backs. We’re only commenting and offering our thoughts/advice.

    However, as Dr. Phil says: “How’s that working for you?”

    Can’t say I’d be surprises after you’ve got your fill of empty sex – i mean warm bodies – that in a few years you might find yourself in the same spot again. Wondering if being an emotional prude is a detriment to finding real love.

    Bingo.

  • Abbot

    “Ben doesn’t want love, he wants infatuation. He is chasing a feeling. He thinks this feeling is love, but he is wrong. It’s one step higher than chasing sex, but it’s not going to lead to real love.”
    _____________________
    “This should be a clear warning to Ladies: guys with high partner counts = automatic deal-breaker.”
    .
    Yes. Ladies choose their reason [in this case, the inability to love], and it does not matter what that reason is, and reject the promiscuous for life mate status. So why is that there is sooo much angst out there when men do the same thing? What is going on here? Could it be just the sheer number of women compared to men who face slut-status rejection?

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

      @Abbot

      So why is that there is sooo much angst out there when men do the same thing? What is going on here?

      You’re preaching to the choir here, you know that.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Abbot

    You seem to enjoy arguing with yourself an awful lot.

    Seriously, does it ever end?

  • Iggles

    Couldn’t resist*

    ah, typos!

  • Ted D

    Ben – “Most men who disapprove of casual sex do so because they can’t get any.”

    yeah, that’s exactly the reason. *rolls eyes*

    Sorry man, you are a bit full of yourself, and I’m not interested in inflating or attempting to deflate your ego. Knock yourself out getting sex, just try not to hurt any decent women.

  • Rocket

    Perhaps monogamy is not the only answer? Maybe you can have a LTR. Then you and your partner can still get some strange, occasionally.

  • pvw

    Susan: “He sounds like Christian Grey,”

    My reply: Isn’t that the 50 shades of grey guy? The one that our neighbors (umc suburban soccer mom types that you and I live near) supposedly are so into? Meh….Baffling, what they see in that! I recall, though, your earlier post on it; I think I lurked primarily.

    I must give “Mr. Grey” (tee hee) credit though; at least he was a cad who was honest and up front about his tomcat status, compared to the type who would pretend and gull naive girls.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Sassy
    You worry that lots of casual sex will hinder your ability to bond with someone later, yet you want to run right back out and do it some more.

    I believe Ben genuine was worried about that. But with the exception of Herb, every man on this thread has told him that there’s nothing to worry about. Their explanation is that his lack of emotional response to his ex-girlfriend had more to do with her not being the right person and him still being hung up on the two women who disillusioned him in the past. Of course, this sidesteps the question of whether a long string of casual hookups does take a heavy toll on a man . . . whether those causes particular to Ben’s case can co-exist with that more general cause.

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

      @Bellita

      Of course, this sidesteps the question of whether a long string of casual hookups does take a heavy toll on a man

      It was interesting researching the post. What I found was a lot of “chicken or egg” questions. You may recall a post I wrote not long ago about the evolution of narcissism and other Dark Triad traits. They are thought to have been the adaptive strategy of men not suitable for long term mating. In and out before she kicks you to the curb. They were the men who did not embrace the evolution of pair-bonding. Even today, research shows that men who prefer casual sex to more emotive ways of relating sexually are generally lower in agreeableness and more dependent on the dopamine fix. Which came first? We know there is a correlation, but we don’t know the causation. The research implies some men are just wired this way, but I wonder whether engaging in extensive casual sex with strangers creates a disagreeable dopamine addict.

      I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know that men with that stated preference are bad bets for commitment. I don’t think there is really such a thing as a “reformed alpha” – I think there are just guys who commit and cheat anyway.

  • Herb

    @Iggles

    I get that for a lot of guys, they’re primarily living in the present. Doing what feels good at the time.

    Change that to people and I’ll sign off.

    @Ben

    Yeah, some guys don’t like it. It generally follows the expression “those who can’t do, teach”. In dating, with men, it goes “those who can’t do, disapprove”. Most men who disapprove of casual sex do so because they can’t get any.

    Son, you’re new ’round here as a quoter. Let me give you some advice: don’t write checks you can’t cash.

    Not only can I get more sex than you, I’ve already had it on more continents than you and I already have your wet dream: a girlfriend with a girlfriend. I only know of one other poster whose sex life is as unconventional as mine (and I’ll admit Ozy handles it better for a variety of reasons).

    I spent last weekend at a retreat centered around sexuality where I was one of five men in a group of twenty-seven.

    So, go back and read what I said about hurting yourself. Ozymandias and myself are in relationships where sex outside of the relationship is okay (and where the relationship might involve more than two people). One thing we get that you apparently don’t is that having a very open sex life that can include casual sex has tons of emotional and mental land mines in addition to the obvious physical ones (speaking of, when did you get your last STD screening…I called to get the lab sheet written up today because it’s six months and I’m due).

    We also restrict said sexual activity to communities of people who are open to it instead of oscillating between monogamous relationship and sleeping around with people who don’t know which one we’re doing. We don’t necessarily disapprove of casual sex. I disapprove of people who shit in other people’s chocolate pudding (and that goes both ways, getting mad casual sex people aren’t doing the relationship thing with you is just as bad).

    Oh, and unless you can tell me who both of your play partners this Saturday are going to be already I expect you to start complaining while I’m doing.

    @Susan
    In this case, I can answer your title question: no.

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

    @pvw
    Heh lovely typical “Of course all women want me, she wants me to I will be generous and give her a chance” attitude. I think that is why they rather label you lesbian or frigid or something their egos couldn’t sustain themselves if they started to notice how many girls are just repelled by then.
    Oh well more for other women that can have meaningless sex with them and wait for commitment that will never come. A dream come true! :p

  • Herb

    @Rocket

    Perhaps monogamy is not the only answer? Maybe you can have a LTR. Then you and your partner can still get some strange, occasionally.

    Being in that relationship, and now that I’m taking Hope’s advice and enjoying what I have (well, she said enjoy it or give it up, don’t keep it and bitch, and I decided to keep it) I will say this:

    Ben isn’t self-aware enough (at least not yet) to do that.

    I’ve seen bad poly drama. He’s a prime candidate.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Susan
    You’re preaching to the choir here, you know that.

    What he may not know is that the choir has started tuning him out. (Pun not intended.)

  • Maggie

    Ben:

    I think Susan’s advice was right on and it’s best that you broke up with this young woman. She deserves more than you could give her. I just wish you would follow her advice about getting back to an emotional equilibrium (but you probably won’t).

    Two things to think about:
    1. In both of the relationships that you say you felt romantic love, the women had the upper hand. Do you need to feel this tension and constant excitement to feel romantic love?
    2. You talk about wanting to feel “head over heels” The relationships in which you’ve felt this way have not brought you happiness. That feeling doesn’t alway last and there are many happy long term relationships where neither than man or woman ever felt it.

    Please consider taking a break.

  • Cooper

    “Wondering if being an emotional prude is a detriment to finding real love.” -#76

    I like to think so. Since starting to frequent HUS, I’ve really enjoyed hearing over and over the pros of not being promiscious, or having casual-sex.
    But I have to say, I don’t find going without very rewarding.

    I don’t know if it’s the complete void of sexual-validation, or the fact that I look down upon those I know who are promiscious and can’t help wondering if I’m actually of lower-value, or the fear that I’ll one day have to settle for someone who already had an entire emtional-slut phase.

    Whatever it is, I rarely feel gratification from the choices I’ve made in being what is being described as “emtionally prudent.”

    It seems a shame that having a prerequisite of emotional-affection puts a guy at the “end of the line,” so to speak.

    As much as I speak out against casual-sex, I think Ben may have a point.
    “Most men who disapprove of casual sex do so because they can’t get any.”

    If my college years weren’t filled with unrequited-feelings and rejection, and rather full of casual-encounters, I’m not entirely certain I would have the same perspective on all this.

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

    Maybe we should have a name for the phenomenon of good girls being invisible to guys (both manwhores and nice guys) since it seems that it happens a lot more often than not.
    The Cordelia Effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_lear

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Re: VD’s question. I knew my husband’s count, and he knew mine, before we got physical. We also discussed medical history and STDs. It’s only prudent in this day and age when looking for a long-term relationship to know exactly what you both want and who the other person is.

    Re: Ben’s quest for pleasure/sex/love. When I was younger I also bought into the idea of chasing after “love.” I didn’t want casual sex, but I wanted the high that came with “being in love” and kept looking for that. I was not a very self-aware or conscious person, and I was not spiritually balanced.

    It is true that the long-term oxytocin/bonding phase doesn’t properly happen without the initial jolt of the dopamine/infatuation phase. The risk is that the person will never be satisfied with the companionate love and constantly seek the passionate phase. You don’t have to be high-count either, I was feeling that way when I was younger, and I had few past partners.

    What changed for me was a kind of spiritual awakening, which I won’t go into because it’s off-topic, rather new agey and will bore everyone. Suffice it to say though that I had to work on myself and change myself before I could have a good relationship.

    Herb, glad to hear things are going well for you. You certainly seem more content and at peace, and that’s really cool.

  • Herb

    @Ana

    Maybe we should have a name for the phenomenon of good girls being invisible to guys (both manwhores and nice guys) since it seems that it happens a lot more often than not.
    The Cordelia Effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_lear

    Virtual glasses?

    Given “men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses”…

    Then again, I’ve been glad of that…makes the field easier for me :)

  • Herb

    @Hope

    Herb, glad to hear things are going well for you. You certainly seem more content and at peace, and that’s really cool.

    Between HUS and the retreat I sat down and said:

    “What do I need?”
    “What do I want?”
    “Are there unhealthy reasons I want some of those things and would I be better working on the unhealthy reasons than trying to get the band-aids?”

    So, I found what I needed and how to express that to my gf and, to be honest, asked one question that made all the difference. The hard part was while some answers would mean I had what I needed other would mean walking away because I couldn’t get it.

    As for the wants, there were some very unhealthy reasons. You read the surface form here, but the whole “I’m inadequate” goes much deeper…the ex-wife didn’t make it, she just feed a long term undercurrent steroids.

    The fact is, prior to her I was okay with open relationships (hell, I fantasized about being a rural doctor married to the rural vet who lived with their girlfriend and were the scandal of the town when I was in HS/freshman in college). Then we were monogamous and I was fine. It was how she left that made me so insecure I wanted monogamy not because I need it but out of insecurity.

    In all honesty I’m open to both, although even in an open or polyamorous relationship I suspect I’ll be less active than my partner. Although, despite Ben, not because I can’t but because I’m not as variety driven as some men.

    That said, my prior gf wanted a play date this weekend since my gf and I are going to the same party as the prior gf. They’re negotiating now.

    Say, Ben, would you gf hook you up with other women? Just askin’ ;)

  • Abbot

    “As much as I speak out against casual-sex, I think Ben may have a point.
    “Most men who disapprove of casual sex do so because they can’t get any.”
    .
    Do men really disapprove of it whether they are getting it or not? That is odd. If a man is not able to get it casually, would that preclude him from finding a woman willing to have a relationship with him that includes sex?

  • Herb

    @Abbot

    “As much as I speak out against casual-sex, I think Ben may have a point.
    “Most men who disapprove of casual sex do so because they can’t get any.”
    .
    Do men really disapprove of it whether they are getting it or not? That is odd. If a man is not able to get it casually, would that preclude him from finding a woman willing to have a relationship with him that includes sex?

    No, men disapprove of it for a variety of reasons.

    I don’t think Ben is wrong in the sense that there are some men whose only objection to casual sex is they aren’t getting any.

    Others object to it because they have strong moral convictions against fornication.

    Others object to it because the people engaged in it do it in ways that harms others.

    Others object to it because the people engaged in it do it in ways that harms themselves.

    There are certain other reasons and I suspect most have some combination of reasons.

  • FeralEmployee

    @SW, 83

    Ha, reminds me: guess who got in the TIME 100 most influential people two-four weeks ago? I don’t recall who “promoted” her, but I do know Gloria Steinem and Elizabeth Gilbert got to “recommend” someone. As usual, hardly any STEM people in the list. People have a skewed opinion on what is “influential” these days.

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

      @FeralEmployee

      People have a skewed opinion on what is “influential” these days.

      As you know, I thought the book was terrible. But I have to admit this woman got a lot of people to open their wallets, created a new market in a dying industry singlehandedly (naughty books for women on Kindle), and inspired the sale of gray silk ties everywhere. It’s not admirable, perhaps, but she may be the most influential writer in the world right now. Sadly.

  • Abbot

    “There are certain other reasons and I suspect most have some combination of reasons.”
    .
    add to the list good fathers who have daughter[s] and are raising them well
    .
    The sad part is that when men calmly state they do not approve [not talking here about placard carrying protests], they are stifled by others who call them archaic throwbacks and the like. Sometimes, they are all lumped into the “cant get any category” or denigrated with the Nice Guys® label

  • Ian

    @Ben re: sabbaticals

    Not going to happen. I’m a man, and I like to have sex, so I’m going to have sex. My right hand isn’t a very attractive partner believe it or not.

    You’ll reject this, seeds for later:
    On a brain scan, an orgasm resembles a hit of morphine. With any pleasure progression (inc. sugar) tolerance develops and higher doses than new equilibrium are required.The blast of oxytocin can compensate/replace other sources, including a comfortable, pair-bonded relationship.Prolactin is a stress hormone released after orgasm, related to sleep and menstruation, generalized bitchiness, the opposite of dopamine. A novel partner re-excites the dopamine dearth.Testosterone receptors decrease in a MPOA area of the brain, related to male-specific sexual, but also paternalistic behaviors.
    It’s possible to have sex without orgasm, or while scaling back orgasms. The Eastern practices I listed earlier or just plain developing stamina and fakin’ it at the end. It’s odd, it works; most beneficial is withdrawal from that initial sugar-craving.

    And yes, I know from some women on this thread you say I’d be discarded, and that’s true, you’re generally the exception vs. the rule. Preselection works in my favor in this scenario.

    Troof. It’s easier to reject a word like “cad” than a warm, handsome 1%-er. Observation, most the the personal stories here are revulsion-countering-attraction at the thought of being in a harem, not the preselection N-aspect.

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

      I miss Jesus Mahoney. His wisdom and experience would be welcome in this thread. He did show up briefly recently, so at least I know he’s not lying dead in the middle of a ditch somewhere.

      /momworry

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

      @Ian

      Observation, most the the personal stories here are revulsion-countering-attraction at the thought of being in a harem, not the preselection N-aspect.

      That’s a brilliant observation. I think that’s exactly what’s going on. Some women – not all, but some – are able to see a promiscuous male, perceive exactly why he does well with women, and then….

      Second order thinking occurs. Like a child near a stove, her synapses fire their message.

      Disease.

      Cheater.

      Arrogant.

      Selfish in bed.

      etc.

      Some women – not all, but some – who experience this rapid-fire series of warnings will actually say no thanks.

      My job is to increase the size of that group that makes it through the mental maze.

  • Ted D

    Cooper – “As much as I speak out against casual-sex, I think Ben may have a point.
    “Most men who disapprove of casual sex do so because they can’t get any.””

    I have never once in my entire life tried to get a ONS or a fuck-buddy. I’ve intentionally pushed off one or two women that were interested in such (although I think one of them was attempting to snag me for a relationship by using her vagina, but I am probably being too generous)

    Maybe I was a dumb ass for doing so. I certainly don’t feel as sure about it today as I did prior to the red pill, but it does mean that I am completely justified in taking the high ground when it comes to the morality of “romantic” relationships, and I’m very happy to have that ground. Of course it doesn’t make up for any lost “fun” I might have had, but knowing how deeply I feel about sexuality, I really don’t think I would have enjoyed it if I tried.

    Ben can believe whatever he wants, but I know a few guys other than myself that have passed on casual encounters for various reasons. The idea that any guy that speaks out against casual sex can’t get laid is simply lazy or self delusional thinking. I’m very sure there are plenty of men left in religious organizations that abstain from casual sex. Is it because they cannot get it, or because they value their intimacy too much to squander it on women that don’t deserve it?

  • OffTheCuff

    I’m just grinning, watching the women get up in a lather here. He broke up honestly and didn’t cheat.

    Bel: “But with the exception of Herb, every man on this thread has told him that there’s nothing to worry about. Their explanation is that his lack of emotional response to his ex-girlfriend had more to do with her not being the right person and him still being hung up on the two women who disillusioned him in the past. Of course, this sidesteps the question of whether a long string of casual hookups does take a heavy toll on a man . . . whether those causes particular to Ben’s case can co-exist with that more general cause.”

    I should clarify: I think they very much can take a heavy toll, and perhaps get to the point where he would be unable to manage a 10+ year marriage without cheating. But not the point where he couldn’t find a decent woman to get in a mongamous relationship with for a few years, to cohabitate with, or to even marry and tolerate him cheating. The first two allow him to fall in and out of love as much as he likes.

    I believe that will be a less-than-optimal environment to raise children, and i have no idea if he wants to. If women are free to be intentional single mothers, then he can be a suboptimal father.

    There are more women like thisisjen than SayWhaat and her friends. All the hand-wringing about how “I wouldn’t date him and my friends won’t” while perhaps true, is irrelevant from Ben’s perspective.

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

      But not the point where he couldn’t find a decent woman to get in a mongamous relationship with for a few years, to cohabitate with, or to even marry and tolerate him cheating.

      I agree that Ben should have no difficulty getting any of these arrangements. I was under a rather different impression when I wrote the post, not having realized that Ben was ruling out companionate love in favor of infatuation, and preparing to enter an indefinite phase of “emotional prudery,” the very worry that prompted him to write.

      Oh well.

  • Abbot

    “The idea that any guy that speaks out against casual sex can’t get laid is simply lazy or self delusional thinking.”
    .
    Then this must be true
    .
    The idea that any woman that speaks out against casual sex can’t get laid is simply lazy or self delusional thinking.
    .
    Its easy to jump to conclusions as the path of least work

  • Herb

    @Susan

    It’s not admirable, perhaps, but she may be the most influential writer in the world right now. Sadly.

    And to think I was annoyed when it was the Harry Potter chick.

    I didn’t know how good we had it.

  • Herb

    @OffTheCuff

    I’m just grinning, watching the women get up in a lather here. He broke up honestly and didn’t cheat.

    Well, I’m not a woman, but I was the lone man cited by Bellita so I figured I can answer.

    He did break up clean and didn’t cheat. I’ll give him credit for that but that’s behavior I expect of anyone of either sex. Minimal effort is more than some do but it won’t get you my job, just the minimum wage.

    Sadly, it is too much to expect for most people in the SMP these days so perhaps we should give him more kudos.

    I also didn’t think much of how he referred to her post break up about getting more bjs and a better ass. I don’t think he’s wrong to think those things. I’ve said before a woman who breaks up with you or you break up becomes less attractive. I’ve also made reference to the fact I don’t get bjs often.

    What I don’t do is vocalize them in a public advice forum immediately post breakup.

    I believe that will be a less-than-optimal environment to raise children, and i have no idea if he wants to. If women are free to be intentional single mothers, then he can be a suboptimal father.

    And I’m free to have the same opinion of him as I do intentional single mothers (including ELP divorcées).
    It’s called class and I wish more people tried to have it.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @OTC
    If women are free to be intentional single mothers, then he can be a suboptimal father.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I don’t think anyone on this thread is a cheerleader for single mothers.

    Or are you being ironic, because women really aren’t “free” to be single mothers?

  • Herb

    Damn, that broke. It should read:

    What I don’t do is vocalize them in a public advice forum immediately post breakup.

    It’s called class and I wish more people tried to have it.

  • Jonny

    “Not only can I get more sex than you, I’ve already had it on more continents than you and I already have your wet dream: a girlfriend with a girlfriend.”

    What the heck is this about? Ben the manwhore and Herb the manwhore of manwhores.

    Its ridiculous.

  • Herb

    @Bellita

    Or are you being ironic, because women really aren’t “free” to be single mothers?

    I think he was referring to the fact women have absolute control over how much interaction a man has with children he fathers in this country, including if they are born, if he knows about them, if he sees them, and if he pays for them even if he doesn’t see them.

    Or he could be referring to the fact that instead of calling women who choose to get pregnant, sometimes using a sperm bank, while not with a father for the children are considered heroes instead of selfish.

  • Abbot

    “the thought of being in a harem”
    “Some women – not all, but some – who experience this rapid-fire series of warnings will actually say no thanks.”
    “My job is to increase the size of that group that makes it through the mental maze.”
    .
    Is the realization that this “harem” phenomenon is well established and women have been duped for decades finally sinking in, at least a little? It will be very interesting to see articles claiming that the “harem” is a myth made up by a bunch of pearl clutchers designed to make women feel icky about their sleep-around “choices”

  • Herb

    @Jonny

    “Not only can I get more sex than you, I’ve already had it on more continents than you and I already have your wet dream: a girlfriend with a girlfriend.”

    What the heck is this about? Ben the manwhore and Herb the manwhore of manwhores.

    Its ridiculous.

    Actually I’m not a manwhore :)

    The Navy helped with the continents and the gf with a gf is a product of my sexuality which is even problematic for me.

    I was more making the point that my suggestions he respect himself and that he respect his just dumped gf and show some class had nothing to do with how much sex I can get.

    I think having some self-respect and class have more to do with the answer to the headline question than his N.

    Read the stories of Don Juan and Casanova and ask yourself after all the women they bedded why one was reviled and one was loved and honored.

    If you’re going for casual sex which one would you want to be?

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I miss Jesus Mahoney. ”

    JM is probably enjoying his new relationship and detoxing from the ‘sphere. I for one am glad he is out enjoying life and taking a break. I was starting to get concerned that the darkness that lives in the ‘sphere was seeping into him. I’m perfectly fine with absorbing some of that because I’m generally not a shining beacon of joy anyway, but I really hate seeing generally positive people beat down into submission.

    Don’t worry. I suspect he is going the same route as DS and is just too busy for us. Not only am I OK with that, but I actively encourage it. He’ll be back. After all, even DogSquat couldn’t stay away forever. ;-)

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

      @Ted D

      I’m sure you’re right. I think the 50 Shades of Gray post was the final straw, and I’d rather see him get away from that and enjoy his gf. I just get too attached for my own good.

  • INTJ

    @Ben

    You came here, asked for advice, and then proceeded to ignore it. You now have dumped a girlfriend because you couldn’t get an infatuation for her (as if infatuations last), and because you kept comparing sex with her to sex with others (casual sex can do that). You were worried about the dangers of casual sex but are now going to jump right back into it.

    Yeah, some guys don’t like it. It generally follows the expression “those who can’t do, teach”. In dating, with men, it goes “those who can’t do, disapprove”. Most men who disapprove of casual sex do so because they can’t get any.

    What about porn? I don’t watch porn. Are you seriously going to make the case that this is because I can’t get any porn?

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Herb
    I’m actually anti single mother myself, so I get all that. What I don’t understand is what that has to do with Ben’s case.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Susan

    I was under a rather different impression when I wrote the post, not having realized that Ben was ruling out companionate love in favor of infatuation, and preparing to enter an indefinite phase of “emotional prudery,” the very worry that prompted him to write.

    Oh well.

    Trolled after all? :(

    The saddest part is that it wasn’t even intentional!

  • Herb

    @Bellita

    I’m actually anti single mother myself, so I get all that. What I don’t understand is what that has to do with Ben’s case.

    I think the idea was OTC was agreeing in the long run manwhoring may impact his ability to sustain a marriage and that if he wants kids he’ll be a less than ideal father for that reason.

    He then wonders why we should condemn that specific effect in the current environment.

    I actually agree.

  • OffTheCuff

    Bel, it was a tangent. I was saying that even if he wanted to be a poor father, he has the same right to do so, as women who choose to be a poor mother. Wasn’t directed to anyone here as supporting single moms.

  • OffTheCuff

    Herb, exactly. Thank you.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Herb
    OTC actually reminds me that while we ponder very deeply the impact the choices we make will have on our long-term mating prospects, we rarely talk about the impact they will have on our children.

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

      OTC actually reminds me that while we ponder very deeply the impact the choices we make will have on our long-term mating prospects, we rarely talk about the impact they will have on our children.

      I confess I never even thought of that. At least not directly.

  • Herb

    @Bellita

    OTC actually reminds me that while we ponder very deeply the impact the choices we make will have on our long-term mating prospects, we rarely talk about the impact they will have on our children.

    People don’t care about the feelings of their fashion accessories or must have shiny new toy.

    One of the very valid complaints of the manosphere is too many women doing the “career than marriage” route think of men as accessories. One of the very valid complaints of women is too many men in their 20s think of women as toys.

    Combine those two and what do you expect with respect to thinking about children.

    Hell, the current SMP and MMP are side effects of 20+ years of leaders in politics, media, and philosophy caring more about grinding their axes and getting their jollies than caring for their children.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Herb
    I actually think about my future family a lot. The only reason I don’t ask “What about your children?” type questions here is that I anticipate that someone will answer that he or she never plans to have children anyway.

    Still, despite the obvious, it’s always a shock to me when someone explicitly points out that people are behaving the way they are because they don’t value children.

  • J

    I believe the term manwhore …. arose due to the increased number of men in today’s SMP who have racked up very high numbers – 50, 100, 200. My sense is that the prevalence of STDs makes these men less attractive, as well as their avoidance of relationships. I have described this as the boomerang effect of preselection.

    I agree that fear of an STD counters preselection, but I’d add that racking up high numbers means that the man involved may have an inability to form healthy relationships, be satisfied with one person, etc. Guys like that scared the hell out of me as a young woman, and, were I to find myself single again, I’d still avoid them like the plague. In fact, I’d actively look for a guy with a history of fidelty to a dead wife or one who’d been frivilously divorced by someone he’d been faithful to.

  • Ben

    @Susan

    There was no intent to mislead with my email. Bellita has it pretty spot on. I was worried that I’d done serious damage to my ability to pair bond, but having seen umpteen guys on this thread say that it was probably just this particular girl, I’m less concerned than I was (I’ve also talked to quite a few guys in person who’ve been in many more relationships than I have, and they had the same takeaway).

    Also, not selfish in bed. Perhaps TMI, but I prefer to defend myself here. I loooove going down on girls, and often will do it to make sure they’ve gotten off even after I’ve finished. On another note, one of my biggest turn ons of anything is listening to a woman get off.

    @All

    First, not new here. Been around for about a year. Possibly posting/writing under a different name because I’ve revealed too much about who I might be under my usual one.

    If you notice carefully, my letter was NOT asking for advice on whether I should have casual sex or not. It was expressing a worry that my history of having it had affected my ability to pair bond, and asking for advice on what to do with my now (ex) girlfriend. Believe it or not, Susan was not the only person I talked to about this. I’m now pretty satisfied that it hasn’t. I’m still a little worried that it has affected my sexual satisfaction long-term, but at this point I can’t erase my past sexual history. I’m not ignoring the advice of “take a sabbatical”, I just think it’s not gonna make me forget the last 24 girls, so what’s the point. I’d just be depriving myself of a good time, and I’m not one for self-deprivation. (FYI, I’m a committed atheist, and I think Passover, for instance, is a waste of good bread. Probably just opened up a whole ‘nother can of worms with that one).

    @Herb, Ted D, INTJ

    That comment was not meant to be either a dick-measuring contest, nor an absolute statement. It was a generalization which I believe is true. I’m leaving aside those who object on religious grounds, because that’s a totally different ballgame. I have many friends who can get casual sex, and some who can’t. I couldn’t find one of the former who would object to it, and very few of the latter. Find me an alpha (or a man who’s good with women) who disapproves of casual sex (note: not dislikes) and I’ll respond by finding you a needle in a haystack to accompany him.

    I also don’t see an issue with posting this online. I thought it was relevant to what is discussed on this forum, and I took steps to make sure no one (not even my ex) could identify who either person is. It’s the old “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it”….

    @ OfftheCuff

    I VERY much resent the accusation that I will be a sub optimal father/husband or a cheater. I’ve never cheated in my life. I’ve never ever flirted with other girls when I’m with someone, even if I’m getting sexually bored. I think it shows weak character.

    At this point, I don’t want to have kids, but I’m 25. I may want to in the future. I don’t think my sexual history has any bearing on my fathering capabilities. My father, fyi, was also quite the ladies man when he was young (dated models), but has been married to my mother now for 30+ years, with nary an incident of cheating, and has been about as good of a father to my brother and I as I could imagine. If you think it’s environment or genetics btw, my brother would disagree with most everything I’m writing. He’s a hopeless romantic who’s dislikes casual sex.

    @Herb again

    No interest in any sort of poly arrangement. It wouldn’t work for me, I’d feel too guilty. And not sure if it was a joke, but I wouldn’t go near any of my gf’s friends, even though one of them flirted with me incessantly. I’ve already hurt her enough, that would just be cruel. Also, I get STD tested every 6 months, and always use protection. College did teach me something (I hope).

    @Maggie

    I don’t think companionate can evolve without first being passionate/romantic. That’s my viewpoint. I fully accept I won’t always be completely infatuated with the person I’m with, but I find it hard to see myself staying with them if I never was.

    Tried to cover everyone here, but if I missed anyone, please speak up.

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

      @Ben

      Just to be clear, I did not believe you intended to mislead in any way. I figured, to be honest, that I had perhaps not understood the whole story – a common risk in responding to emails. Also, several days have passed, and you’ve obviously talked to others and taken action, so I assumed your thinking on the matter had evolved.

      Obviously, you are now less concerned about your ability to relate emotionally to women. Now that I have more information, I’m more concerned, but hey, it’s none of my business. I’ve already shared what I took exception to.

      I’m sure you would agree that a woman seeking anything more than a short-term fling would be well advised to steer clear of you for the foreseeable future. As long as you’re honest about your intentions, any poor choices are on them. Some people just really like going off the high dive.

      Glad you hear you like to go downtown. One thing that characterizes casual sex is a very low rate of orgasm for the female. I’m sure your thoughtfulness is much appreciated.

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

      I’m not ignoring the advice of “take a sabbatical”, I just think it’s not gonna make me forget the last 24 girls, so what’s the point.

      I think this is a rational argument. If any of the effects in the post are inevitable…

      1. Destined to experience sharp dropoff in attraction after first sexual encounter.

      2. Likely to feel only somewhat sexually satisfied in LTR or marriage.

      3. Perceived as poor bet for LTR or marriage due to sex and relationship history.

      …You’ve already past the point where they kick in. Might as well enjoy the ride.

  • J

    @Feral Employee

    I wonder what the mechanism behind this drop-off in physical attraction is linked to.

    I think the body can only maintain production of/sensitivity to dopamine for so long. Then, as is the case with a lot of addictive drugs, the high disappears. At that point, there is an underlaying friendship or an oxytoxin attachement that keeps a relationship together…or not.

  • Herb

    @Ben

    No interest in any sort of poly arrangement. It wouldn’t work for me, I’d feel too guilty. And not sure if it was a joke, but I wouldn’t go near any of my gf’s friends, even though one of them flirted with me incessantly. I’ve already hurt her enough, that would just be cruel. Also, I get STD tested every 6 months, and always use protection. College did teach me something (I hope).

    Less joke, more sarcastic aside, re: why we’d object to casual sex.

    I’m glad you know it doesn’t work for you. Like I said, I’m polyfriendly but it’s hard and pushes buttons I didn’t expect.

    That said, if you genuinely worry about casual sex affecting attachment and you know poly would cause you issues, I’d re-evaluate doing the casual sex thing. I suspect, I cannot prove, but I suspect poly is the healthy outlet for people able to emotionally engage in casual sex. That is, poly is the way to be “casual” that fucks you up less emotionally if only because it is a deliberate act instead of, well, casual.

    That’s also what I read in Sassy’s remarks. Just diving back into random ONS and FWB implies that you’re doing this without thought. Taking time to take stock and while you do it not having new partners or hooking up with old ones would be very healthy, IMNSHO.

  • J

    Maybe we should have a name for the phenomenon of good girls being invisible to guys (both manwhores and nice guys) since it seems that it happens a lot more often than not.

    Happened to me, happens to a lot of us. I think of it as the Hermione Syndrome, but that’s just how I identify.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    Re: future children

    My perception was that it wasn’t PC to bring them up, because that kind of talk eventually leads to moral judgments, and even Susan has said that she doesn’t write about morality, but about strategies. I do respect that . . . but for me, future families are the whole point.

    We tiptoe around that here when we use rhetoric like, “Choose the dad, not the cad,” or remind women to start thinking long-term in college because a woman’s fertility starts hitting the wall in her late 20s. This may not be true for everyone who wants a long-term relationship, but I think most of the women here (commenters and lurkers) do want to have children someday and that it would really make a difference (to their filtering, their dating, and so on) if it were openly acknowledged.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    It is possible to keep the dopamine in a long-term relationship going.

    1) Novelty. Doing new things together will stimulate dopamine production, which can have a transference effect onto the significant other.

    2) Lots of sex. This probably only works if you have a good relationship otherwise and are attracted to each other. Also involves open, honest communication — like, asking for more bjs if you want them and aren’t getting them.

    3) Spirituality / meditation. By this I do not mean just religion. Plenty of “atheists” have touted the benefits of meditation. It means being connected to your inner self and finding greater meaning. Mutual meditation and deep talks are amazing preludes to sex.

    It does involve conscious effort and a past history of mutual healthy love. But I believe the passion doesn’t have to leave a relationship over time. Brain imaging research backs this up. A couple can still be in love after 20 years, minus the fear and anxiety and negative stuff of new love:

    http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/11/what-your-brain-looks-like-after-20-years-of-marriage/

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @J
    I think of it as the Hermione Syndrome

    But Viktor Krum saw her well enough, didn’t he? ;)

  • OffTheCuff

    Ben, I’m not saying you won’t or can’t be a faithful husband or good father, but there is less chance of it. You have very little experience being faithful to anyone, and a few years is jack shit when it comes to the lifetime of a child.

    People rarely change, I find. They can, of course, they just don’t do so all that often. It’s best to assume they won’t, and hope they do.

  • Herb

    @OTC

    People rarely change, I find. They can, of course, they just don’t do so all that often. It’s best to assume they won’t, and hope they do.

    Hope is not a plan. Ben clearly doesn’t want a plan.

    Plus, his response to the suggestion that how he’s commenting lacks class gives me little hope:

    I also don’t see an issue with posting this online. I thought it was relevant to what is discussed on this forum, and I took steps to make sure no one (not even my ex) could identify who either person is. It’s the old “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it”….

    Integrity is doing what’s right when no one is looking.

    Integrity is integral to being a faithful spouse or good parent.

    He has no plan to change and, more importantly, figures why work on changing until “it matters”. The lack of insight into how much harder that change will be is bad enough. The lack of concern is even worse.

  • Abbot

    I think most of the women here (commenters and lurkers) do want to have children someday and that it would really make a difference (to their filtering, their dating, and so on) if it were openly acknowledged.
    —————————
    A man who wants to have children also has to filter in order to select the most optimum mother of his children. Not to be taken lightly. A rich history of recreational sex may not be a good starting point, especially if you dont want such a world view passed to your children or around you in the first place

  • Alias

    Bellita:
    “I actually think about my future family a lot.”
    —–
    > I’ve always thought about how my behaviors would impact my future children/my legacy- from the time I was a child.

    ________________
    Bellita:
    “The only reason I don’t ask “What about your children?” type questions here is that ”
    ——
    I’ve brought it up before on here, questioning how it is that all of this “sexual agenda”/evo psych stuff will impact children and all I got was crickets chirping.
    Later, I took a peak at David Buss’ table of contents for his “Evolutionary Psychology” and noticed that there’s a section under -Ch8 Problems of Kinship – about “Grandparental Investment” which makes me wonder what it says about lifetime monogamy. ?? I might get to that someday.

    __________________
    Bellita:
    “I anticipate that someone will answer that he or she never plans to have children anyway. ”
    ——-
    I sure wish they’d get permanently fixed not to, but they don’t.

  • VD

    I don’t think there is really such a thing as a “reformed alpha” – I think there are just guys who commit and cheat anyway.

    It’s a poor bet, to be sure, but they do exist. Remember, we’re not hapless slaves to our past behavioral patterns. There are even alphas who have become celibate monks. But it either takes a) tremendous willpower and commitment, b) religious conversion, or c) true love. I know alphas who commit and cheat shamelessly, even on ridiculously hot women. I know some who are permanently single or divorced. But I also know a few who have been perfectly faithful for decades despite three-digit premarital N.

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

      @VD

      I know alphas who commit and cheat shamelessly, even on ridiculously hot women. I know some who are permanently single or divorced. But I also know a few who have been perfectly faithful for decades despite three-digit premarital N.

      Vox, do you have any sense of what separates the third group from the others? I’m wondering how a woman could make an informed bet. Is it qualifying the relationship as true love?

      I know you consider yourself a sigma, but perhaps you fall into this group (or something like it).

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I’m not ignoring the advice of “take a sabbatical”, I just think it’s not gonna make me forget the last 24 girls, so what’s the point.

    I think this is a rational argument. If any of the effects in the post are inevitable…

    1. Destined to experience sharp dropoff in attraction after first sexual encounter.

    2. Likely to feel only somewhat sexually satisfied in LTR or marriage.

    3. Perceived as poor bet for LTR or marriage due to sex and relationship history.

    …You’ve already past the point where they kick in. Might as well enjoy the ride.

    I’m going to disagree. The human brain is plastic and through effort we can change it. The degree isn’t great and the more we move it one way the harder to get back to start and aging makes it harder.

    However, to point out the degree of capability I’d point out an inveterate brothel crawler became the man we remember as St. Augustine. While people love to revile his quote, “Lord give me chastity, but not yet,” the full context explains this is the later Augustine criticizing his former self. He knew he went through a period where he spoke the words of chastity only to later embrace the words then embody them.

    You could say Ben is saying, “Lord, let me love but not yet.” I believe, if he chooses to undo the damage and strives to undo the damage he can. However, at some point the first step to stop saying not yet is to quit going to the brothels.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Alias

    Bellita:
    “I anticipate that someone will answer that he or she never plans to have children anyway. ”
    ——-
    I sure wish they’d get permanently fixed not to, but they don’t.

    Or that they’d make it clear early on . . . Not that it’s on them to say so.

    I know it’s inadvisable to ask men early in the dating stage what their thoughts about family and children are, but I’m going to start doing that so that I stop wasting time.

    Last week, a blogger I know complained about men who “casually” mention during first dates that they hope to marry women who want to be stay-at-home mothers and homeschoolers. She thought it was an unreasonable thing to expect. Perhaps it is, but it’s also an excellent way to filter. Besides, it’s what they really want.

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

      @Bellita

      I know it’s inadvisable to ask men early in the dating stage what their thoughts about family and children are, but I’m going to start doing that so that I stop wasting time.

      That’s a tricky one, but I agree – that is very important info to have asap. I was lucky in that my husband mentioned having kids on our third date. Since a lack of interest on his part would have been an automatic dealbreaker for me, it would have been terrible to fall in love and then learn that detail.

      How on earth to get that information early without seeming overeager and inappropriate? I have no idea.

  • Dogsquat

    Bellita said:

    “Of course, this sidesteps the question of whether a long string of casual hookups does take a heavy toll on a man . . . whether those causes particular to Ben’s case can co-exist with that more general cause.”
    ____________________________________

    Consider my feet held quite closely to the fire!

    Susan had an article awhile ago about choice addiction, which I think plays a larger factor then sheer number of sexual partners. Of course, Ben and I are different people, but here’s why I think what I do:

    I was much, much more tolerant of flaws in potential partners at age 23 than I am now. Now, if I see something I don’t like/she won’t fix, I break up with the girl and move on. More sexual partners didn’t cause this – just getting better with women did.

    I was worried about myself for a bit, because I’d hang out with these women and think,”Hmm. I kinda like you, but I wish you had Suzy’s X and Sara’s Y. Then I’d like you more…I wonder if Janie has X and Y….I think I’ll send her a text right now.”

    To be clear, this was not done after I gave any sort of commitment – this is in the flirting, first date, “getting to know you” phase.

    Might be I’m super picky about women, or I was having bad luck, or I was having fun exercising my power in the marketplace – but I’ve had similar thoughts to Ben’s.

    After some amount of emotional investment, my mind would flip from “Actively Rule This Girl Out Mode” to “Let’s Make It Work Mode”.

    I think it’s the emotional investment part that Ben’s going to have problems with. Those women that dumped him damaged his Mode Select switch. As evidenced by his comments here, he’s not aware of this, nor does he seem willing to investigate right now.

    That’s fine, by the way – don’t forget that he’s just had an upheaval in his life. It’s not as hard as getting dumped, but it’s not fun, either. I sincerely hope Ben does some introspective work and figures out his wiring before he hurts too many other women, though.

    As everyone’s favorite Chinese Warlord Sun Tzu said:

    “It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

    Right now the score is Girls – 2, Ben – 1. He is, as Sun Tzu would say, still in peril.

  • Alias

    Bellita:
    “She thought it was an unreasonable thing to expect. Perhaps it is, but it’s also an excellent way to filter. Besides, it’s what they really want.”
    ———-

    If it scares people off, I think it’s a good thing. Why waste time? That’s just MY take on it. However, the problem is that most people aren’t upfront on their intentions and half the time they don’t have a clue what they want- so you have to be really careful. You shouldn’t solely take on the task of vetting someone, get other trustworthy people to help you in the process.

    One way to get people to indirectly talk about their values is to discuss other people- in movies, books, in your/their environment. Don’t forget to observe them in their environment. I have no doubt you already know all of this.

  • Thrasymachus

    There seems to be a huge disconnect here between the comments about male promiscuity and the experience of male players.

    When female promiscuity was discussed in a number of threads many male posters stated that it was a distinct turn-off for most men where long term relationships were concerned. Bluntly speaking, men were reluctant to marry sluts, although they were more than willing to have sex with them in one night stands, friends with benefits hookups or no strings attached relationships. Some posters – notably Jess and Tom – disagreed, saying that this narrative did not match their experience. In their view, most men do not care about a woman’s number, and the ones who do are not usually the highest status or most desirable men.

    The main problem with this claim is that (most) women’s actions do not match this scenario. Women with high numbers often decline to reveal them to potential lovers, and underestimate these numbers even in anonymous surveys. If you read “sex positive” feminist web sites you see a considerable amount of nervousness about the subject. The entire campaign to reclaim the word “slut” shows that at least some sex positive feminists know very well that many high status men do not want a “woman of experience.” That is why these feminists fight so hard to change attitudes on this issue.

    The situation with respect to promiscuous men seems very different. There are women on this thread and elsewhere who claim to reject manwhores. While this is no doubt true for some sub-sets of women, it does not seem to translate into any significant reduction of opportunities for players. Note too, that players are not successful only with the 20 percent or so of the most promiscuous women – they accumulate their numbers from a much wider range of the female population. Players do not find it necessary or even desirable to understate their numbers, although some cads (like Tom in a previous thread) may fake commitment in order to get sex. When sex positive feminists indulge in shaming language towards men the usual insult is “you can’t get laid,” not “you’re a manwhore.”

    If a substantial number of attractive women rejected players these guys would behave very differently – more like women with high numbers. As far as I know no reputable source suggests that this is happening. The fundamental question remains – if so many women are repelled by manwhores, why doesn’t this force them to change their behavior? Either these guys are simply stupid or they find that a high number does not significantly reduce their options. The evidence strongly suggests that the latter proposition is more likely to be true.

    Game advocates would also reply that this demonstrates the truth of one of their fundamental tenets – look at what women do, not what they say. In this instance at least it would be difficult to disagree with them.

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

      @Thrasymachus

      Great comment.

      When female promiscuity was discussed in a number of threads many male posters stated that it was a distinct turn-off for most men where long term relationships were concerned. Bluntly speaking, men were reluctant to marry sluts, although they were more than willing to have sex with them in one night stands, friends with benefits hookups or no strings attached relationships.

      I asked Ben about the sexual history of the women he’s fallen for, and he did confirm they were promiscuous. There are two things I find interesting about that. The first is that Ben did get very invested in two women who started off as fuckbuddies. That does indeed run counter to what most men here have said. The second has to do with Ben’s social scene. He mentions he met the most recent gf in a bar, and that their relationship is based on partying together. This is anecdotal evidence for my own theory that the 20% of male and female players generally get with one another. It’s clear what a small world it is when he describes that even in NYC, he hooked up with three women from the same sorority and school by sheer coincidence.

      If a substantial number of attractive women rejected players these guys would behave very differently – more like women with high numbers. As far as I know no reputable source suggests that this is happening.

      Eh, I don’t want this to devolve into the usual debate on NAWALT, but I’d like to point out something about this. First, I have both read and heard here that the guys most successful at getting laid still get a ton of rejections. IIRC, Game literature suggests that even with tight Game, you’re going to have a high failure rate. One of the reasons these men are successful is that they don’t take rejection personally at all. They just find another target and try again. Because men have a lower standard for casual sex, they may have a sizable pool of women attractive “enough” at any bar in town. A guy who goes out drinking four nights a week and approaches women aggressively is going to rack up bodies if he’s any good at it.

      But here’s the thing – he’s going to be culling those same venues, mostly clubs and bars. Ben said so outright. If Ben decided instead to focus on female club soccer teams, or women studying at the New York Public Library, his pool would shrink dramatically and his hit rate would plummet.

      I’m not saying Game only works on bar sluts. I’m saying that from a Risk/Reward perspective, bar sluts are the way to go. Manwhores can get laid as much as they like just by going to places where women who hook up go to drink. There was a guy who used to comment here who had been with 200 women, all of whom were musical groupies. That doesn’t say anything about how well he might have done with kindergarten teachers.

      Does anyone have real information (other than Solomon’s preacher’s daughter sexting him her bare breasts) that suggests that players do in fact reach into a wide part of the female population? Because I know for a fact it’s not true on college campuses, where the number of highly promiscuous men and women are about equal.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Bellita, there are more subtle ways to feel out the man’s views on marriage and children.

    When I first started talking to my husband, it was around Valentine’s day. My friend Jenny invited me to her place because she knew I was single. She was married and had four kids, all babies or toddlers, and I played with them and helped her take care of them for a short time. Her husband was also around and helping her out.

    Later in conversation, I mentioned this to him, and I said that playing with those kids and seeing them behave with such personality made me absolutely certain that I want kids of my own. I also said that seeing their harmonious marriage was really nice, and I would aspire to that. This prompted him to say that he also thought family was very important, and that he was similarly influenced when he was abroad in a rural African village and saw how they placed such importance on family.

    As Alias said, a way to get people talking about their own values is discussing third-party scenarios. You don’t have to go all direct interrogation mode. Read between the lines, and people reveal a lot about themselves.

  • Alias

    Bellita,
    Sorry for repeating what you’ve already stated- that people aren’t upfront, it’d be so much easier if they were. That, of course, makes it difficult to weed people out- so what I was getting at is that you shouldn’t try to do it alone, if possible get others involved and pay careful attention to their input.

    Even if you meet someone in a public place, you’re getting valuable input from how that person you’re meeting interacts with the people around you. You don’t get that info from emails/texts/phone calls/snail mail.

  • Lavazza

    From Ricky Raw:

    “Part of the reason why it’s so easy for codependents to turn into narcissists with the right incentive and for narcissists to turn into codependents with enough ego-crushing life setbacks is because there is a little bit of a narcissist in every codependent and a little bit of a codependent in every narcissist.”

  • Iggles

    Integrity is doing what’s right when no one is looking.

    Herb, you rock! :)

    I feel that you have been on point this entire discussion. It’s too bad Ben doesn’t seem interested in taking your advice.

    Honestly, I think that one line can sum up the difference between people who think like Ben and people who disagree with them. The former, don’t understand the point. After all, no one will know if you do the right thing or not!

    Meanwhile, the latter realize that THEY will know they didn’t do the right thing (or rather what truly feels right to them, in accordance to their values), and that will leave a mark on their conscience.

    To quote Harry Potter (hey, it’s already been mentioned on this thread!):
    It’s the “choice between what is right and what is easy”

    Contrary to popular opinion, this group doesn’t choose to do the right thing because they’re weak. They do it due to strength of character. Anytime you choose to delay gratification because you know it’s better for you to personal do so, you’re inner resolve is on display.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SayWhaat
    “Fine, don’t take it from me — I’ve heard numerous girls of my acquaintance and good friends who reject manwhores alike.”

    It’s fun having your positive experiences and social network totally marginalized, huh?

  • Lavazza

    More:

    “They need someone more narcissistic and selfish and emotionally manipulative than themselves in order to generate intense chemistry thanks to their childhood issues with their parents. When they were codependents it was especially easy to find people more selfish than themselves, so they could find chemistry all levels of narcissists, from the midly narcissistic to the pure narcissists. However now that they are compensatory narcissists and higher up the narcissistic ladder themselves, the only people who can now generate chemistry for them are pure narcissists.

    The problem is, compensatory narcissists are rookies and pure narcissists are vicious professionals. The pure narcissist will eat the compensatory narcissist alive, bones and all. The compensatory narcissist is no match for the pure narcissist, as he soon finds out. So the pattern a PUA seems to go through seems consistent: Alternate between finding a string of codependents to be the narcissist to until you get tired of and disgusted by their codependency or suck them dry of narcissistic supply, and finding the occasional pure narcissists to be the codependent to, until the pure narcissist gets tired of them and disgusted by their codependency or sucks them dry of narcissistic supply. I defy you to read the book and still deny that this pattern is not repeated throughout it.”

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Lavazza, Ricky Raw is an incredibly insightful writer and thinker, and his posts are great.

    As I come across red pill / truth seekers, many eventually turn to spirituality. This post of his deals with spirituality and personal growth:

    http://therawness.com/the-limits-of-knowledge-part-2/

  • Lavazza

    Hope: I am a yogi, so for me there are 5 obstacles.

    Translated into English, these five (pañca) Kleśa-s or Afflictions (kleśāḥ) are[1]:

    Ignorance (in the form of a misapprehension about reality) (ávidyā),
    egoism (in the form of an erroneous identification of the Self with the intellect) (asmitā),
    attachment (rāga),
    aversion (dveṣa), and
    fear of death (which is derived from clinging ignorantly to life) (abhiniveśāḥ).

