880»

10 Reasons to Date a Beta Male

We know that humans are descended from only a minority of prehistoric men, half the number of women who reproduced. The men who were successful in passing along their genes were the ones who embraced risk and succeeded in their quests. Men who failed the challenge, or who were too risk averse to attempt it, ended their lines with their own deaths. Therefore, in a very real way, we are all descended from dominant, successful males. (For the record, those challenges were not all heroic. At least one biologist has argued that the most violent early men successfully reproduced via rape, which is why the rape gene is still in our DNA today.)

The alpha/beta nomenclature as applied to humans only goes back to 1970, when David Mech coined the term to describe wolf behavior. It was later adopted by Game encoder Mystery to describe the pecking order among males. Biologists also sometimes refer to “dads” and “cads” in their work, generally to describe specific personality traits that correlate to short vs. long-term mating strategies. Over time, we’ve conflated the two concepts. (A Google search for the term alpha male produces many pages of links to Pickup Artist and Seduction sites with products to sell.)

Women select long-term mates according to a long list of traits. Those include alpha traits like social dominance, physical prowess, and symmetry. They also include what might be called beta traits, including ability to provide, kindness, honesty, demonstration of love and affection, intelligence, compatibility, dependability and industriousness.

WARNING: Alpha traits alone are suitable for short-term mating only!

In the current era, the men at the very top of the dominance hierarchy – the most alpha of all alpha descendants, are highly problematic as husbands and fathers, as reflected in rates of marriage, infidelity, fatherhood and divorce. Proceed with extreme caution.

If you harbor dreams of marriage and family, I encourage you to give the beta male traits the utmost consideration. Since betas represent more than 75% of the population, there’s a large pool of men with a potentially optimal mix of alpha and beta traits. It is also possible for men to learn alpha behaviors, raising their own testosterone levels in the process. I believe it is far more difficult to teach natural alphas, or cads, how to empathize, cooperate and share. They are not designed for marriage or fatherhood.

Why should you look for a beta male?

 

1. He’s more highly evolved. 

From Andrew at the blog Evolvify:

Anthropology argument against tribal alpha-male narrative

There is no good reason to believe that humans evolved in hierarchical tribes between tens of thousands to two million years ago. To the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence showing that humans evolved in largely egalitarian bands that punished attempts of dominance with social sanctioning, banishment, and death (Boehm 1999). Yes, that’s basically saying that alpha males got offed by their social group — not exactly a benefit to reproduction. 

Evolutionary argument against tribal alpha-male narrative

Without going into tedious detail, it’s unlikely that the alpha-male behavioral type (however imprecise that classification may be) is particularly adaptive. Traits that confer significant reproductive advantage tend to spread through a population rapidly. That basically means that traits that consistently vary widely among a species are probably not under significant selection pressures. If being alpha was the ne plus ultra of mate wooing strategies, there would be a whooooooollle lot fewer “betas.”

It is very possible that there are few genetic betas, but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has “betatized” a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium. It’s also possible that the alpha beta divide will remain a constant 80/20 regardless of characteristics. There must always be a most dominant male. The question is, can one have too much of a good thing?

John Durant at Hunter Gatherer makes the interesting observation that dominance strategies among hunter gatherers would likely have included many of the traits we’ve come to call beta:

Whatever strategies those alpha males did to successfully reproduce, are, by definition, dominance strategies.

The following are all dominance strategies: height, intelligence, humor, athletic prowess, health, kindness, creativity, wealth, status, violence, deception, honesty, and more.

2. He plays well with others. 

The Worth Ethic Corporation is a consulting firm founded by Kate Ludeman, PhD and Eddie Erlandson, MD, both Harvard Business School professors. They specialize in helping companies treat Alpha Male Syndrome (no, this is not a joke). 

Dysfunctional alphas create resistance, resentment, and revenge. People admire their competence, but they hate reporting to them or teaming with them. When we’re invited into a company as consultants, most of the complaints we hear are about alpha males who are driving people crazy. We’re told about alpha managers who demoralize their staff with autocratic, abusive, or micromanaging tactics; about alpha coworkers who are demanding, impatient, and unwilling to listen; about alpha peers who fight to get their way even when they’re demonstrably wrong; about alpha subordinates who solo rather than collaborate. The gripes we hear have usually been part of the corporate milieu for some time, consuming far too much employee time and energy. The cost in absenteeism, turnover, stress-related health problems, and the loss of loyalty and motivation is enormous.

… a great deal of wreckage is caused by boys behaving badly. While alphas of both sexes are aggressive, competitive, and prone to anger, the male of the species is far likely to become ruthless, intimidating, and belligerent. These common observations were borne out in our research: men scored much higher than women on virtually all measures of alpha risk factors.

Ludeman and Erlandson’s research has identified the following risks that are present along with positive alpha attributes. As you can see, the context is the workplace, but parallels to relationship behaviors should be obvious.

 

Alpha Attribute Alpha Risk
Dominant, confident, takes charge Doesn’t develop strong leaders; intimidating; creates fear; stifles disagreement
Charismatic, magnetic leader who leads the way Manipulates to get his way, uses charm to lure people down his path
Aggressive, competitive Competes with peers; alienates colleagues; reluctant to give others credit
High achiever with a strong sense of mission Takes high levels of performance for granted;expects the impossible and fails to acknowledge what’s required to achieve it
Bold, creative, innovative thinker Arrogant, stubborn, overly opinionated; imposes own views; closed to others’ thinking
Persistent, tenacious, determined, steadfast Drives self and others to exhaustion; urgent; impatient; thinks rules don’t apply to him
Strong appetite for newness and change Overzealous; undervalues organizational alignment; launches into action before gathering support from others
Farsighted; sees what’s possible So focused on future that present and near term are neglected; loses sight of business viability
Sees what’s missing Can be critical, demeaning; fails to appreciate others’ contributions; people feel demoralized

 

There’s not much you can do if you work for an alpha boss. But do you really want to come home to this guy for the next 50 years?

3.  He’s more likely to be creative, artsy and funny.

 

4.  He’s capable of emotional connection (assuming he isn’t caught up pretending to be an alpha who is incapable of emotional connection).

Mark Manson of the blog Postmasculine:

The Alpha worldview pigeonholes women into two simple, robotic drives: pursue the Alpha, use the Beta. This is fantasy. A role that’s purely an extension of the guy’s Alpha/Beta fixation in himself, a broken record playing inside his own mind. And not to mention it gives women little to no credit to both their nuanced preferences, as well as their ability to act on their own free will. When I see a man judging female behavior in these terms, my first reaction is always to think: this guy has spent way too much time chasing the wrong kinds of women.

And finally, perceiving the world in these terms sabotages real relationships and strong emotional connections . If the definition of Being Alpha is somewhere in the vicinity of holding your personal drives above others, and the definition of an emotional connection with a woman is to empathize with her and literally see and feel the world through her eyes, then we have a major conflict of interest. The two are mutually exclusive. Genuine emotional connection, by definition, requires one to experience and relate to the drives, motivations and will of a woman. This is simply impossible if you’re enmeshed in a self-serving and social-bulldozing mindset.

5. He’s nurturing and caring.

He’ll take care of you when you’re sick. Over the course of having and raising children, confronting illness and plain old aging, this is not to be dismissed lightly.

6. He’s much less likely to cheat.

Key predictors of whether a man will cheat are the personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness. Promiscuous men are low in both, hardwired for short-term mating only.

Agreeableness:  A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.

Conscientiousness: A tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.

The strongest personality predictor of short-term mating is impulsive sensation-seeking. Studies have consistently linked sensation-seeking to short-term mating, including men’s patronage of prostitutes. Impulsive sensation seeking is closely associated with the Big Five dimensions of low agreeableness and low conscientiousness.

7. He’s far more likely to marry and stay married.

Could be his divorced counterpart has higher T levels:

In an American study men with just slightly more testosterone than average were 43% more likely to get divorced than men with normal levels, 31% more likely to leave home after marital problems and 38% more likely to cheat on their wives.

8. He wants to be a dad, and he’ll be good at it.

He’s three times more likely to have kids.

“Some alphas compete with their own children,” says Eddie Erlandson, MD.

9. He’s healthier.

Alpha males are stressed out and more likely to have cardiac disease.

While they may appear cool and calm, many human alphas thrive on adrenaline, the hormone that primes the body to fight or flee in times of danger. Those short bursts of power helped our ancestors outrun predators. But if the perceived threat never lets up, the chronic state of alarm increases cortisol, too, and can eventually weaken the immune system, raise blood-pressure, cholesterol and insulin levels, block arteries and spread inflammation.

Some alphas have so-called Type-A personalities, a combination of aggression, impatience and anger first linked to a higher risk of heart disease in the 1960s. Hostility is the main culprit, according to more recent research. A study of 1,750 Canadians in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology last week found that people who displayed signs of hostility—whether they admitted feeling hostile or not—had twice the risk of cardiovascular problems as those who did not. “Not all alpha males are Type A, but the combination can be deadly from a health standpoint,” Dr. Karasu says.

…Beta males, by contrast, are nice guys, peacemakers and team players. They make good husbands, fathers and friends. Some experts say they tend to be happier than alphas, since they aren’t driven by the need to be on top.

10. He’s not a sociopathic narcissist.

He’s nice to be around and interested in others. From Brett McKay at The Art of Manliness:

We’ve probably all seen those men who can enter any room and instantly command it. I’m not talking about the loud and boisterous dolt who makes a scene with obnoxious alpha-male jackassery. I’m talking about the man who exudes a silent magnetic charisma that electrifies the entire room just by his presence. People feel better when this type of man is around and they want to be near him.

…If you really want to be the man in the room that people are drawn to, focus your interest on them. Many men have the false idea that if you want to command the room, you have to make everything about you. These misguided souls wear flashy jewelry or skin tight clothing that shows off their well-chiseled body. Their conversation focuses on them- their cars, their bench press, their sexual exploits, etc. While a few pinheads will be impressed with this sort of thing, the vast majority of the population will think it’s a bunch crap.

The reality is that the magnetic gentleman-the man who can walk into any room and own it- is others focused. People want to feel loved, appreciated, and important. Sadly, many people these days aren’t feeling much of that. Perhaps their boss never compliments them or their wife never voices any appreciation for all that they do. If you can fill that void in people’s lives by focusing on them and acknowledging their importance, you’ll instantly bring them under your magnetic influence.

By way of putting my money where my mouth is, I can happily report that this September I’ll celebrate anniversary #28 with Mr. HUS, who fits this description to a T.

Any attempts to fit an alpha peg into a beta hole are strongly discouraged.  :)

10 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

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

    Oh boy!
    This one should be as entertaining as The Avengers movie and probably with as much fights in it. *grabs popcorn*

  • Marie

    Grr my comment disappeared
    Susan – what’s your take on a man with many beta traits, but who’s young and would have had the possibility of sleeping around, if he wants to?

    I’ve been seeing a guy who’s attractive, well off and fairly confident. He’s not one to dominate the room but I know other girls find him attractive as well. He’s 26.
    He’s the cuddliest man I’ve been with, very family oriented, his brothers and best mates are married. He’s talked about how he feels much older than his age. He has two LTRs behind him, one very serious. I know he doesn’t like promiscuous women, he seems very aware of women’s nurturing skills and often compliments me on femininity. The ‘going out’ phase has been straightforward, he always initiates, makes good conversation and is vocal about me being “perfect for him” and that he “feels lucky”. Now that we’ve had sex a few times, he seems more interested than before.
    But many of these things are gestures/words. I’m confident of my attractiveness, I’m a 8.5, 9 on a good day but I know young men often seek variety.
    He’s got a couple of alpha skills, like creativity and a slight seeking towards adventure. I don’t know where to place him, as I don’t know a physical example of a ‘definite’ beta or alpha.

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

      @Marie

      He sounds like a catch. Definitely greater beta, at least. I don’t think that alpha and beta are two different tents, and guys get sent to one or the other. It’s a spectrum, and most guys are a mix of traits. There are plenty of handsome betas who are not particularly dominant, and plenty of ugly alphas who do well with women because they are “sexy ugly.”

      It sounds like the two of you are exclusive at this point? I say enjoy the dating, the great sex, and keep your eyes wide open. Make sure he displays all the positive beta traits that you want in a partner. If any red flags come up, deal with them head on right away.

  • Underdog

    “Susan – what’s your take on a man with many beta traits, but who’s young and would have had the possibility of sleeping around, if he wants to?”

    If he WANTS to? I’m not Susan, but I would advise you to steer clear of him if you’re looking for an LTR. Let him have his fun with the sluts and get it out of his system. If he’s not fucking around because he has no game even though he wants to, then he is a chump and you should laugh at him.

  • Marie

    Underdog-
    Maybe I should have phrased it, “if he wanted to”. He shows no signs of wanting to sleep around, if he did, I wouldn’t have dated him. I just have the assumption that most men under 30 carry some desire to sleep around, whether women are able to see it or not.

  • Underdog

    “Underdog-
    Maybe I should have phrased it, “if he wanted to”. He shows no signs of wanting to sleep around, if he did, I wouldn’t have dated him. I just have the assumption that most men under 30 carry some desire to sleep around, whether women are able to see it or not.”

    Oh, he’s fine then. Carry on.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    My opinion on that subject is that starting a long-distance relationship is a bad idea. Any concerns and paranoia you have is x 10′d. Since you are still uncertain of the connection (why ELSE would you be asking the internet for help, right?) my bet is that you are going to have a lot of sleepless nights over little things.

    That is JUST my opinion. Not about the alpha-beta divide at all.

    On the actual topic:
    Agreed 110%. But…trying to teach a beta guy to learn alpha traits is like telling a guy to hit up a fat girl in the hopes that she is going to slim down. You cannot create attraction where it otherwise does not exist. You need to have that initial attraction to begin with, I’d think.

    Not that it’s impossible, but if the similarities are the same…I’ve only ever been attracted to one overweight girl in my whole life. It’s goddam hard to overcome that.

  • Thrasymachus

    Susan:

    Why is intelligence considered a beta trait? I would have thought that it was unrelated to the alpha/beta distinction, since there are smart alphas as well as smart betas.

    The same may be said about the ability to provide, which may be one way of distinguishing between cads and dads, but not necessarily between alphas and betas, which, as you correctly note, is not the same thing. An alpha’s social dominance/ high status often translates into increased command of material and other resources.

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

      @Thrasymachus

      Why is intelligence considered a beta trait? I would have thought that it was unrelated to the alpha/beta distinction, since there are smart alphas as well as smart betas.

      That’s true, but women generally select alpha traits for short-term mating and a mix for long-term mating. Women seeking casual sex do not discriminate based on intelligence, therefore it is considered a quality sought for long-term mating. The alpha beta dichotomy is not a switch – one or the other – but rather a mix of traits on a spectrum. So there will of course be highly intelligent alpha males – 70% of CEOs are estimated to be alphas.

      In terms of sheer numbers, I imagine that the number of beta males in STEM fields tilts IQ in their favor, but I don’t have hard data on this.

  • Maggie

    @Marie

    He sounds wonderful. The fact that he’s family-oriented, doesn’t show interest in sleeping around and has had LTRs shows that he may be steady and looking for an LTR. He’s an adult and sounds like a keeper.

  • JP

    “Underdog-
    Maybe I should have phrased it, “if he wanted to”. He shows no signs of wanting to sleep around, if he did, I wouldn’t have dated him. I just have the assumption that most men under 30 carry some desire to sleep around, whether women are able to see it or not.”

    I’m thinking whether I had a “desire to sleep around” when I was 26. I got married when I was 26.

    Let me think for a minute.

    No, I didn’t.

    I would probably have been quite willing to form emotional bonds with other women, but no sleeping around.

  • PeppermintPanda

    Personally, I believe the Alpha-Beta concept is a false dichotomy that is based on the sort of voodoo “science” that the most extreme militant feminists use …

    Years back I went to Australia with several friends of mine and, like most college age men, we checked out the club scene. We acted in ways that many would describe as acting like “beta males” and got laid like rock-stars. The reason for this, as best as we can tell, is that Australia has more of a macho male culture than Canada has and the simple act of buying women drinks (something Australian guys were not doing) and having “cute” Canadian accents made us stand out and get noticed.

    The nice-guy “Beta” routine is failing for most guys for two reasons; there are far too many guys acting, behaving and dressing in the same way making you far too generic, and few people can respect or feel attraction to someone who worships the ground they walk on. From what I have seen, the average attractive woman started dating at a very young age (between 14 and 16) and became attracted to and dated several nice guys using this strategy long before she met you; and they all fell apart, often in very messy ways. Even by simply befriending these guys she ended up in multiple awkward situations which she did nothing to encourage that ended poorly, so if you remind her of these guys she wants absolutely nothing to do with you.

    If all women wanted was “Alpha” males evolution would ensure that the genes necessary for men to be “Beta” males would not be part of our make-up. On the other hand, if I’m right, the flooding of the sexual market place with “Alpha” males who took the red-pill will only ensure that the countless negative experience women have with these kinds of men makes “Alpha” males completely unattractive.

  • Schala

    “The same may be said about the ability to provide, which may be one way of distinguishing between cads and dads, but not necessarily between alphas and betas, which, as you correctly note, is not the same thing. An alpha’s social dominance/ high status often translates into increased command of material and other resources.”

    Sure, He’s Iron Man. Meaning he’s filthy rich…and won’t invest it into you, because he doesn’t care about you. But hey, he’s alpha! And earns good money…just not a provider.

  • GudEnuf

    Without going into tedious detail, it’s unlikely that the alpha-male behavioral type (however imprecise that classification may be) is particularly adaptive.

    It’s not that difficult to explain. Certain mating strategies become less effective the more people use them. It’s like rock-paper-scissors: if everyone’s using rock strategy, you can win with a paper strategy. But once the paper strategy becomes more common, scissors becomes a better strategy.

    Likewise with cad/dad strategies. The cad strategy is very effective in a tribe full of dads. But in a tribe full of cads, dads have the upper hand.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    To all Women who see these Presents, Greetings.

    Please, please, please do not “force it” with a guy you’re not attracted to. That’s a one-way ticket to Resentmentville. You get with a guy who’s sort-of okay, and 9 times out of 10 you’ll end up hating his guts. That hate is a precursor to doing some really ugly shit to a fellow human being.

    Matter of fact, I wish people would just drop this Alpha/Beta/Charlie/Delta crap in the first place. The terminology is so subjective as to be nearly meaningless. You need a 500 word essay and an hour of clarifying to make sure you’re even on the same page with somebody every time these terms get dragged out. Watch – arguing about what constitutes Alpha behavior vs Beta vs Other is what half this thread will be about.

    If you like a dude and he seems like a good long-term prospect (use your brain AND your ‘gina) go after his ass. If he’s not, don’t. Him being Alpha Six or Zulu One shouldn’t matter unless you’re using call signs on a tactical radio.

  • drunicusveritas

    Here’s what I know, as a man -
    I used to be kind, very respectful, polite and very “beta” around attractive women. I would occasionally have an LTR for a year or two, but would invariably be dumped.
    After a divorce at 27, I went to the gym, learned game, got a higher paying job, but most effectively “learned game.”
    I admit now to being a bit of a jerk. I tease, flirt, gently mock, and walk around with my chin high and my gym pumped arms and chest confidently displayed.
    I don’t think too much about hitting on (or sleeping with) whichever woman is attractive to me, and says “yes.”
    Alpha works. Betas, in general, are losers who get hurt. I’ve been both, and alpha is far far far better.

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

      @drunicusveritas

      Alpha works. Betas, in general, are losers who get hurt. I’ve been both, and alpha is far far far better.

      But not for women, and that’s who I’m addressing with this post. You are enjoying being a jerk, you find that it gets you laid. That’s all good. You are precisely the kind of man that women who want to marry should avoid.

  • Chris_in_CA

    Susan,

    First off, I find this an interesting and not inaccurate assessment of betas. That said…

    “It is very possible that there are few genetic betas, but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has ‘betatized’ a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium.”

    While I do agree, I must question your use of ‘culture’ here. Do you mean social behaviors only – the denigration of boys, the portrayal of men as only slackers or brutes, etc. – or do you include the legal snares which destroy families and ruin the professional lives of men?

    If it’s the latter, great! But I think it’s the former. Fixing social behaviors may indeed compel more young women to choose more wisely. But we men are realizing that the legal deck is stacked.

    Let me go through a few of these points. I don’t disagree with all of them (or even most). Just want to add a little MGTOW flavoring.

    “4. He’s capable of emotional connection (assuming he isn’t caught up pretending to be an alpha who is incapable of emotional connection).”
    And we men aim for alpha presentation because we see that it works. Isn’t that part of game? Something you encourage?

    “5. He’s nurturing and caring.”
    Here’s where your social side does have an effect. Men will be nurturing – when we get some respect for doing it!

    “6. He’s much less likely to cheat.”
    Yes. He’s more likely to be cheated on. (I had a stat for this someplace; will try to find it.)

    “7. He’s far more likely to marry and stay married.”
    He’s also more likely to be divorced, once his wife decided she wants more alpha.

    “8. He wants to be a dad, and he’ll be good at it.”
    Only until his wife decides their kids will make great pawns in divorce settlements.

    I presume you have some idea of how demoralizing it is when a man cannot see his own children. Do you know how demoralizing it is for the friends of that man? Who see his pain and swear never to endure it themselves?

    Lurking Ladies of HUS, that’s the sort of thing you’re facing now. Socially, the culture has pummeled masculinity so hard that men are outright afraid to show any. Legally, men are a couple rungs down in comparison to women. No surprise that more of us are saying “no thanks” to the whole deal.

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

      @Chris in CA

      Do you mean social behaviors only – the denigration of boys, the portrayal of men as only slackers or brutes, etc. – or do you include the legal snares which destroy families and ruin the professional lives of men?

      I meant social behaviors. Legal snares are obviously real, but I don’t think they make men more beta. In fact, they probably make men either more alpha or GTOW, as they depress the marriage rate.

      And we men aim for alpha presentation because we see that it works. Isn’t that part of game? Something you encourage?

      The great thing about Game is that a guy who is basically emotionally connected or even dependent can learn to pace himself so that the woman is not overwhelmed with his need. So I do encourage that. But every time I will choose the beta guy who feels emotions and learns to reveal them strategically over the alpha guy who doesn’t have many feelings at all.

      Re your other points, I support men being incredibly picky in their choices. In fact, I welcome that. When men stop dating and even marrying unstable psycho bitches, the institution of marriage will be more meaningful for everyone. I encourage men to adopt very high standards for commitment. Women should have to work hard to prove themselves worthy, and what’s more, they should want to.

  • Ramble

    The men who were successful in passing along their genes were the ones who embraced risk and succeeded in their quests.

    Or men who didn’t embrace risk, and didn’t get murdered. There is a theory that the reason why so many men from Scandinavia seem (or are) much more docile than their Viking predecessors is because the more violent Vikings basically killed each other off and left the mild villagers and farmers to populate those northern lands.

    I have no idea how valid that theory is.

    There must always be a most dominant male.

    Susan, as I often like to point out: there is dominance and then there is dominance. Some men can have social dominance over other men, but that often does not help much with girls who are generally unimpressed with his thuggery (e.g. Li’l Zé from City of God [from Brasil], Combo from This is England, Deebo from Friday [he only gets with the crackhead]).

    Other guys can have intellectual dominance (and be really cool to boot) but get absolutely nowhere with girls.

    For further clarification, you might want to refer to it as Seductive Dominance, or something like that.

  • Abbot

    “the countless negative experience women have with these kinds of men makes “Alpha” males completely unattractive.”

    So long as the woman was consistently not attracted to such men to the point of sexual intimacy, then she is good to go

  • Esau

    Dog-downlow: “Matter of fact, I wish people would just drop this Alpha/Beta/Charlie/Delta crap in the first place. The terminology is so subjective as to be nearly meaningless.”

    Don’t give up so fast. After years of careful, government-funded study I can present to you this supremely useful wallet card/decoder ring:

    “Alpha = self-centered, self-directed, reflexively puts self above others”
    “Beta = other-directed, reflexively puts others’ needs first”

    There it is, descriptive, predictive and non-circular, highly intuitive and basically compatible with the ‘spheric literature. If you just substitute “self-centered” for “Alpha” and “other-directed” for “Beta”, then the large majority of posts and comments that use the terms will make sense and fall into place. Try it and see.

  • Esau

    OP: “…but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has “betatized” a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium. “

    Or, “Surviving and Reversing the Betapocalypse” — an excellent title for a book if anyone’s in the mood.

    This is perhaps a noble and generous thought, Susan; but as I’ve said before I don’t think you and others have really worked through, and faced up to, the implications of what you’re recommending. Let me put it up again, baldly and direct: having men, especially young men, assume a default posture of dominance toward women is incompatible with having basic sexual equality in society. Any plan for a culture will have to choose between them. (Yes, some particular, individual men may be able to pull it off, so please hold the “My husband can do both!’ anecdotes; but for the general population you have to sacrifice one of these.) So, before you grab the wheel back from feminism, you need to have a clear and honest idea of what you’re going to steer toward.

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

      @Esau

      having men, especially young men, assume a default posture of dominance toward women is incompatible with having basic sexual equality in society. Any plan for a culture will have to choose between them.

      I’ve already come down clearly on the side of sexual inequality. Society benefits when female sexuality is restrained. We have witnessed the great experiment, and the conclusion is clear.

      Women want men to take the leadership role in a relationship. This is true even for highly accomplished, intelligent women. I encourage men young men to embrace the challenge of dominating women. They will be rewarded with sex and devotion.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Esau, that is a handy-dandy, nifty-neato definition. I’m on board 100%. Now we’ve just got to get every other swingin’ dick in The Universe to use it, too.

  • Underdog

    I usually just think of an Alpha as one who’s aware of and is able to fully control his masculinity, a Beta as one who doesn’t know how to be masculine, and a Jerk as one whose masculinity runs rampant and unchecked. So when a PUA goes “Stop being a beta”, it means stop being un-masculine.

    *shrug*

  • Esau

    D: My point is, I think my definition basically _is_ what all the dicks are _effectively_ using, even if they wouldn’t describe it explicitly that way; to the extent that the terms have any universal meaning, AFAICT this is it. So everyone hold onto your decoder ring and rest easy.

    PS I lost the pool on your blog: my bet for the title was “Steel On Target”, which I guess is now up for grabs.

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

      PS I lost the pool on your blog: my bet for the title was “Steel On Target”, which I guess is now up for grabs.

      That would have been a great name, but I love Dogsquat’s post on what Condition Yellow really means. The military metaphor works brilliantly, IMO.

      Shoot, that reminds me. Homeland Season 2! I can’t wait.

  • Esau

    Underdog: I think you’re just pushing the content of the idea onto the word “masculine” without adding any information as to what that means, so I don’t see that re-focus as a win. Most definitions of “masculine” that I’ve read in these places tend to be very circular, ie “Masculine means acting like a man, and real men are masculine”, which doesn’t really contain any information.

  • GudEnuf

    “At least one biologist has argued that the most violent early men successfully reproduced via rape, which is why the rape gene is still in our DNA today.”

    Even worse, one study found that rapists tend to choose ovulating women as victims. Rape (like murder, infidelity, lying, ect) is a natural instinct.

  • Underdog

    Esau: Fine. How about I replace the word ‘masculine’ with ‘assertive’.

    Alpha — one who’s aware of and is able to fully control his [assertiveness]

    Beta — one who doesn’t know how to be [assertive]

    Jerk — one whose [assertiveness] runs rampant and unchecked

  • tito

    one of my new years resolutions was actually to stop visiting this site and others like it. but……i cant quit you Susan Walsh!!!!

    “It is very possible that there are few genetic betas, but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has “betatized” a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium.”

    only fear of consequences will restore equilibrium. there is no easy, nice way to do this Susan. the longer you wait, the uglier the restoration will be.

    it’s great to be back!!!

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

      @tito

      Welcome back, my friend.

      i cant quit you Susan Walsh!!!!

      Heh. I have that effect on men. :)

  • Sassy6519

    Hmmmm.

    I need to chew on this post a bit more before offering my 2 cents.

  • Esau

    Underdog: “Fine. How about I replace the word ‘masculine’ with ‘assertive’.”

    Welcome to the fold, as I think there’s a great overlap between this definition and what I wrote above: assertive == putting manifest priority on one’s own needs and viewpoint == putting oneself first == self-directed; while other-directed == putting others’ needs first == opposite of assertive. So, while they’re not identical I think your updated definition and my original are close enough to be functionally interchangeable. This was my point, really: my definition of “alpha” and “beta” result in sensible, informative statements when you substitute them into typical ‘spheric writing; it’s not a 100% perfect algorithm, but it goes a long way for a small investment.

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

    I know that video is a parody but seriously? Hanging out in bars, dancing and sleeping around is considered “alpha”? For real?

    The video is not a parody, that is what makes it so great.

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

    Hi tito long time no see :)

    Even worse, one study found that rapists tend to choose ovulating women as victims. Rape (like murder, infidelity, lying, ect) is a natural instinct.

    There are several species that still do the rape as part of their “mating” dance so this shouldn’t be a surprise is just to show that following natural instincts is not a good plan more often than not, nature doesn’t care about the individuals but survival of the fittest, YMMV.

    I actually liked to think that the terms Alpha and Beta came from a Brave New World mostly because is misleading in the novel as well we think the Alpha that is thinking about how “perfect” the society really is,is the leader while in reality the leading man is the Savage (which works nicely with the idea that women are falling for thugs and not real Alpha’s for the ones that resent the negatives connotations of the term) and the society reflects the idea of sexual equality everyone can have all the sex they want without fear of pregnancy (although I always considered strange that the females weren’t sterilized in puberty birth control seemed unnecessary with the baby making machines, I guess they needed the “motherhood” to make it part of the story) and in the end destroying the values of the majority of our civilization didn’t helped to make anyone truly happy or make the instincts disappear…just rambling about literary works.

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

    “The men who were successful in passing along their genes were the ones who embraced risk and succeeded in their quests”…but a person who habitually embraces risk is NOT going to succeed in their quests a good portion of the time. The first person who tried to ride a horse probably got thrown and broke his neck. David might have succeeded in killing Goliath, but there were probably others who tried to fought the giant, missed their shot, and that was the end of their genetic line. Meanwhile, other and more cautious shepherd boys stayed out of the giant-fighting business and by now they have millions of descendents.

    I think the actual situation is that “the **tribe or community** that has a reasonable number of risk-takers will succeed in passing along their genes. SOMEBODY had to ride the first horse; somebody had to kill Goliath if the Jews were to survive, but the doer of the deed might well not himself be among the winners. Based on this logic, I think evolution (or The Designer, for those who prefer) probably ensures a reasonable scattering of extreme risk-takers among men, but far from a majority.

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

      @david foster

      Based on this logic, I think evolution (or The Designer, for those who prefer) probably ensures a reasonable scattering of extreme risk-takers among men, but far from a majority.

      That’s my own sense as well. Purely amateur, FWIW.

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

    This is an article that I think is relevant, is about how sociopathy can manifest really early. Is both scary and fix with the idea that some people are just born this way.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?_r=1&smid=FB-nytimes&WT.mc_id=TM-E-FB-SM-LIN-CYC-051412-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

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

      @Anacaona

      That article about psychopathy in childhood was so disturbing. I think that is definitely the direction we are headed – we’re going to know the exact genetic profile of serial killers, and when we find that in someone, it’s going to be very complicated to decide how or whether they will be monitored.

  • Sassy6519

    I’ll assume she’s being earnest. “I encourage you to give the beta male traits the utmost consideration” is like saying to a young man “I encourage you to give sloppy, homely, and fat women the utmost consideration.” It is so contrary to the laws of attraction that it’s nonsensical.

    As much as I would ideally like to disagree with this comment, I can’t.

    When I first read the list of traits as to why women should give beta males a chance, I thought to myself, “It sounds nice”.

    That’s it. Nice.

    I can’t fathom mustering a single iota of tingle to that list. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.

    This is where I feel like men have definitely been lead astray. They’ve been told that those traits are attractive, or should be attractive, to women. The problem is that those qualities are attractive in the sense that they convey the ability to form a stable foundation to a relationship, like a house. They aren’t, however, attractive like the exciting features/accessories within or about the house.

    Another way of looking at it would be this.

    People eat food because we need it to survive. There is a certain amount of calories, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals, that a person needs in order to live a healthy life. They are akin to beta traits. The basic vital building blocks of food, if you will.

    Humans eat food because they have to. Humans enjoy eating food, however, because it tastes great. Things that have great flavor, spice, texture, appearance, etc make us want to eat food out of desires that aren’t rooted in merely the need to survive.

    A person eating food of great nutritional value, but lacking in taste, will most likely not enjoy eating it. A person eating food of little nutritional value, but high in taste, will most likely die or become ill from the lack of healthy vital nutrients. There needs to be a balance between the two components to satisfy both desires.

    I have no problem with a man having beta traits. Every healthy and successful relationship needs them. If he is only able to offer beta traits, however, I won’t be enthused about him. It’s about as appetizing as eating salad for every meal, every day. The beta traits are good for a relationship, but are boring when offered up alone. A mix of alpha and beta traits is ideal. The beta offers the vital nutrients while the alpha adds the flavor to make the meal palatable.

  • Schala

    “Welcome to the fold, as I think there’s a great overlap between this definition and what I wrote above: assertive == putting manifest priority on one’s own needs and viewpoint == putting oneself first == self-directed; while other-directed == putting others’ needs first == opposite of assertive. So, while they’re not identical I think your updated definition and my original are close enough to be functionally interchangeable. This was my point, really: my definition of “alpha” and “beta” result in sensible, informative statements when you substitute them into typical ‘spheric writing; it’s not a 100% perfect algorithm, but it goes a long way for a small investment.”

    Yay so let’s define masculinity as being as selfish and anti-humanist as possible, so we give Erbert more ammo to say women are better than men. Sure, if you say men can be either losers-who-never-get-laid or winners-who-are-misogynist, the society of equality you want is FAR away. But you can always blame men for being stupid enough to be raised by their own mothers. Why not heh?

  • Deli

    At first I was baffled, but then I really got this article.

    It’s basically about “lower your expectations, girls. Prince Charming may exist, but he will most like be marrying a princess, even if he beds a few maids on his way. So if you are a maid – look for a butler or a footman in the Prince’s army.”

    The logic of this message is irrefutable and can be fully supported.

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

      @Deli

      It’s basically about “lower your expectations, girls. Prince Charming may exist, but he will most like be marrying a princess, even if he beds a few maids on his way. So if you are a maid – look for a butler or a footman in the Prince’s army.”

      No. It is not about lowering expectations. It is about understanding who can meet expectations. Alpha males cannot meet the expectations of women who want marriage and family. That is painfully obvious.

      If a woman wants a meaningful, emotionally healthy relationship, she must get with a beta.

      Let’s end the misery of getting with assholes!

  • Courtley

    Interesting discussion.

    I’m personally more sexually attracted to men with the sort of “beta” characteristics Susan describes. I actually have more super-macho meatheads come onto me than the sort of artistic, sensitive, intelligent men I would enjoy more both in the bedroom and as a life partner. I’ve never been ‘turned on’ by the jock type. I couldn’t change this about myself if I wanted to. (There’s actually a term called “sapiosexual”–google it–about people who are turned on by intellect. Not sure how scientifically that’s been studied, but I found it fascinating and certainly descriptive of myself).

    I think the Alpha/Beta dichotomy is only helpful to a certain degree. They’re more like guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Yes, certain guys seem to fall pretty well into one or the other categories, but many seem to be a conglomeration of different traits in different ways. Humans have a need to categorize their world so they can deal with it adequately, and we tend to underestimate the level of variety that exists within humanity and how that can express itself. Classifying can be helpful, over-labeling and depending too much on those classifications can obscure reality and I think this happens often in the Manosphere.

    Having said all that, look, I will agree with people who say that trying to change someone’s hard-wired fundamental sexual triggers seems sort of futile. Women who cannot be turned on by “beta” characteristics are going to have to deal with that in their own way–advising them to enter into a relationship with someone purely out of strategic good sense seems like a very dangerous suggestion to me, just as it would be ill-advised to tell dudes not into larger ladies to marry an overweight woman anyway if she had good wife/mother qualities.

  • Chris_in_CA

    @Susan

    “I support men being incredibly picky in their choices. In fact, I welcome that. When men stop dating and even marrying unstable psycho bitches, the institution of marriage will be more meaningful for everyone. I encourage men to adopt very high standards for commitment. Women should have to work hard to prove themselves worthy, and what’s more, they should want to.”

    We do not disagree here.

    Thing is, thanks to the way the laws are now, any woman – ANY – can change her mind, and then a man’s in deep trouble. The institution of marriage isn’t just damaged from masculinity being under attack, it’s legally dangerous!

    You want women to date beta men more. Sassy has given us an example of why they don’t like to. Solution – beta men should mix in more alpha/assertiveness/dominance. They can either do that and risk attracting a woman who’ll call the police on him, choose to stay beta and get dumped on (and still the potential for legal trouble exists)…or take a step back, realize the whole game’s rotten and opt to save themselves.

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

    @Matthew King

    You do nothing so much as confirm that women are the worst investigators of their own nature. One cannot confront the sexual dynamic with a list of demands. One begins with what one observes, analyzes it without fear or prejudice, and proceeds within the natural bounds of the circumstantial limitations.

    Precisely. And what I and many others observe is that alpha males are not suitable for long-term commitment. Women who feel strong attraction for such dead-end prospects need to activate the cerebral frontal cortex. Rational behavior includes kicking alphas to the curb. Once you get rid of the most dominant assholes, you’re still looking at 75% of men. They’re not all “subordinate, submissive, and dependent…incomplete men, parboiled, and unfinished.”

    Beta males created the laptop you’re reading this on, and the software that gives my blog structure. They’re driving the Tech Revolution of the 21st c. Alpha males are relegated to the trading floor, some Sales roles, and a few other “dealmaker” jobs. They’re becoming obsolete.

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

    That article about psychopathy in childhood was so disturbing. I think that is definitely the direction we are headed – we’re going to know the exact genetic profile of serial killers, and when we find that in someone, it’s going to be very complicated to decide how or whether they will be monitored.

    Is funny this was my husband’s conclusion I found it hopeful. I can finally tell my mother that is not her fault that my sociopath brother turned out the way he did, I also felt somehow responsible even if I’m only two years older than him I knew he was weird since he was a kid I often think I should had used my smarts to figuring him out earlier I know is stupid but you can’t help but think “In what moment we lost him” we never had him on the first place. I also found hope in the fact that Michael (the father) thinks he had a similar start in life and managed to grow up to a be functional adult, there is hope that a strong upbringing can at least channelize this behaviour for the less worse, YMMV.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Esau said:

    “PS I lost the pool on your blog: my bet for the title was “Steel On Target”, which I guess is now up for grabs.”
    ______________________________

    I didn’t want to get in an ePissing contest with some Field Artillery douchebag, or some low T knuckledragger from 10th Marines.

    But I thought about it, my friend…I did indeed.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Matt, you ought to take some of your own excellent advice and do a little more observing.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    @David Foster:

    Dude, have you read Sperm Wars by Robin Baker?

    There is a fairly long passage in that book discussing precisely what you brought up.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Profundit said:

    “How the bleep does society benefit from unrestrained male sexuality?”
    _______________________________

    Speaking for myself, not Susan here:

    Direct answer – it doesn’t.

    However:

    If you restrict female sexuality, the only males who won’t be restricted as well are the gay dudes. It’s an inevitable sequelae. Might get a revival of disco music out of the deal, as well. Certainly will breath new life into Broadway.

    One easy to think of example is a “shotgun wedding”. Not the caricature of rednecks doing it, but a real, live,”You knocked my daughter up, and if you don’t support her I’m going to kill you and sell your kidneys for my grandbaby’s college fund,” type of shotgun wedding.

    With the right types of scarcity, men generally police themselves. Sometimes rather brutally.

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

    One easy to think of example is a “shotgun wedding”. Not the caricature of rednecks doing it, but a real, live,”You knocked my daughter up, and if you don’t support her I’m going to kill you and sell your kidneys for my grandbaby’s college fund,” type of shotgun wedding.

    Yeah I remember from the tales of my Muslim friends, when I guy goes to a party and sees a pretty woman in restrictive culture he needs to pay a big price for access to her, heck in some countries he cannot even speak to her till he gets approval from the head of the family and then if he really finds her attractive he needs to also be liked by her family, pay the bride price and wedding and not able to ever pick another woman if she as first wife demands that her marriage contract only has her as the wife. Not a lot a PUA can do there with this conditions. The anonymity of the sex acts is big part of why women can just lie to themselves Dad and mom are not there full of tingle to tell her she is being stupid and keep her in line. Of course not so pretty women are in disadvantage because if your beauty doesn’t move him to do all that you are going to adjust your expectations but even they have help from the culture with cultivating other skills like loyalty, is indeed easier to control the sexuality of both genders by controlling the females than the other way around. Women are never going to risk themselves as much as a man would just look at the inability of women to actually take the initiative even if they have less to lose, most are not wired that way and the ones that do half of them will lose respect for the guy for being the one that did the first step, YMMV.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Owen From Windsor said:

    “Wouldn’t you say women do the same? I spent some time in a community with a high percentage of males who took celibacy vows and the women conformed and policed each other to protect the men from temptation.”
    ____________________

    Dude, I don’t honestly know. I don’t believe I’ve spent enough time in a community of predominantly women who’ve experienced any kind of shortage of….well, anything.

    I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, just that I’m not qualified to comment.

    On the other hand, I’ve spent years in the community of men, sometimes in rather primitive circumstances. I know for a fact men will police themselves in many circumstances.

  • Doc

    11.) And women find him boring, boring, boring…

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

      @Doc

      11.) And women find him boring, boring, boring…

      Alpha chasers find him boring. Personally, I find the “natural alpha” in the video boring beyond tears. The whole beta = boring trope is grossly exaggerated. I think anyone can be boring, and people need to work hard to be interesting. Dominance in and of itself is not interesting.

  • Courtley

    @ Dogsquat
    “Dude, I don’t honestly know. I don’t believe I’ve spent enough time in a community of predominantly women who’ve experienced any kind of shortage of….well, anything.”

    That’s been your first mistake, then. Spoiled people will give off poor impressions regardless of gender. Find better people. I’m not religious, but I have been, and religious communities can be a great place to find alternative communities of people who hold to more traditional, less me-centric values.

  • Courtley

    @ Profundit
    “’Women want men to take the leadership role in a relationship. This is true even for highly accomplished, intelligent women. I encourage men young men to embrace the challenge of dominating women. They will be rewarded with sex and devotion.’ (Susan)

    Only from women who want their mates to dominate them. One size does not fit all.”

    Yeah. I despise controlling, domineering behavior in anyone of any gender, especially men I’m dating. I can’t deny that some women find this attractive but often–since it seems okay to generalize here–it seems to be a certain type of very high-energy woman who enjoys “delegating” and perhaps is even being a bit controlling herself. This isn’t everyone, though. People who rely too heavily on evo-psych seem to not understand that humanity evolved and developed under some very different circumstances all across the world. Dominance might be a sexual trigger in some women’s genes, but it’s simply not in others.

    “Leadership” can have a lot of meanings that aren’t necessarily domineering, but as long as they’re continued to largely be connected to dominance on this blog I’m going to find it a bit suspect. I cut guys out immediately if I sense controlling behavior–and I also take care not to be controlling towards THEM. I’m not really a bossy person anyway, because again, one adult ‘dominating’ another just flies in the face of my core values and beliefs.

    As I’ve written in the past, I get that this blog connects with a lot of people’s experiences. I can see that. It does describe reality for some, maybe even a lot. But I still get the impression–perhaps you do as well–that a lot of this advice is mostly applicable to very particular demographics of people and doesn’t describe the experiences of many. I can’t expect Susan or anyone to give advice that would speak to EVERYone equally but I wish more Manosphere-devoted commentators could be more aware of their own subjectivity and the sheer variety of people out there.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    @Courtley :

    I don’t understand why you addressed that to me. It may be that you took an unintended meaning from my comment.

  • Deli

    //No. It is not about lowering expectations. It is about understanding who can meet expectations. Alpha males cannot meet the expectations of women who want marriage and family. That is painfully obvious.

    Ok, but I am just taking two statements that you made and I am putting them in one. You say
    ” Alpha males cannot meet the expectations of women who want marriage and family. ”
    and you say
    “So there will of course be highly intelligent alpha males – 70% of CEOs are estimated to be alphas.”

    And when I combine them I get – “Don’t marry a man, who could become a CEO one day” Don’t marry future Steve Jobs (who was an HUGE jerk :) btw.), don’t marry future Bill Gates (sorry, Melinda, we couldn’t get to you in time), don’t marry politicians, don’t marry star athletes – stay AWAY from them!

    Ok – a necessary clarification: it’s not about being Alpha or being Beta (unless we want to generalize Cosmo style). It’s a degree of how these traits are manifested. And my point is – all male top percentile performers have these traits manifested strongly rather than weakly. Since getting to the top of pretty much every social ladder is achieved through competition – naturally dominant, overly competitive, non-empathetic and self-oriented people will usually come out on top more often.

    So if your advice advice for women is to stay away from men that have these traits manifested strongly – you are telling them to stay away from top performers in life. Because top performance in life does not guarantee top performance in marriage.

    Which is a message – with no irony or sarcasm or other twists – I think can be fully endorsed.

    Especially if applied to women that do not want to build a family with a man on the basis of an utter admiration of this man’s world-shaping strength.
    Who don’t want to bear children of the champion, feeling with every second of her life that these children will be champions as well because they will get both a genetic and a social head-start.
    Who think nothing of a man’s power and gain no pleasure from being able to both nurture and (to an extent) direct his power.
    Who don’t want to be handed over a crown of a princess in marriage – but rather would earn it with their own, bloody (yet feminine) swords.

    I agree with you – a man with highly manifested alpha traits has nothing to offer these women. They should stay away. Far-far away.

    P.S.
    *I really liked the Consulting firm combating “Alpha male syndrom” story: in the “risk” category they’ve listed at least half of the things I was given as personal development objectives by my company. Just shows that people are ready to pay money for pretty much ANYTHING these days.

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

      @Deli

      And when I combine them I get – “Don’t marry a man, who could become a CEO one day” Don’t marry future Steve Jobs (who was an HUGE jerk btw.), don’t marry future Bill Gates (sorry, Melinda, we couldn’t get to you in time), don’t marry politicians, don’t marry star athletes – stay AWAY from them!

      Actually, Bill Gates is a beta, so is Mark Zuckerburg. If a full 30% of CEOs are beta, then there are still plenty of high powered men who might make good marriage material. Barack Obama.

      I could begin listing now the alpha politicians, athletes, and business leaders who have publicly demonstrated their egomaniacal drive and narcissism, but I’d still be here in 12 hours.

      Woe unto the women who married them! Woe unto their own children! John Edwards daughter fled the courtroom crying last week.

      The unhappiest women I know are the women who married real, natural born alphas. More often than not, their kids aren’t winners, they’re just sad. Maybe they have good nature, i.e. genes, but they got terrible nurture.

  • Underdog

    All men should be Alphas.

    But women should not put out until those Alphas display Beta behaviors toward them.

    Am I right, guys?

  • Courtley

    @Dogsquat

    If so, I’m sorry. But when what did you mean by “I’ve been around women who have experience a shortage of . . . anything before”?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @Underdog:

    Defined in this thread, being alpha is being internally focused as opposed to other focused.

    Like in a theoretical perfect capitalist society, totally cool as long as there rules in place that make sure competition is not destructive.

    One of those rules would indeed be not putting out for alphas that do not have beta traits.

    Now tell Jezzies they might have to follow a rule in their sex lives, because their actions have social implications.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @Deli

    Apex fallacy. Most men with a huge endowment of alpha traits are probably not CEOs.

    By all means women can run for that if they like, and they will fail, and then “lesser” men are very likely going to instantly DQ them.

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

    Deli..”in the “risk” category they’ve listed at least half of the things I was given as personal development objectives by my company”…but if you demonstrate these characteristics to unbalanced extremes…and if higher management at the company is clueful…then next year’s development objectives will include items from the right side of the chart. Too much “dominant, confident, takes charge” is likely to show up on a performance appraisal as “Fred has not demonstrated strength as a delegator and a developer of employees, and his promotion is questionable unless this issue is addressed.”

  • Ramble

    Let me put it up again, baldly and direct: having men, especially young men, assume a default posture of dominance toward women is incompatible with having basic sexual equality in society. Any plan for a culture will have to choose between them. (Yes, some particular, individual men may be able to pull it off, so please hold the “My husband can do both!’ anecdotes; but for the general population you have to sacrifice one of these.)

    I completely agree with this.

    Women want men to take the leadership role in a relationship. This is true even for highly accomplished, intelligent women.

    I can’t speak for Esau, but I am pretty sure he is saying a lot more than this.

    As Male (Sexual) Dominance becomes embraced, which I believe it will, so many of the social and political structures that exist to give give those oppressed girls a leg up will go away.

    Heck, think about how NPR has been reporting the possible passing (or not) of VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act (I am assuming that you listen to NPR).

    Do you think that the mainstream reporting of the VAWA bill is in any way consistent with your idea of men being sexually dominant?

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Courtley said:

    “But when what did you mean by “I’ve been around women who have experience a shortage of . . . anything before”?”
    ______________________
    I explained that I have enough information to answer a particular question about men, but not about women. I stated that I don’t consider myself qualified to answer, and admitted my ignorance.

    You must have skipped a couple parts. Spankins!

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Alpha chasers find him boring. Personally, I find the “natural alpha” in the video boring beyond tears. The whole beta = boring trope is grossly exaggerated. I think anyone can be boring, and people need to work hard to be interesting. Dominance in and of itself is not interesting.”

    I have a little pet theory on this. I believe that alpha chasers are “lazy” thrill seekers.

    Everyone wants to be entertained, interested, and excited. It is a basic human desire we mostly all share to some extent. There are plenty of ways to get these, but many/most require some work and investment. If you want to learn to play an instrument, you have to practice. If you want to write a book, you need the discipline to sit still and write for hours at a time.

    Women that flock to alphas are simply too lazy to entertain themselves. They want a man that constantly keeps them on edge because they lack the ability to stimulate themselves, and even if the alpha’s “entertainment” is negative, it is still entertainment.

    I said in another thread that I feel I could love any women I found attractive. Another side of that is I feel that I could find just about any human being interesting, IF I put in the effort to find their unique qualities and engage them. So, to me, many women that claim beta’s are boring are simply too lazy to find the interesting qualities. I may not skydive or bungee jump, but I can carry on a deeply philosophical conversation for hours and hours, while drinking and having a good time, without breaking a sweat. Sure, conversation probably won’t give you an adrenaline rush, but I hardly find it boring either.

    And is this even a surprise? Our children are literally surrounded by things fighting for their attention. Many studies show that children are finding it harder to concentrate and ADD seems to be on the rise. (or perhaps we are just starting to diagnose it correctly?) So, it stands to reason that these same children will grow up needing/wanting the “easy fix” of stimulation instead of finding ways to generate it themselves. They will be lazy thrill seekers looking for external stimulation instead of learning how to create it for themselves.

  • Courtley

    @ Susan

    Obama’s a beta and Edwards is an alpha? Reallllly? I have to ask about that ones. John Edwards seems like a classic case of closet misogynist who couldn’t handle having a successful, intelligent wife and sought out the ego boost he believed he deserved from a younger subordinate. He does NOT strike me as more socially dominant than Obama. He seems like a beta male with a twisted sense of ethics and morality. That’s part of the danger, I think, in telling women that betas are THE right option for them.

    Do you really not know any men who were like the confident, outgoing, successful jock-type alphas who also ended up making great husbands and fathers after they settled down? I feel like I’ve met many men like this who take a huge masculine ego boost from being the head of a healthy, happy family and marriage. They’re also pretty damn ‘alpha’ in demeanor, competitiveness, success, etc.

    You may be defining ‘alpha’ as like, Chris Brown–someone who would have gone to jail if didn’t happen to be rich and famous–but then the John Edwards example would again not really match up there. A lot of undesirable traits in male partners really have nothing to do with dominance or lack thereof. Character, and one’s beliefs about how to ethically treat people, are at least somewhat independent from the level of natural social dominance someone is born with.

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

      @Courtley

      Do you really not know any men who were like the confident, outgoing, successful jock-type alphas who also ended up making great husbands and fathers after they settled down?

      Nearly every divorce I’ve witnessed in the last 20 years occurred when an alpha was unfaithful. (I’ve seen just one initiated by a woman, and two initiated by men who came out as gay.) Furthermore, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the “confident, outgoing, successful jock-type alphas” getting waaayyy too close in a social situation, hand on my lower back, sexual energy lobbed across the dinner table. These men need female attention like it’s a drug, and they’re definitely on the high end of the spectrum for wanting sexual variety. YMMV of course.

      I also live in a city chock full of beta males. John Durant of Hunter Gatherer talks about how women love doctors, because they are an almost perfect alpha-beta hybrid. I live among many of them, and they generally present as beta. I know a couple of real alpha orthopedic surgeons – but they’re unusual.

      Anyway, I don’t know if you clicked the links in the post – there’s been a lot of research done about alpha males, and their traits are largely maladaptive in contemporary society.

  • Underdog

    “John Edwards seems like a classic case of closet misogynist who couldn’t handle having a successful, intelligent wife and sought out the ego boost he believed he deserved from a younger subordinate.”

    I stopped reading right there and fell on the floor laughing. Good joke.

  • Escoffier

    It seems to me that, for Susan’s project to go anywhere, we all need to find some way to accept “settling.” Dogsquat and others have made the point that women do no favors to the men for whom they settle and I see their point but we have to find some way to square this circle.

    Susan’s point in this post, and in much of what she writes, I take to be: young women have got to improve their taste in men. They are naturally more attracted to alphas than betas—indeed they are often repulsed by betas—but for their long term happiness and stability, they are far better off with betas. IF, that is, they can manage to make themselves feel attracted to a beta. Which is Susan’s project, or part of it, to talk them into reordering their romantic taste.

    Now, nature is probably not that changeable. So to a certain extent the natural female attraction to alphas is just never going to go away. To the extent that this is true, then women who choose betas have to some degree “settled.” In the same way that we men “settle” when we don’t marry the hottest women.

    But somehow it works out for lots of us: we can’t all marry the hottest women yet zillions of us get married and are happy and love our wives. On one level we “settled”. But I don’t think we dwell on that or feel robbed in some way.

    This is the same thing women need to do re: betatude if Susan’s’ advice is to go anywhere. They have to settle without feeling like they settled.

    But the men also have to stop hectoring them over it. On the one hand, we complain a lot about women with ridiculous standards and endless checklists. Then in the next breath we say to a woman who is sensible enough to forgo the list “You had better think I am the greatest and most handsome man in the world, otherwise you are settling for me and I don’t want you.” I don’t see how this formula is good for anybody.

    Both sexes need to grow up a little, I think. If the women follow Susan’s advice and start acting more sensibly and seeing the virtues of betas , then the men should probably not chastise them for “settling.”

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

      @Escoffier

      Susan’s point in this post, and in much of what she writes, I take to be: young women have got to improve their taste in men. They are naturally more attracted to alphas than betas—indeed they are often repulsed by betas—but for their long term happiness and stability, they are far better off with betas. IF, that is, they can manage to make themselves feel attracted to a beta. Which is Susan’s project, or part of it, to talk them into reordering their romantic taste.

      That’s incorrect. I don’t think anyone can talk themselves into attraction. I think attraction triggers are somewhat malleable. We know that people fall for one another more when they are familiar and in close proximity. A small town will have as high a marriage rate (or higher) than a big city.

      I also think that many women already find betas attractive. Contrary to popular talk in these parts, the woman who has fun in her 20s is probably doing it with a mix of alphas and betas. She will most likely wind up marrying a beta because betas marry. She won’t see this as settling. She will think he’s cute, and smart, and great husband material, and she won’t compare him to the dumb jock she hooked up with 8 years earlier at a college party.

      What I’m really trying to do is get women to think carefully about what separates marriageable men from dead-end prospects.

      And of course, all women are different. The woman who wants to gnaw on the calves of the beach soccer player in the video is not going to marry an engineer (or perhaps anyone). And the woman who is going to marry an engineer finds the beach soccer player a buffoon.

  • Cooper

    @Ted D

    +1. I agree.

    To relate this to the show Girls’, Charlie said he “decided” on Marnie.
    I think what he meant (or LD was) was he could love anyone, if he tried. (Some people simply can see the redeemimg qaulitiesin others easier, some people have more difficulty overlooking a flaw)
    I think loving someone is just as much about choosing to like certain qaulities, as much as not looking hard enough to have yourself appreciate other qaulities. Everyone can be loved, we “chosimg” the person wr love is much a decision. (a lot of women chose based on social presence)
    Alphas have that entertainment on the surface, so it’s much ‘easier’ to like them, whether the behavior is good or bad, than look for the good-qaulitiesin in a beta.

    @Susan
    Why the sudden change in advice? I thought female hypergamy was the biological imperative that can’t be denied. And hypergamy, or evidence of it, dictates Alpha traits are more attractive, in the eye of a women. Look at Game as an example, last post I listed DHVs, and DLVs – I’m not sure if you noticed that all the DLVs are beta. Game is teaching us to stop being beta, if we want to have sex.

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

      @Cooper

      Why the sudden change in advice? I thought female hypergamy was the biological imperative that can’t be denied. And hypergamy, or evidence of it, dictates Alpha traits are more attractive, in the eye of a women. Look at Game as an example, last post I listed DHVs, and DLVs – I’m not sure if you noticed that all the DLVs are beta. Game is teaching us to stop being beta, if we want to have sex.

      No change here, I’ve been saying exactly this for more than three years.

      First, let me say that Dogsquat has a good point. The vocabulary for this is all over the place and probably of very limited value. I do not define alpha as “gets laid a lot” and beta as “pathetic guy with oneitis.” I pointed out in the article via several bloggers, including Game bloggers, how the Game narrative and mindset can be very limiting. Attraction and relationships are a lot more complicated than that.

      Second, I’ve debated the hypergamy concept here at great length. I won’t do that again here, but suffice to say that I believe female hypergamy represents a threshold for status. A woman has a strong biologically derived preference to mate with a man of higher status than herself. I don’t believe that hypergamy is an active threat in established relationships unless the relative status of one of the partner’s changes. There’s a new study that looks closely at the concept of female attraction to social dominance. They split it into two distinct elements: dominant behavior and social prestige. They found that women found social prestige far more important than dominance.

      As for DHVs and DLVs, that’s another area where I depart from some Game bloggers. For example, in my view, a married man flirting with other women is a massive DLV. Like Brett McKay said in his piece at Art of Manliness, the DHV is the man who quietly understands his appeal, and is generously focused on others. His wife observes this behavior and it’s a massive DHV. If he was acting flirtatious with the other women present, he’d actually shame his wife by stooping low for female attention.

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

    Obama as Beta…really? Aren’t Alphas supposed to embody the Dark Triad? And isn’t one of the elements of the triad Narcissism?

    “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

    –Barack Obama, 2008

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

      @david foster

      I wouldn’t go so far as to call Obama beta. But he is definitely a mix of alpha and beta traits. Narcissism isn’t restricted to alphas, though it’s certainly more common among them. And then there’s the Machiavellian piece – manipulating others against their best interest to get what you want. And sociopathy. The Dark Triad was dysfunctional one million years ago, they were not even alphas, but total rogues. Today they probably represent a significant percentage of alphas.

  • Cooper

    Cont.
    And Game is based on what women are responding to – on what works.

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

      @Cooper

      And Game is based on what women are responding to – on what works.

      By all means, do what works! I am telling women that dating alpha males doesn’t work, and marrying them is often disastrous. They are a very risky bet. That doesn’t mean they won’t have lots of takers – of course they will.

      Think of heroin. It works to make people feel incredible. Once they get a taste, sometimes only one, they’re hooked for life. As a mother, I would do anything in my power to keep my kids from ever trying heroin. There are some things that are bad for us. Alpha males cheat and divorce. They compete with their own sons, for chrissakes.

  • someINTP

    An adapted quote:

    “Alphas are for having fun. Betas are for making babies.”

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    I married the most handsome and awesome man in the world (to me). He has all of 1-10 on Susan’s “beta” traits list, but he’s also quite dominant, assertive, confident and sexy.

    He’s probably about 80% beta and 20% alpha. In Sassy’s food analogy, he would be mostly healthy, full of nutrients, with a nice chunk of salt, spice and delicious fat.

    Susan, glad you’re quoting from PostMasculine! It’s a great blog.

  • Ramble

    On the one hand, we complain a lot about women with ridiculous standards and endless checklists. Then in the next breath we say to a woman who is sensible enough to forgo the list “You had better think I am the greatest and most handsome man in the world, otherwise you are settling for me and I don’t want you.” I don’t see how this formula is good for anybody.

    Escoffier, I think that you are close to, but off, the mark.

    That line of thought might go better like this:
    If after seeing Girls (on HBO), reading HUS, witnessed many adult marriages from your parents, friends parents and aunts and uncles, and seeing the world for what it really is AND THEN made your checklist, hopefully I meet most of your bullet-ed items.

    And, if I don’t meet your standards, so be it. Hopefully you will meet someone who does.

    But don’t choose me if I am not what you want. Don’t choose me if I don’t make you hot.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Re your other points, I support men being incredibly picky in their choices. In fact, I welcome that. When men stop dating and even marrying unstable psycho bitches, the institution of marriage will be more meaningful for everyone. I encourage men to adopt very high standards for commitment. Women should have to work hard to prove themselves worthy, and what’s more, they should want to.
    —-
    Susan,

    I was thinking about this yesterday as I was reading the post. I concluded that this is the big problem that many beta males are facing, currently. They need to be more selective when it comes to who get into a romantic relationship with and marry. It is a challenge because more women these days are entitled, self-centered, egotistical narcissists. Many do not have the emotional capacity to appreciate what these guys are bringing to the table. I know decent women (myself included) who would be more than happy to meet a beta guy and settle down and those unions would be very successful ones. I know it is hard sitting around waiting for a really decent woman to come along–they are a rarity today. However, betas will have to put in the work and do their due diligence to avoid the psycho-bitches. I don’t think that “game” is the answer, though. It just seems to serve as a tool to deal with the psycho-bitches not how to avoid them. I also think the “game” actually attracts them. (I know I am going to hear about making this statement but whatever).

    My boss’ wife (nut job) recently filed for divorce. He is a beta male and but also possesses some alpha traits that come in handy for his position as a supervisor. This man loves his three children and provides well for them and his soon-to-be ex-wife. They have a beautiful home and a good lifestyle but that was not enough for the nut job. Therefore, once she got back into the workforce she starts an affair with some guy–who is also married. She then files for divorce; my boss has to move out of his home, so that she can move in her lover to live with her and amongst her three young children. Her lover is now living in a house my boss is currently paying the mortgage on.

    The thing is, it was always clear to everyone except for him that this woman was not right for him. She is excessively neurotic and self-centered to be good wife and mother material, in my opinion. In addition, she is not particularly attractive. Well, he isn’t anything to look at either but he could have at least found a woman that would appreciate him and the good things he offered.

    These guys and their choices in women often bewilder me. I think desperation may play apart and the low availability of decent women in today’s society.

  • Ramble

    “Alphas are for having fun. Betas are for making babies.”

    No, Alphas are for making babies, Betas are for raising them.

    Time and time again, the studies show that girls are most attracted to those men with the most testosterone (T) during the height of ovulation, and they are more attracted to those men with less T at the nadir.

    When girls are looking for a good tingle, they want a capital T in that tingle.

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

      @Ramble

      Time and time again, the studies show that girls are most attracted to those men with the most testosterone (T) during the height of ovulation, and they are more attracted to those men with less T at the nadir.

      Actually, Evolvify cited a study that shows that during ovulation, women crave humor and intelligence in men even more than high T characteristics. I haven’t had time to review it, but plan to.

  • Escoffier

    Ramble, fair enough, that makes sense.

  • Ramble

    I don’t think that “game” is the answer, though. It just seems to serve as a tool to deal with the psycho-bitches not how to avoid them.

    Liza, we have gone through this before, but, maybe it deserves repeating.

    “Game” is simply that set of actions, behaviours, knowledge and skills that make men more attractive to girls (psychotic and otherwise).

    It is not a magic potion, nor is it some sort of guarantee (“by my book and I guarantee you that you can bang any girl in the world, any day of the week…).

    Girls who are not psychotic bitches also want guys who are confident, relaxed and (at least slightly) sexually dominant. Some girls want a guy who can out-peacock anyone, others simply want a guy that can play a little guitar and knows how to look into their eyes. Either way, a certain amount of “Game” will be needed, or at least, desired.

  • Underdog

    “My boss’ wife (nut job) recently filed for divorce. He is a beta male and but also possesses some alpha traits that come in handy for his position as a supervisor. This man loves his three children and provides well for them and his soon-to-be ex-wife. They have a beautiful home and a good lifestyle but that was not enough for the nut job. Therefore, once she got back into the workforce she starts an affair with some guy–who is also married. She then files for divorce; my boss has to move out of his home, so that she can move in her lover to live with her and amongst her three young children. Her lover is now living in a house my boss is currently paying the mortgage on.”

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Girls who are not psychotic bitches also want guys who are confident, relaxed and (at least slightly) sexually dominant.
    —–
    Ramble,

    Then just find the confidence within yourself to be dominant without (mind) “game”. This should be my last comment on the subject of “game”, really.

  • Underdog

    “Then just find the confidence within yourself to be dominant without (mind) “game”. ”

    /facepalm

    This is like telling a toddler to find the balance within himself to ride a bike without using training wheels.

  • OffTheCuff

    For the last time, Game is not solely comprised of deception or mind games. Which is why Private Man calls it “Charisma”.

    It is conscious knowledge of female sexual psychology, and using it to your own ends. Those means might be deceptive mind-games. Or, it might be dropping your doormat tendencies, because you know women find it off-putting. Both are game. If both these behaviors are the flip side of a coin, then game is coin itself.

    I could write down 10 things I use daily that are straight-up applied game, and zero of them involve deception, dread, or mind-games.

    You can try to redefine the terms all you want, but it isn’t what *we* mean.

  • PeppermintPanda

    I think the argument over who is an “Alpha Male” and who is a “Beta Male” demonstrates my point that this is a false dichotomy, or (at least) is an unnatural state of the world. It has been my experience that women are attracted to men who have a strong character and know who they are; men of principle who have boundaries and are willing to defend them to anyone. Women (for the most part) are not looking for the “Tribal leader” they’re looking for a respected member of society.

    After generations of social engineering a large portion of men have grown into the kind of self hating individual that militant feminists wanted; and the training has been remarkably effective at ensuring that they’re entirely subservient to women. This is not the kind of man who gets respect …

    To use HBO’s Girls as an example, Charlie’s mistake with Marnie was that he was completely unwilling to command respect from her. When he started to demonstrate that he was willing to set boundaries and demand her respect her attraction to him started to skyrocket; and when he started to demonstrate complete subservience to her, the attraction she felt disappeared like a deflating balloon.

    Charlie didn’t need to be an “Alpha Male” or a “Tribal Leader” to make Marnie happy, all he needed to be was a man of character.

  • Ramble

    Then just find the confidence within yourself to be dominant without (mind) “game”. This should be my last comment on the subject of “game”, really.

    Liza, it’s like you are saying “find the confidence without finding the confidence”. Or, “Be dominant without being dominant”.

    “Game” is just a word.

    What is the difference between Pot Roast and Braised Shoulder of Beef? Nothing.

    When some guy goes online, or gets some book, or goes to some seminar, to learn about “Game”, he is simply having some other guy tell him, “Idiot, girls prefer when you ignore their “shit tests”. The prefer when you are dominant.

    “Game” is just a word. It is just a title. That is all.

  • Jonny

    “We know that humans are descended from only a minority of prehistoric men, half the number of women who reproduced. The men who were successful in passing along their genes were the ones who embraced risk and succeeded in their quests. Men who failed the challenge, or who were too risk averse to attempt it, ended their lines with their own deaths. Therefore, in a very real way, we are all descended from dominant, successful males.”

    This is a logical argument, not based on evidence. If we don’t this logic, there is no evidence.

    Death will occur regardless of having one’s heirs. This doesn’t mean that their genes won’t survive via a brother, father, uncle, cousin. A brother has the same genes. A father might have multiple children. A cousin has 1/4th the genes of another first cousin.

    Replacement of the population is over 2 children per parental unit. To increase the population, we need to have much more children. Today, we are having less children, barely 1 child per family.

    Today’s behavior of Alphas suggest sexual activity has nothing to do with children. I suppose you’re only focused on traits.

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

      @Jonny

      Today’s behavior of Alphas suggest sexual activity has nothing to do with children.

      It doesn’t matter. We are reproduction machines. That’s it. A man who has sex his whole life using birth control is the same as a prehistoric male who was shooting blanks. No bueno, from a bio standpoint. Of course, you can thumb your nose and say, “I don’t care what I am supposed to do, I don’t care if my genes die out.” That’s fine, ain’t nobody stopping you. But from a Darwinian perspective, that’s a FAIL.

  • Ramble

    This is like telling a toddler to find the balance within himself to ride a bike without using training wheels.

    Underdog, well put.

    Or, to make the analogy for an adult, throwing some woman in the deep end of the pool that does not know how to swim. If no one taught her, she is not going to know.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    *Throwing up my hands in resignation*

    Guys, if it is yielding the results you want and you are happy with those results, then continue to use it to your advantage.

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    I know decent women (myself included) who would be more than happy to meet a beta guy and settle down and those unions would be very successful ones.

    So, a man who is reluctant to approach you in a know approach is a no-no zone is so undominant he’s feminized in your eyes.

    Yet, you’d be more than happy to meet a beta guy and settle down.

    Liza, you may not get game but I swear, some days you’re a walking advertisement for why men need to learn game to survive in this day and age. That mass of contradictory expectations is a prime example of “how to disqualify yourself”.

    And I say this as someone who likes you and would like to see you meet someone.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Off-topic on a different type of game, Diablo 3 came out this week, and there are tons of people (mostly guys) playing it. It broke records for game presales/preorders on Amazon, and will probably go on to be one of the highest selling games.

    It’s online and can be played multiplayer. If you’re a single female, this is a great way to meet new people and guys. Look up guys in your local area who are into it and can maybe help you. Lots of them will be the marrying type. I know quite a few who are already married, but there are tons who are single.

    Plus, it’s a lot of fun. I got my start playing video games with the RPG genre. It’s quite female-friendly.

  • Escoffier

    Liza, look at this way.

    “Game” is on one level just a set of behaviors for dealing with social situations. You seem to think it automatically includes “mind games” or trickery. But it doesn’t. It’s about behaving in a way that’s attractive to other people rather than off-putting.

    Since I haven’t made a pedantic post in a while, this seems like a good time. Aristotle distinguishes between three types of virtue: moral, intellectual and social. Moral virtue is about being a good person and doing the right thing. Intellectual virtues are what are necessary to seek and find the truth (which, pace Keats, can be good or bad, fair or ugly). Social virtues are the behaviors that make living among other people pleasant or at least not grating.

    These three things are not always in concert. For instance, intellectual virtue would have us fully understand nuclear fusion, regardless of the moral wisdom of building thermonuclear weapons that can kill us all. More to our point here, though, probity or honesty is an intellectual virtue, the wise man should hate above all “the lie in the soul” (self-deception). Lying is typically a moral vice. However stating the truth can sometimes violate the social virtues (“Does my ass look fat?” “Ummmm …”).

    Think of “game” as the social virtues. We’ve all known someone who is a good person (all the moral virtues) and perhaps brilliant intellectually but who is inept in social situations and so has few friends and is perpetually single. If such a person could learn “game”—learn to effectively interact with people on a social level—he would presumably be less lonely and more happy.

    Sure, there is an element of gentle deception involved. But is that so bad? Suppose you met a guy you really really liked. Just clicked instantly. You really want him for a boyfriend. But the thing is, you met him only five days ago and have gone on all of two dates. Now, would you unburden yourself to him, profess your love, gush in his presence, and call him 24/7? Of course not because by doing that you would scare him off. Even if you are a really great person and would be perfect for him, he’s not going to see that, all he’ll see is “Stage 5 Clinger” and run like hell.

    So you “deceive” him by playing a little coy and low key. You’re gaming him. No one is hurt. On the contrary, you might both end up very happy.

    He may in fact be doing the same to you. It’s not a mind game. It’s common sense.

  • JP

    Escoffier says:

    “Think of “game” as the social virtues. We’ve all known someone who is a good person (all the moral virtues) and perhaps brilliant intellectually but who is inept in social situations and so has few friends and is perpetually single. If such a person could learn “game”—learn to effectively interact with people on a social level—he would presumably be less lonely and more happy.”

    This is an excellent and succinct description of one of the reasons that my life, thus far, has felt like a catastrophic failure.

  • JP

    @Hope:

    “It’s online and can be played multiplayer. If you’re a single female, this is a great way to meet new people and guys. Look up guys in your local area who are into it and can maybe help you. Lots of them will be the marrying type. I know quite a few who are already married, but there are tons who are single.”

    Unless computer games are addictive to you. The avoid them. My general approach to life is to try to avoid tech whenever possible because of this problem.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, maybe you can’t talk anyone in or out of attraction (though I am not so fatalistic on this point). But you CAN say, and I think you are saying, that since sexy alphas are dangerous, young women need to have the presense of mind and character to look elsewhere. In other words, they have take that natural attraction and put it in the cupboard. Meanwhile, if they feel any attraction for a good beta, even if that physical attraction is less intense, the wise thing for them to do would be to concentrate on that.

    The analogy for men would be: HB10 but flakey and has bad mother written all over her, or sorta cute 6 but sweet, loyal and stable. Little head says “I want the ten.” Big head needs to say “No, go with the 6.”

    Women need to do the same thing. It’s probably true that we can’t talk ourselves into being attracted to someone for whom we viscerally feel absolutely nothing. However, I think it’s possible to tamp down an imprudent attraction and stoke a tamer but more sensible one. E.g., if alpha cad registers 8.0 on the tingle scale and beta reliable registers only 5.0, probably by concentrating on the latter and not thinking about the former a woman can lower that 8 and raise that 5.

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

      @Escoffier

      I think your strategy is definitely useful for women who find themselves drawn to men who want multiple sexual partners and show little inclination to settle down. They definitely need to find a way to hit the reset button.

      But I don’t feel that way. My beta husband is a 10 to me, and the slightly smarmy ortho surgeon is repellent. Women of average looks fall in love with men of average looks every day, and they don’t long for a chiseled jaw. They fall for guys with a healthy self-confidence, and they don’t long for Machiavelli. That just hasn’t been my experience. I’m not sure if this is male projection, but I get the sense that Game notwithstanding, there are persistent (and pernicious) misunderstandings about female sexuality in the manosphere.

      I’m not fighting that battle anymore. Guys should find and master whatever tools get them what they want. I’m talking to women who get it, for the most part. I’m supporting ideas they’ve probably already intuited, and explaining just why that guy with the red flags is definitely not worth dating.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Brett McKay said in his piece at Art of Manliness, the DHV is the man who quietly understands his appeal, and is generously focused on others. His wife observes this behavior and it’s a massive DHV.”

    But being realistic, how many guys are going to be able to pull this off?

    I’ll agree quiet, stoic sexy husband is better than flirting husband. What about flirting husband vs. husband nobody else wants? (Hint, hint: everyone but the sexy guy).

    Your statement is cripplied by the apex fallacy and ignores the majority.

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

      @Lokland

      But being realistic, how many guys are going to be able to pull this off?

      I’ll agree quiet, stoic sexy husband is better than flirting husband. What about flirting husband vs. husband nobody else wants? (Hint, hint: everyone but the sexy guy).

      Very few, but IMO going into “alpha male jackassery,” as McKay put it, doesn’t get you any closer. My husband is not the guy who owns the room like that – women do not throw themselves at him. But he conducts himself in a way that I find attractive, and I’m happy to be on his arm. If he got drunk, or loud, or flirtatious, that would be such a turnoff. If you don’t have the natural charisma that means all eyes are on you, much better to be dignified than act like an attention whore.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    I still maintain that there is a difference in the Bull Alpha (the womanizing egotistical walking phallus you describe as “alpha”) and the Wolf Alpha (the far more monogamous, but no less driven socially adept family man who uses the power of his position and masculinity to build and protect his pack — your “perfect beta”).

    Examples of both abound. The Wolf Alpha and the Bull Alpha both display undeniably Alpha traits, but how they are expressed is far different:

    Bull Alpha: plate spinning, harem-building Casanova
    Wolf Alpha: dedicated, devoted monogamist who has A LOT OF SEX with his devoted, monogamist wife.

    Bull Alpha: expresses his dominance by avoiding personal responsibility and pursuing lucrative career responsibility
    Wolf Alpha: expresses his dominance by pursuing and even embracing personal responsibility even to the detriment to a career he’s devoted himself to, if it furthers the interests of his family

    You get the picture. You can be perfectly Alpha, but decide to use those powers for “good” — that is, family building and protection.

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

      @Ian Ironwood

      Your description of the wolf alpha is very much what I would call the perfect mix of alpha and beta traits. I think that in this SMP, they are becoming endangered, because the culture rewards hedonism and impulsivity. The very same young men who would have been wolf alphas a generation ago are now in danger of becoming that walking phallus – if only because they get hit on by sexually aggressive women and go for it – why wouldn’t they? There are very good reasons why they would be better off taking a pass, but your average 20 year old guy isn’t going to feel that way.

      Whether those guys can or even want to morph from bull to wolf at a later date remains to be seen.

  • Escoffier

    Well, Susan, obviously some high % of girls your daughter’s age or thereabouts are quite attracted to alphas and not so attracted to betas. Otherwise we wouldn’t have this problem, right?

    Beyond that, unless my memory is very bad, haven’t you written a number of posts in the past which start from the premise that younger women are attracted to alphas? I mean, you wouldn’t have to warn them to stay away if they weren’t drawn to the bad boys in the first place.

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

      @Escoffier

      Well, Susan, obviously some high % of girls your daughter’s age or thereabouts are quite attracted to alphas and not so attracted to betas. Otherwise we wouldn’t have this problem, right?

      It’s my belief that they only observe alphas. Alphas are the guys who approach them, strike up a conversation, ask them to the formal, etc. Lots of girls don’t get that attention, and they don’t see any guys around whom they might date.

      We could argue about why betas are invisible – I think that the 80% of both men and women is pretty much only aware of the 20% of the opposite sex. Pluralistic Ignorance at work.

      I mean, you wouldn’t have to warn them to stay away if they weren’t drawn to the bad boys in the first place.

      What I’m saying basically amounts to: Avoid every single guy who approaches you in a bar. They’re all bad boys, or trying to be. Impostor Assholes are no better than the real deal. I’m saying women need to go find other guys, guys not on their radar screens. Online dating is one way. The alpha asshats are easily identifiable there, for the most part. Networking with friends and family is another way. Pursuing one’s own interests can work.

      So it’s not picking the right guys from the population. It’s finding a whole new population.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    So, a man who is reluctant to approach you in a know approach is a no-no zone is so undominant he’s feminized in your eyes.

    This is my frustration and possibly me rationalizing.

    Anyway, ever since the “The Best Way to Let a Guy Know You Like Him” post and receiving all the feedback from everyone that responded and advised me on putting myself out there more and giving guys I am interested in clearer signs of interest. I have been attempting to get out of my comfort zone a bit more this week. I have been walking around with my player/cad shield up for over a year now. They are always circling just waiting for the opportunity to pounce but I have been able to keep them at bay for a while with the “shield”. The bad thing that it keeps the decent guys away as well.

    My issue has always been that I have been waiting for the cute beta to make the move but that has not happened. I guess what I have been waiting for is one that was bold enough to do so, since I have a hard time really putting myself out there. It has always seemed easier to let men come to me.

    Yesterday, I was out and about attempting to be more flirty (making eye contact with guys I felt were safe and smiling and saying “hi” to them) just feeling it out. So, that when I do meet a decent guy or “gym guy” I would be ready, which meant I had to take down the player/cad shield and as I expected, one saw that it was down. He was very aggressive and pushy offering to wine and dine me, although, he was tall and good-looking and in his twenties. I knew I had to resist the temptation. These have been the kind of guys I have been attempting to have meaningful relationships with (and then again they are the only ones that approach me for dates and relationships) and it has never worked. I get a little lonely and vulnerable; I give them a shot and start projecting onto them and attempting to tame them—a fool’s errand indeed.

    It finally hit me like a tons of bricks when that guy was hitting on me, that I had to really start doing things differently and that meant stepping up to make myself more available to more datable men who were better relationship prospects.

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

      @Liza

      It finally hit me like a tons of bricks when that guy was hitting on me, that I had to really start doing things differently and that meant stepping up to make myself more available to more datable men who were better relationship prospects.

      I would keep the bitch shield down, but ready. Blow off any guy who gives off a player vibe. Leave it down for a man who seems less opportunistic or aggressive. In other words, you’re going to have to actively calibrate.

      Do you remember the bar scene in Good Will Hunting? :)

  • Jason773

    These guys and their choices in women often bewilder me. I think desperation may play apart and the low availability of decent women in today’s society.

    It’s not bewildering at all. If your typical beta male has been hapless with women for years, and he finally snags a female, it doesn’t matter how crazy or bitchy she is, as he is thinking ‘who knows if I’ll ever get this chance again’. Desperation is the whole part.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ian Ironwood, I prefer the analogy of the Wolf, the Sheep, and the Sheepdog, which I wrote about here.

    I don’t personally like to call my husband “beta.” Susan has no problems calling her husband that, but I see my husband as MY alpha. The terminology is probably tripping people up, too.

  • Ramble

    Actually, Evolvify cited a study that shows that during ovulation, women crave humor and intelligence in men even more than high T characteristics. I haven’t had time to review it, but plan to.

    Interesting, I definitely want to know more about that.

  • Travis

    I’m new here, but I’m just wondering if anyone has addressed why women seem to see the “bad boy” types as fixer uppers, but beta types as lost causes.
    If, as Susan has said before, the ideal for a woman is a mixture of alpha and beta traits, I would think that it would be much easier to get a beta to adopt some alpha traits than it would be to get the opposite. I don’t know about anyone else, but in my experience there’s nothing that gives me more confidence and strength than having a woman I’m attracted to let me know that she adores me, and trusts me to lead and provide for her. I don’t think women really understand how much a man’s self image can be influenced by his SO. If you treat him like he’s a strong, dominant, manly man, nine times out of ten he’s gonna’ try to live up to those expectations. Conversely, if you give the impression that you think he’s a wimp, emasculate him, etc, he’s probably going to live up to those expectations also.
    It’s just a theory, but I think most guys have a lot of alpha in them, they just need a woman with the patience and ability to bring it out of them. They need their ego’s stroked a bit. And, no offense to the ladies, but that’s a skill that the modern, American woman seems to be severely lacking in.
    Basically, it’s the equivalent of a female needing her SO to show her that she turns him on and he finds her sexually attractive. The more a man makes a woman FEEL sexy, the more sexually open and adventurous she’s going to be.
    And the more a woman makes a man FEEL alpha, the stronger and more dominant he’s gonna’ behave.
    To me, this is exactly what the “Behind every great man, is a great woman.” saying is about. Oftentimes, I think the love and support of a woman can bring out a lot of strength in men that they don’t even know they have. Unfortunately, it seems to me that women seem to have been conditioned by feminism to think that stroking a man’s ego makes her weak. And as a result, we’re seeing a lot more weak men.
    Could be wrong. Just my two cents…

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

      @Travis

      Welcome, that’s a great comment. You’re amplifying things I’ve been saying for a while. Both about the alpha/beta conundrum and also about women needing to reclaim their femininity and be willing to express adoration to the man they love.

  • Escoffier

    Hope, I think the terminology gets confusing because it can be meant two ways, intrinsically and relativistically.

    There just aren’t very many intrinsic alphas. However, a relationship can still work very well so long as a man is relativistically alpha (to his wife and/or to her visible options). All he needs to be is “alpha enough” for her tastes even if intrinsically he is a beta and the rest of the world would view him as such.

    I don’t think there can be the slightest doubt that intrinsically I am beta through and through but I also think that I am “alpha enough” for my wife. It helps that I did not marry a woman who requires a lot of alpha. It’s like a 5’4″ guy marrying a 4’11″ girl. To her, he’s tall. To everyone else, he’s short.

  • JP

    “I also live in a city chock full of beta males. John Durant of Hunter Gatherer talks about how women love doctors, because they are an almost perfect alpha-beta hybrid. I live among many of them, and they generally present as beta. I know a couple of real alpha orthopedic surgeons – but they’re unusual.”

    Alpha surgeons are going to start dying out as the system moves to a more checklist approach.

    No more lone cowboys in the operating room.

  • Escoffier

    “We could argue about why betas are invisible”

    One reason is because they are shy and afraid of girls so they don’t make themselves visible.

  • Marie

    “What I’m saying basically amounts to: Avoid every single guy who approaches you in a bar.”

    Really? All of those who go out are assholes? Alphas usually have some betas with them. Maybe some college bars with too many douchebags result in betas feeling they need to behave like alphas. But as long as you hang out in places for people out of college, I think there’s a good mix. Almost all social people go to bars. Even nerds. If a person doesn’t even do that, I’m skeptical.
    Clubs known for hookups and drugs are a different deal.

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

      @Marie

      Maybe some college bars with too many douchebags result in betas feeling they need to behave like alphas. But as long as you hang out in places for people out of college, I think there’s a good mix. Almost all social people go to bars. Even nerds. If a person doesn’t even do that, I’m skeptical.

      Yeah, I’m thinking mostly of guys under 25 in bars. I have definitely found that the beta pals want nothing more than to graduate to alpha status, and once they get a taste of asshole game, they often go with it. This is the Impostor Asshole I referred to earlier.

      I think bars are fun, and you never know. But the odds of your future husband approaching you cold in a bar are very, very slim. If a cute guy does strike up a convo and ask for your number, that’s great. Just keep your eyes wide open as you get to know him. I know two women getting married this summer who met their fiances in bars. Of course it happens. The problem is that way too many young women rely on this as a primary strategy for meeting people, even when they know it’s not effective.

  • Ted D

    Travis – I am on the same page as you, but I’ve asked this question and the answer from women generally goes something like this:

    “If we have to explain to men that we want them to be dominant, it doesn’t work because they are doing it FOR us. We want them to simply be what we want without asking them.” which to me sounds an awful lot like “read my mind.” I’ve heard this in person from several women, and each and every time I can only shake my head in disbelief. They WANT a man with XYZ, but only if they have it on their own. If they have to teach a man XYZ, it loses it’s value.

    It is one of the most illogical things I’ve ever tried to wrap my head around, but there it is.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    JP, video game addiction is not that bad if managed under tight self-control. When my husband and I really get into a game we can play upwards of 40+ hours a week, but we still go to work, go to sleep at a normal time, take care of the house/yard/cooking/chores, and have plenty of sexytime. Of course that will change with a kid, but we still have four months of waiting. We can’t re-decorate the nursery every day, and we’re not TV people.

    Travis, that is a good point. I love stroking my husband’s ego and making him feel good. I think it does build confidence and dominance in him, and make him feel like he’s strong and capable. He was getting a bit upset and stressed by work and some problems with home repairs (we had some water damage in the house), but I continued to tell him he’s awesome and that I don’t see him in any less light. Later he became much happier, and acted more “alpha” and playful.

  • OffTheCuff

    Liza at 112 – bravo for your realization.

    When the shield is unilaterally up, only the guys who don’t give a crap will bust through, and so you pre-reject men who might actually care about your feelings. If you can find venues where you can actually lower the shield without undue harassment, you can then *selectively* reject the men who are pushy, creepy, or douchey. But do you find doing that difficult, since they are usually attractive?

    Betas sometimes won’t approach cold. I think it’s sufficient to get into their personal space and stay there. You don’t have save a wimpy beta’s soul by being direct, but it helps to strongly signal that you won’t reject him.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Travis
    It’s just a theory, but I think most guys have a lot of alpha in them, they just need a woman with the patience and ability to bring it out of them. They need their ego’s stroked a bit. And, no offense to the ladies, but that’s a skill that the modern, American woman seems to be severely lacking in.

    This is related to something another man brought up earlier in the thread. (For some reason, I can’t find his comment. But it’s late and my eyes are tired, so . . .)

    His point was that while the Manosphere is teaching men valuable relationships skills, nobody is teaching anything to women, and that posts like this (however sensible) only sidestep the issue that a woman should be working on what she can bring to the table as well. (I believe his exact insinuation was that telling women to find “betas” is like telling men to find overweight feminists . . . That is, it’s telling them they can reach no higher and might as well give up.)

    Now, I happen to agree with what Susan is saying about avoiding the “alpha” red flags and filtering for more “beta” traits . . . but her point and the aforementioned commenter’s point don’t seem mutually exclusive. You’re right that a lot of modern women don’t seem to know how to build up a (desirable “beta”) man’s ego and that nobody is breaking the steps down for them.

  • Escoffier

    Correction: betas will almost never approach cold.

  • Harkat

    @Courtley

    I see your point about fat women/mother qualities to an extent, and agree that convincing people to feel sexual attraction may not be productive. Still, mother qualities are not at all at odds with physical sexiness. You don’t have to figure out the “balance” of motherly qualities with sexiness as one has to figure out the balance between beta/alpha traits.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    Yeah the terminology is nearing uselessness. Everyone seems to have different definitions of beta; ranging from unable to be assertive to choosing not to being overtly dominant.
    I’m not sure why the only dating advice for guys to follow is something that, if implemented fully and correctly, would to be a sociopathic cad. (maybe Dogsqaut is creating the middle ground) I think it has benifits in inner-game, but the mentality of it is still rather “cad”ish, IMO.
    It’s all about not valuing a single particular women, and ever seeking variety (self-serving) mentality – no?

    @Hope
    Aw, I fought with myself to not buy Diablo 3 – so far. I’m more a console-guy, so I’m on Max Payne 3 and Dragons Dogma next week.
    I know I’ll probably get sucked into Diablo eventually, but honesty seeing Star Wars: Old republic (which didn’t captivate me) selling for half price already is discouraging.

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

      @Cooper

      I think Game in and of itself is very useful. It’s a form of self-development that will definitely improve the way men interact with women. It’s the application of the concepts that gets tricky. As you say, Game practitioners and teachers run the gamut from benevolent LTR-oriented approaches to saying and doing anything to get laid by someone for one night only. I think every man has to decide for himself what he wants, what he is comfortable doing, and which tools he feels are most useful for his personality. Some guys will be more oriented to teasing or “cocky funny” than others. No one is drawing on a blank canvas, we all have personalities already.

      I especially like the quote in the post by Mark Manson, who writes Postmasculine. He was a successful PUA for years, and he writes very honestly about his experiences and his thoughts on Game. His blog is well worth a read.

  • Travis

    @Susan,
    Thanks. By the way, I just wanted to mention how much I appreciate what you’re trying to do with this blog. I think if our society is going to survive and be healthy, men and women are going to have to get a lot better at communicating, and stop buying into this “us against them” mindset. So far, yours is the only blog I’ve found that doesn’t seem completely adversarial towards the opposite sex. (and that goes for men’s blogs on relationships, as well as women’s)
    @Ted,
    Hey, dude! Glad to see you still around. I was browsing the archives, and your posts specifically stood out to me as being closest to how I feel about all this. I specifically found myself nodding and agreeing every time I saw one of your posts.
    And I kind of expected to get that kind of response from women. But my point is that they shouldn’t TELL a guy he needs to act more dominant. That’s just going to cement in his mind that she DOESN’T find him strong or dominant. What I propose women do is to TREAT him as if she DOES find him strong and dominant, even if he’s not at first. I think most guys will respond to that by thinking “Gee, she actually thinks I’m this strong, confident guy, and she likes that. I’m not gonna’ disappoint her.” And as a result he starts to ACT in a stronger, more confident manner because he believes that’s what she expects from him.
    It’s kind of like when I was a kid. My parents didn’t tell me “Don’t steal, it’s wrong.” Instead they told me “You’re such a good kid. I KNOW you won’t steal. You have more character than that.” As a result, I felt like my parents were proud of me and thought I was this moral, upstanding person. And I didn’t steal. Not because I thought it was wrong. But because I didn’t want to let them down or disappoint them.
    Hopefully that makes sense…

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

      @Travis

      My parents didn’t tell me “Don’t steal, it’s wrong.” Instead they told me “You’re such a good kid. I KNOW you won’t steal. You have more character than that.”

      That’s a great analogy. We can all provide positive reinforcement for the behaviors we like best. It’s very difficult if you’re not seeing anything you can reward, but even then women can indicate that they like feeling safe in a man’s arms, for example, or that they think his competence at something is kinda sexy.

  • Ted D

    Liza – as a fellow INTJ I completely understand the “shield” concept. In fact, what you described in regards to shielding yourself from men is how I treat just about everyone in the world. And, I can assuredly tell you that IME you cannot find a person to connect with while you are actively blocking. This is exactly why every single women I’ve been in a LTR with has been introduced to me through my social circle. For me, it is only in the company of my friends and the comfort of a familiar environment that I feel safe enough to let all those layers of protection down, and only then am I receptive enough to even acknowledge IOI’s from a woman.

    I will be the first to admit that allowing yourself to be that “exposed” is some scary shit. I actively refuse to let my guard down in public, regardless of who I’m with. The thing is, once I allow someone into my ‘inner world’ they are not subject to my active blocking attempts. I can and do walk around fully “guarded” with my SO and she is none the wiser because how I treat her never changes. However, now that we’ve been together awhile, she can easily tell if I’m at ease, or if I’m in guard mode by looking at how I am acting. By that I mean, I project what I want the people around me to see, and it changes depending on where we are. It is usually whatever is expected for the environment I am in.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Cooper, I played the original Max Payne, but I didn’t pick up the sequels. I’m not very into shooters, and Diablo is more about theorycrafting “builds” and random loot/stats like other RPGs. My husband tried out SWTOR but didn’t like it much at all, so I think that game doesn’t have the same appeal. Plus SWTOR has a monthly fee, whereas D3 is free after the box purchase (like Guild Wars). You’re probably too young to have played D1 and D2 (although I didn’t play them either). A lot of guys in their late 20s and older are big fans of the series and have been waiting for over 10 years for this. It’s much, much bigger, like the Avengers of video games this year.

  • http://deleted Jason773

    Travis,

    You’re still not getting it. As always, men and women are very different. Yes, it would be logical for women to try to cultivate these characteristics in a man, but as Ted said, it then loses its value to most women. In a woman’s eyes, the guy only changed because she had to make him change in some form or capacity, and that breeds resentment in women. Women just want men ‘to know’ and ‘to be’ without any work on their part.

    Now you might say “well, women actively look to change the ‘bad boy’ and they don’t resent him if he truly changes some’. Well here is where the female hamster will come out full force. First, it is rare that this happens, but if it does, she will justify the change by not thinking she made him change, but by concluding that ‘he always had it in him’ and ‘deep down he really was a good guy’. Funny how that works.

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

    Travis…”I’m just wondering if anyone has addressed why women seem to see the “bad boy” types as fixer uppers, but beta types as lost causes.”

    To the extent this is true, I’d guess it’s because it’s easier to imagine someone else changing his/her behavior than it is to imagine oneself feeling attracted to someone who is currently unattractive.

    Male version: If a girl is has some nice personality attributes but is extremely unattractive, you are most unlikely to think, “Well, if she’d just lose 20 pounds and wear different clothes and let her hair grow out and not walk slouched over like that, then she’d be pretty hot and I could go for her.” The electrochemical analog computer that does the attraction analysis doesn’t seem to have a what-if feature.

    As a kid supposedly once said, “I sure am glad I don’t like broccoli, because if I liked it I’d eat it, and I hate it”

  • Ramble

    It’s my belief that they only observe alphas.

    Susan, your hamster is showing.

    Come on. Pretty girls start dating in High School (or, at the very least, talk constantly to their friends about the boys in school). And they spend just as much time in class with the Betas as they do with the Alphas. And they absolutely notice those clumsy guys who stare at their tits.

    (And, at worst, they start dating in college where everything I just said is still true.)

    I am not saying that she has to date that clumsy guy, but she definitely notices him.

    What I’m saying basically amounts to: Avoid every single guy who approaches you in a bar.

    You know, there is a reason why they go to the bar in the first place. It’s not like there is some law that says they must go to some place where a glass of beer costs $5 and it is hard to hear one another.

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

      I am not saying that she has to date that clumsy guy, but she definitely notices him.

      Haven’t you ever heard someone complain, “She doesn’t even know I exist!”

      There’s seeing, and there’s seeing. If people really saw everyone around them, they wouldn’t truly believe that 85% of college guys get laid every weekend, when the number is closer to 10%. Women wouldn’t believe it, nor would other guys.

  • Travis

    @Hope,
    That’s EXACTLY what I’m talking about. A little bit of that can go a LONG way towards building a guy up. I’ve seen quite a few beta guys undergo a major transformation as far as confidence and strength are concerned once they started dating the right kind of woman. It’s like night and day. On the flip side, I’ve also seen how dating the WRONG woman can completely emasculate and “beta-fy” guys, as well.

    @Bellita,
    “His point was that while the Manosphere is teaching men valuable relationships skills, nobody is teaching anything to women, and that posts like this (however sensible) only sidestep the issue that a woman should be working on what she can bring to the table as well.”

    I completely agree. But I think a lot of guys would just assume that this is common sense. (Obviously, it’s not.) And therefore wouldn’t think to mention it.
    One thing that’s really stood out to me reading relationship blogs like this (both from the male and female perspective) is how INCREDIBLY ignorant most of us are as to how the opposite sex thinks. There are things I’ve discovered that most women just automatically assume guys know about how they should behave, that I can honestly say that, in my experience most guys have absolutely no clue about. We just automatically assume that the opposite sex KNOWS what we want, because it’s so obvious to us, and all the males/females (whichever the case may be) that we’re friends with. But the more I read, the more painfully obvious it becomes that this isn’t the case…

  • Ramble

    Good Will Hunting

    Now, there was a realistic movie.

  • JP

    @Hope:

    “JP, video game addiction is not that bad if managed under tight self-control. When my husband and I really get into a game we can play upwards of 40+ hours a week, but we still go to work, go to sleep at a normal time, take care of the house/yard/cooking/chores, and have plenty of sexytime. Of course that will change with a kid, but we still have four months of waiting. We can’t re-decorate the nursery every day, and we’re not TV people.”

    I just wish I could get the ten years of my life from 14-24 back.

    I eventually shifted my video game addiction into financial analysis/speculation, international politics, metahistory, and metaphysical speculation and the like.

    In fact, that’s how I ended up at this exciting blog in the first place.

  • Cooper

    @Hope
    I’m always on Xbox Live cause the party-chat system is fabulous.
    I did actually play D1/D2; in fact, I was once banned by Blizzard for 2-year for hacking too much (duping items, using spells in towns) lmao, good times.
    Ugh, your making me want to go download it now. But then I won’t see a living-soul for far too long. Not buying it is such a losing battle..

  • JP

    @Escoffer:

    “One reason is because they are shy and afraid of girls so they don’t make themselves visible.”

    I was only shy around women I had crushes on. I couldn’t really approach them even if they were sending me signals.

    On the other hand, I could spend all the time I wanted to around women in whom I had no interest. Which is why I always dated women in whom I had no initial interest.

  • Ramble

    Which is why I always dated women in whom I had no initial interest.

    I think a lot of guys have been there. I also think quite a few of them married those girls.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    @Susan,

    Yes, ditching the “bitch shield”when it is appropriate.

    @Ted

    Yes, the “shield” is very easy to hide behind as an INTJ. Ted, you’re probably an Empath like I am, at least that is what I get from your comment. As an Empath, the “shield” can come in handy because it can be very draining feeling everyone around you emotions including your own at times.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    JP, yeah, I can certainly understand that, if it became an issue for you. My husband and I have had tons of readings/conversations about metaphysics, science, politics, interpersonal dynamics and evo psych stuff. But sometimes it’s fun to just have our couple bonding activity be a mindlessly entertaining loot-fest. :)

    Cooper, that’s funny. My husband joined a totally legit group in Diablo and didn’t do any online hacking or cheating. He was generally the goodie goodie. I’d use cheats in single player games, but not in online games. I also had this thing about not insulting or ganking/killing other players in games. Needless to say I wasn’t able to do multiplayer shooter games.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    @Susan

    “Whether those guys can or even want to morph from bull to wolf at a later date remains to be seen.”

    A lot of that depends, I think, on exactly what kind of woman the dude encounters. If he keeps running into easy, low-self-esteem-but-high-entitlement Sexually Liberated Unencumbered Tarts (S*L*U*Ts) every time he turns around, yeah, kid in a candy store. Why settle? Especially once he learns Game?

    But then that one happens by who triggers responses in you that you didn’t realize you had — you recognize a woman who has the true potential to be a high-quality mate for reasons that have nothing to do with her job description or her educational level or her bust size. You find out that she wants kids, and you’ve always known you want kids. You see several extremely admirable qualities in her that set her apart from the run-of-the-mill girls you’ve been boinking. This one really has potential.

    Indeed, you realize that, with the right kind of woman, just what kind of man you could become: father, husband, Daddy Bear, Lord of your domain, surrounded by generations of your tearful descendants on your deathbed. And you realize at some point that, yeah, trading your short term relationships for easy pussy for a long-term lease on extremely responsive pussy (if you do it right) is not a bad kind of deal at all.

    From there you start your DD, but the real Wold Alpha, once he has made up his mind and has “gone his own way” toward an outstanding mate and a future of family life . . . well, like the Bull Alpha, there’s not much that’s going to stand in his way.

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

      @Ian Ironwood

      The wolf alpha you describe reminds me of alphas of old. Teddy Roosevelt. The qualifications included moral strength, honor, duty, and some other virtues we don’t put much stock in today.

  • Escoffier

    JP, yeah I was like that too.

    Liza, I hope you don’t mean empath like Deanna Troi.

  • drunicusveritas

    @ Susan Walsh
    You enjoy being a jerk

    To the contrary, I find it lonely and artificial. I will say, having once been married to someone who “loved but was not in-love” with me, that it’s a hideous mistake to marry someone you’re not sexually attracted to, for their “ability to provide,” which makes one feel like little more than a john.
    And yes, of course I know that the Ivy Leagues and many of my bosses are very high-earning females. But those women still prefer strong, masculine, confident, assertive men, anyway.
    Im not saying one must always be a cad – I admit somewhat ashamedly I’ve been.pretty promiscuous – but even (perhaps especially) alphas have self-control, and we ‘jerks” will tend not to cheat if we’re in love.
    I realize this post is for women – particularly young women, as is this blog.
    But attraction IS fairly hard-wired – ask anyone who’s gay or hi or whichever.
    Men don’t care much for being used, either – whether it’s as an ATM or a big sister with testes.

  • drunicusveritas

    I can also say that the “PUA” lifestyle – work, gym, nightclub, repeat – seems pretty damn lonely, to me at least, a beta with a brittle and gstrangling layer of “alpha.”
    And the thought of washing down Cipromax with Red Bull and vodka is not, at my age anyway, particularly appealling.
    I remember being a “good” husband and prior to that, being a “good ” boyfriend. I felt rather like a dupe towards the end, as if any kindness, generosity, deference, or caution was met with contempt.
    But needs, even those dirty and despicable male needs, have a way of being met, one way or another.
    I would love to be head over heels again, but I rather doubt the state of the world today is producing a surplus of dream girls, or even marriageable women.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Liza, I hope you don’t mean empath like Deanna Troi.
    —–
    Escoffier @ 147

    No! She is way over the top. We are just highly empathic people, that’s all.

  • Jones

    I still think the whole alpha/beta terminology should be abandoned. It has all the wrong assumption buried in it. It’s premised on pseudo-science. It carries the implication that there’s some sort of deeply buried genetic thing that distinguishes alpha from beta – that you simply “are” one or the other. If women are attracted to a “mix of alpha and beta traits,” then I’m not sure why we shouldn’t be talking instead about what makes those traits cohere with each other. In other words one should go directly to trying to figure out what the ideal is. Finally the idea that a mix of alpha and beta traits is ideal is really suspicious, because it sounds like a fantasy. The ideal guy is someone who does everything, in fact contradictory things, but always at the right time and the right place. Certainly, I wouldn’t recommend for any guy to try to reverse engineer a strategy from this. I think the alpha/beta dichotomy falsely projects from various arbitrary features of contemporary US sexual culture onto some deeply buried biological truth about humanity. In every instance that I’ve seen so far these assumptions completely break down for people once they leave the US. Every time you see someone comment about getting a little exposure outside of this rarefied culture, they realize how none of those ideas make sense any longer. Stop pretending that the biology/evolutionary psychology is in any way informative. It provides no guide whatsoever for how to live.