  • INTJ

    @Ben

    That comment was not meant to be either a dick-measuring contest, nor an absolute statement. It was a generalization which I believe is true. I’m leaving aside those who object on religious grounds, because that’s a totally different ballgame. I have many friends who can get casual sex, and some who can’t. I couldn’t find one of the former who would object to it, and very few of the latter. Find me an alpha (or a man who’s good with women) who disapproves of casual sex (note: not dislikes) and I’ll respond by finding you a needle in a haystack to accompany him.

    Your reasoning is completely flawed. I disapprove of casual sex, and yet I’m confident that if I wanted to, I could learn PUA and become an alpha. There aren’t many alpha males who dislike casual sex because the people who dislike casual sex don’t want to be alphas.

  • INTJ

    @Thrasymachus,Herb,SayWhaat,Megaman

    I think you’re both correct. There is certainly a small subset of women who dislike manwhores. Most of the female commenters on HUS belong to that subset.

    The problem is that women who actually dislike manwhores might constitute perhaps 20% of the population. On the other hand, guys who aren’t manwhores probably constitute about 40% of the population. Simply, there just aren’t enough girls to go around.

  • Ben

    @Herb

    You completely misread my “tree falls in the forest” comment (and perhaps I picked an easily confused metaphor). The only person discussing this could hurt would be my ex-gf. Since she never reads this site, the odds of her even finding the post are very low. Even if she did find the post, she won’t ever be able to figure out it’s about her. So the bottom line is NO ONE IS HURT BY THIS. I wasn’t advocating being a dick because you can get away with it; I’m disagreeing with you that posting about this is being a dick. It’s like smoking weed. It’s illegal, yet would you say it’s immoral? Should I not do it even though no one is hurt by it? (I don’t smoke weed fyi)

    And leave your integrity speech somewhere else. I keep my word, and I’m fiercely loyal to my friends and those I care about. In my book, that’s what counts.

    @OTC

    Um, did I mention I’m 25? Should I have been in consecutive LTRs since I was 14 in order to mentally prepare for having a child at some point? If you’re arguing that you can’t be a good father unless you’ve invested years dating someone, I would both ask why and point out I’m still pretty damn young.

    @Susan

    Yes, absolutely a girl looking for something serious should steer clear of me in the near future. However, I never misrepresent what I’m looking for. I’ve never lied about my intentions to get a girl in bed, and I’ve never promised something I’m not intending to deliver. Some girls still end up getting attached to me, despite the fact I’ve given them no encouragement to do so (I once had a girl who did it who I never talked to except on weekends from 10-4 AM). Some girls have realized I’m not going to date them and break it off quickly.

    @Dogsquat

    I admitted in my first post that I may still be emotionally f’ed up from those two previous encounters. I say may bc I’m not sure exactly how I’d judge that. I do have very serious dealbreakers when dating so that I don’t let myself get yanked around (ie she cancels more than twice, she’s done). It may rule out some girls who would be worthwhile otherwise, but I find there are enough who fall into the parameters that I’m ok. It’s quite possible I was emotionally guarded with my gf and that prevented a degree of intimacy, although I don’t think that was the case. I shared some pretty intimate things with her and acted in ways I’d never act w/a FWB. If anything, she was too guarded. Her emotions ranged from happy to annoyed to frustrated. I never once saw her cry and never once saw her truly angry. Even when I broke up with her she remained stony-faced, with no real discernible emotion (which made me feel even worse; it felt like I was attacking something defenseless). I felt in a way like she kept me out, and maybe that prevented me from ever truly being in love with her.

  • INTJ

    @Lavazza

    Hope: I am a yogi, so for me there are 5 obstacles.

    Translated into English, these five (pañca) Kleśa-s or Afflictions (kleśāḥ) are[1]:

    Ignorance (in the form of a misapprehension about reality) (ávidyā),
    egoism (in the form of an erroneous identification of the Self with the intellect) (asmitā),
    attachment (rāga),
    aversion (dveṣa), and
    fear of death (which is derived from clinging ignorantly to life) (abhiniveśāḥ).

    Attachment, aversion, and within limits fear of death are all very healthy things, and should nto be viewed as afflictions.

    This is why I disagree with most Hindu philosophies. They place far too much emphasis on spirituality and removal from everyday life.

  • Abbot

    ¨…You’ve already past the point where they kick in. Might as well enjoy the ride.¨

    Once beyond a certain N it just becomes a mind numbing N² that your potential future spouse could not even put into perspective. Heck, that way it becomes impossible to explain what any one person was like.

    ¨I also know a few who have been perfectly faithful for decades despite three-digit premarital N¨

    It happens to be sure.

  • Alias

    Hope:
    “a way to get people talking about their own values is discussing third-party scenarios. You don’t have to go all direct interrogation mode. Read between the lines, and people reveal a lot about themselves.”
    ———-

    Absolutely.
    People can’t help but reveal themselves.
    What often happens is that when they do, many disregard that information thinking it’s not significant. It may not be, only when it’s coupled with other red flags that pop up eventually, together they draw a picture of the person’s true character or their lack of.
    It’s more reliable to make conclusion based on these observations than to go by what people say- because most people answer what they think you want them to answer.
    Even when discussing 3rd party scenarios- one must be careful because a lot of people are harsher at judging others than they are at judging themselves- so they’ll talk a lot BS about how they disagree on a behavior that they themselves engage in (pot calling kettle black- hypocrites- double standards).
    Wow- I’ve got to stop being so Pollyannaish! lol

  • Lavazza

    INTJ: The idea is that nothing comes to existence nor ceases to exist. So death is just an illusion. And the same goes for life and birth.

    For certain is death for the born
    And certain is birth for the dead;
    Therefore over the inevitable
    Thou shouldst not grieve.

  • Dogsquat

    @Sassy and Bellita:

    Abbot is the collective Id of the dudes who post here. I like him.

    I picture him standing in some control center like NORAD, buried deep in an extinct volcano. Myriad monitors are scroll media concerned with gender politics. People sit at workstations or bustle about looking at clipboards, brows furrowed. Phones ring at polite, but urgent volume. The women all wear tight clothes, and the men have powerful handguns holstered at their hips. A quiet hum of electronics fills the air. The faint smell of ozone, electrical insulation, and stale coffee complements the men’s regulation Old Spice.

    Abbot stands tensely at the Command Console, taking it all in. He’s wearing a starched referee’s jersey with sharp military creases. Hawk-like, his mind plucks a wriggling tidbit of hypocrisy out of the stream of information. His jaw clenches, torturing the already abused stogie in the corner of his mouth.

    “Motherfuckers….” he whispers to himself. His eyes harden as he picks up a red telephone.

    “Johnson! Abbot here. We got another one. Put me through to HUS immediately.”

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

      @Dogsquat

      I love your description of Abbot and I love Abbot. I can’t help it, I just think he’s a very, very good man. I confess to applying a double standard there – I let him get away with some comments that I’d delete for others. Blogger’s prerogative.

  • Dogsquat

    Cooper said:

    “If my college years weren’t filled with unrequited-feelings and rejection, and rather full of casual-encounters, I’m not entirely certain I would have the same perspective on all this.”
    _______________________________

    You wouldn’t have the same perspective on this exact issue, but you’d be having an existential crisis about something else. You’d be thinking of joining the Foreign Legion, or wanting to do relief work in some fucked up country, or researching some job field you’re suddenly infatuated with.

    Right now, women are your Everest. You want to “figure it out”, prove something to yourself, make sure you’re measuring up favorably against The Universe. You’re testing your philosophy against observable reality. It’s just how men work.

    Aren’t you in your early 20′s? I think that’s the worst time to be a man. Tons of testosterone, not a lot of life experience, no clear self-identity, and usually much lower status than guys just 5 years older. Fugging miserable.

    Shit, dude – just look at Ben. Does that guy seem happy to you? Sure, he’ll tell you he is, but would you believe him?

    It gets better. Slowly, but it does.

  • Abbot

    ¨ In their view, most men do not care about a woman’s number, and the ones who do are not usually the highest status or most desirable men.¨

    Yeah, that was funny as heck. Somehow, just somehow, 20 percent or less of men are good to go with the sour visceral and other negatives associated with N² women. Yeah, especially because high status men probably have more to lose including a tarnished reputation among friend and family for having chosen such a woman.

  • Dogsquat

    Herb said:

    “No, men disapprove of it for a variety of reasons.”
    _____________________________
    Some don’t disapprove at all, but live life in other ways.

    I think cucumbers taste better pickled. Doesn’t mean I assume raw cucumber lovers are inferior people.

  • Lavazza

    I’ll stop the yogic detour with this:
    2.13 As long as those colorings (kleshas) remains at the root, three consequences are produced: 1) birth, 2) span of life, and 3) experiences in that life.
    (sati mule tat vipakah jati ayus bhogah)

  • Alias

    Susan:
    “I’m wondering how a woman could make an informed bet. Is it qualifying the relationship as true love?”
    ——–

    Are we betting to win or are we looking to get struck by lightning?

  • Lavazza

    “Because I know for a fact it’s not true on college campuses, where the number of highly promiscuous men and women are about equal.”

    Since it is more difficult to become a promiscuous man than to become a slightly promiscuous woman, I doubt that the groups are equal in number. A man does not need to have a very high count to have at least two virgins.

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

      Since it is more difficult to become a promiscuous man than to become a slightly promiscuous woman, I doubt that the groups are equal in number. A man does not need to have a very high count to have at least two virgins.

      Fair point. And there are always the freshmen girls, i.e. “fresh meat” who fall into the claws of those raptors. My guess is that most of them get with slutty women regularly, but have probably deflowered a few along the way, as you say.

  • Dogsquat

    @Thrasymachus:

    “The fundamental question remains – if so many women are repelled by manwhores, why doesn’t this force them to change their behavior?”
    _______________________________

    I know you know this, but:

    Some of the women who now say it’s a deal breaker will re-evaluate or change their minds if presented with the choice in real life. Other women like Bellita or SayWhaat who would actually disqualify a man for that are fairly rare.

    Sure, they exist – but not in numbers significant to cause large scale change. Their collective activation energy isn’t high enough to start the reaction.

    It’s a different story with men. Lots of dudes dislike committing to promiscuous women. The sex pozzies have made it disadvantageous for men to be open about this.

    I think that’s unfortunate. I’ve seen the result of this cause significant pain to some very cool women. In a way, they’ve been betrayed in a manner similar to men raised beta-fashion.

    It might be worse for those women, actually. The men can actually change things once they figure it out. The women have either got to lie about it, or become so ridiculously awesome that their past is outweighed by their present. Those women who eschew lying have a harder task and less time to complete it. If they choose neither of those options, their pool of potential LTR mates is significantly reduced.

    I really think they got the shaft*.

    *snickergigglesnort

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

      @Dogsquat

      I think that’s unfortunate. I’ve seen the result of this cause significant pain to some very cool women. In a way, they’ve been betrayed in a manner similar to men raised beta-fashion.

      True story, giggles notwithstanding. Many young women are genuinely horrified and stunned to hear guys talk about sluts behind their backs. I recall one young woman who told me the story of going on spring break in the Caribbean with a big group, and the guys were talking about their “main squeezes” back at school in the most disrespectful manner imaginable. Like getting rimjobs, calling them holes, etc. Even though the girls overhearing this were not in that scene, they had always imagined that the guys preferred these girls over everyone else. They were right, of course – the guys did prefer them – as warm holes.

      Girls feel that they’ve been lied to – why didn’t their fathers tell them how men really feel about this issue? Why did their teachers tell them sexual exploration was healthy?

      Sound familiar? :)

  • VD

    Vox, do you have any sense of what separates the third group from the others? I’m wondering how a woman could make an informed bet. Is it qualifying the relationship as true love? I know you consider yourself a sigma, but perhaps you fall into this group (or something like it).

    Let me think. It’s not intelligence or success. It’s not a lack of options. It’s not delayed gratification. Most, though not all, of the reformed players I know are now religious and were not previously. The unreformed players are all irreligious, so that’s a factor but not an entirely reliable one. I’m a bit nervous about qualifying the relationship as true love, because that’s something that takes years to truly ascertain, especially given the infatuation stage.

    Perhaps one way to tell is if the reformed player is in genuine mourning for his past life. It’s hard to give up something that is not only part of your self-identity, but a source of pride. I think any player who is casual or even blase about the transformation required isn’t actually making it, he’s just temporarily in neutral and will return to his previous behavior without much provocation.

    One of the reasons I was certain Spacebunny was the right woman was when I got really down one evening a few weeks before we got married. It was really bothering me to know that I would have to be faithful the rest of my life from that point on, when I was so much better at behaving badly and with no regard for other’s feelings. It literally felt as if I was killing a part of myself, a part that I liked and valued. It was important that instead of getting mad or interpreting it as some sort of commentary on her, she commiserated with me.

    Sigma is a sexual alpha without the social dominance, so in this case, they’re in the same boat. As for tells, it’s probably also meaningful if the former player behaves very differently with a woman than he normally has with others in the past. My best friend’s wife had known me since college and picked up on the different nature of my relationship with my now-wife only weeks after we first met. The problem, of course, is that a player’s wingmen are usually more than willing to lie on his behalf and have a great deal of experience doing so. If they’re willing to bury a body without asking any questions or back up the most ludicrous stories without warning, they sure as hell aren’t going to hesitate to tell a girl how differently he behaves around you if she starts inquiries. They know the drill. However, the women in the social circle might be a different story, assuming they like the new girl.

    On a tangential note, male loyalty is something few women really understand. It doesn’t just give us pleasure to show that we have our boy’s back, we regard it as an honor. If your boyfriend’s friend doesn’t hit on you when you’re alone with him, then you absolutely cannot trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

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

      @VD

      It literally felt as if I was killing a part of myself, a part that I liked and valued. It was important that instead of getting mad or interpreting it as some sort of commentary on her, she commiserated with me.

      This literally gave me goosebumps. Smart woman, Spacebunny. There’s a massive lesson there for women if they’ll listen.

      However. Spacebunny lucked out. You were the real deal. She took a chance and it paid off. I’d wager that for every Vox and SB, there are 19 relationships with reformed players that ended badly.

      On a tangential note, male loyalty is something few women really understand. It doesn’t just give us pleasure to show that we have our boy’s back, we regard it as an honor. If your boyfriend’s friend doesn’t hit on you when you’re alone with him, then you absolutely cannot trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

      Wait – not sure I understand this. If you have your boy’s back, why would you hit on his girl? Or is it to test her on his behalf? Yes, that must be it. Still, that is going to make things very awkward for the loyal girl and the BF’s friend from then on.

  • Abbot

    ¨Women with high numbers often decline to reveal them to potential lovers, and underestimate these numbers even in anonymous surveys.¨

    Its still a mystery. Could it be that they are ashamed for treating something that they know full well is a sacred special act and want so bad for the next man to accept and get them to stop. Like a serial killer who really wants to caught and stopped.

  • Cooper

    @Dogsqaut

    Yes, you are correct. And I am 23.

    Not only does right now seem to be a very low period, in term of a mans’ SMP-value, but that’s only gets worse when girls your age are seemingly at their highest.

    I definitely feel I’m made the right choices, and for the right reasons, but that doesn’t change the fact that, statisticslly speaking, I (of low-N) may have troubles with women (of average-high N) later on, due to my ‘right’ choices.

    Thanks for all the responses, DS, I know I haven’t been able to respond to many of them.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Interesting… so Ben is Zach. Another story that ends like Jason’s, dumping the girlfriend who simply didn’t inspire deep, passionate love.

    At 25, you’re the same age my husband was when we met. He didn’t mind marriage or kids, and was open to these as long as the woman was the right one. But he was born and raised in Utah, not NYC. Anyway, this woman wasn’t the right one for you, and it sounds like you’ve never met the right one.

    I agree with your decision to leave this woman who barely shows deeper emotions and doesn’t seem to accept real emotions from you. Being in love is fundamentally about the emotional body letting down guards. In all likelihood, she wasn’t in love with you either. It was a superficial relationship based on partying and good times.

    You sound like you had wanted something deeper, but then decided that’s too much trouble, especially since the girl you tried for deeper with didn’t go so deep at all. So now it’s back to getting with strangers, where you run zero risk of depth. That’s your decision, and I won’t question that.

    Coastal big cities have a culture all their own, plenty of hot women, and men can sleep around indefinitely. You probably won’t lose out on the opportunity to get with a decent and attractive woman later, because most women are not like HUS readers.

    I don’t think you’re a bad guy, and I think your intentions are alright. You’ve just got more growing up to do, and you did say, you’re still “pretty damn young.”

  • Abbot

    ¨Ben did get very invested in two women who started off as fuckbuddies. That does indeed run counter to what most men here have said. ¨

    Very invested is vague but probably includes exclusivity because the guy can focus better that way. Living together long term is less vague and is really where the rubber meets the road.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Cooper, I knew a nerd who spent his teen years playing in video game tournaments and didn’t date at all. He lost his virginity after 20, and then proceeded to get lots of female attention by targeting the “alternative” groups, like the hippyish, goth and nerdy girls, as well as Asian girls who were not born in the US.

    He was 22 when he got into one LTR, 23 when he got another LTR, then after that went south, around 25 he got into another LTR, that time with a virgin who was also Asian. As far as I know they’re still together.

    I’m not sure if this is useful information at all, because you might not be interested in that, and prefer girls who are in your social millieu and of your own background. You can’t change what you’re attracted to, of course. But young age and NT / nerdiness in themselves are not necessarily impediments.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “I really think they got the shaft*.”

    I’m doubting it. Most girls have the anti-slut defense built right into them. Even that woman who wrote an article about sleeping with a porn star wrote about her inner voice telling her NOT to fuck some random porn star, and her friend made damn sure she had made a mistake.

    That they choose to ignore this is no one’s fault but their own.

    Last SO I had? Double-digit N, likes the taste of Alpha? Knows full damn well being a slut is a bad thing. She rationalizes it because she hasn’t gotten pregnant yet. Yep, she’s not a slut because she hasn’t gotten pregnant yet, and what she has done isn’t THAT bad. Because doesn’t EVERYONE give blowjobs in the bathroom once or twice or hook up in the stacks or having a fling in a foreign country?
    Her family is ultra-conservative. No R-Rated movies. Mom and Dad are both N=1. Brothers are virgins, one sister is N=1, the other no flippin’ clue.
    Still a giant slut.

    I’ve got another girl in my social circle with the same story, only she’s Muslim.

    These girls know what they are doing is wrong, the hamster just spins it so they can do what they feel is right.

    Watching Ben, though, is greatly fun!

  • Abbot

    ¨If you read “sex positive” feminist web sites you see a considerable amount of nervousness about the subject.¨

    Because men are needed for the sex part and no change there is wanted but conversely they must be changed in order to buy into the positive part.

    ¨The entire campaign to reclaim the word “slut” shows that at least some sex positive feminists know very well that many high status men do not want a “woman of experience.” That is why these feminists fight so hard to change attitudes on this issue.¨

    But their platform provides no strategies for implementing this attitude change and ridding the world of WOE blockers. Watch them squirm as they attempt to figure out what to do stopping short of directly asking men to change.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Oh and Dogsquat is right. A guy who has the woman thing mostly settled will be after other things. The guy I mentioned was into programming and making games, mobile games or Web games. He kept trying to enlist my help because I have some technical and design expertise. He talked to lots of venture capitalists and dabbled in various start-up gigs. It was definitely his obsession.

    I knew others in the start-up world who were way into that sort of thing, fanatical almost, maybe because it was risky business and carried a big element of gamble.

  • El Marqués

    Dog’s on fire. Made me laugh with your description of Abott. I like him, too. He indeed is our collective male id.

    @Ben

    You seem to be doing just fine. The only thing I’d suggest is for you to change environments for a while. Travel. Study/live abroad. Learn a language. You’re at the perfect age for that now…

  • Dogsquat

    Herb said:

    “I also didn’t think much of how he referred to her post break up about getting more bjs and a better ass.”
    __________________________

    Perversely, I think it speaks well of him. See, he needs to dehumanize her to reduce his pain. That’s a good sign.

    He’s the guy who says,”Sergeant! I just dumped a Raghead between the buildings and those trees!” Normal.

    The guy who says,”Sergeant! I just killed a man between the buildings and those trees!” That guy is very, very dangerous. You’ll spend as much time watching him as looking for Bad Guys.

    Plus, as you mention, he behaved in an honorable fashion toward his now-ex. He’s not a sociopath, just a guy who made a tough call the best way he could.

    Herb said:

    “He has no plan to change and, more importantly, figures why work on changing until “it matters”. The lack of insight into how much harder that change will be is bad enough. The lack of concern is even worse.”
    _______________________

    I think the natural state of humans is to just accept how our minds work as immutable. Grokking something like neuroplasticity or CBT is very counter-intuitive. Usually people must become so miserable they are forced to hunt for solutions to their problems/ways to change. He’s not that miserable yet – and it may never get that bad for him.

  • Abbot

    ¨Knows full damn well being a slut is a bad thing. ¨

    and yet there is some angry commenter on this site who constantly repeats that there is no correlation between slut and character.

    ¨These girls know what they are doing is wrong, the hamster just spins it so they can do what they feel is right.¨

    Sex is very intense and with always willing out-of-her-league guys ready to provide dinner and a screw these girls cant find sufficient reason to say no.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “I miss Jesus Mahoney. His wisdom and experience would be welcome in this thread. He did show up briefly recently, so at least I know he’s not lying dead in the middle of a ditch somewhere.”
    _____________________

    He’s a Real Fuckin’ Man. He’ll be fine. If I saw him in a ditch and resuscitated him, he’d yank the airway adjunct out of his mouth and explain, with riveting and precise language, exactly how he felt about various ditches, that one in particular, and why I should agree.

    Don’t worry.

    Send him an email in 6 months if he’s not back yet. I bet he’d appreciate it.

  • Dogsquat

    Cooper said:

    “I definitely feel I’m made the right choices, and for the right reasons, but that doesn’t change the fact that, statisticslly speaking, I (of low-N) may have troubles with women (of average-high N) later on, due to my ‘right’ choices.”
    __________________________

    That’s a garden-variety crisis of faith, dude. We all get them sometimes. Just keep observing reality and thinking. You’ll work something out. We all do.

    “Thanks for all the responses, DS, I know I haven’t been able to respond to many of them.”
    _____________________________

    I respond to you so much because I can imagine myself saying the same things if I’d have gone to college after high school.

    And you don’t need to respond if you don’t want to. Some of this stuff works like a delayed action cluster munition – just sits around for awhile looking stupid and wrong…..then BLAM! Looks quite a bit different, then.

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

    Virtual glasses?
    Given “men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses”…
    Then again, I’ve been glad of that…makes the field easier for me

    I don’t know the hot librarian look is popular among my kind. Maybe Dame Ragnelle if Cordelia is not of your liking? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_of_Sir_Gawain_and_Dame_Ragnelle

    OTC actually reminds me that while we ponder very deeply the impact the choices we make will have on our long-term mating prospects, we rarely talk about the impact they will have on our children.

    My future children are the biggest reason I’m here. I’m not American so I need to prepare myself as good as possible to know how to guide them. I also think that my husband will need my help when this mysandry bubble explodes I at least have places were he can go when the bitter red pill becomes unavoidable I do think it will be sooner than later.
    But I do agree mentioning “think of the children” would be ineffective here many people here don’t want to have children so whatever their reasons the future it ain’t.

    Happened to me, happens to a lot of us. I think of it as the Hermione Syndrome, but that’s just how I identify.

    I think the fact that she got Victor Krum deny her invisible status. I will say Ron falling for her counts too but I adore Ron and I think Hermione would had been a bitter singleton without him, she was bright but humorless and socially challenged Ron was funny and social they complemented each other nicely, YMMV.

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

      I just want to say that Cooper is awesome. He rings all the bells on my Son In Law meter. Hang in there. I really respect how grounded you are. This SMP sucks for three-quarters of girls and guys. Follow Dogsquat’s advice to the letter.

  • El Marqués

    Susan, I still don’t get the idea behind shaming promiscuous men. You do realize that female sluts and “manwhores” are NOT equals in the SMP, right?

    The male equivalent of the slut – giving away her sexuality without securing commitment first, is the……wait for it……

    …supplicating Beta male giving away investment and commitment without securing access to female “excess reproductive capacity” first…

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

      @El Marques

      Susan, I still don’t get the idea behind shaming promiscuous men. You do realize that female sluts and “manwhores” are NOT equals in the SMP, right?

      Of course I realize that. I just believe that there’s a point at which male promiscuity becomes a real negative for many women. It’s one thing to be the guy that every woman wants, and something else to be the guy that every woman has. It implies that the man is not discerning – he’ll poke anything that moves. A woman who agrees to mate with him long-term is settling in a very real way.

      Anyway, I’m not sure what you mean by shaming promiscuous men. Are you referring to the study I cited?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Sex is very intense and with always willing out-of-her-league guys ready to provide dinner and a screw these girls cant find sufficient reason to say no.”

    Well, her vagina MIGHT be magical. That’s why she has to have sex with him, right? That sex might hook him.

    What utter rubbish they think.

    “Susan, I still don’t get the idea behind shaming promiscuous men. ”
    They cause as much damage as promiscuous women. In addition, they are doing themselves harm, too. And they are convincing other men to go that route, too.

    Plus, like DS said in a different thread, part of HUS’ value is a place for men to vent. Doesn’t do those men, many of whom have bad experiences with women and are resentful of the PUAs/CADs, any good if Susan plays nice to the PUA.

    Quite frankly, I think Ben is getting some serious kid glove treatment here.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan,

    “Girls feel that they’ve been lied to – why didn’t their fathers tell them how men really feel about this issue? Why did their teachers tell them sexual exploration was healthy?”

    Well, latter day feminism has done a pretty good job of 1) removing fathers and their influence from the family circle (via divorce), and 2) making “sexual exploration” a right (but only for women via sex-pozzie feminism).

    Now, in my own life, I’ve attempted to be truthful in that way to the important women in my life, and I can tell you, the pushback from young women about “their rights” can be strong. Still, some of my younger cousins have thanked me (and my cad brother too!) for caring enough to be “judgmental” when “they had dumb ideas in their heads”.

    Families used to do these tasks…

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

      @ExNewYorker

      I give you a lot of credit for speaking the truth to the young women in your family. When my daughter was a teenager, and truly perplexed by male behavior, she turned to her father. He is quite judgmental of young men today, but equally judgmental of girls who go after the bad boys. This theme was hammered home over a period of years. I think that kind of male influence is invaluable to young women.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Girls feel that they’ve been lied to – why didn’t their fathers tell them how men really feel about this issue? Why did their teachers tell them sexual exploration was healthy?

    Sound familiar? ”

    They have been lied to.

    They think they are something special just because they have vaginas.

    Sorry, but this seems very true. I had a conversation with a friend recently, that ended up with “don’t swear in front of a lady.” I informed her that lady is an EARNED title, by respecting others, by not being a slut, by contributing something of value to society, by bettering herself.

    Mother Dearest is a Lady. Mother Dearest raised three unplanned children and gave up a lot of her life’s dreams to reach a higher dream of happy, productive children.

    ADBG’s friend, who has the sincere regret her life is not Eat, Pray, Love, is NOT a lady.

    And if you aren’t a lady…..

    You are locker room talk.

    And, yes, once the pedestal is smashed, men have VERY high standards for the Lady title.

  • pvw

    Susan:

    Girls feel that they’ve been lied to – why didn’t their fathers tell them how men really feel about this issue? Why did their teachers tell them sexual exploration was healthy?

    My reply:

    And sometimes the “nice girls” can feel they were lied to when they were younger. They were raised right by their parents that they should be virtuous. Yet, when they get older they see the sluts getting all the attention and they are left with none. That is not what they were told would happen. Now some might go to the “dark side,” while others just carry on….

  • OffTheCuff

    Pvw: “Yet, when they get older they see the sluts getting all the attention and they are left with none”

    …from top men willing to commit, right?

    Women rarely have “no attention”, so long as they are turning down offers. Even the ugliest women turns down men.

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

      Women rarely have “no attention”, so long as they are turning down offers. Even the ugliest women turns down men.

      This is not true in an SMP where the majority of men never approach at all.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @INTJ
    “The problem is that women who actually dislike manwhores might constitute perhaps 20% of the population. On the other hand, guys who aren’t manwhores probably constitute about 40% of the population. Simply, there just aren’t enough girls to go around.”

    Curious where you’re getting these numbers from? I’ll agree that there aren’t enough girls to go around if the SDS is strictly enforced (it isn’t). But if we judge men and women, not by what they say, but by what they actually do, most guys aren’t “manwhores” and most women don’t prefer them for LTRs or marriages.

  • Ben

    @Susan

    About Vox Day’s comment on bf’s friends hitting on you. What he means is if his friends AREN’T hitting on you, they’re loyal to him, and if they’re loyal to him, you can’t trust a word out of their mouths about the guy. I can second this. Most of my friends are pretty decent guys, and don’t lie to girls to get what they want, but all of us would and have embellished or outright fabricated certain things to make a friend look better to a girl. Ripping your boy to a girl he’s trying to get with is considered amongst the lowest forms of betrayal.

    Also, you’re right, I don’t meet girls at the library or museums (although I hear MoMA is a pretty good pickup spot). I meet them at bars. This isn’t the movies, and if you’re a young person who wants to meet single people of the opposite sex, bars are the best place to do it. The odds of my accidentally spilling coffee on my next girlfriend are next to 0. The only other real avenue for me is friends of friends. And while that’s worked a few times (friends’ coworkers, high school friends, etc), it’s not a strategy, more of an occurrence.

    @Dogsquat

    Appreciate some of the kind words. I do know about neuroplasticity (took neuro in college), although I don’t know what “grokking” means. However, I’m not at all unhappy. I have a good job which I enjoy, am applying to bschool in the fall (already killed the GMAT), have some great friends, and have a pretty bright future ahead for me. I’m 25, my love life has plenty of time to sort itself out. I’m sure I’ll get some shit for this statement, but I fortunately don’t have much of a biological clock. NYC is an area of abundance for men, and I’m sure that when I’m ready, I can meet the right person. Key point being when I’m ready. I was ready for a relationship 7 months ago, and it didn’t work out. I’m not happy about that, but that’s life. I’m looking forward to having some great times in the coming months with my friends, some of whom are also fairly recently single as well. We’re already planning a trip to Vegas.

    I am a bit concerned about my ability to be sexually satisfied by one woman, but the women I’ve slept with before aren’t un-f*cking themselves. My memory’s not going to wipe. And it’s not as bad as I made it out to be. Yeah, after a while I would fantasize about some of the other women I’d slept with, but that’s it, it was just a fantasy. From what I understand, most relationships of any N count end up in sexual stasis at some point anyway unless action is taken. Hope, I think, had a pretty good outline of what that action might be, and it was likely the next step for me if I’d stayed with this girl. Also, if it means anything, while with my gf I watched porn maybe once every 2 weeks, if that. When I was single it was probably every other day. So maybe I wasn’t as sexually distracted as you or I might think.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “Wait – not sure I understand this. If you have your boy’s back, why would you hit on his girl? Or is it to test her on his behalf? Yes, that must be it. ”
    _______________________

    If your buddy gets to the point where he could nail her, he did you a favor by showing her true colors. Reconnaissance by penis.

    “Still, that is going to make things very awkward for the loyal girl and the BF’s friend from then on.”
    ______________________
    Not necessarily. It can be framed as a right of passage, an initiation into the group. Somebody said earlier that women don’t understand male loyalty very well, and I believe that is true.

    My GF was mildly irritated with me when we first started dating and I was very late for a commitment with her. One of my close friends was super hung over but HAD to be at work. I went to his house and gave him a few liters of IV fluid and 30 minutes of low-flow oxygen (best hangover cure EVAR).

    I’ve called that guy for help a few times, too, and he’s never let me down. Dude owns an autobody shop and a towtruck, and he saved my ass after I bent an ambulance doing something stupid.

    While typing this, I remembered another time when I was bouncing for a living, and he was hanging out at my bar. I got into a fight and was in serious trouble. I caught a glimpse of him out of the corner of my eye as he was charging over to help me. When I saw that, I felt a wave of relief wash over me. I remember the exact words “Oh, good. It’s going to be okay now” flashing through my brain.

    And it was. That stuff is priceless.

    Yes, I know he was an idiot for getting drunk the night before a big day. Yes, I’m sorry that I was late – but he’s my fucking friend and you’re (at that time) just some chick. It’s not really a decision, more like an unavoidable change of plans. I explained, he apologized to her, but I did not apologize for my behavior. I did nothing wrong. That bugged my girl a bit at first. Now that she knows my friends a bit better, she understands in part.

    I think she’ll only fully get it (and fully forgive he and I) if someday, he drops everything he’s doing and charges to her aid – just because she’s my girl and I ask him to.

  • Dogsquat

    And Ben and Vox are right – no girl I’m interested in could ever fully trust my friend to put her interests before mine.

  • SayWhaat

    Pvw: “Yet, when they get older they see the sluts getting all the attention and they are left with none”

    …from top men willing to commit, right?

    No. From Greater Betas willing to commit.

    That is where the real tragedy lies.

  • J

    @Ana, Bellita

    Victor Krum? I haven’t seen the last couple of movies, but good for Hermione! (or for J.K. Rowling for letting the bookworm win for a change!) That’s heartening.

  • Dogsquat

    Ben said:

    “I am a bit concerned about my ability to be sexually satisfied by one woman”
    ________________________

    Ben, I suspect you will very much enjoy your 30′s. I haven’t been in that decade of life very long, but it’s my favorite so far.

    The heated passion of youth has cooled from a white hot inferno to a manageable 5 alarm fire. The drive for bootytime is still there, but it’s much easier to manage, especially in areas of life where it used to do harm.

  • Ian

    @ General

    Many young women are genuinely horrified and stunned to hear guys talk about sluts behind their backs…Girls feel that they’ve been lied to – why didn’t their fathers tell them how men really feel about this issue? Why did their teachers tell them sexual exploration was healthy? …sound familiar?

    And, after a certain N, there has to be some empathy in the disinformation. I have a female friend; great chemistry, genuinely like each other, she’d be a girlfriend or prized FWB – except the N. With the N, the chemistry is almost scary to me; I consciously avoid putting myself in risky situations with her.

    She chooses to believe that I don’t give because she’s not my type, and I actively encourage the belief. The red pill, for her, would be waking into a world where her MMV is already in ruins, with hardly any power to build it back. Better hamster-spinning than existential despair, ya?

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

      @Ian

      She chooses to believe that I don’t give because she’s not my type, and I actively encourage the belief. The red pill, for her, would be waking into a world where her MMV is already in ruins, with hardly any power to build it back. Better hamster-spinning than existential despair, ya?

      Oof. I do empathize, but OTOH, why don’t women realize that all the discussion about N is coming from males? Even if women do increasingly care about it – and I realize most guys here don’t believe they do – they still have to know that guys have made it clear they’re extremely interested in this information. Surely even the most accomplished twirling rodent has a cogent realization once in a while.

  • Senior Beta

    I think Ben needs his own blog. Does Roissy hire interns?

  • Abbot

    ¨Families used to do these tasks…¨

    Strong families are a first order anathema for feminism

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Wait – not sure I understand this. If you have your boy’s back, why would you hit on his girl? Or is it to test her on his behalf? Yes, that must be it. Still, that is going to make things very awkward for the loyal girl and the BF’s friend from then on.”

    If his boy has his back they won’t hit on you and he could be a heroin addict but they’ll still tell you what you want to hear.
    If they hit on you they are not enforcing bros > hoes. They will tell you the truth about him.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    One more thing.

    Your right. It also serves as a screen to make sure the girl is not a hoe.
    You should probably mention to women that the first couple months of a relationship is going to be men looking for reasons to dump them. (Not she leaves her socks out dump but unfaithful/liar/cuckolding type dump.)

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

      @Lokland

      You should probably mention to women that the first couple months of a relationship is going to be men looking for reasons to dump them. (Not she leaves her socks out dump but unfaithful/liar/cuckolding type dump.)

      Good call. I heard a story just yesterday that may qualify. Steph and Tim have recently started hanging out. Dating is too strong a word – they’re early 20s, in the same friend group. Sparks are flying, it’s early days but they are definitely getting together. The second weekend Tim said to Steph:

      “It bums me out that you hooked up with David.”

      “It was no big deal, I had a crush on him for a minute.”

      “No big deal?”

      “Yeah. I mean, we kissed on the lips.”

      “Jill told me you guys had sex.”

      “No way. We made out in a cab. That’s it. Jill is out of her mind.”

      Now, I happen to know that Steph is telling the truth. David tried to come up to her apartment, she said no, and he hasn’t looked her in the eye since. I don’t know if Tim believed her, but he can easily check by asking David. Tim is a pretty confident guy – I don’t think he was being needy. I think he was just attempting to qualify Steph early on. Steph totally understood that this was a variation on the “what’s your number” discussion.

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

    I think that perhaps the taxonomic schema containing the “manwhore” category should be amended to allow the user to differentiate between two basic subspecies. This may seem like a detail, but it could be a worthwhile detail.

    In Category X (just to grab a title), we would have the “manwhore by deliberate and aggressive lifestyle choice”. This is an individual who has racked up an impressive N-count by going out and approaching women, in some cases several nights a week, handling rejections and resulting social stigmas that can force him to change venues constantly, and pushing for immediate sex through various gambits.

    There are many possible underlying motivations for this behavior, but I think that most X types would admit that they gain validation and other psychological paychecks from running pick-up operations. It makes them feel attractive and they enjoy the resulting self-concept (“I’m a stud”) and the admiration of friends.

    We also have the Category Y individual—the “manwhore by default.” This individual sleeps with a lot of women because they approach him on highly sexual terms. He’s not deliberately looking for it; it’s available to him as a pleasant side effect of his primary alpha male activities and the social circle that these activities tend to generate.

    I see a lot of this when I am on campuses: guys of very high SMP value are not necessarily running PUA-style game unless the definition of game is modified to include the “square-jawed, good-looking linebacker/Pike/black BMW family of passive seduction techniques”. The women more than meet these guys halfway; the ladies are equipped with any number of euphemisms and code words to casually signal physical interest while maintaining decorum.

    I think that this second type of manwhore *possibly* could be LTR material, in that he might be (intuitively) conducting a sort of interesting social experiment to statistically sample sexually available partners in his environment and then using that information to properly calibrate his own value or pulling power. If someone came along who was far outside his established norms, he might be tempted to secure this relationship because he was able, through experience, to properly value the opportunity.

    You could almost think of him as being conceptually similar to a hot woman with many prospects and a strategic “highest-bidder” mentality, with the exception that he sells commitment rather than sex.

    The issue that a woman will run into with this type is, of course, that she will have to go through life knowing that other women find her man extremely attractive. Some of them will proposition him directly.

    In contrast, the X type manwhore is seeking a validation and excitement that probably will only come from a constant stream of new sexual partners. Maybe there is some final combination of an N count target, diminishing pulling power as one ages out of the night club scene, and so on that could trigger a retirement clause, but who knows. I think this is a much more difficult psychological situation to have to fit within the confines of an LTR.

    However, the plus side of being with a supposedly-reformed X type is that his ability to hook up depends on his access to an active social lifestyle, and this can at least be tracked. Risk management with a Y type would not be this straightforward because sexual options just come to him.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      That’s a brilliant dissection of high count men, IMO. It sounds like X types are replicating behaviors (can’t remember your exact term for this – behavior correlates?). Anyway, I think a LTR with such a guy would be a drag if it required detective work to constantly assess his whereabouts or access to other women. I think most high count men fit into this category.

      The Y types are the naturals, and they are relatively rare, even on college campuses. If only 2% of American male college students have more than 10 sexual partners, and some of those are X’s, we’re probably talking about 1% of the male population. The lacrosse players at Duke come to mind – coincidentally, just about every one of them was very good looking. They have a regular stream of women initiating sexually with them. In fact, I believe they turn down a lot of women – they can afford to be choosy even for casual sex. I do think it’s still true, though, that there are attractive women on campus who have no desire to chase lax guys, though most of them would probably welcome attention from one if he initiated.

      In any case, my advice would be the same to women – high count men are unlikely to pair bond for life. In fact, they’re the mating equivalent of the junk bond, when assessed via the metrics for success and happiness in marriage.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “This is not true in an SMP where the majority of men never approach at all.”

    And most women couldn’t produce a decent IOI if we made a full fledged instructional video documentary.

    Question.
    Why do you think most men do not approach?

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

      @Lokland

      And most women couldn’t produce a decent IOI if we made a full fledged instructional video documentary.

      Totally agree. It’s like the men are on one shore, women on the other, and no one has an effing clue about how to cross or meet halfway.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “This is not true in an SMP where the majority of men never approach at all”

    If a majority of men approached a woman, she’d be pretty busy fending them all off…

    First, attention isn’t approaching. Attention precedes approach, and if you blow off the attention, you blow off the approach.

    Name one woman who hasn’t been hit on, by a man she didn’t like, in the past year. Most have been hit on by men they don’t want, as it is undesired attention. (There’s nothing wrong with this. Nobody expects you to desire all takers.) Contrary to what PVM stated, nice girls generally do not suffer from the absolute absence of male attention. Instead, it is the absence of the attention from the particular men they want, which is a crucial difference.

    Say: “No. From Greater Betas willing to commit. That is where the real tragedy lies.”

    Well, not every woman deserves a greater beta. We treat women well and have self-respect, too. Maybe she’s shooting too high. My point remains – if you turn down any men, then it’s not “no attention from men”, it’s “no attention from the men that I want to approach me”, be it alpha, beta, or whatever.

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

      @OTC

      Name one woman who hasn’t been hit on, by a man she didn’t like, in the past year. Most have been hit on by men they don’t want, as it is undesired attention.

      True. The fact is, women will always be more selective than men. I understand that men don’t care for female selection criteria – that’s the real issue. It’s clear that women would rather not reproduce than reproduce with someone they feel an aversion to, for whatever reason. There was a time when women didn’t have much of a say. Today they do, and even if they’re unhappy about their status, spinsters have made a clear choice to remain unattached.

  • Mike C

    I am a bit concerned about my ability to be sexually satisfied by one woman, but the women I’ve slept with before aren’t un-f*cking themselves. My memory’s not going to wipe. And it’s not as bad as I made it out to be. Yeah, after a while I would fantasize about some of the other women I’d slept with, but that’s it, it was just a fantasy. From what I understand, most relationships of any N count end up in sexual stasis at some point anyway unless action is taken. Hope, I think, had a pretty good outline of what that action might be, and it was likely the next step for me if I’d stayed with this girl. Also, if it means anything, while with my gf I watched porn maybe once every 2 weeks, if that. When I was single it was probably every other day. So maybe I wasn’t as sexually distracted as you or I might think.

    Ben, I guess it depends on what you mean by “sexually satisfied”. I think guys are “wired” differently in this regard (judging from some of the other guy commenters) and I”m probably wired more like you in this regard. That “rush” of the new girl will ALWAYS be sexually appealing. It never goes away. But if you meet the right girl…I think you learn to live with that and contain it and be “satisfied” with what you have if that woman is bringing a lot more to the table.

    I’ll tell you this right up front because I think you may have some unrealistic expectations for a life partner. You are not going to find a woman that sucks and fucks like Jenna Haze, LOVES YOU TO PIECES and is completely devoted to you, and can carry on an hour of stimulating dinner conversation up to your standards. Good luck with that.

    I think you said you were 25. I’m 38. I think you need more life experience, particularly some more deep interactions with a variety of woman that are somewhere in between Sat 2 AM booty calls, and monogamous girlfriend just so you can get a better feel for different types of women as people so you’ll recognize a potential life partner when you come across her.

    I think Dogsquat offered up some excellent advice in a bunch of comments. He really should get paid for that stuff.

    If I read your comments correctly, you seem particularly focused on the “sexual contentment” part of the equation. Again, I’ll tell you this guy to guy as I think guys are sold this and it is simply isn’t true at least for some guys including myself. You’ll never be as sexually satisfied with one woman as you would with new variety, and I don’t think that means you are with the “wrong” woman. I think part of one of VD’s comments hits on this point. I think you just hit a point in life where you realize that tradeoff is worth making for the right woman. I happen to think many guys have to hit 30+ for that introspection and realization to take place.

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

      @Mike C

      I was hoping you’d leave advice for Ben – I knew it would be excellent. Thanks for doing so. When I told him I was going to post his letter, I specifically said that while I would weigh in, I wanted him to have the benefit of advice from some of the older guys here.

      This really drives home the point that a woman in her early to mid-20s is going to have much better luck getting a relationship if she dates at least 5 years older. I’ve been saying this for a while to the young women I know, and they agree. But they also say that it’s not easy to meet older guys – their social circle right now is largely made up of people in their city they knew from school, friends of friends, etc. Even bars are fairly segregated by age. 30 yo guys don’t frequent pubs crawling with recent college grads, apparently. Maybe it just takes a while after college to expand one’s social network.

  • Mike C

    Question.
    Why do you think most men do not approach?

    That’s an easy one….approach anxiety. I’d bet that is an almost universal feeling across guys except for maybe uber-natural alphas, and I bet even they feel just a twinge of it. Sadly, I think most guys cannot overcome their approach anxiety.

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

    Victor Krum? I haven’t seen the last couple of movies, but good for Hermione! (or for J.K. Rowling for letting the bookworm win for a change!)
    I never saw it as a win. The only thing we knew about Victor Krum was that he was Ron’s favorite Quidditch player and that all the girls were chasing him, so not the type of man I would dream anyone to set their eyes to, YMMV.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “Does anyone have real information that suggests that players do in fact reach into a wide part of the female population?”

    You’re asking for too much from the wrong people : )

    Somebody upthread suggested that players would change their behavior if more women rejected them. Because women do reject them, or mostly just avoid/ignore them, they already have changed their behavior. Why else would they be using “relationship game”, pretending to want commitment, acting like so-called beta guys? There’d be no need for deception if every woman put out at the drop of a hat.

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

      @Megaman

      Why else would they be using “relationship game”, pretending to want commitment, acting like so-called beta guys? There’d be no need for deception if every woman put out at the drop of a hat.

      I did think it was interesting in that recent conversation about Tom and Jane, where someone described Tom and running false beta game. Guys know very well that most women are seeking the comfort/relationship traits, and won’t have sex without them.

  • Dogsquat

    Mike, you ought to email me at dogsquat0311 at gmail dot com.

  • Marc

    Ok, I’m gonna be gross for a minute. Ok, maybe a lifetime. I am almost 33 years old, and I just slept with #233 Sunday night. None were ever hookers. (She actually ‘pulled a Castanza on me’ by leaving her jacket behind so she can come back for it).
    .
    I left the States about 5 years ago, on #77. (I slept with 16 girls in Lima in 6 weeks once, and 3 girls in one day in Colombia. All three were first dates. Lunch date, sex, dinner/drinks date, sex. Put her in the cab, went to the casino to play poker, met another one, sex.)
    .
    I will say it is a drug, no doubt. I always think the better one is around the corner. I may have been satisfied with 25% of them as life partners if I still lived in the U.S., but I live in the land of the hottest chicks on the planet.
    .
    The part about how men feel about women right after sex is THE TRUTH. Couldn’t be truer. This is the time when I reflect upon how I REALLY feel about a girl, when my testes are empty and she’s lying next to me. Do I want her to leave, or stay. Nearly always, I want her to leave.
    .
    I don’t think I will settle down until I feel my looks fading. I don’t see it happening for a long time though as I date teenagers, and 30 year old women still look good down here, and I imagine if teenagers jock me now, the 30 year olds will want me when I am in my fifties! Could get exhausting.
    .
    I never discuss my number with women if it comes up. I don’t ask, I dont tell. Besides, what would I say? 10? Then I look undesireable. 233? Now I look like an aids infested skeev. I am bit of a hypocrite as I don’t want a woman with a high number. I prefer a virgin, but know that is not realistic, but even if a woman told me 15, I’d probably be sickened by it. Told you this post would be gross.

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

      @Marc

      Thanks for your honesty in sharing your story. I’m curious – you are undoubtedly among the most sexually successful men on the planet. I don’t know what your life work is, but you obviously spend considerable time and energy acquiring sex partners. Do you have any regrets? Or do you feel like you’ve got it made?

  • Marc

    “@178 Since it is more difficult to become a promiscuous man than to become a slightly promiscuous woman, I doubt that the groups are equal in number. A man does not need to have a very high count to have at least two virgins.”
    .
    Despite being with 233 women, I have only been with one virgin. We were both 16. I’ve met guys who claim to have been with 6 or 7 despite having only slept with 20-25 girls. I recently dated a virgin, 19 years old. Four dates and 3 naked occassions in my bed without giving it up, and I stopped calling her. I figured if she’s a 19 year old virgin AND she gets naked with a man 3 times knowing she isn’t going to have sex, she probably has issues. If she were super hot, I probably would have invested more time and some more courting, but she didn’t meet that criteria.

  • Cooper

    @dogsquat
    I’m not sure if, by “crysis of faith,” you meant religion; but my choices have only been dictated my own adopted morals, and I don’t attribute them to any belief system. (just, fyi)

    @SW
    Thanks. ;)

    @Hope
    I’ve always secretly had ‘nerdy’ passions, but I always hung out with the ” cool kids.” I kinda wish I had focused more of “alternative” groups while in school, not only would I’ve had generally more in common wih both the men and women, but I probably also could’ve been the top dog.

    @ENY, SW
    Re: fathers
    So, it’s bad fathers, and feminism, that I can blame for girls of my generation not having good judgement. I see. Because I too have witness this “push” when critiquing their past desicions. (usually when their complaining gets too hypocritical)
    Only a few weeks ago, a group of friends were discussing a couple from High-school we all knew, and how they had stayed together through university. One of the girls said something along the lines “Oh, I could never have done that. Especially through University, it just wouldn’t have been in my nature.”
    Since I had starting frequentng HUS, and knew exactly how much of a red-flag that actually was, I literally choked on a ‘hah’ and had to excuse myself.
    And after, all the other girls actually agreed with her.

  • Lavazza

    Marc: I guess it happens more often to men who are looks attractive, but rather passive, and not averse to LTRs. They will meet virgins more often, not scare them away, and they will have the necessary patience. But for less good looking guys who give off player vibes and have little patience it might happen less often.

  • Clayton

    I don’t think that this guy will care to admit it, but it seems that he is acting that way as his way of compensating for the heart-breaking experiences he had.

  • Vox

    However. Spacebunny lucked out. You were the real deal. She took a chance and it paid off. I’d wager that for every Vox and SB, there are 19 relationships with reformed players that ended badly.

    I don’t think it was just luck. She’s got unusually good intuition for people and identifies crazy women and men on the prowl sooner than is logically possible. I’ve learned not to doubt her on those calls. But you’re probably right on the odds. I wouldn’t bet against you there.

    Wait – not sure I understand this. If you have your boy’s back, why would you hit on his girl? Or is it to test her on his behalf? Yes, that must be it. Still, that is going to make things very awkward for the loyal girl and the BF’s friend from then on.

    No, what I’m saying is that if you DON’T hit on his girl, then you have his back. And if you have his back, she cannot trust anything you say about him. The Platonic ideal of male loyalty is kill, die, and lie, and most men are at least willing to do the latter for their friends. If it surprises you how men will talk about sluts between themselves, it would astonish you to see how automatically and flawlessly a man will back up his good friend’s story when questioned, no matter how insane it sounds.

    This is one area where women tend to completely fall short in their relationships with men. Think about how many times you hear a woman correcting her husband’s version of events in public compared to his best friend doing so. If a woman wants to truly earn a man’s trust and loyalty, she would be wise to look at how his best friend treats him and behave accordingly.

    I think that perhaps the taxonomic schema containing the “manwhore” category should be amended to allow the user to differentiate between two basic subspecies. This may seem like a detail, but it could be a worthwhile detail.

    You may be onto something here.

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

      @Vox

      If it surprises you how men will talk about sluts between themselves, it would astonish you to see how automatically and flawlessly a man will back up his good friend’s story when questioned, no matter how insane it sounds.

      Actually, I have heard quite a few stories of young women saying that a guy’s friends assured them he was a really good guy, really, really liked them a lot, felt ready for a real relationship, etc. Of course, it was usually “one and done.” In a couple of cases, the girls went back to these loyal “wingmen” and asked how they could do that. They always get the same answer. “He’s my friend.”

  • Ian

    I see a lot of this when I am on campuses: guys of very high SMP value are not necessarily running PUA-style game unless the definition of game is modified to include the “square-jawed, good-looking linebacker/Pike/black BMW family of passive seduction techniques”. The women more than meet these guys halfway.

    .
    Adding, not refuting; personality matching can have the same effect. Some women respond more to aesthetics, social status, others are more internally involved; feelings and fantasies. Some men, by their nature, are more mysterious/domineering/arrogant, seem like they’d be able to keep a secret.

    Since compatible personalities cut across the looks spectrum, there will be a reliable stream of acceptable women on short-term dopamine kicks. Personality effect is less obvious than the square jaw, similar result.

    You could almost think of him as being conceptually similar to a hot woman with many prospects and a strategic “highest-bidder” mentality, with the exception that he sells commitment rather than sex.

    Right. Accepting offers under suitable (low?) investment conditions, rather than chasing the hunt. I think they’re very different behaviors, the latter seems more like a gambler’s high.

  • Thrasymachus

    Susan:

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that we do not have enough data to answer many of the relevant questions. Having said that, we know that one recent poster in this forum broke up with his girlfriend because her number was too high, although his was more than twice as large. Marc @ 227 has a number exceeding 200 but states that he would prefer a virgin for a LTR. Many other, although by no means all, high count men have said the same and openly acknowledge that they have a double standard. So while it is true that promiscuous men and women are having a lot of sex with each other, the men generally prefer less promiscuous women when it is time to settle down.

    It is true that even PUA’s with the tightest game are frequently rejected. Even Warren Beatty admitted this. Nevertheless, it’s not at all clear that manwhores are often rejected BECAUSE they have high numbers. They are clearly sensitive to women’s attraction cues. They know that they need to be physically fit, dress well and display confidence and self-assurance. As previously stated, some cads are prepared to fake commitment in order to get sex. But they do not seem to find it necessary or even desirable to conceal or minimize their number.

    Everyone agrees that at least some women reject manwhores. The issue is whether these women are numerous enough to force a change in male behavior. The contrast between the way in which promiscuous men and promiscuous women treat their sexual experience is striking. The women usually try to hide it from potential mates, because they know very well that most men do not find this quality attractive. The men – not so much, which suggests that they are not especially concerned about negative reactions to their promiscuity.

    Abbot, Dogsquat: I think we are on the same page.

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

      @Thrasymachus

      So while it is true that promiscuous men and women are having a lot of sex with each other, the men generally prefer less promiscuous women when it is time to settle down.

      I agree. The sexual double standard is primarily male, and is biologically driven. If there are some women who refuse high count men, it’s because they’ve gone beyond “preselection” to “pump and dump truck.” In general, a man won’t be disqualified for his number unless it’s accompanied by observable bad behavior or a reputation as a total asshole. Even then, as we’ve established, he’ll probably have plenty of takers.

      Everyone agrees that at least some women reject manwhores. The issue is whether these women are numerous enough to force a change in male behavior.

      That’s a valid and important question, and I think the answer is a resounding no. There is clearly a very ample supply of women to keep a player happy forever.

      My primary purpose in even discussing the issue of male promiscuity is because women should be concerned about it, as it predicts a much higher rate of infidelity and divorce. As well, there is the issue of the personality traits that usually accompany a focus on short-term mating – again, the chicken or egg question.

      As an aside, I also think it’s worth mentioning to the guys that women with a low number, especially attractive women who have practiced self-respect and self-discipline, are more likely to judge male promiscuity. So if a guy wants to marry such a woman, he should expect more judgment from her than he got from many of his prior hookups.

  • Wudang

    Hope:

    “What changed for me was a kind of spiritual awakening, which I won’t go into because it’s off-topic, rather new agey and will bore everyone. Suffice it to say though that I had to work on myself and change myself before I could have a good relationship.”

    I would be very interested to hear about this if you write about it on your blog. I have no problem translating from new age speak either.

  • GudEnuf

    Mike C: “You are not going to find a woman that sucks and fucks like Jenna Haze, LOVES YOU TO PIECES and is completely devoted to you, and can carry on an hour of stimulating dinner conversation up to your standards.”

    I can teach a woman how to do the first one. And if I can’t find a woman who fulfills the last three, I’m not getting married.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Dogsquat
    Abbot is the collective Id of the dudes who post here. I like him.

    Every time I get annoyed at Abbot, I remember the “Please give Abbot directions to this commenter’s house” joke and like him again.

    Other women like Bellita or SayWhaat who would actually disqualify a man for that are fairly rare.

    I don’t know about “rare,” but we’re certainly insignificant . . . and I don’t mean that in a self-deprecating way. On the previous page, both El Marques and Pvw agreed that women who feel the way we do are “invisible” to the men we’d reject anyway. So even if there were a whole bunch of us, we still wouldn’t matter.

  • pvw

    Batiat Blogger:

    We also have the Category Y individual—the “manwhore by default.” This individual sleeps with a lot of women because they approach him on highly sexual terms. He’s not deliberately looking for it; it’s available to him as a pleasant side effect of his primary alpha male activities and the social circle that these activities tend to generate.

    I see a lot of this when I am on campuses: guys of very high SMP value are not necessarily running PUA-style game unless the definition of game is modified to include the “square-jawed, good-looking linebacker/Pike/black BMW family of passive seduction techniques”. The women more than meet these guys halfway; the ladies are equipped with any number of euphemisms and code words to casually signal physical interest while maintaining decorum.

    I think that this second type of manwhore *possibly* could be LTR material, in that he might be (intuitively) conducting a sort of interesting social experiment to statistically sample sexually available partners in his environment and then using that information to properly calibrate his own value or pulling power. If someone came along who was far outside his established norms, he might be tempted to secure this relationship because he was able, through experience, to properly value the opportunity.

    You could almost think of him as being conceptually similar to a hot woman with many prospects and a strategic “highest-bidder” mentality, with the exception that he sells commitment rather than sex.

    The issue that a woman will run into with this type is, of course, that she will have to go through life knowing that other women find her man extremely attractive. Some of them will proposition him directly.

    My reply:

    The issue at stake though is whether a guy experiencing those circumstances is an honorable man of integrity; otherwise, he can seem to be in the first category of seeking the thrill of the game, the type X guy.

    When I say acting honorably and with integrity; if he knows women are always at him and he has a girlfriend/wife, how does he behave? Is he on the lookout for women who might be seeking him out? Or does he just take it all in stride when the undercover hoochies come his way? Does he ignore their invitations or does he gladly accept them?

    The equivalent is the attractive woman who is honorable and who has integrity; she knows she can elicit men’s interest. But how does she act with that knowledge? Is she slutty? Is she crazily hypergamous? Or is she modest, reserved and loyal?

  • Ben

    @ Senior Beta 215

    I suggest you read some more Roissy. I have for about 5 minutes and couldn’t stand it anymore. The guy’s a misogynist pig who I think has serious issues with women. Frankly, I think he’s a guy who learned “game” as a way to take revenge on all the girls who wouldn’t look at him twice when he was younger. I have nothing in common with him except for an appreciation of casual sex, and if you think all men who have that appreciation are the same, you’ve got a lot of learning to do.

    @Bastiat 219

    Interesting theory, although I don’t think it’s entirely accurate. I think your X category is too simplistic, and Y is as well. A lot of the Y guys do spend time initiating with women. I was friends with a bunch of Y guys in college (yes, I was in a frat), and they definitely spent plenty of time going out of their way to hit on girls they were after. Believe it or not, most girls aren’t good or likely to approach a guy.

    As for the X category, there are plenty of guys who are good at approaching and picking up women who never spent any time learning game. I never did, and neither did any friend I know of, and yet we’re all pretty good at it. We’re just confident, pretty witty and smart. The biggest thing to get over is the approach anxiety. And while all of us still have it from time to time, we’re never paralyzed by it. Also, most of my friends who I would say fall in the X category have also had their fair share of “Y” experiences. We’re not huge stud good looking, but we’re generally all tall, athletic, and attractive. No Brad Pitt, but certainly above average. Although it’s not the norm, we’ve all had experiences of women who barely know us throwing themselves at us. I once was with a girl who couldn’t stop telling me how cute I was (this went on for weeks). I’ve also had a hand or two stuck down my pants at bars by overly aggressive girls. Most of my friends have had similar experiences. In fact, my now ex-gf essentially picked me up at the bar we were at. I was getting a drink, and her friend next to me commented on my order, and as I quickly engaged in some chit chat, my ex jumped in, interrupted the conversation and essentially kicked her friend out of it. I talked to her for about 15 minutes, got her number, and the rest is history.

    So bottom line, the categories blur a fair bit, and I don’t think they’re as heterogenous as you described.

    @GudEnuf

    Agreed. Although I’m not necessarily looking for a porn star in the bedroom. Don’t want/need one. But I do need some variety/creativity/adventure from the girl, not just same 3 positions, same place, same cadence over and over. The last 2 parts though for me are non-negotiable.

    @MikeC

    Pretty much every successful marriage I’ve seen (parents, parents of friends, cousins, older friends, etc) checks those last 3 boxes (I have no idea about the bedroom). To me, if you don’t have that and you’re getting married, you’re settling. I know that the lack of one of those 3 (love, devotion, stimulation) would be such a dark cloud over my head I’d never even get to the proposal stage.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Ana
    I think the fact that she got Victor Krum deny her invisible status.

    They are an interesting case. Hermione is very invisible to the boys around her until Viktor Krum, world-famous sportsman, asks her to the ball. And even then, Ron can’t believe that Viktor does that out of honest attraction, but because he intends to spy on Harry through Hermione. (I don’t think he makes this accusation only out of jealousy. He is looking out for Harry, too.)

    But I believe Krum genuinely liked Hermione in Book 4, even if J.K. Rowling only wrote that twist in so that any hypergamous girl readers would end up liking Hermione more.

    Back to the point of invisibility . . . Note that even after Hermione stuns everyone when she looks gorgeous at the ball, it doesn’t seem to change her attractiveness in the eyes of the other boys in school. Everything is soon back to normal. (And I wonder . . . Do you suppose that because she is Muggle born, she is as disadvantaged in the wizarding world as Hope and Pvw have said non-white women are disadvantaged in the Western world?)

  • Herb

    @Bellita

    Last week, a blogger I know complained about men who “casually” mention during first dates that they hope to marry women who want to be stay-at-home mothers and homeschoolers. She thought it was an unreasonable thing to expect. Perhaps it is, but it’s also an excellent way to filter. Besides, it’s what they really want.

    Then she’s an idiot. Dating isn’t a game to a lot of people, it’s a means to an end: finding the mate they want. Filtering early for non-negotiable items is respectful of the person you’re dating. Not only do you not waste your time you don’t waste their time either.

    Unless she’s just mad it makes her have to choose between being honest or giving up a source of free stuff (dinner, movies, etc).

    @INTJ

    . I disapprove of casual sex, and yet I’m confident that if I wanted to, I could learn PUA and become an alpha.

    Precisely. If you can learn nuclear power, mechanics, computer programming, all the rules to D&D you can learn PUA Game. If you can complete a multi-sport race or boot camp you have the self-discipline to implement PUA Game.

    I’ve done all six of the above. I don’t doubt my ability to learn and use it. I doubt I’d like the person that would result from the process.

    @Dogsquat

    Some don’t disapprove at all, but live life in other ways.

    I think cucumbers taste better pickled. Doesn’t mean I assume raw cucumber lovers are inferior people.

    True.

    It’s a different story with men. Lots of dudes dislike committing to promiscuous women. The sex pozzies have made it disadvantageous for men to be open about this.

    I think that’s unfortunate. I’ve seen the result of this cause significant pain to some very cool women. In a way, they’ve been betrayed in a manner similar to men raised beta-fashion.

    Both the beta-man issue and the sex-possies/number issue come from the same thing: refusing to live in reality.

    A while back we discussed at what point does a cad’s lies of omission constitute the woman in question not having informed consent when she has sex.

    How many sex-possies myths (I can’t bring myself to say lies, I think these women are deluded more than corrupt) can be feed to a woman before she can’t make an informed choice of how many partners to have?

    I think the natural state of humans is to just accept how our minds work as immutable. Grokking something like neuroplasticity or CBT is very counter-intuitive. Usually people must become so miserable they are forced to hunt for solutions to their problems/ways to change. He’s not that miserable yet and it may never get that bad for him.

    You, Sir, have a completed targeting solution.

    That said, I hope to intercept a few people at 90% miserable to help them correct instead of 100% miserable. They’ll save time and it’ll be that much easier.

    Perversely, I think it speaks well of him. See, he needs to dehumanize her to reduce his pain. That’s a good sign.

    He’s the guy who says,”Sergeant! I just dumped a Raghead between the buildings and those trees!” Normal.

    Had he said that to you and me over beers or, to continue the military metaphor, down in the hole on manuevering watch I’d agree.

    This is more like we’re back from deployment and he’s hanging with the rest of M-div and their wives and girlfriends at the bowling alley and says it.

    Class isn’t about not thinking it or saying it. It’s about knowing the right venue.

    @ENK

    Now, in my own life, I’ve attempted to be truthful in that way to the important women in my life, and I can tell you, the pushback from young women about “their rights” can be strong. Still, some of my younger cousins have thanked me (and my cad brother too!) for caring enough to be “judgmental” when “they had dumb ideas in their heads”.

    What people forget about rights is that everyone else has them as well.

    You have a right to have all the sex you want because you have autonomy. I have the right to consider you a dirty slut and want nothing to do with you for the very same reason.

    If you don’t give a rat’s ass about what I think or say it won’t matter. If you do care the adult thing is to consider your actions. The child, however, will be mad at me for exercising my autonomy.

    @MikeC

    Question.
    Why do you think most men do not approach?

    That’s an easy one….approach anxiety. I’d bet that is an almost universal feeling across guys except for maybe uber-natural alphas, and I bet even they feel just a twinge of it. Sadly, I think most guys cannot overcome their approach anxiety.

    No more calls folks, we have a winner.

    If I read your comments correctly, you seem particularly focused on the “sexual contentment” part of the equation. Again, I’ll tell you this guy to guy as I think guys are sold this and it is simply isn’t true at least for some guys including myself. You’ll never be as sexually satisfied with one woman as you would with new variety, and I don’t think that means you are with the “wrong” woman. I think part of one of VD’s comments hits on this point. I think you just hit a point in life where you realize that tradeoff is worth making for the right woman. I happen to think many guys have to hit 30+ for that introspection and realization to take place.

    While I think you are right I also think men can mess themselves by bad women choices between their first hard-on and that realization. While we love to talk about how we’re not guiding women to make good sexual choices we don’t teach men that either. The wrong woman can mess up your mind for years. In that respect random hookups is like walking in a minefield without a map. Sure, some guy in Charlie Company got away with it, but do you want to risk it.

    @Susan

    This really drives home the point that a woman in her early to mid-20s is going to have much better luck getting a relationship if she dates at least 5 years older. I’ve been saying this for a while to the young women I know, and they agree. But they also say that it’s not easy to meet older guys – their social circle right now is largely made up of people in their city they knew from school, friends of friends, etc. Even bars are fairly segregated by age. 30 yo guys don’t frequent pubs crawling with recent college grads, apparently. Maybe it just takes a while after college to expand one’s social network.

    It used to be a social norm for a reason.

    As for “bars being segregated by age” a woman choses where she goes to meet men. Even online dating profiles allow her to select a date range. Being the only 25 year old woman adult enough to handle a 30s environment while still being a 25 year old in looks is a great way to stand out and meet older men at the same time.

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

      @Herb

      As for “bars being segregated by age” a woman choses where she goes to meet men. Even online dating profiles allow her to select a date range. Being the only 25 year old woman adult enough to handle a 30s environment while still being a 25 year old in looks is a great way to stand out and meet older men at the same time.

      Agreed, these are the two things I’ve suggested. Women say they’ll try, and then the weekend comes around, and they don’t want to be the odd one out and talk a friend into going to some classy lounge, so they go hang at the pub and play darts with their usual crowd. Seeking a relationship partner takes focus and work, like any other quest. You’ve got to be willing to go where the big fish are.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “As an aside, I also think it’s worth mentioning to the guys that women with a low number, especially attractive women who have practiced self-respect and self-discipline, are more likely to judge male promiscuity. So if a guy wants to marry such a woman, he should expect more judgment from her than he got from many of his prior hookups.”

    Bingo. I think Bellita mentioned that these women were not rare, but “insignificant”. I’d say insignificant on the hookup scene is a badge of honor. It usually corresponds to high MMV, which is very significant. And it’s funny, because that’s a majority of college-educated women.

    Whether these women are consciously eschewing high N guys, or just avoiding certain environments when looking for a mate, they certainly aren’t settling down with them by and large. They’re marrying low-to-medium N guys. How’s that for judging women by what they actually do?

  • Ben

    @MegaMan

    I’m gonna disagree with you on “majority of college educated women”. I went to one of the best universities in the country (top 5 ranked), and a good 50% of the girls there were active participants in hookup culture. They went to the frat parties (35% of the school is greek), hooked up with guys, and slept with them. Granted, the other 50% of women were a bit like ghosts. You never saw them except in class, and really never knew who they were. And just by observation, the 50% who did go out and participate in the hu scene were by far and away the more attractive half. Talking to my hs friends, most of whom went to highly selective U’s as well, this was the case at most of those too (Johns Hopkins being a large exception). Anywhere there was a big Greek scene, the above stats and behaviors largely held true.

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

      @Ben

      I went to one of the best universities in the country (top 5 ranked), and a good 50% of the girls there were active participants in hookup culture. They went to the frat parties (35% of the school is greek), hooked up with guys, and slept with them.

      Duke University, known for its hookup culture, did an on-campus study to determine exactly what was going on. Kids estimated that at least half the campus was hooking up regularly. (That campus is also a third Greek, btw, and the athletes have their own social scene.) What they found was that approximately 10% of the campus was actively having casual sex.

      I also know that not all sororities are equally slutty, and not all women in sororities are equally slutty. So YMMV there as well.

      In short, Pluralistic Ignorance explains this misconception, and my guess is that it’s strongest among those who hook up a lot. Precisely because the rest of the students are “ghosts”, i.e. invisible.

      Also, Harvard recently looked at the sexual activity of their own students:

      Via The Happiness Advantage: The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology That Fuel Success and Performance at Work:
      Based on my study of Harvard undergraduates, the average number of romantic relationships over four years is less than one. The average number of sexual partners, if you’re curious, is 0.5 per student. (I have no idea what 0.5 sexual partners means, but it sounds like the scientific equivalent of second base.) In my survey, I found that among these brilliant Harvard students, 24 percent are unaware if they are currently involved in any romantic relationship.

      http://www.bakadesuyo.com/whats-your-average-harvard-students-sex-life?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bakadesuyo+%28Barking+up+the+wrong+tree%29

      The data does not support your claim.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    Seeking a relationship partner takes focus and work, like any other quest.

    Let me fix that:

    SEEKING A RELATIONSHIP PARTNER TAKES FOCUS AND WORK, LIKE ANY OTHER QUEST.

    Also, pressing your “Like” button.

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

    Ben: Point well-taken and I agree with your critique about the simplistic bluntness of my framework. The distinction between X and Y is definitely a bit theatrical, but I’m sure you understand that I was trying to find something more nuanced than, say, “manwhore=n>50=bad”.

    An N-count insta-disgust trigger is probably a decent heuristic, but it may be based on valuable data that is difficult to acquire under actual field conditions, especially since the more extreme Y types may have a wildly imprecise idea of how many women they have been with and may use shortcuts/rationalizations to say whatever people want to hear (I think the X is more likely to try to be coy on the N-count topic, but to manage to imply that he has been around the block).

    I think that some analysis of motivations and patterns of sexual opportunities could be useful to the girls. Using pure N-count (without consideration for circumstances) as a summary dis-qualifier could, in terms of practical downstream effects, end up being akin to telling women not to be attracted to highly attractive men.

    pvw: excellent points.

    VD: when/if you have the time, I would certainly enjoy reading more of your thoughts on this issue. You write very high-quality posts.

    Susan: thanks, my dear!

    I wanted to add that, in terms of sampling, there is an old problem in gambling mathematics that concerns the amount of information one needs to assemble a comparison database. The assumptions necessary to make the solution work can be difficult to satisfy in a messy (!) real-world environment like the SMP (for example, it assumes that one’s attractiveness level is constant over the time period in question, which obviously may not be true for early peakers and late bloomers) but here goes:

    You would take 1/e (“e” of course being the natural logarithm, or about 2.71828) and multiply by the length of your prime dating life. In other words, you would take approx. 37% of your prime dating life and use that to assemble your baseline. As you moved forward in your dating career, the first person who scored higher higher than anyone in your baseline would be a “keeper”.

    So if a man is 20 years old and believes that he has 25 years of strong pulling power ahead of him, he’d take 25 * .37 and get about 9 years. He would theoretically date/mate freely until age 29-30, and then settle down with the first person who achieved a higher “SMP score” (or whatever you want to call it) than the high-water mark of the comps database. His N count would not be particularly relevant so long as the numbers were fairly steady for year-to-year; the model assumes that his value will eventually depreciate due to the ravages of time, rather than increasing N.

    Before going into the limitations of the approach (which are many), please consider one thing that it does reveal in a powerful way: if you get the prime-dating-years input wrong, you will get yourself into big trouble. For example, consider what would happen if a sociological fantasy/consensus hallucination told some parties that they had 25 prime years, when in fact the market gave them 10. The results could be *very bad*.

  • Herb

    @Ben

    I’m gonna disagree with you on “majority of college educated women”. I went to one of the best universities in the country (top 5 ranked), and a good 50% of the girls there were active participants in hookup culture. They went to the frat parties (35% of the school is greek), hooked up with guys, and slept with them.

    I think you have some selection bias.

    The university I worked at has roughly the same number of undergrads as the bottom six Ivy League schools combined. Yet the Greeks numbered maybe 2000. While it is larger than most state universities the pattern is probably closer to them than the top 5% schools.

    Plenty of universities have no Greek life whatsoever.

    So if in a heavily Greek school 50% of the women aren’t in the culture what does that say about the population of college educated women as a whole when lightly and completely non-Greek schools are included?

  • Herb

    @Bastiat Blogger

    Before going into the limitations of the approach (which are many), please consider one thing that it does reveal in a powerful way: if you get the prime-dating-years input wrong, you will get yourself into big trouble. For example, consider what would happen if a sociological fantasy/consensus hallucination told some parties that they had 25 prime years, when in fact the market gave them 10. The results could be *very bad*.

    Thank you for a much better explanation of my point about damage in the interim in a much clearly way than I could. You also gave me some food for thought with that “what if I have 10 instead of 25 years”.

  • Jonny

    “I know it’s inadvisable to ask men early in the dating stage what their thoughts about family and children are, but I’m going to start doing that so that I stop wasting time.”

    Let’s define “early in the dating stage”. This means 1 to 3 dates. I have the 3 date rule. If she is a keeper, I will continue to date her beyond 3 dates.

    If you think he is a keeper, keep dating him after 3 dates. After 3 dates, ask him if he wants a family and children. If no, then get out.

  • Lokland

    @Mike C, Susan

    No its not just approach anxiety.
    She mentioned specifically “this” society. We started off with the base assumption that men here have AA worse than other places on the planet.

    That leads to one of two possibilities. Either men don’t approach because guys here are a bunch of panzies with nerve crippling AA (genetic) or there is a cultural cause that increases natural AA.

    Seeing as our culture is both multicultural/racial it seems unlikely that the cause is genetic. Maybe to a small degree but not by any means the majority.

    That leaves us with a cultural aversion to approaching women.

    Why?

    Spit balling but perhaps its the crazy chicks who pull out words including but not limited to: creep, loser, player etc.

    Another could be feminism pushing that talking to a woman is rape if she doesn’t want to talk. (I will perfect my mind reading and future seer techniques soon gents, I will then write an instructional book for the low price of 7 payments of $12.95. Well worth it to stay out of jail.)

    Mostly it is probably the nice guys don’t hit on girls bullshit we were fed as kids.

    Couple this with women not being able to demonstrate interest and we run into problems with men not approaching.

    On a good note, guys who figure it out are essentially the only bull in the field.

  • Ben

    @Susan and Ben

    Point well taken, the data does not support my claim. I was wrong. Although I was defining “participating in hu culture” not necessarily as casual sex, but as going out, partying, meeting new guys and making out/oral sex/sex with them. I think focusing on the N count is fairly limiting when talking about a wider hookup culture. As any young person will tell you “hooking up” runs the gamut from making out to having sex. I think “casual sex culture” may be a better name for what you’re driving at. Although there are many facets there as well. Consider the below example:

    I have two very good friends, let’s call them Stephanie and Megan. Both are strikingly beautiful, very intelligent and quite witty, and get tons of attention from men. Both, however, have no interest in casual sex, and have never had ONS or FWB situations. Both have never slept with a man before dating him for at least 2 months and being exclusive with him. However, at this point (age 25), both have N counts over 10. Would you call these two active participants in the hook up culture? They both partied a lot in college, and still do, and make out with plenty of guys. They don’t have lots of casual sex though. Food for thought….

    PS Harvard is well know among the Ivies (along with Yale to some extent) as being one of the most boring places to go to school. Contrast with Dartmouth, Penn, even Cornell for opposite examples

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

      @Ben

      Both, however, have no interest in casual sex, and have never had ONS or FWB situations. Both have never slept with a man before dating him for at least 2 months and being exclusive with him. However, at this point (age 25), both have N counts over 10. Would you call these two active participants in the hook up culture? They both partied a lot in college, and still do, and make out with plenty of guys. They don’t have lots of casual sex though. Food for thought….

      As someone with a similar history by my 25th bday, you won’t find me condemning them. (I did have a handful of ONSs when I got to bschool at age 25.) Frankly, I think most attractive, socially active women are going to get there by the time they marry. And frankly, I think that most guys are not going to blanch at that number.

      I’m not saying that should or shouldn’t – that’s every guy’s personal choice. But one of the reasons I asked you about the women you fell for is because I do get the distinct sense that among guys who do some dating, get some hookups, etc. there is less judgment about a woman having been sexually active. For obvious reasons, the higher a guy’s count is, the less judgmental he is likely to be, though obviously every guy will have a cutoff. We saw that recently when a guy with a number of 40 couldn’t live with his gf’s number of 16.

  • Jonny

    “Would you call these two active participants in the hook up culture? They both partied a lot in college, and still do, and make out with plenty of guys. They don’t have lots of casual sex though.”

    The making out with plenty of guys could be considered slutty behavior since it is usually in the open. The 10 guy count is many according to statistics. I know you’re trying to make them sound like prudes, but I would not consider them marriage material.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “Game advocates would also reply that this demonstrates the truth of one of their fundamental tenets – look at what women do, not what they say. In this instance at least it would be difficult to disagree with them.”
    ——–

    I have always believed that men in reality do not really want to know what women actually desirable in them. Instead, they want us to desire what they want us to find most desirable in them–period. I don’t know how many times I have been chastised and berated online and offline for being forthcoming about what I (and most women) find desirable and most appealing in my ideal partner (E.g., good looks, worth, dominance, well endowed and so on). Men simply do not want to hear or simply cannot handle the truth about what triggers a woman’s desire for them. Therefore, we lie (this is where the pretty lies come from) in order to avoid chastisement and ridicule that often comes from men (some annoying indoctrinated women) when we do not say what they want to hear.

    We would rather tell men what they want to hear to placate them but then in action, we pursue men with the qualities we actually find desirable–this is the way women have always had to operate. Yes, this makes us appear contradictory but what we are actually attempting to do is avoid judgment. I used to lie when asked about what I wanted in a man because I did not want to be judged for being superficial or unrealistic so it was just easier to say what was most politically correct or socially acceptable. However, I don’t do that anymore because I don’t care about what anyone thinks–I am over it.

    I have been on other blogs where I am telling men what I actually want and they are telling me no, you do not want that you actually want this—it is crazy making.

    I wish men would stop wanting to control what women find most attractive about them. I believe once women are free to express what we want without judgment or ridicule we will be much more honest and not be these walking contradictions.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Liza
    It sounds as if you been lurking in the “Emotional Prudery and Promiscuity” thread. ;)

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    I have always believed that men in reality do not really want to know what women actually desirable in them. Instead, they want us to desire what they want us to find most desirable in them–period.

    I agree for the most part. Change men to people and I’ll sign right off. Most of us want to think people want what we have to offer.

    I wish men would stop wanting to control what women find most attractive about them. I believe once women are free to express what we want without judgment or ridicule we will be much more honest and not be these walking contradictions.

    See, here is the issue. I wish women weren’t the contradiction, not because I want to control what they want. I can’t control what anyone else wants.

    What I would have liked, however, is honest and accurate information so I could make informed choices about what I did. Men (and I suspect women) do things to highlight their desirability to women. However, if we have bad information we expend effort on things that are not productive and often counter productive.

    As has been discussed up thread, we’re not just doing this to men but to women as well. For women it’s less men are honest, but what they’re taught growing up is shallow (men want sex therefore having a vagina is enough), judgmental (men care about looks therefore are pigs and you deserve better), just stupid (men are exactly the same as you and want the exact things so be a great man and you’ll land a great man), or narcissistic (men should love you exactly as you are and if they don’t they’re pigs…don’t change, you deserve better).

    We need to teach young people in honest ways. At one level we all want the same things, but at others men and women have different wants. However, those are sliders and some women want things more like men and vice versa. Figure out what you want and learn how to recognize it including what questions to ask.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    On Steph and Tim and Dave in whatever arrangmement it was.

    I would have disqualified her as well. Even if I knew exactly what she had done.

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

      @Lokland

      I would have disqualified her as well. Even if I knew exactly what she had done.

      Really? For kissing a guy she liked in a cab and refusing to let him come upstairs?

      This is something really strange to me, having come of age during a more traditional dating period. It was totally legit then to go on a date with Brad Friday night, kiss him at the end of the date if you were attracted, and then go on a date with John Saturday night, kissing him as well. Similarly, Brad and John were also going out with other girls on dates. Over time, people would generally pair off – you’d know, for example, that Brad had asked you out several times in a row without dating anyone else, and you’d said yes to Brad all of those times. Soon everyone knew you were a couple, even though it wasn’t even really something you were likely to have discussed explicitly. At some point in time, you’d “go steady,” which in the old days was actually a precursor to getting engaged. Only sluts had sex before going steady. But again, we often kissed or made out with numerous guys on dates while not seriously dating one person.

      Ironically, a girl can be labeled slutty today for kissing two guys on the same weekend, and apparently in your case, for kissing him at all!

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    I believe once women are free to express what we want without judgment or ridicule

    I’m sure you haven’t thought this deeply, but can you describe any time or place where being judged or ridicule isn’t part of the human condition. Do you honestly believe men are able to express freely without judgment or ridicule?

    For the majority of human being at any time and place in history judgment and ridicule are constant possibilities for even the simplest of statements against the grain.

    What people, men and women, need is not freedom from response (because the only way to achieve that for a single person is to rob everyone else of agency) but the ability to decide if something if important enough to risk contrary responses and the strength of conviction to withstand those contrary responses when it is important enough.

  • VD

    And if I can’t find a woman who fulfills the last three, I’m not getting married.

    Don’t worry about the last one. You’ll have heard all of each other’s stories within the first five years of marriage anyhow. Even if you’re an intellectual couple who reads books, you’ll both read the same books that are of any mutual interest. Life-long companionship isn’t about scintillating conversation.

    And once you have kids, all of the dinner conversations will either be about them or something their animals did.

    Note that even after Hermione stuns everyone when she looks gorgeous at the ball, it doesn’t seem to change her attractiveness in the eyes of the other boys in school. Everything is soon back to normal. (And I wonder . . . Do you suppose that because she is Muggle born, she is as disadvantaged in the wizarding world as Hope and Pvw have said non-white women are disadvantaged in the Western world?)

    I suspect it’s more likely because Hermione is a very annoying little tool. Remember, many guys, including the smart ones, don’t like smart girls because they’re so disagreeable.

    VD: when/if you have the time, I would certainly enjoy reading more of your thoughts on this issue. You write very high-quality posts.

    Thanks. I have a blog called Alpha Game of which you may or may not be aware to which Susan occasionally links. I’ll probably post on it there.

  • Jonny

    @Liza207 “I wish men would stop wanting to control what women find most attractive about them. I believe once women are free to express what we want without judgment or ridicule we will be much more honest and not be these walking contradictions.”

    You misunderstand men. Men know what women want. It’s just that men cannot met your demands. Some are unchangeable (E.g., good looks, worth, dominance, well endowed and so on), while others are negotiable (which you have not stated). The unknowns of female desire is part of game. Other things like good looks and dominance can be mitigated with perceived status (faked). There’s nothing you can do about “well endowed”, but maybe if the women is slightly drunk, she won’t even notice.

  • Mike C

    @MikeC

    Pretty much every successful marriage I’ve seen (parents, parents of friends, cousins, older friends, etc) checks those last 3 boxes (I have no idea about the bedroom). To me, if you don’t have that and you’re getting married, you’re settling. I know that the lack of one of those 3 (love, devotion, stimulation) would be such a dark cloud over my head I’d never even get to the proposal stage.

    This is for both you and Gudenuf (who also addressed my point). Let me be emphatically clear here in that I am NOT saying you should settle for a “dead fish” in the bedroom or a woman devoid of serious intellectual capacity. Truthfully, I did the latter in my first marriage which failed miserably (our IQs were probably 30-35 points apart) and that was just major issue among many. What I am saying is it is highly unlikely you are going to find a woman who is a 10 in each one of those categories so you are going to have to do some soul-searching and introspection to really decide what qualities are of the utmost importance.

    There’s a guy who had commented here Deti who has what I believe are some excellent comments on the very real difference between “settling” and compromise. I believe he happens to be in his early 40s. It is interesting to me there seems to be a philosophical divide here largely broken out by age difference. At the risk of sounding condescending, I think you younger guys simply don’t have the life experience to realize you probably not going to find perfection in every single category all wrapped up in the same woman. That is NOT to say you have to settle for substandard in any category you think is really important. For example, with myself, intellectual conversation isn’t as critical in my mate. I can “scratch that itch” elsewhere. On the flipside, I tend to be unemotional, stoic, and serious. I NEED someone who can balance that out. My GF has a playful and lighthearted streak which I absolutely NEED in a partner. I could NOT be with a super serious, hard charging woman who was in serious mode all the time.

    So I’m not saying to settle but think carefully through what your list of MUST HAVES are and what are attributes and traits you can deemphasize.

  • VD

    I have always believed that men in reality do not really want to know what women actually desirable in them.

    You’re talking about the BETAs. Based on what you’ve said, the ALPHAs and the pick-up artists will likely sign off on what you’re saying. However, I suspect that you’ve been trolling at least a bit, because most women put certain limits on “well-endowed”. I had a friend in college with a penis so large that we felt it merited its own name, and he got outright refused by most women once they were confronted with the monstrosity that was Herman.

    We would rather tell men what they want to hear to placate them but then in action, we pursue men with the qualities we actually find desirable–this is the way women have always had to operate. Yes, this makes us appear contradictory but what we are actually attempting to do is avoid judgment.

    Are you seriously unaware that one of the core mantras of Game is to ignore what women say and only pay attention to what they do? I mean, I’ve mentioned it in this very comment thread. I always recommend that men pay absolutely no attention to what women say about sex, dating, and relationships, Susan being one of the few exceptions.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    For women it’s less men are honest, but what they’re taught growing up is shallow (men want sex therefore having a vagina is enough), judgmental (men care about looks therefore are pigs and you deserve better), just stupid (men are exactly the same as you and want the exact things so be a great man and you’ll land a great man), or narcissistic (men should love you exactly as you are and if they don’t they’re pigs…don’t change, you deserve better).
    ——
    Herb,

    Yes, I hear these things said about men a lot THESE DAYS. Men were not always subject to this kind of judgment about what they found most desirable or undesirable in women. It wasn’t until feminism that women (mostly feminist) started becoming more vocal in judging and criticizing men in this way. Before feminism men could pretty much voice whatever they wanted when it came what they wanted in women. Men were not always being shutdown in the way women have been and continue to be.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @VD
    I suspect it’s more likely because Hermione is a very annoying little tool.

    Well, yes, that too. :)

  • Sassy6519

    I want to comment some more on this thread, but this is the first thread that has ever left me so speechless.

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

      @Sassy

      I want to comment some more on this thread, but this is the first thread that has ever left me so speechless.

      LOL! Find your words, I’d love to hear what you think!

  • J

    @VD

    You’ll have heard all of each other’s stories within the first five years of marriage anyhow. Even if you’re an intellectual couple who reads books, you’ll both read the same books that are of any mutual interest….And once you have kids, all of the dinner conversations will either be about them or something their animals did.

    True enough.

    Life-long companionship isn’t about scintillating conversation.

    Not as true as you might think. I’m not sure how long you’ve been married, but there comes a point when the kids leave and you’re back to being a couple again. For some couples, that’s an opportunity to grow together without the kids in between. Others discover that they have grown apart to the point that they are living separate lives under the same roof, and many of them split up because of it. Ever go to a restaurant and couple-watch? Inevitably, there is a silent old couple who just sort of stare bitterly at each other; they have nothing further to say. That scares me shitless. I thank God that after nearly a quarter of a century, my DH and I still have things to talk about and can still make each other laugh.

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    Yes, I hear these things said about men a lot THESE DAYS. Men were not always subject to this kind of judgment about what they found most desirable or undesirable in women. It wasn’t until feminism that women (mostly feminist) started becoming more vocal in judging and criticizing men in this way. Before feminism men could pretty much voice whatever they wanted when it came what they wanted in women. Men were not always being shutdown in the way women have been and continue to be.

    THESE DAYS is a pretty flexible term.

    I’m 45 and I don’t remember a time when such criticisms of men weren’t true.

    I remember when it was pretty much universal that men were pigs period. If anything, in some ways it’s softened since the 70s. Maybe not so much softened as changed. Shallow, or perhaps a better term would be simple, is much more common these days. Women have complex internal lives and motivations while men merely have two states: hungry and horny.

    Note, I’m not complaining about how this effects men, at least not in this instance. I ‘m saying such simplicity is harming women who desire to mate long term with a man.

    But unless you’re significantly older than me I think these days is being a bit disingenuous. Feminism has been mainstream since before I was old enough to understand what it even was. Feminism was in the popular culture by the last seasons of The Brady Bunch for crying out loud.

    So, by my estimate, none of Susan’s target audience (20 something women looking to get a boyfriend) have been in a culture where criticizing men was taboo. Arguably, her target audience grew up in a culture where affirming men is taboo.

    And neither taboo would stand them well.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    I’m sure you haven’t thought this deeply, but can you describe any time or place where being judged or ridicule isn’t part of the human condition. Do you honestly believe men are able to express freely without judgment or ridicule?
    ——-
    Herb,

    A lot of what I said about being judged and ridiculed is coming from my own personal experience, when I have been completely honest about what I wanted. I have seen it with other women who frequent this blog. Sassy, mentioned she liked a guy with an “edge” and hell broke loose. We cannot be totally honest.

  • Herb

    @Sassy

    I want to comment some more on this thread, but this is the first thread that has ever left me so speechless.

    Given the fact that your speechless has me getting the New England snow gear out even though it’s May and I’m in Atlanta you could start with why you’re speechless.

  • J

    Some are unchangeable (E.g., good looks, worth, dominance, well endowed and so on),

    Well endowed? Meh. No one wants mirco-phallus but there’s also such a thing as too much of a good thing. Average is fine.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “There’s nothing you can do about “well endowed”, but maybe if the women is slightly drunk, she won’t even notice.”
    ————–
    Jonny,

    Ha! Yes, we like it big.

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    A lot of what I said about being judged and ridiculed is coming from my own personal experience, when I have been completely honest about what I wanted. I have seen it with other women who frequent this blog. Sassy, mentioned she liked a guy with an “edge” and hell broke loose. We cannot be totally honest.

    1. She had defenders.
    2. All hell has broken loss from men being honest about their desires as well.

    Opinions cause arguments and judgment. Either you can handle it or you can’t. Have XX chromosomes either affects your ability to handle it or it doesn’t.

    No one hear can find you and harm you. No one here can call all of your friends and out you. Hell, I even judged Ben on this thread for being crass even though he pointed that out (because I though saying what he said about the ex here showed a lack of class).

    This is not Taliban Afganistan where women are maimed for attending school. It’s a rough and tumble debate via a keyboard where pretty much all the regulars get called out regardless.

    The inability to see the difference is, in my mind, one of the weakest points of feminists that I encounter.

    The freedom to do and say includes the freedom to fail and be told off. Men seem to internalize this early and just deal. So do a lot of women. Why can’t feminists?

  • J

    I’m 45 and I don’t remember a time when such criticisms of men weren’t true. I remember when it was pretty much universal that men were pigs period.

    I’m with you on this, Herb. I’m older than you are and was raised by a very patriarchal father, who hammered the idea that men were pigs and that I’d better be very wary of them.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Sassy
    I’m as curious as Herb is. Do share!

  • Lokland

    @Lisa

    Glad to know you’ve self promoted yourself as spokesman for all womankind.

    If you don’t mind I’d rather talk to your individual members and see what I can manage without your judging whether or not I’m good enough to get in the club house.

    Seriously. Your a troll who thinks their sole defintion of what is acceptable in a mate is not only the gold standard but the only acceptable standard.
    Thats fine. A quick look out my window also shows it to be not true. Maybe we just do it better here in the snowy North.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Liza207

    Sassy, mentioned she liked a guy with an “edge” and hell broke loose. We cannot be totally honest.

    I wanted to bring this up earlier, but I’m glad that you did instead.

    In this very thread, there was a tangent of what men like the most of the female form. There was talk of asses, breasts, BMI, etc. There was not a SINGLE outcry or complaint of this topic from women. The women here know and accept the fact that men are visual creatures who appreciate beauty/aesthetics. In another thread, I mentioned that I like men who have a bit of “edge” to them, and instantly I had a few men questioning/lamenting my attraction to that. I didn’t understand it, and I was surprised by the outbursts.

    I remember mentioning in a thread, a long time ago, that I like men who are well endowed. That caused a severe outcry as well.

    Who knows what place it stems from in some men.

    @ Herb

    Given the fact that your speechless has me getting the New England snow gear out even though it’s May and I’m in Atlanta you could start with why you’re speechless.

    Haha! Gee, thanks.

    It’s hard to put into words really. The entire feeling from the comments thread is rubbing me the wrong way. I can’t really place my finger on what specifically, however.

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

      @Sassy

      In this very thread, there was a tangent of what men like the most of the female form. There was talk of asses, breasts, BMI, etc. There was not a SINGLE outcry or complaint of this topic from women. The women here know and accept the fact that men are visual creatures who appreciate beauty/aesthetics. In another thread, I mentioned that I like men who have a bit of “edge” to them, and instantly I had a few men questioning/lamenting my attraction to that.

      You’re right about this. In fact, I think there’s still a thread going with men lamenting women’s attraction to dominance as depressing and childish. In that thread I suggested it was time for our afternoon dose of the red pill.

      I do think that women have an easier time of swallowing their red pill, which makes clear that because men are visual creatures, there’s no female equivalent of Game. We can do our best with what we’ve got, but there’s a hard limit. Additionally, we’ve been forced to accept that ALL men want sexual variety and mind fuck strangers on public transportation. We’ve been told that intelligence is a drag by some. And of course, we’ve learned that a man will not want to marry us if we have too much sexual experience, regardless of his own history. Add in the hamsterwheeling, the AWALT and the finger perpetually poised on the cuckoldry trigger, and you’ve got quite a nasty bit of medicine there. Yet as you say, most women here don’t put up much of a fuss when these claims are made. Well, I do. The rest of you tend to disappear :P

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    Really? For kissing a guy she liked in a cab and refusing to let him come upstairs?

    Ironically, a girl can be labeled slutty today for kissing two guys on the same weekend, and apparently in your case, for kissing him at all!

    I don’t get it either.

    If kissing/making out with men is that bad, I’m not “marriage material” either.

    What next? Pretty soon, any woman who masturbates will be deemed as “not marriage material” too.

    With that, it appears I am no longer speechless.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan and Sassy, sometimes guys get ridiculous standards for other women once they’re in love with a particular woman. Maybe that’s happened to Lokland? :P

    I have to consciously try to keep that in mind for myself, given how I see my husband.

    But I would say that not kissing a guy before getting serious emotional involvement is a good idea. I didn’t kiss around and my kiss # is also in single digit.

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

      @Hope

      But I would say that not kissing a guy before getting serious emotional involvement is a good idea. I didn’t kiss around and my kiss # is also in single digit.

      Given that women get a reading on testosterone and sebum via kissing, and use it both as a screen and to promote bonding, I think it’s an important clue as to compatibility. That filter is best applied before emotional investment. I can recall being really attracted to guys and finding that kissing them was repellent. Whether it was their lack of skill or a potential DNA overlap I’m not sure, but I saved a lot of time by knowing after a first or second date kiss if I wanted to see the guy again.

  • Ben

    @ Jonny

    Not trying to make them sound like prudes; trying to make them sound like higher N count girls who don’t participate in casual sex.

    @ Susan

    No, higher N counts generally don’t bother me. Yes, there’s a limit (I’d say higher than 25 or so would put me off a bit), but it’s not something I spend a ton of time thinking about. Two things matter a lot more: how selective she is, and how many of her past hookups I know. If she’s banged 4 of my friends, or even acquaintances, that’s a no go. However, if she’s slept with 20 guys, but they all went to her college and I’ve never met/will never meet any of them, I couldn’t care less. The second part is selectivity. Does she sleep with anything with a penis, or does it take a lot of effort to attain her and does she carefully select who she sleeps with. Believe it or not, for a good-looking woman, an N count of 25 can still mean she’s highly selective. Let’s say she’s approached 15 times a week (not unlikely if she’s social). Between ages 18-25 that means she’s been approached by 5,460 guys. If she’s slept with 25 of them, that’s only .004% of the men who’ve put in effort to get her. That’s the scientific bit, the rest is a bit nebulous. Does she hook up often or does she spend most nights alone because the guys aren’t worth it? What quality of guys does she hook up with?

    For instance, my ex has a friend who honestly will bang anything that moves. She’s quite pretty, but she goes out, gets wasted, and hooks up with the nearest penis with a pulse she can find. I’ve seen her hook up with some truly ugly men because they were the nearest one at hand (she fucked one in a bathroom once too). I was repulsed, and would never consider going near her. However, I know many girls who get approached very often, and turn down the overwhelming majority of men who do so. They sleep with even less of the men who pass the first flag as well.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    I did not like much of what Ben said but at least he was honest and forthcoming. I know most of us do not like hearing the ugly truth at times because it can be extremely daunting. But this guy is a self-professed manwhore, what did we think his thought process was when it came to long-term relationships and women.

    I have known manwhores and very few of them are apologetic about their lifestyle and would not waste their time defending it to anyone.

  • Ben

    @MikeC

    Wasn’t saying she had to be a perfect 10 in all those categories. I’m flexible. She just has to score well in each. Can’t have a failing mark in one of those. She could have a failing mark, in, oh, art history and I wouldn’t care, but those 3 are biggies for me.

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

      She could have a failing mark, in, oh, art history and I wouldn’t care,

      This cracked me up.

  • Ted D

    Liza – “Yes, this makes us appear contradictory but what we are actually attempting to do is avoid judgment.”

    That right there is the problem. Being honest is going to get you judged, plain and simple. The truth is, lying gets you judged as well, only its a false judgment. Why not just be honest up front and let the chips fall where they do. If a guy is turned off by it, you wouldn’t want a relationship with him anyway.

    I will never understand why people are so afraid of judgments. Of course, as an INTJ, judging is my thing I guess.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Lokland,

    Your response is exactly what I am referring to. So, I am a troll. As Sassy mentioned, there was a thread where men here were sounding off about what body parts they liked on women. I had absolutely no problem with what was being said. Because I don’t have a problem with men liking what they do.

    Why do men have such a problem with women expressing what we like? What gives?

  • Ted D

    ” Sassy, mentioned she liked a guy with an “edge” and hell broke loose. We cannot be totally honest.”

    First of all, Sassy does not strike me as the type of person that is afraid of judgement. I may not agree with her on some things, but I respect her for being honest and being willing and able to back up her opinions.