    If you want that, go directly to the classical sources of moral education. Women have a harder time, I imagine, since none of that stuff is really addressed to them. This is probably why we have a problem. How will women re-develop strong sources of feminine identity? That’s the problem you should address.

  • Ramble

    I know two women getting married this summer who met their fiances in bars.

    Do they like telling their story? Or, do they sorta make a face when they reference that it was a *bar* where they met?

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

      @Ramble

      Do they like telling their story? Or, do they sorta make a face when they reference that it was a *bar* where they met?

      They’re sheepish about it. In fact, they didn’t want to say how they met their fiances. These aren’t women I know well, so I didn’t know the backstory already.

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

    Women that flock to alphas are simply too lazy to entertain themselves.

    I think Balzac was the one that had a female character saying that she was smart enough to entertain herself. Maybe that is part of it too.

    But the men also have to stop hectoring them over it. On the one hand, we complain a lot about women with ridiculous standards and endless checklists. Then in the next breath we say to a woman who is sensible enough to forgo the list “You had better think I am the greatest and most handsome man in the world, otherwise you are settling for me and I don’t want you.” I don’t see how this formula is good for anybody.

    This is the crux of men sexual competitive streak. The same reason a woman will label bitch and all sorts of name a woman that is more attractive them herself specially if the man they want finds her attractive too, YMMV.

    Unless computer games are addictive to you.

    Is funny because I can get easily addicted to casual games but big ones are like movies I can play them but after I’m done I don’t crave to play them all the time. I don’t play facebook games for this reason.

    You get the picture. You can be perfectly Alpha, but decide to use those powers for “good” — that is, family building and protection.

    I will say that even good Alpha’s have issues relating to their own Alpha sons, being an Alpha is a constant state of “My dick is bigger than yours” and even in old age no Alpha thinks of relinquish power not even to their heirs, YMMV.

    It’s like a 5’4″ guy marrying a 4’11″ girl. To her, he’s tall. To everyone else, he’s short.

    Yeah, when most women express wanting a tall man they usually mean taller than myself, not 7 foot 7 inches tall.

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

    Plain Jane alert people. A coconut cookie to anyone that points out the new handle.

  • Ramble

    “She doesn’t even know I exist!”

    In movies, Yes.

    I am not saying that each person is equally popular, but, there is a reason why that guy, who sits right next to her in class is unnoticed.

    He is shy/beta/awkward/whatever.

    And, again, I am not saying that she owes this awkward guy a conciliatory blowjob. She should blow who she wants.

    But the idea that she does not know who he is is ridiculous.

    That same girl that does not recognize 85% of her classmates probably has one or two of them “orbiting” her in a wonderfully beta fashion. She knows he exists, and she is unimpressed.

  • Ramble

    Yeah, when most women express wanting a tall man they usually mean taller than myself, not 7 foot 7 inches tall.

    While it is true that some 5’1″ girl is more likely to be attracted to some 5’5″ guy, IME, a large percentage of girls really, really like guys in the 6’2″ – 6’5″ range.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    But I don’t feel that way. My beta husband is a 10 to me, and the slightly smarmy ortho surgeon is repellent. Women of average looks fall in love with men of average looks every day, and they don’t long for a chiseled jaw. They fall for guys with a healthy self-confidence, and they don’t long for Machiavelli. That just hasn’t been my experience. I’m not sure if this is male projection, but I get the sense that Game notwithstanding, there are persistent (and pernicious) misunderstandings about female sexuality in the manosphere.

    I always thought that but I’m not seeing it in young people.

    I think we may have a generational issue. I’m a bit younger than you (about 5-10 years if memory serves) and I was already seeing the “5s think they’re 9s” issue with women.

    I suspect the current generation has been feed so much grrl power, you deserve whatever you want, you can have everything, and you should be loved for who you are that a significant fraction of women are broken in thinking that assortive mating is right. I think this fraction believes that assortive mating is settling. Hell, you can argue that’s exactly what Kate Bollick did with the guy she dumped at 28 and what Lisa Gottlieb cops to in Marry Him and can’t seem to stop even when confronted with it.

    Are these women the majority? I doubt it, but assuming 1-10 desirability is a bell curve even 1 in 10 women in the central group (plus or minus 1 std) thinking they are > +1 std and rejecting men accordingly is going to heavily distort the marketplace.

    To my mind Game is a way to try to shift the corresponding percentage of men from the central group into the > +1 std, however we then get the problem that said men won’t want faux +1 girls anymore than +1 girls (real or faux) want faux +1 men.

  • JP

    Have you guys argued about this psychology today issue yet?

    This blog produces a bajillion comments, so I’m never sure:

    “Ovulating women still believed the smooth operators would be dependable dads. However, they held no such illusions for other women. Thus, this perceptual shift is not completely cracked: “Ovulating women do not believe that sexy cads will make better fathers in general; they will be better fathers only if she is the mother.” Has psychology finally answered the question of how a woman can delude herself into thinking she will be the one to rein in a toxic bachelor?”

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201205/why-do-the-wrong-men-feel-so-right-ovulation-can-lead-distorted-thinking

  • Herb

    @david foster

    Male version: If a girl is has some nice personality attributes but is extremely unattractive, you are most unlikely to think, “Well, if she’d just lose 20 pounds and wear different clothes and let her hair grow out and not walk slouched over like that, then she’d be pretty hot and I could go for her.” The electrochemical analog computer that does the attraction analysis doesn’t seem to have a what-if feature.

    If I didn’t think like that I wouldn’t have tried to get so many women to watch “What Not to Wear”, encouraged my ex-wife and a couple of gf to wear more skirts and dresses (want to know something big the current gf did to keep my attention, that’s it right there), and learned to notice women’s haircuts and compliments ones I liked.

    Maybe it’s just because I’m from the old Heinlein “no there are no ugly girls, some are just prettier than others” school that I’ve long been willing to see the beautiful and offer my (usually unwanted admittedly) advice on how to let her out.

  • Ted D

    Travis – Yep I’m still here. And you have my sympathy if you find yourself agreeing with me a lot. I’ve come to realize that I am like a pocket watch in a digital age. My views are built on a moral code that existed decades ago but was abandoned because it wasn’t easy or fun.

    “What I propose women do is to TREAT him as if she DOES find him strong and dominant, even if he’s not at first. I think most guys will respond to that by thinking “Gee, she actually thinks I’m this strong, confident guy, and she likes that. I’m not gonna’ disappoint her.” And as a result he starts to ACT in a stronger, more confident manner because he believes that’s what she expects from him.”

    I tried to bring this up once with Hope’s help, and it caused a virtual shitstorm on the thread. (Not saying *I* caused it, but I certainly helped it along at least.) It seems women don’t want to know how to help a man improve themselves now. They want to get a man, complete and fully functioning from the start, that they can easily customize with bling and window treatments. (of course many men want a Victoria’s Secret model that can cook and owns a liquor store….) I think it is a much larger problem than the SMP though. In general we are a society of instant gratification and disposable toys. No one wants to take the time to work on something/someone and make it/them better. Nope, they want to simply walk up to the window and point at the man/woman they want to marry and expect the rest to just happen. And worse yet, everyone seems to think they *deserve* and are *entitled* to exactly what they want. I’m starting to think that we are all going to forget how to do things for ourselves because so many things are handed to us, and this is just one peak behind the curtain.

    Sorry for the rant. It’s been a shitty week and I’ve had my fill of seeing people suffer from poor choices and general stupidity, when I know they have the capacity for intelligent thought. Problem is, there is no compelling reason for them to lift a finger to better themselves, and as a society we are cheering their mediocrity on.

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

    I realize that it may be too late to do this, but I personally would recommend decoupling “alpha” traits related to their routine meaning among biologists—traits that confer the ability to physically dominate rivals and establish a prized place in the social hierarchy—from “alpha” as defined by those using it to describe a male-female relationship management style.

    Let’s consider the fun world of elephant seals. In that environment, “alpha” is earned by violence or the threat of violence. The successful bull is not running pick-up on individual cows; he simply mauls his rivals and the female elephant seals like it and respond by granting him sexual access. Those females are not asking for flowers or love sonnets; they want an ass-kicker and that’s exactly what they get.

    An effeminate physical weakling who manages to pick up women by appearing confident, aloof, etc. is not “alpha” in this sense. He may be a skilled, charming, and interesting individual, sure, but he’s not getting women as a by-product of his ability to beat up other men. He’s getting sex by manipulating/psychologically dominating women, not by the combat/jock route of physically dominating other men and then being rewarded for it with dropped panties.

    We can torture the definition so that an alpha male is any guy who gets laid a lot, but that says nothing about what would happen to him in a primitive, hyper-violent, Lord of the Flies environment or some modern locker room or battlefield variation. Playing fast and loose with the term can allow a guy with neither courage nor fighting ability to imply that he’s some kind of badass.

    To me, a corporate manager who abuses his subordinates because he’s protected from physical assault by the legal system is not being “alpha.” He’s just being a dick. He could have gotten his position via some combination of legitimate ability, golf handicap, appearance, political maneuvering, ruthlessness, lucky breaks, and GEEP (“Google search, Excel, THE ECONOMIST, and Powerpoint”) skills.

  • Herb

    @Bellita,

    His point was that while the Manosphere is teaching men valuable relationships skills, nobody is teaching anything to women, and that posts like this (however sensible) only sidestep the issue that a woman should be working on what she can bring to the table as well.

    You’re describing multiple guys here on that one.

    In fact, my first real understanding of women via the red pill came not from the ‘sphere but from Lisa Gottlieb’s Marry Him. The whole book was about how women should cut their list and settle on nice, decent men who they can build lives with (which isn’t settling IMHO, but that helps get to my point).

    Through an entire book where she had to talk about what she should give up on in looking for a man not once in over 200 pages did she put any work or even thought into the question: “What am I bringing to the table?”

    That was the realization that hit me like a ton of bricks. Even now when I see a “I’m happy single, honest” article (like Bollick) or a “where have all the good men gone” article (like Hymowitz whose article lead me to Gottlieb and the ‘sphere) the first thing I notice is: the entire thing is about what men are failing to do for women or not being for women or to attract women.

    Not a one has talked about what to do yourself to bring in exchange for a man’s interest.

    I’ll even go so far as the blame hookup culture, game, and a lot of SMP dysfunction on this one thing. Women, as a whole, may be driven in their careers and willing to work through an 80 point checklist to be a junior partner, but learning how to cook or dress feminine for a man is too much to ask.

    I think that’s what you’ve picked up on and I’d argue it’s a more constant complain from male posters here than even the whole “high H/slut” argument.

  • Ramble

    They’re sheepish about it. In fact, they didn’t want to say how they met their fiances.

    Yeah, that matches my experience. They like going to bars and seeing guys storm the castle, but they do not like saying that, basically, “he picked me up in a bar”.

  • JP

    @Ted D:

    “And worse yet, everyone seems to think they *deserve* and are *entitled* to exactly what they want. I’m starting to think that we are all going to forget how to do things for ourselves because so many things are handed to us, and this is just one peak behind the curtain.”

    Side-effect of American Empire and Really Cheap Energy.

    You’re talking about the rear view mirror because that era peaked in 2007.

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

    @Matt

    Is it so hard to distill out of a douchey asshole’s display (such as in the video you provide) the strength that girds his douchiness? Is it so impossible for you to imagine that strength applied to matters other than the groinal and exploitative?

    Yes, it is impossible. I see no strength. I see a spoiled child, rather slow-witted, dedicating his entire life to chasing new pussy. Yet this dufus will be held up as a god by PUAs, and emulated.

    I did not invent the terminology, and as I said, I don’t relate to yours, which is very shaming of beta traits. In your world, to be a beta is a terrible fate, but in my world, they’re smart and productive members of society who have homes and families and are content. The guy in the video, bringing girls home to his twin bed in his parents’ house, is unlikely to ever have any of that.

    If you want what he has, it doesn’t matter what we label him. You’re fortunate that someone wrote a how-to.

    My readership doesn’t want that guy. I’ve been saying the same thing for three years. Don’t put out for assclowns. And my readership just keeps growing.

    But you don’t need to take my word for anything. The post is chock full of links – many from bloggers friendly to Game – and several are a worthwhile read.

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

      Re Steve Jobs:

      He may defy categorization. He was unique, it would not be possible to emulate him. A savant, a man who was a hermit in some ways, a self-described cruel man with poor social skills. A man who was known for smelling very bad, as he didn’t believe in hygiene.

      In what universe does Steve Jobs share any quality whatsoever with the beach bum who picks up chicks every night?

      What needs to go is the notion that alpha = gets laid. That’s the least sensible definition of all.

  • Underdog

    “In your world, to be a beta is a terrible fate, but in my world, they’re smart and productive members of society who have homes and families and are content. ”

    This may be because you grew up in a different world, Susan. For an average guy in high school, college, mid/late 20′s nowadays, beta is a terrible fate.

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

      This may be because you grew up in a different world, Susan. For an average guy in high school, college, mid/late 20′s nowadays, beta is a terrible fate.

      I don’t think so. Most men are betas! And life is not terrible for most of them. Most women are betas too, btw. And life doesn’t suck for them either. They’re getting out of college, getting good jobs. They’re the couples who fill the wedding announcements section every weekend.

      The getting together part is hard, definitely harder than it was when I went to college.

      Suprisingly, though, Beta males have more sex today than they did 75 years ago. They may not have as much as alpha guys, but the sexual revolution benefited all men, according to this post:

      http://glpiggy.net/2010/04/06/beta-males-sex-lives-improved-absolutely-after-the-sexual-revolution/

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    11. Beta males are better at, and more enthusiastic about, cunnilingus than alpha males.

    See, e.g., Lewis Skolnick with Betty Childs in Revenge of the Nerds.

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

      @Passer By

      11. Beta males are better at, and more enthusiastic about, cunnilingus than alpha males.

      That has been very true in my experience. :)

      Because alphas put their interests above others’ they tend to be less generous in the sack. Beta males want the connection, and they know it’s much more likely if the woman has an orgasm.

  • Herb

    @Matthew King

    Beta males created my laptop? No, a famous and quite recognizably alpha male, Steve Jobs, created my iPad. He had the force of character to initiate and then manage the literally thousands of patents necessary to make and deliver a product useful to me.

    You probably believe he invented the Apple and the Apple II and the MacIntosh as well instead of the Woz, the Woz, and Jef Raskin respectively.

    Jobs was a genius marketer in the best sense of the world: he understood what people wanted before they did. He was also a great leader, which is why he is seen as alpha, but the detail work that made his dreams possible was mostly what you call beta. Alphas without betas too often achieve little because big things require cooperation and leadership, not “I’m better than you assholishness”. The truly great alphas get that and get things done. The rest have motorcycles and kids by five different women and an arrest record.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    On the subject of what a person “brings to the table”: It all comes back down to inner work. You can’t force someone to do it. That person has to do it him or herself.

    If a woman refuses to be mature, responsible and emotionally in control of herself, there’s nothing that any man can do to bring it out in her. If she does have it, and is just temporarily in an unbalanced emotional state, then her man can help her regain balance by lending a hand. But she has to be willing to do the heavy lifting of inner work.

    It goes beyond just “entertaining” yourself. A woman can keep herself busy with all kinds of bad habits. But learning how to be a mature person, to do things like cooking, cleaning, social graces, expanding one’s mind, getting into good habits, becoming happier, healthier, and generally a better person will mean she’s bringing more to the table.

    In a good relationship, both the man and the woman would ideally be doing this work while giving love and support to acknowledge and help the other person. One or both not doing this work on oneself indicates a fundamental problem. One or both stopping or regressing would be bad, too. You don’t just stop growing at 25 or 30 or whenever you become partnered with someone. It’s a lifelong process.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “In your world, to be a beta is a terrible fate, but in my world, they’re smart and productive members of society who have homes and families and are content.”

    I’d love to know how people get to that “content” part.

  • JP

    @Anaconda:

    “Unless computer games are addictive to you.

    Is funny because I can get easily addicted to casual games but big ones are like movies I can play them but after I’m done I don’t crave to play them all the time. I don’t play facebook games for this reason.”

    I actually find this to be true with “campaign” games as well. Once they are done…it’s over. Civilization? Now that’s another story. Ate up my college life.

    Of course, something that I’ve noticed is that, in real life, I want to play “Civilization” (meaning that I’m interested in macro things) while most other people want to play “The Sims” (meaning that they are interested in local, community, family things).

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan, I think the alpha/beta labels piss many men off, and that’s the big pushback you’re seeing in the comments. My husband doesn’t want to be called a “beta.” In his min it’s like calling a guy “wussy” or “sissy.”

    Men would respond better to labels like “family man” or “good husband.” The statement that most men are “family men” would not be taken in the same light that most men are “beta.”

  • Sassy6519

    The rest have motorcycles and kids by five different women and an arrest record.

    Seriously, what’s with all the disdain for motorcycles?

    The guy I’ve been seeing recently is buying himself a motorcycle for his upcoming birthday, along with motorcycle lessons.

    I guess it’s safe to assume now that he has a slew of baby mommas somewhere.

    *Rolls eyes*

  • Herb

    @Ted D

    I tried to bring this up once with Hope’s help, and it caused a virtual shitstorm on the thread. (Not saying *I* caused it, but I certainly helped it along at least.) It seems women don’t want to know how to help a man improve themselves now. They want to get a man, complete and fully functioning from the start, that they can easily customize with bling and window treatments. (of course many men want a Victoria’s Secret model that can cook and owns a liquor store….) I think it is a much larger problem than the SMP though. In general we are a society of instant gratification and disposable toys. No one wants to take the time to work on something/someone and make it/them better.

    Remember how much happier I was about my life and mating choices after SJW?

    Yeah, you just reinforced that big time. Because my gf, and most people in the lifestyle as a lifestyle (as opposed to kinky sex), seem to put a lot of energy into being who they want to be and who their partners want to be (and who they want their partners to be…and that flows both ways across the whip).

    That idea that, having seen something worthwhile, we wouldn’t want to invest helping that person blossom seems odd to me. I always did and that’s one thing I have enjoyed from over here.

    Don’t think, btw, I think we’re morally superior because of it..I think it’s more a response to being out of the mainstream and having to build our own models.

    Perhaps wise women who want betas will do the same. The somewhat routine argument to date STEM nerds might be a form of that idea.

    @Passer_by

    11. Beta males are better at, and more enthusiastic about, cunnilingus than alpha males.

    See, e.g., Lewis Skolnick with Betty Childs in Revenge of the Nerds.

    Agreed :D

    puffs out chest

    And I have references :D

    That said, I don’t like that example as even at the time I thought it was rape or awful close to it.

    @Hope

    On the subject of what a person “brings to the table”: It all comes back down to inner work. You can’t force someone to do it. That person has to do it him or herself.

    While very true I want to quote you something a friend wrote me:

    As far as your Ma’am remaking you – just not possible. I know, I know, everyone talks about how their Owners formed them…yada yada yada. Not true. What happens is that WE CHOOSE how we’re going to change. The most our Owners can do is provide the catalyst for us to desire the change, as well as some direction they would prefer the change to go. From there, it’s all about us and our choices

    The bold is what’s important to add to what you said.

    Men and women can only change themselves but they can help each other. Right now, the only direction men seem to be getting from women is that which points to Game. If women want something other than more and more PUA assholes perhaps instead of dismissing that somewhat shy boy with the cute eyes who is about to buy The Mystery Method you instead flirted with him and guided his improvement into reading Dogsquat’s blog.

    You’re right, only we can change ourselves but someone willing to invest in us enough to help guide that chance can influence the results.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    I knew this post would inspire a lot of beta male bashing. I just don’t get all of the distain.

    I really believe the guys in the pecking order that are the real problem are the omegas and gammas. I wonder what percentage of them make up ithe male population. I think their pathetic behaviors are often affixed to beta males. Omegas and gammas tend to be extremely desperate and supplicating. They are also extremely big on pedestalizing and white knighting women. However, they do not inspire the distain beta males do and I really don’t understand why.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “They may not have as much as alpha guys, but the sexual revolution benefited all men, according to this post:”

    Well, among never married, perhaps they get more sex – in fact, almost certainly. But, in the past, they would have married younger and almost certainly had more sex within their marriages than an unmarried beta male gets now (unless he is in a LTR). And probably with a more attractive woman. But, also, the beta male who gets sex now is almost certainly doing so within a relationship, so it’s not that different than before when they were getting married. He’s not getting constant variety.

    But this is besides the point. If that guy in your video is plowing hundreds of women, as are other guys like him, then the average beta male is likely to end up with a woman who has been plowed for sport by at least a few of those guys. And he’ll know it. That’s going to get in the way of that “content” part, I assure you, no matter what Tom tries to tell you.

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

      If that guy in your video is plowing hundreds of women, as are other guys like him, then the average beta male is likely to end up with a woman who has been plowed for sport by at least a few of those guys. And he’ll know it. That’s going to get in the way of that “content” part, I assure you, no matter what Tom tries to tell you.

      I don’t believe most women are having sex with a few guys like him.

      One thing I’m having trouble with – like Liza said – is understanding the beta disdain from beta guys themselves. Instead of aspiring to be a player, why not aspire to be your best self? I’m talking about inner game, and I’ll take a beta with inner game over a natural alpha anyday. Why are the men resisting this idea?

      Hope makes a good point about the language, but I’m writing an article that is going to be read by a lot of people, and they’re not going to stick around and read a post called “Date a Family Man.” For better or worse, these labels are part of the zeitgeist. Probably largely due to Game.

  • PeppermintPanda

    I don’t see “men losing their virginity before marriage” as being the same as being “better off because of the sexual revolution” …

    Most men of previous generations would have been married at a (relatively) young age and been having regular sex with a committed partner. Most (so-called) beta males who are not married have probably had sex, but I think most have difficulty having sex regularly.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    What needs to go is the notion that alpha = gets laid. That’s the least sensible definition of all.

    I don’t really see where you get that. To me, it’s the easiest and most sensible definition.

    To people trying to get a handle on how the modern SMP works, all that really matters is which guys are getting laid and have the upper hand in their relationships, and which guys are getting friendzoned or on a leash in their relationships.

    All this talk about leadership, morals, intelligence, “A real alpha would take responsibility”, etc…. it’s really just overkill that confuses people.

    The SMP Alpha/Beta model isn’t perfect, but it does a pretty damn good job of getting blue pill people to understand VERY common patterns that were previously hidden from them.

    That’s really all that matters.

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

      @Jimmy Hendricks

      To people trying to get a handle on how the modern SMP works, all that really matters is which guys are getting laid and have the upper hand in their relationships, and which guys are getting friendzoned or on a leash in their relationships.

      Well that’s why I keep using the labels. Because that’s what alpha means to most people today. I think every woman here would agree that the beach bum in the video is a total loser. If he’s having sex, then he’s having sex with losers. I’m sorry, but no other explanation is possible. Neither he nor his sex partners are discerning. So he’s a gross alpha? A pathetic alpha? A mama’s boy alpha? It very quickly loses all meaning. A guy with an N of 1 can be a hell of a lot more alpha than a guy with an N of 200. And yet, guys practicing Game very specifically reward high N as an alpha marker.

  • Jonny

    “Yeah, when most women express wanting a tall man they usually mean taller than myself, not 7 foot 7 inches tall.”

    How about 6 foot tall and 10 inches down there?

  • drunicusveritas

    @Sex Negativist

    What needs are those?

    The biologically programmed need for intercourse that hetero men have. Those needs ARE NOT MET IF WE ACT LIKE MUSHY BETAS.
    All of the hoping, wishing, complaining, moral.lectures, feminism, rape and harassment laws, lies from our mothers, or Hollywood movies don’t change that fact.
    It’s not that we enjoy hurting people – in fact, there’s a deeply sad and pathetic aspect to most “PUA” efforts – it’s that betas are, sad to say, less successful with women.
    And I don’t believe that 100,000 years of evolution will change by shaking alphas, PUA’s, MRA’s, cads, jerks, or “bad boys.”
    Alphas are in general more successful at getting laid. Betas are not. It’s not a pleasant nor (certainly) ideal situation. It simply is what exists in the SMP.

  • Passer_By

    @jonny
    “How about 6 foot tall and 10 inches down there?”

    Don’t get Susan started on the undesirability of 10 inchers that hit backstops.

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

      @Passer By

      Don’t get Susan started on the undesirability of 10 inchers that hit backstops.

      I want you to know this caused an involuntary and painful contraction. Seriously, this is an important aspect of sexual compatibility.

  • Herb

    @Sassy

    Seriously, what’s with all the disdain for motorcycles?

    I was just playing to stereotype.

    Personally I’d love to drive a Victory (Vegas or maybe an Eight-ball or Judge) and have, now and then, hung with bikers.

    I guess it’s safe to assume now that he has a slew of baby mommas somewhere.

    He could ride a vintage hog, have tattoos, and be wearing club colors and I wouldn’t think that.

    I wouldn’t think that because I know you wouldn’t put up with it.

  • drunicusveritas

    Shaming, I meant to say. Much of feminism and the left seems deeply devoted to telling men that heterosexuality is shameful. (And then in yhr next breath we are told to “man up” and get married).

  • JP

    @Sassy

    “Seriously, what’s with all the disdain for motorcycles?

    The guy I’ve been seeing recently is buying himself a motorcycle for his upcoming birthday, along with motorcycle lessons.

    I guess it’s safe to assume now that he has a slew of baby mommas somewhere.

    *Rolls eyes*”

    Murdercycles, as my wife’s grandfather (an oral surgeon) called them. He got to do many a reconstruction on faces.

    One of my friends in law school swore off motorcycles when one of his friends got sucked under a big rig.

    The problem is that if you get into a motorcycle accident, you end up with pieces of your bone protruding through your clothing. That’s generally a problem.

  • Passer_By

    @JP
    “The problem is that if you get into a motorcycle accident, you end up with pieces of your bone protruding through your clothing. That’s generally a problem.”

    You realize that you pointing out the danger element is only making Sassy wet and tingly toward her new guy, right? :)

  • Herb

    @Ana

    Oh boy!
    This one should be as entertaining as The Avengers movie and probably with as much fights in it. *grabs popcorn*

    So far I think The Avengers had better pacing and nothing as good as the Ironman/Thor battle that ends with ringing Cap’s shield.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Passer_By

    You realize that you pointing out the danger element is only making Sassy wet and tingly toward her new guy, right? :)

    Hahaha!!

    I’d like to remain in one piece and unscathed, if I ever ride on the back of his bike.

    Broken bones are not tingle worthy. The rush of the ride is, however.

  • Passer_By

    @drunicusveritas

    “Shaming, I meant to say. Much of feminism and the left seems deeply devoted to telling men that heterosexuality is shameful. ”

    Correction – they are devoted to telling men that MALE heterosexuality is shameful and oppressive.

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

      Correction – they are devoted to telling men that MALE heterosexuality is shameful and oppressive.

      That’s easy for them to say, since most of them have no use for it.

  • Harkat

    Hope, Cooper

    Are you guys picking up Borderlands 2? It’s a shooter mechanically, but it’s got the Diablo structure of kill enemies-get loot so you can take down better enemies-get better loot. Liked the first one.

  • Underdog

    Matt:

    “Your identification of alpha with savagery and beta with civility is the category error from which all your other faulty judgments derive.”

    I think this is the problem here. I usually equate “alpha” with “leader”, not “asshole”; and “beta” with “wuss”, not “good guy”.

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

      I usually equate “alpha” with “leader”, not “asshole”; and “beta” with “wuss”, not “good guy”.

      Right, that’s because Roissy defines it that way. I’m interested in going beyond that. It’s not that simple. And as you can see in the post, there are lots of different people, mostly men, with a variety of views and definitions.

      I would also just point out the obvious. The reason that no one can define an alpha male is because we made it up.

  • Cooper

    @Harkat
    Um, Yes! Although it release around Sept. 20th.

  • Underdog

    Susan:
    “Instead of aspiring to be a player, why not aspire to be your best self? I’m talking about inner game, and I’ll take a beta with inner game over a natural alpha anyday. Why are the men resisting this idea?”

    This is from my experience and my experience only: it is damn hard / near impossible to have true inner game until you’ve become a “player” via outer game. You can download every single inner game book into an AFC’s head like the Matrix and it’s just going to be mental masturbation. Until he’s gone out there and actually picked up a few girls and get that sexual validation / feel that adrenaline, he’s not going to develop any inner confidence. Once again, the only way a man truly develops inner game is by practicing outer game — all the routines, negs, magic tricks or whatever are just tools for him to get comfortable talking to girls and learn to sexually escalate. They are training wheels. They are crutches. But soon enough, he will get comfortable and confident talking to girls and, if he doesn’t want to end up a social drone, he will start dropping the routines and start being himself. Telling a guy with no experience with women to learn inner game and be himself is like telling a toddler who’s never rode a bike to stay balanced without training wheels.

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

      @Underdog

      OK, that’s a really helpful insight. Thanks. I’m still working to understand how the male mind works, and I appreciate the feedback.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    Using the N is not helpful, because different people have different goals and preferences.

    For purposes of the SMP only, I think it’s more helpful to say something like, the alpha is guy the who could fairly easily, if he so wanted, get sex with reasonably attractive to very attractive women on a fairly regular basis without the women perceiving any real chance of commitment on his part. Whether he chooses to do so is another matter. Just thinking out loud there.

    Betas would run the gammit from (i) guys who are very attractive as relationship partners (including sexually in the case of greater betas) and might very occasionally be able to get sex from a reasonably attractive woman without hope of commitment to (ii) supplicating guys who women use for validation and resources. And, of course, there a lot of guys in between (i) and (ii).

    Omegas, etc., are too undesirable for them to even want to use.

    Ok, so let it be written, so let it be done.

  • JP

    “(ii) supplicating guys who women use for validation and resources.”

    What exactly *is* a supplicating guy? I understand the validation and resources issue.

  • Travis

    @Ted,
    “Yep I’m still here. And you have my sympathy if you find yourself agreeing with me a lot. I’ve come to realize that I am like a pocket watch in a digital age. My views are built on a moral code that existed decades ago but was abandoned because it wasn’t easy or fun.”

    Then I’ve got your sympathy. Seriously. I read your posts, and the grammar or phrasing might be different, but the thought process is exactly the same. Can’t count how many times I’ve made the statement that I was “born in the wrong era”. I look around and feel like I woke up in a bad dream. This shit is just so incredibly depressing and sad.
    I really don’t think most people grasp how bad things are going to get if the current trends continue. (Like you said, I’m talking about society in general. Not just the SMP, although that’s a big part of it…)
    Not to sound melodramatic, but I think we’re on a path that’s leading to a very dark place…

  • JP

    @Travis:

    “I really don’t think most people grasp how bad things are going to get if the current trends continue. (Like you said, I’m talking about society in general. Not just the SMP, although that’s a big part of it…)
    Not to sound melodramatic, but I think we’re on a path that’s leading to a very dark place…”

    We’re in a classic post-Unraveling era.

    Just wait until the crisis hits and everything goes completely haywire.

    See history for details.

    More seriously, though, we’re not to the point were the reaction to “current trends” occurs. Children react to the problems created by prior generations. That’s how political and social movements are born.

  • JP

    Apparently, big pharma is on it’s way to creating female Viagra:

    “The authors further explain why this body/mind disconnect in women accounts for the fiasco of the pharmaceutical industry’s attempts to come up with a female version of Viagra (though they’ve poured many millions of dollars into the effort). For increasing blood flow to their primary sex organ is totally independent from sexually “heating up” their mind. And it’s undeniably suggestive that currently the most promising drug for effectively dealing with a woman’s low sexual desire is an antidepressant(i.e., acting not on female genitalia but the regions of the brain affecting the conscious processing of emotions). Though this drug, Flibanserin, failed in its Phase III trials as a fast-acting antidote for depression, its researchers discovered that it led to a “surging libido in its female subjects.””

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/paradox-and-pragmatism-in-women-s-sexual-desire

  • Orig. Anon.

    @Susan 202:
    “One thing I’m having trouble with – like Liza said – is understanding the beta disdain from beta guys themselves. Instead of aspiring to be a player, why not aspire to be your best self? I’m talking about inner game, and I’ll take a beta with inner game over a natural alpha anyday. Why are the men resisting this idea?”

    Because it assumes that your “best self” is what makes you good for a relationship with a woman.

    When it’s said that baldly, even beta men think, “that just makes me a tool. A tool, like a hammer, to be used by women and society. And just a tool.”

    So go be that dominant (enough), attractive (enough), (beta) man who does dominant attractive sexy things that are in a woman’s best interest. Sounds like you want a fool, a God Damned fool.

    Besides, if a man has inner game, he’ll value himself, and ask what, the hell, is in it for me? And the answer might be, if it helps women, nothing or more than enough. Either way, I won’t have disdain for him. Without that purely selfish question being answered, I’ll give him the same disdain I have for my blue-pill prior self that I was when I married; stupid enough to assume society valued me, instead of knowing they actually value, only, what I offered society.

    Women trying to upsell beta men sounds like a powerplay reminding them to keep hand. Well, if a woman wants hand in a relationship, I presume them wanting a beta=sucker until proven otherwise.

    Women’s freedom means men’s freedom from caring what’s in women’s best interest. Men need to know why it’s in MEN’s interest to be beta and your list doesn’t help.

    Besides, being told you’re a beta is being reminded that you’re not that hot. I don’t think 95+% of 30 yr old women are that hot, but unless they ask “where all the good men went”, I don’t reply, “you left them all in your 20′s when you had more to offer.” Sorry, most guys (not all) wish they had a variety of female attention as a possibility. Aspiring to be beta is aspiring to be acceptable to one woman at best. You have to be losing pretty badly in the SMP for that to sound attractive.

    Beta may be good for women, children and society, but not for the beta himself. And women wouldn’t give a shit as far as I can tell (let me know when the gross disparity in combat deaths, suicides, school performance, incarceration gets any real traction with women).

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

      @Orig. Anon

      Because it assumes that your “best self” is what makes you good for a relationship with a woman.

      No it doesn’t. It assumes that self-development is its own reward, and that others will find you more attractive as a consequence, whether for a ONS or a relationship.

      No one is telling beta guys not to go get some casual sex or start a harem. If that’s what a man aspires to, that’s his choice. Obviously, in that case he doesn’t want a relationship, so women who do should not waste their time with him.

      The natural alpha and the aspiring alpha alike are best suited to promiscuous women if their intent is to avoid emotional entanglement.

      My job is to point out to women which men are most likely to actually prefer emotional intimacy, so they can filter out men who are players or are trying to become players.

      Where’s the problem?

      Women’s freedom means men’s freedom from caring what’s in women’s best interest. Men need to know why it’s in MEN’s interest to be beta and your list doesn’t help…Women’s freedom means men’s freedom from caring what’s in women’s best interest. Men need to know why it’s in MEN’s interest to be beta and your list doesn’t help.

      I’m not writing for men. If a man doesn’t want a monogamous relationship, he doesn’t have to have one. I think that describes many young beta men today. They don’t want girlfriends, they want to be players. I’ve known quite a few beta college guys turn down the only girl they’ve made out with all year in order to “explore their options.” That’s their right, and they’ll either find that works well or it doesn’t.

      The act of mating is a negotiation. Neither sex gets everything it wants. The evo psychologists say that casual sex is always a compromise. The women forfeit commitment, and the men forfeit access to the most desirable women. (I can hear the howling now, take it up with David Buss.)

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

        If guys want to be called alpha, want to be alpha, and want to get laid like alphas, then why would they object to my recommending betas for relationships?

        You don’t want a relationship, so why begrudge some other guy getting one? Or are you so invested in alphadom that you can’t bear the thought of another man choosing a different path?

        No one is forcing men into relationship servitude.

        Doesn’t it make sense for women to evaluate men based on the evidence we have available re their inclination and/or ability to sustain monogamy?

        I’m truly scratching my head over this one. People are shocked, shocked! that Susan Walsh is instructing women to select men for long-term suitability.

  • Abbot

    discovered that it led to a “surging libido in its female subjects.””

    That should turbo charge the harem

  • Abbot

    Women’s freedom means men’s freedom from caring what’s in women’s best interest
    ”””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    Would that include not wanting to marry the ´´free´´ and easy?

  • Abbot

    The SMP Alpha/Beta model isn’t perfect, but it does a pretty damn good job of getting blue pill people to understand VERY common patterns that were previously hidden from them.
    ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    It may also be reviving the good girl and bad girl dichotomy in the minds of men.

  • OffTheCuff

    Liz: “I really believe the guys in the pecking order that are the real problem are the omegas and gammas.”

    Perhaps, but I don’t bother using those IMO overly baroque descriptions. I prefer Roissy’s, which lump lesser betas (supplicating doormats, who score by pure luck) with greater betas (not supplicating, but still other-focused). Sue tends to refer to “betas” as greater betas (or even lesser alphas, at times) but Roissy will often mean the lessens. They’re both cut from the same cloth when it comes to worldview, but they probably seem quite different to women.

  • Taxi Driver

    I would also just point out the obvious. The reason that no one can define an alpha male is because we made it up.

    There is no we. Nature doesn’t “make things up” only silly humans of the equipped-with-mirror-neurons-only kind do.

    An alpha male is essentially about energy expenditure, together with health markers and genetic predisposition.

    Not that any female would get the part about energy expenditure, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.

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

      @Taxi Driver

      There is no we. Nature doesn’t “make things up” only silly humans of the equipped-with-mirror-neurons-only kind do.

      Precisely. We made up the label, and there is no consensus on what it means. As you presumably saw in the post, we don’t even know if early man rewarded or punished dominance.

      An alpha male is essentially about energy expenditure, together with health markers and genetic predisposition.

      Guilty as charged, I don’t get the energy expenditure part. I would agree with the rest of your statement, which is why the post relied heavily on those factors. For my purposes, it’s useful to look at the various behaviors and resulting consequences of men with dominant behavior.

  • OffTheCuff

    Under: “Until he’s gone out there and actually picked up a few girls and get that sexual validation / feel that adrenaline, he’s not going to develop any inner confidence.”

    Nailed it. This is why virginity is a curse to men.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Not much time today, so I apologize if I’m tenderizing horse steaks.

    Ramble said:

    “Liza, it’s like you are saying “find the confidence without finding the confidence”. Or, “Be dominant without being dominant”.

    “Game” is just a word.”
    ______________________________

    Liza’s reaction to Game is an extremely common one. Seriously – tell some girl who’s vibing on you that some of what you’re doing is conscious and learned. Brace for the thunderclap when air rushes in to fill space The Tingle used to occupy.

    I submit for discussion this hypothesis:

    Many/most women are viscerally repulsed by the perceived “artificialness” of Game. It evokes suspicion, mistrust, and disgust.

    The closest thing I can liken it to in men is when a bunch of sex pozzies/feministas are trying to convince a guy (usually right before the shaming starts) that a formerly promiscuous woman is a good relationship bet. You’ll see men do the same things – pervasive unwillingness to accept other’s definitions, distancing language, even vilification.

    Totally disparate goals, but still strikingly similar behavior.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “She will most likely wind up marrying a beta because betas marry. She won’t see this as settling. She will think he’s cute, and smart, and great husband material, and she won’t compare him to the dumb jock she hooked up with 8 years earlier at a college party.”
    ________________________________

    Bearing in mind that this, like so much else discussed on the thread, depends muchly on who’s definition of Beta is being used:

    I am compelled to point out that this can be very dangerous to many men. Seriously – Pavlov is threatening to electrocute my nuts if I don’t speak up. I need those things, goddammit.

    Some poor beta bastard like I used to be is capable of making many women happy for a while. If he remains a creature of his conditioning, though, he’ll cause that attraction to rot. He just does the wrong shit – he’ll go down every wrong fork in the road because his map was printed by Modern Feminism, Inc.

    Throw in some Tincture of Time, and the average woman starts to despise guys like this. Granted – there are many variables at play here (her attractiveness, satisfaction in other areas of life, how bad the guy’s map actually is, personal morals, kids, etc.). It’s not a foregone conclusion, either – merely a likely one. It becomes more likely when a woman has experience with more “alpha” guys. Time passes, bad shit gets forgotten, and those guys blend into one representation of Guys She Used To Date/Good Feelings She Used To Get. The dumbass with the bad map she’s stuck with begins to grate on her. The first putrid smudges of rot appear….

    Susan, if I force my tiny brain to accept your definition of Beta, I can shrug and nod along with what you’re saying. People change, after all, and at some point people can start thinking “Us” instead of “Me and Him”. But I swear by the Great Rifleman In The Sky that it’s hard for me to swallow what you’re saying here – and the fulcrum of the problem is in the varied definitions of “Beta” that people use.

    I doubt I’m the only guy reading this who’s skin is crawling. I have a solution to this you may wish to consider:

    Drop the Beta moniker. Too many connotations, and I believe it’s obfuscating your message. Maybe taking a page out of The Private Man’s book and coining a new term for what you mean would be a good use of your energy, and beneficial to your message.

    Don’t die on Hill AlphaBeta. It’s just a mound of dirt. Set up an ambush somewhere else and kill the fuckers tomorrow. Fight to win, not to be right.

    Yours in Crappy Infantry Aphorisms,

    Dogsquat

    Springfield Chapter President
    Crappy Infantry Analogies Anonymous

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

      @Dogsquat

      But I swear by the Great Rifleman In The Sky that it’s hard for me to swallow what you’re saying here – and the fulcrum of the problem is in the varied definitions of “Beta” that people use.

      I doubt I’m the only guy reading this who’s skin is crawling. I have a solution to this you may wish to consider:

      Drop the Beta moniker. Too many connotations, and I believe it’s obfuscating your message.

      Thanks for the suggestion, I know it is meant in good faith, and it’s probably a good idea based on what we’re seeing from men in the comment threads. The only problem is…5,000 women who never comment read this post today, and my aim is to communicate clearly. Inventing vocabulary can slow that process down.

      There are many good reasons why women should not partner with very dominant men. In society, and in the mainstream media, those men are referred to as alpha.

      All but one of the women who comment here are partnered with men they describe as betas or seeking a beta mate. Only one woman states a preference for alphas, and her statement is usually accompanied by a “God help me.”

      I am sorry if the post makes men uncomfortable, or reminds them of what’s bad about being beta. I’m surprised that men would consider it such a disastrous fate – it seems like the equivalent of women getting depressed that they’re not going to turn into Megan Fox when they get a makeover.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “One thing I’m having trouble with – like Liza said – is understanding the beta disdain from beta guys themselves. Instead of aspiring to be a player, why not aspire to be your best self? I’m talking about inner game, and I’ll take a beta with inner game over a natural alpha anyday. Why are the men resisting this idea?”

    It’s what you said in the initial post. Beta guys are great for women in so many ways, etc etc.

    We’re great!
    We’re just great ENOUGH, though. And not so great that we could easily have sex with a larger pool of women if we had the chance.

    It sounds like an extremely crummy deal in this marketplace. Mostly because it sounds like girls get to round the carousel for however long they want, then settle down with one of us. And we have had to gone through a TREMENDOUS amount of work to improve ourselves enough to be attractive to women.

    And then it sounds like you’re patting our heads and saying “good enough, here’s your ex-slut now.”

    You may say that we’re overblowing this, and I think to some extent the manosphere does, but I really, really think you’re understating the promiscuity and putting too much stock into shaky numbers. One girl I know had a boyfriend that she dumped then had a year long fuck buddy relationship with. Aftewards, she had a fuck buddy for a semester, just one in a harem of other girls. Then she graduates and tries to become a princess.

    To you, this is N=2. Not that bad.

    To the man she says “wait, I don’t want to have sex yet” it is a nightmare, especially if he is only a N=2, as well, and had to work damn hard to get to even that, and he was probably dumped, and the sex wasn’t that great, etc.

    So when you say this.

    It sounds humiliating. Absolutely humiliating. We’re “good enough” guys that can’t actually command the attraction of girls on demand, and our own girls were used and abused by other guys, and will probably still be lusting after them even when they are with us.

    That’s what it sounds like. You know how it bad a guy hates being called a big huggly wuggly teddy bear when he isn’t getting any sex? That’s what this sounds like.

    Now if you want to appeal to men on this website, and I know that’s not your primary concern but since you are wondering, you really have to make men feel like men. And men are dangerous. Especially to women. We have the power to break your hearts.
    Us beta guys are also quite noble, so it also makes us feel a HELLA better knowing we COULD hurt you, wouldn’t even DREAM of it, and invest a lot of energy into making you happier.
    But this just makes us look like hammers.

    The best way to build up confidence in this marketplace, like Underdog said, is to prove your worth by sleeping with more girls. That’s the image that it looks like to a lot of young guys. Now, to me, that’s not necessarily the case: A girl could totally take me off the market and I wouldn’t regret a thing.

    If she brings a lot to the table.
    Including a hell of a lot of sex.
    Otherwise, she is NOT worth wasting these next few years of my life.

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

      @ADBG

      We’re just great ENOUGH, though. And not so great that we could easily have sex with a larger pool of women if we had the chance.

      That’s pure projection, nothing in the post even hints at that.

      And then it sounds like you’re patting our heads and saying “good enough, here’s your ex-slut now.”

      I’ve never said any such thing. I will say that if you balk at N=2, regardless of the circumstances, you’re fishing in a very small pond.

      To the man she says “wait, I don’t want to have sex yet” it is a nightmare,

      Yup, I get the problem with price discrimination. And my advice, as you know, is to walk. If you put up with that bullshit from a woman, it’s on you. If women couldn’t get away with it, they wouldn’t do it.

      you really have to make men feel like men. And men are dangerous. Especially to women. We have the power to break your hearts.

      You don’t think I know this? You don’t think telling women about dangerous men is a primary objective of mine? Well, guess what. Most dangerous men are alphas. Alphas suck. I’m not trying to sell swampland here, I believe in this. The men who say all is fair in love and war. Women are responsible for being deceived. I’ve heard a man say here that women getting hurt is collateral damage.

      If she brings a lot to the table.
      Including a hell of a lot of sex.
      Otherwise, she is NOT worth wasting these next few years of my life.

      Fair enough, that’s my other main objective. No one is asking you to commit to an unworthy woman.

  • Abbot

    ´´Many/most women are viscerally repulsed by the perceived “artificialness” of Game. It evokes suspicion, mistrust, and disgust.´´

    and maybe just a little forfeiting of control, a tad of humiliation and a pinch of ego crush.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Liza’s reaction to Game is an extremely common one. Seriously – tell some girl who’s vibing on you that some of what you’re doing is conscious and learned. Brace for the thunderclap when air rushes in to fill space The Tingle used to occupy.”

    I’ve actually done this, and she thought it was extremely hot. Especially when I was comparing myself to the other guys who were failing pretty hardcore.

  • Abbot

    ´´ those guys blend into one representation of Guys She Used To Date/Good Feelings She Used To Get. The dumbass with the bad map she’s stuck with begins to grate on her. The first putrid smudges of rot appear….´´

    These revealing descriptions paint a compelling bleak picture

  • Mike C

    I doubt I’m the only guy reading this who’s skin is crawling. I have a solution to this you may wish to consider

    Drop the Beta moniker. Too many connotations, and I believe it’s obfuscating your message. Maybe taking a page out of The Private Man’s book and coining a new term for what you mean would be a good use of your energy, and beneficial to your message.

    FWIW, I agree although I don’t have the foggiest notion what that term might be. The problem with that term beta is for many men including myself (but perhaps not all) its brings back visceral memories of the frustration you once had, the loser you once felt like, or for some guys the loser you currently feel like that you are trying to change. I understand well the women using the term mean nothing negative by it, but most guys are going to take it as an insult of sorts. See Hope’s comment. The fact is for most guys being labeled as a beta isn’t going to be taken well or as something to be proud of it.

    Frankly, I don’t think it is useful for a guy to pigeonhole himself, but to think more in terms of alpha and beta traits and how to calibrate them in various relationships and environments.

    Don’t die on Hill AlphaBeta. It’s just a mound of dirt. Set up an ambush somewhere else and kill the fuckers tomorrow. Fight to win, not to be right.

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

      Frankly, I don’t think it is useful for a guy to pigeonhole himself, but to think more in terms of alpha and beta traits and how to calibrate them in various relationships and environments.

      Agreed. I’m all about the mix of traits.

  • Abbot

    ´´it sounds like girls get to round the carousel for however long they want, then settle down with one of us´´

    But really, it is the man who is settling if he goes for it because, well, look what he is getting. Is that the wife of his dreams?

    ´´It sounds humiliating. Absolutely humiliating.´´

    Nothing wrong with humiliation now and then…but to invite that into the rest of your entire life. Yikes. What more can these feminists ask men to do?

  • Abbot

    ´´I don’t have the foggiest notion what that term might be´´

    You´re not a beta if your woman never rolled with alphas

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    ADBG said:

    “I’ve actually done this, and she thought it was extremely hot. Especially when I was comparing myself to the other guys who were failing pretty hardcore.”
    __________________________
    You were demonstrating mastery of a skill, showing how much more competent you were than other guys – DHV. You also brought her into your world, and shared some “secret knowledge”.

    Do you think that would have worked around, say, DannyFrom504, Ben from a few posts ago, Underdog, and Mike C?

    Next time try this, to emphasize the “artificial flavoring”:

    Find a girl you really like. Touch her all the time, and follow her around whenever possible. Agree with whatever she says. Then, right when you can see she’s losing the already weak tingle, explain that you’re going to adopt the 2:3 rule, gin up some alpha body language, and start choosing where you go out to eat. Then do it, never failing to point out what you’re actually doing vs. what you used to.

  • Mike C

    For purposes of the SMP only, I think it’s more helpful to say something like, the alpha is guy the who could fairly easily, if he so wanted, get sex with reasonably attractive to very attractive women on a fairly regular basis without the women perceiving any real chance of commitment on his part. Whether he chooses to do so is another matter. Just thinking out loud there.

    I’m going to whip out my old “you get shot in the head” test. An “alpha” is the guy that I could say I’ll give you one week to get sex from a new girl, or else you get shot in the head. He doesn’t even break a sweat. The “beta” is the guy who starts preparing his last will and testament.

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

      An “alpha” is the guy that I could say I’ll give you one week to get sex from a new girl, or else you get shot in the head. He doesn’t even break a sweat. The “beta” is the guy who starts preparing his last will and testament.

      That alpha is the top 1%. Are the other 99% beta?

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “One thing I’m having trouble with – like Liza said – is understanding the beta disdain from beta guys themselves. Instead of aspiring to be a player, why not aspire to be your best self? I’m talking about inner game, and I’ll take a beta with inner game over a natural alpha anyday. Why are the men resisting this idea? ”

    Well, I wasn’t engaging in beta hate – I was just contesting the notion that even betas are better off sexually in the modern SMP than before the sexual revolution. Obviously, there’s a sliding scale to a point, but most guys who don’t meet my definition of “alpha” above probably aren’t better off.

    I don’t know that most are aspiring to be players (maybe the young guys are), but I suspect they see the spoils going to others and don’t want to feel like they got a raw deal. If becoming a player is the only way to avoid feeling like they got a raw deal (or maybe not the only way but the most reliable way), then that’s what they’ll aspire to. Just a guess. I’m too old to know for sure.

  • Mike C

    This is from my experience and my experience only: it is damn hard / near impossible to have true inner game until you’ve become a “player” via outer game. You can download every single inner game book into an AFC’s head like the Matrix and it’s just going to be mental masturbation. Until he’s gone out there and actually picked up a few girls and get that sexual validation / feel that adrenaline, he’s not going to develop any inner confidence. Once again, the only way a man truly develops inner game is by practicing outer game — all the routines, negs, magic tricks or whatever are just tools for him to get comfortable talking to girls and learn to sexually escalate. They are training wheels. They are crutches. But soon enough, he will get comfortable and confident talking to girls and, if he doesn’t want to end up a social drone, he will start dropping the routines and start being himself. Telling a guy with no experience with women to learn inner game and be himself is like telling a toddler who’s never rode a bike to stay balanced without training wheels.

    When you open up a trading account or forex account or whatever, there is usually some option for paper trading, which is just fake money, numbers on a screen. So people will study trading, and test systems, and paper trade them, and then when it comes to real money, just lose it because once the money is real, real emotions come into play, and no amount of studying or learning can prepare you for what you will feel when real money is on the line.

    I basically agree with what you are saying here although I think it is tough to exactly quantify how much sexual validation/experience a guy has to get in the real world to really internalize an inner confidence. Since guys approach, initiate, and seduce, the only way you’ll ever really know if you are any good is by real world outcomes as opposed to a Stuart Smally Saturday night live affirmation in the mirror skit.