    Second, “edge” is a rather nefarious term, and I think at least some of the backlash was from people having different definitions of the word. And to be honest, here at HUS I see that happen often. It’s natural since there is such a diverse group of people here, but it isn’t the same as “men not liking what women find attractive”. And even if that is exactly the cause, so what? So what if men don’t like that you want a mate with a 9″ penis. Let them complain all they want, at least you know if they do, they won’t meet your standards, right? If I had a 9″ penis, you wouldn’t hear me complaining when women stated their desire for one. Of course I don’t, so I might. LOL

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    My husband also has a single digit kiss # and partner #, so if I had a really high kiss # that might have made him feel less than good. I don’t know for sure though. This wasn’t something I thought about consciously when I was younger. It was part of my upbringing that kissing is a major deal, and you don’t kiss without real feelings involved.

  • Ted D

    Liza – “Why do men have such a problem with women expressing what we like? What gives?”

    Honestly, because many women are just too damned picky and/or have totally unattainable standards. Not all, but the ones that seem to state their desires the most seem to also be the ones with really long check lists.

    Men may say “ass”, “legs”, “big breasts”, and the like, but even then I would bet money that “what they like” varies enough that many women still fit the bill. How many guys do you think have a large penis? Or look like Brad Pitt? Or make 7 figures a year? Plus, most of you know that even if a guy says he is an “ass man”, you could probably get him into bed even if you don’t have a big booty. Guys on the other hand pretty much know that they are being eliminated by the majority of women around them before they even open their mouths to speak. It tends to make us a bit negative and pessimistic.

  • Ted D

    Hope – “My husband also has a single digit kiss # and partner #, so if I had a really high kiss # that might have made him feel less than good.”

    My kiss # is slightly higher than my N, but only by two or three. I didn’t kiss a girl until I decided I was going to pursue a relationship. Period. And, I never, ever dated more than one person at a time. But, I don’t socialize much, and frankly I didn’t think I could dedicate enough time to more than one woman at a time with regards to dating. The concept of spinning plates sounds absolutely horrible to me. I can’t imagine trying to keep up so many multiple dating threads without either shorting them all, or becoming exhausted in the process.

  • Ramble

    In a couple of cases, the girls went back to these loyal “wingmen” and asked how they could do that. They always get the same answer. “He’s my friend.”

    This seems to be the equivalent of girls telling their girlfriend what a creep her ex is even when they know the guy is good and she is completely hamstering.

    A while back on Reddit, some guy was talking about these girls badmouthing him after he broke up with his girlfriend who was talking complete nonsense, and the girls on the thread simply said, “She is their girlfriend, and they will back her up regardless of the truth.

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

      @Ramble

      There is definitely a female version of “I have your back.” But I must confess that female intrasexual competition is fierce, and many a best friend will stab you in the back to get your man. Or bring you down a notch, or whatever. They don’t call them Mean Girls for nothing.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Liza207, it’s the Internets, where bored people come to argue. Just have to not take it personally… which is easier said than done.

    Guys and girls are just different. I get upset when people try to kill me in video games, while guys tend to enjoy the adrenaline rush and the fight. Likewise with debates like these, I suspect.

  • Maggie

    “The making out with plenty of guys could be considered slutty behavior since it is usually in the open.”

    A 25-year woman could be considered a slut for making out with plenty of guys? This is a joke, right?

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

      @Maggie

      A 25-year woman could be considered a slut for making out with plenty of guys? This is a joke, right?

      This isn’t the first time I’ve heard guys accuse girls of being slutty for making out. I can see dance floor makeouts with strangers being questionable, in that they suggest same night sex to the guy, but otherwise I don’t get it. Making out is fun, it’s arousing, it’s a key part of ascertaining physical compatibility, and it’s safe. A guy here once said that his advice to girls is “Don’t ever do more than make out on the first date.”

      We’ve got guys saying you better put out by date three or you’re done, and other guys (or the same guys?) saying that making out is slutty. My head spins.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan, I don’t put much stock in the genetic compatibility thing with regard to kissing. I know I wouldn’t be able to enjoy the kiss at all if I didn’t already have some kind of emotional attachment to the guy, even if the genetics were perfectly matchy.

    But it’s a difference of philosophy. There are lots of people who have no problem getting physical prior to emotional involvement, and prefer that. I know my own wiring, and it’s quite similar to my husband’s. We want emotion before physical stuff.

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

      @Hope

      I know my own wiring, and it’s quite similar to my husband’s. We want emotion before physical stuff.

      It’s so awesome that you found each other, as I think you’re unusual in this regard.

  • Abbot

    “Guys on the other hand pretty much know that they are being eliminated by the majority of women around them ”

    And that is from women who may not even be harem groupies but who have harem envy and feel jipped

  • J

    it’s the Internets, where bored people come to argue

    LOL, Hope, that should be on the masthead of every blog!

  • Abbot

    “A 25-year woman could be considered a slut for making out with plenty of guys? This is a joke, right?”

    The age is irrelevant. Kissing will not jade anyone and is not a visceral turnoff. Of course, no man in the future wants to hear from other men how much of a slut his woman was so its good to keep that in mind if its “too” public

  • Ted D

    Susan – “We’ve got guys saying you better put out by date three or you’re done, and other guys (or the same guys?) saying that making out is slutty. My head spins.”

    I am a guy that is saying “making out” with many men is slutty behavior, but I would also never expect a woman to “put out” by date 3 either. I’m with Hope here that this is philosophical difference. Like her, I don’t get the desire to kiss a woman until after I’ve already caught “feelings” for her. Now that may very well happen on the 1st date, or it may take several before we get to that point, which mostly depends on how much real talking we manage during our early dates. (by real talking I mean talking about things like morality, relationship outlooks, etc.) I have only once ever kissed a women that I wasn’t already “feeling”, and to be honest it was because she pushed for it. And, it was that kiss that pushed me to decide I wasn’t into her.

    I don’t need to kiss someone to decide if I’m attracted to them. If I don’t feel chemistry prior to kissing, there isn’t going to be any. In truth, every women I’ve been with for more than a few dates has triggered my “chemistry” alarm at first meeting. Sure, I dated women that didn’t trip it, but not a single one made it to kissing, other than the pushy one. I look for that hard to describe “electricity” from a woman, what many probably call “love at first site”. In my case, it is more like at first seeing them, they catch my attention quickly and hold it firmly by just being nearby. I realize it is primarily a lust thing, but I always figured if she doesn’t prompt a strong lustful reaction in me right away, the chances of one happening and lasting a lifetime are slim to none.

    So, before I get to kissing stage I’ve already decided that she is cool, that I like her, that I am interested in getting to know her better with the express intent of LTRing her up. THEN I’ll move on to kissing.

    I’ll say this, it certainly builds up tension waiting so long for intimacy, but it really does tend to make women wonder what my deal is. My current SO started acting like she wasn’t sure I was into her, which is why we had the discussion about being on the same page before sex. We kissed prior to that, but I was not pushing forward with much more until I knew she was interested in a relationship.

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

      @Ted D

      I’ll say this, it certainly builds up tension waiting so long for intimacy, but it really does tend to make women wonder what my deal is. My current SO started acting like she wasn’t sure I was into her, which is why we had the discussion about being on the same page before sex.

      Haha, I bet! Maybe you and Hope are not all that unusual after all….

  • Herb

    @Ted D

    Honestly, because many women are just too damned picky and/or have totally unattainable standards. Not all, but the ones that seem to state their desires the most seem to also be the ones with really long check lists.

    Great point. Let me present the list that starts a book about “settling”, because a man who fails to meet the entire list is “settling” and women need to learn how to do that.

    Intelligent (yes, I not only qualify for Mensa but Triple Nine Society among others)
    Kind (Used to be but I’ve gotten bitter over the years and might not pass now)
    Extremely Funny (I think so…if someone from HS you barely knew friends you for making his GF almost pass out laughing three decades ago you might be)
    Curious (yes)
    Loves kids (eh…we’ll go with no)
    Financially stable (yes)
    Emotionally stable (in the past couple of years finally)
    Sexy (based on female attention no)
    Romantic (see Kind)
    Passionate (no)
    Compassionate (yes)
    Irreverent (sure)
    Intuitive (no)
    Generous (yes, very much so)
    Same religion but not too religious (no and yes)
    Optimistic by not naive (given I believe the glass is half poison, no)
    Ambitious but not a workaholic (not really, no)
    Talented by humble (yes and no)
    Warm but not clingy (no)
    Grounded but not boring (yes and…well, I don’t thing yes but experience says I am)
    Soulful but not new agey (no)
    Vulnerable but not weak (yes)
    Quirky but not weird (no, I’m weird)
    Free-spirited but responsible (no and yes)
    Charismatic but genuine (no and yes)
    Strong but sensitive (yes and no)
    Athletic but not a sports nut (neither)
    Open-minded but has conviction (yes)
    Decisive but not bossy (no)
    Mature but not old (yes, although the author of Manning Up would disagree)
    Creative but not an artist (yes)
    Supportive of my dreams and goals (maybe, what are they?)
    Has a sense of wonderment about the world (no, see cynical)
    Is close to my age (shares my cultural references) (yes)
    Good listener and communicator (no)
    Flexible and can compromise (yes but less than a decade ago…but that’s aging)
    Sophisticated – well-educated, well-traveled, has been around (no)
    Over 5′10″ but under 6′0″ (no)
    Has a full head of hair (wavy and dark would be nice – no blonds) (no)
    Has shared political views (not sure but no is a fairly safe bet)
    Has shared values (somewhat)
    Is not into sci-fi or comic books (yeah, the markers of being a ‘man child’ are fully with me so I fail here)
    Has good taste/sense of aesthetics (I think I do but I doubt she’d agree)
    Health-conscious and physically fit (yes and no)
    Cares about the community at large (the way she means no, but I do)
    Cares about animals (more than people sometimes)
    Competent (yes)
    Handy around the house (yes)
    Cooks (yes)
    Likes the outdoors (hiking, biking, Rollerblading) (yes)
    Likes my friends and I like his (who knows)
    Not moody (no)
    Trustworthy (yes)
    Is a team player (yes)
    Is literary and enjoys wordplay (yes)
    Is math or science oriented (hmmm, gee, I think I can say yes)
    Likes discussing (but not arguing about) politics and world events (used to be but learned better)
    Stylish (no, but I have been called a well dressed man)
    Stimulating (yes)
    Not a slob – respectful of our living space (no, but getting better)
    Is madly in love with me (I’ll never get the chance to find out based on this list)

    The parenthetical bits are how I think I stand up (this is from an old blog post). I had a judgment after reading this list (by a 40+ never married woman who had a child with a sperm donor and spent the whole book never discussing what she had to offer).

    If that’s the truth, I like knowing but I’m going to judge and it won’t be pretty.

    I mean, over 5’10″ but under 6’0″. There is an easier way to describe that: 5’11″.

    If a man said I’ll only take women who are 5’3″ (a specific, non-average height) would you judge him?

    I would, I’d call him an idiot. Although not to his face. He wants to default out of the game, who am I to blame.

    Do men just find it easier to judge and thus accept it will be done to them?

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    That brings up another point… for a lot of guys it’s also about how the girl comes across, rather than strictly the number itself. If the girl has a reputation for being sloppy drunk, flirting shamelessly with every guy around, and hooking up randomly, then guys will perceive her a certain way. If the girl is very demure, acts dignified, doesn’t get drunk, and has a “classy” air about her, then she at least appears good to most men.

    Basically the old idea of “don’t kiss and tell.”

  • Ted D

    Herb – “Do men just find it easier to judge and thus accept it will be done to them?”

    I have to admit that judgment seems to be a reoccurring complaint from women. Why is that? Most guys I know are more than accepting of the fact that they are being judged by everyone all the time. My MBTI type might make it a bit easier for me to understand, but I can’t believe everyone doesn’t realize that every single person that sees them daily is judging them. Every. Single. Person. Even if all they think is “that is a nice dress” or “that coat looks ridiculous” it is still a judgment. And, the second you open your mouth, more judgments are made. Literally, you are probably judged hundreds if not thousands of times a day.

    Yet, many people seem to be absolutely terrified of being judged. I really don’t get it.

  • Ramble

    In this very thread, there was a tangent of what men like the most of the female form. There was talk of asses, breasts, BMI, etc. There was not a SINGLE outcry or complaint of this topic from women. The women here know and accept the fact that men are visual creatures who appreciate beauty/aesthetics. In another thread, I mentioned that I like men who have a bit of “edge” to them, and instantly I had a few men questioning/lamenting my attraction to that.

    Sassy, Susan,
    In general, when guys start getting their panties in a bunch about what some girls are into, it usually falls into 1of 2 categories:
    1.) Something I can’t change (looks, big cock, lots of money)
    2.) Something that is perceived as socially destructive.

    The second point is the more important one, because it may very well encompass the first one.

    Look at it this way, if you were forced to pick one of two societies to live in, which would it be:
    1. A society with lots of girls who preselect for work ethic, loyalty, duty, honor, modesty, etc., or
    2. A society with lots of girls who look for big cocks, gold cards, “edgy” attitudes.

    This is obviously not realistic, but I think you get the point.

    When guys are superficial, preferring flat bellies and tight asses, that does not prevent a society from being peaceful and prosperous. But a society full of “edgy” guys, well, I am hard pressed to think of a great society that was full of edgy guys. Now, one that was full of modest engineers, they were everywhere.

    Great societies were built on the backs of men who designed, built and maintained bridges (both literally and metaphorically). They were not built on the backs of guys who looked t maintain an “edge”.

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

      @Ramble

      Great societies were built on the backs of men who designed, built and maintained bridges (both literally and metaphorically). They were not built on the backs of guys who looked t maintain an “edge”.

      Which may be a clue most women don’t want edgy. I never did. In fact, I think funny guys may do better than every other kind. Asshole game is just a shortcut to dominance that can’t be earned any other way.

      In any case, Sassy said that is what she liked, and I don’t see why anyone should get their boxers in a twist over it. No one is on Ben’s case for saying he doesn’t mind girls with a high number. For most women here, that’s bad news, as non-promiscuous women hope to God guys will appreciate that when it comes time to marry.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Guys on the other hand pretty much know that they are being eliminated by the majority of women around them before they even open their mouths to speak. It tends to make us a bit negative and pessimistic.

    Ted,

    I know many women who face this same predicament–”no fat chicks!”.

  • Ramble

    But I must confess that female intrasexual competition is fierce, and many a best friend will stab you in the back to get your man.

    Oh, I know.

  • Ramble

    We’ve got guys saying you better put out by date three or you’re done, and other guys (or the same guys?) saying that making out is slutty.

    Susan, as you have noted many times yourself, you see some guys getting a lot of play and others getting almost none (what is the number, 25% of college males are virgins?).

    That should explain most of it.

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

      @Ramble

      (what is the number, 25% of college males are virgins?).

      43% :(

  • Ted D

    Ramble – great point. It never occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense that many men would complain about women being attracted to asshats or “bad boys” because they know that those men will NOT willingly be part of the machine, and probably will put their own desires above the greater good. Men are pretty good at figuring out who the “team players” and “lone wolfs” are in a group of guys. Men that are predominantly “greater good” guys see the “lone wolf” as a threat to the greater good, and do their best to promote the team players for reproduction.

    So, it makes sense that many men will take offense to hearing that women want a guy with “edge”, because we know that most of those guys, while sexually attractive, will not help us build the next great civilization. We would prefer that women simply pair up with guys that will, so they can make more guys that will do so also.

    “bad boys” on the other hand probably don’t give a shit about what women find attractive as long as they are getting what they want. They aren’t interested in the greater good, and have no “dog in the fight” to try and curb female nature.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    You’re right about this. In fact, I think there’s still a thread going with men lamenting women’s attraction to dominance as depressing and childish. In that thread I suggested it was time for our afternoon dose of the red pill.

    I dropped out of the thread but as the first person to use the word childish I want to defend myself.

    I said having to use Game every day to satisfy that so a woman would be capable of honoring her commitment of marriage wasn’t worth this.

    There is a lot to that.

    First, something I thought about adding to that thread but didn’t:

    At one point you remarked to someone who talked about basic boundary setting and calling you a good girl and how that got women aroused (I’d swear you said something like panties damp).

    I get that. I honestly do. Because my partner setting boundaries and calling me a good boy does the same to me. As a presenter I saw once said concerning providing service to her partner, I’m insulting by “thank you”, I’m better than that.

    There are parts of my life I have to get permission from my partner to do thinks for crying out loud.

    The difference between what Married Game teaches and what I have (besides gender) is this: we have an open and conscious agreement about those roles. I don’t try to get my fix by playing games and turning the relationship into a job (as opposed to a fulfilling relationship).

    Shit tests are a perfect example. If you read what I said about them in the post where I first said childish I said under stress I understood them. It was doing them day to day without being conscious of it and expecting the man to adapt that was childish.

    Get into S&M as a Dominant and you’ll get taught about how submissives early on and even in developed relationships while under stress will test boundaries to find reassurance. You’re also taught how to handle them.

    Get into S&M as a submissive you’ll be taught the same thing. But you’re also taught that you have a responsibility to learn to control that need and instead communicate to your partner that you need reassurance. You learn that constantly testing is a sign of weakness and immaturity.

    That right there explains the childish. It’s not that women naturally do this or that this is an expression of needs. It is the fact that even in the age of feminism when women are equal to men damnit we don’t expect women to do the self work that after establishing and committing to a relationship to manage their urges and channel them and talk to their partners about unmet needs and how their partner can meet them.

    No, you just need to learn to Game your wife because she can’t help it.

    That women defend the because she can’t help it is completely incomprehensible to me.

  • Ramble

    I know many women who face this same predicament–”no fat chicks!”.

    You’re right. Average guys and obese girls have a rough road to travel.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ramble, I get what you’re trying to say, but if we women keep lying and saying “just do what you’ve been doing,” that’s not doing the engineers a favor either.

    My husband’s a STEM guy working for a pretty cutting-edge biotech company that does federal level R&D. He’s honest, loyal, ethical, honorable and has a good work ethic. At the same time, he’s very sexy and dominant. Plus he likes guns and sharp knives, which is an “edge” (pun intended).

    Basically, add some dominance to a good man, and he becomes that much better. We’re not saying men who build and maintain society can’t be sexy and in charge of their families. Feminism said that, and we’re trying to rebel against it.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Liza207, it’s the Internets, where bored people come to argue. Just have to not take it personally… which is easier said than done.

    Hope,

    I never take it personally. They are just proving and confirming my point.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Ironically, a girl can be labeled slutty today for kissing two guys on the same weekend, and apparently in your case, for kissing him at all!”

    Lol nah settle down this is a me thing and not a guy thing.

    Let me give you a hypothetical example of how a woman can become a slut.

    She has been in a relationship for 5 years with her fiance. They get married and make a wedding “video” and hubby decides its a good idea to post it on youtube. Her N=1, does not matter she is a slut.
    If she unattached and said video goes public shes is a slut 5 times over even if she was a virgin.

    Its the publicness of said act that would make me drop her not the act itself.

    For example, me and my fiance were at a club with friends (same night as mentioned previously) and she refused to kiss me at all on the dance floor. We got home later that night and she was all over me.

    Not a slut. (At that point if she had made out with me I’m not sure what I would have done.)

    This is my upbringing though, PDA is a major no-no in my family though my parents always cuddled on the couych watching tv.

    @Lisa, Sassy

    “Why do men have such a problem with women expressing what we like? What gives?”

    First, in said thread I was on Sassys side. Women like what they like, no way around it.

    My problem with you is:
    a) your giving YOUR opinion as the ONLY opinion which it is not
    b) your opinion is not constructive, its like saying the sky is blue
    c) you repeat it ad nauseum

    You and Sassy are of the same opinion.
    I enjoy reading Sassys posts. I think your a troll.

    Its not your opinion its you.

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

      @Lokland

      Its the publicness of said act that would make me drop her not the act itself.

      I didn’t think of the cab as public. I can’t even imagine what cab drivers have to hear and see!

  • Ramble

    Ramble, I get what you’re trying to say, but if we women keep lying and saying “just do what you’ve been doing,” that’s not doing the engineers a favor either.

    Hope, I didn’t mean to communicate that girls should start lying about what it is that get’s them hot. Personally, I have no problem with anything Sassy, or any other girl, wants.

    The fact that she knows what she wants puts her ahead of the game, in my book.

    But, for some, their will be a definite backlash.

    I was simply trying to explain why they react with anger (“Small town America/England/Finland/etc was beautiful and you are fucking it up! WHORE!).

  • Herb

    @Maggie

    A 25-year woman could be considered a slut for making out with plenty of guys? This is a joke, right?

    Apparently yes, but WTFOMGBBQ…really? I mean, really?

    Making out as in kissing, right? Not making out as in blowjobs? Do I have an issue where I don’t know the meaning of making out?

    Because, dude, I love kissing. I’m more into we just met kissing than sex on the third date. I’m happy to wait six weeks for sex, but not three dates for kissing.

    Maybe my gf is right, and I am “such a girl” sometimes.

    @Susan

    Given that women get a reading on testosterone and sebum via kissing, and use it both as a screen and to promote bonding, I think it’s an important clue as to compatibility.

    Cool, do you have some pointers.

    @Liza207

    I know many women who face this same predicament–”no fat chicks!”.

    As someone with plenty of “fat chick cred” (I’ve dated more fat women than not and my ex-wife was never thin until she left me) I would say I’m there now.

    And ironically it has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with the fact that most of them are so fucked in the head and I’ve been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

    If she shows she’s well adjusted about her size I’d be fine, but the need to approach me, not vice versa.

    @Ted D

    I have to admit that judgment seems to be a reoccurring complaint from women. Why is that? Most guys I know are more than accepting of the fact that they are being judged by everyone all the time.

    Precisely…I’ve know that for years. For a long time it pissed me off but I got that’s how the world works.

    I’ll even go further, in a lot of places you get judged on superficial things than meaningful ones. Did I ever see that in the military. The guy who did half the work but always made sure his uniform was perfect got further than the guy who did twice as much but looked like it too.

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

      @Herb

      Cool, do you have some pointers.

      First, this is pretty much out of the guy’s hands, except that he should definitely spend time kissing if he wants to please the woman and make it past her shield.

      Men generally view kissing as a means to sex, while women view it as a valuable activity in itself – the bonding thing.

      I found this:

      In fact, according to a report in Psychology Today, the scent of MHC might be the second-most-important factor in determining how attractive a woman finds a potential mate (after a pleasant disposition). While you might not realize you’re secretly judging someone you just met on how well your child would be able to fight off a cold, that’s what’s happening. Your body tries to instinctively make sure that each potential partner has the sexual compatibility seal of approval. Now how does it do that?

      MHC is present in both pheromones and saliva, meaning that to really detect whether a partner is suitable, one must be in close proximity (to smell the MHC), and there must be an exchange in saliva (to taste the MHC). Now, what usually happens when these two events are placed together? That’s right, ladies and gentlemen — the kiss is in fact a goddamn taste test. We’ve adapted the behavior to make sure we find someone with whom our chemicals match up.

      Read more: 6 Factors That Secretly Influence Who You Have Sex With | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_19024_6-factors-that-secretly-influence-who-you-have-sex-with_p2.html#ixzz1uPTRgtSL

  • Lokland

    And after catching up maybe I’m not the only guy who thinks excessive public anything from an unattached women is bad.

    Maybe its not a me thing.

  • Ted D

    Liza – “I know many women who face this same predicament–”no fat chicks!”.”

    Sure, but “fat chicks” can diet. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to increase penis size. But you are focusing on a single thing. I totally accept that my “look” isn’t attractive to all women. My bigger complaint is that I am being disqualified for other reasons that just don’t make logical sense.

    For example, just because I don’t “own” social situations doesn’t mean I am incapable of confidence and/or authority. Just because I don’t show a lot of “macho bravado” doesn’t mean I am unwilling or unable to defend my family. Just because I don’t wear leather or have tattoos doesn’t mean I’m uninteresting/boring. (in the interests of full disclosure, I have tattoos and own several leather jackets. I don’t want anyone to think I’m being disingenuous.) It isn’t that women are attracted to XYZ that bothers me so much as the fact that being attracted to XYZ really just doesn’t always make sense.

    Guys I think tend to choose their mates mostly based on logical facts.
    Is she attractive to me? check
    Is she attracted TO me? check
    Do we have something in common? check
    Do we have common goals/interests? check

    But I keep hearing women say things like “he is so mysterious!” what kind of qualification is that for a mate? Do you really want to be with someone you don’t understand for the rest of your life? Or how about “he seems like such a bad ass!” How exactly does being a “bad ass” (which I attribute to being uncooperative, hot-headed, easily agitated into aggression, etc) make a guy a good mate and husband? And I know, our hind brain dictates this. We all have the capacity to override the hind brain. Using that as a reason just seems lazy to me. If I was overwhelmingly attracted to female serial killers, I would expect someone to say to me: “dude, you need to seriously rethink your strategy here.” I for one am kinda doing the same thing with young women, but all I get back is “it is just in our nature”. Well, it is in my nature to pummel the hell out of anyone that annoys me, yet I manage to resist.

  • Herb

    @Ted D

    Just because I don’t wear leather or have tattoos doesn’t mean I’m uninteresting/boring.

    I wear leather and I’m getting a tattoo, are you saying they won’t help?

    Damn.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Men are pretty good at figuring out who the “team players” and “lone wolfs” are in a group of guys. Men that are predominantly “greater good” guys see the “lone wolf” as a threat to the greater good, and do their best to promote the team players for reproduction.
    —–
    I believe the “lone wolf” is usually the ballsy one of the group, who strikes out on his own–building industries and infrastructures and the “team players” have to work for him.

  • Maggie

    @Susan
    “Yet as you say, most women here don’t put up much of a fuss when these claims are made. Well, I do. The rest of you tend to disappear.”

    I tend to let things pass over because 1) I know you will handle it
    and 2) it tends to be the same argument over and over. And I’m a wimp.

    So that said, I wish some of the men on here would not knee-jerk react to a new woman poster just because she doesn’t toe the party line. You know, she may just not be a troll. My experience has been very different from most of the posters here and I often disagree but I’m still learning a lot.

    @Herb

    No one would mistake you for a girl.

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

      @Maggie

      I wish some of the men on here would not knee-jerk react to a new woman poster just because she doesn’t toe the party line.

      I’ve been aware recently that new female posters don’t tend to return as often. I think part of it is the “coed locker room” factor. It’s both the difficulty and the strength of HUS. Perhaps I need to intervene more. So…

      @Lokland

      Stop calling Liza names. She is not a troll, she first posted here ages and ages ago. She’s got a valid point about the guys getting judgmental.

  • Herb

    @Ted D

    But I keep hearing women say things like “he is so mysterious!” what kind of qualification is that for a mate?

    Ted, let me defend that one.

    Note: I’m predicating my answer on two ideas:

    1. Most heterosexual women to some degree desire to be dominated (which seems pretty much accepted truth at HUS)
    2. That the desire to be dominated in sexual relationships has broadly the same characteristics regardless of gender.

    So, YMMV.

    My GF always seems at least three steps ahead of me. Some of this may be illusion (including illusion I participate in). She rarely fails to surprise me in terms of when she introduces things into our life that I desire.

    In a word, she can be mysterious.

    I cannot describe how incredibly hot and at the same time reassuring that is. I just can’t, either you get it or you don’t.

    I think by “mysterious” most women are saying “in charge in a way that seems to read my mind”.

    Or, in other words, a form of dominance.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Herb, you being a submissive is a good reason you should understand why women want dominance, and why it can be so difficult for them to clearly ask for it and get it.

    Imagine if you couldn’t get dominance anywhere. You had no contact whatsoever with a D/s or BDSM community. There were nobody who told you the rules. You just had this vague feeling that every person you got with romantically tried to be submissive to you, and you were viscerally turned off but couldn’t understand why, especially since society and feminism and everybody else tell you that this is normal and good, that you’re supposed to be empowered and making decisions, that you should be on top.

    You were just stumbling around in the dark. Every time you thought or talked about maybe how you want some dominance, you were told explicitly and implicitly that it’s wrong, deviant, criminal, and that if you go there you would undo years of progress and all that others have fought hard for! Or that you were going to unleash terrible forces onto the world, like a plague that would tear apart civilization itself.

    You don’t know what to do. All you know is that somehow, you like being submissive, but you have to hide that aspect of yourself in shame. Every now and then that urge overwhelms you, and you lash out to see if other people will give you the smack down you desire so you can feel properly submissive, while pretending you weren’t really being submissive at all. You were just… exercising some of your power.

    Most women are naturally submissive. Is this a controversial statement? I don’t care. Most women in modern society have not taken the red pill, and they have not embraced their submissive nature. Thus the shit tests, childish behavior, and game playing. Most men have also not taken the red pill, and they are told being dominant is bad, wrong, horrible and will lead to the apocalypse. So they put up with the shit tests, childish behavior, and game playing, won’t set boundaries and rules, and don’t want to be dominant.

    I was naturally submissive and had to pretend to be a dominant. It didn’t work at all. I was sexually frustrated. I had never been properly made love to by a man. Then I took the red pill, realized the truth, and embraced my submissive nature. I stopped pretending. There was no more need for tests, childish behavior or playing games. I met a man who is dominant, and who sets the boundaries and the rules.

    I’ve never been so happy in my life.

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    I believe the “lone wolf” is usually the ballsy one of the group, who strikes out on his own–building industries and infrastructures and the “team players” have to work for him.

    I’d say you’re wrong more often than not. The Woz was the lone-wolf and Jobs was the team player, more specifically the team builder. Which one built Apple then NeXT then rebuilt Apple after they bought NeXT?

    Building industries and infrastructures takes a team and the lone wolf neither works on teams or builds them. They are built by a special kind of team player, the team builder, and filled out with the ordinary type of team player.

    The lone wolf just does his own thing.

  • Ted D

    Liza – “I believe the “lone wolf” is usually the ballsy one of the group, who strikes out on his own–building industries and infrastructures and the “team players” have to work for him.”

    I know plenty of men running their own businesses and building industries that are not “lone wolf” types at all. Surely some of them are, but many are very much team players. They are the team players that know how to organize the team to be the most efficient and productive. But sure, the “team players” will have to work for him. How well do you think your “lone wolf” will do without his team?

    Herb – “I think by “mysterious” most women are saying “in charge in a way that seems to read my mind”.”

    I’ve heard something like this mentioned before. So women actually expect men to “take charge” by “reading their mind”? Can I add ESP to the list of ridiculously impossible criteria women have for men? :P

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    When you hide the facts from people, you keep them ignorant, and ignorance begets childishness. The red pill forces one to grow up and mature with knowledge, clarity and conscious purpose.

    Is it any wonder that the married game folks who purposely keep their wives ignorant of the red pill have to keep playing games?

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

      @Hope

      Is it any wonder that the married game folks who purposely keep their wives ignorant of the red pill have to keep playing games?

      Wow, I never thought of that. I mean, I assume that these wives totally knows what’s up. That’s why I said that men like that trade in shame. Their wives must either be ashamed of their own femaleness, or ashamed of their husbands. If the husband is keeping the red pill stuff under wraps, that’s fine if he’s not being a manipulative bastard, but if he is it makes him even more dishonest.

  • Herb

    @Maggie

    No one would mistake you for a girl.

    *laughs*

    Oh, she’ll point out in some ways I am completely a guy, but in terms of a lot of relationship needs and actions I am very much “the girl”. She teases me about it in a good natured way all the time.

    @Hope

    You don’t know what to do. All you know is that somehow, you like being submissive, but you have to hide that aspect of yourself in shame.

    Been there, done that, still writing about it and trying to help others work through “does being submissive mean I cannot be masculine and/or a man”.

    Imagine if you couldn’t get dominance anywhere. You had no contact whatsoever with a D/s or BDSM community. There were nobody who told you the rules. You just had this vague feeling that every person you got with romantically tried to be submissive to you, and you were viscerally turned off but couldn’t understand why, especially since society and feminism and everybody else tell you that this is normal and good, that you’re supposed to be empowered and making decisions, that you should be on top.

    I’ve said plenty of times we’re raising women wrong.

    Feminism hasn’t made women freed to choose, it’s just made which choices are acceptable different than pre-feminism.

    John Jacob’s girl (Jacob’s was a well know, if controversial, writer in the S&M world and is one of the authors of Different Loving) was invited to submit an essay to a volume on feminism about the different choices women could make post-feminism. It was rejected because she wrote about her choice to be his consensual slave. She was told that choice betrayed feminism (for those wanting a cite, I’ll dig one up at home…not searching it at work).

    Feminism empowered women to make any choice that feminists approved.

    Now back to where I snipped.

    Every now and then that urge overwhelms you, and you lash out to see if other people will give you the smack down you desire so you can feel properly submissive, while pretending you weren’t really being submissive at all. You were just… exercising some of your power.

    Most women are naturally submissive. Is this a controversial statement? I don’t care. Most women in modern society have not taken the red pill, and they have not embraced their submissive nature. Thus the shit tests, childish behavior, and game playing.

    To a point I’ll buy this.

    TO. A. POINT.

    I went through my father thinking I was gay and continually asking my sister if my roommate was my boy friend. When I came out as leather his response was “at least you’re not gay”. I was asked if my gf was a Dominatrix.

    That is how being a submissive male is viewed.

    At some point you can own what you want, embrace it, and learn to be it. Or you can refuse and still lash out.

    The first is called maturity. The second is being a child.

    That’s all I’m saying. If women want to be equals than fucking be equals. Don’t be equals and then when admitting what you want because it’s against the grain is hard claim, “I’m just that way because I’m a girl and you can’t judge” unless you want men to conclude you’re right. They can conclude you’re just a girl.

  • Ben

    @Everyone about fat chicks

    True, most guys don’t like them. However, among my friends there is one guy who actually has a penchant for them. Best part is he’s 5’9 and probably weighs 145 lbs. We find it hysterical. In fact, we often agree to play wingman to him with the fat girl’s friends just to watch him in action.

    Sample exchange:

    “Dude, you see that girl over there? She’s so hot?”
    “Oh, you mean the blonde one? [obviously the hottest one in the group]”
    “No dude, the brunette with the bangs [the fat one]”

    Cue barely stifled laughter, followed by encouragement to go talk to her.

    Now, before you describe this or me as cruel, know that he actually really likes these girls and treats them well. He’s not doing it as a joke or to be mean. We just love watching him do it.

  • Herb

    @Ted D

    I’ve heard something like this mentioned before. So women actually expect men to “take charge” by “reading their mind”? Can I add ESP to the list of ridiculously impossible criteria women have for men?

    No, because the Game types and PUAs have figured this out.

    Listen.

    Now, I’ll admit she’ll help by being willing to talk and be honest. This goes back to my adult versus child thing. PUAs will teach you to listen between the lines as well as some good observational skills. However, openness to admitting your feelings and secrets gives your partner what she needs to act.

    There are also mental states that make communicating easier (certain types of sub space I babble for example), but it’s not mind reading if she opens up and lets you in.

    You simply note what she says, finds the parts that meld with what you want/like/need and then decide to do them without involving her. You just do them. People are not used to others listening and if you listen without giving strong indicators you are she’ll be totally surprised that you “read her mind” and it’s mysterious how you can just lead her.

    Like I said, she’s mysterious because I help her by communicating and also because I’ve given over certain choices to her. I relax in trusting her choice and thus can be surprised when between listening, reading me (probably NLP types queues), and not nagging about what’s going to happen.

  • Ted D

    Herb – “If women want to be equals than fucking be equals. Don’t be equals and then when admitting what you want because it’s against the grain is hard claim, “I’m just that way because I’m a girl and you can’t judge” unless you want men to conclude you’re right. They can conclude you’re just a girl.”

    This! Oh boy, so much this…

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Herb, the problem is not the femaleness. It’s social forces and political correctness keeping females ignorant.

    Case in point: I used to play those games, lash out, and become belligerant, but I wasn’t aware of why. I just had this vague idea something was wrong. I also hated myself and wanted to hurt myself. It was, needless to say, very unhealthy.

    Now, I don’t do any of that. I know my motivations, I understand myself, and I embrace/accept/love who I am now.

  • Ben

    Oh and as for the kissing being akin to sluttyness, I can’t even begin to enter that conversation, as the mindset is so alien to me. If I don’t end a first date with a kiss, I generally chalk it up as a failure (ie it means there was not enough chemistry).

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

      @Ben

      If I don’t end a first date with a kiss, I generally chalk it up as a failure (ie it means there was not enough chemistry).

      I think most women feel the same way. If the guy doesn’t try, it’s a major FAIL. Of course, if she isn’t feeling it, she’ll scoot right into the building. Sometimes signals do get crossed though. It seems to me that end-of-date behavior isn’t always a good indicator of what will happen next. Probably because people have less practice with real dates.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Oh, and screw “absolute equality.” I don’t want to grow a penis, lol.

  • Ted D

    Herb – “You simply note what she says, finds the parts that meld with what you want/like/need and then decide to do them without involving her. You just do them. People are not used to others listening and if you listen without giving strong indicators you are she’ll be totally surprised that you “read her mind” and it’s mysterious how you can just lead her.”

    Ah shit. I didn’t see this, but it makes perfect sense why I suck at this now. Unless someone tells me, point blank and obviously that they want X, I won’t remember it for later. My SO can rememeber something I mentioned once in July come Christmas time. Some days I don’t even remember what I had for dinner.

    I really don’t do well with indirect communication at all. If you don’t tell me in specific terms, don’t expect me to “read your mind” and buy it for you later. If I want something as a present, I will say so directly. And I really dislike surprises, so I prefer to actually get what I suggested. Or, to be honest, I’d rather not get a present at all. anytime someone gives me a present, it just makes me feel obligated to give them one later, which stresses me out because I have NO idea what they might want. Picking presents for people is one of the most stressful things for me about the holidays. It really does kill my holiday spirit.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Hope @ 335,

    That was an awesome comment. Moreover, yes, women are naturally submissive and want a dominant man with whom they can submit to. The problem is that many men today just aren’t bringing it because it has been socialized out of most of them. Many women are unwilling or ashamed of embracing their natural submissiveness. I believe this is why “50 Shades” is such a phenomenon; it is making it a lot easier for women to do so, in my opinion.

  • Herb

    @Hope

    Herb, the problem is not the femaleness. It’s social forces and political correctness keeping females ignorant.

    Now, I don’t do any of that. I know my motivations, I understand myself, and I embrace/accept/love who I am now.

    I don’t think it’s femaleness.

    I think it’s women don’t want, as a whole to be grown-ups. I think most post-feminist women still want to be princesses but they’ll take feminism’s “good parts”: the fun jobs (but when they quit being fun let’s be SAHM), the vote, the “I can do anything” (but men can still kill the spiders).

    And the biggest aids to this are feminists who say, “culture isn’t letting women say what they want,” and who, on the times they are right, are often the very culture doing it.

    As I said, women can choose to grow up and be adults and own their shit even when it’s not popular, even when it’s hard, even when it alienates their parents, even when it subjects them to police harassment (the Leather bar I frequent has been busted by the police for bullshit while they put everyone on the floor and searched them in the past three years…to the point of costing the city of Atlanta $6 million in a settlement).

    So the poor frat girl who wants to be dominated, is surrounded by dominant men, and who can’t find the voice to say, “I like it when you take charge” is going to be graded as just that, a girl, not a woman, not an adult, a girl.

    When you stood up and said, even if just to yourself, “I want a dominant man and to be submissive to him,” and started to filter for that you decided to be an adult.

    They’re damn rare these days.

    BTW, all those beta guys who year after year into their forties can’t get women’s attention and then turn to dark game instead of learning how the world works, learning what they can do, and then filtering to find adult women who will say, “this is what I want” aren’t grown-ups in my book either. As much as I hate man-up articles they have a point to a degree. My anger is more, we’ve let women not grow up and now men are following. It’s the logical response, but instead of saying, “maybe we need to make sure they both grow up” we just dump on the guys.

    The Married Game guys who are already married are owning their shit and saying, “I made this bed and made a commitment, how do I make it work” are grown-ups but they are short changing their wives by not getting them to grow up too and channel those needs into communication.

    Some married Game does seem to be “learning how to communicate needs both ways and make it work”. I’m re-thinking my views on Athol for just this reason as I learn more and more how his wife is an active partner in making his Game work. He may have started just Gaming her, but he seems to have brought her on board. That’s key.

    As Busdriver likes to say, “An unequal power relationship between two people is still a relationship, even if one of them is a table.”

  • Herb

    @Ben

    Oh and as for the kissing being akin to sluttyness, I can’t even begin to enter that conversation, as the mindset is so alien to me. If I don’t end a first date with a kiss, I generally chalk it up as a failure (ie it means there was not enough chemistry).

    I agree with Ben 100% here…man, what is life without kissing.

    @Liza207

    The problem is that many men today just aren’t bringing it because it has been socialized out of most of them. Many women are unwilling or ashamed of embracing their natural submissiveness.

    I agree with Liza 100% here…we’re chasing some dream of people being 180 degrees from what most humans are.

    So, today Sassy’s been speechless and I’ve agreed with Ben and Liza.

    People, get the cold weather gear, this one will be nasty :)

    (And Sassy, when I said that to you, it was meant in good fun…I like how forward you are)

  • INTJ

    @Liza207

    I know many women who face this same predicament–”no fat chicks!”.

    I have a certain physical fitness which allows me to maintain a certain level of mental and physical activity. On the other hand, the fact that I’m relatively short doesn’t hinder me in carrying out most everyday tasks. Neither does the fact that I’m not “edgy” (in fact it is beneficial that I’m not “edgy”).

    It should also be noted that for males, weight/height ratio is correlated with fertility, whereas weight and height alone are not. For females, weight and weight/height ratio are correlated with fertility, whereas height is not.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Herb, I agree with much of what you have said in #348. There are lots of men and women out there who are basically kids playing at being adults.

    Some days my husband and I feel like that, too, with jobs, house and yard and hopefully soon to be baby. But we try do to do the right and responsible thing, research it, find out more about it, and try not to make a mess of it.

    Kids are freaking hard, and so is raising them right.

  • Ted D

    Herb – “My anger is more, we’ve let women not grow up and now men are following. It’s the logical response, but instead of saying, “maybe we need to make sure they both grow up” we just dump on the guys.”

    Holy shit man you are on fire today. This is SO much something I’ve been feeling since taking the red pill, but never really able to put my finger on it. I completely understand that for years women were repressed, and feminism came about to fix it. But why for the love of all that is holy did they have to fix it by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator? Why can’t just one social movement actually promote the better in all of us instead of simply beating everyone else down to the same gutter?

    OK, the civil rights movement actually did that, but I’m starting to think that it was a fluke.

  • Ted D

    Hope – “Kids are freaking hard, and so is raising them right.”

    This is my #1 concern when it comes to my children. It isn’t that raising them is hard, it is more that I feel like I still have a ton of shit to figure out, how can I possibly guide them correctly? As much as I hate it, sometimes I just have to go on faith. But mostly I am just trying to teach them how to figure things out on their own successfully. If I can’t pass on solid information, I can teach them how to collect their own data and decide for themselves.

  • Ramble

    Sample exchange:

    “Dude, you see that girl over there? She’s so hot?”
    “Oh, you mean the blonde one? [obviously the hottest one in the group]”
    “No dude, the brunette with the bangs [the fat one]”

    Cue barely stifled laughter, followed by encouragement to go talk to her.

    He definitely sounds like the Alpha Male of the group.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ted D, when you make everybody totally and completely “equal” and “the same,” you’re basically left with the lowest common denominator.

    This is supposedly happening in schools where the honors and advanced programs are being slashed so nobody feels better or worse than other kids.

    I don’t believe in the exact same treatment for everybody. You wouldn’t kiss your mother the same way you kiss your girlfriend. I mean, right?

  • Herb

    @Ramble

    Sample exchange:

    “Dude, you see that girl over there? She’s so hot?”
    “Oh, you mean the blonde one? [obviously the hottest one in the group]”
    “No dude, the brunette with the bangs [the fat one]”

    Cue barely stifled laughter, followed by encouragement to go talk to her.

    He definitely sounds like the Alpha Male of the group.

    “Any man can fuck a skinny chick, but it takes a real man to fuck a fat chick.” – Andrew Dice Clay

    He might have pissed a lot of women off, but you want unrestrained male id, the Diceman was the man.

    And he’s right…notice a whole pack of alphas will stop to watch the one who goes after the fat chicks in action.

  • Ramble

    notice a whole pack of alphas will stop to watch the one who goes after the fat chicks in action

    They will also stop to look at a train wreck.

  • Ben

    @ Ramble/Herb

    Both correct. We marvel at his preference, while at the same time gleefully anticipating what we consider the train wreck of him bedding a fat chick.

  • Ramble

    Which may be a clue most women don’t want edgy.

    Not necessarily. I am not actually disagreeing with your guess, but providing another angle to attack from. Just up-thread you said that women did not really have many options in the past. And that is a point that can be debated till the cows come home, but, it is possible that girls did want “sexy” males but their kin would not allow it.

    In any case, Sassy said that is what she liked, and I don’t see why anyone should get their boxers in a twist over it. No one is on Ben’s case for saying he doesn’t mind girls with a high number. For most women here, that’s bad news, as non-promiscuous women hope to God guys will appreciate that when it comes time to marry.

    Again, Ben, being an outlier, in either his conquests or permissiveness, does not really hurt society. He is not creating a more promiscuous society, but simply enjoying it’s already laid out bounty.

    But girls who are most interested in sexiness (i.e. big cock, big wallet, “edge”, etc.) are bad for society…at least as some men see it. And, it does not take too many bad apples for a village to get royally fucked.

    Personally, I love having people being more and more honest about what it is that they actually desire, but that is not the point of the discussion.

  • Ramble

    “43% :(”

    Well, Susan, look at it this way… With your guidance, hopefully, many of those virgins will meet each other and live in life-long disease-free bliss.

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

    After reading this thread, I think that we may also need at least two forms of the Red Pill Hypothesis for men:

    1) Weak-Form Red Pill. Even if they claim otherwise, women want a dominant, confident, condescending, and somewhat aloof man who uses ironic detachment, occasional patches of anger/cruelty, and sarcasm to keep her on her toes. He should also dress with a modicum of style, go to the gym occasionally, and take care in terms of his non-verbal communication patterns.

    2) Strong-Form Red Pill. Even if they claim otherwise, women want a very hot, highly educated badass with lots of money and a satisfyingly large penis. Even if they are in relationships, their private sexual fantasies will be about men who fit this description (and this will be backed up by “revealed preference” in terms of popular fantasy books, movies, etc.). For these lucky men, personality is negotiable and will generally be rationalized as attractive.

    The weak-form is going to be more palatable to most men if for no other reason than because these traits are “softer” (less objectively measurable), and easier to develop, or at least fake. The strong-form may be too depressing and hopeless for many to stomach, although it would be a net positive for, say, members of the Avengers.

    I personally think it is very instructive to have the ladies here describe what they do find attractive vs. have them self-edit according to what seems PC.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Making out with every guy you see because “it’s fun” is no different than fucking every guy you see because “it’s fun.” It’s only a difference in magnitude. You are still throwing around your body for pure physical enjoyment devoid of serious emotional attachment.

    And, again, Ben does have a point that a lot of guys are frustrated with this scene because they were completely shut out of the hook-up scene, even the making out hook up scene.

    Probably should put some perspective on why SOME men would consider that a big deal.

    Unfortunately, this SMP has created utter disasters like this, and most of these men are probably never going to find happiness until they get more sexual experience. Which, going by the luck of my social circle? Is going to take years.

    I don’t see a happy ending to this situation at a macro level. Maybe slightly less bad ones,

  • Herb

    @Susan

    First, this is pretty much out of the guy’s hands,

    Oh, I’m not looking to “master” the kiss testosterone factor, just curious

    except that he should definitely spend time kissing if he wants to please the woman and make it past her shield.

    Men generally view kissing as a means to sex, while women view it as a valuable activity in itself – the bonding thing.

    Oh, I so have this one covered because in this case I am the NAMALT.

    @Bastiat Blogger

    . The strong-form may be too depressing and hopeless for many to stomach, although it would be a net positive for, say, members of the Avengers.

    Well, all but the Wasp, She-Hulk, Ms Marvel, Black Widow, and a half dozen others.

    More importantly, I think weak form is more palatable to men because it doesn’t mean society as a whole is fucked unless women are treated as chattel.

    @Susan again

    I think most women feel the same way. If the guy doesn’t try, it’s a major FAIL. Of course, if she isn’t feeling it, she’ll scoot right into the building.

    Or, worst case, she’ll accuse him of assault (see that Jezebel article I linked a while back). At second worst she’ll call him a creep for trying.

    This does get back to Ted’s mind reading.

  • Pingback: A Blessing, Not a Curse « Blogging Bellita

  • Marc

    @ 3:19 “But I must confess that female intrasexual competition is fierce, and many a best friend will stab you in the back to get your man.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaOUnwfD1dQ&feature=related

    Also, very true…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M902ZJHzaLE

    Susan, I am an options trader. Even though I do little trading these days, it’s the simplest to explain to women. I’ve taken my assets and I buy govt bonds in L. America, risky but pay up to 16%. CD’s in my local bank pay 9% right now (govt insured up to any amount). I also loan money over properties in Central and S. America, kind of like HELOC’s.
    .
    In short, I;m not a furnace of ambition anymore. I love to do so many other things than work. They say to find something you love as your lifes work. I love to sleep, read, run, sip espresso, date girls, gamble, drink, golf, surf the internet, dine, travel, shop. Who’s gonna pay me to do those things? LOL. It is one of the things I fear about becoming close to a woman. Women are turned on by ambition, which I had, which is why I don’t work anymore. It’s not in me anymore. Imagine I live with a woman today, and she sees me wake at noon, grab a coffee and go to HUS !!! Turn off for sure. Although the mystery of my lifestyle does intrigue many.
    .
    My next project is going to be a community built out of shipping containers as student housing, probably in Guayaquil, Ecuador. (A good investment, and constant flow of college women).

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

      @Marc

      It sounds like you’re living the dream life. You could probably even teach Roosh a thing or two.

  • Iggles

    @ VD:

    However, I suspect that you’ve been trolling at least a bit, because most women put certain limits on “well-endowed”. I had a friend in college with a penis so large that we felt it merited its own name, and he got outright refused by most women once they were confronted with the monstrosity that was Herman.

    Indeed. Call me an outlier, but I’ve never been hung up on size (couldn’t resist the pun!).

    As long as a guy is within normal range it’s fine with me. For me, average is preferable! Besides girth is pretty damn important. A guy being too skinny would be a dealbreaker! (Sorry if it’s that TMI..)

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

      @Iggles

      I know one young woman right now who is dating a guy, but hasn’t seen his penis yet. Some of his friends have asked her “Have you seen the huge dick yet? It’s the biggest one I’ve ever seen!” She is literally terrified, haha. She told me that if she really cares about him, she can live with it. I do think female preferences on this vary quite a bit. The way a woman is built has a lot to do with it as well.

  • Lokland

    @Hope

    “That brings up another point… for a lot of guys it’s also about how the girl comes across, rather than strictly the number itself. If the girl has a reputation for being sloppy drunk, flirting shamelessly with every guy around, and hooking up randomly, then guys will perceive her a certain way. If the girl is very demure, acts dignified, doesn’t get drunk, and has a “classy” air about her, then she at least appears good to most men.”

    +1

    Yes. No one wants to date the percieved town bucket even if they’ve never really been a bucket. The perception in itself it enough.

    @Susan

    “I can’t even imagine what cab drivers have to hear and see!”

    My buddies dad was an immigrant who as it happened was a cabdriver in a uni town.

    As teenagers we’d sit around on weekends playing xbox and he’d get home and tell some of the most ridculous stories. I’m sure some were made up but still if even a tenth were true I must be leading a more boring life than the average individual :(

    Anyway as I said the public kissing is a me thing not a guy thing.
    I also don’t like piercings in the middle of the ear but top and bottom are okay. (This actually got me flak once.)

    We all have some weird quirks.

    “Men generally view kissing as a means to sex, while women view it as a valuable activity in itself – the bonding thing.”

    This might also play into why guys see a chick who makes out with eberyone and their dog a slut but women do not.

    “Stop calling Liza names.”

    Okay.

  • Herb

    @Lokland

    “Men generally view kissing as a means to sex, while women view it as a valuable activity in itself – the bonding thing.”

    This might also play into why guys see a chick who makes out with eberyone and their dog a slut but women do not.

    Good point…

  • Lokland

    @Bastiat Blogger

    On the weak red pill vs strong red pill.

    I’ll put it simply. If the weak one is real, I’m all in.
    If your strong red pill is the reality of the world I would GMOW.

  • Iggles

    @ SW:

    I know one young woman right now who is dating a guy, but hasn’t seen his penis yet. Some of his friends have asked her “Have you seen the huge dick yet? It’s the biggest one I’ve ever seen!” She is literally terrified, haha. She told me that if she really cares about him, she can live with it. I do think female preferences on this vary quite a bit. The way a woman is built has a lot to do with it as well.

    Wow, that’s quite a story. Sounds like she’s delaying the inevitable — if they’re going to work in the long run she needs to know if they’re sexually compatible or not.

    I do understand her trepidation. I say with all seriousness, I don’t envy her predicament. However, if it’s meant to be together they’re find a way to make it work.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “I’ll put it simply. If the weak one is real, I’m all in.
    If your strong red pill is the reality of the world I would GMOW.”

    Cosign. If it really is that bad, there is no point in even trying to pretend that being in a relationship has any meaning at all.

  • SayWhaat

    We’ve got guys saying you better put out by date three or you’re done, and other guys (or the same guys?) saying that making out is slutty. My head spins.

    It’s worth keeping in mind that the manosphere is not really representative of most marriage-worthy, relationship-minded men. Whatever they say, take the rhetoric and divide it by 10 for a more realistic idea of what guys today are looking for. (Manosphere: “We want virgins!” = Normal guy: “If she’s not like a huge slut or anything then yeah, sure.”)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Cosign. If it really is that bad, there is no point in even trying to pretend that being in a relationship has any meaning at all.”
    This may be some measure of despair talking, but it really does seem that bad.

    Oh well.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “In short, Pluralistic Ignorance explains this misconception, and my guess is that it’s strongest among those who hook up a lot.”

    Is that all it is? The conventional wisdom online is that “most all women” have slept around, and will sleep around under the right circumstances, or something to that effect. Certainly there’s self-projecting going on, but there are those who need to believe the worst about the opposite sex. I’ve known a few IRL. They tend to exaggerate the negative way out of proportion. As someone cannot “undo” his or her sexual history, perhaps this is a reaction to the fact that they’ve been written off for serious relationships to some degree?

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

      @Megaman

      As someone cannot “undo” his or her sexual history, perhaps this is a reaction to the fact that they’ve been written off for serious relationships to some degree?

      I do think that for all the cries about there not being any such thing as a manwhore (because the sexual double standard can’t be applied to men), there is a fair amount of male hamsterwheeling that goes on among players. The mere fact that terms like manwhore, manslut, and trash dick (ugh) exist indicates that women do distinguish among men this way.

      However, I’ve learned that there’s no percentage in debating the question. Ultimately, people find that things are working well for them or not. It’s not my job to shove the truth into anyone’s face – their own experience, i.e. “how’s that workin for ya?” is the only effective teacher.

  • http://kaneadvice.wordpress.com Kane

    It’s never the same, but you appreciate it more…

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

    Yet as you say, most women here don’t put up much of a fuss when these claims are made. Well, I do. The rest of you tend to disappear

    I don’t make a fuss because I think women have more chance to be more attractive that guys being more dominant I mean there is a huge industry devoted to female beauty (gym, diets, cosmetics, magazines…) a woman that feels that she is really losing out has places to go if only she can swallow her pride how many places teach men dominance or that a baseline of dominance is necessary to register in women’s radars?

    There is definitely a female version of “I have your back.” But I must confess that female intrasexual competition is fierce, and many a best friend will stab you in the back to get your man. Or bring you down a notch, or whatever. They don’t call them Mean Girls for nothing.

    Is funny because my closest friends and I are very loyal to each other and bash a guy that dumped them, we don’t have the same taste in men so that might helped matters but the whole “he was a jerk and you deserve better” is classic of course after jerk number 3 and on we try to use though love and show her that she is doing something wrong. That is when friendship do get tested for real, YMMV.

    I’m with Hope here that this is philosophical difference. Like her, I don’t get the desire to kiss a woman until after I’ve already caught “feelings” for her.

    Add me to that club.

    This is my upbringing though, PDA is a major no-no in my family though my parents always cuddled on the couych watching tv.

    I had the same upbringing but with the opposite effect I’m always kissing my hubby in public and sometimes pinch him in the butt when no one is looking. ;)

    I think it’s women don’t want, as a whole to be grown-ups. I think most post-feminist women still want to be princesses but they’ll take feminism’s “good parts”: the fun jobs (but when they quit being fun let’s be SAHM), the vote, the “I can do anything” (but men can still kill the spiders).

    I think that is first world in general if you check certain discussions people certainly remember what is convenient and forget what they don’t like or doesn’t make them “haaaaapy”. I guess is part of the fact that in here there is not real consequences from their actions, YMMV.

    That’s right, ladies and gentlemen — the kiss is in fact a goddamn taste test. We’ve adapted the behavior to make sure we find someone with whom our chemicals match up.

    Nice anecdote:
    When my hubby was coming to visit me the first time back in DR. I had planned everything (meals, distractions, places) and our first kiss my plan was to kiss him for a few minutes the night before so I could leave him wanting for more and make sure he took my word that I was a virgin seriously (you know blushing demure virgin and all that) yeah when I kissed him, time seems to stop and by the time I realized we had made out for three hours it took all my will power to let him go. So our baby is going to do more than fine if the first kiss is the taste of good mix of genes. ;)

  • Herb

    @Ana

    I think that is first world in general if you check certain discussions people certainly remember what is convenient and forget what they don’t like or doesn’t make them “haaaaapy”. I guess is part of the fact that in here there is not real consequences from their actions, YMMV.

    I’ll agree. That also explains the place and kind of people I see it least: the military and vets.

    The simple reality is even peacetime military life is hard with lots of consequences of the “I’m dead”, “I’m maimed”, and “I’m on the edge of sanity” kind instead of the “my feelings got hurt” kind.

    Watching a set of reduction gears move several inches as you slam from a forward bell to a backing bell because this stuck dive planes drill isn’t actually a drill teaches you more about how fragile life is than nearly any HS biology class.

    Then you get guys like Dogsquat who had to handle real combat. I’m not sure how anyone like that can both survive and not grow up.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Making out with every guy you see because “it’s fun” is no different than fucking every guy you see because “it’s fun.” It’s only a difference in magnitude. You are still throwing around your body for pure physical enjoyment devoid of serious emotional attachment.

    I agree on this. It doesn’t necessarily make her “slutty”, but it’s definitely not classy.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “Now, I happen to know that Steph is telling the truth. David tried to come up to her apartment, she said no, and he hasn’t looked her in the eye since. I don’t know if Tim believed her, but he can easily check by asking David. Tim is a pretty confident guy – I don’t think he was being needy. I think he was just attempting to qualify Steph early on. Steph totally understood that this was a variation on the “what’s your number” discussion.”
    ___________________________________________

    Here’s an alternate theory(s):

    Jill has a thing for Tim and/or wants to mess with Steph.

    An accusation is always stronger than a denial. That poor bastard Tim was forced to watch a bunch of X rated mental movies featuring a girl who gives him butterflies and David’s hairy ass. That’s fucking brutal.

    It’s the kind of thing quite likely to tip the Scales Of Love away from Relationshipness. If Tim already knows of another of Steph’s hookups, or heard another rumor somewhere else, he might’ve bailed. Even so, there will always be a tiny kernel of doubt in his mind. Even if he trusts Steph, even if she passed a polygraph and did an fMRI – that crap always leaves a mark. I doubt he and David will get along for awhile.

    Jill is a megacunt. It’s a goddamned good thing she pulled this crap on pseudopacifist college kids. I’ve been to more than one crime scene/medical call where violence resulted from shit like this.

    Jill should immediately donate her body to science or find a compost heap and dive in permanently. Perhaps teaching med students to save a worthwhile human being or contributing to the healthy growth of plants would ensure she’s not entirely detrimental to life on this planet.

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

      @Dogsquat

      You totally nailed it re Jill. It wasn’t relevant before, but I can tell you that as it turns out, she was cheating on her bf with David. So she had a vested interest in dissing Steph, and also in making Steph out to be some kind of Random Hookup stealer.

      So you’ll appreciate this – David has/had a reputation for being the beta guy in the group – super nice, never gets with strange girls. Steph was attracted, he picked up on that and went for it. She told him right out that there would be no hookup, he said, “Good, I respect that.” But as I said, he has never spoken to her again after she did in fact say good night and go home alone. She was very definitely happy to catch him in the cad filter. As you’ve said, just keep your legs together until you know exactly who you’re dealing with. 9 cads out of 10 will bail after the first night if a girl doesn’t put out.

      Now, why Tim is even friends with David – that’s another question, but I guess it goes to that male loyalty thing, as they’ve known one another for years.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Herb said:

    “You, Sir, have a completed targeting solution.”
    ________________________________________

    Match generated bearings and shoot!

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “We’ve got guys saying you better put out by date three or you’re done, and other guys (or the same guys?) saying that making out is slutty. My head spins.”

    _______________________

    I think I remember that thread back in the day. The three date thing was a strategy for guys. If followed, it will guarantee the guy never deals with the Jesus Mahoney Price differential. That strategy doesn’t take women into account at all. The strategy is elegant, ruthless, and perfectly crafted for it’s goals.

    Remember what I said about Rollo’s work reading like invasion plans? That’s an example. I can tell by your word choice how much it bothers you. You react emotionally when you contemplate it.

    Please consider thinking of him as an Admiral tasked with invading an island. He’s explaining about naval guns bombarding the beach, using napalm and shake-and-bake further inland, and cutting off supplies so the enemy starves. You’re saying,”What about the troops in the enemy army? Don’t you want them to be happy?”

    He looks at you quizzically and questions your sanity. You have diametrically opposed and irreconcilable outlooks.

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

      He’s explaining about naval guns bombarding the beach, using napalm and shake-and-bake further inland, and cutting off supplies so the enemy starves.

      Exactly!

      Here’s the thing – I do detest him as a man of poor character, and a sociopath, but that’s not important. The problem is that in Rollo’s worldview, women are the enemy. Always. Even his own wife and daughter are enemies. Never to be trusted, ruthlessness is always the preferred way of dealing with women. He is peddling the Sun Tzu method of relationships.

      I think that’s very, very damaging and dangerous not only to women, but to young men. I think it warps a man’s view of women in a way that can never fully be remedied. A man who buys into Rollo’s view – in any way – is destined to look over his shoulder for treachery every minute of his life, for the rest of his life. This is not conjecture – I’ve seen it in the manosphere countless times. And I think it robs people of contentment forever.

      The men who write this dark stuff – every one of them seems abjectly miserable. Not a single one of them can come home at night and fall into the arms of unconditional love, nor are they capable of giving it.

      Yeah, you might get a woman biting her bottom lip with a well-crafted neg, but make no mistake. Rollo would be disgusted by your leaving love notes in your gf’s pocket.

      Personally, I only care in that I don’t want his views infecting HUS. And I’ve found that from time to time it’s necessary to refute them, so that his fanboys realize we’re completely incompatible and that his views are unwelcome here. Aside from that, I have no dog in the fight. Everyone is perfectly entitled to figure out what works for them, and though I think his views are closer to chemo than digoxin, and kill off what’s good in the patient while killing off what hurts, I acknowledge that survival may be the result.

  • Ted D

    DogSquat – “Please consider thinking of him as an Admiral tasked with invading an island. He’s explaining about naval guns bombarding the beach, using napalm and shake-and-bake further inland, and cutting off supplies so the enemy starves. You’re saying,”What about the troops in the enemy army? Don’t you want them to be happy?”

    He looks at you quizzically and questions your sanity. You have diametrically opposed and irreconcilable outlooks.”

    That right there is the difference between logical thinkers, and feelers.

    I see Rollo now in a similar light as you. He is formulating plans and laying out strategies that can be applied by men to get the results they want from the SMP without any concern for the female side of the equation. And although many people might think that is wrong, I actually don’t see the problem. He is basically leaving women to figure out their own shit the hard way as he “arms” men to deal with them. In that light, I can’t even say I see him as harshly as I did before. And in a way, isn’t that exactly where men find themselves now?

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I understand that men don’t care for female selection criteria – that’s the real issue.”

    No… I dont begrudge women having standards and turning down men. How could I? I have my own standards, and I went a long time alone because I fused my sexual and relationship standards together. (Dumb.)

    I am merely pointing that so many women like to say “no men approach me” when it really is “no men that met my standards approach me”. It’s a false play for sympathy by stretching the truth. The same person inevitably later on tells how they had to turn down other men approaching her.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “women are the enemy. ”

    Yes but why? How can men and women ever possibly bat for the same team?

    If tall (lets sayf 6′), dark and handsome are the prereqs for a husband then the first criteria alone cuts down the field to 15% of men.
    The other 85% (actually less but theres no hard stats on the other two) MUST regard women as the enemy because any interaction that occurs with them is inherently designed to manipulate them and extort resources.

    How can there possibly be any type of mutual companionship when the very nature of women is to USE men?

    “I think his views are closer to chemo than digoxin …. I acknowledge that survival may be the result.”

    Again i the above is true its also the best result. Survival is quite literally the best option availible.

    Anyway as a sidenote. I don’t read anywhere else in the sphere and I still came to view this as a war. You might think its free of that infection here but its not. I think other men have the same opinion.

    Note: If you wanted to get specific most of the sphere is a full blown epidemic while HUS is like a mild cold.

  • OffTheCuff

    Ben: “I’m gonna disagree with you on “majority of college educated women”. I went to one of the best universities in the country (top 5 ranked), and a good 50% of the girls there were active participants in hookup culture.”

    Actually, Mega is right. Your sample set is your elite top-5 college, but you are not considering all the others. Looking at the CDC studies, most women are not hooking up at the rate you see.

    This blog, our host, and her student readers skew VERY elite when compared to national statistics. Here, only 10 partners is the sign of a prude or loser nerd. HUS mostly talks about the deep end of the SMP pool where sharks lurk. But there is a whole wide world out there, and there are more of us than you.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I miss Jesus Mahoney. His wisdom and experience would be welcome in this thread. He did show up briefly recently, so at least I know he’s not lying dead in the middle of a ditch somewhere.

    /momworry

    Sue, I just caught your e-mail this morning. Things got busy and then, you know, with your gargantuan comment sections, it was hard to pick up again once I lost the thread of the conversation.

    Things are going very well with my and my girlfriend, btw. Living together really is a blast.

    As for Ben, he’s obviously a bit confused. On the one hand, he’s seeking out infatuation and limerence (which I think is a healthy and possibly necessary state for a good long term relationship) and on the other hand, he’s missing the “chase.”

    Clearly he needs to decide what he really wants. I will say that with the right woman, there’s always an element of the chase. We’re all changing and growing endlessly (some more than others, of course), and so maintaining a good relationship requires re-establishing that initial connection on a daily basis. Ben says his girlfriend lacks curiosity. That may be the case. Perhaps he’s got a more dynamic personality than her. It could also be that he’s not curious enough about her, and her lack of interest in the world is merely his perception.

    Whatever the case, they don’t seem like a good match.

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

      @Jesus

      Thanks for checking in, I’m glad all is going really well. :)

  • Ted D

    “Anyway as a sidenote. I don’t read anywhere else in the sphere and I still came to view this as a war. You might think its free of that infection here but its not. I think other men have the same opinion.”

    I am trying very hard not to have the war mentality in regards to women and relationships, but it can be damned hard. Some days all I can muster is the view that my SO may be an enemy combatant, but she may very well want to surrender and claim asylum. As long as she isn’t pointing a weapon at me that is. The problem, however, is that her weapons aren’t easily seen, and my lack of knowledge about “the enemy” puts me at a disadvantage.

    And yes, I truly hate that feeling of always having to be “on guard” at home. I can’t stand it. It feels like I never get the chance to relax that way.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    I know how you feel.
    I’m getting married in two weeks and theres this lil voice in the back of my head that used to just tell me it was a bad idea. Now its screaming full force that its a losing situation.

    Couple that with normal jitters and my fiance being backhome for another week before she comes back with her family.

    I’ve been feeling like a paranoid schizophrenic for the past few days.

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

      “How can there possibly be any type of mutual companionship when the very nature of women is to USE men?”

      You know what? I give up. Seriously. Why do men who feel this way come here to comment? Because the cold virus is more tolerable than the ebola virus? Fuck that.

      What do you guys think happens when women read this here? They wrack their brains trying to reconcile my Mission Statement with my reader’s statements. I imagine they close out the tab as quickly as they can 90% of the time. The women who choose to comment here are made of strong stuff, and many of them go away after being shouted down by men here. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture?

      Sometimes I feel like the small business owners during Occupy Wall Street, when all the demonstrators would come in just to shit in their lavs.

      I understand that people have been hurt, people have been damaged. I feel a lot of empathy about that. But if you feel this way about women, and I haven’t changed your mind over weeks and months, then there’s nothing more I can say.

      Honest to God, there are male bloggers I wish I’d never heard of. From this moment on, I’ll never mention Rollo or Dalrock again, and I’ll delete any comment that does so. I’d rather be water boarded than continue this conversation.

  • Maggie

    “If tall (lets sayf 6′), dark and handsome are the prereqs for a husband then the first criteria alone cuts down the field to 15% of men.
    The other 85% (actually less but theres no hard stats on the other two) MUST regard women as the enemy because any interaction that occurs with them is inherently designed to manipulate them and extort resources.”

    I like to look at the wedding announcements in the newpaper. I doubt this is something that many men do. The great majority of grooms in the picture are just average looking, more Seth Rogen than Chris Hemsworth. They have different heights, weights, etc., pretty much the “other” 85%.

    “How can there possibly be any type of mutual companionship when the very nature of women is to USE men?”

    But there is a lot of mutual companionship. Woman don’t use men anymore than men use woman and I think it’s a small percentage for either gender.

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

      @Maggie

      I like to look at the wedding announcements in the newpaper. I doubt this is something that many men do. The great majority of grooms in the picture are just average looking, more Seth Rogen than Chris Hemsworth. They have different heights, weights, etc., pretty much the “other” 85%.

      I do this too. I’ve also tried to point this out a bunch of times here. One thing I notice is that on Saturday mornings, the playground in my neighborhood is full of beta dads, beta wives, and cute little beta babies. These are the people marrying and procreating! It’s not beta guys driving down the marriage rate.

  • Ben

    @Dogsquat and others on 3 date rule/putting out first night

    I have a bit of a different perspective on this “rule” or attitude. I think I could be somewhat defined as a cad, in that I aggressively pursue sex with a lot of women and have decent success at it. However, the 3 date rule for me is very flexible. If I’m looking just for sex, and the girl has not shown anything to me in 3 dates that makes her of more interest long term (funny, smart, interesting conversation), then yes, the 3 date rule makes sense. There are just too many women out there who put out on or before date 3 to spend that much time investing in a woman who you’re after just for sex. Limiting yourself to women who put out on or before date 3 doesn’t narrow the pool all that much, at least where I live.

    As for same night, avoiding women who don’t put out at once narrows the pool dramatically, shaving off maybe 90% of the women you’ll meet (even at bars). That’s just a poor strategy, as many of those 90% are hot, funny, smart women who you’d want to get to know/are worth putting in the time and effort of a few (or more) dates.

    And in terms of cads getting rejected a lot, absolutely true. I get rejected all the time. My friend Bob (pseudonym) is pretty much a cad when single (although also a serial monogamist; 3 2-year+ relationships in past 8 years, go figure), and recently broke up with his girlfriend. He’s also quite successful with women, but one of the first things he said to me about being single again is “man, hard getting used to the rejection. all the time”. The difference is, we don’t let it get to us.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    “Your sample set is your elite top-5 college, but you are not considering all the others. Looking at the CDC studies, most women are not hooking up at the rate you see.”

    I think it’s worth pointing out, that the majority of women (and men too) don’t even attend the glorious top schools. They go to community colleges, transfer to state universities, go to night school, etc. They mostly avoid the dorm experience, the hookup scene, the binge drinking. They don’t go to graduate school, either. They’re out of college in 4-5 years with a bachelor’s degree, and usually meet the guy they’re going to marry by age 25. Their N count is low-to-median (same for the guys they marry), their divorce rate is very low, and for the most part they’re permanently off the market, which makes them irrelevant WRT the SMP.

    People only get credit for this stuff IRL, not online. Only in the Twilight Zone does majority = tiny, insignificant minority.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “I’ve been feeling like a paranoid schizophrenic for the past few days.”

    At least you know you are in good company. ;-)

    Like I said, on the bad days I see my SO as wanting to get out of the fight and just be happy. I have no desire to keep the war up on a personal level either. Perhaps after a bit more time to get past my own mental issues, I might want to “take up the cause” for team man, but right now I just want to find my own happiness, because I can’t help one single person unless I help myself first. But, perhaps I am helping my SO while helping myself. At least she isn’t out on the front lines exchanging fire with enemy. And knowing what she would be likely to encounter in the dating market, I can’t help but believe she is better off dealing with me. I may be a pain in the ass, but I’m an honest pain in the ass.

    And grats on the wedding. It’s stressful enough without adding all this “red pill” stuff into the mix, so cut yourself just a little slack for being so stressed. And remember, you know FAR MORE than the average man when they get married. You are better equipped to deal with marriage, and that means you have a much better shot at succeeding.

    I see “game” guys talk about how men should be men and not be afraid of failure, but those same men scream and shout “DON’T GET MARRIED! YOU WILL FAIL!” all the time. Don’t be afraid to try, just do your best to hedge your bets, and make sure you take care of yourself as much as possible. Despite what MRA guys claim, I think getting married knowing full what you are signing up for is pretty damn manly.

  • Herb

    @Dogsquat

    Herb said:

    “You, Sir, have a completed targeting solution.”
    ________________________________________

    Match generated bearings and shoot!

    Complete and utter tangent time.

    It’s the late Cold War in the late Reagan Administration. We in wargames where the opposing side is the TR’s carrier battle group. It’s mid-afternoon and we’ve snuck up on an escort vessel away from the main body. It wasn’t long before we had a solution yet we didn’t take the shot.

    Comes up to 5pm and we’re lying up for chow. I’m an oncoming watch stander so I need to eat and get back to the engineroom for my six in the Hole. Just as I’m about halfway through dinner I hear, “one green combo away aft,” which is how we indicate taking a shot during wargames.

    The Captain comes on the 1MC and tells us we just fired a torpedo at the escort causing them to take a serious (20 degree or so) roll as they engaged in evasive maneuvers and went to general quarter…right as they were sitting down to chow.

    The SOB sat there for over three hours and tailed them while we had a solution just so he could interrupt their supper.

    And you know what? They deserved it for letting us sit on their ass like that.

    Man, could that SOB drive. We were the oldest boat in the Navy and he drove like it was the newest. Had the Cold War gotten hot we would have all died. He would have gotten us killed but would have sunk half the Soviet fleet in the process.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitching about the opposite sex.

  • Ramble

    I think it’s worth pointing out, that the majority of women (and men too) don’t even attend the glorious top schools. They go to community colleges … Their N count is low-to-median (same for the guys they marry), their divorce rate is very low

    Megaman,
    I was right there with you until that last part. The average girl that attends community college has a divorce rate higher than that of the girl that goes straight to some elite, or even standard, 4 year school. That is, in general, the average girl (and guy) has a higher divorce rate than those that go straight to (a 4 year) college from HS and graduate in 4-5 years.

  • Ted D

    Susan – ” I’d rather be water boarded than continue this conversation.”

    JM is back and obviously doing well. Do I need to start being concerned about your mental health? :-p

    I understand your frustration, and I’ve felt my fair share of that exact same frustration from my side of the fence. The truth is to some extent we all use each other, but “using” someone does NOT have to be a bad thing. If I “use” my SO for love and nurturing, is that bad for her? For me? This takes me back to the co-dependency conversation we had several months back. The popular view of co-dependency is that it is bad, but the truth is any functioning marriage has some co-dependency built into it. You simply do not live with someone for years without developing them. Does that make it a bad thing? I don’t think so. And “using” your mate is no more or less bad. I will even say that using my SO for sex is a completely healthy and normal thing. Especially if you consider the alternative, which is to use other women for it with no chance for them to “use” me in return. She “uses” me for sex as well, and financial support, emotional support, the list goes on and on. But, I rely on her for much of the same. It is mutual, which I think is the key here.

    If any man feels like they are being used and it is not mutual (meaning they do not get to “use” their mate for anything) they are either in a really bad relationship, or they are not stepping back and looking at the big picture. “using” people is just as natural as hypergamy and the male desire for variety.

    Side note: Can we refer to them as “those of which we do not speak”? J/K don’t delete me!

  • Ted D

    Ramble – “I was right there with you until that last part. The average girl that attends community college has a divorce rate higher than that of the girl that goes straight to some elite, or even standard, 4 year school. That is, in general, the average girl (and guy) has a higher divorce rate than those that go straight to (a 4 year) college from HS and graduate in 4-5 years.”

    You beat me to it. I was going to go on and on about how it is WORSE for poorer folks than what we discuss here. I see it all around me since I live in an economically depressed area. I’m telling you, I’m very close to being surrounded by former Maury guests.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    Now, why Tim is even friends with David – that’s another question, but I guess it goes to that male loyalty thing, as they’ve known one another for years.

    It’s more than that. I think men compartmentalize more than women.

    I like my D&D buddies and will hang with some of them but they’re not my tri buddies. Neither are in my lifestyle social circle. My professional peers are a fourth group.

    I’m friend with each although I’m sure in all but the third there are people who, if I knew more about their personal lives, I’d think, “ugh, really”.

    But it’s not relevant. It comes from the same source that lets me meet nine other random guys at the gym, play basket ball for two hours, never learn anyone’s name, and never see them again and be cool with the whole thing.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “One thing I notice is that on Saturday mornings, the playground in my neighborhood is full of beta dads, beta wives, and cute little beta babies..”

    Of course you’ll see that at a playground. Go to a bar and you’ll see different.

    On my fridge is a phone roster of my daughter’s pre-K class. Only half of them are male/female couples with the same last name, who are probably married. The rest are all single mothers.

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

      On my fridge is a phone roster of my daughter’s pre-K class. Only half of them are male/female couples with the same last name, who are probably married. The rest are all single mothers.

      Wow, that is sobering.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    Theres nothing manly about getting married. What I do when I’m there determines whether or not I’ve got my shit figured out.

    @Susan

    Okay. I’ll break it down farther and avoid the word use.

    Woman need certain things. Lets say husband, house, food etc.
    Woman also want certain things. Tall, hot, endowed etc.

    I can provide EVERYTHING in the first category.
    I can provide few to none in the second which if we want to use tall, dark and handomse as the bar most average guys cannot either (but this is about me.)

    So I can be in a relationship with a woman and provide everything she needs. However I am not able to provide any of womans wants.
    (I look really good on paper but off paper not so much.)

    If the answer is game (light doseage of red pill) the problem is solvable.
    If the answer is the full out red pull (Lisa’s and the manospheres dosage) I cannot change and therefore cannot compete. Which makes any relationship I form bunk from the get go.

    Reading here (and my anecdotal observation of the world around me) it appears that both are required. Neither individually is enough.

    What do I do?

    This isn’t a complaint or whining or some other such nonsense. I’m asking for advice.

    @Herb

    +1 on compartmentilization (especially in regards to buddies)

    My high school buds are my high school buds.
    Uni are uni. Work is work. Private is private.

    I prefer NO

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

      @Lokland

      Your fiance would disagree with you. You obviously tripped all her attraction triggers. Who cares if you’re not Liza’s type? You have a serious and problematic tendency to put yourself down. I’m sure you’ve got history to explain it, but you need to wrestle that beast to the ground. You’ve got smart and funny going for you, that I can attest to.

      Sure, some women want tall, dark, handsome and well-endowed. But there’s just a huge range of what women find desirable. If you’re not in the top 10%, you’re probably not going to get the top 10% of women. We all have our limitations. It doesn’t mean you’re not desirable, in your way, to some women. You only need one, and you’re marrying her, and she’s hot, and she loves you. So consider yourself blessed, make beautiful babies, and don’t cheat.

  • Lokland

    I prefer NO crossover between those groups.

  • OffTheCuff

    If you wanna ban mention of olloR, that’s fine. I think he has some useful articles, and a few very harsh ones, and certain ones stand defensibly apart and could be written by more moderate voices. His recent Chump article says nothing directly bad about women.

    But I’d also then suggest stopping the comments of “the manosphere says X” which almost always refers to a tiny few of the most radical commenters on kcorlaD, and almost nothing like the men here. Sorry, but there are plenty of commenters like me who don’t buy that. Who here has said he *requires* a virgin, even on another blog?

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

      @OffTheCuff

      I ove-lay the elling-spay.

      But I’d also then suggest stopping the comments of “the manosphere says X” which almost always refers to a tiny few of the most radical commenters on kcorlaD, and almost nothing like the men here.

      That’s a totally fair request. I’ll try to watch out for that and feel free to jump in if I miss it. In general, I think we’ll be better off if we all quit bitching about people who never even come to HUS. There are extremists everywhere, especially online. Getting caught up in those debates is rarely a good use of time. Recently a feminist came by from Manboobz asking for citations and proof of all of my ideas. What a trap – I told her all the answers to her questions were in the archives. There is no payoff whatsoever to engaging the radicals.

  • Abbot

    “3 date rule/putting out first night”

    That is a very unknown concept in much of the world. Men in the US are so inclined because its generally assumed that she has put out even faster in the past. So if she makes you wait then she is just not that into you or is attempting to remake herself in your eyes. Neither is acceptable. If women want to be treated better in this regard, then they and their sexual advocates need to study what works better currently [there are many examples in other places] and what worked better in the past in the US.

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

    @Lokland
    Contratulations! :)
    I want to commend you for actually going through it in spite of the manosphere knowlegde and the “cold feet” that is a though choice to make and I wish you happiness and success, from the bottom of my heart.
    Good luck!

  • Abbot

    “No one wants to date the percieved town bucket even if they’ve never really been a bucket. The perception in itself it enough.”

    Few if any men would want to publicly demonstrate commitment to a woman perceived as such. He would be ridiculed for being unable to do any better notwithstanding the frequent “Yo, I hit dat in da club” whispered among the dudes hanging around the corner store.

    Few if any men would want to “date” a prostitute and no person would give them a hard time for such rejection, even among those feminists. Why in just the past forty years or so is it expected that men would commit to non prostitutes with a comparable variety of sexual encounters? Its mind boggling.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “Theres nothing manly about getting married. What I do when I’m there determines whether or not I’ve got my shit figured out.”

    I agree with the second part. But facing the challenge despite knowing the possible negative outcomes seems to be brave to me, and if memory serves me (and it often doesn’t) bravery is a very alpha trait. Or, at least it used to be when people like John Wayne were examples of alpha men.

    Or if we go back to the war slant: would it be “manly” for a guy to pickup his gun and charge an enemy position knowing his chances of success (or even getting out alive) were slim to none? Maybe I’m a dumb ass, but my answer is yes.

  • Abbot
  • Ian

    I do empathize, but OTOH, why don’t women realize that all the discussion about N is coming from males? Surely even the most accomplished twirling rodent has a cogent realization once in a while.

    Generally, women are aware that “reputationdom” is a diminisher of male investment. Clinically, as a documented psychological phenomenon, women use “slut” to diminish the SMV of women who threaten their own men. PUA is laden with the last-minute ASD. The realization is there, externally.

    Internally, soothing squeaks, “You’re not that, darling. You’ve mostly only been with guys you know. Oral doesn’t count, neither does drunk. Women around you who have done much worse. Something specific is wrong with those who would judge you, you don’t want them anyway.”

    Furry little ego-protectors. Man’s (mankind, generalized, rational animals’) best friend. I’m not sure rodents can have cogent realizations that detract from their defensive role. If that happens, it’s Anger Monkey’s role to change the subject.

    It’s worth keeping in mind that the manosphere is not really representative of most marriage-worthy, relationship-minded men. Whatever they say, take the rhetoric and divide it by 10 for a more realistic idea of what guys today are looking for.

    I’m not sure I’d argue with that. I think that 85% of humanity has a lot Flying Monkey in them, sort of droning around with spending too much time on the meta. They can’t judge on the meta. Some of them churn out preferring relationships. In the meta, though, there’s the question of what you offer the culturally defenseless man, as a wife.

    Are you demure or hardened, supplicant or mannish, excited or blase. Is he diving into a moving stream or a city harbor. His nose three inches from your inner thigh, how many men have you been with. Will you cook, do you care about cooking, will your food taste any good. Are you supportive, have you been supportive through hardship. How many men have you left, how many men have left you.

    It’s partly hedonic, the choice of pretty, clean, unjaded partners, who give massages when you’re stressed, food when you’re hungry. It’s just nicer, more pleasant. The exodus away is for many reasons, but not for the husband’s sake, and not justified because numbers of men accept it.

  • Ian

    Woman need certain things. Lets say husband, house, food etc. Woman also want certain things. Tall, hot, endowed etc. I can provide EVERYTHING in the first category. I can provide few to none in the second which if we want to use tall, dark and handomse as the bar most average guys cannot either (but this is about me.)

    If the answer is game (light doseage of red pill) the problem is solvable.
    If the answer is the full out red pull (Lisa’s and the manospheres dosage) I cannot change and therefore cannot compete. Which makes any relationship I form bunk from the get go…What do I do?

    Trick question. The answer is that there is no point in being in a relationship with any woman, since what men really want is sole access to a rolling ten-breasted mound of cooing Kate Upton lookalikes.

    If you’re interested in having a few satisfying stop-gap relationships on the way to acquiring your own heap, I’d recommend changing the idea that aspects of you aren’t improvable, and just have a generally cooler outlook on things. The best human gift is the executive ability to force ourselves into behaviors long enough to accomplish goals.

    Negative thoughts, behaviors come from a negative brain state, which is completely changeable. Conquering stress/fear reduces your cortisol, increases your testosterone. Weights increase testosterone, sunlight too. Cutting back wanking increases available test to useful areas of your brain.

    People’s main ability is their fungibility, “can’t change” is just not true. Even the stress at the unchangable things can be changed, along with a woman’s self-professed wants. True, even if it sounds like Tony Robbins. Animals don’t dance ballet, despite greater motor function, because they can’t over-ride habit, force themselves into specific, productive behaviors.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @
    “The average girl that attends community college has a divorce rate higher than that of the girl that goes straight to some elite, or even standard, 4 year school.”

    I was referring to women who graduate from college with a degree. As you cannot get a BA or BS from a community college, most people transfer as a junior to a 4-year university (I did). It’s just as good as going to the big U as a freshman, it’s cheaper, and in fact the dropout rate is lower for transfer students. And I’m betting the divorce rate isn’t much different.

    I’d love to know where you’re getting your numbers from. The National Marriage Project didn’t distinguish how people got their college degrees, just that they have them and their risk of divorce is low. Even people with “some college” have divorce rates lower than “just high school”. And the probability that a couple will divorce in the future isn’t just a function of the female. Anyway, if you’re looking for women with whom your chance of divorce is near zero, better go hunting for virgins in Amish, Mormon, and Quaker country.

  • Tom

    This is kind of a dangerous article. Total hogwash in “most” cases that a promiscuous man can never settle down. It really depends on a mans integrity and character. The same man who would cheat on his wife would cheat whether he had 0…1…5…30 sexual partners in his past…Granted a man who has had a ton of sexual partners is probably pretty damaged in the first place. He may have a self esteem problem, always having to prove to himself he is a stud by all his conquests. Of course this isnt true of all active guys, but it is true of a fair percentage of them. Same can be said of the super slut. Best advice is, if you find yourself attracted to an active person, dont rush in. Look hard before you leap. Of course that is good advice no matter who you decide to get serious about.
    I seriously do not buy any study that suggests that the more sexual partners one has, it lessens their ability to form attatchments to one person. Total hog crap. Those people where already damaged goods to begin with. Might be true for a really small percentage of people, I could buy that.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Sure, some women want tall, dark, handsome and well-endowed. But there’s just a huge range of what women find desirable. If you’re not in the top 10%, you’re probably not going to get the top 10% of women. We all have our limitations.

    Susan,

    I don’t understand why people feel they have to be seen as desirable by most people. It is not possible for of us and it is not something most of us should care about anyway. I knew my comment would annoy the men here. But like I said, there was a thread where they were talking about what physical attributes made women attractive to them and I was not offended by it nor did I have any bad feelings.

    The male ego is way too fragile at times. Jeez.

  • Mike C

    I knew my comment would annoy the men here.

    Liza, just for the record, your comments on your preferences didn’t annoy me. Preferences are what they are. Why do they annoy some? The implicit message is “You are not good enough FOR ME” which to me is OK if you are bringing it yourself. If you want the tall, dark, handsome guy who makes the big bucks with a cock that is 8″ long and 6″ thick then good for you, but you’d better be an HB9 at minimum, a great homewaker, and be able to suck paint off a wall. I think what rubs *some* guys the wrong ways is when the preferences for the guy really don’t match up with the SMV value of the gal.

    The well-endowed thing does kind of crack me up a bit although I’d like some hard numbers put to that. Many girl’s vaginas just are not that big. Perhaps TMI….but what the hell…I’m not that big (yeah I’ve measured…every guy has) and I’ve hit a couple cervixes. It has to be a purely psychological thing because I’d guess the vast majority of guys beyond a certain point can’t even fully get in without plowing through that cervix.

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

      @Mike C

      The well-endowed thing does kind of crack me up a bit although I’d like some hard numbers put to that. Many girl’s vaginas just are not that big.

      Getting one’s cervix rammed hurts like a bitch, and for many women anything over 6 will do it, especially from behind. Personally, I think the whole well-endowed thing is cultural programming. Sure, there will be some women for whom it makes a difference, but come on. Since 80% of us need more than thrusting anyway, I don’t get it. I’m not saying a micro phallus is not a problem, but a standard deviation from the mean in either direction should be perfectly fine.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Hi Mike,

    My thing is, I don’t believe anyone has a say or has the right to judge what an individual desires in a mate. If you are a 4 and you are holding out for an 8 or a 9 that is your own business. I don’t know why men in particular get so hot under the collar when women express what they desire from men. It is not anyone else’s business. However, I shared what I did to make a point.
    Like I said, it is really about the male ego being way too fragile.

  • Mike C

    My thing is, I don’t believe anyone has a say or has the right to judge what an individual desires in a mate. If you are a 4 and you are holding out for an 8 or a 9 that is your own business. I don’t know why men in particular get so hot under the collar when women express what they desire from men.

    I’ll admit I am always perplexed when people start saying no one “has a right to judge”. I really don’t know what that means. This is a discussion blog where people share opinions, and as the saying goes opinions are like assholes…everyone has one. So in my opinion, you have a right to your preferences, and some guy has a right to judge your preferences even if I disagree. I personally don’t and wouldn’t get hot under the collar myself, I will say this though if someone is a 4 and holding out for a 8 or 9 than they are either colossally stupid, or completely delusional about their own SMV or some combination of both. Kind of like an unemployed bum sitting on his couch for years saying “if I can’t get the CEO position, then I’m not doing anything”. Just plain dumb.

  • Abbot

    “This is kind of a dangerous article. ”

    Really? How so?

    “It really depends on a mans integrity and character.”

    How does that affect his ability to be satisfied with one person? Seems to be a disconnect there.

    “The same man who would cheat on his wife would cheat whether he had 0…1…5…30 sexual partners in his past”

    Nothing in the original “article” mentions cheating or even alludes to it so where is that coming from?

    “Same can be said of the super slut.”

    Do they wear a cape and fly? Its gotten so out of hand that now sluts are being rated and categorized. So then, is the “average slut” now being pawned off as the new wife material? What’s next? We can’t wait.

    “if you find yourself attracted to an active person”

    Don’t panic! Active people are actually rare in the US. Just look at the obesity rate.

    “dont rush in”

    What!? If she is active and therefore ready you better be rushing in.

    “Look hard before you leap. ”

    ok ok, no point in going for that low hanging fruit…

    “I seriously do not buy any study that suggests that the more sexual partners one has, it lessens their ability to form attatchments to one person.”

    Ah, but you would cash in the house and buy all the studies suggesting that more “sexual partners” increases the ability to form attachments…and attract men who want to marry…and overall makes for a fully expressed and properly rendered woman.

    “Total hog crap. Those people where already damaged goods to begin with. Might be true for a really small percentage of people”

    Yes, its a foolish man indeed who will not roll the dice with his feelings on the hope that his non-super-delux slut will not be one of those damaged models. Better to be a fool and avoid them altogether, no?

  • Abbot

    “My thing is, I don’t believe anyone has a say or has the right to judge what an individual desires in a mate.”

    Could you please go tell that to the “sex poz” feminists and a few commenters on this site? Because they just can’t seem to stop.

    “I don’t know why men in particular get so hot under the collar when women express what they desire from men. It is not anyone else’s business.”

    In the name of equality:

    I don’t know why women in particular get so hot under the collar when men express what they desire from women. It is not anyone else’s business, ESPECIALLY when it comes to how men define wife-material.

  • Ramble

    Even people with “some college” have divorce rates lower than “just high school”.

    Right. And the have a higher divorce rate than those that graduated from college. They are, about, average. Which means that they don not have a low divorce rate since the the current rate of divorce (i.e. the Average) is much higher than it used to be.

    That’s all. It was a, somewhat, minor quip that Ted and I picked up on.

    Anyway, if you’re looking for women with whom your chance of divorce is near zero, better go hunting for virgins in Amish, Mormon, and Quaker country.

    How you get this from what I wrote I have no idea.

  • Ramble

    The male ego is way too fragile at times. Jeez.

    NAMALT

  • Abbot

    “he was impresssed with her cunning, I believe he wrote “awed” by it.”

    “Ladies, take note!”

    Yes indeed. Men do go for a certain type of woman before switching to a vastly different pile for commitment and procreation

  • Emily

    >> “The reason why Ben is head over heals for the other girl is because she has a boyfriend and is a very clever cheater. He admitted he was impresssed with her cunning, I believe he wrote “awed” by it.
    > Ladies, take note!”

    This doesn’t sound like any of the Girl Game writers. My Plain Jane radar is on alert.

  • Abbot

    “Ladies, take note!”

    They most certainly are. The level of female happiness in the US could be a lot higher and the smart ones know that their current “romantic” behavior will not increase it.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    I’ll take this from both a macro and a micro level.

    Marco first.

    If most wome want tall, dark and handsome.
    Lets assume most applies to 50%.

    Since 15% of men are >6′ tall that will leave 1/3ish (35%) of all women in America either single or in a relationship with a man they are using. In reality it would be more than 1/3 but the other two are difficult to measure and I’m lazy.

    The other 65% will be broken into the girls who got the tall guys and the girls who didn’t require it.

    Now I can think we can safely assume that 50% is on the low end for that number which would cause the 1/3 estimate to be on the low side as well.

    So your average guy based upon height alone and assuming a 50% female interest in height will have a 1 in 3 chance og being screwed. At best.

    In reality I think this is a universal trait or extremely close to it.

    On the mirco level.

    People can like whatever they want.
    People can also be judged for their likes, dislikes, hairstyle, make up colour, partner count, shoe size, wallet size, skin colour, height, lip fullness, hairline, waistline, car type, whether or not they dress their cat in fuzzy sweaters, how faaaaaaab-U-lous they are (uber gay voice for that one), their number of scars, number of diazepam they can take without puking etc.

    Now, personally, my SMV is fucked. It was the moment I was conceived.
    I’m short and my face is like that of bull dog meet school bus.

    I’ve done my best.
    Fancy new tassles for the handlebars, decent paint job, kick ass airhorn with a pirate skull. Even went all out and clipped a card to make the ‘clack’ sound when I pedal.

    I’m aware I’m never gonna do the Tour De France. I can live with that, I’m pretty happy with what I’ve managed.

    The highest SMV women I have EVER pulled is my fiance whose a 7-8. (For those who are not paying close attention that means all those before her were a 6 or below.)

    I can live with that and be proud of what I’ve done with whats availible to me. I’m not in the camp of guys who think game = super model nor do I think I’ve ever claimed to be. (I have claimed its a good N increaser and that it definetly is.)

    Actually, feminism did do one thing for me. Without those bimbos I’d have been born around a bunch of normal dudes which whould have left me as royally, involuntarily celibate. As it turns out they nerfed a bunch of dudes to produce a generation of losers. Looking good was never so easy.

    Now.

    As for Lisa’s claim that most women want blah, blah. Thats fine. Its also not comptaible with a functioning society (see above). Nor, under her ideal would I be anywhere near a vagina. I’d have to go haul stone to build some kind of sphinx or some such nonsense.

    Which is frankly not gonna happen. I’m to smart for manual labour (jokes).

    And of course no one enjoys being told their inferior. Since under her defintion most men are inferior to women there cannot be functioning relationships on a large scale.

    Individually being told you suck is never pleasant as well.

    Now my mistake was to extrapolate her ideal as universal (which frankly she just edged on anyway, I took it just a touch further). Observable reality shows it not to be true for the majority or our society would not have beta getting married in large numbers.

  • Emily

    Yep! My suspicions were correct.

  • Abbot

    “Yes indeed. Men do go for a certain type of woman before switching to a vastly different pile for commitment and procreation”

    “Then we’re not so different afterall”

    The main difference being that loverly worthy women actually do go for it. Of course, it takes a bit getting used to those delightful accents. Absolute gifts from god.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Now.

    “You have a serious and problematic tendency to put yourself down.”

    Its never produced a problem. Only motivation.

    “but you need to wrestle that beast to the ground.”

    I’d rather be excellent than happy.

    “But there’s just a huge range of what women find desirable.”

    I would agree. Many others do not.

    “If you’re not in the top 10%, you’re probably not going to get the top 10% of women.”

    Did I ever actually seriously suggest this is what I wanted? I’m working on more of a have vs. have not basis not quality.

    “We all have our limitations.”

    Yes some people can do an iron man while others can barely walk. If its just who you are no reason to feel bad.

    “You only need one”

    Rofl. I’m not trying to be offensive but your such a woman.

    “and you’re marrying her, and she’s hot, and she loves you.”

    All true. Not what I’m worried about.
    I’m worried about longevity.

    I have yet to see someone like me with a long term sucessful marriage. Ever.
    I own some retail stores. I occasionally run a shift when one of my idiots calls in sick. When I’m there I look at the left hand of dudes my height or shorter just for even a small glimmer that what I’m doing is not a fools errand.

    I’ve been continually disappointed for the past 6 months.

    “So consider yourself blessed, make beautiful babies, and don’t cheat.”

    When I die and it works I’ll count my blessings until then I have work to do.

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

      @Lokland

      I’m worried about longevity.

      I have yet to see someone like me with a long term sucessful marriage. Ever.
      I own some retail stores. I occasionally run a shift when one of my idiots calls in sick. When I’m there I look at the left hand of dudes my height or shorter just for even a small glimmer that what I’m doing is not a fools errand.

      I’ve been thinking about this comment for two days, and I’ve decided I don’t really understand it. I totally get that short guys have more trouble attracting women, in part because the pool of women shorter than they are is smaller. So attraction can be a challenge.

      But why would marital satisfaction be related to height after that? Are you saying that female hypergamy will have the woman always seeking a taller mate?

      I think it’s worth considering whether there is some behavior common to men who have negative feelings about themselves that impairs intimacy and trust. It sounds to me like you hate the way you look, so you don’t trust anyone who feels differently. Yet your story about being with your fiance in the bar that time makes it pretty damn clear she was tingling from head to toe.

      IDK – just thinking out loud here. Like Helen Fisher said, the happiness we find, we make. As your wedding approaches, why not recommit yourself both to making her happy, and to allowing yourself to be fully loved by her.

      Sorry for the armchair psychoanalysis.

  • Iggles

    @ Lokland

    “You only need one”

    Rofl. I’m not trying to be offensive but your such a woman.

    *shrugs*

    That’s my philosophy when it comes to dating. My bf falls into the camp of guys who’d rather have a committed relationship over a series of warm bodies (yay :) ). Perhaps it’s a more female thing but there are plenty of guys who perfect to be with one person, and there are a number of who who prefer a variety of men (case in point – carousel riders!).

    @ Girl Game

    Girth over length, FTW!

    +1

    I mentioned that upthread. It gets grating to hear men complain that all women want guys with huge dicks, as if penis length is the end all be all. NAWALT! Besides, I think far more guys are preoccupied about it than women are.