  • Passer_By

    @mike

    I think the greater betas could likely get sex, they would just probably have to do it with some implication of subsequent commitment (assuming that sex with a 3 or 4 doesn’t count). Now, if you said, “get sex with a new quality girl even though she knows the relationship won’t be exclusive and probably won’t last more than a few weeks, if that”, then the greater beta will start making plans for his demise.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “But really, it is the man who is settling if he goes for it because, well, look what he is getting. Is that the wife of his dreams?”

    No one gets everything they dream of. But she needs to meet a minimum thresh-hold or it just isn’t worth the effort. If every woman on the planet was a 500 pound cow, marriage isn’t worth it. If every woman on the planet has hooked up with an Alpha, right now that just doesn’t appeal to me.

    Luckily guys can date younger and I can look young, so I figure I have 5-6 years before I have to actually get serious, and even then I can still marry a relatively attractive girl. I’d really, really prefer to find a girl NOW, provided she is really, really good. Love is way better than casual sex, IMHO.

    @ SteelRainMan, aka DS

    “Do you think that would have worked around, say, DannyFrom504, Ben from a few posts ago, Underdog, and Mike C?”

    Not a chance. I look good in comparison to other guys. Most guys my age are bumbling fools. I saw it in action today: look like a total doofus and maybe you will get a girl!

    But, hey, most guys my age are bumbling fools. So ride it while it lasts.

  • Passer_By

    @mike

    Also, needless to say, in your hypo, it might be sort of tough for anyone, even an alpha, to maintain “outcome independence” when dealing with women. :) So, even the alpha might suddenly appear needy.

  • drunicusveritas

    Calling a man a “beta” nowadays is, like calling someone a “nice guy” or “a really good friend” hideously insulting, in most instances,to their manhood.
    I could see myself as a good father, or a strong husband, or a powerful, giving lover.
    But a fat dad? A schlub, trapped in a sexless marriage to a thickening, pampered, sexless grouch? A beta, in other words?
    No thanks. Its nice to be a woman’s best friend, or sweet, lovely,caring Fay sister,but no thanks.
    Im a man. And I think im going to stay that way.

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

      Calling a man a “beta” nowadays is, like calling someone a “nice guy” or “a really good friend” hideously insulting, in most instances,to their manhood.

      But the number of “true alphas” is tiny. The one guy in the group. Are the rest of the guys really so miserable not to be that top dog?

      This is clearly an aspect of male psychology that I do not understand. I mean, do most guys believe in their heart of hearts that they’re alpha males? And if not, then why is it humiliating to be part of the overwhelming majority?

  • Underdog

    ““Do you think that would have worked around, say, DannyFrom504, Ben from a few posts ago, Underdog, and Mike C?”

    Not a chance. I look good in comparison to other guys. Most guys my age are bumbling fools. I saw it in action today: look like a total doofus and maybe you will get a girl!”

    Halloween 2008 I went downtown dressed as an extremely peacocked-out Mystery-like PUA. I did nothing but use lines/routines from The Pick Up Artist on girls, who were of course fully aware that I was full of shit. I never dropped my frame, never broke character. Took home Snow White.

  • Passer_By

    @druni

    “But a fat dad? A schlub, trapped in a sexless marriage to a thickening, pampered, sexless grouch? A beta, in other words?”

    As a guy with kids, I know lots of beta guys. They generally aren’t fat, and they generally have wives that I would happily fuck if I were single. Not always, but most of the time. On the other hand, I live in west los angeles, and the pressure on women not to be fat is probably higher here. Do they all have active sex lives? I dunno. Probably some yes, some no.

    In most cases, though, it’s probably fair to assume that she had more partners than he did before they got together. Joe Beta can’t just take a trip with her friends and have a fling like Joanne Average can. Or go to a bar and take someone home, or whatever.

  • tito

    @Susan Walsh

    it ain’t that ‘game’ is bad really, it is a matter of degree. it is useful to a point and within a narrow framework. passed a certain point and you are beginning like the parody video by Andrew. plus, this type of either or is silly, there are degrees to people as well. by the way, i’ve noticed the hardcore ‘gamers’ are ultra-sensitive, they cannot tolerate even the slightest criticism. this is common in hedonists.

  • SayWhaat

    What needs to go is the notion that alpha = gets laid. That’s the least sensible definition of all.

    I don’t really see where you get that. To me, it’s the easiest and most sensible definition.

    Well if we’re going by N-count, then you’re just going to have to admit that the twinkiest gay is more alpha than you. ;)

  • tito

    those guys are the beneficiaries of pop-culture. they are the first to latch onto latest fashions, this signals them as cool, it is tv approved, most of these guys are not “fit” nor could they “survive” in nature unless they were allowed to live. take away tv and they are back to mopping the floor.

  • Sassy6519

    I’m going to whip out my old “you get shot in the head” test. An “alpha” is the guy that I could say I’ll give you one week to get sex from a new girl, or else you get shot in the head. He doesn’t even break a sweat. The “beta” is the guy who starts preparing his last will and testament.

    This is hilarious.

    I ended up spitting out my beverage after reading it.

    The sad part is that it’s true.

  • tito

    don’t be sad about it, hook them up. that was why parents were involved in mating and marriage, it was like that for centuries, a culture and civilization should do something for the men who maintain it. i’ve hooked up numerous guys who were having trouble. why can’t the concerned ladies do it????

  • tito

    all well and good Susan, but we need to stop thinking in terms of shallow and hedonistic “rights” and start thinking in terms of duties and civilization first…and then if there is anything left over there can e a little play time. the change needs to be fundamental.

  • Herb

    @Orig. Anon

    Beta may be good for women, children and society, but not for the beta himself. And women wouldn’t give a shit as far as I can tell (let me know when the gross disparity in combat deaths, suicides, school performance, incarceration gets any real traction with women).

    I’m going to bring up this old quote from our Secretary of State again because it drives this point home:

    “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” – Hillary Clinton

    She said that nearly a decade before running for President and it was so unremarkable that no one brought it up in 2008.

    Read it again and grok what it is saying: women are the primary victims because they lose the men in their lives. How do they lose them? The men are dead. Yet somehow a dead man isn’t suffering as much as a grieving widow, mother, or sister.

    That’s how much our culture at large values beta men. Oh, individual women value the beta men in their lives. Some might even value them enough to think the man’s death is worse than their grief. I believe all the women who regularly post at HUS are in that later group.

    But society as a whole doesn’t. It shits on them, expects them to head off to war and work to death, and then when they don’t measure up to some entitled princess’s list they need to “man up”. It portrays them as buffoons on TV. More and more they are taught they aren’t worthy of female attention by media and by too many women.

    If you want more men to embrace beta over alpha then embrace beta yourselves. You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. Women and society on the whole are subsidizing alpha (with free and plentiful pussy, even if only from 20% of the female population) and are taxing betas by ignoring them at best.

    Is it any surprise men are more interested in being PUAs than punching bags?

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

      @Herb

      How does Hillary Clinton’s comment single out beta men? I would think the military would be disproportionately alpha. It’s a misandrist statement, certainly, but I don’t see the beta hate.

  • tito

    guys, forget what women want and start telling them what to do and make sure they do it. it’s as simple as that….and alpha!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    It’s not that we don’t want relationships, it’s that the way you are marketing us, to us, sound like tools to be used.

    Truly, I do not mean to insult you are denigrate your work. That’s just the way it can come off.

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

      It’s not that we don’t want relationships, it’s that the way you are marketing us, to us, sound like tools to be used.

      Yes, I am marketing beta males, not as tools to be used, but for the most important role a woman will ever fill. Father of her children. I apologize if anything I’ve written conveys a different message, my intent in this post is the same as it has been for three years. I’m not selling used cars here, I believe in what I’m saying.

  • Herb

    @SayWhat

    Well if we’re going by N-count, then you’re just going to have to admit that the twinkiest gay is more alpha than you.

    Sure, I’ll cop to that.

    In fact, I’ll let you in on a little secret, the way I came to believe I could be both a submissive male in the S&M and masculine was a weekend at a Gay Male Leather event.

    Hell, in this day and age if you want to learn about masculinity that’s the place to go.

    Gay Leathermen are men through and through and all the traditional male bonding is out and out and upfront.

    I think men could learn more about being masculine in a gay men’s leather bar than almost anyplace in the mainstream culture.

    So, yeah, the typical twink or bear for that matter is probably king of alpha hill compared to anyone this side of Tucker Max if getting laid is the standard.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I’m truly scratching my head over this one. People are shocked, shocked! that Susan Walsh is instructing women to select men for long-term suitability.

    I think you’re just fighting a headwind.

    Most articles about beta men are women telling men “be more like this because I want it” often with the tantrum including foot stamping in the background. The men reading them also know the very women writing them wouldn’t have pissed on them if they were on fire a decade earlier.

    You are telling women “you should value men more like this” but so many of us have read the same thing in the “men are bad in not giving princesses what they want on demand” that we short circuit and miss than you are saying, “hey, princess, you want a boyfriend then date that nice boyfriend type guy now instead of that asshole over there.”

    If I had to make a suggestion on how to avoid push back I would have included something I’ve heard you say in the past on the end of my above sentence, “hey, princess, you want a boyfriend then date that nice boyfriend type guy now instead of that asshole over there because if you waste now on that asshole in five years when you want a boyfriend the boyfriend type guy will either have given up and become an asshole or your BFF who is encouraging you to fuck the asshole will have used the time to marry him.”

    By listing the traits without urgency you give the impression of “when you’re done having fun get one of these” because the “I’ll get married after I have my fun meme is so entrenched.” Add some urgency, add some sense of real, immediate value and men will probably not push back as much.

    Just my two coppers.

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

    So far I think The Avengers had better pacing and nothing as good as the Ironman/Thor battle that ends with ringing Cap’s shield.

    Yeah and no puny god moment. Maybe an episode of The Avengers animated then.

    Of course, something that I’ve noticed is that, in real life, I want to play “Civilization” (meaning that I’m interested in macro things) while most other people want to play “The Sims” (meaning that they are interested in local, community, family things).
    Is funny but since my Tamagotchi died I lost the desire to mother anymore people. If they die I will feel really sad. I know I’m silly.

    How about 6 foot tall and 10 inches down there?

    I only plan to push something that big out of my vagina four times in my life, tops. Would that guy be happy with sex every two years and the none? Sorry not size queen here. And hubby is 5′ 11″ I’m 5′ 8″ perfect for me thank you.

    Personally I’d love to drive a Victory (Vegas or maybe an Eight-ball or Judge) and have, now and then, hung with bikers.

    You are dead to me :p

    Murdercycles, as my wife’s grandfather (an oral surgeon) called them. He got to do many a reconstruction on faces.

    Heh Muertoristas (a wordgame for Motoristas) is what we call them in my country. I’m never been a necrophiliac and no vampires don’t count they have all their parts. ;)

    Are you guys picking up Borderlands 2? It’s a shooter mechanically, but it’s got the Diablo structure of kill enemies-get loot so you can take down better enemies-get better loot. Liked the first one.

    Hubby and I are looking for a new game to play since he got bored with WoW, we were between Diablo, Borderlands, City of Heroes and Terraria. Terraria is so far winning, any word of advice?

    We’re in a classic post-Unraveling era.

    The fourth turning reference?

    Apparently, big pharma is on it’s way to creating female Viagra:
    Wasn’t that 50 shades of Grey? ;)

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

    @SW
    “I’m truly scratching my head over this one. People are shocked, shocked! that Susan Walsh is instructing women to select men for long-term suitability.”

    It’s not your material, it’s the audience : )

    This is pretty solid advice for young women on which kinds of men would statistically make better husbands. This contrarian pushback isn’t coming from your target demographic, nor even the men you’re suggesting they focus on.

  • Courtley

    Oh, my God, I just watched Ronnie Silver’s video just now…bwahahahha.

    Seriously guys, for the millionth time, if you think this is what most women want, or if you even believe most women have had sex with some version of this walking caricature . . . you be spendin’ time with the wrong kind of laydiez. Finding some that have interests beyond being the center of attention is a very, very good place to start. Once you start looking and forcing yourself to notice that hard-to-notice 80% of girls who don’t try to hog the limelight for themselves I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised at both their character and their appearance.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “But the number of “true alphas” is tiny. The one guy in the group. Are the rest of the guys really so miserable not to be that top dog?”

    It depends on the society and the top dog himself.
    Does being a beta get a guy nothing or does it get him a cute, faithful wife who will only ever imagine having one dick inside her or will it involve him having a cute unfaithful wife.

    Our society “appears” low on the middle option but nothing and unfaithful “appear” to be quite common.

    If the “apparent” norm was cute, faithful wife then yes most guys could live with being beta and probably be quite proud.

    But in our culture being beta leads to the “appearance” of being a loser who can’t get laid or someone raising anothers kid.

    Note: I think number 2 is the more real occurence but this is a case of appearance vs. reality. Our egos are dependent on appearance not reality.

    “This is clearly an aspect of male psychology that I do not understand. I mean, do most guys believe in their heart of hearts that they’re alpha males? And if not, then why is it humiliating to be part of the overwhelming majority?”

    Theres no problem with being in the majority if the majority isn’t treated like shit. Or at least apears to be treated like shit.

    P.S
    I call myself beta. When someone else uses the term it stings horribly, its like having someone kick me in the nuts.

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

      @Lokland

      If the “apparent” norm was cute, faithful wife then yes most guys could live with being beta and probably be quite proud.

      But in our culture being beta leads to the “appearance” of being a loser who can’t get laid or someone raising anothers kid.

      Note: I think number 2 is the more real occurence but this is a case of appearance vs. reality. Our egos are dependent on appearance not reality.

      First, I’m glad you pointed out the difference between perception and reality. I think that may explain a lot of what I’ve been missing. I also feel quite confident you’re about to become part of that group.

      Second, when you say betas are losers “in our culture” I think what you really mean in “in Game circles.” I’ve recoiled at the way Roissy abuses betas. Talk about being kicked in the nuts! I understand that men find it useful as a wakeup call, and of course I’m not competing with Roissy. Still, I think that in popular culture, including TV and film, the beta leading male is a common character who gets the girl. One of the interesting things about the show Girls is that it portrays a guy who can’t get out of his own way re supplicating behavior. But I don’t call that beta – despite his good looks Charlie is functioning at the level of omega.

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

    Susan: if the existing vocabulary is so entrenched that there is no alternative but to fight a desperate holding action on “Hill AlphaBeta”, to use Dogsquat’s excellent phrase, then I submit that your article may have to pre-empt the immediate and predictable male objections to the terminology.

    As an example, imagine that a woman reads your piece and then makes this comment to her new boyfriend, “I’m so glad you are a beta male, honey.”

    Possible translations (in the male mind):

    1. (Biology-centric) “I’m so glad you are the type of man who would get his ass kicked in fights with tough men. Your physical and psychological weaknesses are attractive to me.”

    2. (Manosphere-centric) “I’m so glad you are not attractive to other women. In this market, hot guys get hit on too much and I don’t want that kind of insecurity, weak bargaining position, and competitive pressure. Your lack of options pleases me and makes me feel that you will be more reliable and attentive as we trade your commitment (and, hopefully, eventual vulnerability to a legalized resource-extraction system) for my strategically rationed sexual favors and ‘emotional support’. Now make my coffee before we spend the afternoon at Bed, Bath, and Beyond looking at new shower curtains and towel sets.”

    I know that neither of these translations accurately reflect your intent, but I fear that they will be unavoidable if the alpha-beta thing gets employed. It may be worthwhile to define your own terms and say that you are really speaking specifically about personality traits as they relate to pair-bonding ability, not physical prowess, style, attractiveness, resources, leadership ability, etc. These are loaded, dangerous words.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      Thank you for translating! I would never want a post of mine to make someone’s boyfriend miserable.

      I know that neither of these translations accurately reflect your intent, but I fear that they will be unavoidable if the alpha-beta thing gets employed. It may be worthwhile to define your own terms and say that you are really speaking specifically about personality traits as they relate to pair-bonding ability, not physical prowess, style, attractiveness, resources, leadership ability, etc. These are loaded, dangerous words.

      I think one thing that is going on is that women really do find a lot of traits attractive that guys discount. In that sense, guys are still being lied to, just by a different source. A lot of advice to men focuses on getting rid of all emotion, and it’s written by men who appear to have, um, some deficits in that area.

      From a female perspective, we’re witnessing an explosion in asshole Game, and we’re mourning the loss of good men. Those guys will correctly say, “Asshole Game gets me laid.” And I’m sure they’re right. But for women who don’t dig assholes, it’s a very unwelcome development. That doesn’t mean our priorities trump male priorities, but we certainly have every reason to lament the loss of dateable men.

      As always, the sexes are at cross purposes in mating. As a woman, I’m unlikely to promote short-term mating behaviors or the men who practice them exclusively.

      In a way, it doesn’t matter what you call it. I’ve been criticized for “having something against players and cads.” There are plenty of men in the ‘sphere who balk at my promoting relationships at all. I don’t know why, since commitment is not something men are forced into.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    I just realized the useless ness of using gettig kicked in the nuts to describe a feeling to you. Rephrase to getting punched in the tit.

    And

    One ammendment.

    “important role a woman will ever fill. Father of her children”

    to

    important role a woman will ever fill. Biological and (insert word for raising father I don’t know) father of her children.

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

      @Lokland

      I just realized the useless ness of using gettig kicked in the nuts to describe a feeling to you. Rephrase to getting punched in the tit.

      I’m pretty sure the male version is 100 times more painful.

      One ammendment.

      “important role a woman will ever fill. Father of her children”

      to

      important role a woman will ever fill. Biological and (insert word for raising father I don’t know) father of her children.

      What percentage of men are involuntarily raising another man’s child in ignorance? Haven’t we already determined it’s 3%? That’s precisely why men evolved to be choosy about commitment. I can guarantee you that every woman who cuckolds a man is a woman whose poor character is abundantly evident in other ways.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    How does Hillary Clinton’s comment single out beta men? I would think the military would be disproportionately alpha. It’s a misandrist statement, certainly, but I don’t see the beta hate.

    Maybe Dogsquat, as a ground pounder, will have a different experience, but the Navy is largely beta. In fact, one probably the Navy (at least submarines) have is too many beta managers and not enough leaders in the officer ranks.

    It makes sense if you think about it. The military is a very structured, order following team. The vast body of enlisted men need to follow orders and do it well. They need specific technical skills but don’t have to provide leadership. They need to be on teams.

    That sounds pretty beta to me and beta in a lot of the good ways you cite.

    NCOs, especially senior NCOs, do need leadership skills but they have time to learn them. I suspect becoming an NCO is a valid parallel form of Game in terms of learning leadership/dominance but without the female psychology specifics.

    Then we get to O-gangers (officers). They need to have leadership out of the gate to do their jobs. Those positions need strong alpha types and alpha enlisted often find their way to OCS.

    So, the military mostly beta some of whom that go career learn military Game lead by an officer corps of alphas.

    Interestingly enough this shows the problem of being an alpha male. I knew some Brits who talked about the difference between the Lieutenant commanding a platoon (I forget the Brit specific ranks) and the platoon Sargent wasn’t in their ability to run the platoon in battle but in leadership. The platoon leader’s job was to stand up under fire and inspire his men while commanding them. The sargent’s job was to take over command when standing up got the poor SOB killed but inspired his men to take their objective.

    Getting back to your original question: it’s the beta men who fill all those rows of nameless graves and disabled that women will ignore after the fact.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I have no problem calling myself beta or with the value of beta men in an objective sense.

    Beta men, usually under a few non-asshole alpha leaders, are the people who build things bigger than mud huts. The car you drive, the house you live in, the roads your drive on, etc are the products of beta men from design to completion for the most part.

    However, our culture at this moment values that, well pretty much not at all. We love the pretty toys but have no use for the kind of people who make them. Which is a big reason why fewer and fewer young men do so.

    A great comparison is the space program. Astronauts of the 60s, being test pilots, are alpha to the core almost to the man. Trust me, they got laid (Navy and Air Force pilots and their wives invented the modern swingers culture in the US after all).

    But all the beta engineers who built the rockets those men rode had a great deal of respectability. They were rocket scientists and steally-eyed missile men themselves. While women weren’t throwing themselves at these guys they knew women saw them as a catch because of their accomplishment.

    We couldn’t build Apollo today for a lot of reasons but a big one is no one wants to be the engineers because only Astronauts get pussy. At least, that’s what media teaches us and the dads who might teach us otherwise are more and more absent.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Saywhaat

    Well if we’re going by N-count, then you’re just going to have to admit that the twinkiest gay is more alpha than you.

    You won’t get any argument from me there. Most gay dudes are far more alpha in their behavior than the average guy.

    I’m pretty sure Roissy did a post a while back along the lines of “What betas can learn from gay guys.”

  • INTJ

    I think Esau’s description of selfish vs selfless is brilliant. Sure, it might not correspond to the historical notions of alpha and beta male, but it certainly determines who commands the most respect in today’s SMP and society in general.

    This is why I dislike the wishy washy definition of Game which invokes “inner game”. I have natural confidence and strength on the inside, which as far as I can tell is what “inner game” is all about. But I don’t like to display this “inner game” to the world by acting like an asshole or engaging in dick-waving contests. Girls don’t find this inner game interesting (they generally don’t notice it). I think inner game is very important for personal development, but does not succeed nearly as well as outer game on the SMP.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    This is why I dislike the wishy washy definition of Game which invokes “inner game”. I have natural confidence and strength on the inside, which as far as I can tell is what “inner game” is all about. But I don’t like to display this “inner game” to the world by acting like an asshole or engaging in dick-waving contests. Girls don’t find this inner game interesting (they generally don’t notice it). I think inner game is very important for personal development, but does not succeed nearly as well as outer game on the SMP.

    Agreed.

  • INTJ

    If guys want to be called alpha, want to be alpha, and want to get laid like alphas, then why would they object to my recommending betas for relationships?

    You don’t want a relationship, so why begrudge some other guy getting one? Or are you so invested in alphadom that you can’t bear the thought of another man choosing a different path?

    No one is forcing men into relationship servitude.

    Doesn’t it make sense for women to evaluate men based on the evidence we have available re their inclination and/or ability to sustain monogamy?

    I’m truly scratching my head over this one. People are shocked, shocked! that Susan Walsh is instructing women to select men for long-term suitability.

    I disagree with the male commenters here. I completely endorse your post. I think your post is directed at women, telling them to choose betas if they want commitment. This is very sound advice. The problem is that a lot of men (who are very jaded from feminist lies and general blue-pilldom) somehow interpret your post as saying men should be betas.

    I don’t think there’s anything contradictory in suggesting that women should value betas and that betas should become alphas. Alphas are in high demand, so anybody who wants to learn Game and become an alpha should do so. There will still be no shortage of betas left for the smart women that choose to go for them.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I disagree with the male commenters here. I completely endorse your post. I think your post is directed at women, telling them to choose betas if they want commitment. This is very sound advice. The problem is that a lot of men (who are very jaded from feminist lies and general blue-pilldom) somehow interpret your post as saying men should be betas.

    I don’t think there’s anything contradictory in suggesting that women should value betas and that betas should become alphas. Alphas are in high demand, so anybody who wants to learn Game and become an alpha should do so. There will still be no shortage of betas left for the smart women that choose to go for them.

    I agree with this take too. Susan’s advice is exactly what I’d start telling all my female relatives at a young age.

    But as you said, our society doesn’t value betas anymore. So guys are predictably balking at that role.

    When attractive girls in their prime start putting Susan’s advice into practice, then you’ll see guys take on the beta role with much more enthusiasm.

  • chris

    @Susan

    You might find this interesting. It covers modern marriage/mating dynamics in North America.

    http://ww3.tvo.org/video/163754/meaning-man

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “All but one of the women who comment here are partnered with men they describe as betas or seeking a beta mate. Only one woman states a preference for alphas, and her statement is usually accompanied by a “God help me.”
    _____________________________

    That is interesting.

    Emphatically not arguing here, just thinking out loud and blowing off steam from a long, sad day:

    It makes me wonder how many of those fine gentlemen would be considered “beta” by other men.

    I’m certain I’d have no problems doing exactly what Mr. HUS said, exactly the way he said it, in almost any situation. I’ll bet you a dollar the term “beta” wouldn’t enter my head if I met him in person. Same goes with lots of guys who post here, if their real life personalities match what they put online.

    Shit, I’m hiding behind Bastiat Blogger if the zombie apocalypse comes – that dude’s more “alpha” by my definition than three of me – and I wonder if the women posters here realize it.

    Some folks probably think of me as alpha, too. I took one of those employment psychological screening thingies recently, posted here for your amusement:

    “In social terms, Dogsquat is unassuming, friendly and at ease with others, and inclined to wait for others to initiate conversation. He is a pleasant talker with people he knows well. His approachable, calm, and easygoing style makes him an excellent listener to just about anyone. He always appears to have the time, is willing to hear what others have to say, focuses on the person he’s with, and responds with more support and empathy than judgement. His steady, unruffled style can help others remain calm or become calm.

    In general, he is a loyal, even-keeled person who can be counted on to complete what he starts, given enough time and resources. His allegiance to the company and the team, and his desire for repeatable successes will cause him to make decisions based on precedents and proven methods.”

    That shit’s about as alpha as a powder-pink lace doily. I’m totally fine with that – I don’t think of myself as an “alpha”. But I have put a lot of blood, sweat, and (manly as fuck)tears into not being “beta”.

    Somebody ought to kidnap a linguist and force his languagey ass to language up some more useful terms.

    Bah.

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

      @Dogsquat

      I’m sorry, I truly cracked up when I read your personality description. The thing is, it’s true! Those traits make you an excellent medic, will make you an excellent blogger, and an excellent mate. In fact, I would totally describe you as one of the most alpha guys around (and I agree, btw, about Bastiat Blogger). So what I see is alpha tempered by exceptional social skills and empathy. Jackpot!

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    ADBG said:
    “@SteelRainMan”
    _______________

    I’m an excellent driver.

  • A definite beta guy

    @ Susan
    I don’t think most guys have an intellectual problem with what you’re saying at all. Some of us just have a hair trigger thing on the whole beta word, sort of like some girls have a hair trigger towards being objectified.

    And me, I just gave a hair trigger towards the price discrimination thing.

    I’ve got nothing against my beta traits, Dad gave them to me so they must be good for something!

  • Jason773

    Underdog,

    This is from my experience and my experience only: it is damn hard / near impossible to have true inner game until you’ve become a “player” via outer game. You can download every single inner game book into an AFC’s head like the Matrix and it’s just going to be mental masturbation. Until he’s gone out there and actually picked up a few girls and get that sexual validation / feel that adrenaline, he’s not going to develop any inner confidence. Once again, the only way a man truly develops inner game is by practicing outer game — all the routines, negs, magic tricks or whatever are just tools for him to get comfortable talking to girls and learn to sexually escalate. They are training wheels. They are crutches. But soon enough, he will get comfortable and confident talking to girls and, if he doesn’t want to end up a social drone, he will start dropping the routines and start being himself. Telling a guy with no experience with women to learn inner game and be himself is like telling a toddler who’s never rode a bike to stay balanced without training wheels.

    Bravo, excellent post. Seriously, this could not sum it up any better and should be the only word on this discussion. ‘Fake it til you make it’ initially helps, but you have to ‘make it’ for it to be truly internalized.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    From a female perspective, we’re witnessing an explosion in asshole Game, and we’re mourning the loss of good men. Those guys will correctly say, “Asshole Game gets me laid.” And I’m sure they’re right. But for women who don’t dig assholes, it’s a very unwelcome development. That doesn’t mean our priorities trump male priorities, but we certainly have every reason to lament the loss of dateable men.

    Two points here:

    1. Women can be more affirming about liking beta traits. It’s more than “asshole Game gets me laid”. “Asshole Game gets me positive female attention which often leads to getting laid” is closer to what’s really happening. For a lot of (myself included) the best we’ve been is the guy you like long enough to get your homework done. The rest of the time we’re the butt of jokes.

    I know, I know, 80% of women aren’t doing that. I’m not disagreeing. However, they are being affirming either. They’re invisible, as we often discuss, but that invisibility is often their choice as much as it is our blindness. If 80% of women aren’t interacting with you and the 20% who are abuse you for being beta yet when you become fake asshole alpha 25% of women interact with you (yes, some of those who didn’t notice you before do now) and most of that interaction is positive, what are you going to do.

    More than once I said when I learned of Game and PUA stuff I pretty much rejected it. More than once I’ve said I’m at HUS because I’d like to see an alternative.

    If beta traits are something women want they need to start subsidizing them more than the 20% of forward/hot/slutty/whatever women tax them. That’s not claiming male priorities are more important or that female ones are. It’s saying women have a way to bring male priorities more in alignment with their own by rewarding men, not necessarily with sex, but with plain affirmation.

    In a way, it doesn’t matter what you call it. I’ve been criticized for “having something against players and cads.” There are plenty of men in the ‘sphere who balk at my promoting relationships at all. I don’t know why, since commitment is not something men are forced into.

    A significant part of the male and female population are actively trying to shame men into relationships. Abbott rants about the attempts to shame men for wanting what they want so “reformed sluts” can get married. Is he over the top (sure, as Dogsquat has said, he’s the collective male Id somehow posting to the internet) but that’s a pressure a lot of men feel.

    The whole women have lists but men need to man up dynamic is part of that shaming. We don’t have to get into relationships but a lot of elite figures tell us until we do we’re just overgrown boys who can’t grow up.

    A lot of men who are beta and thus are doing what makes the world work who already were getting no female affirmation but plenty of scorn (see above) read that and think, “You know, when your power is out, your internet is down, or you have a bone sticking out of your skin you’ll happily take this ‘overgrown boy’ who isn’t an adult’s aid in helping you, WTF”.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Second, when you say betas are losers “in our culture” I think what you really mean in “in Game circles.”

    No I mean culture. I used examples from the red pill world of why beta is loser but blue pill land has its own examples.
    Case in point, Homer.

    The cultural portrayal of Dads is pathetic and loserish. There is no sexy, confident dad. There all dipshits who can’t get their shit straightened out with a ruler. Their wife is a screaming she-banshee that is smarter, hotter, works harder and far more talented than them.

    In our culture being a dad means being a loser. In game culture being a dad means being a chump who exposes himself to a ton og unessesary risk.

    P.S I’m not into game culture. I don’t give a fuck whos an alpha, beta, capa, delta etc.

    They count lays. I count children.

    The landscape that evolution plays out on is changing radically but the rules are still the same: reproduction to pass on your genes.

    PUAs are technically evolutionary failures regardless of number of lays.
    I’m into bio. so thats where my and their viewpoint diverge.

    “despite his good looks Charlie is functioning at the level of omega.”

    I’ve never seen the show but the descriptions remind me of myself from 15-18. I still cringe on hearing it and my first thought is to print out Double Your Dating and send it to him.

    “I can guarantee you that every woman who cuckolds a man is a woman whose poor character is abundantly evident in other ways.”

    I have two possible explanations for this:

    1. Women are better to call out the psycho bitches than men. (Much like men can easily call out the cads, ex. Adam, I still can’t believe you fell for it btw). Which seems reasonable and possible.

    I can specifically remember a female friend in uni telling me a girl was an attention whore. I thought she was into me. A month or so later I got the “I told you so treatment.”

    2. Their not really that different than normal women. They don’t run around dripping in I’m gonna cheat on you juice. Much like a slut doesn’t have pussified herpes dripping down their leg.
    There is no real visible or noticeable tell. They seem like everyone else.

    Anyways, I’m aware that it is rare. Its my stickler point. Like ADBG said his was price discrimination by big one is cuckolding. Just is so my posts will reflect my biggest “worry.”

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

      @Lokland

      I think your two explanations are related, though the first resonates more with me. Women can spot a psycho bitch who will cheat from a mile away. (And yeah, I can’t believe I didn’t call Adam right either.) So we see “tells” where guys would never think to look. And of course, women can be excellent at faking love and devotion to get what they want. In spite of Roissy’s sure fire list of slut tells, I’m pretty certain that many women who lie about their number get away with it. I can see how that would drive men absolutely crazy.

      Also, I hear you re stickler points. For whatever reasons, we all have certain fears, as well as certain non-negotiables. It’s better to acknowledge them than deny them, as denial always comes back to bite you.

  • Rosanna

    Reading this article made me wonder why does women look for the Alpha Male/CADs when what they want in the long run is with the Beta Males/DADs. The problem is that the Beta Males is most likely to end up in the friendzone.

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

      @Rosanna

      Good question! Who do you look for?

  • http://deleted Jason773

    Mike C,

    I’m going to whip out my old “you get shot in the head” test. An “alpha” is the guy that I could say I’ll give you one week to get sex from a new girl, or else you get shot in the head. He doesn’t even break a sweat. The “beta” is the guy who starts preparing his last will and testament.

    This made me laugh pretty hard. Question though…can the new girl be an existing prospect or does she have to be a complete stranger before that week. The former and it’s a damn near lock, the latter and it’s still very doable, especially if you’re having sex come hell or high water, but it’s definitely more iffy.

  • Underdog

    “PUAs are technically evolutionary failures regardless of number of lays.
    I’m into bio. so thats where my and their viewpoint diverge.”

    I disagree with this. PUAs don’t reproduce with the women they lay because of unnatural factors like pills and condoms, not because they are evolutionary failures. I don’t think there’s a species of animal on earth for which having a greater number of sexual partners equate to evolutionary failure. Evolutionarily speaking, a PUA is one who puts himself in a position where, should he chooses to reproduce, he will be able to select the very best mate/mother for himself and his offsprings. That’s a very sound mating strategy to me, as a man.

  • http://deleted Jason773

    Curously, how many of the younger guys here (Cooper, ADBG, a few others) actively go out and regularly practice Game on living breathing women?

  • Underdog

    “Curously, how many of the younger guys here (Cooper, ADBG, a few others) actively go out and regularly practice Game on living breathing women?”

    I am 26, I practice game every time I’m with my girlfriend.

  • Doc

    @Susan
    “Dominance in and of itself is not interesting.”

    Too true… The best dominant is someone who doesn’t have to do anything to convey it others than how he carries him self. Too many of the younger types try too hard rather than just relaxing. The key is that you want her to feel like you’re a friendly predator, but she isn’t on the menu tonight – or even on your radar yet. Too many “beta” males – and I find that term somewhat over used, but it provides a framework – do not excite her. And attraction is all about how you make her feel. Most women tend to be worried about danger, and a lot of things which do not register to a man may frighten her, so if you can offer her a taste of danger while she’s safe with you, she will feel drawn to you.

    Beta’s tend to not understand that, and were brought up putting women on pedestals so they become part of the furniture. Women all crave excitement and danger – but they want to know they are safe. That’s why pistol shooting is a good way to challenge women, or sky-diving if you know them longer than a night, although tandem jumping requires a lot of training and isn’t for everyone. But I can say that every time I’ve taken a woman jumping, we’ve ended up spending the rest of the weekend in bed.

    It’s the excitement – betas just don’t generate excitement, alpha’s do. That is the basic difference. That is what I meant by “boring”…

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

      @Doc

      It’s interesting that you go on dopamine-triggering dates. That’s actually one of the ways that experts recommend injecting life into a relationship or marriage that’s lost its energy. I’m sure you’re aware of the study showing that women were more likely to give out their telephone number while crossing a dangerous bridge.

      It makes sense to me that if you get a dopamine rush with a man (not unlike the chemical response of orgasm) your attraction will increase, and there is probably an oxytocin kick afterwards that also promotes bonding.

      So – it seems to me the advice to betas is take more risk. Not risk of rejection, as in approaching, but just take more risk in life, in your pursuits. Be more spontaneous. Those qualities are generally naturally found in men who go in for casual sex only – the Dark Triad types. But guys who are naturally risk averse would probably benefit in numerous ways if they added that in without going to extremes.

  • Lokland

    @Underdog

    No.

    THE RULES HAVE CHANGED.

    You gave the reasons.
    Humans no longer operate under number of lays = fitness because the two have become uncoupled.

    The evolutionary selection factors have CHANGED. If you don’t have children you fail. That has not changed.

    Evolution is not static it can change direction, as it has in our culture.

    PUAs are operating under an old system of rules that no longer apply (as are the women who sleep with them). Expect evolution to work its magic over a couple generations.

  • JP

    Darwinian evolution doesn’t apply to man in the sense that popular culture think it applies because human culture is a much more overwhelming force.

  • Ted D

    JP – “You’re talking about the rear view mirror because that era peaked in 2007.”

    Surely, but it isn’t going to get any better now that the economy has tanked. Many people simply don’t know how to survive real hardship.

    Underdog – “Until he’s gone out there and actually picked up a few girls and get that sexual validation / feel that adrenaline, he’s not going to develop any inner confidence. Once again, the only way a man truly develops inner game is by practicing outer game — all the routines, negs, magic tricks or whatever are just tools for him to get comfortable talking to girls and learn to sexually escalate. “

    I disagree. I’m 41 (will be 42 soon…) and recently divorced (a few years back.) I’m in a LTR so I’m not interested in the least with learning how to use magic tricks to get laid. However, I was in massive need of some inner game and personal development, and so far I’ve managed to make what I feel is a good bit of progress without dropping a single neg, or scoring a single ONS. To me it is a sad thing that so many men seem to link getting laid to being a better person. Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand what a great motivator sex is to a young guy. But, instead of letting these men tie up their “worth” with their notch count, why don’t we instead just teach them to BE better people, and more sex will come along with it. The entire concept of “inner game” is becoming the type of guy women want to sex up, so instead of putting the cart before the horse, how about we concentrate on telling men how to just improve. I know, young guys won’t listen if we tell them how much work it will be without a payoff. .. I’m not saying leave sex totally out of it, but all “game” discussion completely focuses on getting laid, which to me is a totally piss poor reason to do anything. Do the right thing for yourself, and increased access to sex will come as a bonus. A guy doesn’t need tricks to become comfortable talking to women, all he needs to do is… feel better about himself. If after that he needs some help with social skills that is easy to accomplish any number of ways. But do we really have to keep churning out the sexual equivalent of travelling carnival magicians?

    “Telling a guy with no experience with women to learn inner game and be himself is like telling a toddler who’s never rode a bike to stay balanced without training wheels.”

    I agree. So instead, how about we teach them how to gain self esteem? Or perhaps self confidence from being fit and mentally stable? Or even better, how about we teach these young men that they have value outside of how many women their penis has been in? I don’t think that in days past men were sitting their boys down and teaching them how to neg. I suspect that they simply showed their sons how to be their own man by teaching them self worth, self discipline, and strong moral character. We are concentrating on the goal, but instead of looking for the best path to it, we are trying to find the shortcuts to get there faster and easier. Most things in life aren’t easy or fast…

    DogSquat – “Some poor beta bastard like I used to be is capable of making many women happy for a while. If he remains a creature of his conditioning, though, he’ll cause that attraction to rot. He just does the wrong shit – he’ll go down every wrong fork in the road because his map was printed by Modern Feminism, Inc.”

    Yep. This is exactly what occurred in my marriage, although I made the decision to “double down” on the beta because my marriage started to tank, and I didn’t know any other way…

    “ Fight to win, not to be right.”

    And this is why I would suck in the military. I can’t say I ever set out to “win” a fight. I always, always start a fight because I KNOW I’m right. :P

    ADBG – “We’re “good enough” guys that can’t actually command the attraction of girls on demand, and our own girls were used and abused by other guys, and will probably still be lusting after them even when they are with us.”

    That line right there actually made me cringe, because I find it to be true. This is exactly, EXACTLY why *I* have issues with promiscuity. The idea that some guy (or many guys…) “used and abused” my mate for his own damn pleasure literally makes me sick to the stomach. As in, my stomach lurched when I read this. And that doesn’t even get to the part where they may or may not still be lusting for them. I don’t even make it to that concept before I’m already physically ill and mentally a wreck, because someone “used and abused” the woman I love. And, I can’t help but wonder how much what I’m doing with her coincides with her previous “use and abuse”. Which is to say, can she ever value MY sexual intimacy at a level appropriate to how I see hers when she was “used and abused” by men before?

    Susan – “No it doesn’t. It assumes that self-development is its own reward, and that others will find you more attractive as a consequence, whether for a ONS or a relationship.”

    THIS RIGHT HERE! Why can’t we just teach men how to self improve? Why does it HAVE to be in order to “get laid”? Yes, I fully admit that I set about changing myself after pain and misery, but to be honest at the time I starting making changes, I was perfectly happy. I know it may be hard to believe, but prior to finding the ‘sphere I had been with my current SO about six months and things were going terrific. I got to the point where I really started to wonder why my marriage failed and found MMSL, which of course brought me here and to the ‘sphere at large. During all this time I’ve been here gnashing teeth, my relationship has not suffered one bit. But, I realized that it was likely I would fall into the same trap as I did in my marriage, and set out to fix it. It wasn’t because I wanted to get more sex, I truly had all the sex I wanted. It wasn’t to attract more women, I’ve already got one I’m pretty damn fond of. It was, wait for it… TO IMPROVE MYSELF! Surely one of the side effects of those improvements is a healthy shot of attraction and stability to my relationship, but I’m doing my best to NOT let that be my focus. It is the wrong reason to improve, and so is simply getting laid. That is “a” reward for self improvement, but it should not be “the” reward, and certainly shouldn’t be the reason for improving to me.

    Tito – “but we need to stop thinking in terms of shallow and hedonistic “rights” and start thinking in terms of duties and civilization first…”

    YES! For real, I’m starting to feel the love today. It is very refreshing to see at least a couple guys stating what I consider to be the obvious problem here: Men SHOULD NOT be improving/changing for the sole purpose of getting laid. It is NOT the correct reason to change. And, IMO, doing so will be more likely to turn a guy into a cad than to make him a “good and noble” alpha. Why? Well if I went from zero sex to ONS on the regular, I would lose ALL DESIRE to improve anymore. Why would I when I’m getting all I want? It has been pointed out to me elsewhere on the web that people are generally lazy and won’t expend any energy if they are content, and a guy getting laid is probably pretty damn contented. If we want to create a bunch of self-centered dudes that only care about where their next piece of ass is coming from, then “game” is the answer. If we want to create responsible, well adjusted, reliable, ambitious, and hard working people, then we need to teach young men how to be better than they are now, not for the purpose of getting laid (although it will come with the package) but for the purpose of being the best you can be.

    I feel a little less like a pocket watch today…

    Susan – “This is clearly an aspect of male psychology that I do not understand. I mean, do most guys believe in their heart of hearts that they’re alpha males? And if not, then why is it humiliating to be part of the overwhelming majority?”

    No, we men pretty much know exactly where we rank. After all, men’s environment is highly structured and hierarchical, although it is primarily “behind the scenes” and quietly negotiated. The problem is to me: in most cases a man’s rank is never really discussed (outside of particular environment like the military and possibly work). Men don’t get together and democratically figure out who the alpha is and then rank each other down. But, when a group of men gather, all that figuring out of rank happens quietly using any number of “social clues” as to who the top dog is, and where each other man ranks in the group. For the most part, this goes smoothly and without issue, unless there is more than one guy that is alpha, or if you introduce females into the picture. When it comes to women, the entire system gets a bit turned on its head because men that peacefully accepted a submissive role to an alpha may suddenly “step up” his game which creates tension, and some men that were perhaps more toward the top of the ladder will step down and out to remove themselves FROM the competition. When any woman starts labeling men with terms of rank, many men will get their panties in a bunch. I really don’t care too much about labels, and I catch myself feeling a quick pang of “WTF? I’m not a damn beta!” when I see such comments.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that many men aren’t suffering from alpha envy either. I’m positive there is a good bit of that out there, but I do not experience it because my needs in terms of relationships are being met. If I was going without, I might both envy and despise alpha cads. Right now I’m not feeling envy, and despise is much too strong a word.

    “How does Hillary Clinton’s comment single out beta men? I would think the military would be disproportionately alpha. It’s a misandrist statement, certainly, but I don’t see the beta hate.”

    OH God no! The military COULD NOT FUNCTION if it was filled with alphas. I am out of my depth here because I’ve never served, but just about all of my male friends have, and from what I gather the military is actually pretty brilliant at turning most men into “betaish” guys. They are taught to follow orders, do what they are told, and not to ask questions. Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like how a beta guy supplicates to his wife?

    Now when you start getting to the higher ranks? Sure, as a man progresses through the ranks I would think he would be trained to be a leader, and with that comes the confidence to start him down the path to alphadom. But in general, I think the military is NOT the place to go to become an alpha. This is funny, because for years as a young guy I remember being told how the military will “make you a man”. It’s true, but only to an extent. They will teach you how to be a responsible and structured person. But, they aren’t in the business of creating guys that don’t listen to authority and do their own thing.

    BB – post 263 – VERY well put. It is indeed a matter of perspective that is the root of the issue.

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

    1. Women are better to call out the psycho bitches than men. (Much like men can easily call out the cads, ex. Adam, I still can’t believe you fell for it btw). Which seems reasonable and possible.

    It makes more sense than we think men don’t need to charm other men in bed they need to charm women, likewise the other way around. They probably evolved some way to cloak enough to “trick” a female into finding them sexy, and once that is truth the rest is a matter of opportunity. I guess that is another “ancient people knew what they were doing” by having the man to pass the fathers, brothers and other relatives of the female they could guarantee a good addition to the family and not an opportunistic thrill seeker.

    Anyways, I’m aware that it is rare. Its my stickler point. Like ADBG said his was price discrimination by big one is cuckolding. Just is so my posts will reflect my biggest “worry.”

    I will say that the modern culture doesn’t help justifiable cuckholding is also present in the media if you see the sequel to Phantom of the Opera *spitsonfloor*, the new version of Count of Montecristo and a couple of more movies/books you will see that a woman that cuckolds always do it for a good reason the man was all along a jerk and her “true love” ends up having a child to love and a new family, she was just caught in the moment, it was destiny… is a bit like spinster literature growing subtly by numbers any man with two cents of awareness will tell you that a woman cheating is always “understandable” and the man’s fault so I think many men have their fears feed on by culture, YMMV.

  • Underdog

    “No.

    THE RULES HAVE CHANGED.

    You gave the reasons.
    Humans no longer operate under number of lays = fitness because the two have become uncoupled.

    The evolutionary selection factors have CHANGED. If you don’t have children you fail. That has not changed.

    Evolution is not static it can change direction, as it has in our culture.

    PUAs are operating under an old system of rules that no longer apply (as are the women who sleep with them). Expect evolution to work its magic over a couple generations.”

    PUAs operate under a system that attracts women. What women are attract to has not changed. Your thinking comes from the assumption that PUAs don’t get to reproduce or don’t want to reproduce. They do, but not with women who have to settle for them and not with women they have to settle for. PUAs aim to reproduce with the highest quality of women that they have the potential to attract, which is higher than the average male. Most men become PUAs so that they can learn to attract the right woman for long term mating should the time comes, not so that they can engage in protected sex with strange girls for the rest of their lives. Having sex with strange girls is just a process PUAs go through in order to learn how to attract his mate.

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

      @Underdog

      Most men become PUAs so that they can learn to attract the right woman for long term mating should the time comes, not so that they can engage in protected sex with strange girls for the rest of their lives. Having sex with strange girls is just a process PUAs go through in order to learn how to attract his mate.

      Is this true? If so, then why all the pushback on relationships? I’ve had three readers who dated PUAs and it was disastrous. The PUAs did want to fall in love and have a relationship, but they also had a serious itch to get back out there. We’ve been discussing this a lot recently – having a lot of sexual partners may doom future attempts at monogamy.

  • Shane

    The tips you have in here are pretty interesting. I would definitely consider this in finding someone that I would want to share my whole life with. Are there any other important tips that girls should always remember in choosing their man? Thanks for sharing.

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

      @Shane

      Welcome, thanks for commenting. You should subscribe to the blog – I write a lot of different posts about how to find and select a man.

  • http://deleted Jason773

    Lokland,

    I don’t see what’s with all the hate for Game and PUA, especially when you say you haven’t actively engaged in it. It’s simply a learning tool for guys to make what they want of it. I’m sure you wouldn’t consider a guy an ‘evolutionary failure’ because he wasn’t born with the IQ of Einstein and had to work his ass off to get a degree, but he is because he chose to learn Game? The only difference between those two is that one is considered socially acceptable and standard, while the other is not.

    If you haven’t actually participated in the practice of Game then you really don’t have a basis on which to accurately judge and you can’t understand the epiphany moments that it can bring. I can actually recall my ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ moment of Game…

    I was 18 and in college, and I had just read ‘the Game’ after my best friend had read it as well and had given it to me. Obviously it was a totally different view on things and we were eager to give it a go. Before this I had done ‘ok’ with women, and wasn’t a virgin or anything, but I knew I wanted to be much better.

    So the two of us walk into some dive college bar that will serve us at 9pm on a Thursday night, and of course the place is dead except for a group of about 6 fairly attractive girls around a table. Using PUA language here, neither of us had ever opened a set that big, especially with the consequence of being blown out meaning that there are no other options, so we are obviously hemming/hawing and nervous as hell. I finally tell myself that I didn’t come out tonight to just stand around, and I was going to do what I went out to do, talk to girls. So I order two pitchers, get a bunch of glasses, get three dollars worth of quarters and sack up by walking over to the table with my friend, nudging in between two girls and saying ‘you all look bored, let’s play quarters’.

    With that we were at least in and from there my friend and I ran a bunch of scripted PUA stuff. Things like ‘you look like the bad girl of the group’, ‘we could never get married, it would never work out between us’ , little negs on clothing choices, etc. And guess what, it actually worked to the point where both of us had two girls each competing for our attention! We each ended up going back with a girl from the group and making out for a bit, but we both declined going up to their apartment. At that point I think we were amazed at just how well things worked and we didn’t even imagine ourselves sleeping with anyone that night.

    Well that got us hooked and we developed more and more, to the point where we go out and we really do follow the ‘just be yourself’ mantra. It’s just that Game has been internalized and I haven’t used any sort of scripted routine (other than C&F, which comes naturally) in years now. I really think this is the ultimate transformation that the community talks about, and it can offer a ton to a guy in terms of positive lifestyle.

  • http://deleted Jason773

    Underdog,

    I am 26, I practice game every time I’m with my girlfriend.

    I’m more refering to the guys who are trying to get a girl, but yea, that’s obviously an important aspect as well.

  • Ramble

    No one is telling beta guys not to go get some casual sex or start a harem.

    Plenty of people are telling betas just that. Maybe you aren’t, but plenty are.

    I mean, do most guys believe in their heart of hearts that they’re alpha males?

    Most men, when they were boys, dreamed of being superheroes, or firemen, or Navy Seals, or fighter pilots, or linebackers, or hitting the game winning homerun, etc.

    That boy then could grow up to be an accountant, who was absolutely the head of his household, who had his buddies over on Friday nights to play poker. He went golfing on Saturday and fishing on Sunday. You get the idea.

    His wife made him dinner and raised his children and kept a tastefully decorated and clean home.

    Whatever Greek letter anyone wants to assign that man, he was a fucking King.

    Though, that doesn’t really answer your question.

  • Travis

    @Ted,
    You did it again. I find myself agreeing with every single word you said in that post. Especially this part:

    ADBG – “We’re “good enough” guys that can’t actually command the attraction of girls on demand, and our own girls were used and abused by other guys, and will probably still be lusting after them even when they are with us.”

    “That line right there actually made me cringe, because I find it to be true. This is exactly, EXACTLY why *I* have issues with promiscuity. The idea that some guy (or many guys…) “used and abused” my mate for his own damn pleasure literally makes me sick to the stomach. As in, my stomach lurched when I read this. And that doesn’t even get to the part where they may or may not still be lusting for them. I don’t even make it to that concept before I’m already physically ill and mentally a wreck, because someone “used and abused” the woman I love. And, I can’t help but wonder how much what I’m doing with her coincides with her previous “use and abuse”. Which is to say, can she ever value MY sexual intimacy at a level appropriate to how I see hers when she was “used and abused” by men before?”