    Also, it drives me crazy when guys automatically assume bigger guys are good in bed. Like Susan said:

    Personally, I think the whole well-endowed thing is cultural programming. Sure, there will be some women for whom it makes a difference, but come on. Since 80% of us need more than thrusting anyway, I don’t get it. I’m not saying a micro phallus is not a problem, but a standard deviation from the mean in either direction should be perfectly fine.

    (Emphasis added.) Length alone is not going to get a girl off!

  • Abbot

    “Well 40 came and went. He did meet a woman, a 21 year old college student who he lived with for a few years”

    Ah, life is good

    “Start dating women closer to your own age, or at least over 30 and you’ll meet plenty of women who want to have kids”.

    Im in Central America where that is a wholly unknown concept. Men still get to decide the age of the mother of their children in all but some insignificant feminist-driven hookup cauldrons

  • Emily

    >> “I think far more guys are preoccupied about it than women are.”
    +1

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

    Just to add to the controversy: in the interests of better understanding the fairer sex, I’ve read a few of the wildly popular “chick-fantasy” books that are frequently cited as porn-equivalents for women. This list is by no means comprehensive, but it has included the first of the “Grey” novels, a few of the Anita Blake novels, and so on.

    One of the things that all of these books have in common is a wild mismatch between male and female sexual market values. There are long, loving, detailed descriptions of how awesome the men look, but virtually nothing about the female protagonists other than the predictable wish-fulfillment stuff where the lead character has a few notable traits that the author has (long, dark, curly hair, etc.). In fact, the female lead is usually described as socially awkward, tomboyish, clumsy, rather plain in appearance, and so on.

    I used to think that this was purely a function of profitability—by failing to describe the woman who is the recipient of all of this sexual obsession from mysterious 20something superhot self-made billionaire “industrialists” (!!!) to French vampire Chippendale jerks to All-American werewolf boyscout handymen, the author ensures that the reader is more easily able to put herself into this lead role. It’s like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” book.

    However, now I’m not so sure that the explanation is quite so simple. I remember seeing an interview with Lori Gottlieb in which she described how women that she knew would have detailed and exacting lists for what they wanted in their partners and could cull the herd of potential mates rather ruthlessly when weaknesses or quirks were discovered, but they simultaneously would think of their own weaknesses or quirks—neuroticism, for example—as being “cute” or “adorable”. It’s like the fundamental attribution error on steroids. (I think this may also link into the girls’-support-team stuff that has been mentioned earlier in the thread, in that women may encourage each other to feel this way).

    Perhaps the female erotic-fantasy material manages to tap into some reservoir of solipsistic tendency…?

    I’m not saying that women are alone in this, but I will note that the heroes of male fantasy are usually depicted in ways that, if anything, should make normal men feel worse about themselves. For all the critiques of comic book art and pulp-adventure fiction creating impossibly high standards of female beauty and pornstar-level T&A, it should be kept in mind that the male heroes who typically occupy these violent, sexy worlds are also freakishly fit, powerful, and handsome human beings. For male readers, the lack of realism in terms of aesthetics would appear to be an equal-opportunity employer.

    Thoughts…?

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      Interesting thoughts there about how female narcissism intersects with common characterizations of romantic heroines as rather ordinary looking. I have always felt that it is very much a “choose your own adventure” strategy – and 50 Shades of Grey was no exception. But you make a keen observation. I will note that the target market for 50 Shades was married women over 30. Perhaps the aging spinster crowd can’t relate to the fantasy as well. I imagine that for a 39 yo woman with a long checklist and no suitors, reading about a 21 yo woman snagging a billionaire (or nobleman) is disturbing.

  • INTJ

    Emily’s right. Plain Jane radar alert is blaring right now!

  • Rico

    I wanted to bring this up earlier, but I’m glad that you did instead.

    In this very thread, there was a tangent of what men like the most of the female form. There was talk of asses, breasts, BMI, etc. There was not a SINGLE outcry or complaint of this topic from women. The women here know and accept the fact that men are visual creatures who appreciate beauty/aesthetics. In another thread, I mentioned that I like men who have a bit of “edge” to them, and instantly I had a few men questioning/lamenting my attraction to that. I didn’t understand it, and I was surprised by the outbursts.

    I remember mentioning in a thread, a long time ago, that I like men who are well endowed. That caused a severe outcry as well.

    Who knows what place it stems from in some men.

    Oh come on – you’ve been on the edges of the manosphere long enough to understand this.

    Yes, men are transparent about what they find sexually attractive. It hasn’t changed in the last 10,000 years, and no one has made a serious, societal attempt to say otherwise.

    Women, on the other hand, have been trying to purposefully obfuscate their sexual nature in earnest over the past 50 years (and more covertly long before that). Most men who came of age since the sexual revolution grew up on the lies that if you were a good, honest, moral man, the good, honest, moral women would be beating a path to your door.

    And now we’re finding out that it was all bunk, and in many cases we wasted our best years doing the exact *opposite* of what actually generates sexual attraction in women, beating our heads against the wall thinking there was some core deficiency in us as men that kept women at arms length.

    So yeah, we have a right to be pissed. We’re not mad at *you* individually, we’re mad at what feminism has done to us, and society at large.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Ramble
    “Which means that they don not have a low divorce rate since the the current rate of divorce (i.e. the Average) is much higher than it used to be.”

    The divorce rate has been going down since 1980. It’s higher than it was in the 1950s and 1960s, but probably the same as it was in the 1970s.

    I’m not sure you really understood the whole transfer process. Women who go to community colleges do graduate from college with a degree, just not at the CC level. They’re heads above those who go straight to the university as freshman, waste their parents’ money, and end up dropping out before graduating. What do you think the divorce rate is for those kinds of people?

    Honestly, I’m not sure what you were driving at to begin with.

  • SayWhaat

    We’re not mad at *you* individually, we’re mad at what feminism has done to us, and society at large.

    We get that you’re mad, but you still address your bitching to the female commenters here.

    Take it somewhere else.

  • http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “I personally don’t and wouldn’t get hot under the collar myself, I will say this though if someone is a 4 and holding out for a 8 or 9 than they are either colossally stupid, or completely delusional about their own SMV or some combination of both. Kind of like an unemployed bum sitting on his couch for years saying “if I can’t get the CEO position, then I’m not doing anything”. Just plain dumb.”
    ——-
    I seriously have never gotten what it is to anyone who others find attractive or desirable as a mate.

    The responses from the men here pretty much proves my point. Men don’t want to know what women really find attractive about them without losing their shit when they don’t like what they hear or don’t believe that they fit the bill.

    That is why women lie about this because we have learned long ago that men can’t handle the truth about this.

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

    Getting one’s cervix rammed hurts like a bitch, and for many women anything over 6 will do it, especially from behind. Personally, I think the whole well-endowed thing is cultural programming. Sure, there will be some women for whom it makes a difference, but come on. Since 80% of us need more than thrusting anyway, I don’t get it. I’m not saying a micro phallus is not a problem, but a standard deviation from the mean in either direction should be perfectly fine.

    As I mentioned that I’m one of the few women that enjoy male orientated porn because of the dick action I most mention that I’m not a size queen either. Not that I had tried many penises but from tales of my friends I have heard more complains from a guy that is too big that one that is small I also find the shape of a penis highly erotic so a “pretty” is more attractive to me than a big one, Athol also had a post about how much a penis last thrusting is a good indication of female orgasms and I agree the more time in it the better for me at least, YMMV.

    Thoughts…?

    Actually most of the leading ladies in romance are insecure and consider themselves plain and unattractive (that reflects women’s thoughts about themselves) but the leading man and usually a couple of men disagree. Most women need constant reassurance of their attractiveness is a bait for the character being called pretty by everyone around them. Is also a way to neutralize female intrasexual competition if you want to create a female character that automatically turns off 90% of their female readership have her say “I/she was the prettiest woman on the whole town/school/college/world” and see if anyone continues reading after that, even Scarlet O’hara is described as not beautiful for this reason women hate other women that chant their beauty to others in a obnoxious matter, you have to make her humble about her looks or not sell it all, YMMV.

  • J

    Looks like love is in the air. Congrats to Lokland and Jesus!

  • J

    @SW #417

    It depends on the school and the neighborhood. I see no never married mothers and the occasional divorcee in my neighborhood. If I went downtown, I’d see few two parent families. It’s a function of SES and vice-versa.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “Why do men who feel this way come here to comment?”

    Because they can get away with it? People who push the envelope thrive when there’s no real pushback from the powers that be.

    In other environments, repeated acts of insubordination are often followed by time in the stockade, or in front of the firing squad : )

  • INTJ

    @Liza207

    I seriously have never gotten what it is to anyone who others find attractive or desirable as a mate.

    The responses from the men here pretty much proves my point. Men don’t want to know what women really find attractive about them without losing their shit when they don’t like what they hear or don’t believe that they fit the bill.

    That is why women lie about this because we have learned long ago that men can’t handle the truth about this.

    I refrained from commenting until now because I didn’t think your specific preferences were a big deal. However now that I see you hamster wheeling why all women lie I’m going to respond.

    You should tell the truth. That doesn’t mean you won’t get criticized by people who think the truth is wrong. Consider Bill Clinton. Many people hold it against him that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. That’s no excuse for him to lie about his affair. If someone’s being a jerk, he shouldn’t pretend to be a nice guy, but even when he’s honest, people are going to (rightly) be mad at him.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Athol also had a post about how much a penis last thrusting is a good indication of female orgasms and I agree the more time in it the better for me at least, YMMV.”

    Welp, there’s a +1.

    Though, sorry I can’t do anything about the length thing. Oh well. Hope you can find the guy you like, just realize you’re discounting other traits. And to be honest, it’s okay if I don’t meet every damn item on a girl’s checklist.

    I’m not perfect.

    What it comes down to, though, is making me feel like the most special guy in the world.

    And not charging a price differential.

    When you list off these things, what it sounds like to men is “I can’t love you because I am not attracted to you,” which sounds like “I will settle for you…someday…but first I am going to screw all these other guys that I really find attractive and you can wait your turn.”

    And sorry, but that’s just not going to fly. It seriously damages the ability to feel a secure attachment.

    I don’t think we get enough positive examples here, to be honest. How to make it work. All the bad stuff comes out. If there’s some good stuff, too, that’s okay. I actually don’t give a damn if Hope or Ana says she runs a shit test or likes asses or wants a 10 inch donkey dick on a guy or whatever because they gush about their men non-stop, show sympathy to male viewpoints, etc.

    Just my impression on the subject.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Why do men who feel this way come here to comment?”

    Because unlike the women causing the issues (think Jezebel) you and the female regulars here actually listen, and even sympathize on occasion. I don’t think you realize just how rare that is for a guy. To find a group of women that actually seem to give a shit about their issues. It’s huge, but there is this desire to simply unload everything at you. I imagine it is the equivalent of dumping everything out on a new women early in the dating phase. Except, since we aren’t dating, there is less incentive to hold it all in.

    Yes, we can complain to each other, and often do. But, it really isn’t the same. Plus, at least to me, early on I thought to myself “if these women get it, that means other women can get it as well. Why aren’t they spreading the word?” But yeah, I understand that there aren’t enough of you to really get the rest to listen. I’ve given up hope for that kind of change. Now, I’m teetering between mass catastrophe (zombie apocalypse counts!) or a real and honest to goodness marriage strike type event.

    I’m not holding my breath, but I can’t deny the sometimes overwhelming desire I have to see this fixed. I really, really hate seeing things broken when the fix is obvious.

  • Ramble

    The divorce rate has been going down since 1980.

    The divorce rate peaked in 1979-80 and has been going down, that is correct. Of course, the marriage rate has also been going down.

    And, the age of first marriage has been going up. And, consequently, the age of first birth for women has been going up. With things like fertility and healthy children being affected equally.

    Still, the divorce rate is something like 100% higher today than it was in 1958, which is almost mind boggling.

    But, either way, this is all, mostly, off point.

    I said one simple thing, which was, “the average person going about getting the average education has a higher divorce rate than those that go straight to a 4 year school and graduate in 4 years”.

    That was all I said. It was a minor problem with your original statement. A statement that I, in general, agreed with.

    I’m not sure you really understood the whole transfer process.

    I am curious, which specific statement of mine led you to say this?

    Granted, I am still waiting for you to explain what specific statement of mine ld you t say this,

    Anyway, if you’re looking for women with whom your chance of divorce is near zero, better go hunting for virgins in Amish, Mormon, and Quaker country.

    Mega, again, it was a minor quip that both Ted and I picked up on, that is all.

  • VD

    The mere fact that terms like manwhore, manslut, and trash dick (ugh) exist indicates that women do distinguish among men this way. However, I’ve learned that there’s no percentage in debating the question. Ultimately, people find that things are working well for them or not. It’s not my job to shove the truth into anyone’s face – their own experience, i.e. “how’s that workin for ya?” is the only effective teacher.

    There is only one way to settle this, Susan. We have competing hypotheses. Ergo, we must determine whose is more valid with proper scientific experimentation. I suggest you select ten attractive and single young women of your acquaintance who are confident that they are not attracted to manwhores, mansluts, and trash dicks, and I will arrange to find 10 young men with N>30 in their areas. How long shall we give the men to meet and seduce the women, one month? And what percentage of seduced women would you regards as convincing, 30 percent? 50 percent?

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

      @VD

      I like your idea. A couple of conditions:

      1. If college students, the guys should have N>50, a la Duke lax players. If mid-20′s, make that 100. True petri dish material.

      2. The women should be aware of the reputations of the men in some detail, i.e. what led them to earn the moniker. They should know his exact number, and douchiness levels must be observed when the man is not seducing the woman of my acquaintance.

      But I’m also willing to make a concession:

      I’ll select ten women who I’ve personally witnessed rejecting manwhores, both for short- and long-term mating.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “However now that I see you hamster wheeling why all women lie I’m going to respond.”

    I am also an INTJ.

    INTJ,

    I did not say ALL women lie or hide their actually preferences from men when asked. But yeah, most of us do. I don’t hide what I desire (desire and want aren’t exactly the same, in my opinion).

    What I actually want most is a guy with a backbone (dominant) but that is really hard to come by these days it seems.

    By the way, women who have really long lists (some may say unrealistic lists) are women who sometimes aren’t serious about finding love or may be afraid of actually commiting. When I got serious about finding love my list got shorter, I now give a side-eye to women who claim they are ready for love but have some ridiculous list. I know from my own personal experience that they really aren’t. Those lists sometimes serve as buffers or excuses to disqualify most men.

  • Herb

    @Bastiat Blogger

    This list is by no means comprehensive, but it has included the first of the “Grey” novels, a few of the Anita Blake novels, and so on.

    I’m not sure if the Hollows novels count, but if they do I’m so wanting the hot vampire-witch lesbian sex already…how long is she going to tease us :)

    I used to think that this was purely a function of profitability—by failing to describe the woman who is the recipient of all of this sexual obsession from mysterious 20something superhot self-made billionaire “industrialists” (!!!) to French vampire Chippendale jerks to All-American werewolf boyscout handymen, the author ensures that the reader is more easily able to put herself into this lead role. It’s like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” book.

    I think this is very true.

    However, now I’m not so sure that the explanation is quite so simple. I remember seeing an interview with Lori Gottlieb in which she described how women that she knew would have detailed and exacting lists for what they wanted in their partners and could cull the herd of potential mates rather ruthlessly when weaknesses or quirks were discovered, but they simultaneously would think of their own weaknesses or quirks—neuroticism, for example—as being “cute” or “adorable”.

    I posted Gottlieb’s own list in this thread. I got it from her book on why women should settle.

    The most amazing thing in this entire book whose premise was “you don’t have the selection you did so learn to value what’s important” there was not one single word about women improving their own value or asking what they brought to the table. The book starts with the husband store job with the additional part about the wife store yet she never encourages women to learn to cook, be nice, or enjoy sex much less go beyond that.

    Perhaps the female erotic-fantasy material manages to tap into some reservoir of solipsistic tendency…?

    See my ongoing rant about feminist princesses.

    I’m not saying that women are alone in this, but I will note that the heroes of male fantasy are usually depicted in ways that, if anything, should make normal men feel worse about themselves. For all the critiques of comic book art and pulp-adventure fiction creating impossibly high standards of female beauty and pornstar-level T&A, it should be kept in mind that the male heroes who typically occupy these violent, sexy worlds are also freakishly fit, powerful, and handsome human beings. For male readers, the lack of realism in terms of aesthetics would appear to be an equal-opportunity employer.

    I remember reading once that women look in a mirror and see 10 extra pounds and men look and see 10 less.

    I think men can imagine themselves becoming the buff action hero not just in what they do but how they look. For some reason women cannot. I also think those abilities or lack of them is why women are more threatened by cultural images than men. Because men believe (rightly or wrongly) they can achieve those images they aren’t nearly as threatened by them.

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    What I actually want most is a guy with a backbone (dominant) but that is really hard to come by these days it seems.

    May I suggest that you don’t have to be dominant to have a backbone.

    In fact, submission from doormats is generally rated well below submission by someone with the strength to be themselves and honor their commitments and values.

    By the way, women who have really long lists (some may say unrealistic lists) are women who sometimes aren’t serious about finding love or may be afraid of actually commiting. When I got serious about finding love my list got shorter, I now give a side-eye to women who claim they are ready for love but have some ridiculous list. I know from my own personal experience that they really aren’t. Those lists sometimes serve as buffers or excuses to disqualify most men.

    While I had learned for practical reasons to ignore long list women I’m embarrassed to admit this very obvious point escaped me.

    And I suspect 99% of the straight male population.

    The impossible isn’t isn’t rejecting me, it’s rejecting everyone (or perhaps rejecting herself).

    Thank you for that insight.

    Than

  • Emily

    >> “The impossible isn’t isn’t rejecting me, it’s rejecting everyone (or perhaps rejecting herself).”

    +1

    It can be hard to believe at times, but rejection often has more to do with the rejector than it does with the rejectee.

  • Tom

    Jesus Mahoney
    Good to hear things are going well with you and your new woman. Every couple and relationship is unique. Good luck dude. How you treat each other today and tomorrow is all that matters.

  • Tom

    Thrasymachus
    Obviously some men of high status do care about a womans number. Even I have my limits of what is acceptable.
    Women who lie about their number only do so because, in their opinion, the sex they had has not damaged them at all, but they understand some men can not handle it, for what ever reason.
    I personally know of many women with numbers in the high teens and twenties.
    They are married and are fine mothers and good wives. Been married for years. I would challange people to line them up with low numbered women and have people try to pick them out of the lineup.
    Thats my point in a nutshell. One cant tell the difference because in MOST cases, there IS no difference. Especially with educated people.
    But for some guys, women who have been casual sexually, it is a deal breaker. More power to `em.

  • Abbot

    “Women who lie about their number only do so because, in their opinion, the sex they had has not damaged them ”

    What is this damage that they concluded they do not have? Then there must be a description of this damage somewhere or else the could not conclude such. Who has determined what this damage is? If a woman has this damage, how would she even know? If she does know she is damaged, then it must be that she would not lie about the number. Then knowing if the sex caused damage is the deciding factor in whether to be honest or dishonest. Why would any woman even want to go through with all this.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to only date men who she can be completely honest with? Oh, but wait, they are universally in short supply. And that is why expressed embraced and explored women have to cower down and lie. Its called desperation.

  • Ted D

    Tom – “Women who lie about their number only do so because, in their opinion, the sex they had has not damaged them at all, but they understand some men can not handle it, for what ever reason.”

    But the thing is, it should be HIS decision to make. By lying, she is stealing his agency for making an informed decision. It really doesn’t matter if she had sex with 100 men and it didn’t harm her in “her” opinion. It is HIS opinion on the matter that counts, and she has no right to take that away from him.

  • Abbot

    “I would challange people to line them up with low numbered women and have people try to pick them out of the lineup.”

    If a man finds himself challenged when it comes to life mate selection, he is probably over doing it. Wouldn’t it be easier to just step out of the HNW circle and enter the wondrous room full of LNWs when the time is right?

  • Abbot

    “It is HIS opinion on the matter that counts, and she has no right to take that away from him.”

    The situation for slut women seeking inappropriate men has gotten so bad that its approaching emergency proportions. This is OBVIOUS given the outright LYING these women have no problem engaging in. The lying is “no big deal” to her; after all this is a woman who has recreationally screwed for years, has jaded her way into disrespect for men and so what’s a lie at this point? Its justified so fuck you! That train wreck – the mother of your children!? Ha! Just say NO. She is going to have it all, slut-acceptance-man-shortage be damned!! Lie lie lie. And then pray.

  • VD

    I like your idea. A couple of conditions:

    1. If college students, the guys should have N>50, a la Duke lax players. If mid-20′s, make that 100. True petri dish material.

    2. The women should be aware of the reputations of the men in some detail, i.e. what led them to earn the moniker. They should know his exact number, and douchiness levels must be observed when the man is not seducing the woman of my acquaintance.

    (1) is fine, but a little harder to find, obviously. With (2) I tend to disagree, because women don’t have that sort of specific information unless they make a habit of interrogating men. I would argue that from the scientific point of view, the women shouldn’t even be told about the experiment. At the very least, we need an uninformed control group, although we also need consent, which poses a bit of a problem.

    I mean, part of my point is that most women don’t even know until AFTER they have sex with the high-N men. I take your point concerning college, but if we’re dealing with post-college women, they don’t have the reputational information.

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

      @VD

      I mean, part of my point is that most women don’t even know until AFTER they have sex with the high-N men. I take your point concerning college, but if we’re dealing with post-college women, they don’t have the reputational information.

      We’re in agreement then. I believe that women are likely to find high N men attractive without that information. Preselection is not directly observable, but the odds are high if the guy is hot, and if the guy is hot, he probably has a high N.

      These terms came into the language precisely in environments where a man’s reputation is observable. After college, it’s largely a question of asking (an obviously unreliable method), and slut tells, assuming those are real and reliable.

      I do think that the sexual double standard does not apply to men until a guy gets a really high count. That’s why I’ve referred to it as a preselection boomerang effect. Sexual success with women works up to a point, then becomes a detriment. In contrast, obviously, men have a strong preference for the least possible sexual experience for long-term mating. (We’ve seen they avoid chaste women for short-term mating.)

  • Abbot

    “if we’re dealing with post-college women, they don’t have the reputational information.”

    Sluts are by default quite transparent, thus slut-tells or STs have been proven useful. What are some manwhore tells or MHTs?

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

      What are some manwhore tells or MHTs?

      This is a good question!

      1. Too cocky. Doesn’t seem to consider that you might turn him down. I recall one woman who kinda fell for a guy when he went in for the first kiss, and she could see his hands trembling. She knew he liked her, and that he was no player.

      2. No interest in hanging out earlier than 11 p.m.

      3. No apparent concern about condoms, or even tries to sneak in for Round 2 without one.

      4. Drippy penis. :P

      5. Says “I wanna fuck you” at first meeting.

      6. Pushes your head down to his dick.

      7. Has a go-to oral routine (which is probably not right, but he thinks it is).

      8. Jackrabbits in bed a la Tucker Max.

      9. Considerably less friendly the morning after.

      10. Slaps your ass during first time sex.

      11. Grabs your neck during first time sex.

      Girls, what are some others?

  • Abbot

    “this article is dangerous”

    Really? How so?

    “the super slut”

    Do they wear capes and fly? Then its gotten so bad out there its now necessary to categorize and label sluts. Is the “average slut” the new wife material?

    Are women now grouping themselves and begging men to lower the slut bar? How is that working out?

  • Abbot

    “backwards thinking ”

    jingoism much?

    Easy to write, quite another to step up to a person you blindly and ignorantly think of as such and say those words…

    so there will just be more writing

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

      @Tom

      Your comments were racist. Don’t do that again.

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

    Funny, who are you to judge? You are a macho man who had to go to a 3rd world country to find some backwards thinking stepford wife who will obey your every wish and would fear for her life if she even looked at another man..LOL

    SEE! This is the sort of thing I’m afraid everyone in USA think of me. The other day when I was at a party people were impressed by a nerdy knowledge I’m sure they were thinking along this lines about me… :(

  • Abbot

    “who are you to judge?”

    IOW:

    who are you to make personal life choices and suggest to others that they do the same that just happen to conflict with what sluts want from men in addition to sex

  • Abbot

    “what difference does it make?”

    It doesn’t, unless the man decides that it does. But what he wants is irrelevant, especially if causes sluts to be left without a desired life mate

    “Sex didnt damage most of them.”

    What is this damage? Is it caused by these mysterious expressing and embracing thingies?

    “a woman has experienced several men”

    sev·er·al/ˈsev(ə)rəl/
    Adjective:
    More than two but not many

    Yeah, ok, that could work…

  • Herb

    11. Grabs your neck during first time sex.

    Hmmm, maybe I need to date more manwhores….

    What? :)

  • Abbot

    “This is the sort of thing I’m afraid everyone in USA think of me.”

    They will think it and maybe write it on some blog but they will NEVER EVER say it to your face, even if it were true. But its not. They know damn well they are only spouting feminist propaganda that’s been fed to their weak and ignorant will.

    “stepford wife”

    “Hey, Rick, that ones gonna be a stepford. Better throw her back for a few more slams to be sure she will have her own opinion later on”

    Yeah, grandma was obedient and had no character because she wasn’t a slut. There is nothing like that multi penis elixir to hone desirable wifely traits that just put grandma to shame

  • Abbot

    “ok then 3rd world”

    Wow, lets put down an entire society. Unsuprisingly. It aint easy to get men to come around and consider multi-cock-feeders for wives. Extreme measures are now kicking in.

  • Abbot

    “sooth your ego and insecurities.”

    Fascinating. So folks, knowing that you could run the risk of committing to a slut does not get you THE SOOTHE!

    Lets have a look, shall we?

    Main Entry: soothe  [sooth]
    Part of Speech: verb
    Definition: calm, ease
    Synonyms: allay, alleviate, appease, assuage, balm, becalm, butter up, calm down, cheer, compose, console, cool, cool off, dulcify, help, hush, lighten, lull, make nice, make up, mitigate, mollify, pacify, patch things up, play up to, pour oil on, quiet, quieten, relieve, settle, smooth down, soften, square, still, stroke, subdue, take the edge off, take the sting out, tranquilize, unburden, untrouble
    Antonyms: agitate, distress, upset, worry

    Any favorites? How about “make nice” as it seems quaint. Anyone here not wanting “the soothe” because it all sounds pretty damn good.

  • Abbot

    “Your comments were racist. Don’t do that again.”

    Ya know, feminists often mess up when they get angry about the whole “other women” thing because they have no defense against it. They do their best not to insult other women but it slips through. Its a raw combination of the political and the personal and the springs just fly. Same here with the attack on other women; thus the commenter in question takes cues from feminist propaganda and that in addition to the whole express embrace and explore absurdities which are all out of the feminist playbook.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “I do think that the sexual double standard does not apply to men until a guy gets a really high count.”

    Are you talking about simple attraction, or settling down and marrying for the long-term? I thought that’s what the original topic was. Because if you look who women are marrying, it isn’t the high N guys. In fact, it isn’t even the guys with N > 10 by and large. Maybe women are employing a marriage standard that consciously or unconsciously filters out those guys?

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

      @Megaman

      “I do think that the sexual double standard does not apply to men until a guy gets a really high count.”

      Are you talking about simple attraction, or settling down and marrying for the long-term?

      Sorry, I meant to respond earlier. As my comment above to Thras. explains, I think the origins of the SDS differ for men and women. There is also a pretty wide variation in men’s feelings about this. Ben stated clearly he’s not even worried about a woman’s N. Jason had a problem with a gf who was at 16. Other men think 2 is too high. In short, I believe men have a bio aversion to female sexual experience for LT mating, and there’s also a cultural component which can affect their threshold. For women, I believe the aversion is cultural, so a promiscuous woman will certainly not penalize a promiscuous man, while a chaste woman will.

      My guess is that people of similar experience marry one another, so most marriages will be low N on both sides.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Women who lie about their number only do so because, in their opinion, the sex they had has not damaged them at all, but they understand some men can not handle it, for what ever reason.”

    And I only lie to women to get sex because, in my opinion, it won’t actually damage her and she will probably enjoy the sex, but I understand that some women can’t handle sex without an actual emotional investment.

    If something seems wrong with the above script, it’s because it is unbelievably self-centered and is obvious rationalization by someone seeking to take advantage of another person. That’s what lying is all about.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Though, again, I must reiterate that it isn’t always the number, it’s all that the number implies. Why bother taking a chance on someone with a high N when there are plenty of women with much lower Ns?

    And why is it offensive that I would feel more special with a girl who actually treated herself as special? There are certain triggers for my romantic side, just like there are certain triggers for my sexual side. A girl with a high N is as big a turn-off for my romantic side as a fat woman is for my sexual side.

    Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

  • Abbot

    ” it is unbelievably self-centered and is obvious rationalization by someone seeking to take advantage of another person. That’s what lying is all about.”

    That is what is being SOLD as the “new norm” and there are people, right here on this site, who will explain it as just a necessary thing because “men cant handle it” or some such very strange statements.

    Quote from Beta Guy:

    “Why bother taking a chance on someone with a high N when there are plenty of women with much lower Ns?”

    why indeed.

    “And why is it offensive that I would feel more special with a girl who actually treated herself as special? ”

    Because your feeling is considered a judgement and “who are you to judge” thus how you feel as a man is discounted to the point of meaninglessness. And someone here on this site keeps on belching out that this group of played out liars should only be considered for their “character.” Yeah, it really is mind boggling.

  • Ted D

    Abbot – hell yeah man. Hell yeah.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Ramble
    You live up to your screen name, and excel at splitting hairs and changing the subject : )

    If the average divorce rate for the population is ~35% (NYT article, 2005), please let me know when you’ve found what it is for those awful community college girls. I’m curious, but you still haven’t said what it is. I’ll go out on a limb and bet it’s *closer* to the rate for university graduates (~16%). Ciao!

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

      @Megaman

      Completely unrelated to the debate on marriage, but CA has the most amazing community college system! And I believe you have a provision where kids can start there and if they do well, transfer to the UC or Cal State system? AFAIK, it’s the best in the country by far. MA community colleges are absolutely terrible. It may well be that CA cc students look a lot like 4-year college students elsewhere.

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

    They will think it and maybe write it on some blog but they will NEVER EVER say it to your face, even if it were true. But its not.

    That only means that I won’t be able to tell when I can trust or not. I know this was said as a way to make me feel better but is a bit like the former promiscuous woman that wrote the letter about fearing that her son will know he is the child of a slut, is just this little voice telling me that someone somewhere is going to tell my kids at some point “what can you expect from the son/daughter of a stepford third world that left her family and career for a man” Sorry but lately this ideas had been running on my mind more often than usual…must be the pregnancy.

    And I only lie to women to get sex because, in my opinion, it won’t actually damage her and she will probably enjoy the sex, but I understand that some women can’t handle sex without an actual emotional investment.

    Wonderful comeback! :D

  • INTJ

    @Anacanoa

    That only means that I won’t be able to tell when I can trust or not. I know this was said as a way to make me feel better but is a bit like the former promiscuous woman that wrote the letter about fearing that her son will know he is the child of a slut, is just this little voice telling me that someone somewhere is going to tell my kids at some point “what can you expect from the son/daughter of a stepford third world that left her family and career for a man” Sorry but lately this ideas had been running on my mind more often than usual…must be the pregnancy.

    Unfortunately, that’s how stay at home moms are viewed in society, especially immigrant moms. It gets annoying how so many people treat my mom like she’s too stupid to understand anything complex. Funny considering that in her field (pure mathematics) she’s probably better than the average mathematics professor at a top university.

    Just take solace in the fact that your children will be much better raised than the children of those snobs. Heck, many of these snobs are going to remove themselves from the gene pool by not having children at all. :D

  • Marie

    “if we’re dealing with post-college women, they don’t have the reputational information.”

    I am very skeptical towards “reputational information”. I went to college 2 years abroad. I was for some time dating a guy in different country, but I never slept with, kissed or even danced with any guy from school. I am a bit shy, and perhaps a bit nerdy but good-looking, tall and blonde. I assume people therefore found me ‘suspicious’. A guy from school then started saying that another girl and myself ‘were not interested in guys from school, only older, rich men’ and then followed up saying I was a high class escort. Another girl had to stand up for me and “defend” my designer clothes and say my parents got them for me. So yeah. If reputational information is what you’re judged by, I’m dead. People are jealous, you know.

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

      @Marie

      What little bitches those guys were! Point taken about reputations. It’s always better to observe a person directly if you can.

  • GudEnuf

    Bastiat Blogger: Fascinating!

  • Thrasymachus

    Tom:

    We are discussing different issues. My posts were about what is – among other things, whether (many) men reject high count women for LTR’s. You don’t deny this in your post @ 471, although you have done so in previous threads. Your argument, repeated here and in a number of other threads, is a normative one about whether men SHOULD reject such women. Other posters, notably Abbot, clearly don’t agree with you on this.

    Susan:

    I agree with VD about the proposed experiment. There is little doubt that most smart women will reject cads who are looking for a pump and dump. But what if the player signals that he is interested in a LTR? Would he still be considered undesirable? I’m inclined to doubt this, simply because if a significant number of attractive women rejected manwhores purely and simply for being manwhores these guys would have strong incentives to hide or change their behavior. We see little evidence of this in most sections of the SMP.

    By contrast, the reaction of men to high-count women appears to be much more visceral. Men may not rule out such women for LTR’s, but it is definitely regarded as a negative. Most women are aware of this at some level, which is why we observe the phenomena I described – hiding or understating counts, virgin shaming, “sex-positive feminist” attempts to reclaim the word slut, and so on.

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

      @Thrasymachus

      I’m inclined to doubt this, simply because if a significant number of attractive women rejected manwhores purely and simply for being manwhores these guys would have strong incentives to hide or change their behavior. We see little evidence of this in most sections of the SMP.

      Not necessarily. A manwhore may prefer to continually have short-term liaisons rather than commit at all. And for short-term mating, he’s likely to benefit from his rep, not be hampered by it. If there is a disadvantage to the manwhore, it’s in women’s considering him as LTR material. Still, we know that many women continue to make “poor choices” well into their 30s, even while looking for a husband, then write memoirs.

      I think what is going on is that while many women will reject a manwhore for LTRs, most manwhores are not focused on that population of women anyway. This may play out differently among college kids hooking up. There have been some guys here in their early 20s who even describe themselves as manwhores, but they hope to marry a woman with a low number someday. They have very high SMV, obviously, but perhaps much lower MMV.

      By contrast, the reaction of men to high-count women appears to be much more visceral.

      Agreed, and it always will be, because I believe it is rooted in biology. In contrast, I believe the female aversion is cultural, influenced by STDs, the apparent lack of discernment in the male, and in college, widespread condemnation among women. This last factor can be very pronounced, because a woman who hooks up with a manwhore will get negative feedback from her pals, and she’ll also be regarded as stupid, because most people assume (rightly) that a woman hooking up with such a guy is hoping to flip him into monogamy, a fool’s errand.

  • Thrasymachus

    @ Megaman:

    [quote]Are you talking about simple attraction, or settling down and marrying for the long-term? I thought that’s what the original topic was. Because if you look who women are marrying, it isn’t the high N guys. In fact, it isn’t even the guys with N > 10 by and large. Maybe women are employing a marriage standard that consciously or unconsciously filters out those guys?[/quote]

    In which universe do high N men find it difficult to attract women for marriage or other LTR’s? Most women are married to low N men for the simple reason that most men ARE low N. If players remain single it is almost always because they want to remain that way, not because they have no options.

  • Thrasymachus

    Sorry – blockquote fail @ 504.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Ben stated clearly he’s not even worried about a woman’s N. Jason had a problem with a gf who was at 16″

    I don’t think Ben really counts here. He has a long history of casual and is clearly still interested in casual. He is not in LTR mode right now so he is clearly not applying filters.

    Jason was. Totally different mindset.

    I’m not saying Ben is lying or anything, but AFAIK he is not yet in a position where we can really judge this. Like Abbott, I think, said earlier on, exclusivity is too vague and too weak to see whether men are really committed, it’s living together where rubber meets the road. Similarly, being willing to date a slut in college is different than committing to one that has serious adult consequences.

    So what I’d say is, men might have two filters at work here.

    One, there’s the instant visceral reaction. I know a lot of girls who are just too slutty for me and I wouldn’t agree to relationships.

    And then, maybe we’ve been for a while, but then it comes up again when I start to consider more serious commitment.

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

      @ADBG

      That makes sense – different filters for ST vs. LT mating.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    It’s not just that. It’s that, if you’re in ST mode, you can’t even fathom what the filters for LT mating actually are, and you might think you’d be okay with something you’re actually not.

    Think we’ve all been there before. Thought we could handle something and learned we couldn’t.

  • Anacaona

    Just take solace in the fact that your children will be much better raised than the children of those snobs. Heck, many of these snobs are going to remove themselves from the gene pool by not having children at all.

    Heh that is what I feel about racists “keep interbreeding you will select yourself out of the gene pool with a drooling bastard in the near future” still need to write that in read it everyday”people that think I’m stupid are probably not going to be evolutionarily successful anyway”
    Thanks for the kind words *kissonthecheek* :)

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Thras
    “In which universe do high N men find it difficult to attract *quality* women for *successful* marriage or other LTR’s?”

    Apparently, this universe. I slightly altered your rhetorical question. The fact that most women have N < 7 and most of the guys they marry have N < 7, isn't just some happy accident. Mating priorities help develop skills (those awful so-called beta traits), and skills strengthen relationships. There's probably a feedback effect somewhere in there.

    What makes the high N guys automatically "good" at long-term monogamy, emotional pair-bonding, etc.? Because they don't have those priorities, and mostly don't develop those skills either. And they stay single much longer than the average guy. The pool of women left to marry (by process of elimination) if of dubious quality. Getting married is probably easy for these guys, particularly in places like Las Vegas. Finding some girl for a LTR for a few months is also probably easy. Making it last a lifetime appears to be very difficult.

  • Abbot

    “the reaction of men to high-count women appears to be much more visceral. Men may not rule out such women for LTR’s, but it is definitely regarded as a negative. Most women are aware of this at some level, which is why we observe the phenomena I described – hiding or understating counts, virgin shaming, “sex-positive feminist” attempts to reclaim the word slut, and so on.”

    But note that hN² women and their advocates craftily avoid admitting that all those excruciatingly frustrating efforts and campaigns are being waged in order to get men to cut them a break. However, little glimpses do poke through enough to expose the deeply complex self-protected egos and insecurities. What we have here is a contained set of women with extremely dysfunctional mental health and nothing more.

  • Abbot

    “That makes sense – different filters for ST vs. LT mating.”
    .
    That gets right back to the two-pile system that has been around for a long time but has become much more pronounced during the past forty years or so. It is instinctually male, women know about it and more women than ever before are facing this shocking reality. And it has caught them off guard because feminism did nothing to stop it. IOW: FAIL

  • Abbot

    “if you’re in ST mode, you can’t even fathom what the filters for LT mating actually are, and you might think you’d be okay with something you’re actually not.”

    It kicks in for the first time when you try to imagine that cute girl you have a crush on as being yours, sharing a life…and then you discover she allowed herself to be passed around and you can’t even begin to fathom why she, she of all girls, would do such a thing and that sinking feeling just rips you down. And you never want to feel that way again. From that day forward, the LT defensive filter is activated and never shuts off. Nature is your friend and has your back. Embrace her.

  • Moo Peep Queso

    ” In another thread, I mentioned that I like men who have a bit of “edge” to them” I see edge and edgy used a lot lately. What exactly does it mean?

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

      @Moo Peep Queso

      I see edge and edgy used a lot lately. What exactly does it mean?

      I’m not sure either! Here are my two best guesses:

      1. Edgy as in pushing the edge of the envelope. Avant-garde, early adopter of styles, radical politics, non-traditional lifestyle choices.

      2. Edgy mood: difficult, demanding, intolerant, no pretensions at being nice or kind

      I suspect the women mean the second – perhaps they’ll weigh in.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Moo Peep Queso

    I see edge and edgy used a lot lately. What exactly does it mean?

    I gave my interpretation of the word “edge” in a different thread. I’ve copied and pasted that post below:

    A man with an edge, to me, is considered very masculine and “rugged”. He has traits about him or participates in certain activities that seem to create the ever elusive “tingle” in women. All of the women I have known have been attracted to some element of “edge” in their men. Some edgy traits or behaviors include:

    -driving a motorcycle (something about this is a definite tingle inducer)

    -Knowing how to fight or specializing in a specific combat art (boxing, muay thai, mixed martial arts.)

    -Playing in a band, or expertise in a traditional band instrument (guitar, bass, drums). Being the lead singer also works.

    -being an athlete, typically in the designated most masculine sports (baseball, football, basketball, hockey, soccer)

    -participating in extreme non-mainstream sports (bmx, snowboarding, skateboarding, etc)

    -having an edgy sense of style or elements on the body. The most common examples would be tattoos and body piercings.

    -being classified as a “lone wolf” or “loner”

    -having a rugged appearance (beard or 5 o’clock shadow, faded or distressed jeans, a motorcycle jacket, etc)

    Most men who are classified as “edgy” typically have one or more of these traits. It’s also not a coincidence that a lot of “bad boys” or “players” have one or more of these elements. I can’t speak for all women, but having at least one of the above traits is a tingle inducing factor.

    One of the few guys that I have ever tingled for on first sight (literally) was a guy that was very handsome who also had a 5 0′ clock shadow, a lip ring, played the drums in a band, and skateboarded. The icing on the cake was that he was genuinely a nice guy.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “Completely unrelated to the debate on marriage, but CA has the most amazing community college system!”

    Thanks, it’s an excellent system, despite the state’s current financial woes. There’s ~100 campuses, compared to the 20 state universities and 10 UC campuses. And I think there’s almost 2 million students, so it might be the largest individual college system in the world.

    I think you’re referring to the Transfer Admission Guarantee (TAG) program. If you complete a set list of undergraduate coursework, you’re guaranteed a slot at one of the big universities. Maybe not Berkeley or UCLA.

    I think it’s related to the marriage debate somewhat. I can’t speak for MA, you’ve got lots of tiny colleges and univerisites, but other states have these kinds of undergraduate campuses. Consider that a majority of young women go to community colleges, with no co-ed dorm
    shenanigans, no Greek life, minimal party scene, and they’re saving money, and they transfer and get their degree. It’s one more reason why the college hookup phenomenon is ridiculously overblown.

    Those are the women guys should be focusing on for marriage. Mr. Ramble seemed to think that community college is some kind of divorce factory. It’d be stupid to disqualify a woman just because she didn’t go to Big U as a freshman. If anything, the risk that those women have hooked up is probably a lot less.

  • Abbot

    “It’d be stupid to disqualify a woman just because she didn’t go to Big U as a freshman. If anything, the risk that those women have hooked up is probably a lot less.”

    Hooker uppers thrive [in the short term] and better ply their trade in more anonymous and therefore unbridled environments. Immodest hopper types are born from large campuses and even larger cities.

  • INTJ

    I think it’s related to the marriage debate somewhat. I can’t speak for MA, you’ve got lots of tiny colleges and univerisites, but other states have these kinds of undergraduate campuses. Consider that a majority of young women go to community colleges, with no co-ed dorm
    shenanigans, no Greek life, minimal party scene, and they’re saving money, and they transfer and get their degree. It’s one more reason why the college hookup phenomenon is ridiculously overblown.

    Those are the women guys should be focusing on for marriage. Mr. Ramble seemed to think that community college is some kind of divorce factory. It’d be stupid to disqualify a woman just because she didn’t go to Big U as a freshman. If anything, the risk that those women have hooked up is probably a lot less.

    My mother used to teach at a community college in California. Most girls there either practiced casual sex or got into broken relationships. Community colleges are just as bad as university, though they do manage to keep the partying more out of sight.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “But why would marital satisfaction be related to height after that? Are you saying that female hypergamy will have the woman always seeking a taller mate?”

    I don’t know. No.

    I have observed a phenomenom (god that was hard to spell for some reason) about a group of individuals, found my location within said group and determined the most likely result.

    As for why it occurs. I don’t know.

    All I know is that old, married, short guys are somewhere between nonexistent and unicorns on the scale of occurence.

    Therefore there is either a complete lack of entry into said marriage program which though real can’t be that bad because that would make me a unicorm. As good as that would be for ego it is also not realistic.

    Therefore there must be a higher rate of marriage failure amongst short guys. And lookie-lookie there is. Both through infidelity (not on their part) and divorce. The reason is totally beyond me but there does appear to be one common vein….

    Both my personal oberservation, generally accepted social convention and the data aree with this situation.

    Now.

    Personally I know three types of short guys, losers who can’t get laid or extreme assholes swimming in sub-par pussy or reformed players with a reformed slut, a crzy chick etc.
    None of which sound appetizing to me.

    I don’t know any. As in none, zero, nada, zilch that have a successful relationshipwith a “good” women. Based soley on my personal observation. I know they must exist (or atleast I assume even blue moons occurs occasionally) but I don’t know them.

    I’ve been looking for an example that it can be done. Call it a mentor or a glimmer of hope that it can occur. Frankly I’m desperate not for an easy ticket but to know that their is a road through the forest. I’ll figure it out on my own. I just want to know atleast one path doesn’t end in a dead end.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @INTJ
    “Most girls there either practiced casual sex or got into broken relationships.”

    How can you possibly qualify a statement like that?

    I saw very little of that when I was in community college. And I know people who teach at various campuses. In fact, there’s MORE of a dating environment going on, much like late high school.

    Good grief.

  • http://www.hokieblogger.com Gmac

    I feel like you just need to be shown a good time. Here’s my number call me maybe.

  • Moo Peep Queso

    Sassy, hmmm those are all mainstream now, I see nothing out of the ordinary in your list. The part about “distressed jeans” cracked me up.

  • Ramble

    If the average divorce rate for the population is ~35% (NYT article, 2005), please let me know when you’ve found what it is for those awful community college girls.

    First off, I am not chastising anyone, simply making a point. And that point was, and, is this: You were, at some point, referring to “average” girls. And you said that those average girls have low divorce rates. Both Ted and I picked up on this.

    Your average girl has an average divorce rate.

    Your average girl is more likely to go to (non-”awful”) Community College than upper class (i.e. go straight to 4 year school because you upper class family can more easily afford it) girls.

    Upper class girls have a lower divorce rate than middle class girls.

    That is it. That was the entire point. I agreed with everything else you said and you really got your defensive panties in a bunch.

    Now, if you are absolutely determined to only specify those girls that first go to community college, then onto a 4 year school to finish and successfully get their degree and do so in 4 years, then, Yes, they may very well have the same divorce rate as girls who go straight to those 4 year schools.

    Jesus Fucking Christ.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Moo Peep Queso

    Sassy, hmmm those are all mainstream now, I see nothing out of the ordinary in your list. The part about “distressed jeans” cracked me up.

    Exactly.

    “Edge” doesn’t have to be a part of counterculture.

    Edgy, to me, means “rough” or “rugged”. Basically, it’s a way of categorizing certain looks, personalities, or traits, that have an unrefined and raw masculinity to them.

    A man with no edge is sort of like a dull knife. Edge gives a man a certain sharpness or rugged masculinity that is quite attractive and effective.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Rambling
    “You were, at some point, referring to ‘average’ girls.”

    If you’re referring to what I said in #407 (and again in #428), then you didn’t read very well. I was specifically referring to the majority of women who graduate with a degree, whether they go to community college first or not.

    I never even used to word average. You picked up on what you wanted to pick up on. I do get a little irritated when people put down community colleges, though. FWIW, you seem to get your underwear a little wound up (in various discussions) when it comes to the divorce rate of women you aren’t going to marry, and the fertility rate of women you aren’t going to have children with. Any particular reason?

  • INTJ

    How can you possibly qualify a statement like that?

    I saw very little of that when I was in community college. And I know people who teach at various campuses. In fact, there’s MORE of a dating environment going on, much like late high school.

    Good grief.

    They may be dating more and hooking up less, but they still manage to end up having sex with assholes.

    That’s the only explanation for why so many of them are single mothers or have to deal with post-abortion depression.

    Sure, thanks to the smaller size and lack of dorm culture, you won’t see them having as many one night stands, but that doesn’t mean they don’t manage to rack up high numbers of broken relationships.

  • Thrasymachus

    Megaman:

    If:
    The number of men and women in the population is approximately equal
    Most women get married
    Most men have low counts
    Polygyny is not permitted

    Then for purely statistical reasons most women will marry men with low counts. The fact that they do so does not indicate any preference for low count men. Similarly, most women marry men who are less than six feet tall and earn less than $100,000 a year – not because they prefer shorter or less affluent men but rather because most men fall into these categories.

    It’s also important to distinguish between the ability of high count men to attract women for marriage and the probability that these men will maintain successful marriages. Your post conflated the two. I did not suggest that high count men make the best husbands. In fact, the limited available evidence (including one study quoted in Susan’s OP) suggests otherwise.

    On the other hand, there is not a smidgen of evidence to indicate that high N guys can only attract women “of dubious quality” for marriage. Since it is difficult for most men to achieve high numbers, at the very least high N men have demonstrated that they have qualities that attract women – confidence, good looks, high status, etc. The men who typically have the highest counts are often sports and entertainment figures, and they usually marry high SMV women. These women may not meet your definition of “quality women” – whatever it is – but they are the women that most men, whether high count or low count, find most attractive.

  • Abbot

    “Most men have low counts”
    “most women will marry men with low counts. ”

    Then, just based on the desire for commonality, the universe of men [and as already concluded that includes the few of high N] would prefer to avoid high N women for marriage. That means there is a very large population of men proactively avoiding or attempting to avoid WOEs and that leads to strategic deception by WOEs seeking marriage. Since there are A LOT more promiscuous women [because, well, its easier for them to be so] than men what we have here are two distinct cultures based on what nearly everyone on Earth considers to be an important part of their being – namely the regard for their sexuality.

  • Tom

    But note that hN² women and their advocates craftily avoid admitting that all those excruciatingly frustrating efforts and campaigns are being waged in order to get men to cut them a break. However, little glimpses do poke through enough to expose the deeply complex self-protected egos and insecurities. What we have here is a contained set of women with extremely dysfunctional mental health and nothing more.