    Mirrors my own thoughts exactly. Right down to the literally feeling “sick to my stomach” when I think about it. I think that right there is a big part of the backlash you’re seeing against the SMP, and women’s sexual liberation in general, as far as the manosphere is concerned. If I meet a girl I really like, but I know she spent a few years getting passed around and used by a bunch of other guys (or even if it was only one guy she let “use and abuse” her), and what’s more, there’s a good chance she actually found being with those guys/ that guy more exciting than being with me, it would completely rip my heart out. There’s just NO WAY that I could feel the same love and affection for her that I would otherwise. I really don’t think women understand how much that can hurt and screw with a guy’s head. I’ve never even had it happen to me (to my knowledge), but just the thought of it is almost enough to feel like I just got punched in the gut…

  • Ramble

    In fact, I would totally describe you as one of the most alpha guys around

    Susan, I understand that you were trying to complement Snoop Dogsquat, but, I have read almost everything you have written in the past few months and I am certain that you just call the Dogfather a narcissist.

    SW: No, no, that is not what I meant!

    Ramble: I understand, but you have gone out of your way to define Alphas as narcissists. If you want to complement Dogbert, in Susan Walsh’s world, call him a Ballistic Beta. Or a Bondage dispersing Beta. Or The Bushmaster Beta (my personal favorite).

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

      @Ramble

      Susan, I understand that you were trying to complement Snoop Dogsquat, but, I have read almost everything you have written in the past few months and I am certain that you just call the Dogfather a narcissist.

      Misunderstanding. I called Dog alpha in Dog-speak, not Susan-speak, because he already defined it and explained why beta is kryptonite.

  • Ted D

    Herb – “More than once I said when I learned of Game and PUA stuff I pretty much rejected it. More than once I’ve said I’m at HUS because I’d like to see an alternative.”

    THIS! I feel like I’m on the verge of a mental breakthrough, although it is probably insanity or old age setting in.

    But to the point, I SO want an alternative to turning young men into douchebags, but I don’t know how to make it as appealing as getting laid. For real, the issue is: guys are much more easily motivated by pussy than being a better person. I believe we used to get around this by having fathers in the home that simply taught their sons how to be like themselves. I didn’t grow up with a father, and the only consistent male role model I had growing up was painted in a bad light by my mother and grandmother. Ironically enough, I now know they painted him like that because he was actually behaving… like a man! I can recall times when my grandfather would “tell” my grandmother how something was going to happen, and when he walked out of the room my mother telling me how terrible he was for not considering my grandmother’s feelings. For sure he might have been a bit grumpy and bullish, but he mostly just did what he thought was best for the family, regardless of how my grandmother felt about it. It wasn’t that he ignored her, he simply disagreed with her assessment and proceeded to go with his plan. They were married over 50 years, so despite all the complaining I heard from my mother and grandmother, I guess he was doing it right.

    I’m trying to figure out how to teach my boys how to be men, without having that foundation of being taught myself, and it’s a damn difficult thing. I will NOT be teaching them about negs and dread! I want to teach them the value of being a better person, and how to accomplish those goals. I just with someone had shown me so I had an idea of how to go about it.

  • Underdog

    @Ted D

    “I disagree. I’m 41 (will be 42 soon…) and recently divorced (a few years back.) I’m in a LTR so I’m not interested in the least with learning how to use magic tricks to get laid. However, I was in massive need of some inner game and personal development, and so far I’ve managed to make what I feel is a good bit of progress without dropping a single neg, or scoring a single ONS. To me it is a sad thing that so many men seem to link getting laid to being a better person. Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand what a great motivator sex is to a young guy. But, instead of letting these men tie up their “worth” with their notch count, why don’t we instead just teach them to BE better people, and more sex will come along with it. The entire concept of “inner game” is becoming the type of guy women want to sex up, so instead of putting the cart before the horse, how about we concentrate on telling men how to just improve. I know, young guys won’t listen if we tell them how much work it will be without a payoff. .. I’m not saying leave sex totally out of it, but all “game” discussion completely focuses on getting laid, which to me is a totally piss poor reason to do anything. Do the right thing for yourself, and increased access to sex will come as a bonus. A guy doesn’t need tricks to become comfortable talking to women, all he needs to do is… feel better about himself. If after that he needs some help with social skills that is easy to accomplish any number of ways. But do we really have to keep churning out the sexual equivalent of travelling carnival magicians?

    …so instead, how about we teach them how to gain self esteem? Or perhaps self confidence from being fit and mentally stable? Or even better, how about we teach these young men that they have value outside of how many women their penis has been in? I don’t think that in days past men were sitting their boys down and teaching them how to neg. I suspect that they simply showed their sons how to be their own man by teaching them self worth, self discipline, and strong moral character. We are concentrating on the goal, but instead of looking for the best path to it, we are trying to find the shortcuts to get there faster and easier. Most things in life aren’t easy or fast…”

    A man can be taught self-esteem and morals and all that good stuff, but as long as he gets no sexual validation from women, he’s still not going to be truly confident in his manhood.

  • Ted D

    UD – “A man can be taught self-esteem and morals and all that good stuff, but as long as he gets no sexual validation from women, he’s still not going to be truly confident in his manhood.”

    I don’t see why this is true. In days past, we certainly managed to “make men” out of boys without them laying pipe all over town. Why is it that we somehow assume that sexual conquests are the only way to build a man’s self esteem? Doesn’t that seem awfully shallow to you? I don’t want my boys to set their “value” by how many women they can screw. It is a totally worthless “value” in life, unless your only goal is to increase your notch count.

  • drunicusveritas

    @Susan Walsh

    Why is it humiliating (to be called beta)?

    I can’t speak for all men, but to be beta is, or at least implies, a level of weakness or defect. To be called “alpha” is to be affirmed on some level.
    Everyone has different childhoods, views, experiences, etc, but men are (or were) expected on some level to be strong, vis-a-vis other men.
    Despite the left’s efforts to seminar us all through feminism and a morass of laws aimed squarely against our interests, alphas are still amply rewarded in most of the (sometimes superficial, sometimes very salient) ways.
    Sure, Tiger Woods, Charlie Sheen, et al are villfied in the media. But based on their levels of success, most betas or at least a large portion of them would likely trade places with them, or Schwartzenegfer, or even cheesey Jean Claude Van Damned, in a heartbeat.
    I believe myself to be a pretty virile, tough, strong, intelligent, successful guy, at least compared to many.
    A slump shouldered, pushovers beta? Well, no. No effin’ way,man. I work too hard for that.

  • Underdog

    @ Ted D
    “I don’t see why this is true. In days past, we certainly managed to “make men” out of boys without them laying pipe all over town.”

    Because in days past, female sexuality was restrained.

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

      Because in days past, female sexuality was restrained.

      If you could put that genie back in the bottle, the number of alphas would skyrocket almost overnight.

  • Herb

    @Ramble

    I mean, do most guys believe in their heart of hearts that they’re alpha males?

    Most men, when they were boys, dreamed of being superheroes, or firemen, or Navy Seals, or fighter pilots, or linebackers, or hitting the game winning homerun, etc.

    That boy then could grow up to be an accountant, who was absolutely the head of his household, who had his buddies over on Friday nights to play poker. He went golfing on Saturday and fishing on Sunday. You get the idea.

    His wife made him dinner and raised his children and kept a tastefully decorated and clean home.

    Whatever Greek letter anyone wants to assign that man, he was a fucking King.

    Though, that doesn’t really answer your question.

    Actually, Ramble, I think it does. It certainly does better than my answer.

    See, Susan, we all wanted to be the alpha growing up. Until my eye’s soured my plan for life was: Naval Academy, Pensacola for flight school, test pilot, astronaut, first man on Mars…no seriously until 7th grade that was the plan.

    I grew up to be a computer programmer/mathematician/financier/banker. I’m divorced, no kids, no one to be a partner and a compliment, no one to cook the bacon I bring home.

    All that time I looked around and saw the guys who did go to flight school or their equivalents get plenty of dates (when I couldn’t get one) and when I finally found a woman it was only to learn she settled and when she could went chasing alpha cock. I looked around and saw the guys like me were winning the same prizes: divorce, being used, etc.

    We know we’re not alpha.

    We also know we are the guys who do most of what makes the world work from delivering pizzas to writing computer software to stringing power lines. We look around and see people, especially women, enjoying that world and either ignoring or rejecting us.

    We know our fathers who did the same things we did were valued for doing it.

    So now we’re pissed. Now you call us beta and we hear “slave”. Now you call us beta and we hear “loser”. Now you call us beta and we hear “meal ticket”. Now you call us beta and we hear “good enough I guess”.

    Are you surprised we don’t want it.

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

      @Herb

      So now we’re pissed. Now you call us beta and we hear “slave”. Now you call us beta and we hear “loser”. Now you call us beta and we hear “meal ticket”. Now you call us beta and we hear “good enough I guess”.

      Are you surprised we don’t want it.

      I understand what you’re saying.

      Just try to imagine for a moment that when women read that list of ten traits, they think “that’s what I want.” I’m not saying women don’t care about the alpha traits. But most of us are tired of brash, insensitive behavior, we’re tired of trying to relate to men who seem to have been born without an empathy gene. We long for men as good as our own fathers, if we were lucky enough to have good fathers.

      We want good men who are strong and will not pedestalize us. Yup, we want it all. That’s why so many women will openly declare they want a beta guy. Because to women, beta = good guy, alpha = asshole. You’ll say that women have good guys orbiting them and won’t give them a shot, and I agree.

      I get a lot of emails from guys. Sometimes I’ll get a whole rash of them in a week. A play by play account of a situation they’re in. Usually, I say, “Don’t call her. Don’t text her. Ignore her.” I tell them I’d like to lock them in a room until they’re ready to take a step back and not demean themselves with these girls. I often have to tell them, “She doesn’t like you. Fuck it drive on.” I hate saying that to guys, but I know from their stories that the girl is definitely, 100% not into it. So I hear you re problematic beta behavior. I just don’t think we should throw all the good stuff out with that admittedly problematic tendency.

      Forget PUA bootcamps. One of you guys could make a million dollars running weekend retreats on how not to be a pussy. That’s 75% of the battle right there.

  • Ted D

    UD – “Because in days past, female sexuality was restrained.”

    But that still makes men slaves to female sexuality. What I”m trying to advocate is completely removing female sexuality from the equation: Let men decide what men should be on their own, not based on what women want. DS has a post up about outcome indifference, and to me THIS is what that means. Not being unconcerned with your wife being angry because you went out with the boys. Not being unruffled when you get shot down by a women in a bar. Nope, MY idea of perfect OI is: simply do not give a shit what woman want from you. Do what YOU feel is best, and let the woman that find it attractive come to you. Of course you still have to be somewhat social, and get out so women can see you. But this whole concept of “men are the pursuer” is tired and old fashioned. If we want women to stop and take notice, we should simply STOP CHASING THEM.

    Have you ever had a puppy? I’ve had several. Most of them LOVE to play chase, where you chase the dog and he runs away. But you know what? they will keep on running as long as you chase. However, if you turn around and walk away, most come walking back to you. THAT I think is the best way to approach finding a mate. Get your own shit together, be happy with yourself and your life, and then start a few games of chase with women that appear to be interested in you. If they start to run, give them a little exercise for sure, but don’t spend all your time and energy trying to get in their pants. Let them know where you are, and what you are about, and stop chasing. If they are really interested, they’ll come back. If they don’t, why would you want to chase them more? Unless of course your goal, again, is simply to increase your notch count.

  • Ted D

    UD – “Having sex with strange girls is just a process PUAs go through in order to learn how to attract his mate.”

    Perhaps this is true for some men, but I do not believe it is the vast majority of PUA attitudes. I would bet that guys who are serious about relationships may well learn some game and get a few conquests, but they quickly settle down to the business of pairing off. Guys that spend years practicing PUA aren’t interested in relationships, until perhaps they get older and mature a bit, and then their priorities change, just like the “reformed slut” does in her 30′s. If we are going to throw mud at women for doing this, then I’m 100% down for throwing mud at men as well. I’m sick to death of double standards, so I’ll treat everyone equally UNfair.

  • Underdog

    @Susan:

    “The PUAs did want to fall in love and have a relationship, but they also had a serious itch to get back out there.”

    Maybe they realized weren’t ready to commit even though they thought they were. Maybe they felt like those girls weren’t right for them. Maybe they felt like they could do better. When the time comes, Susan, PUAs will settle down. Those PUAs DID want to fall in love and have a relationship, so I see nothing wrong.

  • Underdog

    @Ted D
    But that still makes men slaves to female sexuality. What I”m trying to advocate is completely removing female sexuality from the equation: Let men decide what men should be on their own, not based on what women want.

    MGTOW?

    The fact of the matter is: men feel like men when they get sexual validation from women, women feel like women when they get emotional validation from men. Saying men should get validation from any other source is like saying a woman should get validation from a career or from slutting around.

  • Underdog

    Susan:
    “If you could put that genie back in the bottle, the number of alphas would skyrocket almost overnight.”

    I don’t know what you mean by this, Susan. You mean the number of men whom women would perceive as alphas?

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

      I don’t know what you mean by this, Susan. You mean the number of men whom women would perceive as alphas?

      Yes. If female sexuality were restrained, hypergamy would decline, women would not just “settle” – they would actually be attracted to men in their own SMV. And they would view those men as “my alpha.”

      That’s pretty much the system that was in place before the Sexual Revolution.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Herb, you’re only in your early 40s. I have a friend who got married in her early 30s to a guy in his early 40s, and they have one-year-old. You can still start a family if that’s what you really want.

    Anacaona, I played City of Heroes for a few years back when it was subscription-based. It was decently fun, but then they went free-to-play with a rather terrible model. I can’t even play the old character I had.

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

    A bit off topic…

    In my blog, I rarely use the term “Game”. I have replaced it with “Charisma” to avoid the connotations of artificiality and fakery that “Game” has.

    Actually, I also avoid using the terms Alpha and Beta and keep it much broader with “a guy with Charisma” and “a guy without Charisma” with a continuum in between.

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

      @Private Man

      Actually, I also avoid using the terms Alpha and Beta and keep it much broader with “a guy with Charisma” and “a guy without Charisma” with a continuum in between.

      But that’s a value judgment right there. Beta is boring, alpha is charismatic.

      Beer is boring, cocaine is charismatic.

      An engineer is boring, Bernie Madoff is charismatic.

      Tony Soprano is charismatic.

      Fast food is charismatic. Corn syrup is incredibly charismatic.

  • christiankp

    I just wonder what an alpha or a beta is.

    Take a very successful man becoming very rich, driving Porche, Lmaborghini and living in a big mansion. He has high status and the fate of thousands of people are in his hands, but he is married to a woman and he is committed to her without ever cheating.

    He has very good genes – as I see it – and should be called an alpha – but he is a beta – or is he.

    The let us take another man who is socially disinhibited. He fucks around a lot on bars and has a lot of sex partners. he never succeed in work and most of his children who he never takes responsibility for have ADHD.

    According to our standards he is an alpha, but he has no good genes and he is not successful. Is he an alpha or what?

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

      @Christiankp

      That’s the problem in a nutshell.

      According to my standards, the first guy is an alpha and the second is a douchebag loser. He’s not worthy of being called a beta, and he’s certainly not an alpha.

      But I think Roissy and other Game bloggers would say that the second guy is alpha – just like most PUAs would admire the guy in the video. (The first guy could also be alpha, if he keeps his wife on her toes by making her dread the cheating that has yet to happen.)

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “I’m not writing for men. If a man doesn’t want a monogamous relationship, he doesn’t have to have one. I think that describes many young beta men today. They don’t want girlfriends, they want to be players.”

    —–
    As indicated in this post, 75% of the male population consists of betas. Betas are not cut out to be players or cads, so what they actually want are monogamous relationships. I mean, before the Sexual Revolution, Feminism and The Pill most beta male were happy as hell to find a wife early (Yes! I can have sex on a regular basis and I don’t have to put myself out there all time to be rejected just to get laid, decides I am not suited for that lifestyle anyway) and settle down and start families and buy their houses with white picket fences and a pool in the backyard—the American Dream. I personally have no doubt that most of them still want the “dream” (I know I am going hear about the divorce rates and how unfair the court system is to men. By the way, the divorce laws have not changed that much since the 1600’s)

    I do not believe most of these guys really want to be players or PUA’s –they want a significant other (monogamy) because that is what most of them are hardwired to desire. The issue here is that they have become extremely angry because they see that dream may not become a reality for most of them due to the current sexual marketplace. Betas have been seeing alpha males getting all of the action while they are being overlooked for relationships and sex. I cannot blame them for being angry the mating rules changed and they got the memo late. I want to add that women like me got the memo late as well. The current SMP knocked us for a loop too. We are also frustrated.

    Therefore, now that you have swallowed the “red pill” I guess the only option is to become the one of the guys that are getting all the action. His lifestyle appears to be fast-paced and exciting (all of that variety, right?). I have known those guys and many of them start sniffing around me when they are in the mid-thirties and older after years of no-strings sex and debauchery seeking a “serious” relationship. I will admit that I have given these guys a shot (and I have lived to regretted it every time too) only to find that most times their emotional intelligence had not developed beyond that of a 12-year-old boy’s and they are in their mid to late thirties—how sad is that? Most of them are just not capable of connecting with a woman in a real mature manner. And I don’t have to explain why this has happen to them the answer should be quite obvious.

    It seems that most of the guys commenting on this thread view the manwhore lifestyle as being ideal but I know most of you actually want meaningful relationships. So, if Game and PUA tools are what you feel need to utilize—fine use them. I see nothing wrong with using them to get a relationship or a little variety for a short time but the player lifestyle does get old after a while.

  • Ramble

    Misunderstanding. I called Dog alpha in Dog-speak, not Susan-speak, because he already defined it and explained why beta is kryptonite.

    Oh, OK. Fair enough.

    Because in days past, female sexuality was restrained.

    If you could put that genie back in the bottle, the number of alphas would skyrocket almost overnight.

    Whoa, you lost me there. If we suddenly had old-fashioned restrained female sexuality we would see more alpha male behaviour? I am not following your line of logic.

  • drunicusveritas

    OK,here’s how I define “alpha,” or at the very least, here is how I live it:

    I am with the woman I want to be with, happily. But if she closes her heart to me, I leave.
    The rest of my “alpha” lifestyle involved a ton of hard work – the office, the gym,my guitar, actuarial exams, hunting-fishing-sailing-skiing, things I enjoy or things that help fund my lifestyle.
    Ain’t no beta there, ma’am. Sorry to disappoint.

  • J

    But that still makes men slaves to female sexuality.

    Yeah, but the problem with being a sexual person is that you’re always a slave to your SO’s sexuality. Even women are, believe me. My DH would have far less power in the relationship if I weren’t still hot for him. You guys consistantly underestimate women’s vulnerability in relationships.

    THAT I think is the best way to approach finding a mate. Get your own shit together, be happy with yourself and your life, and then start a few games of chase with women that appear to be interested in you.

    Good advice for people of both sexes.

  • drunicusveritas

    @Susan Walsh

    The most important role a man would ever fulfill….(father of her children).

    “The machine would never get drunk and beat him, or swear at him, or abandon him. And it would die defending him.”
    - “Sarah Connor”, ‘Terminator 2′

    Again, how (as a father) I define ‘alpha.’

  • Underdog

    “That’s pretty much the system that was in place before the Sexual Revolution.”

    I wish I had a DeLorean.

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

      I wish I had a DeLorean.

      That could take me back to the future.

  • Ramble

    Forget PUA bootcamps. One of you guys could make a million dollars running weekend retreats on how not to be a pussy. That’s 75% of the battle right there.

    Not being a pussy helps you to not lose the girl you have.

    PUA bootcamps help you get the girl you desire.

    Granted, I have never been to a bootcamp.

  • Ramble

    It seems that most of the guys commenting on this thread view the manwhore lifestyle as being ideal but I know most of you actually want meaningful relationships.

    Liza, I have note read all of the comments, but I really doubt that the majority of the male commenters at HUS want to be manwhores.

    However, I would believe that they want to be charismatic/alpha/charming enough to get a very good girl (with a little bit of hot casual sex in the meantime to hold them over).

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Ted said:

    ” Do what YOU feel is best, and let the woman that find it attractive come to you. Of course you still have to be somewhat social, and get out so women can see you. But this whole concept of “men are the pursuer” is tired and old fashioned. If we want women to stop and take notice, we should simply STOP CHASING THEM. ”
    _____________________

    Goddamn! I believe you’ve had a breakthrough!

    Ted, if you can achieve this, the women chase you – no shit. It takes a little practice to see, though, because they pursue you in an entirely different way than men do. Most won’t ask for your number (for example), but they’ll signal that they want you to ask for theirs.

    It’s like they smooth out any obstacles on the path, and make sure the doors are unlocked.

    In a relationship, don’t forget to validate her by “pursuing” her sometimes, too.

    Bear in mind that I’m no PUA, though, and most of my POV comes from Social Circle game.

  • Sassy6519

    Not being a pussy helps you to not lose the girl you have.

    PUA bootcamps help you get the girl you desire.

    I think this is one key component to this entire discussion.

    Men want to be able to date the best women they could possible get and keep. I can’t fault them for it. Women typically want to get the best guy that they can as well.

    It’s easier to end up with a 4-6 than it is to end up with a 7-9. Women of higher SMVs have higher standards and can demand more. If a man is able to learn game and improve himself enough to get a 7-9 woman instead of merely ending up with 4-6 woman, I can see why a lot of men would put in the extra work.

    I’m not saying that 4-6 women are bad. It’s just that their current SMVs don’t allow them the ability to demand more or realistically obtain a higher SMV male.

    If I were a man, and I was given the option of dating a 4-6 woman or learning game and having the possibility of getting a 7-9 woman, you’d bet your bottom dollar that I would try the game route.

    Men don’t want to settle either, especially if the possibility for greener pastures exist.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “Is this true? If so, then why all the pushback on relationships? I’ve had three readers who dated PUAs and it was disastrous. The PUAs did want to fall in love and have a relationship, but they also had a serious itch to get back out there. We’ve been discussing this a lot recently – having a lot of sexual partners may doom future attempts at monogamy.”

    I suspect most guys who start to learn a little game do so without any intent to rack up numbers. For some, once it gets easy, it probably becomes addicting. For others, not so much. But those guys who aren’t into numbers would have never self-identified as PUAs or players – just guys who wanted to get better with women. Once they get out of it what they want, they go about their business.

    I agree that men with high counts probably have a hard time with monogamy. It’s not really a natural state for men in the first place, but a guy who knows how to easily get some on the side would be more tempted, and a guy who has tasted a lot of variety (not to be confused with Alotta Fagina) would probably have a hard time giving it up. I would think it would be harder for men with high counts to stay monogamous than a woman with a high count, so long as the woman ended up with a guy who actually floats her boat (as opposed to settling for a guy who doesn’t). On the other hand, the guy with a high count would be perfectly happy staying with one woman while getting some on the side, whereas I think the woman with a high count is more likely to blow up the marriage to act on impulse if she’s not satisfied.

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

      On the other hand, the guy with a high count would be perfectly happy staying with one woman while getting some on the side, whereas I think the woman with a high count is more likely to blow up the marriage to act on impulse if she’s not satisfied.

      Not sure you meant it this way but I often see this cited as one of the “faults” or “negatives” of female nature.

      A man willing to stay married while he gets some on the side is hardly admirable or virtuous. He’s just saying why not, I’ll have my cake and eat it too. He is being entirely selfish.

      A woman who blows up her marriage by impulsively cheating is also being entirely selfish.

      The real victims in either scenario are any children.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Drunicuscumveritas
    The Terminator is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I’ve always hated the way Sarah seems to discount Kyle entirely in Terminator 2. (Yes, I know about the deleted scenes, but even if they had been left in, her waxing lyrical over the machine being a superior father to any man would have negated them anyway.)

  • Underdog

    I actually think Ted D’s strategy for men to focus on himself while waiting for a woman to show interest in him would make him a slave to female sexuality. It’s bad advice.

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

    For the ones keeping scores. Point for Nerdy men. Hubby and I are having a little copy of him (I’m having a boy!:D)

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

      @Anacaona

      Congratulations! That’s awesome news! It seems like just yesterday you were waving your feet in the air! Do you have a name?

  • J

    Most men, when they were boys, dreamed of being superheroes, or firemen, or Navy Seals, or fighter pilots, or linebackers, or hitting the game winning homerun, etc.

    And most women back then, myself included, dreamed of being a princess, or a movie star or a ballerina. Most of us didn’t get that either.

    That boy then could grow up to be an accountant, who was absolutely the head of his household, who had his buddies over on Friday nights to play poker. He went golfing on Saturday and fishing on Sunday. You get the idea.

    Srsly no, I don’t. I actually lived through the era so many guys here seem to idealize, and I don’t recall this. Even my dad, who was a pretty alpha guy, mowed the lawn on Saturday and then took my mom, who gave him a pretty good run for his money, out for dinner. Yeah, he had his buds on Friday, but the pre-feminist men’s paradise you guys envision didn’t exist.

    His wife made him dinner and raised his children and kept a tastefully decorated and clean home.

    Sometimes, but many a crappy meal was still ingested between 1940-1968.
    And while the average home was clean, “tastefully decorated” was a middle class thing not often seen in my working class neighborhood..

    Whatever Greek letter anyone wants to assign that man, he was a fucking King.

    Meh. There were plenty of henpecked men–even among guys who didn’t look it. As alpha as my dad seemed, my mom held all the real power. She was great at bottoming from the top and manipulating as were most of the women in the neighboorhood. (Oddly, though I am far less traditionally feminine that she was, I am also far more honest with my husband who actually has real power in our house.)

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

      I actually lived through the era so many guys here seem to idealize, and I don’t recall this. Even my dad, who was a pretty alpha guy, mowed the lawn on Saturday and then took my mom, who gave him a pretty good run for his money, out for dinner. Yeah, he had his buds on Friday, but the pre-feminist men’s paradise you guys envision didn’t exist.

      Same here. Women weren’t submissive and meek before feminism, they just didn’t have the option to leave. My parents fought constantly, and when they weren’t screaming my father was drinking martinis and smoking in the dark while listening to Bob Dylan. His Saturdays were filled with household chores and coaching my brothers’ Little League teams, which he enjoyed. Sundays were for Mass and family dinner at 3.

      There were no guys nights out, no poker, no golf, no tennis. And everyone else’s Dad was exactly the same way. They busted their asses and if they were lucky their wives were appreciative and loyal.

  • J

    Beta is boring, alpha is charismatic.

    LMFAO. That’s terrific, Susan.

    My senior executive DH is boring; my alpha thug daddy was charismatic.

    How I miss my working class childhood and the uneducated, limited and “exciting” environment I grew up in…NOT!

  • Ted D

    UD – “The fact of the matter is: men feel like men when they get sexual validation from women, women feel like women when they get emotional validation from men. Saying men should get validation from any other source is like saying a woman should get validation from a career or from slutting around.”

    Sexual validation DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN SEX! All that is required for sexual validation is seeing that women find you attractive. And, I still contend that sexual validation is NOT a requirement for feeling like a man. Do you suppose monks that take a vow of celibacy don’t feel like men? Priests? I’m just not buying it.

    Liza – “Therefore, now that you have swallowed the “red pill” I guess the only option is to become the one of the guys that are getting all the action.”

    This is what I have a bone of contention with. I don’t see that as the only option. There are at least a few more, and I think that PUA/Game isn’t necessarily the right one for guys that want the more traditional goals of marriage, kids, and a white picket fence.

    “It seems that most of the guys commenting on this thread view the manwhore lifestyle as being ideal but I know most of you actually want meaningful relationships. “

    Despite what some men say, I am seeing the same thing. Even guys that are happily married are blogging about how great PUA is. To be honest, I’m starting to take the game rule of “disregard what women say and watch what they do” and applying it to men as well. Because I see a lot of guys talking up “game” and the lifestyle, but many of them aren’t living it. What does that say?

    Ramble – “PUA bootcamps help you get the girl you desire.
    Granted, I have never been to a bootcamp.”

    I’ve been giving this thought in regard to my boys, and I don’t agree. Here is why…

    If you are a quiet, shy, reserved guy, but other than lack of sex you are happy and satisfied with your life, and you learn “game” to find a mate, you aren’t going to pull a woman that will be happy with your shy, quiet, reservedness. You will get a woman that will require you to “game” her until your dying day, or until she gets bored and leaves you for the real deal. To me, it makes far more sense for a young man to concentrate on being who he wants to be without a woman in his life, and then advertise it. By that I mean, set your path and follow it. Somewhere out there in the wide world there is a woman (probably many actually…) that is waiting for a shy, quiet guy to appear so she can enjoy spending time in his quiet, reserved world. If that guy picks up a woman that is attracted by game, she will never be satisfied with him as he is. So, for this to work a man either has to actually want to BE a PUA/Cad for real, or he will have to “game” that woman far beyond his natural capacity. Doesn’t it make much more sense for a guy to establish who he is first, and THEN look for a woman that wants what he has to sell? Sure, this means he will have to put off short term gratification for long term goals, but that is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along. Is it tough? Yep. Does it suck? Yep. Does it make a strong, independent, and confident man? Yep. And at least to me, it is REAL confidence that comes from doing what you want with your life, not from banging 100 women. If I had to put my life in a man’s hands, give me my description of confidence over a PUA any day of the week.

  • Ted D

    UD – “I actually think Ted D’s strategy for men to focus on himself while waiting for a woman to show interest in him would make him a slave to female sexuality. It’s bad advice.”

    LOL. I will fully admit that you may be 100% right. But call me idealistic, or just plain stupid, but I cannot simply accept that the best way for men to live is to do whatever it takes to get laid. There HAS to be more to life than pussy. And no matter how much players want to argue, “game” is 100% and completely focused on what women want. NOT at all on what is best for men, but on what woman want. We’ve gone from one form of slavery to another.

    J – But you are talking about a LTR/Marriage. I completely agree with you in that respect. But if a guy is single and not getting laid, he has NO other sexuality to deal with but his own, and that one is completely under his control. To me, putting all this energy into getting laid is simply following your dick around. It is thinking with the little head instead of the big one. Surely game can get you laid. But again, is that REALLY the most important thing to a guy? I know I’m old, but not so much that I don’t remember being in my 20′s. Yeah, I was horny as hell. BUT, there are other ways to channel that energy that can be put to much better use IF a guy finds himself without a mate. I find pent up sexual frustration really motivates me, and I can focus it on working out, writing music, or any number of things that don’t even require a female to be present. And it teaches wonderful self control in the process.

  • J

    @Ana

    Hubby and I are having a little copy of him (I’m having a boy!:D)

    Congrats!!! As I’ve said before, boys are hella lot of fun when they’re little, and they’ll still love you when they’re teens.

  • Ted D

    “I actually think Ted D’s strategy for men to focus on himself while waiting for a woman to show interest in him would make him a slave to female sexuality. It’s bad advice.”

    And to be clear, I’m not saying that a man should do his own thing and expect a woman to just appear ready to bang him. I’m saying if he gets his own shit together first, he can be pretty sure that any woman that finds him at all attractive is actually into him. Using game won’t get you that. It will get you a woman that is attracted to who she thinks you are based on how “game” tells you to act. It is fake.m it is a sham. It is snake oil.

  • Herb

    @Hope

    Herb, you’re only in your early 40s. I have a friend who got married in her early 30s to a guy in his early 40s, and they have one-year-old. You can still start a family if that’s what you really want.

    I was speaking in a generic male voice, not me specifically.

    That said, I’m in my mid-40s. If I met June Cleaver Jr. today, married her tonight, and got her pregnant by morning I’d be 46 before my first child was born. That would mean my youngest in the fantasy scenario would be graduating high school when I was 64. A realistic scenario of me dumping my gf, getting over that, getting back into dating, meeting a wife worthy woman who was still fertile and getting married, settling into marriage for a year, and then getting pregnant would be my first born at 50.

    I’ve run out my clock on being a dad even if I haven’t a sperm donor. It’s my fault as I choose my wife poorly and women to date after her in my 40s poorly as well.

    Part of that poorly, though, was buying into society’s BS and having the pool of women I was looking at having bought into it too.

    *shrugs*.

    @Liza

    I mean, before the Sexual Revolution, Feminism and The Pill most beta male were happy as hell to find a wife early (Yes! I can have sex on a regular basis and I don’t have to put myself out there all time to be rejected just to get laid, decides I am not suited for that lifestyle anyway) and settle down and start families and buy their houses with white picket fences and a pool in the backyard—the American Dream. I personally have no doubt that most of them still want the “dream” (I know I am going hear about the divorce rates and how unfair the court system is to men. By the way, the divorce laws have not changed that much since the 1600’s)

    That’s not what you’ll hear from me. What you’ll hear is women don’t want to marry until 30 anymore. On top of that they consider the time between college and marriage “having fun”. Remember that, it’ll come up later.

    The issue here is that they have become extremely angry because they see that dream may not become a reality for most of them due to the current sexual marketplace. Betas have been seeing alpha males getting all of the action while they are being overlooked for relationships and sex. I cannot blame them for being angry the mating rules changed and they got the memo late.

    Think back to how I said so many women (and the parents advising them) phrase the time between college and 30: having fun.

    So change your second sentence to “Betas have been seeing alpha males getting all of the fun while they’re being overlooked for fun.”

    So, marriage, at 30, to a beta is what you do when you’re done having fun.

    Ask yourself how you’d react to a guy telling you, “Marry me because I’m done having fun and ready to get married.”

    Therefore, now that you have swallowed the “red pill” I guess the only option is to become the one of the guys that are getting all the action. His lifestyle appears to be fast-paced and exciting (all of that variety, right?). I have known those guys and many of them start sniffing around me when they are in the mid-thirties and older after years of no-strings sex and debauchery seeking a “serious” relationship.

    Oh, wait, you do…just ten years after we got the same offer.

    @Susan

    Just try to imagine for a moment that when women read that list of ten traits, they think “that’s what I want.” I’m not saying women don’t care about the alpha traits. But most of us are tired of brash, insensitive behavior, we’re tired of trying to relate to men who seem to have been born without an empathy gene.

    These women have to quit saying that to their BFF. They need to say it to their friends’ brothers, to the guys at the office, to the guys who play trivia at the bar on Thursday, and to every PUA who tries to game them.

    They need to walk up their friend’s brother who just changed the oil in their friend’s car and say, “Some lucky woman is going to know her car is safe when she marries you.”

    I know a Lady who just lost her girl. Her girl was an inactive Marine who was very much in the line of the beta male in the relationship. The Lady said she had forgotten gas doesn’t magically appear in your tank, your tires aren’t always inflated properly just because, and you have to go to the ATM to have cash. Her girl, being a Marine, knew the world was dangerous so made sure her Lady always had at least a $20 in her purse, inflated tires, and at least half a tank of gas.

    Said girl has had no problem finding a new relationship because that was valued.

    If a beta guy did that for his gf, would the average woman today consider that the desirable beta you’ve listed or Charlie from Girls?

    I’m honestly not sure of the answer.

    We long for men as good as our own fathers, if we were lucky enough to have good fathers.

    For you and I that was possible. For more and more girls today their father is absent and usually either a cad or a beta AFC whose ex-wife constantly runs him down to his children.

    Is it any surprise such girls grow up to prefer cads themselves. As their proportion in the population grows it’s only going to get worse.

  • Herb

    @J

    She was great at bottoming from the top and manipulating as were most of the women in the neighboorhood.

    You mean topping from the bottom, right. Otherwise you’re saying your mom appeared to be in charge but really wasn’t.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Anacaona
    Wonderful news! Congratulations! :D

  • Ted D

    Susan – “It seems like just yesterday you were waving your feet in the air!”

    I choked on my coffee… Thanks I very much needed the laugh!

  • Ramble

    And most women back then, myself included, dreamed of being a princess, or a movie star or a ballerina. Most of us didn’t get that either.

    That’s right.

    But you did get to go the Prom and the Spring Formal. You also got a White Wedding and, hopefully, a nice, though modest, home with a garden.

    And your friends would come over for your dinner party and tell you how beautiful your home was and how delicious your food is (wow, you have beauty *AND* taste…your husband is a lucky man).

    And you got to play dress up with your daughter. Just look at her in her Sunday best.

    The grand majority of us did not get some crazy, unrealistic dream, but the growing middle class could get a very realistic one.

    Even my dad, who was a pretty alpha guy, mowed the lawn on Saturday and then took my mom, who gave him a pretty good run for his money, out for dinner. Yeah, he had his buds on Friday

    What the hell is wrong with that? Hell, I think that my Dad’s favorite time of the week was, as he put it, “play in the dirt”.

    And, J, don’t get too caught up in my exact descriptions…I exaggerate for effect.

    As alpha as my dad seemed, my mom held all the real power.

    I can’t speak for other guys, but, personally, I have no problem with this. My mom had all of the “power” as well. However, she very obviously looked up to and respected my father, and he had great respect for her as well. As Paul Newman once put it, “I make all of the big decisions in our family like what our stance is on Nuclear Disarmament, while she makes all of the little ones like where we should live and how we should raise our children.”

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “Not sure you meant it this way but I often see this cited as one of the “faults” or “negatives” of female nature. ”

    Not really how I meant it. Just pointing out that when women cheat, they are essentially elevating their outside partner over their regular one, whereas men are simply supplementing with variety. It’s biology. Mostly, I guess, I was trying to be fair to women by pointing out that a high N guy might be an even higher risk to cheat than a high N woman, but since he is less likely to blow up the marriage over it, the divorce stats relating to high N partners might be misleading to the extent they imply that high N women are less faithful.

    But that’s not to justify either. Exclusivity from the male is a very reasonable price to pay IF women have given up their ability to trade up when they so desire. But, in today’s society, women have been given that ability back, and are sometimes applauded for it, if they couch it the correct language of self discovery and escape from stiffling oppression. So, in that environment, I find it harder to condemn men who don’t bother to keep up their end of the bargain. The problem, from the male perspective, is that he is giving up his consideration first (exclusivity, etc.), without any real assurance that she has to keep up her end (i.e., not trade up when it suits her or not toss him out and keep the kids when he ceases to be appealing to her). So, the traditional deal is somewhat illusory from the male perspective. Now, some will reflexively point to the cases of men dumping aging wives for younger models as evidence of men trading up, but my view is that that was much more rare than Hollywood or the media would have us believe. While growing up, I never saw it among any of my friends parents or associates or relatives of my parents. The divorce stats don’t bear it out, and I think he who may not be named (uhem, Dal, cough cough, rock, cough, cough) has pretty much debunked it based on divorce rates as a function of age of the woman.

  • Underdog

    “And to be clear, I’m not saying that a man should do his own thing and expect a woman to just appear ready to bang him. I’m saying if he gets his own shit together first, he can be pretty sure that any woman that finds him at all attractive is actually into him. Using game won’t get you that. It will get you a woman that is attracted to who she thinks you are based on how “game” tells you to act. It is fake.m it is a sham. It is snake oil.”

    And how would be able to navigate and reciprocate her attraction cues once a girl is attracted to him — given he’s spent all his time doing his own thing instead of getting to know women? It actually seems more to me like, if a man has established his confidence in other ways, like say a successful career or a business, any woman who is attracted to him would be gold diggers instead of being attracted to him. It is far better to give a man a few routines to get him confident in interacting with women, and therefore confident in himself, then to get him confident in himself doing some other stuff, yet have him still completely clueless and at the woman’s mercy when she finally approaches him.

  • Travis

    “As indicated in this post, 75% of the male population consists of betas. Betas are not cut out to be players or cads, so what they actually want are monogamous relationships. I mean, before the Sexual Revolution, Feminism and The Pill most beta male were happy as hell to find a wife early (Yes! I can have sex on a regular basis and I don’t have to put myself out there all time to be rejected just to get laid, decides I am not suited for that lifestyle anyway) and settle down and start families and buy their houses with white picket fences and a pool in the backyard—the American Dream. I personally have no doubt that most of them still want the “dream” (I know I am going hear about the divorce rates and how unfair the court system is to men. By the way, the divorce laws have not changed that much since the 1600’s) ”

    Here’s the problem from my perspective. I happen to have no difficulty attracting women. Not to sound arrogant, but I’m a pretty attractive guy. Homecoming King in high school. Started on the Varsity basketball team and the Varsity football team. I’m blue collar, but in MY social circle, I’m considered alpha as far as my male peers are concerned. My biggest beta trait used to be that I pedestalized women. I’ve always had pretty good luck with females, but ever since I kicked that habit, it’s almost too easy. But the thing is, I don’t really WANT to be a player. It’s never really appealed to me all that much. I had a steady girlfriend all through high school, and I was happy with that. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out. She wanted to move to the city, and I didn’t. And ever since we broke up, I’ve been looking to find the same type of relationship with someone else.
    Basically, I just want what my dad has. One decent woman who loves me, to raise a couple of kids with, and to sit out on the back porch and drink coffee with when I’m old. That’s it.
    But the problem is that, even with a lot of options as far as women are concerned, I can’t find what I’m looking for.
    There are three young, attractive girls I work with. All three have made it very clear that they’re interested.
    The first one is single. She’s EXTREMELY hot. I’m talking movie star gorgeous. She has a garden (which I find very attractive), and she’s religious. Only listens to Christian rock. (I’m not religious, but a woman with those kinds of values are what I’m looking for in an LTR.) Sounds good. But then I talked to one of her friends who mentioned that she’d slept with FIVE different guys in the last month alone. I had to make sure, but it was confirmed by another one of her friends. Not appealing to me. Cross that one off the list…
    The second one has a boyfriend. She constantly hints that she wants to break up with him. When she talks about why, it’s obvious that he’s showing too many beta traits. He treats her good and he puts up with her shit. Even though I understand why that’s a turn off, and I’ve long since learned that behaving that way is a huge mistake, I can’t help but be turned off myself by a woman who would cheat on a guy and/or dump him because he’s too nice to her. Cross her off the list…
    The third girl would be great, except for the fact that she’s married. Got two kids. And here she is. Every time she talks to me, she gets up real close and rubs her tits against my arm. constantly makes comments toward me filled with sexual innuendo, telling me about all the problems with her marriage and how she’s gonna’ divorce her husband, etc. So even if she DID ever get divorced, it’s pretty obvious that she’s not too big on loyalty or commitment. Obviously, crossed off the list.
    Now I realize this is just three girls, but this type of thing has pretty much been my experience ever since I got out of high school. I never have trouble attracting women, I have trouble attracting (or even finding) QUALITY women. The type that I would be willing to settle into a long term relationship (or eventually marriage) with.
    To make matters even worse, I’m afraid after everything I’ve seen, if I DO end up coming across a decent woman, I’m going to be so jaded from all the other crap I’ve seen to even recognize it.
    And finally, to top it all off, I’ve seen just about all the older guys I know who did get married, end up getting divorced and COMPLETELY screwed out of any meaningful role in their kids lives.
    So what are my options? I can try to start a relationship with a woman I don’t like or respect. I can say “screw it”, and embrace a life of celibacy. Or I can play the field and at least get laid on a regular basis.
    Basically, my point is that if marriage is ever going to make a comeback, I don’t think women embracing beta’s is going to be enough to do the trick. Both men AND women are going to have to change their behavior drastically, if there’s ever going to be any hope of going back to the nuclear family. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it…

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “Same here. Women weren’t submissive and meek before feminism, they just didn’t have the option to leave. My parents fought constantly, and when they weren’t screaming my father was drinking martinis and smoking in the dark while listening to Bob Dylan. His Saturdays were filled with household chores and coaching my brothers’ Little League teams, which he enjoyed. Sundays were for Mass and family dinner at 3.
    There were no guys nights out, no poker, no golf, no tennis. And everyone else’s Dad was exactly the same way. They busted their asses and if they were lucky their wives were appreciative and loyal.”

    I’ll generally agree, though I never once saw my parents fight or saw my father disprespect my mother. She was, however, so traditional as to be inherently submissive to him, and he was just naturally smarter than her, so he could be completely beta (and he was) and get away with putting her on a pedestal.

    He did play golf about every other week, but ultimately she took it up to play with him most of the time (ironically, he’s really too old and decrepit to play right now, but she still does occasionally). He NEVER had boys night out, or any socializing without her, probably because he wasn’t really that social. Both spent 90% or more of whatever time they had on their kids. For a while, he did tend to drink too much wine while sitting in his chair after coming home from work, but whatever.

    Anyway, the point is, he wasn’t out with the guys all the time or spending all his time on outside interests. As you say, 90% of the time he was busting his ass at work or with fixit projects around the house, with an occasional 9 holes of golf. Of course, this was the 60s and 70s – I can’t speak for the 1950s.

  • Ted D

    UD – “And how would be able to navigate and reciprocate her attraction cues once a girl is attracted to him — given he’s spent all his time doing his own thing instead of getting to know women? ”

    A couple of things here.

    I didn’t know ANY of this stuff until a little under two years ago. Yet I managed to have several LTRs, a marriage (that I admitted failed) and children, and even after a divorce I still managed to get another LTR without having a single clue about the red pill and how to “reciprocate her attraction”. I said that men will still need to have some social skills and at least get out to be seen. I’m not saying there isn’t work to be done before men can effectively communicate with women. I’m saying that the acquisition of women shouldn’t be a primary concern for a guy if he is still trying to decide what he wants to be when he grows up. Shit, if he doesn’t know exactly who he is and who he wants to be, the perfect women for him right this moment may be horrible for him in 10 years. In some cases even if a guy does know himself and where he wants to go, he still selects badly. I’m sure in some cases it is a matter of people changing over time. But, I bet it has far more to do with those men simply not knowing exactly what THEY want for themselves, and then selecting a mate based on faulty ideas, or even worse, with no plan or idea at all.

    I think you are taking me too extreme, and it is my fault for speaking in the extreme for effect. The crux of it is this though. Learning game to me is like any other process to pickup a skill. If I want to play guitar, I have to get one and play it. But, I don’t need to play 50 guitars to be great. Most of the musicians I know stick with a small handful of favored instruments because over time they learn how to utilize that instrument to it’s maximum. If their goal was to become the best buyer of guitars, actually learning to play wouldn’t be important. Instead, they would have to learn about sales, auctions, perhaps ebay? But in the end, all that time learning how to buy as many guitars as they want wont help them one bit toward being able to actually play one.

    PUA and “game” will teach you how to buy all the guitars you want. But, it won’t teach you a damn thing about how to play them.

  • Ted D

    Sorry I should be clearer here:

    PUA and “game tricks” will teach you how to buy all the guitars you want. But, it won’t teach you a damn thing about how to play them.

    There are certainly things in some game theory a married guy can put to good use. Most of it can be found at MMSL, and to me even some of that falls into the “gimmicks and tricks” category, no disrespect to Athol.

  • Underdog

    Ted, most guys who get into PUA don’t make picking up chicks their professional career. Mostly likely they already have that part of their lives handled. They simply become a PUA in order to get their social/personal life handled.

    “Learning game to me is like any other process to pickup a skill. If I want to play guitar, I have to get one and play it. ”

    A PUA is the guy who goes from shop to shop and looking through ads, online deals, etc. in order to make sure that he gets the perfect guitar for him at the best price. You’re advocating that he gets a bunch of cash and buys the first guitar from the first shop.

  • drunicusveritas

    A responsible father is crucial. Murray’s “Coming Apart ” pretty convincingly demonstrates this.
    I adore my father, a man who’s been happily married for over 40 years, though I didn’t quite want his life – he’s a better man than I in some ways; in some ways I realize I am stronger, if not (at all) “better.”

    As an aside, anyone who feels accountants are “beta” has clearly never spent much time in IB or corporate finance.
    And I don’t mean trading or sales – I mean the extraordinarily tough and talented people who fund businesses through the capital markets, creating jobs and markets and tax revenue and infrastructure, and all of capitalism and democracy’s good things.

  • Travis

    After reading it, I realize my last post was pretty long and rambling. So to summarize, I was just trying to say that, even to a guy who WANTS to get married, and has plenty of opportunities to do so, it’s starting to seem like less and less of an option unless or until female behavior, and some of the laws regarding divorce and child custody change.

  • Escoffier

    Liza, this:

    “the divorce laws have not changed that much since the 1600’s”

    Is just not true.

    Beyond that, if I may, once again you sound on the one hand deeply puzzled as to why you can’t find a boyfriend who will be decent and commit to you and on the other hand totally uninterested in “betas”–i.e., the dependable type you ought to want–because they are sexually drab and unexciting.

  • Passer_By

    @druni

    “As an aside, anyone who feels accountants are “beta” has clearly never spent much time in IB or corporate finance.”

    Those aren’t accountants. They are people who know some accounting.

  • Harkat

    @liza207

    Exactly. This might sound a bit armchair-psychologist, but I think some PUA-aspirers’ motivation comes from a frustrated place of “You didn’t want me when I wanted love and now I’m going to take as many of your pussies without investing anything! Fuck your love!”. That thought process is a kind of defense mechanism – it saves you from having to properly examine yourself and think things through.

    Even if betas manage to attain an ideal PUA lifestyle of fresh women every week, I’m dubious of how many of them would be truly happy like that. You could dismiss this line of thinking as a rationalization of perceived inability, but I’m fairly certain lots ‘o pussy doesn’t bring deep happiness.

    Any thoughts on this, gamers?

  • J

    Yeah, Herb, that’s what I meant. I should proofread more carefully. Thanks.

  • deti

    Susan @ 91:

    “She will most likely wind up marrying a beta because betas marry. She won’t see this as settling. She will think he’s cute, and smart, and great husband material, and she won’t compare him to the dumb jock she hooked up with 8 years earlier at a college party.”

    Not to get too far afield with this, but — what the heck do you mean she won’t compare her beta hubby to her dumb jock hookup?? Of course she’ll compare them. Women compare their men to each other all the time. This one is better than that one; this one has a bigger dick, that one is kinder to me; this one has a better body; etc.

    I don’t buy that women don’t compare their men. Don’t buy it at all.

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

      @deti

      Not to get too far afield with this, but — what the heck do you mean she won’t compare her beta hubby to her dumb jock hookup?? Of course she’ll compare them. Women compare their men to each other all the time. This one is better than that one; this one has a bigger dick, that one is kinder to me; this one has a better body; etc.

      Yeah, I’m just not seeing it. There are several problems with this:

      1. For women to compare men this way in real time, they have to have several plates spinning. Certainly, if you’re talking about body parts, you’re talking about very, very promiscuous women. So the numbers aren’t high.

      2. If you’re claiming that women think back over their past partners and compare physical characteristics, I haven’t found that to be the case. Karen Owen did that, obviously, in her Duke fuck list, but I don’t believe it’s typical at all for non-promiscuous women. The mean number of partners for women is 4, and that usually spans years.

      3. I do think that both men and women sometimes harbor feelings for their first love, someone who broke their heart, or the one that got away. I don’t believe women are more likely to do that. The claim in the ‘sphere that she never gets over the alpha that fucked her is just projected male fear, IMO. If there’s someone she’s not over, I can assure you that when she closes her eyes and remembers, it’s the kisses and the emotional moments, not the sex that she sees.

      4. Women are far less focused on physical attributes than men are. I can still recall the rather amazing inguinal creases my college boyfriend had, but there’s no tingle factor. As I lost feelings for him, his “Greek God, 1976″ body no longer turned me on. When I was done, I was done, and I’ve never once thought longingly of him or his body.

      5. Most hookups happen while drunk, and memories tend to be vague. The sex also tends to be bad, so there’s usually little reason to play that reel over and over.

      However, I would advise any man or woman to avoid marriage if they are not 100% certain that their partner is head over heels for them. I mean truly besotted, can’t think straight, let’s not leave the bed for 24 hours into it. Because that feeling, which I’ve only felt for my husband, is rare, and if you marry someone who doesn’t feel that way, especially if they have felt that way about someone else, they’re vulnerable to being poached.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    Same here. Women weren’t submissive and meek before feminism, they just didn’t have the option to leave.

    There were no guys nights out, no poker, no golf, no tennis. And everyone else’s Dad was exactly the same way. They busted their asses and if they were lucky their wives were appreciative and loyal.

    Then why are women so mad that when they got the option to leave, men did too and those damn men are exercising it.

    Actually, your youth doesn’t resemble mine any more than Ramble’s did.

    What I do know is I look at my peers and few of them had the life my father did. My mother was loyal through thick and thin. I have no one in my social circle on a first marriage than lasted more than a decade except me (she moved out at 9 and we divorced at 11).

    I’m trying to think of anyone on a second marriage with that much life.

    My father died a month short of his 47th wedding anniversary. Magically marrying tomorrow I’d be 92 to pull off that stunt.

    Either marriage historically provided value to both men and women or both were trapped. If the later is true than women chasing commitment are saying, “I want to trap men but have freedom” which is the MRA’s ELP scenario. I know you don’t believe that.

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

      Either marriage historically provided value to both men and women or both were trapped

      I think mileage varied a lot. Marriage was certainly good for society and the economy after WWII. Men were highly productive, women not so much (outside the home). My parents may have been miserable together, but in many ways they lived the American dream.

      As a shortcut to explain what I mean, I identify extremely strongly with little Sally Draper on Mad Men. The dysfunctionality of relationships as portrayed on that show is quite accurate, IMO. Were those relationships valuable or entrapment? Yes and no – overall they were both.

  • Herb

    @Harkat

    Exactly. This might sound a bit armchair-psychologist, but I think some PUA-aspirers’ motivation comes from a frustrated place of “You didn’t want me when I wanted love and now I’m going to take as many of your pussies without investing anything! Fuck your love!”. That thought process is a kind of defense mechanism – it saves you from having to properly examine yourself and think things through.

    I think that’s reasonable.

    I wasn’t good enough for even fun so now you shouldn’t expect to be good enough for anything more.

  • J

    @Ramble

    But you did get to go the Prom and the Spring Formal.

    Me personally? No. None of my friends either.

    You also got a White Wedding and, hopefully, a nice, though modest, home with a garden.

    Actually I have a really big house, but it’s DH’s dream house. I know what you mean though.

    And you got to play dress up with your daughter. Just look at her in her Sunday best.

    My dad used to take me shopping. He liked for me to look like a princess.

    The grand majority of us did not get some crazy, unrealistic dream, but the growing middle class could get a very realistic one.

    Yes, though I worry about what my sons will have in this economy.

    And, J, don’t get too caught up in my exact descriptions…I exaggerate for effect.

    That’s OK. It’s just that the romantization of that era kills me. Things weren’t all that great.

  • Ted D

    UD – “You’re advocating that he gets a bunch of cash and buys the first guitar from the first shop.”

    Hell no I’m not! As far as getting the cash goes, yes I am. But I’m not advocating that any guy grab the first guitar he sees. In fact, what I’m actually advocating wouldn’t work with guitars, because guitars can’t choose who plays them.

    And I completely reject the idea that the only way a man can figure out what he wants in a wife is to bang a bunch of women. To be frank, the inside of most vaginas feels pretty much the same. (OK, to be fair, I’ve only had my penis inside four vaginas. So feel free to correct me. And please lets not get into “tossing a hot dog down a hallway” conversations. LOL) So please explain to me how learning to seduce and/or trick women into having sex with you in any way teaches you what you want in a wife? other than perhaps figuring out which women NOT to choose that is…

    “Mostly likely they already have that part of their lives handled. They simply become a PUA in order to get their social/personal life handled.”

    And here I disagree with you as well. Surely there are plenty of older and established guys finding the ‘sphere and getting things right with the ladies. But, I also suspect there are many younger guys still in college, or maybe just out, that haven’t established anything in terms of “what I’m going to do with the rest of my life” finding PUA and giving it a shot. No doubt that for many it works too. But, once they start rolling in the poon, what incentive do they have to be better? I personally don’t want to see a society full of sleazy people, and the more young guys we send out with a magic hat and a rabbit, the more sleazy we get. Yes, being the moral and upstanding citizen really sucks when you are surrounded by heathens, but it doesn’t make it any less right.

    I have a son, and my SO has one as well. I want them to grow up, find their way, and make it. I want to be proud of them, but more importantly I want them to be proud of themselves. I see lots of PUA guys bragging about their conquests and how proud they are of them. If that was my son’s crowning achievement in life, I would be so disappointed I can’t describe it. For sure I want him to find love and happiness. Get married and raise a family of his own perhaps. But more than anything else, I want him to be good person in the biblical sense. No, I’m not saying I want to raise a Bible thumper. I’m saying I want him to be the kind of person *I* look up to and respect. I have zero respect for any man that makes it his hobby/sport/life’s work to screw as many women as he can, even if every single one of them is HB8 and above. When he is on his death bed, what will he be remembered for? Wearing a stupid hat and getting laid? Fucking so many women he can’t remember his N? I won’t put him down, but he won’t get my respect. The thing *I* will be remembered for when I die is my children, and I’m not about to leave behind clowns and charlatans.

  • Underdog

    @Ted D

    “There HAS to be more to life than pussy. And no matter how much players want to argue, “game” is 100% and completely focused on what women want. NOT at all on what is best for men, but on what woman want. We’ve gone from one form of slavery to another.”

    I don’t think that there’s more to life than pussy, Ted. After you’ve had kids, then sure, your kids are your life. But for someone like me, honestly, there isn’t. Life is meaningless without pussy. All my college degrees, job, cars, money, etc. would be complete meaningless. Pussy is the goal, the driving force behind every decisions I make. Unfortunately nowadays the pussy is running wild like Hulkamania so chumps like me have to build better traps. At the end of the day, men want women, so men have to focus on what women want. Life’s a bitch, I know. If I could cut my own balls off and still have this deep, sexy, baritone voice, I would.

  • Cooper

    @Harkat
    I’m in agree.

    I am in general agreement with Ted D and Herb. I think there should be an alternative to teaching young men to be, essentially, dicks.

    Underdog, I don’t necessarily agree that a man can’t become truly confident without having had plowed a bunch of ONS in order to internalize much Games’ benefits.
    I’d criticize that young women far too often seek their validation from cad-ish men; and I couldn’t really do so if I thought that the best men are the ones emulating the cad-mentality (which is self-serving – always) the most effectively.

  • Cooper

    #373
    *agreement. “I am in agreement” – ugh, SMH

  • Underdog

    @ Ted
    ” So please explain to me how learning to seduce and/or trick women into having sex with you in any way teaches you what you want in a wife? other than perhaps figuring out which women NOT to choose that is…”

    Picture the guy at the guitar shop trying out different guitars to see which one he likes best and which one fits his budget, etc.

    “And here I disagree with you as well. Surely there are plenty of older and established guys finding the ‘sphere and getting things right with the ladies. But, I also suspect there are many younger guys still in college, or maybe just out, that haven’t established anything in terms of “what I’m going to do with the rest of my life” finding PUA and giving it a shot. No doubt that for many it works too. But, once they start rolling in the poon, what incentive do they have to be better? I personally don’t want to see a society full of sleazy people, and the more young guys we send out with a magic hat and a rabbit, the more sleazy we get. Yes, being the moral and upstanding citizen really sucks when you are surrounded by heathens, but it doesn’t make it any less right.”

    Mystery’s method (the negs, opinion openers, peacocking, etc.) doesn’t work in college. Not in the slightest. Trust me. College game is totally different. Also, kids in college still have classes, majors, projects, internships, etc. to worry about. I don’t think any of them wants to move back to their mom’s basements after graduation to be full time PUAs. Most likely, they are major dorks, so their careers are already set. Game is only a social/personal aspect of a PUA’s life, wether young or old.

  • Ted D

    UD – “I don’t think that there’s more to life than pussy, Ted. ”

    If indeed that is true for you, then I wish you all the luck in the world getting what you want. Truly if it is your goal, get all of it you can.

    Perhaps it is a personality thing, or a different philisophical approach to life. But all this time I’ve been reading the ‘sphere, I simply cannot understand why some men (and it seems some women) feel that sex is the most important thing in life. I get it from a biological sense. Reproduction is our intended purpose, and the drive to reproduce is certainly one of our strongest. But anger is as well, yet most of us manage to control it and even harness it for better use.

    I also wanted to say that I hope you aren’t getting the idea that I’m putting you down, because that isn’t my intent. To be honest I’ve enjoyed our back and forth quite a bit, because it is forcing me to think and clarify my ideas on this. I can clearly remember when I was 18 years old, my grandfather was out in the yard messing around with the fence around his garden and I was lending a hand. One of my buddies stopped over and while helping him we started talking about girls. (we were 18, what else was there? LOL) After a few minutes, he stood up and looked at us and said: “is that really all you guys think about? Getting pussy? If you keep that up, you’ll never get anywhere…” We laughed and blew it off, but looking back on it I think I finally get it. The goal shouldn’t be getting pussy. The goal should be being the best you can be, and the effect of that is: it is not only easier to get laid, but much easier to attract and find a woman that wants you for you. I know, it sounds very “blue pill”, but it really isn’t.

    Blue pill is: Every women should love me for who I am

    Red pill is: I only want women that love me for who I am.

    See the difference?

  • Harkat

    @Underdog’s reply to Ted

    Building material riches isn’t THE way to develop confidence besides fucking a lot of women. It’s not either riches or pussy. My confidence comes mostly from stuff that’s invisible to people. Figuring things out in my head. Getting new perspectives on life. Managing to run up that big hill, even if I don’t visibly get more muscular legs or loose weight. Writing a good videogame review or essay for school. Writing a good melody. None of this is directly visible to friends, let alone potential romantic interests, but it makes me feel better about myself and gives me honest, raw confidence I channel into my conversations with women.

  • Underdog

    “Underdog, I don’t necessarily agree that a man can’t become truly confident without having had plowed a bunch of ONS in order to internalize much Games’ benefits.”

    Sure, if a guy can get 1 girl that he really likes and have that 1 girl continuously give him sexual validation and make him more confident as a man, then hell yeah that’s a much better way than getting validation from a bunch of ONS.

    All I’m saying is, a guy becomes confident with himself as a man when he’s sexually validated by the opposite sex, he can be an established chess master or martial arts expert or the founder of Facebook, if there’s no female to sexually validate him, he’d still question his ability as a man.

  • Ramble

    There were no guys nights out, no poker, no golf, no tennis. And everyone else’s Dad was exactly the same way. They busted their asses and if they were lucky their wives were appreciative and loyal.

    They also flirted with other wives, married women who would ignore her children and encourage their daughters to pursue masculine careers. And this happened as permissiveness ran rampant and saw the greatest increase in crime we may have ever seen.

    Susan, you were not raised in a “normal” household. And I am not trying to romanticize the past. However, the idea that it was not common for middle class men to have (patriarchal) hobbies and leisure increasingly available to them is ridiculous.

  • Underdog

    @Harkat

    “Building material riches isn’t THE way to develop confidence besides fucking a lot of women. It’s not either riches or pussy. My confidence comes mostly from stuff that’s invisible to people. Figuring things out in my head. Getting new perspectives on life. Managing to run up that big hill, even if I don’t visibly get more muscular legs or loose weight. Writing a good videogame review or essay for school. Writing a good melody. None of this is directly visible to friends, let alone potential romantic interests, but it makes me feel better about myself and gives me honest, raw confidence I channel into my conversations with women.”

    That’s fine. But know that there are also brilliant men out there who have accomplished way more than you who are still shy/unconfident because they’ve had no sexual validations from the opposite sex. The Game was written by a freaking Rolling Stones writer who’s spent his life around tons of famous people and still didn’t have confident until he met Mystery.

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

    Congrats!!! As I’ve said before, boys are hella lot of fun when they’re little, and they’ll still love you when they’re teens.

    I know but I was looking forward to have a minime that hated me when she was a teen to pay off my mother. Is the only fair thing to do, oh well I get a second shot in two years ;)

    @Bellita
    Thanks!

    @Susan
    Since I like unusual names the middle name is mine and hubby gets to pick the other one I don’t want to tell it here because I’m sure is unusual enough for people to connect the kid to us and one never knows. I will email it to you.

  • Ted D

    Harkat – “None of this is directly visible to friends, let alone potential romantic interests, but it makes me feel better about myself and gives me honest, raw confidence I channel into my conversations with women.”

    This is exactly what I’m trying to convey. I’m not saying a guy should spend a decade completely ignoring women to amass a fortune. I’m saying they should spend that decade bettering themselves, and if women happen to be a part of that along the way, enjoy it. But, to spend time and effort perfecting PUA is going to be mostly a total waste once you find a mate and settle down. What exactly are those skills going to help you with? You spent all that time learning to attract random women, and once your married its all over. If you did a good job selecting, you will never need to attract another woman in your entire life. It seems to me that the better idea is to work on other more important life skills, and work on learning attraction once you know your target. That is, once you find a women that is naturally a little attracted to you, learn to build on that and make it last.

    It is the same as learning to make that old Fender “cry” when you play it. And the best part is: NO roaming alpha will EVER learn to play your SO like you will. Because you love it, have it all to yourself, and to shed the metaphor, she will fall deeper and harder for you as you improve. The trick is: NEVER stop improving.

    Now I don’t know about you, but I would much rather have to keep improving my guitar playing than my “game” skills for the rest of my life.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Ted @ 371

    I am with you.

  • Ramble

    Me personally? No. None of my friends either.

    Exactly how much are you trying to personalize this? I am trying to generalize for the general public, not explain our very specific experiences. I hope that you will grant that middle class society made formal dances and other events where girls get to dress up widely available.

    Things weren’t all that great.

    The Crime Rate today, after a massive decline since the mid 1990′s, is over 4x that in the late 1950′s. I am assuming that most people would be shocked if it were 40% higher. Instead, it is over 300% higher. That is insane.

    In places like Jolly Old England, it is even worse.

    I am sure that it was not perfect, but I am also sure that there is plenty to learn from back then. Personally, I think that the most instructive era is the early 1900′s.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Underdog said:

    “But for someone like me, honestly, there isn’t. Life is meaningless without pussy. All my college degrees, job, cars, money, etc. would be complete meaningless. ”
    ________________________
    Pussy(in the grand sense) is most definitely the prime motive force for most of male humanity.

    It’s a shame that there aren’t any frontiers to push back in the service of attaining pussy. You can’t get on a square-rigged ship with 300 of your closest pals and sail off in search of riches and status.

    With a few PhDs and bazillions of dollars in equipment you could visit the ocean floor, I guess. There are no real leaps in knowledge left, either. Most frontiers of knowledge are pushed back incrementally by huge teams of people.

    Hell, the US can’t even put men in space anymore.

    Most men don’t even build or create anything – they just file an endless series of TPS reports or sell stuff.

    Underdog, if you ever get suicidally bored living like that, you might consider getting in to medicine in some capacity. It’s real, and once in a great while you leave a mark on the world. It’s fun driving the wrong way down the street at 90 m.p.h. in an ambulance you don’t have to pay for, too.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    The mean number of partners for women is 4, and that usually spans years.

    I thought the median was 4 (actually I thought it was 3 but that could be rounding error) and the mean was closer to 8-9.

    That might seem pedantic but it’s huge because a mean of 4 versus a median of 4 and a higher mean makes your primary contention that 20% of women are doing 80% of the sexing up of 20% of the men realistic.

    BTW, reading one of the unmentionable Rs, he seems more in line with you on marriage material arguing the women clustered around the median as wife and mother material and even only advises caution at N=10. This is based on his reading of the median 4 and mean of 9 statistics which comes to roughly the same conclusions as you: most women aren’t sluts but the sluts are really skewing the average.

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

      @Herb

      Roissy and Roosh are not unmentionable. In fact, they’ve never looked so good. Dark? Roissy? Nah.

  • Escoffier

    “The claim in the ‘sphere that she never gets over the alpha that fucked her is just projected male fear”

    maybe, but as the saying goes, just because we’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after us!

  • Ted D

    Excoffier – ” just because we’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after us!”

    This is one of my favorite cliche sayings. And true!

    But to make this post legit and meaningful (as if I post meaningful stuff other times…) I imagine in some cases it is true that a woman may “pine” away for her lost alpha her entire life. But, I bet that only happens when she isn’t happy with the man she is with right now.

    I’ve said before that I seem to have this ability/knack/brain-fart that when I’m really in love with a woman, she becomes the most attractive women I see. I think that for women, it works the same. But, since women tend to be driven more by emotion, it probably has more to do with how their current man makes them feel. If her BF/Husband makes her feel good, she will have no reason to even think of her old alpha bang. (I’m talking about a woman with a lower N that may have been involved with a cad/PUA at one point and actually wanted him to stick around. Women that spend years with them and/or go through mass numbers of guys don’t fit this bill.)

    So, while I may see a really hot woman at the mall, I still see my SO as hotter. Even though my SO may have had a brief period of sex with an alpha, she still sees me as HER alpha now. That is, unless I do something to wreck that image for her.

    I’m not switching teams to Tom’s side or anything, just throwing out another view. I think as long as a woman is happy, there is little concern that she will be pining away for the alpha that got away. Of course, the devil is in the details, and we all know just how damn hard it can be for some men to keep some women happy. But, if she is unhappy, your biggest problem isn’t the alpha jock she banged in college anyway.

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

      Women do not classify their men or their bangs as alpha or beta. A woman pining for an old lover may do it equally for either, depending on her taste in men and the nature of the past relationship. Obviously, based on the math, most women never bang an “alpha.”

  • Herb

    @Escoffier

    “The claim in the ‘sphere that she never gets over the alpha that fucked her is just projected male fear”

    maybe, but as the saying goes, just because we’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after us!

    I’d also point out that female fears, such as “all men are rapists” and “all men are abusers” are enshired not only in culture (otherwise Susan wouldn’t hail the fact that Girls put a thumb in the eye of the later) but in the law as well.

    So women, having gotten legal protection from their exaggerated fears seem a bit iffy on wanting men to not even personally protect themselves for their own.

  • Marie

    @ Susan
    “2. If you’re claiming that women think back over their past partners and compare physical characteristics, I haven’t found that to be the case.” etc

    I completely agree on the entire list. Perhaps men, especially those with a madonna/whore attitude, compare their current woman to their previous ones. Some men automatically assume slutty women are better in bed but feel the need to choose someone different for a wife, and are left with an imaginary ‘loss’ of amazing sex they’re missing out on.

    I am never sleeping with one guy and reminisce over another being better in bed. I’ve never gone to bed with a guy I don’t both feel a strong sexual attraction to and who has a strong sexual attraction to me. The guy I’m currently seeing is always the best in bed I’ve had so far, due to my feelings for him. Perhaps getting better at choosing them over the past years is part of that. Sexual compatibility is extremely important to me – if I felt it wasn’t 100%, I’d be doubtful if something was wrong with the relationship.

    I can reminisce over a previous partner if I’m single, but if I’m dating someone new, he easily pushes the old one out of my mind. My sexual attention is focused on one guy only, always, whether we’re together or not. I don’t think I’m capable of cheating.
    And FYI, I’ve dealt with one very large penis, and it’s awful. Nothing scarier than a big one coming right at you.

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

      @Marie

      Thanks for weighing in on that matter of comparing men. It’s always helpful for a woman in the thread to share her personal experience. I think you’ve described female psychology very accurately. I’m sure there are outliers, but most women just don’t operate that way.

      As for the big penis issue, it’s funny – guys assume the bigger the better, and there is a certain “novelty” factor. But I never found one suitable for daily use, lol.

  • Marie

    *I’d be doubting the relationship.
    Excuse my grammar, I’m not English :)

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Anacaona,

    Yes, Congrats!

    I have no plans to be mother someday. But don’t get me wrong I have nothing against motherhood. I just don’t think it’s for me that’s all.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Ted: “You spent all that time learning to attract random women, and once your married its all over. If you did a good job selecting, you will never need to attract another woman in your entire life. It seems to me that the better idea is to work on other more important life skills, and work on learning attraction once you know your target.”

    Exactly. I would think this way is much easier.

  • Herb

    @Liza207

    I have no plans to be mother someday. But don’t get me wrong I have nothing against motherhood. I just don’t think it’s for me that’s all.

    Okay, with that one added to your list, I’m just going to say it: try going to a few local munches to meet men who might hit your dominance requirement (and possibly cure you of it). If you want more info you can contact me at my name at darketiquette with a com on the end.

  • Mireille

    I see men agonizing over the definition of Beta/Alpha and such and I think of times when there were rites of passage for boys to become men and earn respect from their peers and find their place in society. It is still done in a lot of countries. Even circumcision was also a rite of passage; it later had religious symbol added to it but the gist was, right when you get around teenage, you had to go hunt on your own, kill some animal and be initiated to secrets only men know.

    I think this is what is missing in Western society these days, so many people, especially men don’t know how to fit in and what is expected of them. As a consequence, because those structures/institutions have disappeared, only those with natural leadership qualities standout and reap the benefits of dominance or well adjustment.
    Women have had their initiation but our mode of acquisition of those qualities is pretty straight forward and has remained the same cook-clean-raise children.

    I think if men truly want to put an end to that Alpha/Beta classification, they need to start teaching their own sons and define clear thresholds for them where they can look at them in the eye and declare: “Son, you’re a man now.”

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

      @Mireille

      Welcome, thanks for your comment! I think you’re right that fathers play such an important role in shaping their sons’ attitudes about their masculinity. My hope is that the current generation of young men will take a much more active role in doing this than the last generation did.

  • JP

    “That’s not what you’ll hear from me. What you’ll hear is women don’t want to marry until 30 anymore. On top of that they consider the time between college and marriage “having fun”. Remember that, it’ll come up later.”

    I married my wife when she was 22. Granted, that was back in 2000, but that wasn’t too, too long ago.

    That was actually younger than my mother was when she got married. Go figure.

  • JP

    @Liza207:

    “I have no plans to be mother someday. But don’t get me wrong I have nothing against motherhood. I just don’t think it’s for me that’s all.”

    You might be one of those people who gets the mother impulse *after* you have a baby. I’ve never understood that one myself.

  • Pingback: A Lost Feminine Art « Blogging Bellita

  • jlw

    The reason that omegas do not inspire the distain of betas is that omegas are largely comprised of irrecoverable failures with women who people completely ignore unless they are calling the police to have them taken away. Making fun of them for being losers with women is like making fun of bananas for being yellow. People worry about rampaging omegas, but do not really distain them.

    Omegas also do not white knight or supplicate to woman. I agree with Vox Day: they either are largely unaware of women or hate them with a fury. Omegas are interesting: until the “Undateables” show appeared on the beeb, no one ever really seriously looked at omegas.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan

    “One thing I’m having trouble with – like Liza said – is understanding the beta disdain from beta guys themselves.”

    I would recommend not reading University of Man this month then, since it’s Shame the Beta month there :-)

    It’s not that complicated to understand the “beta disdain” from the guys here. You have a mix of guys, but to a large degree, lots of us males here at HUS were the “doormats” and “invisible men” at some point in the past. When the red pill got shoved down our throats, many of us responded with the zealousness of converts, and that zealousness sometimes lead to a stronger repudiation of past behavior than a non-convert. Your average “alpha” guy doesn’t really have much disdain for your average beta, more like amusement at their “naivete”.

    So, for us reformed “betas”, we don’t particularly want our younger brothers, cousins and friends to have the red pill shoved down their throats…better to crush it up into powder and serve it daily in ones’ meals without thinking about it. Heck, most of us, if we could contact our past selves, would not advocate a manwhore lifestyle, but we’d at least want our younger selves to have options, to make choices according to our own desires and inclinations, rather than listening to what women, society, etc. told us to be as men.

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

      @ExNewYorker

      Heck, most of us, if we could contact our past selves, would not advocate a manwhore lifestyle, but we’d at least want our younger selves to have options, to make choices according to our own desires and inclinations, rather than listening to what women, society, etc. told us to be as men.

      I understand better now, thank you. It seems as if there is some feeling of regret, for wasted opportunity. And also perfectly understandable resentment.

      I just want to say, though, in case it wasn’t clear in the post, that I’m not advocating that women date “blue pill” men, whether they like it or not. I’m encouraging women to think hard about the traits and qualities that make a person someone you can spend 50 years with. Both “too beta” and “too alpha” are problematic.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @Jason

    “Curously, how many of the younger guys here (Cooper, ADBG, a few others) actively go out and regularly practice Game on living breathing women?”

    Used to quite a bit. Right now, only on a few coworkers. Confidence is really, really low right now. I went through one of those “nightmare” scenarios with a girl recently, not anywhere close to fully recovered. It doesn’t dictate life anymore, but it still seriously bums me out a couple times a day. Last night I almost felt like crying, first time in….years? Can’t even remember.

    Also trying to get my ass back in shape. Unfortunately, hurt my foot pretty bad and am having a hard time walking. Finding a job sucks, too. Mine is getting outsourced in the next few months.

    Seriously, I need to get on this. Two girls today really put themselves on my radar and I just couldn’t muster the stones to open. Emotions suck sometimes.

    Going out tonight and tomorrow, though. Hopefully that’ll help things a bit.

  • JP

    @A Definite Beta Guy:

    “Also trying to get my ass back in shape. Unfortunately, hurt my foot pretty bad and am having a hard time walking. Finding a job sucks, too. Mine is getting outsourced in the next few months.”

    Whatever you do, don’t go to law school.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    Some things that stood out to me in the comments on the Alpha/Beta paradigm is that there seems to be some more pigeon holing than usual.

    Definitions:

    Beta – The man that is able to find pleasure in what he’s given in areas of life. One who likes the easy path where he can see that hard work and dedication will get him the things he wants.

    Alpha – The man that goes out of his way and further to find experiences that make him happier than the average human being. He also has the determination, charisma, and skills to achieve what he wants. He will see and care about people’s emotions, but likely has the ability to rationally judge how important specific people are to him in relation to each other and his goals; and then act according to his best judgement.

    This applies to business as well as family life. There are definitely Alpha’s out there that want the family life and will do what it takes to get it. They’ll shop the market and turn down women they think are unsuitable for them.

    I don’t buy into the idea that Alpha’s are unsuitable for families. Both Alphas and Betas can vary on what they desire out of relationships and family life. Alphas may simply leave a wake of women in their path as they judge them unacceptable where Betas are more prone to find happiness in what they have. Yes, it sucks for those women the Alpha ‘shopped around with’ when going to the music store to buy a guitar (to continue the metaphor). But women lowered the cost of shopping around while upping the cost of purchase with divorce laws.

    If you date an Alpha – know that they odds are unlikely he’ll chose you. Know that he’ll only settle with ANYONE if creating a family is a current life goal and won’t get in the way of other goals.

    The Beta is more likely to stay with whoever picks him up first because he’s happy with that. However, just like an Alpha that’s not relationship inclined, Beta’s can avoid relationships too. Just fewer of them do because they operate from scarcity mentalities. See MGTOW.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    @ Ted
    My last post was getting long, but I wanted to point out that the men that are continually chasing women look at the world and see it as something made to give them enjoyment. If you’re not religious, this is a completely valid view of the world. What else are you going to do with your life if there’s no afterlife, other than enjoy it? Some do that with building something, making a family, etc. Some do that through risk taking, partying, pursuing women.

    The Beta is the one that tries to find happiness in what he has. The alpha is the one that knows what he wants, then takes whatever tools he has to make it happen. I’d say the delta/omega/etc are for those that have combinations of not being able to find happiness but are also lacking the tools/drive/ability to dream that would make it happen.

    @ Sassy
    “If I were a man, and I was given the option of dating a 4-6 woman or learning game and having the possibility of getting a 7-9 woman, you’d bet your bottom dollar that I would try the game route.

    Men don’t want to settle either, especially if the possibility for greener pastures exist.”

    The problem is that women in general consider themselves 1-3 points higher than what they really are. As such, learning game isn’t just to get a ‘higher value woman.’ That usually only works for the short term relationships or ONS’s (in my experience). Learning game is essential towards being able to keep the woman you’re able to get in a long term relationship instead of falling into one-itis.

  • Marie

    @ Leap of a Beta
    “The problem is that women in general consider themselves 1-3 points higher than what they really are. As such, learning game isn’t just to get a ‘higher value woman.’ T”

    When you’re using the scale here, are you talking about the physical appearance at the given time you meet here, her full physical package or all of her, personality included?
    A woman’s “rate” depends a lot on how well she takes care of herself. Scarlett Johansson can be a 6 when she’s not made up, but a 10 when she is. I don’t know if men include her style, how she carries herself etc in her ‘rating’. A 10 to me is Charlize Theron or Miranda Kerr, but I know men might think differently.
    I know most girls tend to rate themselves after what the have potential to be, that might be part of it. Still, most girls I know are mostly delusional about their rating in terms of their ‘full package’, not their looks alone. Meaning they think their promiscuity doesn’t matter, that they’re higher value due to education or success at work etc.

  • Lokland

    @Jason

    “I don’t see what’s with all the hate for Game and PUA, especially when you say you haven’t actively engaged in it. It’s simply a learning tool for guys to make what they want of it. I’m sure you wouldn’t consider a guy an ‘evolutionary failure’ because he wasn’t born with the IQ of Einstein and had to work his ass off to get a degree, but he is because he chose to learn Game? ”

    You have me confused with someone else.

    I think game should be put in cereal form and spoonfed to boys every morning as they walk into class.

    I think PUA is an excellent option assuming a man wants an endless string of pussy.

    I have studied game for ten years, practiced seriously for four (PUA style) and been in a relationship for the last four.

    I think not having children is an evolutionary fail. Thats kind-of the textbook defintion. As in I actually went and grabbed my old textbook and checked. Hasn’t changed since Darwin put it down >200 years ago.

    Some (not all PUA) choose not to have children. That is an evolutionary fail regardless of how many pussies they’ve plowed.

    Having the option to have children is not the same as having children.

    I respect those who don’t want children but I’m not rewriting all of biology to make them feel good. No children = evolutionary fail.

    PS
    For your degree example. Not getting the degree is a fail.
    Doesn’t matter if you work hard or sleep through your calc classes, getting the degree is the equivalent of sucess.

    Evolution and kids work much the same way. Production of children = sucess.

    Being “alpha” is a social sucess. If that alpha fails to reproduce (even voluntarily) they are still an evolutionary failure. A dead end.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    @ Marie
    I’d actually say both looks and relationship material. Mainstream media has sold the deadly package of “He should love you for your inner beauty” to young women and then told them that inner beauty is found by behaving in masculine behaviors. Add to this that every girl has been told she’s a princess and its hard to get around some of what they’ve been sold.

    So you have four types of women:
    1. Women that look good but have no idea how to be feminine or any idea how to raise a family. High on the scale for hookups, lower on the scale for relationships.

    2. Women that don’t take care of their health or bodies, but care about raising a family – so they’ve developed the knowledge/ability to cook, make a man feel good, etc. Lower on the scale for hookups, middle ground for relationships. Generally think they’re better than they are because of some of the good looking guys that they went and had drunken hookups in college with, but not necessarily.

    3. Women that don’t take care of their health and have no family/relationship skills. Generally they know it and are bitter, mean women that were still told they should have the world. They will cockblock guys from their friends and also give their friends horrible advice. Low on the scales for both hookups and relationships.

    4. Good looking woman that also knows how to raise a family and make a man feel good in a relationship. A unicorn. Look for it at your own risk.

    Men have their own issues too. And I am in no way qualified to talk on them – hell, I’m having a hard time just making myself a better person after having the red pill. But this is my experience with women and how I view my experiences pre and post red pill – you can find a quality woman of your same rating, but you have to have game to have good chances of meeting her, attracting her, and keeping her around.

  • Maggie

    “Susan, you were not raised in a “normal” household. And I am not trying to romanticize the past. However, the idea that it was not common for middle class men to have (patriarchal) hobbies and leisure increasingly available to them is ridiculous.”

    I grew up at the same time in a different part of the U.S. and my experience was the same as Susan’s. Men cut the grass on Saturday and went to church on Sunday and pretty much stayed home. I didn’t know any man who played golf or tennis, that was mostly for upper middle class people at country clubs. There were no divorces, but there was a lot of drinking, sometimes by mothers who would lock their kids out of the house during the day.
    Mad Men nails it on the head by showing the parents not paying too much attention to the kids. Most people were not as financially well off as Don Draper, though.

  • Pip

    “No children = evolutionary fail.”

    Mercy! I’m a failure! A childfree, evolutionary failure!

    (*sob*)

    I hope the wind in my face dries my tears as I enjoy a midnight ride with some of the Ag Science folks out here in Midland. Ta.

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

    @SW
    “If female sexuality were restrained, hypergamy would decline, women would not just ‘settle’ – they would actually be attracted to men in their own SMV.”

    You don’t think this is already going on to a considerable degree? I hate to use a phrase like “silent majority”, but most young, successful marriages these days involve women who’ve sought out the very guys you describe above. My guess is these “relationship” guys (Team R?) tend not to spend time online complaining about women, either. If these guys actually have “settled” out of desperation, and are riddled with insecurities, women would be divorcing them in droves, and that just isn’t happening.

    A label like “beta” always generates negative sentiments. The characteristics these guys have, and the generally positive outcomes they achieve, those are the real selling points for young women. I couldn’t care less what you call these guys. Results are what matters.

    P.S. Looking for validation from popular culture is truly barking up the wrong tree. PC doesn’t thrive on stable, monogamous relationships. It relies on contrived drama and dysfunctional characters, not to mention murder and mayhem. I get enough validation from being with my SO, and from friends and family. I imagine it’s the same for a lot of people.

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

      @Megaman

      You don’t think this is already going on to a considerable degree? I hate to use a phrase like “silent majority”, but most young, successful marriages these days involve women who’ve sought out the very guys you describe above

      Yes, I do think it’s going on to a considerable degree. But I also see a real problem with rising female narcissism and entitlement, which leads to unrealistic standards and expectations. I believe that is where most of the involuntary spinsters are going to come from in the next 20 years.

      And while I agree with you about popular culture, it’s difficult to escape its insidious effects.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Susan

    I tell them I’d like to lock them in a room until they’re ready to take a step back and not demean themselves with these girls

    Perhaps someone else has mentioned this already – I’m playing catch-up here.

    This is exactly what happened. Isn’t it? There are plenty of guys who locked themselves into a room (literally, not figuratively), stayed there with their video games, X-Boxes, and Nintendos, and came out when they felt ready (and some are still there).

    They got the label “nerds” by everyone else, and are considered undate-able. I don’t think that actually worked very well.

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

      @Joe

      Touche. What I meant was that I’d like to restrain these guys – hold them back – until they are cured of their one-itis. I see it again and again – they go all in too early, they can’t help themselves. I say “You are shooting yourself in the foot, stop texting her!” and they say, “OK.” And then the next day I get an email outlining their text and usually her unenthusiastic response. I know they’re seeking advice, and they trust me, but they won’t do what I say. It’s the male equivalent of women who totally get why having sex the first night is going to get them put into the slut box, look at me, nod and say how true that is, then they go have a ONS and seem surprised the guy isn’t trying to date them.

      These habits die hard. I don’t know why, exactly. Perhaps we’re so oriented toward short-term gratification that we are incapable of delaying?

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

    @Liza
    Thanks for the congratulations! :)

  • Orig.Anon.

    Mega 416
    “P.S. Looking for validation from popular culture is
    truly barking up the wrong tree. PC doesn’t thrive
    on stable, monogamous relationships. It relies on
    contrived drama and dysfunctional characters…”

    Culture now has 40% of kids born to unmarried women. Seems to me the betas and Susan are propping up a culture of ever increasing dysfunction.

    Besides, except for the possibility of casual sex, avidly discouraged here, not one damn thing has improved for the average man in the last 40 years. Women’s wages, educational performance is way up where as men’s wages are flat. And status is important to attraction of a mate, so the improvements by women drive his relative
    status down. As a gen-x lawyer, women being 50% of new lawyers makes me look less impressive to women. This discourages men from ever bothering to attempt success. Beta traits have less value. Success has less value. I have to succeed and add alpha, to get what my boomer dad got on beta success alone. Once I add red pill, I wonder why I wanted a wife and family at all. Women/society value my success less and expect even more from me, and then expect alpha independence from me. Then women want alpha me to choose to bust my ass harder for them while offering me the same or less.

    As a gen-x man, I don’t think boomers like Susan get the fact that I built off my parents success, and I am still worse off in every way than they were at the same age. I see gen-y men as worse off still, relative to women.

    My experience is beta men only married once raising kids from his wife’s starter marriage (2), married to wife on 2nd (1), woman with 2 kids dumped husband for divorced work mate (1). I don’t know anyone where the man traded in his wife for a younger hotter model. When I meet 5 of those by my count it’ll be even. When I meet 7, my experience will almost match Susan’s. That drove my red pill conversion; watching betas get fucked over.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    I have a question. Since this post in titled “10 Reasons To Date A Beta”, for the men, what would you tell your son about being a beta, or about being an alpha? For the women, what would you tell your son?

    And a rhetorical question: are you advising him to avoid your mistakes or to aspire to emulate your history?

  • Esau

    Susan at 200: ” Instead of aspiring to be a player, why not aspire to be your best self? I’m talking about inner game, and I’ll take a beta with inner game over a natural alpha anyday. Why are the men resisting this idea?”

    Because it’s a big, greasy slab of gynonormativity, now well past its sell date and starting to smell that way.

    Let me start by saying that I agree abundantly with INTJ at 268:

    I dislike the wishy washy definition of Game which invokes “inner game”. I have natural confidence and strength on the inside, which as far as I can tell is what “inner game” is all about. …. Girls don’t find this inner game interesting (they generally don’t notice it). I think inner game is very important for personal development, but does not succeed nearly as well as outer game on the SMP.

    I reject the term for the same reason. Do you want to talk about “being your best self”? Let me tell you, lady, I knew the best of the best, I served with the best of the best, and you and your sistren wouldn’t have anything to do with them. I’m talking about a dozen men I knew well and who were already excellent, accomplished human beings by age 20; men with world-class intellects and talents, realistically confident in their abilities but not at all arrogant, and at the same time honest, witty, loyal, fun-loving and generous. And of course they couldn’t make any headway in the SMP of those days, exactly because they were too decent, kind and and egalitarian to try and dominate anyone else. If the phrase “inner game == being your best self” has any meaning at all, then these guys had it in spades; but the effect on women’s attraction was exactly the opposite of what you’re suggesting. So, no, I think you — and a whole lot of other blog writers — are manifestly, and tragically, mistaken on this point.

    Now back to our multisyllabic word for the day. As explained in a previous episode, “gynonormativity” refers to the idea that women set the standard for the world, ie that whatever women naturally want is, by definition, the right thing for men to do. The “inner game” idea that a man should or could “be his best self” and his being attractive will naturally follow, is a perfectly closed loop: if a man is not attractive, then one can only conclude he must not yet be his “best self”. If a man is not attractive, then it’s always his fault for failing to be “his best self”. Women set the standard, men succeed or fail to live up to it.

    See how this is part of the core playbook for Team Woman? If attraction fails, it’s always the man’s fault. The whole “inner game” conceit simply does not allow for the possibility that women could fail to appreciate a man who is already “his best self,” that this lack of attraction could and should be viewed as a failing on some woman’s part. By holding women intrinsically blameless, gynonormativity is intensely misogynistic: regarding women not as human beings who could actually have human failings, but simply as features of the natural world, like rocks or stars, which are neither right nor wrong and can never be sensibly criticized for displaying their inner natures. Full circle: the “inner game” conceit, taken to its logical endpoint, is revealed as a kind of radical pedestalization, where women are never criticized but only dealt with — like animals — on purely their own terms.

    Back to the practical, I can answer your question directly. “Why not aspire to be your best self?” I know the men who did just that, and who succeeded in being their best selves by any measure; but as part of a sexual strategy it radically failed, and I wouldn’t blame any younger man who witnessed that if he seeks a different path. Recommending “be your best self” as the mainspring of a sexual strategy is manifestly bad advice, and really a vicious insult to those who already were but got nothing for it. And that’s why I reject it as presented here.

    There; does that answer your question?

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

      @Esau

      The whole “inner game” conceit simply does not allow for the possibility that women could fail to appreciate a man who is already “his best self,” that this lack of attraction could and should be viewed as a failing on some woman’s part. By holding women intrinsically blameless, gynonormativity is intensely misogynistic: regarding women not as human beings who could actually have human failings, but simply as features of the natural world, like rocks or stars, which are neither right nor wrong and can never be sensibly criticized for displaying their inner natures. Full circle: the “inner game” conceit, taken to its logical endpoint, is revealed as a kind of radical pedestalization, where women are never criticized but only dealt with — like animals — on purely their own terms.

      Inner Game is peddled entirely by men, not by women, so you’ll need to ask them to stop playing for Team Woman. I’m simply curious about why some men can’t conceive of self-development (a rose by any other name) as something worthwhile unrelated to getting pussy. In my experience as a woman, self-development leads to competence and liking myself better. I derive a sense of optimism and positivity from learning, practicing, reflecting and changing. It doesn’t matter what I choose to develop – it’s the process that counts. When that happens, I think I present as a more attractive human being. In general. To friends, family, acquaintances and strangers. And I know it’s helped me attract men in my life.

      Esau, you are a very smart and compelling writer, but you’re also very negative. You have a right to your anger, obviously, which is undoubtedly justified. But I can’t imagine meeting you out somewhere and having a friendly conversation. (Assuming this is not just your online persona.)

      Again, it’s nothing to me whether you believe in Inner Game or not – I get the sense that is where “Game” is headed on the net these days. Probably because Asshole Game is either too hard to run and maintain if you’re not really an asshole, or perhaps people want more than tricks and routines.

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

    For the women, what would you tell your son?

    I will follow my husband’s lead. He will be the one raising my kid to be as wonderful man as he is. My job is to feed him, fuck him, support him, try to make his life easier, raise our children and not divorce him because “I’m bored or unhaaaaaapy” but then I’m never bored. ;)

  • http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “No children = evolutionary fail.”

    So, I guess those who bring children into the world only abuse and in some cases take their lives are evolutionary winners just because they decided to reproduce.

    Well, while I am galavanting all about Europe and enjoying all that it has to offer month. I will be thinking about what a childless failure I am. Go screw.

  • http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

    “Betas sometimes won’t approach cold. I think it’s sufficient to get into their personal space and stay there. You don’t have save a wimpy beta’s soul by being direct, but it helps to strongly signal that you won’t reject him.”

    OffTheCuff,

    Yeah, I worry about to beingtoo direct and having to serve myself up to them on silver platter only to them, only to be left doing all the heavy lifting in the end.

  • http://www.thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Roissy and Roosh are not unmentionable. In fact, they’ve never looked so good. Dark? Roissy? Nah.
    —–
    Sorry, I am tipsy typing.

    Yeah, Roissy (I don’t read Roosh’s blog) has been giving me the tingles lately; reading his blog. I like the new kinder gentler Roissy. He has never looked better indeed.

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

    @Lokland
    I though the grandfather/mother test was the ultimate proof of evolutionary success for us breeders? I think neither of us get to chant victory till we can raise kids functional and happy enough for them to marry themselves and have children. I know I’m not opening any champagne bottles till I get to see my grandkids, yes I know I’m waaaay ahead. I like planning sue me. :p

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    @ Esau
    Inner game is the ability to be happy with yourself and project the core of who you are to those close to you.

    Outer game is the ability to attract those you’ve never seen or spoken to before.

    To find and keep a woman, both are necessary. If you’ve found a woman already, you only need inner game. If you want a relationship, inner game is where you begin and is the most important for long term happiness. Its the ability to demonstrate that you are a high value person who is outcome independent no matter what kind of crap gets flung your way. Outer game is only necessary in attraction stages. IE: If you have only inner game your odds of finding a quality woman and attracting her a low. If you have only outer game you can attract attractive women but not keep them.

    So. Inner game = long term mating if you get lucky to find a mate

    Outer game = short term mating if you’re unlucky enough to get her pregnant.

    So. Inner game + outer game = Alpha in the most simplistic version of the definition.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Joe
    I have a question. Since this post in titled “10 Reasons To Date A Beta”, for the men, what would you tell your son about being a beta, or about being a beta? For the women, what would you tell your son?

    This may seem paradoxical, Joe, but I don’t think telling a daughter to filter for “beta” qualities and telling a son to practice “alpha” behavior are contradictory at all. (Note that Susan is saying that a man should be a good mix of “alpha” and “beta.”) Both are in the best interest of the family.

    I don’t have a son yet, but I have a teenage cousin who has started dating, and I’ve actually given him a tip I picked up from Roissy. (Nothing too dark . . . Just the “flakey mcflakester” text you should send when someone stands you up. Hahahaha!) Now, I would love for him to meet a great girl, fall in love and have a healthy marriage someday . . . but that girl will have to prove herself first. And I’m not going to assume that the next cute, bubbly classmate he introduces me to is that prayed for paragon. She could still jerk my cousin around and must therefore be approached with caution. This might seem cold, but it’s not personal. I just don’t know her that well yet. More importantly, my cousin doesn’t know her that well yet.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Esau
    Let me tell you, lady, I knew the best of the best, I served with the best of the best, and you and your sistren wouldn’t have anything to do with them. I’m talking about a dozen men I knew well and who were already excellent, accomplished human beings by age 20; men with world-class intellects and talents, realistically confident in their abilities but not at all arrogant, and at the same time honest, witty, loyal, fun-loving and generous. And of course they couldn’t make any headway in the SMP of those days, exactly because they were too decent, kind and and egalitarian to try and dominate anyone else.

    Is this about calculus again? ;)

    See how this is part of the core playbook for Team Woman? If attraction fails, it’s always the man’s fault. The whole “inner game” conceit simply does not allow for the possibility that women could fail to appreciate a man who is already “his best self,” that this lack of attraction could and should be viewed as a failing on some woman’s part.

    Seriously, now, Esau, you and I have been over something similar before and I really don’t know what you want women to say. That a man can be an objective “catch” and still not be attractive to the women who “should” want him? What’s funny is that a couple of men seemed to think that the original post was saying just that, and they opposed the implication that a woman should choose a man who meets every item on Susan’s checklist if she is not attracted to him.

    Last month, Joe left a comment on my blog that really got me thinking. He said that in the SMP, as in everything, there will be winners and losers, and this reality has nothing to do with anyone being at fault. That’s a bleak thought. I actually asked myself whether I should be preparing for a future in “Loserville” instead of continuing to better myself in the hope of being one of the winners. But until I’m on my deathbed, I won’t know for certain into which group I fall.

    Now, it may be that I am one of the losers. Tough luck. But is that looming possibility a reason to give up now? I don’t think so. And so I tell myself pretty lies about being my best self to keep myself going. Because I still may be one of the winners. Perhaps to many men and women, all of Susan’s advice will amount to absolutely nothing but pretty lies. But I’m willing to bet that others will say years from now that it was just the truth that they needed to hear.

  • VD

    He was very aggressive and pushy offering to wine and dine me, although, he was tall and good-looking and in his twenties. I knew I had to resist the temptation. These have been the kind of guys I have been attempting to have meaningful relationships with (and then again they are the only ones that approach me for dates and relationships) and it has never worked. I get a little lonely and vulnerable; I give them a shot and start projecting onto them and attempting to tame them—a fool’s errand indeed.

    Congratulations, you are finally self-aware. I’m not being sarcastic here, recognizing your own behavioral patterns is a major step forward in personal development towards full humanity.

    So, I guess those who bring children into the world only abuse and in some cases take their lives are evolutionary winners just because they decided to reproduce.

    Technically, they are merely fit. The non-reproducers are unfit. A true evolutionary winner would be someone who genetically mutates in a beneficial manner, successfully reproduces, and passes on the beneficial genetic mutation.

    If you date an Alpha – know that they odds are unlikely he’ll chose you. Know that he’ll only settle with ANYONE if creating a family is a current life goal and won’t get in the way of other goals.

    This is very perceptive. One of my friends used to joke that he thought Spacebunny was either built to order or had been chosen with all the care of a thoroughbred mating. I never had any interest in marriage until I met her and realized what a perfect wife and mother she had the potential to be. And she was the only woman who figured out how to interrupt me when I was writing or focused on doing something without pissing me off.

    But to return to one of the themes here, I don’t think even most men who have taken the red pill understand how powerful an attractant genuine indifference is to women, especially if it is combined with contempt. This is absolutely not hostility, which many red-pill men betray, because one cannot be simultaneous hostile and indifferent. I like and respect very few women, which is probably obvious, what is less apparent is that I don’t dislike women in general nor am I hostile to them. So, I attempt to always to behave in a polite and tolerant manner, however, what is interesting is that they tend to seek my attention in much the manner that Herb described.

    “Hey, hey, look at me, look at me! LOOK AT ME! Here’s the ball. Here’s the BALL! Throw the ball, throw the ball, come on, why won’t you THROW THE BALL? If I wag my tail and lick your hand, will you throw the ball? WAG WAG WAG LICK LICK LICK!”

    And as an attractant factor, it clearly superseded looks, since my brothers are all taller and more handsome. But two seek female approval and the third is openly hostile. As Game theory suggests, it’s the hostile one and the indifferent one who have the happy and successful marriages. The approval seekers are divorced and troubled, respectively.

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

      @VD

      I always find your description of your brothers fascinating. It’s like a micro-SMP you can study, and as you say, it confirms the tenets of Game.

  • brightstormyday

    I’m currently dating someone that might be considered a beta. I don’t care. I don’t think I’d find someone that caring, intelligent, or sexually attractive anywhere else. A guy can be caring and affectionate without sacrificing a huge chunk of his masculinity or being a pushover.

    When you stated that beta males are more evolved, Susan, I’ve thought the same thing. The most obvious example is from the Hunger Games through the whole Gale vs. Peeta thing. It’s made pretty obvious that Peeta is more evolved than Gale. Or most of the other people that are out to get blood. He’s more human from the beginning. And he really loves Katniss. He’s a winner. (And you’d be surprised how many girls are Team Peeta).

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

      @brightstormyday

      Lots of girls go for the sensitive males in popular culture. Peeta is a great example, Jim on The Office, even Edward Cullen is beta, despite being a vampire. Those roles wouldn’t be written, nor would those stars get fan clubs of millions of young women if that presentation did not appeal.

      The stories with macho men are generally written for and watched by men. Most women think bulked up guys in action flicks are gross. They’ll go for a Russell Crowe in Gladiator, but his emotional life is as important as his bravery.

  • VD

    I actually asked myself whether I should be preparing for a future in “Loserville” instead of continuing to better myself in the hope of being one of the winners. But until I’m on my deathbed, I won’t know for certain into which group I fall.

    No, it is the preparation for Loserville that makes you a loser. It’s giving up. You are not a loser so long as you keep playing the game. It doesn’t matter if it’s 5-0 and a minute into injury time; the game isn’t over until the whistle sounds. I believe you should continue to seek to better yourself even as age and events conspire against you. I’m in my 40s, I’m just beginning to get crudely conversational in my fifth language, I’m making the switch from striker to the wings, and I am grimly determined that this is the decade I will finally play Fifth Frontier War. I expect your objectives will be considerably different than mine, but the point is that improvement is always possible.

    If you’re still single, however, you might consider taking a cue from Liza and reviewing if you have any self-defeating behavioral patterns.

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

      @VD

      I’m in my 40s, I’m just beginning to get crudely conversational in my fifth language, I’m making the switch from striker to the wings, and I am grimly determined that this is the decade I will finally play Fifth Frontier War.

      Last year I went through a group exercise that included writing down 18 items on a bucket list. I’d never done that before. I really had to think about my mortality. I’m not going to learn to play the cello in this lifetime – I could start today and focus on it, but it just didn’t make the cut to top priority. On the other hand, I identified several things I knew I really did want to do, and they are very achievable.

      I started reading about hookup culture when I was 49. I started writing about it when I was 50. My friends are afraid to retire, and that just baffles me. I’d love to get back to painting, I’d like to read more, I’d love to exercise two hours a day. And there are always new things to try and discover. I want to go out like the old woman in Titanic. Earrings dangling, toenails bright red, and a sparkle in her eye at 100.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    TEAM PEETA!

    Is it all right to discuss this and bring in spoilers? :P Hahahaha!

    Here’s something that doesn’t spoil anything more than the first book/movie, and even then only vaguely . . . There is a book blogger who reviews mostly YA novels and who wrote a post about “The Top 10 Swoon-Worthy YA Hotties Whom I’d Never Let My Daughter Date in Real Life” (or some title like that . . . Hahahaha!). Peeta made the list although the blogger herself was on Team Peeta, because she didn’t want her daughter dating a boy who wouldn’t be able to survive in a wilderness full of killers without her. I found that a bit unfair, because Peeta helps keep Katniss alive in the wilderness of the media and public opinion. But apparently that’s not “manly” enough for some. When I told a male friend about the complementary ways Peeta and Katniss save each other’s lives, he said, “I’m not surprised at the gender reversal role.”

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

      @Bellita

      My daughter and I adore Peeta, but my son saw the movie with his gf and called Peeta a “wuss.” :(

      The actor says he never got interest from a girl until the movie came out – he was always shy and invisible to girls. I think it’s that quality that comes through and is so appealing in the role. And he’s adorable.

  • Underdog

    @Susan
    “In my experience as a woman, self-development leads to competence and liking myself better. I derive a sense of optimism and positivity from learning, practicing, reflecting and changing. It doesn’t matter what I choose to develop – it’s the process that counts. When that happens, I think I present as a more attractive human being. In general. To friends, family, acquaintances and strangers. And I know it’s helped me attract men in my life.”