    __________________
    Shame on women . They need to stay chaste to protect our fragile egos and insecurities. They should know better than to expose such uncontrollable things as such.

  • Abbot

    “Shame on women . They need to stay chaste ”

    Chaste? Wow, really? Why do they need to do that? According to an online dictionary:

    chaste   [cheyst]
    adjective, chast·er, chast·est.
    1. virgin.
    2. not engaging in sexual relations; celibate.

    Don’t know where this “chaste” thing comes from. Very odd indeed.

  • Abbot

    “uncontrollable things ”

    One need only to control, if they so choose and when convenient, what is personally important, meaningful and significant. Of course, its nice now and then to throw a bone to those groveling for you to change so they can get some life satisfaction. So c’mon, cut em a break!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Shame on women . They need to stay chaste to protect our fragile egos and insecurities. They should know better than to expose such uncontrollable things as such.”

    If you cared about your life partner, yes, you would have abstained from casual sex that probably didn’t make you happy anyways, as evidenced by the fact that you stopped engaging in casual sex and decided to get a life partner instead.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Or maybe you aren’t capable of thinking long-term. Which, again, is not an attractive quality in a mate. Either way, there are enough low-N women that there is zero reason to drop into the high-N pool. It’s basically like buying a junk bond, and that’s a choice for men to make, not women, and you are justifying deception in order to rope people into commitments they wouldn’t otherwise make.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Thras
    “Then for purely statistical reasons most women will marry men with low counts. The fact that they do so does not indicate any preference for low count men.”

    So statistical probability is the ONLY reason women tend to marry these guys? This reason I’m not totally convinced is because the marriages of low N couples *appear* to have the lowest divorce rate. That’s not some happy statistical accident. Low N people prefer low N people. Maybe the low N population tends to be more marriage-oriented to begin with? Admittedly, there isn’t a ton of research on this topic, but I do know of some evidence to support it. Women certainly don’t have uniform preferences.

    By “quality” women, I meant those who have the characteristics that would make a good spouse for a successful marriage. The same would apply for men.

    I’ll agree that really good-looking men have no trouble attracting women for dating, which doesn’t necessarily lead to marriage. Never claimed otherwise. Physical attraction is a huge motivator for both men and women. But it’s not the deciding factor, otherwise the best-looking people would have the highest marriage rate and longest-lasting marriages. Clearly, the example of celebrity marriages, the extremely good-looking and wealthy people you mentioned, don’t appear to fit this profile.

    Just my 2 cents.

  • INTJ

    @Megaman

    @Thras
    “Then for purely statistical reasons most women will marry men with low counts. The fact that they do so does not indicate any preference for low count men.”

    So statistical probability is the ONLY reason women tend to marry these guys? This reason I’m not totally convinced is because the marriages of low N couples *appear* to have the lowest divorce rate. That’s not some happy statistical accident. Low N people prefer low N people. Maybe the low N population tends to be more marriage-oriented to begin with? Admittedly, there isn’t a ton of research on this topic, but I do know of some evidence to support it. Women certainly don’t have uniform preferences.

    By “quality” women, I meant those who have the characteristics that would make a good spouse for a successful marriage. The same would apply for men.

    I’ll agree that really good-looking men have no trouble attracting women for dating, which doesn’t necessarily lead to marriage. Never claimed otherwise. Physical attraction is a huge motivator for both men and women. But it’s not the deciding factor, otherwise the best-looking people would have the highest marriage rate and longest-lasting marriages. Clearly, the example of celebrity marriages, the extremely good-looking and wealthy people you mentioned, don’t appear to fit this profile.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Obviously marriages between low-N people are more successful. That has no bearing on who women choose to marry. Most low N women do not prefer low N guys. Now if they happen to marry low N guys (because so many guys are low N, and low N guys are more likely to want marriage in the first place), then they will not get divorced.

  • SayWhaat

    1. Edgy as in pushing the edge of the envelope. Avant-garde, early adopter of styles, radical politics, non-traditional lifestyle choices.

    2. Edgy mood: difficult, demanding, intolerant, no pretensions at being nice or kind

    I suspect the women mean the second – perhaps they’ll weigh in.

    It actually means the former for me — as someone who has always walked to the beat of her own drum (not going to med school, pursuing performance in the arts, writing, etc.) I really appreciate a guy who is an independent thinker and doesn’t just follow something just because his parents told him to.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @INTP
    “Obviously marriages between low-N people are more successful.”

    Why then, if N has nothing to do with it? I’m all ears.

    It seems to me you and Thras are saying women don’t prefer the very men they actually marry, even though they don’t divorce nearly as much. A bit of circle reasoning here…

  • Moo Peep Queso

    “I really appreciate a guy who is an independent thinker and doesn’t just follow something just because his parents told him to.”

    There are still guys out there who do what their parents tell them to?

  • Abbot

    ¨If you cared about your life partner, yes, you would have abstained from casual sex that probably didn’t make you happy anyways, as evidenced by the fact that you stopped engaging in casual sex and decided to get a life partner instead.¨

    Ah but she got to all that expressing exploring and embracing necessary for her to determine its not what she wanted which makes her a more ready and empowered life partner unlike grandma who just up and got married and boy did she ever suck at being a wife

  • Abbot

    ¨there are enough low-N women that there is zero reason to drop into the high-N pool. ¨

    Basically, the hN² were and are scewed

  • INTJ

    @Megaman

    @INTP
    “Obviously marriages between low-N people are more successful.”

    Why then, if N has nothing to do with it? I’m all ears.

    It seems to me you and Thras are saying women don’t prefer the very men they actually marry, even though they don’t divorce nearly as much. A bit of circle reasoning here…

    This feels like trying to explain something to a brick wall.

    Low-N people are less likely to divorce, for a variety of psychological reasons (less used to variety, less likely to find faults in their partners, better at emotional bonding, etc.).

    Women don’t prefer low-N men. However, since there are only so many high-N men available for marriage, many women are forced to settle for a low-N man.

    P.S. I’m an INTJ, not an INTP. ;)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Basically, the hN² were and are scewed”

    Essentially, though they can always lie and imitate a low-N woman as best they can. And continue to manipulate culture to pressure men into marrying high-N women, because certain men are built to uphold those cultural expectations.

    Which is really a damn crying shame.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @INTJ
    “Women don’t prefer low-N men.”

    You’ve said this a number of times. How you’re certain of this, I have no idea.

    I’ll say women do prefer lower N men for dating AND marriage. And I’ll qualify it, too:

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Preferred+level+of+sexual+experience+in+a+date+or+mate%3a+the+merger+of…-a020536041

    This study had the same results as these other ones:
    David Buss, “Sex differences in human mate-preferences”
    Susan Sprecher, “The effect of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability”

    P.S. Sorry about the jumbled name.

  • also intj

    Well, I’m a woman who *strongly* prefers low-N men. I wouldn’t “settle” for a high-N man.

  • Thrasymachus

    INTJ: Spot on.

    Megaman:

    We differ on three issues. First, as explained in my last post, given the conditions prevailing in the marriage market the fact that most women marry low count men is not evidence that most women PREFER to marry low count men. There are just not enough high count men for things to be otherwise in a monogamous society. I pointed out that your logic would suggest that women prefer to marry men shorter than six feet tall who earn less than $100,000 a year, since that is what most married women do. To date I have not seen any attempt to respond to this argument. It may well be the case that there is other evidence that women prefer low count men, but the revealed preference argument does not work in this instance.

    Secondly, you continue to conflate the ability of high count men to attract women for marriage and the probability that these men will maintain successful marriages. These are different phenomena, but you offer no argument linking them. In fact, the main reason why promiscuous people of either sex are held to be relatively risky bets for marriage is their (in)ability to develop close emotional ties and to be satisfied with monogamous relationships. There is no reason to expect that “the best-looking people would have the highest marriage rate and longest-lasting marriages.” For one thing, they have far more opportunities to cheat. As Chris Rock puts it (with some exaggeration) a man is only as faithful as his options.

    Finally you continue to deny – in the face of all evidence – that high count men often marry the most desirable women. It’s not that women prefer high count men; rather, these men have other attributes that appeal to women. (This is one of the limitations of the study to which you linked). Moreover, your definition of “quality women” – “those who have the characteristics that would make a good spouse for a successful marriage” is at best debatable. There are many people, both men and women, who have qualities that would make them good spouses. These are by no means necessarily the people most sought after in marriage. Men’s tastes vary, of course, but there would be a fairly high level of agreement about the SMV rankings of most women. High count men do very well in the marriage market for high SMV women, irrespective of whether or not you consider these women to be “quality women.”

  • Ted D

    ADBG – “If you cared about your life partner, yes, you would have abstained from casual sex that probably didn’t make you happy anyways, as evidenced by the fact that you stopped engaging in casual sex and decided to get a life partner instead.”

    Exactly. I’ve said before, I spent my entire life feeling to some extent responsible to my future mate(s) to live a decent sexual life. How can I give my SO something and claim it is valuable if I gave it to others for free?

  • Abbot

    “Low-N people are less likely to divorce, for a variety of psychological reasons (less used to variety, less likely to find faults in their partners, better at emotional bonding, etc.).”

    Yes all true. Problem is that in some isolated geographic locations [HNW breeding grounds] the High N women outnumber the Low N men by a wide margin. This cultural imbalance is the source of ALL the angst and the spitting mad vicious shaming language aimed at men who would even consider avoiding HNWs for a committed relationship. So far, the canned rhetoric tool bag includes “insecure” and “ego soothing” and some other worn and ineffective quips. Getting men to change is not gonna work so women should take note and act accordingly.

  • INTJ

    @Megaman

    “Women don’t prefer low-N men.”

    You’ve said this a number of times. How you’re certain of this, I have no idea.

    I’ll say women do prefer lower N men for dating AND marriage. And I’ll qualify it, too:

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Preferred+level+of+sexual+experience+in+a+date+or+mate%3a+the+merger+of…-a020536041

    This study had the same results as these other ones:
    David Buss, “Sex differences in human mate-preferences”
    Susan Sprecher, “The effect of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability”

    The study neglects to take into account the rationalization hamster. The study from another comment thread shows just how powerful the rationalization hamster is (and many of the articles referenced in this study demonstrate that women select for behavior that is commonly displayed by high-N men):

    http://business.utsa.edu/faculty/kdurante/files/OvulationPaternalInvestment.pdf

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

      @INTJ

      You know that women don’t have a real rodent and aluminum wheel in their heads, right? The rationalization hamster is the creation of Roissy, not a scientific concept.

      I think the study is very interesting, and confirms much of what I have been saying over many posts for three years. I found these statement particularly noteworthy:

      Specifically, women with an unrestricted orientation to sex (i.e., those who have more positive attitudes toward casual, uncommitted sexual activity) gave higher desirability ratings to moderate or considerable sexual experience in a partner than did women with a restricted sociosexual orientation.

      Translation: Sluts get with sluts.

      For example, men, more than women, may desire that a casual dating partner has advanced to sexual intercourse in a prior relationship (i.e., not be a virgin) but may not prefer, to a greater degree than women, that the person have had multiple prior partners.

      Translation: Virgins bleed, get attached, and don’t know what they’re doing in the sack.

      The finding that chastity was perceived to be more desirable than sexual experience in a partner is consistent with complementary predictions from both the evolutionary and the scripts/social factors perspectives. From an evolutionary perspective, chastity would be desirable because of paternity certainty (a concern for males) and concern about future paternal resources (a concern for females).

      Translation: Women should be concerned about sexual history as a predictor of future fidelity. It stands to reason that some actually are.

  • Abbot

    “women select for behavior that is commonly displayed by high-N men”

    Then the man shortage that feminists vehemently deny even exists is actually a shortage of men who exhibit behaviors displayed by high-N men. Since those men in all likelihood are the harem go-to guys, they are in very short supply so when a woman plays out her harem groupie role she closets her desires and dupes a Low N good man [or High N good man if she is lucky] or stays single. What a life.

  • Abbot

    “Translation: Sluts get with sluts.”

    Its the unbalanced slut supply that causes the angst. What happens when the population of the female version clearly outnumbers the male version? Also, what if the few experienced males do not prefer the experienced females?

    “men…may not prefer, to a greater degree than women, that the person have had multiple prior partners.”

    Why do people get so bent out of shape about this fact?

  • Jason773

    Susan,

    Haven’t been around for a while but your manwhore tell list gave me a good laugh. I’ll give some insider info for the list…

    1. For sure

    2. Doesn’t matter. A lot of players like hanging around women at all different times, but you won’t get the prime Friday/Sat night time.

    3. ok, I’ll buy this

    4. duhhh

    5. Yup

    6. Yes again

    7. Irrelevant. I wouldn’t go down on a chick the first time when I just took her home anyways.

    8. No. Just a guy who is bad at sex, not necessarily a player.

    9. Maybe. A lot of players can be pretty decent the morning after though if they want the girl in the rotation.

    10. Yup

    11. Yup

    Funny thing is that a lot of these tells are already after she has hooked up with the guy. Need better tells if looking to avoid lol. And as always, the most apparent tell is number 1. Funny thing is that’s what attracts women the most, so good luck with that ladies.

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

      @Jason

      The jackrabbit thing came from an article a young woman wrote about having sex with Tucker Max. It was just straight jackrabbit start to finish. Most women rate hookup sex as being generally bad as well. Part of that is that most women enjoy sex a lot more when it’s emotionally intimate, and feel more comfortable being uninhibited. But there’s a strong belief that guys who have a lot of casual sex get very complacent. I mean, once both parties acknowledge you’re just dumping into a warm hole, then a lot of guys are going to go for maximum efficiency.

      The women who have reported that players are generous lovers generally assume that he’s concerned about upholding a reputation rather than working hard to please someone he doesn’t give two shits about.

      In my own experience, the womanizers were definitely the worst at sex, and I think it’s because they knew the physical aspects of sex very well, but little of the emotional or even spiritual aspects of sex. For a woman, that is often the difference between a blip orgasm and a mind blowing one. Though I wouldn’t expect guys to know, actually. Sadly, most young women I know have admitted they fake orgasm, especially if it’s not someone they plan on dating. I’ve had more than a few women ask me how to transition from faking to not faking once they did get involved with the guy more deeply than they originally anticipated.

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

    Yeah the best predictor of a manwhore before anything happens is how confident he is on picking on women. I think women don’t understand that men unlike us don’t gain confidence from “feeling good about yourself”, there is a reason why aside from romance self help books are almost entirely consumed by women. So a guy that is nervous, unsure and a bit clumsy is a lot better bet for the long run than the smooth silver tongued devil but then most women want a man that is “confidence and know what is doing” is the catch 22 of the millenia for gender interactions, YMMV.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “Translation: Women should be concerned about sexual history as a predictor of future fidelity. It stands to reason that some actually are.”

    Thank you!

    Many women already consider this, in addition to the other preferences they look for in a mate (attractiveness, intelligence, education, income, personality, religion, etc.)

    What do you think about this notion that women don’t actually “prefer” the lower N guys they’re marrying (and not divorcing)?

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

      @Megaman

      What do you think about this notion that women don’t actually “prefer” the lower N guys they’re marrying (and not divorcing)?

      I don’t think that’s what Thras said, was it? In any case, I think that’s nonsense. I think that most people get on with their business and find people similar to themselves. Low N people want to marry low N people.

      I don’t doubt that some low N women would be thrilled to get some gorgeous, successful guy and readily accept his previous whoring around. He’s a risky bet, but I do think many women would make it if the guy was attractive enough.

  • Abbot

    “men unlike us don’t gain confidence from “feeling good about yourself”, there is a reason why aside from romance self help books are almost entirely consumed by women. ”

    And those women who gain confidence and feel good about themselves because some attractive guy[s] “decided” to have sex with them have been sold the cock-for-confidence program and are to be avoided like sour milk by any and all sane commitment-oriented men

  • Abbot

    “once both parties acknowledge you’re just dumping into a warm hole, then a lot of guys are going to go for maximum efficiency.”

    Now could it be that, other than the hole dumpers, men would be the slightest bit repelled and flock to non-dumpees? To not expect this flight to quality is absurd.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “I don’t think that’s what Thras said, was it? In any case, I think that’s nonsense. I think that most people get on with their business and find people similar to themselves. Low N people want to marry low N people.”

    Messrs. Thras and INTJ contend that women looking to marry, who tend to be lower N themselves, DO NOT prefer lower N men as husbands. They just happen to marry them, coincidentally, because those are the only guys in the marriage market. Women apparently have no real choice in a mate in the current SMP. I agree with you, it’s nonsense. It’s also the most contorted description of the SMP I’ve read all year : )

    If they were really “settling” for guys they didn’t really want, we’d see a spike in divorce rates. That’s the elephant in the room everybody’s dancing around. These marriages actually have pretty low divorce rates, especially amongst college graduates.

    We all operate under a restricted set of choices. Shopping for a marriage partner isn’t like grocery shopping. You can’t mix and match people like produce. People are looking for the best “complete package” they can find. Which guys women choose to marry, and most importantly *stay* married to, tells me that choice = preference.

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

      @Megaman

      Which guys women choose to marry, and most importantly *stay* married to, tells me that choice = preference.

      I agree. It is true that one’s perception of choice can have an effect, though. For example, there’s the paradox of choice that stymies people in large cities. And yet even in the smallest towns people find mates and marry. Whom we find attractive will be influenced by our available options. In that sense, attraction is malleable.

  • Thrasymachus

    As far as I know no one in this thread has suggested that, all other things being equal, most women prefer highly promiscuous men for LTR’s. The issue is that all other things are rarely equal. High count men almost invariably have one or more attributes (confidence, charm, good looks, high socio-economic status) that appeal to women. If they did not have these attributes they would not succeed attaining high numbers of conquests in the first place. Most, although by no means all, low count men do not have these attributes to the same degree, although they may certainly possess other qualities that women seek for LTR’s.

    For a man accumulating high numbers is an achievement of sorts – very few can do it. This is not true for women, which is part of the reason why high count women are not viewed with admiration by either sex and seek to hide or understate their numbers.

    No doubt many women would love a Tim Tebow for an LTR, but such men are extremely rare and almost always want women with VERY low numbers. The question at issue here is how women react to men with high numbers AND attractive attributes. Note that:

    (a) What matters is actual behavior, not simply abstract stated preferences.

    (b) This is a quantitative issue. What proportion of women in the SMP considers a man’s (known) level of sexual experience when making decisions about LTR’s? How much weight do they give to this consideration?

    We know that some deeply religious women avoid players, and smart women avoid cads looking for a pump and dump. Beyond that point, things are considerably murkier. As stated before, promiscuous men do not seem to find it necessary or even desirable to conceal their numbers in the way that promiscuous women do. They also often marry (if they are interested in marriage) high SMV women. These facts suggest that a non-negligible number of women do not believe that promiscuity disqualifies high count men from consideration for LTR’s.

  • Thrasymachus

    Megaman:

    To date you have not responded to the specific issues that I identified with your arguments. Instead you have simply repeated the same statements over and over again. I’m not sure that it makes much sense to continue this dialogue, but I’ll try one last time by asking some focused questions.

    These questions concern the statistical inferences you made based on women’s revealed preferences.

    Most women marry men who are less than six feet tall. Do you believe that women prefer to marry shorter men? If not, why not?

    Most women marry men who earn less than $100,000 a year. Do you believe that women prefer to marry poorer men? If not, why not?

    I await your reply with interest.

  • Jason773

    Thras,

    I haven’t read the whole conversation that has taken place, but I do think you make a logical and sound case. I believe Susan even agrees with you, only arguing that at a certain point there are diminishing returns and even negative returns with an increasingly high male N(which I would think as well). The inflection point for that N is a matter of debate, and probably varies based on the sum of a male’s attractiveness traits.

    In any case, I think that inflection point would only start to occur in the high double digits or once triple digits are hit. The women on here might argue against that and say ewwww, but this site obviously has selection bias against that.

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

      @Jason

      In any case, I think that inflection point would only start to occur in the high double digits or once triple digits are hit. The women on here might argue against that and say ewwww, but this site obviously has selection bias against that.

      Do you recall how I got called out for joking that I had a shiksa goddess for you to meet when you first came here? The guys here were not pleased that I would entertain the idea that a guy with your N would be OK as relationship material. I recall another time when I mentioned that I suspect my own future son-in-law would have a high-ish count – I think I figured at least 25. One male blogger was really offended that I would “set the bar so low,” as he put it. I explained that when a young woman gets a lot of attention from players and cads, even if she has enormous self-discipline, she’s likely going to wind up with a guy with a high N count, because that’s her SMV equivalent.

      I don’t know where the inflection point is either, and I suspect it varies quite a bit by individual. The research that shows high N guys are less likely to be sexually satisfied and/or faithful in marriage? I don’t know how valid that is, but it’s something women should be aware of. Caveat emptor. I don’t know my own husband’s N, but I would guess around 20. And he’s never cheated. Frankly, I’m skeptical about the claims for women’s count and cheating as well. Of course, I respect the right of anyone to select a mate according to their own standards.

  • http://deleted Jason773

    Susan,

    Yea, I do remember that. I’m still waiting for an e-introduction…

    And it just makes sense. Like you said, a high SMV woman is going to get attention from men who actually do approach (higher N guys) and men who are similar in SMV (which leads to their higher N).

  • Tom

    @ Susan
    I don’t know my own husband’s N, but I would guess around 20. And he’s never cheated. Frankly, I’m skeptical about the claims for women’s count and cheating as well. Of course, I respect the right of anyone to select a mate according to their own standards.
    ____________
    Susan, when selecting a LTR partner, character is one of the most important factors. You and I have both succeeded in doing that.
    Character and partner count really have nothing to do with each
    other. People of bad character can be of low or high partner count. To say a woman who has had casual sex is of bad character is just BS. Ofcouse she could be, but a partner count does not automatically indecate bad character.
    Now if an extremely low partner count is what one needs in a partner, thats fine. That only means a WOE doesnt meet your qualifications because sexual exclusivity is that important to you.
    Nothing wrong with excluding WOE from ones pool of possible mates.
    But to suggest that all women who have had casual sex are of bad character is incorrect. Millions of fathful WOE out there, because they ALSO are of good character.

  • Thrasymachus

    Jason773:

    Susan, VD, INTJ and I have had a very productive exchange of views on this thread, and I think that we are fairly close to agreement on the main issues. The main reason for my initial post was to question the seeming equivalence of “men rejecting sluts for LTR’s” and “women rejecting mansluts for LTR’s”. There are some very significant differences between the two phenomena, although you are absolutely right in saying that beyond a certain point a high N count is a turn-off for many women.

    Megaman, on the other hand …..

  • Abbot

    “To say a woman who has had casual sex is of bad character is just BS.”

    True and it has never been said, at least not on this site

    “a partner count does not automatically indecate bad character.”

    True. But so what?

    “a WOE doesnt meet your qualifications because sexual exclusivity is that important to you.”

    Those po woes. Prior sexual activity is universally and always ONE of numerous qualifications. How high or low that qualification is on the entire list of qualifications varies between men and is a personal private matter that has recently exploded into a personal and political nightmare for women in certain locations.

    “Nothing wrong with excluding WOE from ones pool of possible mates.”

    Up until the point it affects women’s choices and causes them to modify their behavior. That line has already been crossed thus the shit storm of angst.

    “to suggest that all women who have had casual sex are of bad character is incorrect”

    That is precisely why it has NOT been suggested

    “Millions of fathful WOE out there, because they ALSO are of good character.”

    It takes much more time to know if a woman has “good character” then the time it takes to be very uncomfortable with a woman who found it necessary to sexually express embrace and explore herself with multitudes of cock. Thus, it would behoove a woman to refrain from such behaviors [or lie about it thus crappy character] so that a good man would be even be willing to entertain taking the time to discover her “character”

  • Ramble

    The guys here were not pleased that I would entertain the idea that a guy with your N would be OK as relationship material.

    Susan, if you have someone spend a few dozen comments talking about alpha asshats and how you might wish that they get heart disease, and then say what you said, yeah, you are going to get some blowback.

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

      @Ramble

      Susan, if you have someone spend a few dozen comments talking about alpha asshats and how you might wish that they get heart disease, and then say what you said, yeah, you are going to get some blowback.

      Fair enough, but to be clear, I think there are guys who can get to 25 without being alpha asshats. Or at least I entertain the possibility that it’s possible. Also, to me alpha asshat means bad guy, crappy behavior, skeevy moves. Not all guys with N in double digits are like that, though many are.

      I don’t recall the heart disease curse though.

  • Ted D

    Tom – “To say a woman who has had casual sex is of bad character is just BS. Ofcouse she could be, but a partner count does not automatically indecate bad character.”

    Eh, to me it kinda does. But, that is because of the value I place on sexual intimacy. If she has had many partners, I question her character on the basis of not being selective with who she shares herself with, and/or possibly just being too “in the moment”/”reactive”/”tingle following”/etc. To me, those are all character flaws to be avoided.

    So, to some men (at least THIS man) having a high N does indeed mean poor character. Now, that doesn’t preclude the idea that her character may be superior in other ways, and depending on the circumstances I might overlook N to an extent. I think I would place a hard cap on 15+ for a woman my age now (42). I guess that would be about one sexual partner every two years depending on age of first sex. This seems more than reasonable to me for someone that has been and is mostly interested in LTRs. Of course it is more likely that she will have had many partners early in her life (teens and 20′s) and less as she matured and settled into relationships. So, I still feel that 15 is plenty of room for an average woman to be at middle age, and of course in this case “less is more” to me.

    None of that is implying that women (or men) with high N are “bad” people. I am not out to punish the wicked, and I would not look down on a woman with a higher N. However, she would have to be an astoundingly awesome woman for me to even consider her as a mate at that point. The thing is, her experience sexually would be so different than mine, I don’t feel like we would ever be on the same page. My current SO’s number is well below the 15 limit for me. Even so I dislike that our views on sexuality are somewhat different. And the “exchange rate” between us will never be equal to me. As a man with a very low N, I simply have to accept that fact.

  • Abbot

    “her experience sexually would be so different than mine, I don’t feel like we would ever be on the same page.”

    Welcome to much of the USA, the land of two distinct sexual cultures

  • Ramble

    Fair enough, but to be clear, I think there are guys who can get to 25 without being alpha asshats.

    I agree, but I wasn’t the one that went on and on about them.

    Also, to me alpha asshat means bad guy, crappy behavior, skeevy moves.

    Right. You know a creepy guy when you see one.

    I don’t recall the heart disease curse though.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/01/23/relationshipstrategies/how-narcissism-evolved/comment-page-3/#comment-94614

    Does running asshole Game cause heart disease in men? I hope so.

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

      @Ramble

      Wow, I thought I had a good memory. Yeah, I’ll stand by that – we were discussing an article about narcissists getting stressed out by their own behavior. Sounds fair to me.

      Also, to me alpha asshat means bad guy, crappy behavior, skeevy moves.

      Right. You know a creepy guy when you see one.

      They’re not creepy in the usual sense of the word. Think Tucker Max.

      My point is that there is a difference between narcissistic men who don’t experience empathy and view women as places to get their dicks wet, and men who were lucky in college as women fought for the privelege of squirming on their laps. That’s just a reality of the SMP. I will say that I think many a decent, good-looking guy has been “ruined” by that experience, as it tends to dehumanize all parties.

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

    The women on here might argue against that and say ewwww, but this site obviously has selection bias against that.

    My husband was a bit teasing me for the clown joke because when I showed it to him I was obsess with finding out if the clown was the Ronald Macdonald statue he said “That is missing the joke” and I pointed out that a lot of us were doing that. I do think we have a different way to see the world even the high count men here and the low count men probably have more in common with each other than with men of similar experience outside here. The same with the girls, YMMV

    I don’t recall the heart disease curse though.

    That sounds like something I would say. I true I am the female equivalent of Abbot but I don’t do it as much because that is his thing, I’m not in the habit of stealing other people’s thunder.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan,

    “Fair enough, but to be clear, I think there are guys who can get to 25 without being alpha asshats. Or at least I entertain the possibility that it’s possible.”

    Yes, it’s possible. But really, a number of 25 is Mt. Everest to your average guy. Heck, I’d even say that most of the “reformed” beta guys on HUS don’t even have half that number, imagine then the non red-pill guys…we’re talking the Sahara desert for them…

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

      @ExNewYorker

      Heck, I’d even say that most of the “reformed” beta guys on HUS don’t even have half that number, imagine then the non red-pill guys…we’re talking the Sahara desert for them…

      Believe me, I know. Although I write for women, I think everyone here knows I would like to at least be part of the solution for those guys. Getting the red pill information out there is key, and I think that’s happening. Women need it as much as men do. The solution is the same for both sexes – getting that 80% together.

      Recently I lamented the number of college virgins, especially that there are now more male virgins than female virgins (43%!). Someone asked whether it wouldn’t be better if both groups were virgins. That’s one way of leveling the playing field, but frankly I have no problem with premarital sex. In fact, I personally would recommend it. So what I’d like to see is those numbers going down preferably in the context of relationships for both sexes. I don’t want anyone in the desert.

      That said, we’ve talked about how alpha males are the big winners in this SMP, while their natural counterparts (high SMV women) are basically screwed, at least while young. My preference would be to see those women happily marry attractive betas, and I think that’s entirely possible and already happening to some degree. But there’s little doubt that some of those alphas are going to want to marry and when they do, they’re likely to target women in their SMV range. How much they filter for N, or how those women respond to their N, remains to be seen. But I do think we’ll see attractive low N women marrying higher N guys.

      It would be best for all concerned if the cads had no interest in marrying.

  • Ramble

    My point is that there is a difference between narcissistic men who don’t experience empathy and view women as places to get their dicks wet, and men who were lucky in college as women fought for the privelege of squirming on their laps.

    But the guy that was initially being referenced (Jason) did not get lucky. While he was attractive, he practiced his game so that he could bang more chicks. And, I say, good for him.

  • Abbot

    “a number of 25 is Mt. Everest to your average guy”

    Yet, the average American female can hit that easily in less than two years, and sadly, quite a few do. Just one expression phase is enough.

  • Tom

    Ted
    Eh, to me it kinda does. But, that is because of the value I place on sexual intimacy. If she has had many partners, I question her character on the basis of not being selective with who she shares herself with, and/or possibly just being too “in the moment”/”reactive”/”tingle following”/etc. To me, those are all character flaws to be avoided.
    ______________
    Ted… One element you might be missing is they were like that when they were SINGLE. Whole different ball game once they become involved with someone. Again why do people think that if a person, male or female has tasted variety, they just can not stop themselves from craving it once they enter a relationship? That is just not the case in the vast majority of people.

    Abott, Ted and a few others have stated here many times they think people who engage in casual sex display bad character.. .

    To me a person of good character is a person who is honest, reliable, trustworthy, a good confidant, faithful etc. What the hell does casual sex have to do with ANY of these qualities?
    All having casual sex means is that person doesnt put as much importance on sex (pre committment) than some other person.

  • Tom

    Ted
    “her experience sexually would be so different than mine, I don’t feel like we would ever be on the same page.”
    ____________
    Why? because she has had more partners?(a few more?)
    Why does that matter if the rest of her is worthy of your attention? If she knows more sexually, you can have fun learning from her.(then you would be her equal) Remember EVERY relationship is unique. Its not like she is constantly rehashing in her mind things from her former relationships (either LTR`s or casual). She is with you now, is faithful with you, is counting on you sexually, emotionally and maybe financially. That is all that matters.

  • Escoffier

    15 would be a total deal breaker for me, I don’t care how old she is.

    I suppose if I were single playing the field I wouldn’t care, but then again I probably wouldn’t ask. For anything long term I would ask, and if that were the answer, good bye.

  • Abbot

    “Abott, Ted and a few others have stated here many times they think people who engage in casual sex display bad character.. .”

    Really? Where is this “stated”
    Where is it stated, aside from the words in the above quote, that “people who engage in casual sex display bad character?” Aside from personal preferences to avoid commitment to such people, there have been no statements regarding the “character” of anyone out there fucking around. None.

    Engaging in casual sex DOES NOT display anything. But somehow, avoiding commitment to people who do on a disconcerting scale is a display of insecurity and egoistical behavior. Such conclusions are based on ignorance and an agenda intent on getting men to cut these women a break. How is that working out? hmmm

  • Tom

    escoffier
    15 would be a total deal breaker for me, I don’t care how old she is.

    Why? really Im curious .
    If she was 40 and started having sex at 18 that means she could have averaged a new partner every 535 times she woke up and got out of bed…hardly slut behavior.

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

      If she was 40 and started having sex at 18 that means she could have averaged a new partner every 535 times she woke up and got out of bed…hardly slut behavior.

      The male hamster wheel has now been officially sighted and documented.

  • Abbot

    “15 would be a total deal breaker for me, I don’t care how old she is.

    I suppose if I were single playing the field I wouldn’t care, but then again I probably wouldn’t ask. For anything long term I would ask, and if that were the answer, good bye.”

    Ah, welcome to the male universe. Ladies: accept it, modify behavior or move on. Or learn to lie.

  • Escoffier

    Tom, I and every male on this board have explained why a thousand times. The wax in your ears is in so deep that you never hear. You never will.

    I understand why the abolition of slut shaming is so personally important to you, but to the rest of us, the opposite is true.

  • Abbot

    “If she knows more sexually, you can have fun learning from her.(then you would be her equal) ”

    One fine Tuesday Afternoon down at the pub:

    “Hey Ted, I don’t think you’re going to be fulfilled by Jez. A few more guys need to jack on her and treat her like dirt for her to really know you’re the guy for her. Plus you get the added benefit of all they taught her”

    “So what do you say Ted, huh? and can I be get at her first? C’mon!”

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “I explained that when a young woman gets a lot of attention from players and cads, even if she has enormous self-discipline, she’s likely going to wind up with a guy with a high N count, because that’s her SMV equivalent.”

    Your daughter only seems to attract cads and players? That’s an unenviable position to be in. Perhaps she needs to read your blog more and inititate dates with cuter, shy guys : )

    An observation about you and your husband vs. the current generation. I’m of the opinion that the sexual behavior of young people hasn’t really changed much since the late 1970s. If anything, they appear to have gotten less promiscuous on average. Even so, priorities seem to have changed quite a bit. Your generation, even those in the double digit crowd, probably still prioritized marriage and family to a significant degree. That’s totally changed these days. The 20-25% of the population that’s higher N either isn’t interested in those things, or isn’t prepared for a lifelong commitment.

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

      @Megaman

      Your daughter only seems to attract cads and players? That’s an unenviable position to be in. Perhaps she needs to read your blog more and inititate dates with cuter, shy guys : )

      Well you didn’t think the cobbler’s children would go without shoes, did you? She shuns the cads and players, initiates with cuter, shy guys. The results have been mixed. She’ll marry a cad over my dead body. But to be honest, a lot of the beta guys have had trouble meeting her halfway. Or they’ve put her on such a pedestal it’s impossible. I think it’s the age – she needs to focus on beta guys just a bit older.

      . Your generation, even those in the double digit crowd, probably still prioritized marriage and family to a significant degree. That’s totally changed these days. The 20-25% of the population that’s higher N either isn’t interested in those things, or isn’t prepared for a lifelong commitment.

      I think you’re right about this. That’s why I said it is in everyone’s best interest if cads don’t even want to marry. Numerous articles report women are getting less invested in marriage as well. That’s a pity, but for my own purposes, I would like to see marriage and monogamy oriented people gain direct access to one another without all the noise – the dysfunction – in the SMP.

  • Abbot

    “I understand why the abolition of slut shaming is so personally important to you”

    Oddly enough, not wanting to commit to a slut

    EQUALS SLUT SHAMING

    Imagine that. Men have always avoided them for marriage along with prostitutes and for the same reason. It was NEVER a problem UNTIL the number of High N women exploded. Now, suddenly its a problem so they want desperately to redefine what is the “norm” and any man who operates outside of this new norm is a deviant and weak and insecure and needs soothing and…take your pick of the crap-dujour these pathetic apologists keep dishing out.

  • Herb

    @ExNewYorker

    Yes, it’s possible. But really, a number of 25 is Mt. Everest to your average guy. Heck, I’d even say that most of the “reformed” beta guys on HUS don’t even have half that number, imagine then the non red-pill guys…we’re talking the Sahara desert for them…

    45 and divorced and I’m at 14 which is barely over half.

    So, yeah, 25? I don’t think if I was trying I could hit it this side of 50, maybe not even this side of 60.

  • Tom

    Abott
    First off go to hell..
    “Aside from personal preferences to avoid commitment to such people, there have been no statements regarding the “character” of anyone out there fucking around. None.”
    You might be correct on THIS thread, but in numerous other threads, TED , Jesus and a few others HAVE said it.numerous times.
    Next,
    99% of the men out there are not aware of ANY studies that may suggest a woman who has engaged in casual sex might be more prone to cheat or cuckold. So there must be other reasons they might have for not wanting to be with an experienced woman. If you think the average man doesn`t have an ego, and if you think that ego isnt affected by his knowledge that a woman might compare him with other men about his sexual prowess, his size, or his ability to satisfy her in bed then you Mr. Macho man are the ignorant one.
    For your information, your latin America women are divorcing at record rates in their own countries, affairs are zooming.

  • Abbot

    “She is with you now, is faithful with you, is counting on you sexually, emotionally and maybe financially. That is all that matters.”

    Awww shucks. Right out of the “Pleeeez forgive my past and let me tell you what matters” promiscuous woman’s playbook.

  • Tom

    abott
    It was NEVER a problem UNTIL the number of High N women exploded. Now, suddenly its a problem so they want desperately to redefine what is the “norm” and any man who operates outside of this new norm is a deviant and weak and insecure and needs soothing and…take your pick of the crap-dujour these pathetic apologists keep dishing out.
    ______________
    Right abbot, somethink like 5% of women have more than 4 partners… Some explosion

    Escollier
    So in other words you cant or wont answer my question. I guess I made too much sense when I brought up the one partner for every 500 + days. SURELY that woman is a total slut, SURELY she is going to cuckold some innocent guy, SURELY she is going to be prone to cheating bercause having a new partner every 500 days is sure a HUGE flaw. You guys crack me the fuck up with your excuses.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Thras
    “Megaman, on the other hand…”

    Well, I’m not obligated to agree with a consensus of 4 anonymous guys : )

    Other than Susan, only one other woman has weighed in on the issue, and she voted thumbs down to higher N guys, however that’s measured. I’ll agree than a guy’s N isn’t the make or break variable, but it’s related to other qualities that may or may not be attractive in a potential husband.

    My original point was more focused on women’s marital choices and preferences, which are mostly in sync and speak for themselves. I’m still noodling over your questions on height and income. The answers aren’t as black and white as your questions would suggest. I’ll have to get back to you on those later, if you even care what I think…

  • Escoffier

    Tom, I have answered your question in the past. So has Jesus Mahoney about 100 times. So have many, many men on this site. I am an only an occasional reader and yet I have seen you provoke exactly this debate dozens of times. It’s the only reason you come here.

    Eventually someone will answer you (again) and explain why they personally don’t want to marry a slut. Then you will say, none of those reasons should matter to you.

    Lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.

    Susan, sorry for feeding the troll.

  • Ted D

    Tom – “Ted… One element you might be missing is they were like that when they were SINGLE. Whole different ball game once they become involved with someone. “

    For one thing I really don’t buy this. How about this: if I was a massive flirt when single, would it be reasonable to believe I would not be so when in a relationship? I’ve known lots of flirty people; they don’t tend to stop when they are in a relationship because being flirty is who they are. If you are into casual sex when single, you are still into casual sex when you are in a relationship, even if you choose to stop participating in it.

    “To me a person of good character is a person who is honest, reliable, trustworthy, a good confidant, faithful etc. What the hell does casual sex have to do with ANY of these qualities?

    All having casual sex means is that person doesn’t put as much importance on sex (pre committment) than some other person.”

    I agree with the traits you listed above as signs of good character. And if we were talking about determining if someone would be a good friend, I think your list is pretty inclusive. But for picking a mate, there are things that are important that don’t come into play in a friendship. I have no problem with one of my friends thinking that threesomes are perfectly normal, but I surely don’t want my mate to think the same. And, I’m not saying I’m OK with my SO simply deciding not to have another threesome because I don’t like them. I may still see it as a flaw for a friend to have these views, but I can easily overlook it because I am not paired off with them.

    “Why? because she has had more partners?(a few more?)
    Why does that matter if the rest of her is worthy of your attention? If she knows more sexually, you can have fun learning from her.(then you would be her equal) “

    This has nothing to do with “sexual experience”. I’m not in the least bit concerned that she knows more “moves” than I do, because I can certainly learn all that.

    Let me try this a different way. You are looking for a car and happen to find a really nice Mercedes at a lot for 15k. You check it out and it is in nice shape, low miles, really clean. So you hand over a check for the down payment and drive away. A few miles down the road you stop to fill the tank, and some guy walks up and says your car looks just like his old one. After some discussion, you find out that you actually bought the car he used to own. Then he asks you how much you paid, and you tell him. He then bursts out laughing because he only paid 10K for it. You have the exact same car, but you had to pay 5K more. What extra value did you get?

    When people have casual sex, they are selling their intimacy cheap. Yet when these folks pair up, they expect those partners to pay top shelf prices. Of course most people don’t understand this, because they place little to know value on their sexuality. To me, it is an intrinsic part of your being. If you are willing to give it away, then you are in essence giving away some of yourself.

    Escoffier – “15 would be a total deal breaker for me, I don’t care how old she is.”

    I’m not happy with it, but as Abbot pointed out that isn’t a very high number by today’s standards. At this point, I’m happy I met a woman in my age bracket that isn’t in the 20’s.

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

      I’m not happy with it, but as Abbot pointed out that isn’t a very high number by today’s standards. At this point, I’m happy I met a woman in my age bracket that isn’t in the 20’s.

      Oy. Men are finding it necessary to adjust their standards to market conditions. Nothing new in that, but I am more than ready for the pendulum to swing back to less promiscuity.

      I guess I’m stating the obvious.

  • Abbot

    “First off go to hell..”

    No, not going to marry a slut.

    “You might be correct on THIS thread, but in numerous other threads, TED, Jesus and a few others HAVE said it.numerous times.”

    Aw, you guys! really? C’mon. Thats not nice

    “there must be other reasons they might have for not wanting to be with an experienced woman.”

    Whatever personal private reason suits a man for not wanting a WOE is a good reason. Well, not according to a few pesky ineffectual highly-entertaining know-it-alls.

    “latin America women are divorcing at record rates in their own countries, affairs are zooming.”

    Now, exactly what does that have to do with the personal feel-good desire to avoid committing to a slut, including in the US?

  • Escoffier

    I see Ted is playing Tom’s straight man this time. Maybe this time the message will get through!

  • Abbot

    “as Abbot pointed out that isn’t a very high number by today’s standards”

    That is a standard or norm that you are being sold to protect the promiscuous and the majority of that group are women. The only standard that matters is the one you set, not the one being promoted out there and on this site by some with an agenda.

  • Tom

    Escoiffer
    So a woman who has sex with a new partner every 530 days is displaying slut behavior in your opinion?…..please.

    Actually I like Ted, he says exactly how he feels, and jesus too. I might not agree with them, but at least you know where they stand. I think jesus has found himself, understands what is really important to him for a successful relationship.

  • Escoffier

    Tom, why is it important that you convince all of us to accept high count women? We really don’t care that you are with one. If she makes you happy, fine with me. I don’t even disapprove.

    I just don’t want one myself. Neither does Abbott or Ted or 99% of the males on this site and on this earth.

  • Abbot

    “But for picking a mate, there are things that are important that don’t come into play in a friendship.”

    Ya know, that is just not getting through. Simple as it is.

  • Abbot

    “When people have casual sex, they are selling their intimacy cheap.”

    Most especially when it took zero effort to get the genitalia to line up. Then its reeeal cheap.

    “Then he asks you how much you paid, and you tell him. He then bursts out laughing because he only paid 10K for it.”

    One mighty fine morning down at the pier:

    “Hey Fizzbom, isnt that Joyce from the club over there with that sappy looking dude?”
    “Yeah, Doorag, dats the bitch I would jam when she would come out all hot during the peak of her cycle, yeah, we would get down at the sleep cheaps joint on Eight Mile Blvd. Wow, some sucker is hanging on her likes its his wife or something. Heck I knew better dan dat.”

  • Tom

    Ted I get where you are coming from, but woman/car analogies never work.
    Like jesus said once, it isnt the number as much as it was the circumstances. I agree with that. A woman at 20 years old who has a number of 20 partners is a lot different than a woman in her 30`s or 40`s with the same number.
    Once upon a time women couldnt vote and had to wear full body bathing suits. Men like Abbott tried their damnest to keep them from voting and keep those sinful bodies covered while in public swimming. Well we all know customs and attitudes have changed. Just check out the voting booths in November or the bodies on South Beach.
    Sorry but the times they are changing again, the Genie is out of the bottle and it isnt going back anytime soon. Threatened men will just have to get used to it, just like the bikini.
    Peace out

  • Abbot

    “somethink like 5% of women have more than 4 partners”

    then

    “a woman who has sex with a new partner every 530 days”

    for more than six years is in that group.

    But really, if 95 percent of women had four or less “partners” this site would not exist

  • Tom

    ESCO
    I am definately not trying to get anyone to accept any woman with a high number I have said so many times here on HUS. I have stated recently again that if that is your preference, fine, that is your perogative.
    I merely state that you all seem to think that WOE are these hags not worthy of a good man, especially macho man Abott. If he married a virgin, great for him, but dont judge people you dont know for doing things you know nothing about the how or the why.
    Most of the men here lump all women who have had casual sex into one pile, a pile of shit. I have found that, at least in my expereinces that just isnt true…

    Later

  • Abbot

    “Threatened men will just have to get used to it”

    Is that the infamous multi penis threat? Get used to it or stay single? Is that the choice? hmmmm

    What about the man who is fucking all those wanna-be pre-wives? How does he feel?

    “Well we all know customs and attitudes have changed.”

    But not the one where men absolutely and universally desire to avoid sluts for commitment. Deal with it.

    Peace out indeed

  • Sassy6519

    Here are my thoughts on the recent slut debate episode.

    For the men who want a low partner woman, date a low partner woman.

    For the men who place little importance on a woman’s partner count, date who you want as well.

    What I don’t understand is, if there is a good percentage of low partner count women out there, why men are making such a big fuss over “sluts”. If you meet a high count woman, just don’t date her. It’s as simple as that.

    The problem seems to be two fold, however.

    1. The low partner count women aren’t paying the low count men much attention.

    2. The most physically attractive women have a higher likelihood of having a higher count than less attractive women (not astronomically different, but simply higher).

    This debate is also hard to deal with because there isn’t a universal definition of the word “slut”. Some men think any woman with a N>1= slut, while other men think it’s any partner count above 5 or so. Some also stand by the the cutoff point of a partner count higher than 20.

    What should women believe? How do we navigate a minefield that is different and situational for every man?

  • Abbot

    “you all seem to think that WOE are these hags not worthy of a good man,”

    Almost. Here:

    you all seem to think that good men do not find WOE worthy

    “If he married a virgin, great for him”

    ah, the old virgin card is being cast out again. ho hum

    “dont judge people you dont know for doing things you know nothing about the how or the why.”

    Wow, really? Do you mean it? Does that mean you’ll stop now?

    “Most of the men here lump all women who have had casual sex into one pile, a pile of shit.”

    Almost. Here:

    Most of the men here lump all women who have had a disconcerting degree of casual sex into one pile, a commitment avoidance pile.

    “Later”

    oh please

  • Abbot

    “How do we navigate a minefield that is different and situational for every man?”

    For most men, the one night stand or vacation sex or short fling sex is a visceral shocker if he thinks he might want to like the woman for more than sex. For one, its her being so easy. The other is how men treated her. Few men want to commit to a woman who has been voted as just a lay. Men do like to worship their particular woman, not just be friends with her. Men like that and will seek that and anything short of that is settling. In effect men are being asked to settle when berated with the message “it does not matter the reason why and who and how many men a woman fucked”

  • Abbot

    New post topic:

    Are men being asked to “settle” for promiscuous women as LTR prospects in order to make the the SMP and MMP a happier environment for women?

  • Abbot

    “Tom, why is it important that you convince all of us to accept high count women?

    I just don’t want one myself. Neither does Abbott or Ted or 99% of the males on this site and on this earth.”

    Agenda…think agenda. If women were happy with the male way of thinking about this there would no problem and no agenda. But alas, here we are…

  • Abbot

    “tried their damnest to keep them from voting and keep those sinful bodies covered while in public swimming.”

    Yeah, so men are now TRYING their damnest to keep them from fucking other men? WTF, that’s gotta be the dumbest and most ignorant quote of the month.

    MEN DO NOT CARE THAT WOMEN ARE SLUTS
    MEN ARE DOING NOTHING TO STOP THEM
    MEN ARE TRYING NOTHING

    Stop being so freaked out! There is no conspiracy to undermine slut behavior. Really. Take a deep breath. Sit down.

    Now, what is becoming more clear is that men are perceived to be a threat when they merely avoid sluts. This is the first time ever that mens personal choices are being viewed as a direct threat to female happiness. If that keeps women from fucking casually in great numbers that is the problem for women to deal with , NOT MEN!

  • Escoffier

    But Tom, we do know the how: she had sex with 15 men. The why is really not that important. Context would matter to me if the number were a lot lower but at 15 it doesn’t any more. There is no “context” that could explain that in a way that would make me comfortable.

    Hence, I judge. It’s what humans do.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Sassy6519
    “What I don’t understand is, if there is a good percentage of low partner count women out there, why men are making such a big fuss over ‘sluts’. If you meet a high count woman, just don’t date her. It’s as simple as that.”

    Yeah, I’ve always wondered about this. So much complaining about women they’ll never marry or settle down with. Maybe it’s because they still want to sleep with them? Kind of a love-hate relationship, one which I can’t relate to.

    And it’s more than a good percentage of young women that are low N. It’s a majority, as Susan’s pointed out. And they marry smart, because they tend to marry low N guys, too.

  • Ramble

    What I don’t understand is, if there is a good percentage of low partner count women out there, why men are making such a big fuss over “sluts”. If you meet a high count woman, just don’t date her. It’s as simple as that.

    The problem seems to be two fold, however.

    1. The low partner count women aren’t paying the low count men much attention.

    2. The most physically attractive women have a higher likelihood of having a higher count than less attractive women (not astronomically different, but simply higher).