    In my experience as a man, I could be the most optimistic, positive, reflective man in the world. But if I don’t have the skills to engage a woman, keep her interested, and pass her shit tests, than I haven’t done jack shit as a man. Especially in this day of unrestrained female sexuality. Men’s purpose in life is to seduce women and keep them seduced long enough so that they’d bare his offsprings. It’s a different skill set than just “making yourself more attractive” and be passively seduced. A man’s self-development, in a nutshell, is developing himself to a point where he can “get pussy”. A man can be the greatest thinker in the world, if he’s unable to “get pussy”, than all of his self-developings and reflecting and changing were just hamster spinning.

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

      But if I don’t have the skills to engage a woman, keep her interested, and pass her shit tests, than I haven’t done jack shit as a man.

      Of course. Which is why I champion Game as a form of self-development. In the same way I encourage women to develop their femininity to be more attractive to men.

      I don’t care if you call it Inner or Outer. You think about what you want and how to get it. You acquire the skills necessary to get the job done. That’s true regardless of whether you want to be a chef or stonemason or a ladykiller.

  • pennies for sale

    @susan
    “I’m simply curious about why some men can’t conceive of self-development (a rose by any other name) as something worthwhile unrelated to getting pussy.”

    Because getting pussy gives me a positively reinforcing rush of dopamine to my brain while learning a new language or playing sports or getting a promotion or driving a nice car doesn’t give me a dopamine rush, but I know on an intellectual level that it will theoretically lead to access to vagina and a high. So, like a junkie copping dope on the street, I do what I have to do to get my fix.

    Sometimes the chase for status gets too exhausting and I go on methadone in the form of video games and porn. It’s pretty cool. It’s about half of the pleasure for 1/100th of the investment and with none of the risk of engaging in primate social rituals.

  • http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Pennies,

    Yep, that about says it all.

    As Louis CK once put it ” you get to have sexual thoughts; I HAVE to have them”.

    Women have it all a lot more in perspective in regard to sex, it can be something that complements the rest of their life, once everything else is in order. With men, though, it’s so constant & overwhelming, we suffer more when that part of life isn’t going so well. And I guess that’s probably an evolutionary thing as well, women only have to mate once in their life to know they have accomplished their biological destiny, whereas men must try for it every 30 minutes for the rest of their lives, with every pretty face they see.

    Good stuff from Esau, but can see Bellita’s point that it’s all a bit catch22 for women. No easy answer, other than realizing one really can’t have everything, & being at peace with that.

  • VD

    I always find your description of your brothers fascinating. It’s like a micro-SMP you can study, and as you say, it confirms the tenets of Game.

    It’s certainly telling when one reads a book like Sharon K. Penman’s The Devil’s Brood and realizes, “holy cow, that sounds just like MY family”. My best female friend, who knows all of us quite well, every so often threatens to write a thinly disguised novel about us. Or perhaps one of these days I’ll simply write the unvarnished truth and everyone will perceive it as an overly dramatized soap opera.

  • Evan

    wow , this is actually a quite impressive blog . and the topic is quite intriguing .. I like some of you points but not all are good …

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Last year I went through a group exercise that included writing down 18 items on a bucket list. I’d never done that before. I really had to think about my mortality. I’m not going to learn to play the cello in this lifetime – I could start today and focus on it, but it just didn’t make the cut to top priority. On the other hand, I identified several things I knew I really did want to do, and they are very achievable.”

    My problem is more a complete absence of things to achieve in life. Once I reached about 22, I looked around and realized that I had absolutely no idea what to go do with myself. There didn’t seem to be anything left to win (which is a problem when your interest in your education is whether you’ve “won” or not).

    But then, I’m not bothered about my mortality. It’s not death I find troubling, it’s the last six months of unavoidable decline. Death? No problem. Terminal decline? Wish I could avoid it.

    Even when I was in the middle of the “hookup culture” I had no idea what was going on. I was completely confused as to why people were acting the way they did. It made no sense to me whatsoever.

    But then my metaphysical model was completely different than my peers.

    I was most impressed with the guy in my college dorm who decided to run off and become a Catholic monk.

  • Courtley

    @ Ted
    Everything you’ve said in this thread is excellent.

    I like guys who are nice. As in, genuinely kind and compassionate and able to put themselves in others’ shoes. That doesn’t = boring to me, at all.

    But being your “best self” is always excellent advice. People–men or women–who love life and are emotionally invested in their passions are incredibly attractive. Attractive to likewise intelligent, engaged human beings seeking deeper connections than just ONS. It’s not that “wanting pussy” is a bad thing, you know, but that Game-obsessed guys are still putting their energy into getting sex, and not into anything else. That ‘anything else’ is usually what makes someone attractive to people seeking long-term monogamous relationships. I don’t think I’m picky about guys’ looks or height or money-making (definitely not!) or anything like that. But if NOTHING makes them pound the table, if they make it clear that they think and care about nothing besides what they’re going to do that day? It’s hard for me, at least, to connect. Developing interests and passions is SO important, and quite essential in today’s world for long-term mating. If you really, at the core of yourself, want a long-term relationship, focus on the OTHER things you love about life and the world and put some energy into that. That is, I think, so key to becoming someone who radiates that real, raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity–in either sex.

    @Megaman
    “You don’t think this is already going on to a considerable degree? I hate to use a phrase like “silent majority”, but most young, successful marriages these days involve women who’ve sought out the very guys you describe above. My guess is these “relationship” guys (Team R?) tend not to spend time online complaining about women, either. If these guys actually have “settled” out of desperation, and are riddled with insecurities, women would be divorcing them in droves, and that just isn’t happening.”

    Right. Exactly. I think Silent Majority applies perfectly here, actually. It developed as a term for a reason, after all. :D

  • Abbot

    ¨But, if she is unhappy, your biggest problem isn’t the alpha jock she banged in college anyway¨

    But it does potentially add one more layer of unnecessary and avoidable complexity

  • Harkat

    @Courtley, Ted

    I’m 100% with you guys here. I wonder if this split in opinion over “be your best self” is due to some fundamental personality difference between us and Esau and Unerdog. Not saying either group is superior, just musing.

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

    The stories with macho men are generally written for and watched by men. Most women think bulked up guys in action flicks are gross.

    This is obvious on geek fandom were the girls were Summer’s girls (Cyclops before he became a cheating bastard) and the boys were all Wolverine fans and once Batman became brooding billionaire while Superman was boyscout. And of course Kirk was the man while all the ladies wanted Spock, YMMV.

    A man can be the greatest thinker in the world, if he’s unable to “get pussy”, than all of his self-developings and reflecting and changing were just hamster spinning.

    Would you call Isaac Newton’s work hamster spinning because he never got laid on his entire life?

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    When I read the title of your article, I thought to myself that you might as well title it “10 Reasons to Eat Your Vegetables”. I think the key word here is “reason”. Often times people (women AND men) don’t choose who they like based on reason at all. We’re in the realm of the emotional here. Mark my words, this is a subject where you’ll get a lot of empty head nods.

    @Courtley, Ted & others about “Your best self”

    But if NOTHING makes them pound the table, if they make it clear that they think and care about nothing besides what they’re going to do that day?

    Birds of a feather…
    I’m sure almost everyone commenting knows people who do the equivalent of smoke a bowl and play XBox all day (not that I don’t approve of either of those activities- just sayin’). Those people can have each other, and most of the time they find each other somehow lol. In general, I find that people who have lots going on (not just going to work and the gym every day) have more options for meeting and connecting with people.

    Developing interests and passions is SO important, and quite essential in today’s world for long-term mating.

    Even if you’re not interested in long-term mating, it’s important. Who wants to be bored? Who wants to be boring? If all you have to talk about is work, unless you work at Facebook, are in the music/film industries, or do something else really interesting to the masses, there’s not much excitement in that for most people.

    And another note about “your best self”. It’s the most important goal you will have in your life, period, IMO. Here’s the thing- if people can’t understand your best self, they won’t always see the value in it. I think some of the guys here are getting at the fact that game-wise “inner game” isn’t the only card in the deck. You still have to be smooth and articulate, have swag, whatever, if you want the best results. This is VERY true. That stuff is like exercise, though- the more time you spend around people, the stronger it gets, which is why I think the internal stuff is more important, because only YOU can decide what you want, actively pursue it, and be self-directed. That inner piece is for your own benefit, not really anyone else’s.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Would you call Isaac Newton’s work hamster spinning because he never got laid on his entire life?”

    Not if he honestly didn’t want to get a girl.

    But most guys want to get girls. Even those of us that want firm, committed relationships want girls.

    If in this apparently hyper-sexed culture you can’t even get a second glance from a girl, you feel like an absolute loser. If you get lots of female attention, you can more easily feel like a winner.

  • Jones

    I’m sorry – I’m like a broken record quoting Mark Manson. But he basically has this stuff figured out. And it leads to abandoning the idea that there is anything unique or interesting about “Game.” Though I should say I completely agree with everyone on the basic premise, which is that masculinity is important and also sort of fucked right now. For reasons having to do not so much with feminism, so much as the circumstances that made feminism possible.

    http://postmasculine.com/butchering-the-alpha-male

    http://postmasculine.com/the-ipanema-boardwalk

    In both of these posts the point is the same: all social interaction is heavily context-dependent, and happiness is complicated. This is obvious to anyone, until they start engaging in superstitious evo-psych based speculation.

    Of course Boethius knew these things 1500 years ago:

    “A troublous matter are the conditions of human bliss; either they are never realized in full, or never stay permanently. One has abundant riches, but is shamed by his ignoble birth. Another is conspicuous for his nobility, but through the embarrassments of poverty would prefer to be obscure. A third, richly endowed with both, laments the loneliness of an unwedded life. Another, though happily married, is doomed to childlessness, and nurses his wealth for a stranger to inherit. Yet another, blest with children, mournfully bewails the misdeeds of son or daughter. Wherefore, it is not easy for anyone to be at perfect peace with the circumstances of his lot.”

    I recommend to anyone interested in getting women to stop worrying about women and start working on themselves.

  • Underdog

    “Would you call Isaac Newton’s work hamster spinning because he never got laid on his entire life?”

    If Isaac Newton’s mind state was “I’m gonna develop my best self and think of all these genius ideas then maybe women will find me attractive” then yes, his hamster was on overdrive. Smart hamster, though.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    “Would you call Isaac Newton’s work hamster spinning because he never got laid on his entire life?”

    I don’t know Newton’s personal life well enough to comment on it directly, but think of this:

    If Newton has done slightly less work ‘for humanity’ (in otherwords, served himself instead of being a slave to your needs and having you clap your hands in appreciation at the beta chump while you go and have sex with another man), and followed his biological impulses, he could have passed on his genes. Instead of all the laws of mathmatics he forwarded, he could have forwarded just 80% of the total instead of 100%.

    Then, those kids with genes he passed on, they could have taken up their fathers work after he passed on. He could have passed on his brilliance AND his work drives, dedication, ethics, and morals through the generations to his children. And the world would have been a better place for those genes and those behaviors that are guided through raising children.

    So. Yes. If Newton did in fact fail to have kids – evolutionary failure.

    And I smirk as you judged others for thinking otherwise. You show you’d rather have a man slaving away for society’s good, and thus your own good, rather than find his own happiness. My hat is off to you. Thank you for this wonderful illustration of women’s ability to reward slave behavior as heroic, morally just, and the ‘right thing to do’ with lip service while going to another male to have sex and procreate with them.

  • Underdog

    This reminds me of artistic people saying the best drive for creativity is love-unrequitted, or all art comes from love-unrequitted or something like that. Men will turn themselves into geniuses and masters when motivated enough by the vadge, but that still doesn’t mean they have fully developed themselves as men. Hell, according to the newly revised hierarchy of needs, K-fed has attained a higher level of manhood than Isaac Newton.

    http://g.psychcentral.com/news/u/2010/08/maslow_pyramid_needs.jpg

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    Lord, as an artist I hate those kinds of artistic people who say everything creative comes from love. Those are the ones talking from a ‘everything is bright and beautiful in candy land’ perspective.

    No – everything creative comes from passion, which comes in as many flavors as ice cream. Generalized ones are passions of anger, of seeing injustice, of exploring the unknown, and, yes, of love and heart break as well. Passion comes in all shapes and sizes – and it takes both skill and passion to make a great piece of art that will resonate within the core of what makes us human.

    Sorry, I might not be a romantic when it comes to women after the red pill, but I still am within art.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Susan

    Of course. Which is why I champion Game as a form of self-development. In the same way I encourage women to develop their femininity to be more attractive to men.

    Game is to men what femininity is to women? I think I like that idea. Something about that analogy explains the antipathy you noticed between men and “being beta.” Beta lacks masculinity.

  • JP

    @Leap of a Beta:

    “You show you’d rather have a man slaving away for society’s good, and thus your own good, rather than find his own happiness. My hat is off to you. Thank you for this wonderful illustration of women’s ability to reward slave behavior as heroic, morally just, and the ‘right thing to do’ with lip service while going to another male to have sex and procreate with them.”

    I’m pretty sure this is a religious impulse, too.

    Mark 10:44 (King James Version – 2000)

    “And whosoever of you will be the first, shall be servant of all.”

  • JP

    Also, I’m pretty sure that Newton had some form of Asperger’s syndrome.

    He was a really odd fish.

    He could also have directed his interests in alchemy into women, since no one cares about his alchemy obsession.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    The historical accounts of Newton often say that he did his best work before the age of 22. He spent the next 22 years of his life solidifying and codifying that work (“inventing” calculus) and doing weird things like alchemy, and the last 44 (yes, he lived to be 88) defending his status in the academic world and as head of the Royal Society. He was supposed to have been a bit of a bully at the end, too.

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

    @SW
    I agree both men and women are restraining themselves sexually quite a bit (or they’re settling down quick), judging by the CDC numbers. On female narcissism, I’m not so sure those kinds of women would even be interested in the guys you describe above. I’ve met a couple over the years, and they’ve been easy to spot. Not just by appearance, but what comes out of their mouths. Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover and the inside flap.

    I guess by contrast, you’ve kind of described which men women shouldn’t date. Narcissism certainly doesn’t discriminate. Twenge’s 1st book is filled with examples of the worst of both worlds. I mean, what would you say about guys who feel entitled to sleep around as much as possible, and then later marry some hot, chaste babe? Not the majority of guys, and not very realistic either.

    “And while I agree with you about popular culture, it’s difficult to escape its insidious effects.”

    It’s all mostly fiction, even so-called reality TV (i.e. poorly edited game shows). Patterning one’s life and preferences off stuff like that, well, you’ve basically shrunk the pool of potential mates who’ll ever take YOU seriously : |

  • JP

    @Leap of a Beta:

    “I’m not religious any more, but stop accepting what the church is telling you and instead read the scripture itself and contemplate the differences in culture between the time it was written and now.”

    Almost all of my problems arose from reading scripture in the first place.

    You would have loved my approach to turning the other cheek.

    When I was younger, and I would be bullied or attacked, I would never physically defend myself. I just allowed myself to be pummeled.

    Surprisingly, it does confuse an attacker when they are beating your head against the floor while you are calmly negotiating with them or when they are punching you in the face and dragging you around and you are trying to ask them to cease attacking you. Generally, it’s not a response that they are used to.

    My early life synthesis could best be explained as a combination of libertarian thinking (there is no society, there is no group, I am a unitary being), random literal scriptural reading (sola scriptura!), coupled with authoritarian conservatish moralism (I will never swear. I will never lie. I will never do drugs. I will never engage in fornication. I will never rebel against the moral order. And if you engage in these activities I will tell you that you are evil.). Made for an interesting combo and some less than beneficial social interactions.

    That’s not my thinking these days, particularly since my unique approach to the problem of existence wasn’t exactly effective.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    JP said:

    “That’s not my thinking these days, particularly since my unique approach to the problem of existence wasn’t exactly effective.”
    _____________________

    I think the only dudes who would find otherwise end up as lead singers in bands like Fugazi and Minor Threat. And that’s the same guy.

  • Herb

    @VD

    I am grimly determined that this is the decade I will finally play Fifth Frontier War

    Where did you dig up a copy. I haven’t even seen it in decades now. All I have left from that era is my copy of Imperium (proudly a Conflict Games copy, per-GDW).

    Unless we’re thinking different Fifth Frontier War.

  • VD

    Where did you dig up a copy. I haven’t even seen it in decades now. All I have left from that era is my copy of Imperium (proudly a Conflict Games copy, per-GDW).

    I have several. I even made a VASSAL version you can download, complete with the rules, with Marc Miller’s permission.

  • Abbot

    ¨what would you say about guys who feel entitled to sleep around as much as possible, and then later marry some hot, chaste babe?¨

    Does such a man actually think about enititlement or strategically think about what he is doing or is he merely getting the best out of life that he can, like anyone else? Certainly, any man able to achieve the above described scenario is considered a hero and an inspiration, no?

  • http://murchadslegacy.pbworks.com/w/page/8627993/Credits%20and%20Legal%20Info Pip

    I helped write a game years ago. Murchad’s Legacy. Linked to in my name.

  • this is Jen

    Joe said

    Beta lacks masculinity.
    ————————————————————

    nail, meet head. Fundamentally, thats how I see it too, joe.

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

    “Certainly, any man able to achieve the above described scenario is considered a hero and an inspiration, no?”

    No.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    He shouldn’t be an inspiration.

    But unfortunately the rules of the game have changed and now it’s “take what you want.”

  • Underdog

    “Certainly, any man able to achieve the above described scenario is considered a hero and an inspiration, no?”

    In a perfect world, he’s not. In today’s world, he is.

  • this is Jen

    It’s the excitement – betas just don’t generate excitement, alpha’s do. That is the basic difference. That is what I meant by “boring”…
    ——————————————————————-

    yes yes a thousand times yes

  • SayWhaat

    Susan, have you written any other posts on self-development for women?

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

      @SayWhaat

      Susan, have you written any other posts on self-development for women?

      I’ve written about femininity, but it may be worth revisiting, or if you have any other ideas, I’d love to hear them.

  • Wudang

    Susan:

    “Women can spot a psycho bitch who will cheat from a mile away. (And yeah, I can’t believe I didn’t call Adam right either.) So we see “tells” where guys would never think to look. ”

    I never thought of this untill I came here but I am sure it is true. This should be an area where men can learn a lot from women. I`d be very interested to have the women here elaborate on what such tells are. I`d also really like to see either pictures of women that make you suspicious or clips from movies where female actors behave in ways that are bad tells but guys might miss.

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

    Not sure Isaac Newton’s work on physics and (especially) on calculus was motivated primarily by a desire to help his fellow-man….more likely, his main motivation was enjoyment of the intellectual challenge.

    Alchemy, OTOH, might have seemed more directly useful….the fact that these methodologies would fail was not yet known, of course.

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

    “But unfortunately the rules of the game have changed and now it’s “take what you want.’”

    The narcissist doesn’t stay married for life, to someone he loves completely. He’ll treat women as disposable, at best, even if he does marry. So unless you want to emulate that, he’s the opposite of heroic inspiration.

    There is no one single game that all men and women are forced to play. Pick the one where you stand the best chance of success. Preferably one where the players have higher standards of behavior.

  • this is Jen

    courtley says

    Do you really not know any men who were like the confident, outgoing, successful jock-type alphas who also ended up making great husbands and fathers after they settled down? I feel like I’ve met many men like this who take a huge masculine ego boost from being the head of a healthy, happy family and marriage. They’re also pretty damn ‘alpha’ in demeanor, competitiveness, success, etc.
    ———————————————————–

    you just described my husband

  • this is Jen

    May 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Susan:

    “Women can spot a psycho bitch who will cheat from a mile away. (And yeah, I can’t believe I didn’t call Adam right either.) So we see “tells” where guys would never think to look. ”

    I never thought of this untill I came here but I am sure it is true. This should be an area where men can learn a lot from women. I`d be very interested to have the women here elaborate on what such tells are. I`d also really like to see either pictures of women that make you suspicious or clips from movies where female actors behave in ways that are bad tells but guys might miss.
    ————————————————————

    yeah but will men believe us??

  • Wudang

    “Is this true? If so, then why all the pushback on relationships? I’ve had three readers who dated PUAs and it was disastrous. The PUAs did want to fall in love and have a relationship, but they also had a serious itch to get back out there. We’ve been discussing this a lot recently – having a lot of sexual partners may doom future attempts at monogamy.”

    This is hard to tell for sure but I believe it is or that it is close to being true. The reason is twofold. One is that on all of the non PUA webforums I have been hanging I have encountered a ton of guys that to some extent have been into PUA and most of them came in the category of got laid with 5 girls and then found a great girl and settled down with her. Those guys rarely took any workshops or got in very deep but usually read a couple of ebooks. The second reason I believe it is the case is that on PUA boards I have heard this claim a million times from the guys there. They say guys show up there, get some game, gets some girls gets oneitis and disapears.

    For some guys it takes only a little bit of learning to get quite good but for a lot of guys it takes an incredible amount of work. Some people really have to work hard to get just decent and to get really, really good most guys need to work a lot. There are only a few special men who are willing to do that and of course those will really, really want to get laid a lot. Those who get good enough to teach others and those who dominate the forums and those who blog about PUA and related stuff in the manosphere are very far from average in their motivations. Those motivations will vary but it will reflect someone who is very far from average in some way.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    Jen, your enthusiasm for a certain kind of masculinity surprises me. These days, it’s rare. It’s been actively discouraged for a long time now.

    This will ring a bell with Susan and those of use “of a certain age.” http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/crystals/and+then+he+kissed+me_20275913.html

    I’m rather sad that this kind of courtly behavior has disappeared.

  • Wudang

    Ramble: ” Personally, I think that the most instructive era is the early 1900′s.”

    Why? This made me curious.

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

    So. Yes. If Newton did in fact fail to have kids – evolutionary failure.

    I’m not discussing evolutionary failure but the idea that his genius meant nothing because he died a virgin.
    Second Einstein banged everything that moved and the kids he had never became scientist.

    And I smirk as you judged others for thinking otherwise. You show you’d rather have a man slaving away for society’s good, and thus your own good, rather than find his own happiness. My hat is off to you. Thank you for this wonderful illustration of women’s ability to reward slave behavior as heroic, morally just, and the ‘right thing to do’ with lip service while going to another male to have sex and procreate with them.

    ???? Do you know I married a virgin to my beta husband whose number is on single digits whose son I’m carrying as we speak? I’m rewarding a good smart man with progeny, love, sex, support and good Dominican/Indian food. So fuck you a thousand times to the high heavens.

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

    Anacaona…

    Domincan food?

    Sounds interesting….maybe some descriptions, I guess at your blog so as not to get too far off topic here…

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

    Domincan food?

    Do you know I’m Dominican right?
    I’m actually collecting pics of some foods I do, to share at the blog at some point in a future cooking section (BTW Susan what happened to the cooking section here. I miss it :() . Someone told me that our food is very rich like soul food so it should be good. I will let you know when I have something I think is worth sharing, I will be happy to let you know when I start :)

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

      @Anacaona

      I have been to a couple of great Dominican restaurants in Boston. The food was very delicious, I would love for you to blog about some recipes.

      You are actually the first person to mention the cooking section, haha. It was a worthwhile experiment, but too OT I think. This is not really a lifestyle blog.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    Ana,
    My apologies, in the middle of my writing I began to write as if I was addressing the average american female – which is so far removed from you that it’s ridiculous to even try and articulate. I have the utmost respect for you as an incredibly intelligent and self aware woman who has made all the right choices in this SMP and has a lack of hypocrisy that is uncommon and all the more startling for it. I can only hope that the past discussions we’ve had, as well as the future ones, can demonstrate to you the sincerity of these words and actions of my respect for you.

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

    @Leap of a Beta

    Is okay, for a moment there I though on asking who are you since you surely had been around to know that I would never think/feel like that. I have to admit that you touched a nerve since I read for the first time that Sir Isaac Newton died a virgin (1995) I felt so sad about it I even have a novel planned in which him and another famous virgin get marry and have the kids they didn’t had in real life just as to think that at least in my universes this injustice can be corrected. I don’t think I ever read “never got married” or something along those lines from bios or tombstones without feeling incredibly sad now more than ever that I know exactly what love and sex are. I usually don’t curse that much either, sorry for getting overboard I’m blaming the pregnancy :p

  • Underdog

    Anacaona, Isaac Newton’s genius benefitted society greatly. However, it benefitted him none, biologically speaking.

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

    Anacaona, Isaac Newton’s genius benefitted society greatly. However, it benefitted him none, biologically speaking.
    Well that is true. The phrasing “hamster spinning” does makes it look like there is nothing of value on the person that doesn’t reproduce. Separating it from bio and society speaking sounds a lot more accurate.

  • Leapofabeta

    @ Ana
    All good. Apparently it was a touchy subject for both of us. I’m with you on being sad he didn’t have kids. I’d have much rather he accompished a bit less for his genes to have been passed onto kids and continued to benefit society instead of being an evolutionary dead end. Sounds like you feel the same.

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

    @Leapofbeta
    Yeah aside from the worst members of our species (I’m not sorry that Hitler and Eva Brown died childless I might say I’m actually happy that was the case, to use one famous example) I always felt sorry for loneliness and childlessness. I know you are not a believer but in Genesis the only time God has a reason to create anything is when he says: “It is not good that Man should be alone…” I took that as one of our most fundamental truths, YMMV.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    Ana
    I would consider myself a believer without calling myself religious or Christian. It’s complicated but boils down to not agreeing with the way religion is taught/practiced in modern America and the connotations majority of the populace rightly place upon it.

    That being said, I agree whole heartedly that people are not meant to be alone.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    Maybe the best way to explain it is that I am….. Heavily influenced by Christian morality as taught in the bible. I think that’ll do, for now.

  • Underdog

    Religions contain truth. Problems arise when men believe they contain facts.

  • Esau

    re Bellita at 429, following me at 421:

    Is this about calculus again?

    What if it is? What point are you making, exactly?

    Seriously, now, Esau, you and I have been over something similar before

    Then why are you replying here? Don’t get me wrong, I’m flattered — sort of — that mine among hundreds of comments should warrant your attention; but I’m just curious as to why this caught your eye.

    and I really don’t know what you want women to say.

    How about we start with the low bar, of women just not saying things that are wildly, insultingly and destructively untrue? Would that be a good day’s work, enough for a start?

    Bellita, I don’t know if you’ve ever taken care of a lawn of grass, or lived with someone who did. In a temperate zone, the eternal problem is crabgrass. You pull it up, weed it out, and by next week it pops right back up again. And so it is, with this kind of statement:

    “If you really, at the core of yourself, want a long-term relationship, focus on the OTHER things you love about life and the world and put some energy into that. That is, I think, so key to becoming someone who radiates that real, raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity–in either sex.”

    (This one is from Courtley at 448 in this thread, but I don’t mean to pick on her in particular; the exact same species of weed springs up eternally, this one was just within easy reach.) Do you grasp why this passage, as written without qualifiers, is the purest … garden fertilizer? As I wrote above, I’ve seen the experiment done and I know how it turns out. I’ve seen the men who followed what they loved with great passion, put tremendous energy into it, learned, achieved, and raised their talents almost to a new art form, and were very positive people overall while doing it — but, these efforts most certainly did NOT result in a “raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity”, if we judge by who was actually attracted to them. This weed is just a pretty lie, and a tough and spiny one at that.

    You asked for my request to women, and this is a reasonable starting point: when a woman starts to write or say things like “X is the key [for a man] to being attractive!”, she should first make sure that it’s actually true as stated and not just another pretty lie. If she is made aware of a population of people who actually did X, and it failed to make them attractive — and if, in fact, there’s actually a observable negative correlation between doing X and being attractive — then she should stop and realize that (1) she’s wrong, and (2) she’s being vastly disrespectful and insulting to all the people who did X and had it fail; she’s just sweeping them out of existence, and really should apologize.

    There, that’s the low bar, the easiest kind of self-improvement: stop telling self-serving pretty lies. Got it? Get back to me when there’s been progress on this one, and then we can talk about the next steps in the program.

  • Courtley

    @brightstormday
    “When you stated that beta males are more evolved, Susan, I’ve thought the same thing.”

    Yeah, this. And I think that has worked its way into our DNA already to some extent. At some point, dudes who could make fire or invent wheels to make labor easier for everyone had to start being considered betters mate than just those with brute strength. And for a long time, at least in European cultures if their literature is any indication, women were steered towards stable provider types by their families and away from cads; and these couples had tons of kids. I look at my family history and see my mother and grandmother married to faithful, intelligent, and certainly not de-masculinized “betas” and it makes sense to me that I find this sort of men attractive also.

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

    I have been to a couple of great Dominican restaurants in Boston. The food was very delicious, I would love for you to blog about some recipes.

    Neat! Any particular dish that you remember fondly (no sancocho please I never liked it so I never learned how to make it) it would be easier to start if I have some petitions.

    You are actually the first person to mention the cooking section, haha.

    The history of my life… :)

  • Courtley

    @Esau
    “(This one is from Courtley at 448 in this thread, but I don’t mean to pick on her in particular; the exact same species of weed springs up eternally, this one was just within easy reach.) Do you grasp why this passage, as written without qualifiers, is the purest … garden fertilizer? As I wrote above, I’ve seen the experiment done and I know how it turns out. I’ve seen the men who followed what they loved with great passion, put tremendous energy into it, learned, achieved, and raised their talents almost to a new art form, and were very positive people overall while doing it — but, these efforts most certainly did NOT result in a “raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity”, if we judge by who was actually attracted to them. This weed is just a pretty lie, and a tough and spiny one at that.”

    Well, we must hang out with different kinds of people. In my circles, people with interests are generally interesting and it’s beneficial to them both professionally and personally.

    The point I’m really getting at here is that a lot of so-called “beta-ness”, in the Manosphere sense of being unsuccessful with women, is really just being BORING. This is distinct from being sweet, or compassionate, or sensitive, or ethical, or anything else that it is often mistakenly assumed by Manosphere-ists that women don’t want.

    The other thing I should point out before we take this conversation further is that when I say “women” I’m implying women like myself–those that want a serious, monogamous, long-term relationship ultimately culminating in a healthy marriage. If by “women” you mean college-age chicks in clubs looking for attention and a ONS, we are probably going to be talking past each other quite a bit.

  • drunicusveritas

    Recommending “beta” traits or “beta” men is really just asking “alpha” men, or in other words very attractive men to be easier relationship partners.
    In other words, it’s trying to force alpha men into beta holes – to try to force the sexy, exciting bad boy into a father /provider role.
    Anyway, women’s advice is kind of suspect in this department for a number of reasons. What women want seems to change pretty regularly on any given day – she realizes her bad boy causes her pain, but keeps going for him, and can never quite make up her mind.
    Secondly, the points sound self-serving – she’s often describing what’s best for her, r what’s

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

      @drunicusveritas

      Recommending “beta” traits or “beta” men is really just asking “alpha” men, or in other words very attractive men to be easier relationship partners.
      In other words, it’s trying to force alpha men into beta holes – to try to force the sexy, exciting bad boy into a father /provider role.

      I’m really not sure why my message is not computing here.

      In recommending men with beta traits I am speaking to women. I am encouraging them to avoid cads altogether for marriage or parenting. I don’t want to force alpha males into a beta hole – in fact, didn’t I end the post by saying so? It cannot be done. Adding beta traits to natural alphas is not a good strategy – you can’t add long-term mating traits to a man programmed for short-term mating. Women should be searching for the man with the most beta traits that they are attracted to.

      It does seem to me that alpha traits, or that simulating them through “game” will lead to a larger number of more attractive partners, for most men.
      And we’re biologically programmed, im afraid, to see that as a very desirable outcome.
      As rewarding as fatherhood and long term LTR’s can be, we’re still as men imbued with deeply competitive drives. All of the advice or shaming or legislation won’t change that.

      Why are you afraid? Go for it! I’m not shaming men in the least. You have every right to opt for short-term mating.

      And women have every right to reject manwhores.

      May the best man win.

  • drunicusveritas

    She’s often describing what she feels is best for her, nit what actually works in the SMP, nor what’s best for society or for humanity.
    It does seem to me that alpha traits, or that simulating them through “game” will lead to a larger number of more attractive partners, for most men.
    And we’re biologically programmed, im afraid, to see that as a very desirable outcome.
    As rewarding as fatherhood and long term LTR’s can be, we’re still as men imbued with deeply competitive drives. All of the advice or shaming or legislation won’t change that.
    And of course we’re all generalizing greatly here – a few attractive women may genuinely be attracted to and prefer “betas.”
    But in general I think dominance, strength, leadership, self-absorption, and ambition will equal greater success for us, in both the SMP and in much of life.
    To say otherwise is to wish, rather than to observe what truly IS.

  • Alias

    Travis:
    “I never have trouble attracting women, I have trouble attracting (or even finding) QUALITY women. The type that I would be willing to settle into a long term relationship (or eventually marriage) with”
    ————————-

    >Until I came to these parts of the ‘net, I wasn’t familiar with the story of the guys who have been ignored or who are too intimidated to approach women…..
    But I have heard YOUR SMP story before (decade+).
    I’ve known a couple of guys just like you (older than you are)- attractive, athletic, socially adept, no problem getting attention from attractive (and not so attractive) women. The only difference is they’re white collar or business owners, but same story as yours.
    They could get a boatload of sex if they wanted to, but what they really wanted was one chaste attractive girl with good character who behaved like a lady. I remember them saying that it was like finding a needle in a haystack, the few were taken off the market quickly.

    They never found that needle, but I have to also relay to you that, IMO, it was partly because they wasted *years* in relationships with women that they knew very well they’d never marry when instead, they should’ve taken the task more seriously like this one particular guy who did and succeeded.
    Best of luck to you.

    Travis:
    “Both men AND women are going to have to change their behavior drastically, if there’s ever going to be any hope of going back to the nuclear family. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it…”
    —————
    Ditto.
    Regardless of which gender’s sexuality was let loose first, the result is the same, the carousel gets saturated and quality people & intact families becomes a rarity. I just wish there was a solution, but most people lack the discipline and there’s nothing significant keeping them in line, so it’s each man for himself.

  • Pingback: The civilized Alpha man is not Beta « An Unmarried Man

  • Courtley

    All, please consider this required reading:

    http://postmasculine.com/evolution

    The part about “multiple phenotypes” within a given population is very, very relevant and important to conversations on HUS.

    There really are women out there looking for dominant men and if you use Game, you may be able to snag them for ONS with varying success. There really are women out there screening against too much dominance and looking for commitment and kindness, and if you use Game for ONS you will be rejected by them.

    If you’re cool with the first scenario, more power to you–Susan says that often enough. The thing is, there are a lot of angry male posters on this site who are supposedly philosophically invested in the first scenario, yet resentful towards alllllllll women for behaving in ways that makes it possible. This would indicate, to me, that they must have some inclination towards monogamy and long-term fidelity. Using hardcore Game tactics will not attract women who want the same.

    So what WILL attract the phenotype of women who want to be long-term partners and perhaps mothers? Who have the qualities and abilities to do so? Being an asshole is a poor strategy, but so is being painfully shy and hiding in the basement–largely because people who do that don’t really meet many people at all, male or female. And meeting people is sort of a necessary first step to any meaningful relationship.

    This is where the whole “be your best self” and “cultivate your passions” and “be more positive and interesting” comes from. Social skills are important and being able to engage people in conversation is important. If you’re a man with poor social skills seeking a life partner, the issue isn’t that you’re not ‘enough of an asshole’ but that you simply don’t know how to connect well with people and that needs to change. Of course, if you’re ‘that guy’ and you want to be a playa then by all means, learn ‘Game’ . . . but you can’t come back and bitch online about how all women ‘just want alpha assholes’ if you choose to behave in ways that self-selects out the promiscuous, non-committed type of woman in the first place.

    I think there’s a certain segment of the Manosphere out there who want the promiscuous hot girls to happily fuck “betas” who behave like betas with the same enthusiasm they do alphas, without any desire to ever tie a man down. These guys are resentful that the beta women who DO desire them also want commitment, and resentful that women who are content to just be used for sex have standards for their ONS that they don’t easily meet.

    I have no other words for these dudes but entitled and ridiculous and worthy of no one’s respect. They are the equivalent of women who want to marry the Kobe Bryants and Chris Browns of the world and then expect total fidelity and adoration from them while they get overweight and more unkept with every child. It’s just simply called being spoiled.

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

      @Courtley

      These guys are resentful that the beta women who DO desire them also want commitment, and resentful that women who are content to just be used for sex have standards for their ONS that they don’t easily meet.

      This has been apparent to me for some time. Lots of guys want to learn Game and then roll with the most alpha of alphas to get access to ONSs (all the while saying they’re not getting with sluts, but high quality girls).

      It is perhaps unsurprising that everyone wants to be at the top of the pyramid, and many young men perceive that as having unfettered access to flings, or even the opportunity to pump and dump at will.

      The problem is that the target market for this strategy is comprised of the most hypergamous women.

  • Courtley

    @ Michael Singer
    Lose your personal autonomy while taking personal responsibility and becoming more introspective?

    Really?

    “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

  • Michael Singer

    What do you mean ? Please feel free to explain

  • Harkat

    Micheal Singer, I can’t make any sense of your post. Are you saying that dating betas…hurts betas? I don’t want to call out your arguments without first understanding what the hell your point is. Put, in simple terms what you are advocating.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Esau
    What if it is [about calculus]? What point are you making, exactly?

    I was making an affectionate inside joke. I guess it fell flat. But you were all about calculus back then, remember? :P

    Then why are you replying here?

    Precisely because it’s something we’ve been over before! :) I’m kind of surprised that you’d have to ask. And when we were discussing it over at Bb’s place, the conversation steered more toward the use of a certain kind of language than to the core of your argument, which means that this is the inevitable sequel.

    I’ve seen the men who followed what they loved with great passion, put tremendous energy into it, learned, achieved, and raised their talents almost to a new art form, and were very positive people overall while doing it — but, these efforts most certainly did NOT result in a “raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity”, if we judge by who was actually attracted to them. This weed is just a pretty lie, and a tough and spiny one at that.

    The last time you said something like this to me, I wondered (meaning no malice) what else was going on in the context of these men’s lives. Not because I thought they were at fault but because I honestly wondered why people who were following the supposedly magic formula weren’t getting any results. And I wonder the same thing whether someone is a woman or a man. My mother recently told me that a female friend of mine has been having bad luck with men because of her “aura.” (Not in the literal “New Age” sense, but in the figurative “giving off vibes” sense.”) So I asked, “How does that help? How is someone supposed to change her ‘aura’?” My mother just shrugged. It’s a mystery.

    There, that’s the low bar, the easiest kind of self-improvement: stop telling self-serving pretty lies. [Emphasis mine]

    Esau, think you’re right about the advice not being universally true to the point of being essentially flawed, but at the same time, I think you’re reading more into what’s going on here than there actually is.

    I’m reminded of Leap of a Beta’s comment on a certain feminine reaction to men like Sir Isaac Newton: “You show you’d rather have a man slaving away for society’s good, and thus your own good, rather than find his own happiness.” (Yes, I know he didn’t mean Ana.) If your full interpretation of the advice, “Follow your own passion and you will be attractive” is something on the level of “Arbeit Macht Frei” propaganda, then you’re fighting an enemy that doesn’t exist.

    When someone says, “Follow your own passion . . .” they are usually advising you to do something that will benefit yourself first and foremost. (“You” used in the general sense, because I don’t want to write “he/she” over and over.) Attractiveness, if it ever also comes, is a secondary benefit. (Sometimes it never comes at all, in the case of women who follow their passion for debate into Law.) Having said that, if you have followed your passion only because someone guaranteed that it would make you more attractive to the opposite sex . . . in that case, then, yes, you were lied to and owed an apology. But I don’t think that’s what women are saying here.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @VD
    Thank you for responding to me. I agree with you. :)

  • Courtley

    @Michael Singer

    For one to take full responsibility for themselves, autonomy is necessary.
    So I’m not really sure what you’re trying to tell women to do/be.

  • Courtley

    @Bellita and @Esau

    Look, I should qualify the disputed statement by saying that I think there’s other things that factor into being attracted besides just cultivating your interests. You must also have social skills and be able to relate to other human beings, and genuinely like at least some of them. Have friends. Have a social network. All of these things are a part of what I and I think Ted meant by “being your best self.” We live in a time when it’s very easy for naturally shy people to isolate themselves and not have much meaningful community or connections in their lives. You can really good at your hobbies and read a lot about your interests and yes, still not be attractive to people because you lack the skill to easily engage someone in conversation about them.

    Still, I stand by my advice, even if it wasn’t complete–developing interests and being an interesting person is vital to connecting both romantically and just with people in general because it gives you SOMEthing to talk about, and having and pursuing interests is one way by which people measure each other’s social value in our society.

    But again, I’m writing about people who want LTRs. If either is writing about being able to get ONS that’s a different track–though I still think being an interesting person who does cool shit because you want to is probably a plus, and I think a lot of Game blogs talk about this to some extent as well.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Courtley
    I actually agree with you. I’m just trying not to discount Esau’s experience that some people who took the same exact advice found that it didn’t work, even as I disagree with his full conclusion.

  • Underdog

    “(This one is from Courtley at 448 in this thread, but I don’t mean to pick on her in particular; the exact same species of weed springs up eternally, this one was just within easy reach.) Do you grasp why this passage, as written without qualifiers, is the purest … garden fertilizer? As I wrote above, I’ve seen the experiment done and I know how it turns out. I’ve seen the men who followed what they loved with great passion, put tremendous energy into it, learned, achieved, and raised their talents almost to a new art form, and were very positive people overall while doing it — but, these efforts most certainly did NOT result in a “raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity”, if we judge by who was actually attracted to them. This weed is just a pretty lie, and a tough and spiny one at that.

    You asked for my request to women, and this is a reasonable starting point: when a woman starts to write or say things like “X is the key [for a man] to being attractive!”, she should first make sure that it’s actually true as stated and not just another pretty lie. If she is made aware of a population of people who actually did X, and it failed to make them attractive — and if, in fact, there’s actually a observable negative correlation between doing X and being attractive — then she should stop and realize that (1) she’s wrong, and (2) she’s being vastly disrespectful and insulting to all the people who did X and had it fail; she’s just sweeping them out of existence, and really should apologize.”

    Co-fucking-sign.

  • Underdog

    Women’s advices to “be yourself” or “be your best self” are indeed pretty lies that will hurt many men who take them to heart. The key to attracting women is to be your most sexually desirable self.

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

      @Underdog

      Women’s advices to “be yourself” or “be your best self” are indeed pretty lies that will hurt many men who take them to heart. The key to attracting women is to be your most sexually desirable self.

      Why are those mutually exclusive? I would have thought they were one and the same, unless by most sexually desirable, you mean Asshole. In which case you’re targeting a specific female population.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Coming late to this, figuring it would be more of the same, but there’s another “descending” issue.
    Look up “mitochondrial Eve”. Depending on the source, we are descended from one–or a max of thirty-three–women going back about 200k years.
    It is difficult for nature to kill large numbers of people such that the species disappears altogether. Usually, it takes a while, leaving time for some to reproduce, some of whose offspring also reproduce.
    For H. Sap to be reduced to no more than three dozen, if not a single woman, means we had a small, tiny, eeeny population in the first place, which was then subject to catastrophe.
    Just imagine if mitachondrial Eve had had a different view of things….

  • Courtley

    @Underdog

    But what women? Ones who want to be a life partner, a wife? Or ONS-seekers?

    How are you framing this conversation? I am talking about monogamous LTRs and the women who seek them.

  • Richard Aubrey

    On another site, mostly political, the subject of alpha/beta arose, partly as a metaphor for part of the political process, and there were comments following two lines of thought. One was the political issue and the other alpha/beta man/woman thing. The beta was the guy with the plastic lunch box–the site is heavy on metaphor–and that took off.
    Part way through the discussion, a woman said when she hit forty, she realized she had wasted a lot of time on tormented Romeos or somebody, and was now interested in honor and integrity and suchlike.
    One guy commented, thanks for proving what we said. When you lost your youthful hotness, you decided to settle for the plastic lunch bucket guy, after having scorned him for a couple of decades. Words to that effect. Thing is, the woman had given no sign of a clue that she’d proven what everybody else had said.

    As to being your good self and letting women come to you, I’ve said it before. In college, I had two tracks with women. Those I dated and those I worked with in class, civic projects, employment. For some reason, I didn’t chase women in the latter category. I did my best self in the situations and dealt with the women as if they were people–being caught not being one hundred percent talking to the eyes–and they came after me. I figured that out about twenty years later, but it still counts.

  • FeralEmployee

    @Ana, 492

    Yeah aside from the worst members of our species (I’m not sorry that Hitler and Eva Brown died childless I might say I’m actually happy that was the case, to use one famous example) I always felt sorry for loneliness and childlessness.

    I kind of find myself in a dilemma here, as I’m rather disappointed that genes from manipulative and corrupt persons propagate in society and its gene pool. But on the other hand, there is a micro-scene, where you might be surprised how the dynamics of a child and its father work out. To mention a notorious case: L. Ron Hubbard and his son Quentin Hubbard. To have your own son call your tightly run organization a sham is a major slap in the face.

    Remember Kim Jong-il? Two of his sons fell out of his grace. I tend to be careful judging a child by its parents, otherwise you end up in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Do you know how most of us men react when there is a dispute and surrounding people tell us to calm down and not go violent when we are clearly not (like SW mentioned about Charlie in Girls)? There’s a good chance we will actually get upset even more, because we’re so sick of that stereotype. I think feminists recognized this early on and it’s now a toolbox tactic for them. It’ll probably explain why the MRM uses rationality and laughs at feminists, it’s a tactic that counters the feminist tactic successfully.

  • http://dannyfrom504.wordpress.com dannyfrom504

    well, you already know my take on this.

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

      @dannyfrom504

      well, you already know my take on this.

      I do, but I think everyone else could benefit from your perspective :)

  • Underdog

    @Courtley

    “But what women? Ones who want to be a life partner, a wife? Or ONS-seekers?

    How are you framing this conversation? I am talking about monogamous LTRs and the women who seek them.”

    All women.

  • Brendan

    The “cultivate your interests and be an interesting and sociable guy” approach is fine from a life choice perspective, but it’s not true that this is an effective mate attraction strategy. On balance, I think this is a good approach to life because you’re more personally fulfilled in doing things this way, but it simply is not the case that it will attract women. Attracting women is based much more on having alpha traits.

    The degree/concentration of alpha traits desired does differ among individual women, with some desiring more and others less — or, perhaps better stated, some willing to accept less either because of a rational assessment of their own market value, or the conscious decision to make a trade-off of less alpha for some beta that they want for commitment, rather than attraction, purposes. But the key to attraction is displaying the degree and kind of alpha attractors the particular woman finds attractive. That’s much more a driver of attraction than actually *being* an interesting person or being engaged in a life passion or whatever people like to talk about when describing that approach to life.

    Men will get more mileage and a better ROI in terms of attraction itself from developing their alpha traits. If they are interested in LTRs and want to attract women who want LTRs, they still need to develop the alpha traits, but also need to do so not at the complete expense of the beta traits — they need to maintain a tightrope walk of alpha and beta, to get the “balance” right for an LTR, whereas if they are looking for sexual encounters, they need to dial back the beta almost completely and be full-0n alpha, because it’s mostly full-on alpha that women who want casual sex are going to be interested in having casual sex with. But in either case, the man needs to primarily focus on developing his alpha characteristics — this is much more important, in terms of developing attraction, than developing a life passion and “being his best self” — sometimes your “best self” just isn’t attractive if it isn’t alpha enough, sorry.

  • Michael Singer

    @ Courtly
    A article written about dating “the benefits” of dating Beta’s begs the following questions.
    - why didn’t one see these screaming obvious benefits ( 10 mentioned) ?
    - when did these benefits become important ?
    - if one hasn’t been dating betas- what has one been dating ?
    - What is ones previous relationship / sexual experience ?
    - can recreational sex make a male/woman slut stay faithful?
    - can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?
    - What has one done to prepare for marriage / children ?
    Can man or a woman who has led a promiscuous lifestyle fulfill the vows of monogamy ?

    Here is the rub – to consider these benefits ( there are considerably more) post promiscuous/ sexually activity is too late ( male or female).

    Why ? More reality questions to be answered.
    - What are the consequences of promiscuous/ sexually active lifestyle ?
    - What recourse has one done to stop promiscuous/ sexually active lifestyle and prepare for a monogamous relationship with children?

    This is a bitter reality. One is seriously damaged emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and the majority suffer from physical disease.
    If you need further explanation – your on your own on this one.

    II
    “For one to take full responsibility for themselves, autonomy is necessary.
    So I’m not really sure what you’re trying to tell women to do/be.”

    1. let gets the words straight ( go back and read what was said).
    2. “taking full responsibility” and its implications requires demonstrated morals, character, integrity to name a few. To “take full responsibility” means different things to people. In this context – it means remaining true to those who are counting on you, staying true when you have given your word, and not taking pleasure at anothers expense even when one isn’t happy.
    This is high caliber and only seen in people who have been raised that way and their parents have been raised that way and so forth.
    3. In a marriage and even more so with children – there is no such thing as personal autonomy – it goes out the window.
    If you need further explanation on this one – you are on your own.

    As mentioned – dont look to date Beta’s. Your value system is wwwaaayyy off.
    If you do, work on changing yourself first.

    Btw, I have yet to meet a American woman to this very day who is feminine, chaste, and in good shape ( mentally, physically, and spiritually).

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

      @Michael Singer

      A article written about dating “the benefits” of dating Beta’s begs the following questions.
      - why didn’t one see these screaming obvious benefits ( 10 mentioned) ?
      - when did these benefits become important ?
      - if one hasn’t been dating betas- what has one been dating ?
      - What is ones previous relationship / sexual experience ?
      - can recreational sex make a male/woman slut stay faithful?
      - can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?
      - What has one done to prepare for marriage / children ?
      Can man or a woman who has led a promiscuous lifestyle fulfill the vows of monogamy ?

      I believe you’re new here, but I would describe my readership as primarily young women who have not been promiscuous. The truth is that only 10-20% of college educated women ride the alpha cock carousel. I’m talking to the other 80%.

      In doing so, I am providing a counterpoint to cultural beliefs about which men make suitable long-term mates.

      Btw, I have yet to meet a American woman to this very day who is feminine, chaste, and in good shape ( mentally, physically, and spiritually).

      This is a truly extraordinary statement in a country with more than 150 million females. I suggest the problem is you.

  • Courtley

    @Brendan @Underdog

    Did either of you read the blog post from Postmasculine that I linked to? If not, I’d appreciate it if you did so. I don’t want to make the same arguments over and over again but it really is quite important that you distinguish what kind of women we’re talking about here.

    Now, Underdog, if you’re going to refuse to engage the conversation with your “all women” statement, how about you tell me what kind of women YOU are currently seeking, regardless of success. Do you want to be a player or do you feel more wired for a relationship? Do you go out cruising in bars for chicks or try to meet people through common interest groups or do you hang out in church looking for a chaste old-fashioned wife? There’s people using all of these methods and more as their “mating strategy” (whether they’re aware of this or not). What’s yours? Give me an idea of who you interact with, and how.

    (Brendan, did we have this conversation before?)

    @Brendan
    I suspect some of what you think of as “alpha traits” I am probably describing as being an interesting and engaging person who Does Cool Stuff —makes art, makes music, travels, takes photos, goes camping in the wilderness, designs clothes, reads literature, reads The Economist, these are just some of the ones I find attractive. For other dudes, obviously sports and fitness are huge interests that many women admire (or enjoy themselves). Or cars or building computers and so on.

    So, yes, there’s some crossover here and again, part of what I’m saying has been essentially advocated in Game blogs and books.

    And yes–as I said several times–dudes who want ONS should probs be more alpha, I don’t do ONS myself and while some of the women that I know who do still tend to go for geeky beta types, in a typical meat-market bar alphas rule the ONS market, no argument there.

    To get an LTR, yes, the “beta” traits Susan laid out are going to be more attractive. YOU said, and that’s part of my point. And to those “betas” who want an LTR I think part of “alpha-ing” it up could be developing those interests and being more interesting. I dislike using ‘alpha’ in that sense, as I tend to use it exclusively to mean Dark Triad player-types and their wannabes, and perhaps that is where we are writing past each other.

    So in other words…a lot of women really do want NICE (as in kind, sweet, thoughtful, compassionate) guys, but they also want nice guys with some social skills and depth and interests. I’d argue this is fundamentally different than wanting dominance or narcissism in a mate.