    Sassy, that is a perfectly logical approach to the debate. However, there are a few extra things that were left out, and I think that Abbot already addressed one of them.

    1.) If some guy meets some girl that has slept with, say 3 guys by the time she is 25, he probably would not have a problem with that. But, if one of those guys was some annoying lacrosse player that banged her after a Thursday night party and continued to look at her and think of her as one more warm hole that he used, that future fiance might become sick to his stomach.

    2.) “The Good Society Argument”. Basically, the more sluts any given village has, the worse off his sisters and daughters will be. Put another way, one bad apple can spoil the bunch, though, that might be a little drastic.

    It does not take that many sluts to drastically reduce the value of your average girl in a village (and, as far as I can tell, most of us still operate at the “village” level…it is a little difficult to calibrate your Justice instincts to the megalopolis level)

    Also, I am sure that there is some sour grapes with slut hatred. That is, a slut is a girl who will sleep with anyone (but me).

  • Mike C

    The ******male****** hamster wheel has now been officially sighted and documented.

    Susan,

    You sure about that? Check the source. My money is still betting on a woman.

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

      @Mike C

      Susan,

      You sure about that? Check the source. My money is still betting on a woman.

      You don’t think men rationalize?

  • Ramble

    The male hamster wheel has now been officially sighted and documented.

    Susan, that is an example of the Feminized Male Hamster.

    The Masculine Male Hamster looks like this:
    [As he looks in the mirror]
    Yeah, I am 25 situps away from a six pack.

  • Ramble

    But I do think we’ll see attractive low N women marrying higher N guys.

    So, Susan, just to be clear, you are basically conceding that a man racking up a fairly high number doesn’t really hurt his chances all that much. Right?

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

      So, Susan, just to be clear, you are basically conceding that a man racking up a fairly high number doesn’t really hurt his chances all that much. Right?

      I think male sluttitude is less of a dealbreaker than female sluttitude, in general. I think “fairly high number” is a very subjective judgment. 25? 50? 75? I think there are women who would be grossed out by 25, and women who would be enticed by 75. I think men would be more consistent in their repulsion at 25+.

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

    @Sassy
    I think the other problem with the sluts is that many women consider their right to lie about their number in order to make themselves look good for the guys they want to commit. Tom himself has said that he knows many good wives that “explored their sexual options” and their husband’s are non the wiser and he considers this both fair and necesary because “that macho man may had not marry her and that is a mistake since she is a great wife, she did the best for both of them how dare you to say otherwise” so slut acceptance comes with removing the consent from the men so of course they do protest about it if sluts were honest all the time I’m sure there won’t be such a problem with them because men could make an informed choice, YMMV.

    it is a little difficult to calibrate your Justice instincts to the megalopolis level)

    Mission accomplished! :D

  • Abbot

    “Context would matter to me if the number were a lot lower but at 15 it doesn’t any more. There is no “context” that could explain that in a way that would make me comfortable.”

    Well put. It just becomes mind boggling, almost mind numbing and at a certain tipping point, it may as well be 112 because, heck whats one more or fifty more. There is nothing to salvage regarding sexuality and the treatment of it. How can there be context to explain, its all just a linear cock merge. To you and especially to her.

  • Abbot

    “slut acceptance comes with removing the consent from the men”

    THAT is absolute evidence of the current desperate circumstances for women. Of course women would prefer to not have to lie so to deny that there is an effort to get men to change is a total lie as well.

    Now wouldn’t a male harem member currently screwing some poor lass find it quite amusing if he knew that years later she will lie to about this round of cock. “Hey, whatsyourname, you know ya gonna have to deny this ever happened to some future sucker willing to pay more than I am right now, ha ha, its so gooood to be me”

  • Abbot

    “My money is still betting on a woman.”

    Interestingly, many of the buzzwords used are right out of the feminist playbook that even most women are not aware of. That includes expressing embracing exploring sexuality. All of them were used multiple times in an attempt to normalize and thus neutralize the undeniably easy promiscuous behavior. When called on it, they disappeared from use in later comments. Other give-a-way phrases alluded to “women being worth more than her number” and the like and used by the likes of Jessica Valenti. All canned, all feminist. References to protests against women voting and public swimming were also used, albeit quite ineffectively, in an attempt to belittle men as being scared threatened insecure creatures afraid of women advancing as if sex with other men is just one more threat. All this rhetoric is nothing new and developed years ago by feminists during propaganda strategy sessions and not in the mainstream, even today. Typically only feminists know of it or people who read a lot and have knowledge of how feminists speak, including those who enjoy prodding feminists for fun. But most of all give-a-ways is the obvious attempt to mollify the female readers of this blog by making it seem like the men who desire to avoid sluts are nothing more than archaic throwbacks and on the way out. The not-to-worry approach has feminist stink written all over it. Man or woman, what we have here is an agenda driven agent who at one point claimed to be here for no other purpose than get men to accept the disconnect between a womans casual sex behavior and her character although no one seems to give a rats about that relationship anyway. So the broker record just spins and spins and spins….

  • Mike C

    You don’t think men rationalize?

    Of course they do. I think you missed my attempt at a joke :)

    You were using something “Tom” said as an example of the *male* rationalization hamster. I found that kind of funny…I still think “Tom” is a woman.

  • Mike C

    Looks like the reruns are playing with the “slut” debate and good old “Tom” and Abbott going back and forth.

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

      @Mike C

      Looks like the reruns are playing with the “slut” debate and good old “Tom” and Abbott going back and forth.

      I banned Jess a while ago, so at least we won’t have to contend with her rather tortured reasoning.

  • Mike C

    I think male sluttitude is less of a dealbreaker than female sluttitude, in general. I think “fairly high number” is a very subjective judgment. 25? 50? 75? I think there are women who would be grossed out by 25, and women who would be enticed by 75. I think men would be more consistent in their repulsion at 25+.

    IMO, a big difference in judging male “sluttitude” has to do with the quality of the girls. In my experience based on what I’ve seen alot depends on whether a guy is “slumming it” to get his numbers. A guy who has a number of 20-30 7-9s is going to be judged differently by women than a guy whose 20-30 comes from going down to 4-5s at “closing time”. When I was bouncing, I noticed that women pay close attention to the other women you get attention from or are associated with.

    I’ll mention this, and this is speculation on my part, but I suspect alot of the PUA types who have racked up really high numbers have done so by going way down market to pull it off.

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    You missed one point.
    Slumming to one man is anothers Everest.

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

    I think we’re basically touching on a variation of the primordial “Cuckold Threat” problem.

    Condition 1: If a woman has a high N count, presumably some of those sex partners were one-night stands or similarly short-term, purely physical experiences.

    Condition 2: If the woman in question is now interested in an LTR, presumably she has been strategic in terms of rationing sex during the courtship phase.

    These two conditions, taken together, represent a deep source of potential resentment and jealousy for the male involved in #2. After all, he has apparently failed to be hot/sexy enough for immediate bedroom frolics, while other men were deserving of Most Favored Penis status. What explanation will suffice? Is he now to be relegated to some safe-but-boring, provider-resource Beta/Builder (IIRC, Fisher noted that many chose Builder types when they wanted to settle down) status?

    In terms of practical recommendations, it would seem to me that a higher-N-count woman has two choices in this scenario:

    1. The Honest Option. Pre-empt the LTR candidate male’s emotional meltdown by going to great lengths to provide a satisfying explanation. Don’t wait for him to ask for an N; say that you are embarrassed because you “wish you had waited for marriage” or whatever. Go to the other extreme.

    You don’t have to be Bruce Bueno de Mesquita to forecast his reaction to learning of a high N under surprise conditions down the road; he will be very upset about a woman’s libertine past.

    This option will probably mean describing any controversial parts of past sexual history as having been huge, repulsive mistakes.

    2. The Machiavellian Option. Either refuse to answer the question if it comes up (dangerous, but could be workable in some situations if the man is a privacy freak himself—arms dealer, narco-trafficker, professional assassin) or simply lie, reporting that the N count was lower and admitting to only LTR-based sex. While she is at it, she may as well make this sex as conservative and uninspiring as possible.

    Some unusually nonjudgmental men may even realize that this story is probably BS, but appreciate the thoughtfulness involved and enjoy participating in the consensus hallucination. Of course, this type of man will be dangerous in other ways that are beyond the scope of the post.

    I’m not saying that either of these will necessarily work out well, but at least they are tactical. In either case, it goes without saying that it is absolutely imperative that the LTR candidate be sourced from a completely different pool of men than sourced the previous N. I don’t think I know any man of self-respect who will invest emotionally and economically in a relationship if he feels that other men in the group have enjoyed his sweetheart in the past. It’s just utterly humiliating.

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

    Of course, this type of man will be dangerous in other ways that are beyond the scope of the post.

    First time I heard this, I’m curious now, how a nonjudgmental man is dangerous? I ask just because I’m a judgmental bitch is always interesting to explore the other side.

  • Mike C

    First time I heard this, I’m curious now, how a nonjudgmental man is dangerous?

    I suspect what Bastiat Blogger is perhaps alluding to is that a guy who can “appreciate” thoughtful deception isn’t going to have any moral qualms or reservations in engaging in thoughtful deception of his own.

    Bastiat Blogger, regarding the first portion of your comment, you might want to search and find Jesus Mahoney’s newspaper analogy. It explains your conditions 1 and 2 in a humorous way that really captures the essence of the issue which is the idea of a “price differential” in what different men are “charged” for sexual access.

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

    I suspect what Bastiat Blogger is perhaps alluding to is that a guy who can “appreciate” thoughtful deception isn’t going to have any moral qualms or reservations in engaging in thoughtful deception of his own.

    Oh upon rereading I can see is not that he doesn’t know he pretends he doesn’t know. I agree, is pretty telling.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Bastiat spits hot fire:

    “I don’t think I know any man of self-respect who will invest emotionally and economically in a relationship if he feels that other men in the group have enjoyed his sweetheart in the past. It’s just utterly humiliating.”
    ________________________
    Steel on target.

    A guy I know (cough) went out to breakfast after a night shift with a hot nurse he’d just started dating. Most of the ER staff was there, including a few guys she’d banged.

    Worst. Breakfast. Ever.

  • anon

    “The most physically attractive women have a higher likelihood of having a higher count than less attractive women (not astronomically different, but simply higher).”

    My neighbors daughter has 2 partners already and she’s 15. Both were “realtionship sex” with “boyfriends”. Very cute girl, except she makes herself look ugly with purple dreadlocks and fake orange tan. Clashing colors. I predict by 20 she’ll have at least triple that amount (6) but because she’s an 8 and a kind person she won’t experience a dearth of suitors.

    I don’t understand why Abbott repeats the numbers thing over and over. Like Sassy said, just date low number women, discussion over.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Anon said:

    “I don’t understand why Abbott repeats the numbers thing over and over.”
    ____________________

    Abbot is Our Id. He echoes forth from Our Hindbrains. You might as well question the Solar Wind….

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Megaman
    I’ve always wondered about this. So much complaining about women they’ll never marry or settle down with. Maybe it’s because they still want to sleep with them? Kind of a love-hate relationship, one which I can’t relate to.

    I think there’s a different reason.

    There are similar complaints in traditional Catholic circles, from women who find the men far too controlling and don’t want to marry them. It’s not so much that they want the men to change to suit them, but that they see the controlling behavior as symptomatic of a much larger problem . . . one that they’ll still have to deal with, in some form or another, even if they never marry these men.

  • Ted D

    Tom – “Ted I get where you are coming from, but woman/car analogies never work”

    With all due respect, the analogy worked fine for me and at least a few other men reading it.

    Susan – “If she was 40 and started having sex at 18 that means she could have averaged a new partner every 535 times she woke up and got out of bed…hardly slut behavior.
    The male hamster wheel has now been officially sighted and documented.”

    How so? I was the one that said one sexual partner for every two years of life getting a woman to 40ish is reasonable. I don’t see ANY reason someone should be racking up those kinds of numbers if they are at least serially monogamous. THAT is exactly what I and many men are looking for. Not a woman with a count of 2, but a woman that has only or mostly had sex within the confines of legitimate (not “kinda for sex”) LTRs their entire lives. That is exactly the path I took, and it stands to reason that I would be looking for someone that took a similar path.

    Megaman – “Yeah, I’ve always wondered about this. So much complaining about women they’ll never marry or settle down with. Maybe it’s because they still want to sleep with them? Kind of a love-hate relationship, one which I can’t relate to.”

    Here is the thing. I don’t club or bar hop, and the only people I really associate with at all are close friends. Even within that circle, it is DAMN HARD to find a woman under double digit N’s. I will fully admit that my circle is small, but I am a pretty damn difficult person to endear, and although none of my friends are lily white, most of them have led pretty uneventful and normal lives. (I do have one male friend that was a cheater. Thankfully he worked past that.) Perhaps it is where I live although I can’t imagine why Pittsburgh would be overly promiscuous other than perhaps socio-economic status, which I can believe since there are still many run down old steel towns clawing their way back from poverty. Perhaps there are literally a ton of low N women around here somewhere, but they aren’t anywhere I go or my friends go. No, I’m not a regular at church, and no women that is would be happy with me, so there is no sense even trying to find someone there. I am morally and politically conservative minus all the “Bible thumping” often associated with it. So, I’m complaining because the women that appear to be my general equal around here (that is in age, socio-economic class, interests, etc) have mostly higher N’s. Now, I honestly don’t expect to find a 30-something woman with an N of 4 or less. I know beyond all doubt that MY path has been an odd one. But I find it at least a little sad that I am happy with really low double digits. My N is where it is exactly because I was massively selective with who I shared myself with, took great pains to contain my desires when I wasn’t in a LTR, and exercised a good bit of restraint from time to time. Why is it so unreasonable for me to want a woman that has done the same? Even more to the point, outside of religious groups and sub-cultures, where are all these low N women we keep hearing about? I haven’t found them. Other guys here and elsewhere don’t seem to find them. I’m all for stats because I value data, but I have to say that despite the stats posted here, there seems to be some disconnect. Either the data is wrong (because people are lying) or there are HUGE pockets of conservative women around the country in hiding.

    Ramble – “If some guy meets some girl that has slept with, say 3 guys by the time she is 25, he probably would not have a problem with that. But, if one of those guys was some annoying lacrosse player that banged her after a Thursday night party and continued to look at her and think of her as one more warm hole that he used, that future fiance might become sick to his stomach.”

    Exactly! This is one of the worst feelings I have ever experienced in my entire life, and I’ve broken bones and had operations that required healing time. I cannot describe in any way just how this feels other than horrible. As to why? There are a few different reasons:
    1. Knowing some other guy only sees the woman I love as a “good piece of ass” makes me want to strangle him. Of course I can’t.
    2. It made me feel like a chump because I “paid full price” for what he got for free.
    3. I felt horrible knowing that at some point in her life she either felt like her sexuality had no value or that she was not worth expecting more from a guy she had sex with.
    4. It made me wonder if she was the type of person to follow her short term desires over logically thought out long-term goals.
    5. It also made me wonder why she was with me when obviously she was more interested in other types of men prior. Am I just the guy she settled for? Am I just her cover while she still wants those men? Or did she truly have a change of heart/grow up/realize it wasn’t for her?
    6. Harsh as it is to admit, it made ME feel dirty.
    7. It truly saddened me that she didn’t even understand why I was upset.

    Bellita – “It’s not so much that they want the men to change to suit them, but that they see the controlling behavior as symptomatic of a much larger problem . . . one that they’ll still have to deal with, in some form or another, even if they never marry these men.”

    Yep that is part of it for me. Even if I was happily single for the rest of my life, this stuff would still bother me.

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

      @Ted

      How so? I was the one that said one sexual partner for every two years of life getting a woman to 40ish is reasonable. I don’t see ANY reason someone should be racking up those kinds of numbers if they are at least serially monogamous. THAT is exactly what I and many men are looking for. Not a woman with a count of 2, but a woman that has only or mostly had sex within the confines of legitimate (not “kinda for sex”) LTRs their entire lives

      I agree with you. I thought Tom’s argument that one new partner for x number of wakeups was silly. Lying with statistics.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Bellita
    Interesting take. I’m curious, what’s the much larger problem that these controlling guys manifest? Conventional wisdom is that guys need to bring some level of dominance to a relationship. Have these guys gone overboard?

  • Abbot

    “It truly saddened me that she didn’t even understand why I was upset.”

    Woman, at least for now, do not [or feel no need to] understand why men are repelled by specific types of sexual behavior -if- its about a woman they may have a long term interest in. Ask a prostitute if she understands. She probably does. Prostitutes in every community should be hired to lecture the general population of women about how men feel about these things. These teachers may not be explain to explain the “why” but they can certainly enlighten.

  • Abbot

    “I banned Jess a while ago, so at least we won’t have to contend with her rather tortured reasoning.”

    Thats too bad

  • Abbot

    ““I don’t think I know any man of self-respect who will invest emotionally and economically in a relationship if he feels that other men in the group have enjoyed his sweetheart in the past. It’s just utterly humiliating.”

    The Lurking Charlatans

    A man is obligated to seek a woman who has not been enjoyed as such and to avoid becoming involved with a woman who has been. The latter is the larger challenge as women are learning [by shear desperate necessity] to mimic the former in every way possible. Beware the Lurking Charlatans.

  • anon

    Ted D, would it make you feel any better if the man who thought of the woman you loved as a “piece of ass” was also thought the same as by the woman you loved? It appears you are sexually ultra conservative and that’s fine. But many, maybe even most Americans, are far more sexually liberal and are ok with having casual sex when they are not in a committed relationship. The woman you loved thought of you as more than just a piece of ass or casual hookup. She obviously thought of you as relationship material or she would not have coupled up with you. Thinking like that might make you feel better but I assume you’ve moved on from her by now so its irrelevant.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Megaman
    Interesting take. I’m curious, what’s the much larger problem that these controlling guys manifest? Conventional wisdom is that guys need to bring some level of dominance to a relationship. Have these guys gone overboard?

    It’s not the dominance, but what drives the dominance. Where they go overboard is in their rejection of some modern cultural markers of masculinity (such as premarital sex), because they end up replacing these with superficial markers from some perceived golden age of masculinity. So they roll their own tobacco instead of buying cigarettes at the store. Or if they are American, they identify with European monarchies instead of their own Founding Fathers. And they want their wives to be as counter-cultural as possible, too. That means veils and homeschooling.

    I will never forget one non-traditionalist woman’s telling me that she always knows who the most controlling husband in the parish is because his wife is always the most dowdily dressed woman there. Which ties into the impression of a friend of mine (who is a regular at Latin Mass) that traditionalist women are raised to be afraid of being looked at. Because they must protect men from having lewd thoughts about them.

  • Ted D

    Anon – “The woman you loved thought of you as more than just a piece of ass or casual hookup. She obviously thought of you as relationship material or she would not have coupled up with you.”

    Oh I totally get that a person that has participated in casual sex can and does feel genuine love and affection, but that isn’t my concern. I obviously want a SO to think of me as relationship material and worthy of commitment. The issue is, for me, THAT is a requirement for sexual intimacy. Meaning, FIRST comes some level of relationship, NEXT comes sex. This is where I think many people begin to see me as harsh. I don’t see intimate relationships much differently than my friendships, other than the sexual component. What makes my SO my “lover” is that we have sex. If we didn’t, she would be a good friend. For me, sex is one of the few defining characteristics of a LTR. So when I look at a person that so easily gives their sexual intimacy away, I see a person that has much less to offer in terms of a LTR to me. Sure, I can be her friend and get all the benefits of knowing her. But, I can’t be her lover if she has allowed other men she considered “unworthy” of commitment to bed her. It is the sexual intimacy she has to offer ME that she shouldn’t be offering anyone else.

    If you wanted to boil it down to paint me in a bad light what I am saying is: the only thing a woman has to offer me that ONLY comes from a LTR is access to her vagina. Not because that is all she is worth, for surely there are plenty of promiscuous women I think are great people to be friends with, but because it is the only thing TO ME that should only be shared with someone you love. I think of my intimacy as the dowry of my commitment, so to speak. And I’ve held myself to that standard my entire life. I’ve said many times that I’ve been “faithful” to my SO even before I ever met her, and every single person I’ve had sex with was in my mind a candidate for wife, even when I was 16 and with my very first GF. Of course I wasn’t looking to get married at 16, but I stayed with her because at the time I imagined she could be my wife when we were ready. As it turns out, the first two LTRs didn’t work out for various reasons, but I was in them for over 4 years each regardless. While in between relationships I simply went without sex, although in the interests of full disclosure the longest such dry spell lasted about 9 months.

    And I don’t know exactly how to describe my views on sexuality. Conservative for sure, but only in certain ways. I have no issues with any number of different sexual practices, and pretty much have a “anything goes” attitude provided the sex is within the confines of a committed relationship of some type. Is that really ultra conservative? Maybe. I simply view sexuality as something very personal and something that should be reserved for only people worthy of more than a few hours of physical pleasure. As a woman, you are literally accepting someone into your body, and as a man you are literally putting a piece of yourself inside another person. Doesn’t that seem like something you should only share with someone you love and trust? Hell, I wouldn’t let some random stranger I met in a bar into my house, but many young women allow strangers into their body! Doesn’t that seem at all wrong? Sex isn’t simply a biological imperative, at least not once we gained self awareness and the ability to override our baser instincts. It used to be viewed with some reverence and awe, and now it is a cheap thrill. It has gone from deep sharing with a loved one to a roller coaster ride.

    I don’t know about you, but to me that is nothing short of tragic.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan

    “That’s why I said it is in everyone’s best interest if cads don’t even want to marry. Numerous articles report women are getting less invested in marriage as well. That’s a pity, but for my own purposes, I would like to see marriage and monogamy oriented people gain direct access to one another without all the noise – the dysfunction – in the SMP.”

    One of the things I’ve mentioned before is my belief that the current SMP is really driven more by female preferences than by male preferences. When I was at school, there were plenty of commitment oriented guys, most of which would have easily upgraded the commitment to marriage. But it didn’t matter…most of the women were looking at marriage as some “far distant” thing that would sort itself out to their advantage whenever they decided it was important to them. Until then, there was career, SATC lifestyles, serial monogamy, and places and people to see and meet. Men might have been the gatekeepers to commitment, but that power is reactive, and can’t be exercised if there was never a startpoint to begin with. I mean, look at the “Girls” scenarios…are any of the women thinking beyond the next week? Are they meeting the type of guys (or even wanting to) that would be amenable to the long term? (And yes, I know it’s fiction, but as an ExNewYorker, I met plenty of the type when I visited back home from STEM Central).

    When you had Kate Bolick over, you mentioned that your focus group didn’t want to end up in her situation. But were they doing the things to avoid that situation? Or were they doing a Kate Bolick-lite, assuming that there would always be good attractive guys ready to commit on their schedules?

    As this has become the norm, it won’t surprise me to see that in such an environment, there will be a growing percentage of men who will react by not wanting commitment at all (besides the cads, who are living it up). When, for the average guy, there is no good answer to “what do women bring to the table?”, it’s going to get worse before it gets better…

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

      @ExNewYorker

      When you had Kate Bolick over, you mentioned that your focus group didn’t want to end up in her situation. But were they doing the things to avoid that situation? Or were they doing a Kate Bolick-lite, assuming that there would always be good attractive guys ready to commit on their schedules?

      I can honestly say that of the women who were present, all are dating or targeting betas. Personally, I don’t believe any have met their future spouses, but none of them are riding the carousel. One is in that 12% of hookups that turned into a serious relationship – they talk about getting married. Another is a serial monogamist, and I just don’t think her current serious relationship is going to go the distance.

      To be honest, that particular sample just happened to be less promiscuous. There are some real pieces of work in the focus groups, but they weren’t in Boston at that time.

  • anon

    Ted D, I respect your views because they are congruent. You have one standard which you apply to everyone, including yourself. That is very different from the incongruent hypocrisy of Underdog who with a number count over 25 is considering dumping his girlfriend because she has a number count of 9.

  • Ramble

    One of the things I’ve mentioned before is my belief that the current SMP is really driven more by female preferences than by male preferences.

    I have been saying this since I have been here. In general, girls are driving the SMP, whether they realize it or not.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Bellita
    “Which ties into the impression of a friend of mine that traditionalist women are raised to be afraid of being looked at. Because they must protect men from having lewd thoughts about them.”

    Sounds like what many Muslim women go through. I’m of the belief that these kinds of things (purity balls come to mind), weird as they are, are extreme reactions to the opposite extreme: the hookup scene specifically, or the excesses of the Sexual Revolution generally. There’s a happy medium in between, and I hope the majority of young people recognize that.

  • Herb

    @Megaman

    There’s a happy medium in between, and I hope the majority of young people recognize that.

    I hope so as well, but who is teaching that idea in our culture and not just with respect to the SMP.

    Black and white views are often relatively immature views (in the most neutral sense of the word) and if people with the experience to be mature don’t teach mature views and instead rely on people discovering them (and allowing children to discover things seems to be key to most modern parenting) people won’t develop them until later in life.

    Hell, your hope is arguably the solution to nearly all SMP issues from women’s N as evaluated by men to women’s alpha/beta desires in their own actions.

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

    There’s a happy medium in between, and I hope the majority of young people recognize that.

    But this is a culture of “who screams the hardest must be right” sort of, IMO. Moderation is not taught encouraged or rewarded, so that is a huge underlying problem to work around.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Ted D
    anon said it best. You’re one of the few guys around here who practices what he preaches. I tend to share your preferences, and can totally understand being disgruntled surrounded by women who don’t meet your standards. I went through a similar phase when single, for different reasons.

    My guess is the environment has a lot to do with it. I’ve never lived in a city as large as Pittsburg (2 million people?), and have rarely met women who admitted to N > 8, even out here on the Left Coast. Of course, I had a standard policy of not dating women who were from San Francisco.

    Anyway, I don’t believe women lie to any significant degree, and there are plenty out there with low N, even over 30. They tend to be off the market though, due to the process of elimination and all that. You’ve got the right attitude, though. I wasn’t referring to guys like you doing the complaining. Righteous indignation is more appropriate.

    Though there is something very contradictory about lamenting the negative effects of women who sleep around, and at the same time sleeping with those very same women given the opportunity.

  • Abbot

    ¨It appears you are sexually ultra conservative ¨

    No, that is the mainstream male point of view

    ¨As a woman, you are literally accepting someone into your body… Doesn’t that seem like something you should only share with someone you love and trust?¨

    Nearly all women start out that way. As penile entry variety increases, especially in the absense of feelings, the specialness of course loses its luster. The association of that entry with the bonded feeling numbs. The glow is gone. The fun part could and often remains, but thats it. If your a man who really wants the sexual luster that comes with a woman, choose your mate accordingly.

  • Abbot

    ¨That is very different from the incongruent hypocrisy of Underdog who with a number count over 25 is considering dumping his girlfriend because she has a number count of 9.¨

    Surely she will find someone more suitable. So what´s the problem?

    ¨many, maybe even most Americans, are far more sexually liberal and are ok with having casual sex when they are not in a committed relationship. ¨

    Except for women who hate themselves in the morning, most people are ok with their own behavior. Of course there is no guarantee that someone in the future will not quietly avoid you for having engaged in certain practices.

  • Abbot

    ¨Though there is something very contradictory about lamenting the negative effects of women who sleep around, and at the same time sleeping with those very same women given the opportunity.¨

    Given the opportunity…that pretty much is reserved for the harem pass-a-rounders

    The only actual negative effect is having to spend more time sorting through women than grandpa ever had to.

  • Jayne

    New Poster

    @Ted D
    I must say as a woman, I really admire the way you view sex. I had/have similar views as well but I failed at up holding them for various reasons, even though I have a low count.

    Just wanted to say I dont think your asking for too much. I mean maybe in these times but I think your views are reasonable.

    Good luck in your relationship

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

      @Jayne

      Welcome, thanks for commenting!

  • Ted D

    The Lotus Eater – I disagree. To me, love, commitment, companionship, affection, etc. is simply what I offer every woman I want to and am willing to have sex with. But, I can get all of those things from a friend just the same. Unless you consider sex itself affection, but then it is something you share in casual sex.

    You really are missing my main point which is: sexual intimacy is what separates a friendship from a relationship. At a most basic level, sharing that intimacy with all comers cheapens its value when it is offered to me.

    So I simply don’t share your views in this. I completely expect everything you listed from my SO, but it has no more value to me than the same from a good friend. Which is precisely why people that do casual get so pissed off at me. I don’t value what THEY consider to be thier “deal” for a relationship, because frankly I am not lacking for love, affection, and companionship without them. All I’m missing is sexual intimacy and the added affection (hand holding and the like) that comes with it. I’ve had this conversation in person with a woman who was red in the face telling me how special her love was. Honestly, it really isn’t… I have had many problems with women in my life, but at the risk of sounding conceded I’ve never had much trouble finding love when I wanted it. In some ways I see love the way alphas see sex, plenty to go around. My 9 month “dry” spell wasn’t so long because I couldn’t find a mate, I wasn’t even looking at the time.

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

    In some ways I see love the way alphas see sex, plenty to go around. My 9 month “dry” spell wasn’t so long because I couldn’t find a mate, I wasn’t even looking at the time.

    I told you before that we share this view if I wanted I could had just kept friendships with women and men and never get married but I wanted a man to share my intimacy with him and have kids of course and only him and him with me. I guess that is why I hate cheaters so much “The only thing we can do that sets us apart from friends and family and you are doing with someone else?!!!” I’m not that strict about what gets my SO horny, hence my non issue with porn or fantasies once in a while, but the act has to be with me only.

  • Abbot

    “it is an ultra conservative view, particularly for an American man in the post modern era.”

    Post modern era? What? Is that some more ivory tower euphemistic propaganda out of some canned playbook that even men have supposedly bought into?

    Well, the dudes getting all the tail certainly will buy any and all nonsense that helps get their dicks wet, so yeah, but for no other reason.

    The mainstream male point of view is that it is highly undesirable to commit to a woman who has been an active member of the defacto harem, also known as the SMP, where women sexually share and service a small population of men. Repeatedly and casually for years.

  • Abbot

    “When two people have casual no strings attached sex that is all each are getting and giving. Later both of them will most likely enter a into an actual relationship where they both get and give more.”

    Yes, provided that all parties are accepting of the prior “no strings” hits. Could sorta through a monkey wrench into the presumption that the shift form no-strings to strings can be accomplished by merely deciding “its time.” That presumption has led to a crap load of angst and disappointment out there.

    “So nopey dopey, you are not “paying more” and getting the same thing that the casual sexers got and gave before you came along, unless the agreement with you was the same, no strings attached sex only.”

    Umm, yeah the person is paying more IF that is how they feel. Simple, yes? and quite acceptable since, after all, its personal and anything goes in that realm. If you’re in the slightest way considering commitment to a person who was cutting agreements over the use of their genitalia…RUN!

  • Abbot

    “And Ted D’s pov is that he will he is personally against casual sex for himself as well as his partner. Not a very male mainstream pov in today’s America.”

    Being against casual sex for himself is the only part that is not male mainstream. The rest absolutely is

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Ana
    “Moderation is not taught encouraged or rewarded, so that is a huge underlying problem to work around.”

    The need for frank parenting, some kind of pragmatic authority, is definitely needed. Not just in dealing with the SMP, but life in general. I don’t plan on having kids, but if I did, at a reasonably young age, I’d start hammering this home often:

    Everything in popular culture and entertainment that you see and hear, all the messages and imagery, direct and indirect, vague or obvious, artistic or not, is all an elaborate marketing scheme to convince you to spend your money or your time, or both, on whatever the product happens to be. Think very hard about what someone else is trying to convince you to do.

    Maybe that’s too much skepticism to breed into kids? It kind of worked for me in my teens, and I’m NOT a conspiracy theorist : )

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    “The only actual negative effect is having to spend more time sorting through women than grandpa ever had to.”

    Right… because those high N guys never have any paternity or STD issues to worry about…

  • Sassy6519

    @ The Lotus Eater

    That’s what I said from the first comment. Are you one of those people who likes to argue just to annoy people?

    I guess so.

    Other people seem to tolerate him better than I do. He just seems to parrot the same message over and over again, ad nausea.

    It’s getting a little old, and he’s preaching to the freaking choir. This singer is really close to chucking a bible at his head, just to get him to shut up.

    Seriously.

    If men despise sluts so much, their best way of combating them is through their actions, not words.

    If you meet a slut, don’t date her. Pay her no attention. If she tries to date you, run. It’s as simple as that honestly. If no man marries them, then those women will have received their just desserts.

    Bitching and moaning won’t stop those women from doing what they’re doing. I’ll repeat that one more time, for good measure.

    Bitching and moaning won’t stop those women from doing what they’re doing. If they want sex, they’ll get it. Nothing short of illness, death, or extenuating circumstances will stop them. Life’s best teacher is experience, however. If these women end up alone, it’s on them (and perhaps rightly so).

    Rant over.

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

    Maybe that’s too much skepticism to breed into kids? It kind of worked for me in my teens, and I’m NOT a conspiracy theorist : )

    Heh I think that is a healthy attitude although I also think part of the problem is that the same people that are more likely to notice this are the same ones not having kids and half of the ones that are are not doing the full job “They might say X group of is full of BS but we are all good and smart listen only to us” which is also a problem, the ideal is to teach the kid to identify BS not to eat up the ones their parents or else once in the real world they wouldn’t know how to tell them apart and only good luck will avoid getting them screwed up, YMMV.

  • tito

    what do you want him to settle down for? do you want his genes to be passed along?

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    @Jayne:

    There are lots of guys who think like Ted (real man Ted). Stick around here – we crawl out of the woodwork from time to time. Your challenge is going to be getting us to admit that in person.

  • Ian

    @Ted

    Here is the thing, it is DAMN HARD to find a woman under double digit N’s … Perhaps there are literally a ton of low N women around here somewhere, but they aren’t anywhere I go or my friends go. … So, I’m complaining because the women that appear to be my general equal around here (that is in age, socio-economic class, interests, etc) have mostly higher N’s.

    I’m one if those semi-awful men who have gotten to a highish number while chasing women with low numbers. I can vouch that those women do exist, en masse, with uniquely attractive qualities, like most people do. All women used to be one, many still were one at the front-end of their appropriate-to-date years.

    Filter for N first. What the hell do age, interests, and socio-economic class matter? First attraction, then reciprocation, then N. Too many filters, you’re thinning the herd to extinction, putting the remaining women too high on a pedestal for a proper relationship. They really would be one-in-a-million.

    If it was heaven, it wouldn’t be Pittsburg. No perfection down here.

    @Sassy

    If you meet a slut, don’t date her. Pay her no attention. If she tries to date you, run. It’s as simple as that honestly. If no man marries them, then those women will have received their just desserts.

    Speaking for myself, I wish no vengeance upon sluts. After a certain N, her behavior’s something literally beyond my personal concern, trees enning in the woods. What’s left is a bit of crying Indian at the waste of national resource every young woman steps through the portal, and something like regret when an otherwise compatible woman returns from the void. It’s the big shame, not the little woman.

    I just advise women just to lie. If a woman’s going to come back, hypocrisy is vice’s tribute to virtue, lying keeps the consequences away. Forgive yourself, move away, accept the shame, and forget the past without asking men or society to. Better, on the macro, than millions of women dying barren, deluding others, raising the next generation of femalrists.

  • Ted D

    Anacaona – “I guess that is why I hate cheaters so much “The only thing we can do that sets us apart from friends and family and you are doing with someone else?!!!” ”

    Yes exactly! I have never and will never cheat, because IMO doing so would completely destroy not only my current relationship, but the value of my sexual intimacy for the rest of my life. To me, there really is no more destructive thing a person can do to their mate than step out on them for sex.

    I know this is exactly how I “function” because of the situation with my ex-wife. When we were married and having sex, I loved her as a mate and lover. Near the end when the sex was long gone, I still loved her, but more as a friend than a lover. In fact, I still love and care for her a great deal. She is the mother of my children, and a damn fine person with many great qualities. But, we are no longer having sex, and I no longer feel as connected to her as I once did. I certainly am not to minimize the anguish caused by losing that connection, but I simply do not see love as so rare and valuable that it is the most important thing in a relationship. Yes, love is absolutely required for a relationship to work, but no less so than air is required for a person to live. I don’t understand why people get so excited when someone falls in love, like it is some huge achievement. I know it isn’t very romantic to say, but I believe I could be “in love” with any woman that I found attractive, that was affectionate and nurturing towards me. Yes, I’m saying I believe I can learn to love anyone I find attractive. (by find attractive I’m not just saying hot body. It includes all the things I look for in a friend character wise, and more.

    To me, love is like water. It is something I need to survive, but it isn’t so scarce that I must concentrate on finding it. Love is literally everywhere, it is simply a matter of finding the right person to share it with.

  • Abbot

    “The need for frank parenting, some kind of pragmatic authority, is definitely needed. ”

    That would certainly reduce WOE, clearly a product of bad parenting

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan,

    “I can honestly say that of the women who were present, all are dating or targeting betas.”

    Then that is unusual. Not impossible, but unusual. I think you agree when you later mention:

    “To be honest, that particular sample just happened to be less promiscuous. There are some real pieces of work in the focus groups, but they weren’t in Boston at that time.”

    I have only found one “group” of women that I would say had a “pro-active” approach to being open to finding “marriage worthy guys”, and that’s my wife’s childhood friends group (all married, all with kids, the highest N being 2). That was actually one of the things that made me take extra notice of my wife…that she had such a group of childhood friends, none of which I could say would be a bad influence.

    But that was rare in my experience. Many of the women I met in college (except for STEM women) really were just floating like dandelions in the wind, with more forethought set on their next “travel” destination than meeting good partners. It was less so in the STEM case mainly because your first year of engineering weeded out the short term thinkers.

    Well, hopefully you’ll be able to continue to influence your focus groups.

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

      @ENY

      Then that is unusual. Not impossible, but unusual.

      Yes, it is. Only five women had dinner with Kate B, though. They were also the women I’m probably closest to, and so have probably influenced more.

      Many of the women I met in college (except for STEM women) really were just floating like dandelions in the wind, with more forethought set on their next “travel” destination than meeting good partners.

      I don’t know why, but this made me laugh. I like the imagery – it’s perfect.

      Well, hopefully you’ll be able to continue to influence your focus groups.

      I need new groups. I am still in touch with quite a few of the old gang, but they’ve dispersed somewhat. It’s not like they don’t know what I’m going to say. If I get organized I should be able to recruit interested students in the area. Of course, it’s all anecdotal, but I always found it to be a helpful way to understand the dynamics.

  • Michael Singer

    A couple of questions come to mind:
    - can recreational sex make a male/woman slut stay faithful?
    - can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?
    Can man or a woman who has led a promiscuous lifestyle fulfill the vows of monogamy made before each other friends, family, and quite often a minister of God ? ( Take your pick of options)
    This short sighted thinking ( actually willful stupidity) is a severe form of psychological denial and possibly a Triad personality disorder.
    How can a person who has led a promiscuous life without strings will metamorphosis into a faithful monogamous person of truth, integrity, and character ?
    To have higher moral expectations for others than one has for themself is moral psychopathy.

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

    To me, love is like water. It is something I need to survive, but it isn’t so scarce that I must concentrate on finding it. Love is literally everywhere, it is simply a matter of finding the right person to share it with.

    I find really hard to fall in love but I can love nonsexually almost every person that is not an utter bitch/bastard. So is more about having a lot of love to give but only a limited amount of passion to share, if that makes any sense.

    That was actually one of the things that made me take extra notice of my wife…that she had such a group of childhood friends, none of which I could say would be a bad influence.

    This ties in with a question Ted made that maybe his meeting all sorts of high N girls because of area and another observation that women that are not Alpha chasers are mostly invisible to them anyway. I do believe female sexual competition makes almost impossible for women of diametrical opposite views on sex be close friends. I was reading some blogs about men looking to expat complaining that the fame of Dominican women as faithful and good girls was exaggerated. The problem is that now that the word is out that foreigners men are looking us out for marriage touristic places are filled with a high ratio of opportunistic women looking for a chump. The good girls are clustered on other places and most of the guys that get the good ones is because their friends meet on very specific dating sites (not match.com please) or because their friends Dominican wives introduced them to their single acquaintances. So yeah find a group of true good girls and is very likely that you find similar women on them, YMMV

    I think this ties in with

  • Abbot

    - can recreational sex make a male/woman slut stay faithful?
    - can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?
    Can man or a woman who has led a promiscuous lifestyle fulfill the vows of monogamy

    ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    Possibly. But why are men, promiscuous or otherwise, constantly being asked, er told, to take that risk literally for the rest of their lives and select a life mate from among the largest population of promiscuos people ever (western women)?

    Women who are restrained sexually are sexually equal to most men. It is unbelievable that feminists missed this huge tenet of equality.

  • Michael Singer

    @ Abott – “Possibly….and select a life mate from among the largest population of promiscuos people ever.”
    Possible – yes – I agree. Anything is possible. What is the probability and how is it done to take TWO sexually promiscuos people and change overnight into a monogamous couple ? That should be the obvious question. Nobody wants a divorce and children suffer the most damage. Though most people dont marry with that intention – statistics shows shows a ever increasing divorce rate.
    A non promiscuous person who has exhibited restraint / discipline isn’t looking for a manwhore or a hypergamous woman slut.
    It takes both sexes to exhibit self control and hence the rise in the feminism ( ie female promiscuity) only to learn of the the consequences of any promiscuity which has its moments of pleasure but also leads to self inflicted destruction either male or female.

    This is where it gets tricky – holding out while exhibiting self control under the perception that your “missing out”. Once one learns they are missing out on irreparable emotional damage, disease, and inflicting immense pain on themself and others.
    Btw, I dont court American women any more. Western promiscuity of education and prosperity has ruined both men and women emotionally, spiritually, mentally and left them without the understanding of consequences and the discipline of self control.

  • Abbot

    “What is the probability and how is it done to take TWO sexually promiscuos people and change overnight into a monogamous couple ? ”

    Just one party being promiscuous is probably as problematic. Typically, that would be the woman since more women than men have practiced the mental-physical de-bonding for numerous years [aka expressing, exploring and embracing in purely feminist circles].

    “It takes both sexes to exhibit self control and hence the rise in the feminism ( ie female promiscuity) only to learn of the the consequences of any promiscuity which has its moments of pleasure but also leads to self inflicted destruction either male or female.”

    Then does feminism also advocate male promiscuity?

    “holding out while exhibiting self control ”

    is the mark of a worthy woman

    “I dont court American women any more”

    That option is easier than ever. The door to other worlds is wide open and just in time

  • Michael Singer

    @Abbot

    To answer the question “Then does feminism also advocate male promiscuity?” Promiscuity promotes promiscuity despite gender.
    Promiscuity is nothing new. In review of history, it has been quite often seen publicly more in men then women ( women were much more discreet about it) until recently women decided they publicly wanted to wreck marriages and their childrens lives too.
    Feminism or Macho/ Alpha is nothing but a selfish excuse to break a wedding vow or live a promiscuous lifestyle. All Feminism is a attempt to “gold plate a turd” of promiscuous lifestyle and make it publicly acceptable. There are consequences for every single action even between two consenting adults and one reaps what they sow – to think otherwise is quite shortsighted and foolish.

    Btw, the holding out / self control comment was in regards to myself. I was abstinent till I met my first wife and practice abstinence to this day. Self control and discipline pays off big time and the more a person has of it and in more areas – the better they are. Why ? Outcomes are quite predictable if one can wait. It is simply reverse engineering.
    To rush to meet a women whether in the USA or elsewhere is still short sighted. American values and society are destructive – ever wonder why Islam calls the USA ” the great Satan” ?
    Women are plentiful and a very limited few are actually worth getting to know ( I am understating this to be kind). For what would make a mutually good fit ( attractive and disciplined inside and out is so scarce it takes Divine intervention).
    Btw, one of the main points of discipline is focusing on what one can do vs. what one can’t do. Hence, I am a pretty darn busy investing/discipling “yours truly” and enjoy it. While this de rigueur isn’t the typical American gig- it has served me well over the years and the love the benefits of it.

  • Abbot

    Finally, a revelation.

    “Without the ability to control and delay reproduction, it’s incredibly difficult for women to pursue education, develop careers, and carve out fulfilling, independent lives.”

    The above is directed at single women. This “delay” ASSUMES that there will be a slut phase and men will be there when the delay ends. If men are not or are not willing to be there, the whole “reproductive rights” thing and the related pursuit of “independence” suddenly becomes much less fulfilling and much less desirable. If it is less desirable then feminism becomes less desirable. That is why feminists childishly spout out phrases like “madonna-whore” and other canned “lets try to shame men” rhetoric. That is why feminist invented this “sex positive” national embarrassment. This is not about sex. This is about men who are spoiling the party for women merely by not following through and being there when needed.

    http://prospect.org/article/obama-condescending-women

    .

  • Michael Singer

    Here is a great article covering the same topic from a different viewpoint.
    While I do agree with the article, I would like to point out there are plenty of “educated” women but very few “smart” ones.
    There is vast difference between the “educated” and “smart”.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/morally-schizoid_liberal_women_and_their_weiner_husbands.html

  • Abbot

    From the American Thinker article-

    “liberal women believe wholeheartedly in the idiotic social construct they call, “sexual liberation.”

    Yes, it is absolutely a social construct. It is also a proven failure.

    “They pride themselves on losing their virginity, as though that “accomplishment” had ever been above the challenge-scale of an alley cat in heat.”

    And as if in a trance, continue to play in the alley.

    “scour their host of intimate “trial runs” searching for that mythical, Hollywood-construct, Mr. Right.”

    Of course, Mr Right is assumed to be willing to adopt an alley cat

    “This Mr. Right guy, for whom they are searching, is known to them up front as even more sexually-liberated than they”

    But those men are in short supply. Most have not bought into this social construct because they are from a vastly different sexual culture. Sadly for these women, even men who are former alley cats themselves prefer to commit to a different species of animal.

    “Having spent their youth casually throwing their own sexual morality to the winds of fairytale “liberation,” these liberal women still steadfastly cling to the faithfully monogamous ideal for that sometime-later moment when they actually do desire all the traditional things”

    And they will cling and cling and cling…because men will not cooperate when that sometime-later moment comes around

    “But these liberal women somehow — in perfect schizoid manner — convince themselves that once married, they will be the gratuitous beneficiaries of the monogamous respect they still desire, but have never once demanded or deserved.”

    They deserve it insomuch as men determine.

  • Michael Singer

    @ Abbot – allow me to springboard.
    Any person deserve the consequences of their choices.

    No moral man would want to marry a prostitute or stripper.
    No moral woman would want to marry a manwhore.
    Their choices have formed their personalities and as a result the promiscuous person is emotionally, mentally, and spiritually sterile. Its been “all about me” well then what one ends up with is a person with the same “all about me” persona just like you.
    The hard reality is making a life long commitment with a person just like you.
    In review of the article as well as this one – the only person to blame is oneself for their choice ( ie the woman Weiner married is just like him or perhaps worse. She knew exactly what she was getting into but over looked it anyways).

    The article stated it beautifully -
    “If these faux feminists are the modern rule, then I would be forced to admit that men who still contend women are stupid might actually be understating their case. Fortunately, there are enough women — alas, mostly the conservative variety ceaselessly scorned in the dominant culture — but there are enough of us wise women left to give pause to those who consider our gender solely to blame for this modern liberal-woman’s disease.”

    If one wants a monogamous partner with character, integrity, moral, and exhibit self control to marry and raise children. Then one has to exhibit character, integrity, moral, and exhibit self control BEFORE marriage.

    To think otherwise is Morally-Schizoid.

  • Abbot

    “exhibit self control BEFORE marriage”

    It is much harder for women to exhibit self control in their self-created fluid-exchange environment where just about any woman can effortlessly bed the desirable man du jour from a pool of men she knows full well are always willing. Thus a woman who does not behave as such is pleasantly unique, exhibits superior character by way of her “non-action,” and is highly sought after by men seeking marriage material.

  • Michael Singer

    @ Abbot

    I have run across a few women who exhibit “self control” and modesty of these over the years( incredibly gracious + classy= feminine = sexy). These are very few women to whom I will consider paying attention to ( its a amazingly mutual unspoken “vibe”).

    Beside being few in number here are couple of observations:

    - They majority of them are NOT American (middle Eastern ie Jewish Turkish, Egyptian)
    - The few of which are American women are Mormons.

    The high standards of morals obviously correlates with culture, upbringing, spiritual orientation and is seen in their conduct ( Btw, I am Jewish Christian).

    What has been your findings ?

  • Adam

    Thank you for this article. This situation is almost spot on what I’m experiencing and you offered some good advice. You have given me a lot to think about and hopefully I can make the decision to watch less or no porn and curb my instinct to sleep with more women.

  • eduardo

    Hi Susan,

    allow me to correct your vision a bit:

    Love is an action, not a feeling

    I lived for a longer while with the Amish/Mennonite community.

    Their teaching: loves depends on trustworthy actions.

    I find this to be very true.

    Lets say you have a colleague, a housekeeper, a friend or childcare etc that is extremely dependable and trustworthy – you would start to love her and would be well advised to marry her.

    Go with the feeling of being head over heels – you are not well advised.

    Personally I think that relationships should be based on:

    being trustworthy
    then material and social interests
    then emotional excitement

    This all will combine to love – which is an action not a feeling

    Regards

    Eduardo

  • Tran

    Have to say I agree with the posts from the women who say they would never give a man with 20+ sexual partners a chance. Complete deal-breaker. And the women in my circle, who are passionately sexual, just selective about it, tend to be on the same page.

    Reasons:
    1) Complete visceral turn-off. What is sexy about someone who basically has sex like an animal? Dogs in heat are ridiculous, not erotic.

    2) STD risk. I don’t personally know anyone who’s had a significant number of sexual partners who hasn’t had an STD (often one of some seriousness). Not worth the risks by any stretch of the imagination.

    3) Something is fucking broken inside a person like this. People with that kind of body/ heart split/ dichotomy going on are generally, in my experience, emotionally out of touch with themselves, displacing or avoiding their feelings, and often incapable of taking the risks involved with feeling deep emotions. Waste of time if you’re not just looking to get laid.

  • Paul

    well i can tell you this, there aren’t that many good women out there to meet anymore for us good guys that are very seriously looking.

  • Pingback: Rethinking Casual Sex | Pride & Equality Post