  • Courtley

    @Michael Singer

    Are you religious? If you want to see chaste, feminine American women, get yourself to the right kind of evangelical church and you’ll be surrounded by ‘em. Or a lot of Mormon congregations in places like Utah and Idaho.

    They marry young, though. I would know, I grew up like that (evangelical). I’d appreciate not being lectured about how skewed my value system is, thanks, as a 26-year-old American woman who has never had a one-night stand and only ever pursued/been interested in very “beta” (sweet, relationship-oriented) guys. You seem to be yet another person who equates “American woman” with like, Snooki.

    And I still think you’re misusing the word “autonomy.”
    From dictionary.com:
    “au·ton·o·my   [aw-ton-uh-mee]
    noun, plural au·ton·o·mies.
    1.
    independence or freedom, as of the will or one’s actions: the autonomy of the individual.
    2.
    the condition of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government; independence.”

    All adults should be autonomous, and if you want women to be ‘moral’ you need to give them the autonomy to make that choice in the first place. I’m sure you disagree, though. :D

    But, seriously. Check out the churches.
    Where in the States do you live?

  • Underdog

    Courtney, I have been friendzoned and have seen my friends be friendzoned by too many LTR-minded “nice girls” to buy into that fairytale anymore.

  • Brendan

    Courtley –

    Yes I read his article. I’ve been to his site before — I’m not a big fan of it, but he’s entitled to his opinions.

    My point of disagreement with you is that “becoming an interesting and sociable person” is not really alpha attractive. It’s good in and of itself, but it isn’t in and of itself alpha attractive. Alpha attractive isn’t necessarily dark triad (although that’s certainly one vein of it, and one that isn’s particularly well suited for LTRs), but it isn’t about “being your interesting and sociable self”, either. It’s about expressing/displaying some degree of dominance, both socially and personally. The degree needed differs by woman and context and also by what the man himself is looking for, but it’s needed in *all* contexts to some degree. In that sense, it’s similar to the “different phenotypes” approach in that different women and different contexts are going to require different levels of dominance expression in order to be competitive in terms of attraction — no disagreement there. My point is that *all* contexts require some of it — the amount is a question of degree, based on the context/person.

    In that sense, I very much agree with Athol Kay, who believes that successful LTRs require a good mix of alpha and beta with the emphasis on the alpha attractors simply because these are most often in short supply, relative to the beta traits, among most contemporary men. And, Athol isn’t talking about being an interesting and sociable person with a life passion. He’s talking about calibrating raw expressions of dominance in order to maintain attraction in an LTR.

  • this is Jen

    Brendan said

    In that sense, I very much agree with Athol Kay, who believes that successful
    LTRs require a good mix of alpha and beta with the emphasis on the alpha
    attractors simply because these are most often in short supply, relative to the
    beta traits, among most contemporary men. And, Athol isn’t talking about being
    an interesting and sociable person with a life passion. He’s talking about
    calibrating raw expressions of dominance in order to maintain attraction in an
    LTR.
    ———————————————————

    I am a married woman and I agree…even tho I am in on it…it really is true.

  • Courtley

    @Underdog

    You didn’t answer my questions.

  • Michael Singer

    @Courtley

    1.
    Ad hominem’s so early ?
    Address the issue, otherwise ones response is ex facia.

    2. Religious ? Nope. That is the problem – God is so far from religion. There is a vast difference between God and religion. Western Christian evangelicalism is so far removed from God and is the main culprit since behavior is often the same if not worse than the secular.
    There are far too many “crossless Christians”.
    I am a Jewish Disciple of Christ of which puts me at odds with 98% of Western Christians since they believe and act as if they can act like the secular world and Jesus will forgive them. They take Pauls writing and abuse them to their own destruction ( 2 Peter 3:15-17).
    Btw, I have the highest regard for Mormons and have a number of my closest friends are of the Mormon denomination – I just dont get the Joseph Smith theology with my Jewish roots – I can pounce them with scriptures in OT/NT but chose not to. (Truth seekers will eventually lead into a deeper revelation of Jesus). They have “demonstrated righteousness/holiness” as a majority quite well and far better than Evangelical / Spirit filled Christians.
    With that being said, I have taken on Pauls viewpoint on staying chaste and single as in the context of 1 cor 7 specifically 7:38. Prosperity and education has ruined both men and women emotionally, spiritually, mentally and left them without the understanding of consequences and the discipline of self control. ]
    Btw, Paul was the only one right during his life and everyone else was wrong. He stood against the political, financial, religious system, as well as other disciples. Whether this is alpha, beta, omega, or all three. This is what I am after.

    2. American churches- dont get me started. They are so far off base from the scriptures and the teachings of Christ and are equally delusional as the Islamic view of 70 virgins after murdering innocent people.

    3. Truth and consequences go hand in hand. There are plenty of high powered social and science studies that clearly show outcomes for everything.
    It takes guts and courage to present the data.
    What I find interesting is how anti-religions attack truth and reason

    4. One more time on “personal autonomy” NOT “autonomy”- GET IT ?
    How does “personal autonomy” NOT “autonomy” in a relationship work ?How can one remain independent in a relationship with a spouse & children ?
    The wife has her personal autonomy and the husband has his.
    Have fun with this one – En Gaurde :)

  • OffTheCuff

    Courtley, from a man’s perspective, you’re wrong, and Underdog and Brendan are right. You’re making the mistake that dominance equals assholery, and that good girls don’t need any of the crude stuff. My wife definitely requires a baseline level of leadership, and she was shirley married a lot younger than you (23).

    I still had to: approach her, introduce myself, lead the conversation, ask her number, offer to walk her home, kiss her, call her the next day, ask her to visit my place, ask her to my room, and sexually escalate over the course of a few days. Every step of the way I had to fight my upbringing that I was being a predatory jerk, since this wasn’t “courtship” by any means. None of those basics were taught to me, I had to figure it out after a few years of nothing happening at all.

    Men need two things: 1. Self improvement independent of women, 2. Be able to act attractive to women, and lead them sexually. One is not always the other. (I beat Through The Fire And Flames on Expert in Guitar Hero – are you hot for me now?)

    Seriously, avoid giving romantic advice to men… especially not your future sons. You sound a lot like my mother, who gave me similar useless dating advice that set me back a good 5 years or so.

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

      @OTC

      I still had to: approach her, introduce myself, lead the conversation, ask her number, offer to walk her home, kiss her, call her the next day, ask her to visit my place, ask her to my room, and sexually escalate over the course of a few days.

      You’re talking about behaviors, not traits. I think that’s a very important distinction.

      A man can be fully self-actualized and be a monk, in which case he is not going to attract women.

      A man can be his “best self” but if he doesn’t display, he will go unnoticed.

      Game is about behaviors – strategic tactics that may be congruent with a man’s self, or entirely artificial in the “fake it till you make it” sense. When I read male bloggers talking about Inner Game, my sense is that they are addressing the issue of incongruence, of encouraging men to do the inner work that makes that alpha behaviors compatible with their inner life. In that way, the “display” doesn’t have an expiration date, i.e. “How long to I have to ignore her before I can start being attentive to her?” If I were a guy I would find this piece critical – going through life wearing some kind of behavioral armor to sustain someone’s attraction sounds exhausting and unpleasant.

  • Courtley

    @Brendan

    OK, maybe it would be more helpful if you could give me an example of what a raw expression of dominance would be in your opinion? I do read and quite enjoy Athol’s site sometimes, though some of what he advocates men do to display their dominance would make ME personally uncomfortable.

    I mean…I suppose someone without ANY inner ‘dominance’ whatsoEVER would be unattractive. But I wouldn’t actually use the word dominance,’ I would say healthy ‘assertiveness’ that comes from being an adult who enjoys life and has opinions that mean something to you. This is, though, to me, just one aspect of what it means to be an emotionally, mentally healthy and engaging human being–you can stand up for yourself if you need to. So yes, a man who really lacked that in ANY capacity is probably not viewed as a very good mate.

    I think what Athol talks about (and you describe) are expressions of dominance towards the woman in question herself; what I would say I’m looking for is just someone who can take a stand if necessary, not someone who needs to bolster their masculinity by controlling or putting me down in some fashion. I’d differentiate between dominance and assertiveness, in other words–dominance is a means of control of the other person, while assertiveness is about standing up for yourself or perhaps for both of you as a couple, to other people.

    I’m not sure if you’d agree with the differentiating between assertiveness and dominance, or if you’d see what I’m calling assertiveness as just a low level of dominance. I don’t want to get too into semantics, though.

  • Courtley

    @Susan

    In light of this idea of women being programmed for betas/low levels of dominance and some women being programmed, on the other end of the spectrum, for very high levels of it, do you really think it’s a good idea to encourage women who seem to need/want lots of dominance to date betas? Couldn’t that turn into the sort of demanding bitch/henpecked pleaser-husband scenario that tends to be one of the common dynamics of miserable marriages?

    The friends I know who do say things like “I want a real man” or “I want someone who could put me in my place” and such (and yes, among my friends this is a minority) tend to be women who are rather powerful/aggressive/have controlling tendencies themselves. Which sounds rather negative, but I don’t mean it that way–it is simply who they are, and part of why they crave dominance in a relationship is, I think, because they know how disastrous it would be for them to partner with someone they could push around. It would bring out their inner control-freak, as compliant people tend to do with controlling people.

    I know you’re adamantly against women every marrying full-blown alphas, but I think some women are just being forthright and realistic about what would actually work for them. For these women, I would agree with some other posters that marrying very beta-type guys would be a bad idea.

    Fortunately, most women do not have this temperament and thus do not require or sexually desire extremely high levels of dominance in a relationship. :)

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

      @Courtley

      In light of this idea of women being programmed for betas/low levels of dominance and some women being programmed, on the other end of the spectrum, for very high levels of it, do you really think it’s a good idea to encourage women who seem to need/want lots of dominance to date betas?

      This is a good question. I think some women really are programmed to want casual sex and extremely dominant men. I don’t think they read HUS to be honest, but they can still benefit by being made aware of the risks. A woman can say “I want a really dominant guy, that turns me on.” That is fine, it’s her choice. But she should have her eyes wide open – this man is unlikely to succeed as a husband or father. I’m sure most will still take their chances, and I feel sorry for them. In a real way, their own reality, whether genetic or environmental, makes them less likely to make a successful match.

      I also think that there is very, very little risk of such women turning to beta guys when they hit 30. I believe that claim is exaggerated in the manosphere – at least, I’ve never seen any evidence of it. I think alpha chasers stay alpha chasers and women who like betas get with betas. In this post I’m addressing young women who are beginning the search for a mate, and I’m advising them about red flags in the same way I’d tell them to avoid alcoholics or slackers.

  • Underdog

    Like I said in an earlier post. For women, “be your best self” is simply enough because of their role as the passive selector in the mating process. Men need a complete different skill set that requires them to be active and sexually dominant. For a man, just “be your best self” alone is very, very bad advice.

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

      For a man, just “be your best self” alone is very, very bad advice.

      Since we’ve agreed that men who cannot attract women or escalate with them are losing out big time, such can cannot possibly be their best selves. A man’s best self is a man who can do what he was born to do – mate. No discussion of being the best man can exclude traits that enable successful mating.

  • Brendan

    Courtley –

    In part it is “standing up” for oneself, of course, but in part it’s also a significant degree of sexual leadership/dominance per se. They don’t tend to separate as much as one might think (that is, a guy who isn’t “standing up for himself” will almost always be in the context of a marriage where the sex isn’t working well, either). Not of the fetishistic variety (necessarily), but of the kinds of ways of interacting that Athol Kay describes. Captain/First Officer is the model he seems to advocate the most for “general” level of dominance/leadership in LTRs (not based on Christian ideas .. he’s an atheist), but of course he gets more specific when speaking of sexual leadership/initiation/dominance for good reason — the sex lives of many LTR/marrieds are terrible in our culture (and a great source of marital unhappiness, dysfunction and, eventually, divorce), and they’re often terrible because the relationship lacks what Athol is talking about (i.e., attraction is deteriorated and missing), and what Jen (and many other women) eventually admit as well, when pointed out to *and* experienced by them. There are many women on Athol’s blog, for example, who reinforce this.

    It’s basically the same as what OffTheCuff is saying as well: not just standing up for yourself, but actually leading/initiating in a meaningful way. Not being an asshole or an abusive domineering type, but leading, calmly and resolutely and effortlessly. It works differently in different contexts, and how that “looks” will be somewhat different in each relationship and, again, somewhat tailored to the specific woman in question in the details, but the overall picture is remarkably similar as between relationships when you zip up to the 30k foot level and view them on a more macro level rather than delving into the specific ways and means (which, again, will differ based on context).

  • Courtley

    @OfftheCuff

    Well, if you all are not equating dominance to ‘assholery,’ then good, we agree somewhat. I’m trying to get some of you to spell out your mental images of the term that is over-used in the Manosphere but means, I suspect, quite different things to different people. My only ‘dating advice’ would be that acting the asshole will not likely get you the quality ladies. Being the initiator and ‘escalator’ of the relationship isn’t assholeish in the slightest and yes, many women expect that but again, I think a lot of Game/Manosphere advice goes farrrrrr beyond tips on how to pull off those basic things. Obviously, though, much of Game is focused on ONS so naturally they will talk about tactics for that. I’m not trying to encourage anyone to go after ONS or give advice on how to do so. You’re right, I have little experience there. I’m trying to shed light on what 20something women who want monogamy with someone who has the qualities Susan described in this thread might be look for and what could hinder guys who want the same from connecting with them. For me, one big hindrance would be if a guy was boring and un-engaging. I like conversation. :) Another hindrance would be controlling, domineering, possessive or narcissistic behavior.

    Your description of YOUR definition of dominance in your own relationship (that led to marriage) is very helpful; hopefully other posters can give theirs as well.

  • Herb

    @Joe

    This will ring a bell with Susan and those of use “of a certain age.” http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/crystals/and+then+he+kissed+me_20275913.html

    I’m rather sad that this kind of courtly behavior has disappeared.

    Great song…even made the opening scene of Adventures in Babysitting over two decades after the Crystals sang it.

    But today? Today trying that is risking a sexual assault complaint if you misjudge it. Even if you dodge a legal bullet a college student can expect to be thrown out.

    Women wanted absolute, complete protection from creeps and they got it…even the romantic ones.

  • Courtley

    @Brendan

    Yes, many of the sex lives of long-term married couples are in a state of total despair and this is a huge problem. Agreed completely. I would blame a lot of this on women’s complacency rather than on lack of male dominance, but I know Athol reports a lot of successes among readers, so there’s obviously something to what he’s saying.

    I would make a huge distinction between intiating/leading in a relationship and dominating though, but you’ve now written something similar yourself.

    Susan said a few pages back that most of the divorces she’s seen were from alphas who cheated. All of the ones I can think of in my social circles among 20s-30s married, educated couples came down to the men being too controlling/possessive/domineering/demanding. No one cheated, but the women in question did not ultimately feel safe or respected. Now, this isn’t a very high number of people, most of the young marrieds I know seem pretty happy, but that is the perspective I am coming from here. Men can definitely overdo the dominance thing to detrimental effects in their LTRs. The men in question may have been somewhat ‘alpha,’ I’d say, but certainly not swaggering players. I highly doubt any of them were Manosphereists, but these situations do feed my concern for some of the advice being given out there. I’m not going to argue with anyone’s personal experience to the contrary, I’m just telling you mine.

    @Underdog

    I didn’t meant to imply that it, ALONE, was enough. You also have to be able to communicate your passions and interest and yes, having initiative is important as well. Initiative is great! Let’s start using the word initiative in place of dominance, I think that is far, far more accurate and helpful for men seeking LTRs.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    Now, Underdog, if you’re going to refuse to engage the conversation with your “all women” statement, how about you tell me what kind of women YOU are currently seeking, regardless of success. Do you want to be a player or do you feel more wired for a relationship? Do you go out cruising in bars for chicks or try to meet people through common interest groups or do you hang out in church looking for a chaste old-fashioned wife? There’s people using all of these methods and more as their “mating strategy” (whether they’re aware of this or not). What’s yours? Give me an idea of who you interact with, and how.

    Okay, common interest groups is full of fail.

    Gamer culture (tabletop, not video): With a 20:1 male:female ratio it’s hard. Looking in that culture is the only time I got truly friend zoned by a late 20s woman claiming to be ready to settle down and start a family but was really more interested by getting banged by two early 20s players (one who even made her leave after sex…guy would make Dark Game PUAs proud).

    SCA: You’d think this would be the place, after all it has slightly more women than men. However, if you don’t fight heavy you find you’re the beta boy among the alphas. I’ve seen beat up, ugly, but good heavy fighters in the 40s and 50s work their way through all the 20 something new female members in a local group.

    In fact, I think it was the SCA where I finally learned the hard way that “being yourself” and “following your passion” was bullshit. I followed it out of interest, have been a herald, developed a good working knowledge of how to do things in Angl0-Saxon England from Alfred to Edward with a side trip to SubRoman Britain and…well, I didn’t fight heavy. Even the old and fat hold out for a heavy fighter in the SCA (the consummate example of 4s thinking they’re going to nail down a 9 if I ever saw one). Out of fairness, the SCA does seem to have men who skew towards liking larger women in general.

    Hashing: A drinking culture and thus closer to bar culture than most so the fact that classic manosphere alpha/beta plays out here is no surprise.

    Endurance sports: Mostly alpha guys anyway and male/female ratio gives them an advantage as the women can be picky.

    English Country Dance: You would think, given that more men than women are into it, this would be the place. Two issues: women tend to date outside of it if they are young and single and, well, most aren’t young even if they are single.

    Nope, meeting women by “following your passions” can be a pretty sad strategy. Outside of S&M clubs/groups it’s been almost 100% fail for me.

  • OffTheCuff

    Courtley, I prefer the term “leadership” since the PC types tend to get their panties in a bunch at the word “dominance”. But it truly is dominance, upon serious examination. It is related to assertiveness, but not the same thing. You can surely be assertive and submissive (or, in PC: “follower”). Think of dominance not as someone who is controlling and has 99% of the power, but rather, someone who has 51%. It’s the Captain and First Officer, not the Pharaoh and pyramid-building slave.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Rewards for being at least a bit dominant/alpha:
    Went to my granddaughter’s dance recital this weekend. She’s almost five. It was in an upscale suburb north of Detroit. Big deal, probably sixty little girls altogether.
    Most of the moms looked as if they were about fifteen years away from Homecoming Court.
    To be successful in the world, a guy has to be something of alpha, and apparently enough of that slops over to, or is part of, his relationship actions.
    And, according to my observations…Susan is right.

  • Underdog

    “Nope, meeting women by “following your passions” can be a pretty sad strategy. Outside of S&M clubs/groups it’s been almost 100% fail for me.”

    Hahaha. Common interest and sexual attraction are not the same thing, isn’t it?

  • OffTheCuff

    Initiative is necessary but not sufficient – as soon as she throws a shit test your way, your “initiative” will fold like a card table along with her attraction.

    But, I grew up on Long Island, which is close to the epicenter of douchebaggery. Experience shows me the assholes and the asshole fans do just fine. I would think they’d all be fat or single or divorced now, but it’s not the case.

  • Lokland

    My 2 cents on the common interest bit.

    Men are always sexually attracted to women. Just standing there is good enough. It can usually be assumed.

    Men must/have to create any attraction that exists (at least if your in the 80%).

    For a woman a common interest can be enough to attract a man because all she has to do is be in the right location at the right time.
    The same is not true for men, it is for the 80% a conscious effort to become attractive. Just doing your thing will not create attraction.

    Thats where I think the confusion comes from.
    Men are attracted to women all the time. Women see this via common interests and assume common interest = attraction.

    Women are not attratced to most men all the time. Being in the correct proximity is not enough for a man to attract a women.

    I will however say, common interests/clubs etc. are a good way to meet new people and open up new social circles. This seems kinda duh though.

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

    My mother recently told me that a female friend of mine has been having bad luck with men because of her “aura.” (Not in the literal “New Age” sense, but in the figurative “giving off vibes” sense.”) So I asked, “How does that help? How is someone supposed to change her ‘aura’?” My mother just shrugged. It’s a mystery.

    I already mentioned that sick of being pursued by assholes that were old enough to be my father and mostly married I took modeling classes and I’m pretty sure I upped my SMV and men of the age I was interested in looked at me more but they still wouldn’t approach I did noticed that when I was out with my girlfriends or just not thinking on attracting someone I got a ton more approaches than when I was “dolled up” and looking. So my guess is that somehow from all the times I tried to keep myself guarded against the ones I didn’t liked I developed “bad vibes” I wish I could say how to fix it but I didn’t got rid of them till I was dating my now husband since I wasn’t looking anymore I was always relaxed and fun looking and got a ton more approaches, had I mentioned that I always though God has a sick sense of humor? He does :p

    I kind of find myself in a dilemma here, as I’m rather disappointed that genes from manipulative and corrupt persons propagate in society and its gene pool. But on the other hand, there is a micro-scene, where you might be surprised how the dynamics of a child and its father work out. To mention a notorious case: L. Ron Hubbard and his son Quentin Hubbard. To have your own son call your tightly run organization a sham is a major slap in the face.

    I know what you mean but even with what I said I mentioned that Einstein’s kid didn’t reached his level I got the theory that having the seeds for certain traits (whether pure evilness and/or genius) is not enough there are other things like timing and place to make a copy of themselves so even though reproduction upped your chances of a mini-me it might take generations for it to reach a similar level, YMMV.

    Women wanted absolute, complete protection from creeps and they got it…even the romantic ones.

    Yeah we all have to deal with the uncomfortability of being pursued by a man we are not attracted to as a way to let the ones we are attracted to have a way to approach us too. You have to take the good with the bad the mistake was wanting to assure women that they could only get the good part of life and dating, not how the universe works, YMMV.

  • JP

    @Lokland:

    “Being in the correct proximity is not enough for a man to attract a women.”

    That wasn’t my experience growing up in the late 80′s, early 90′s.

    The question is whether you would want to date the women you passively attract.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    Guys, we’re falling to a common mistake.

    By “be your best self” they mean be interesting enough to catch her interest and keep it. Nothing more. They could care less if you’re passionate about math, sports, or saving the world. They care about if you’re able to keep her interested in your interests. You can do that by being either an asshole or being a kind but dominant leader taking her on that with you. Either way though, she has to feel the tingle and be interested.

    The reason, as far as I can tell, they give bullshit advice like what the last thread of this has gone into is because they simply don’t see the boring men that never capture their interest that are doing EXACTLY what they’re saying here. They only see the INTERESTING men that do what they’re saying here. So they have no idea that there’s a large segment of men doing exactly this. No idea that their advice has a pre-requisite because those men might as well exist within a separate reality for all they matter to women. If you don’t catch the interest of a woman with this “Be your best self” thing, you might as well get used to simply being treated as a piece of furniture in her world that happens to eat, drink, breath, and serve her needs.

    That being said, I do think being your best self is a great thing. Its healthy and good for you. Just realize that if you want to attract women, you also have to be dominant and be damned good at advertising yourself as a man of quality to them.

    Cause otherwise you could be the best damned man in the country, but it won’t get you anywhere with women.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Esau
    I think I know why we’ve been failing to see eye to eye!!! :D

    If you will indulge me just one more time while I take the scenic route . . . There is a friend of mine who likes to remind people that sin doesn’t mean “doing something bad,” but “missing the mark.” And although I agree with him, I usually have no idea what he is saying in specific contexts, because he doesn’t always say what “the mark” is. But I didn’t see that I didn’t see until after I read a movie review that used the Greek word telos and explained that even a really cheesy movie can be considered good if it achieves the end which the filmmakers intended. And then it all became clear.

    Now, what you’re saying here is that the “Be your best self to be more attractive” advice misses the mark. And not only misses the mark, but also misses it very, very badly. But if that is so, then what is the mark?

    That is what I was wondering when I asked you what you want women to say. And your answer was frustrating because it was just about what you want women not to say. It would be easier to know that something is a weed if I knew what lawn grass is supposed to look like.

    Does it, perhaps, look like what Leap of a Beta wrote in 548?

    By “be your best self” they mean be interesting enough to catch her interest and keep it. Nothing more. They could care less if you’re passionate about math, sports, or saving the world. They care about if you’re able to keep her interested in your interests. You can do that by being either an asshole or being a kind but dominant leader taking her on that with you. Either way though, she has to feel the tingle and be interested.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Anacoana,
    I worked with a woman who was fabulously attractive, fifteen on a ten-point scale. And not the Audrey Hepburn look, either. Refined features, terrific figure.
    She gave out what I think was a deliberate aura. “Don’t even think about it,”. I noted that, even in meetings with colleagues she’d worked with for months.
    One on one, should you be fortunate enough to achieve one on one, such as a small team in a project, she was fun and relaxed. I suspect that, if she’d thought you needed the aura, she would have figured out how to avoid one on one.
    Smart, too.

  • Alias

    @ Travis
    Addendum to #504

    Darnit! In my usual rush, I left out some crucial information.
    In addition to searching for their SMV equivalent (7+), and looking for women of good character/low Ns -another reason these guys had difficulty finding “quality women” was due to their looking for a very narrow niche in the market- specific ethnicity/religious beliefs, don’t know if that’s your case too?
    The guys who were successful were those who applied a more aggressive strategy in their search, discarded requirements that satisfied other people (family) and didn’t waste time with women they knew they’d never consider for an LTR.

  • JP

    @Alias:

    “Darnit! In my usual rush, I left out some crucial information.
    In addition to searching for their SMV equivalent (7+), and looking for women of good character/low Ns -another reason these guys had difficulty finding “quality women” was due to their looking for a very narrow niche in the market- specific ethnicity/religious beliefs, don’t know if that’s your case too?”

    My favorite (personal) narrow niche is “top 1% of intelligence”.

    Life gets even harder when you immediately toss out 99% of the female population and *then* go for 7+, so to speak.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Courtley

    “You must also have social skills and be able to relate to other human beings, and genuinely like at least some of them.”

    The social skills necessary for being an interesting party guest are NOT the social skills necessary for attracting a substantial portion of the female population.

    There are different sets of “social skills” and they are meant to be applied in totally different situations with totally different end games.

    In other words:

    There is no such thing as “social skills.” You might as well ask an astronomer to build a submarine to travel to the center of the Earth because you saw it on TV once and all scientists are the same, right?

  • Mike C

    The social skills necessary for being an interesting party guest are NOT the social skills necessary for attracting a substantial portion of the female population.

    There are different sets of “social skills” and they are meant to be applied in totally different situations with totally different end games.

    Yup. This.

    Honestly, the notion that you just have to be your “best self” with some “social skills” is basically BS.

    You are absolutely correct to point out that “social skills” is quite broad. The truth is it is very possible to be quite sociable in a quite affable, pleasant manner that is also quite asexual, and really does nothing to generate any attraction or sexual tension. Trust me, I know this quite well from my historical personal experience.

    It’s really the difference between being “friendly and pleasant” versus “charming and charismatic”. It really is a very specific set of social skills and method of social interaction that will sometimes spark sexual attraction.

    The difficulty is that for 99% of women, you can’t simply ask them what the guy *SPECIFICALLY* said or did to generate attraction. It will always be answered with an ambiguous sort of “I just felt it” or “I had CHEMISTRY with him” or on the flip side “I just didn’t feel any spark”. In contrast, I can think back now and often isolate the specific exchange where I sparked the attraction or on the flip side lost the interaction.

    Just to pinpoint one key difference. In the vast majority of my social interactions, I would NEVER engage in any sort of playful teasing. But this is key aspect of social interaction where you want to either generate or sustain some type of sexual attraction/charge.

    So when a woman says interesting she really means charming. I happen to think my knowledge of financial markets and deep interest in history makes me interesting, and for someone who shares those interests I probably would be, but for 99.9% of women, a conversation on those topics is going to be a tingle killer. In contrast, a more superficial conversation basically about nothing, but laced with the right social techniques is going to be much more effective for generating attraction and seeming interesting.

  • Bobley

    Those last two posts are spot-on, ADBG and Mike C.

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

    I think that it can be useful to conceptualize this issue as sort of signal detection problem. Imagine a line drawn in the sand; on one side of the line is the man, on the other side of the line is the woman’s mate-detection system. When the detection system is activated, she feels attraction, tingles, etc.

    The line represents a filter, and the filter attempts to reduce the man to a series of scores based on his ability to procreate, provide, and protect—the “looks, money, badass” triumvirate. Let’s call these the “performance factors” for now, but they could easily be termed the Alpha Traits as well.

    The performance factors may represent the man’s potential value as a mate to the woman’s genes, but having these traits does not mean that the man would be willing to share them with her. To determine this, the woman also needs to determine the man’s “commitment factors” (the could also be called Beta Traits).

    An integrated framework might attempt to define the Alpha Traits by units of performance and the Beta Traits as percentages or efficiency ratios. A *very simplistic* expression of a man’s mating value to a woman might go something like this:

    (Alpha: Performance Factor) * (Beta: % Commitment) = True Mating Value

    In other words, you could theoretically have the most formidable badass in the world, a man with a Protector Performance Value of, say, a full 100 pts. Imagine that this man would be willing to abandon his family during an emergency and leave them to die. Despite his high badass trait score, his commitment % would be so low that he would have a low mating value based on the product.

    On the other hand, a normal man of average protection ability who was willing to fight to the death for his loved ones (100% commitment) might have a high protector value.

    Money becomes very interesting in this framework because a very, very wealthy man could conceivably deploy a small percentage of his resources towards a relationship and still outperform a financially-struggling man who was operating at full sacrificial commitment level.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      (Alpha: Performance Factor) * (Beta: % Commitment) = True Mating Value

      Yes, this is the equation. Note that a zero for either alpha or beta gives a TMV of zero.

      The relative weights of alpha and beta need to be considered though – I don’t think it should be 1:1. High alpha/low beta is riskier than Low alpha/high beta in terms of raising offspring to adulthood, which is the goal.

  • OffTheCuff

    BB, interesting theory. It’s obviously nonlinear, but that gets the point across. I would actually reduce the “performance factor” down to its essential element: competition – those things that are zero-sum and places him on the male hierarchy. The commitment traits are not.

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

    Thanks, OffTheCuff. I think that you are absolutely right and that the man’s attraction value is probably based more on the female’s assessment of the presence of the three alpha traits, while his actual value as a long-term reproductive partner is different because it would be the product of the alpha traits and his willingness to share them (as expressed by the commitment percentage approximations).

    The man’s own calculus will of course attempt to calibrate his commitment level to the woman’s value to him as a long-term partner. Thus, one woman’s dream husband could be another’s cad-player nightmare, depending on his assessment of commitment cost/benefit where a particular relationship is concerned.

    We can note that typical chick-fantasy porn literature features a male lead who are both extremely alpha (high scores in all dimensions) and—eventually, at least—completely committed to the female lead (often to the point of unnatural obsession). In fact, it usually goes a step beyond this and the female lead’s chief dilemma is how to choose between TWO competing, hyper attractive, obsessed alpha male types.

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

    Wish there was an edit function so I could clean up my grammatical errors and typos…

  • J

    @Ana

    I know but I was looking forward to have a minime that hated me when she was a teen to pay off my mother. Is the only fair thing to do

    LMAO. You know, my mom’s biggest disappointment in life was that she never got to witness me getting some payback for my adolescence.

  • Courtley

    @OfftheCuff

    I am betting that Long Island/NYC girls are bigger shit-testers than women in a lot of other places. No offense, New Yorkers, but you do kinda have a rep. :D

    Out in the Pacific Northwest where I grew up people are famously a bit more relaxed. Stuff like that is very interesting to me when comparing different experiences.

    Also–to the rest of you–I think the phrase “be your best self” is getting misused and abused here. I was responding, way back in the thread, to Ted, and I think we were both talking not just about the ol’ “be yo’self” thing, but more about specific types of self-improvement to become a happier, more interesting person. So in other words, what I’m recommending to be a more viable LTR candidate

    @Mike C
    Interesting vs. charming is . . . an interesting point. Again, you have to be able to engage and communicate your interests. I’ve said that several times now. If you don’t HAVE any, though, if you’re not putting some energy into things you really love that is just for you, that dullness is going to be a huge disadvantage. I don’t see anyone really disputing that, even as they repeat again all the basic Game advice about dominance and being able to flirt and tease. I’m not saying that charm or being able to tease or whatever is unhelpful, but again, I talk a lot with young women and I know what they identify as attractive. Generally, what the guy is ‘into’ is something that comes up a lot–and of course having common interests between the two is ideal, I think, in any LTR for both men and women.

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

      I think one point of misunderstanding in this thread is that a man’s interests will not benefit him with women unless they are also interesting to women.

      Compatibility is a key part of attraction for long-term mating. (Obviously, it doesn’t matter at all for a ONS.) From a female perspective, people working on a political campaign together are more likely to be attracted to one another than a geologist meeting a figure skater at a party. We do tingle for men who are knowledgeable and distinguished in their chosen areas, but this requires a female’s valuing that area of interest.

      In this way, Esau has always been right about calculus. Women who don’t care about calculus don’t care about men who care about calculus. Women who hate math are less likely to feel attracted to a man whose passion is mathematics. I would think the same is true for men as well, when considering an LTR.

      This creates an imbalance for people whose interests are largely shared by only one gender.

  • J

    Second Einstein banged everything that moved and the kids he had never became scientist.

    Einstien had three known kids: a daughter by his first wife Milena named Liserel, who either died or was adopted away, and two sons, one schizophrenic, by a second wife. His one healthy child, Hans Albert was a civil engineer; his son Bernard was a physicist.

  • J

    The friends I know who do say things like “I want a real man” or “I want someone who could put me in my place” and such (and yes, among my friends this is a minority) tend to be women who are rather powerful/aggressive/have controlling tendencies themselves.

    I’ve known a few women like that, but I tend NOT to count them among my friends. One thing I notice about them is that they often want a man to control them because they have no self-control. They want a man to do that for me. In working with teens, I used to see a lot of this among female atheletes (high T?).

  • Michael Singer

    @ J “One thing I notice about them is that they often want a man to control them because they have no self-control.”

    Very good observation – I have noticed this too.
    Here are a few common denominators: premarital sex, single parent, absent father, broken home, cohabitation parent. Btw, which result in emotionally FUBAR for life due to no discipline, no concept of consequences, and inability to communicate / connect / bond with members of the opposite sex.
    Just a IMO ( in my observations).

  • J

    @Mike C

    It will always be answered with an ambiguous sort of “I just felt it” or “I had CHEMISTRY with him” or on the flip side “I just didn’t feel any spark”.

    IME, “spark” and “chemistry” are really random. If I were to advise a guy how to do that, I would say the answer is “Be whatever quirky thing a random girl is attracted to.” You can’t produce chemistry; it’s too random and depends on really individualized triggers. Instant chemistry for me, for example, depends on having thick black stubble. Smooth and blond? No chemistry. Sorry.

    Just to pinpoint one key difference. In the vast majority of my social interactions, I would NEVER engage in any sort of playful teasing. But this is key aspect of social interaction where you want to either generate or sustain some type of sexual attraction/charge.

    That can indeed be learned, but I’d still rather have it from a guy with black stubble.

    So when a woman says interesting she really means charming.

    No, those are two different things. A deep conversation about history is actually interesting to me, no matter whom I am having it with. If it’s with a guy with thick, black stubble…well, meet my DH.

  • J

    @Michael

    Here are a few common denominators: premarital sex, single parent, absent father, broken home, cohabitation parent.

    Often, but it’s not always upbringing. I’ve seen some kids from good homes who were just naturally hard to deal with due to bad bio-chemistry. It’s complicated.

  • Michael Singer

    @J – define a good home / good parents ?
    That is my point – there is a tiny minority of kids who come from a intact home which consist of healthy parents ( single digit here imo)
    Btw, kids who come from them have their situations to deal with too. However, they are equipped to deal with it much better and hence the opportunity for a better outcome.

  • J

    @ Michael

    I think defining a good home in detail would probably lead into a discussion about values that’ll be longer than I have time for, but we can agree on a home with two healthy parents. In my neighborhood, that’s actually the majority, and I still see some screwed up kids, many for no apparent reason. Sometimes, people just have bad luck with their kids. I do agree though that, even for a kid who’s swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool, good parents are a definite boon.

    OT, but that’s a pretty dog.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Courtley

    “I’m not saying that charm or being able to tease or whatever is unhelpful, but again, I talk a lot with young women and I know what they identify as attractive.”

    A lot of guys don’t understand THIS part. THIS is the part they need help with. THIS is the part they want to fix.

  • Underdog

    A Definite Beta Guy

    “A lot of guys don’t understand THIS part. THIS is the part they need help with. THIS is the part they want to fix.”

    True.

    Plus, women generally don’t know what they’re attracted to. What they say they want is 9 times out of 10 not what they really want. Put an average woman in a room with a guy who shares her common interests and a guy who only knows how to sexually push her buttons and I guarantee you she’ll end up with the latter.

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

      Plus, women generally don’t know what they’re attracted to. What they say they want is 9 times out of 10 not what they really want. Put an average woman in a room with a guy who shares her common interests and a guy who only knows how to sexually push her buttons and I guarantee you she’ll end up with the latter.

      Not for marriage. The question depends entirely on whether the woman is seeking to mate short or long-term. FWIW, I hear a lot of women say outright that they want a dominant guy. (This may be expressed in several ways, e.g., a guy who can handle me, a guy who knows how to take charge, a guy who other girls want.

      That said, there are plenty of women who wonder where the good men are while they’re banging cads.

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

    @Courtley
    “Generally, what the guy is ‘into’ is something that comes up a lot–and of course having common interests between the two is ideal, I think, in any LTR for both men and women.”

    More than ideal, probably essential these days, if you want the relationship to last. Add a strong friendship component, and limit dating to people in your extended social circle (vs. complete strangers), and you’ve got the foundation for something successful.

    By the way, from this man’s perspective, your advice in #448 and #512 was very excellent indeed. Some variation on it worked for me lo those many years ago, and pretty much for every guy I know who’s settled down successfully. This focus on basic, initial attraction (important, but short-term) obscures the real issue, being that compatibility between any two people is extremely complex.

    There’s no magic formula that will work every time, or even most of the time IMO. However, some qualities certainly work much better than others. Whatever label (beta) or phrase (best self) you use to describe these traits, expect them to be used as pejoratives online : |

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Mike C

    Honestly, the notion that you just have to be your “best self” with some “social skills” is basically BS.

    You are absolutely correct to point out that “social skills” is quite broad. The truth is it is very possible to be quite sociable in a quite affable, pleasant manner that is also quite asexual, and really does nothing to generate any attraction or sexual tension. Trust me, I know this quite well from my historical personal experience.

    It’s really the difference between being “friendly and pleasant” versus “charming and charismatic”. It really is a very specific set of social skills and method of social interaction that will sometimes spark sexual attraction.

    Agree 1000%

    @Courtley

    I’m not saying that charm or being able to tease or whatever is unhelpful, but again, I talk a lot with young women and I know what they identify as attractive. Generally, what the guy is ‘into’ is something that comes up a lot–and of course having common interests between the two is ideal, I think, in any LTR for both men and women.

    Most girls have a remarkable ability to suddenly take great interest in anything a guy she’s tingling for is into. And that’s usually a good thing for LTRs.

    A shared interest will not generate a tingle, but a tingle can generate a shared interest.

  • Courtley

    @Herb

    Re: common interests, most of the couples in happy, stable LTRs that I know bonded over common interests to some degree. How successful meeting someone in one of those groups is will depend, of course, on the group and on the individual doing so. I was replying to Underdog, who throws a lot of Manosphere terms around without giving me a good idea of where he is coing from. You’re more apt to flesh out what you say with your own personal experiences.

    @JimmyHendricks
    “Most girls have a remarkable ability to suddenly take great interest in anything a guy she’s tingling for is into. And that’s usually a good thing for LTRs.”

    I mean, I’ve seen men and women fake interest in something that someone they think is hot is into, but if it’s not genuine it’s not a very good foundation for a successful, long-term relationship.

    “A shared interest will not generate a tingle, but a tingle can generate a shared interest.”

    Complete, 100% bullshit and falseness. I have never gotten turned on/seriously attracted to a guy until I discovered we had some common ground. But if you’re talking about ONS ‘tingles,’ then we’re not talking about the same thing anyway.

    @Megaman
    Glad you agree. :)

    And yes, it’s important to note that working on yourself and developing the ability to befriend and engage people and being genuinely happy about life and your interests are not some kind of guaranteed ‘magic formula’ for getting all the sex and love you want. The fact that so many posters seem to interpret any proffered advice as such is very indicative of the way in which they’re approaching the entire subject.

    Common interests and generally being interesting people with specific passions has been a big part of all my friends’ successful relationships. I think it’s much more important to young people today than it was to my parents’ generation. How much a couple has in common has become a huge benchmark for how good of a match their social circle will assess them to be–it simply goes without saying that people who like the same music/sports/films/art etc. are more likely to dig each other and make a good couple. I don’t know anyone in their 20s in my “real” non-online life who would ever dream of disputing this. It is common sense.

  • Courtley

    @A Definite Beta Guy

    Honestly, a lot of what I think shy, insecure, awkward, un-interesting guys–the sort of stereotype of the beta, as opposed to the way Susan or I would actually use the word–seem to THINK of as ‘charm’ is really just the ability to relax and engage people in genuine conversation because they like people and like talking to them about things they both like. Yes, this still doesn’t come easily to everyone but trust me, getting more comfortable with yourself and having things to talk about a is a huge part of this over-mystified ‘charm.’

    I meet guys in real life all the time who know how to do this and who have no trouble finding a nice, cute girlfriend if they want one. They usually aren’t dating the “cheerleader” type though–but they’re also definitely not dating overweight, frumpy or super-masculine women, either. They’ve got realistic standards and enjoy life and have basic interpersonal skills and things generally work out all right for them.

  • Mike C

    IME, “spark” and “chemistry” are really random.

    I disagree ***STRONGLY*** with this. I have no doubt you sincerely believe this, but honestly this just goes to show the notion that women by and large don’t understand their own attraction triggers. Which leads me to this:

    If I were to advise a guy how to do that, I would say the answer is “Be whatever quirky thing a random girl is attracted to.” You can’t produce chemistry; it’s too random and depends on really individualized triggers.

    This truly is God awful, terrible advice for men. Essentially, it is “just be yourself” and then hope the bolt of lightning hits with the random girl that just happens to be attracted. If this were in fact true, then learning any sort of “Game” would be a waste of time. On some level, all Game really is, is taking the IDENTICAL PRODUCT (your collection of attributes, physical attributes, hair color, stubble or no stubble, education, career, interests, etc.) and simply MARKETING them in a different way using different interaction skills and techniques. Anyone in marketing will tell you the advertising message is often 10x as important as the actual product.

    Here’s something kind of interesting….I found it bizarre at the time, but years later I understood the dynamic and what had happened. Anyways, I met this girl, and we actually crossed paths about 2 years apart. I don’t think she remembered me from our first meeting when we met the second time 2 years later. In both meetings, I was is in top physical shape (lean an muscular and I’m 6’3″). First meeting, nada, zilch, zippo. Second meeting, I basically could have fucked her, but I didn’t (long story there involving me having a conscience). I WAS THE EXACT SAME GUY. Only difference was during the second meeting, I had accidently stumbled on using what would later be considered some Game. As I looked back on my interactions with women, and where I had successfully created attraction, there is absolutely nothing random about any of it. In each case, I can look back, and say I did A, B, C, X, Y, Z and that is what worked to get her attracted.

    Instant chemistry for me, for example, depends on having thick black stubble. Smooth and blond? No chemistry. Sorry.

    Ha. I’ve got dark brown hair, dark brown eyes, Mediterranean background. Before my GF dated me, her type was blonde, blue-eyed types and that was mostly who she had dated. No doubt, most women have some “type” but that type is far more malleable then you seem to be implying, especially with the right guy with the right charm.

    No, those are two different things. A deep conversation about history is actually interesting to me, no matter whom I am having it with. If it’s with a guy with thick, black stubble…well, meet my DH.

    OK, I’ve got to finally ask, what does DH stand for. I’m guessing H is husband.

  • Courtley

    @Michael Singer

    Only you can decide what you believe and what sort of religious community that is right for you. The point I was making was merely that if you’re willing to jump through the right hoops, there’s still a substantial amount of very sexually/morally conservative young people in North America ensconced in certain religious communities.

    You might not be able to affirm what Mormons believe, but you seem to agree with my assessment that a lot of young Mormons are not behaving sexually in the way you describe ‘Americans’ as behaving. They’re a separate demographic from the sort of over-generalized American population, at least when it comes to sexual behavior. So there ARE people out there adhering to moral standards you prefer. Whether or not any women in that community could be potential relationship partners for you or others who think likewise is a bigger question, of course, but they do exist.

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

    @Court
    “They’ve got realistic standards and enjoy life and have basic interpersonal skills and things generally work out all right for them.”

    Not to say they won’t spend periods of time single (true for women, too), but this is it in a nutshell. Projecting a little optimism, showing a little interest, being friendly, having a sense of humor, not overcompensating, this is essentially a social balancing act. But I think it’s one that most guys on Team R are capable of, even if they don’t have a ton of experience dating.

    Also, you mentioned earlier some so-called “beta” males wanting to score with easy women, but resenting that too many women are easy. You’ve highlighted a major hole in the SDS, one big enough to drive a truck through : )

  • Mike C

    The performance factors may represent the man’s potential value as a mate to the woman’s genes, but having these traits does not mean that the man would be willing to share them with her. To determine this, the woman also needs to determine the man’s “commitment factors” (the could also be called Beta Traits).

    An integrated framework might attempt to define the Alpha Traits by units of performance and the Beta Traits as percentages or efficiency ratios. A *very simplistic* expression of a man’s mating value to a woman might go something like this:

    (Alpha: Performance Factor) * (Beta: % Commitment) = True Mating Value

    In other words, you could theoretically have the most formidable badass in the world, a man with a Protector Performance Value of, say, a full 100 pts.

    Fascinating thoughts…and I think spot on. I think this supports the notion of a mix of alpha and beta. I think one interesting follow-up is that a man’s % commitment level will vary depending on the particular woman. One of the biggest myths I see out there is this notion that you can throw ALL men into either those only interested in casual uncommitted sex opportunities or those only interested in committed monogamous relationships. There are guys no doubt who are only interested in one or the other but I think most guys are willing to bounce between the two depending on the girl, and so a guy’s beta % commitment variable is actually somewhat dependent on the girl.

  • Mike C

    Also, you mentioned earlier some so-called “beta” males wanting to score with easy women, but resenting that too many women are easy. You’ve highlighted a major hole in the SDS, one big enough to drive a truck through : )

    Human nature. Many poor and lower-middle class people resent the rich while wanting to be rich themselves. Envy is a strong emotion.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Courtley

    ‘charm’ is really just the ability to relax and engage people in genuine conversation because they like people and like talking to them about things they both like.

    If that were true than orbiting would actually work.

    Look, I completely agree that common interests are great for compatibility in a LTR. But any guy who thinks they’re enough to get the fire started is in for a world of pain and failure.

  • Alias

    J
    “ME, “spark” and “chemistry” are really random. If I were to advise a guy how to do that, I would say the answer is “Be whatever quirky thing a random girl is attracted to.” You can’t produce chemistry; it’s too random and depends on really individualized triggers. Instant chemistry for me, for example, depends on having thick black stubble. Smooth and blond? No chemistry. Sorry.”
    ———-

    J,
    This would contradict the fact that a woman can *gradually* become attracted to a man and it negates that a man can actually kill a woman’s attraction for him by saying/doing something stupid.
    It would be “love at first sight” or nothing.

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

    I worked with a woman who was fabulously attractive, fifteen on a ten-point scale. And not the Audrey Hepburn look, either. Refined features, terrific figure.

    I had a friend that used to call this women “cold beauties” he said that he could see objectively they were pretty but couldn’t think of him having sex with them (For the ones that saw Black Swan surely remember the scene that shows this concept)
    Funny enough I had the same issues as salesperson when I was doing passive sales (fixed salary no commission or commission’s not big enough to make a difference) I was really good so good that I tried the commission route but once I had in my mind that it was selling or not paying my bills something “went off” with my customers and I couldn’t close a sale no matter how easy it was. Is obvious I can’t still control my “aura” in one aspect.

    In contrast, a more superficial conversation basically about nothing, but laced with the right social techniques is going to be much more effective for generating attraction and seeming interesting.

    Appalling but true I had a female friend that was a flirt and really successful with guys that use to criticize me because all I wanted to talk to guys about was books “You are going to die a spinter” she used to say. Oh well I can talk books with my hubby it just took me 10 years of solitude, totally worth it :D

    Money becomes very interesting in this framework because a very, very wealthy man could conceivably deploy a small percentage of his resources towards a relationship and still outperform a financially-struggling man who was operating at full sacrificial commitment level.</I.

    I don't know I always though that a man that makes a dollar a day but shares 0.50 cents with you is more valuable that a man that makes 1000 dollars a day and shares 100. It shows how important you are for him and better to reign on hell than to serve on heaven, YMMV.

    LMAO. You know, my mom’s biggest disappointment in life was that she never got to witness me getting some payback for my adolescence.
    Heh I know she would think the same, seriously in my culture girls are the ones that stay around taking care of the family boys belong to whatever punani is in turn. My mother was actually complaining that from all her kids she has outside the house (me, sociopath, little brother) I’m the one that calls her all the time to see how is she doing. So yeah different expectations from a culture breed different things, me thinks.

    Einstien had three known kids: a daughter by his first wife Milena named Liserel, who either died or was adopted away, and two sons, one schizophrenic, by a second wife. His one healthy child, Hans Albert was a civil engineer; his son Bernard was a physicist.

    ???! Don’t get this explanation please clarify.

    No doubt, most women have some “type” but that type is far more malleable then you seem to be implying, especially with the right guy with the right charm.

    Yeah I was a sucker for really dark hair , hubby is a ginger. I’m a bit ginger myself (brown reddish hair) so I can call him a ginger,only a ginger can call another ginger, ginger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    @ Courtley and Mike C

    “Complete, 100% bullshit and falseness. I have never gotten turned on/seriously attracted to a guy until I discovered we had some common ground. But if you’re talking about ONS ‘tingles,’ then we’re not talking about the same thing anyway.” – Courtley

    What she is saying here is not that they are able to connect over any actual common experiences, common interests, common anything. What she really means is that the man is able to connect with her on an emotional level.

    You can do that by having something in common or, as I mentioned earlier, having the ability to make her care about the things you care about. It is rare for men to be able to do the second, and more common to be able to do the first. Add in hamsterizations, a desire to please, and the need to ‘be true to oneself” and…..

    Well, you get women that don’t know why they’re attracted to specific men, only that they are, feel like they can explain why, but really have no idea.

    For instance. According to Courtley I could instantly talk to her about history and she would enjoy it. However, I would be very surprised if she was able to switch from an enjoyable conversation to on of actual sexual interest unless I was both able to connect with her emotions (have strong opinions about a debated historical topic) and also ramp up the escalation of physical proximity/touch while also throwing in a few sexual innuendos.

    Otherwise I’d be regulated to just friends, an interesting guy, and someone that would serve her needs when she desired an interesting conversation on the topic of history

    NEXT

  • Courtley

    @Leap of Beta

    “What she’s really saying here” is a raaaaaather problematic statement to use about someone on the Internet. Let’s avoid such nonsense. I won’t put words in your mouth, you won’t put any in mine.

    And you’re simply misguided, I’m afraid, on this point:
    “According to Courtley I could instantly talk to her about history and she would enjoy it. However, I would be very surprised if she was able to switch from an enjoyable conversation to on of actual sexual interest unless I was both able to connect with her emotions (have strong opinions about a debated historical topic) and also ramp up the escalation of physical proximity/touch while also throwing in a few sexual innuendos.”

    Ha. A ‘few sexual innuendos’ from someone I’d just met would kill the sexual/romantic interest for me, let me tell you. So classless and unoriginal.

    However, as I’ve said in, I think, almost every post I made on this thread, I will defer to your opinions and experiences when it comes to getting women into your bed for one night never to see them again. Don’t take my advice if that’s your main goal. :D

    Anyway, I mean sure, being interesting and engaging on a topic I’m not particularly interested in could be enough to get me to check it out–but this could (and has) happens to me quite often through my female friends as well. It’s not an exclusive trait of ‘male sexual dominance’ or whatever.

    And of course emotional connection and physical attraction are massive factors in all of this, I never said that connecting over common interests could stand independently of all other factors of sexual and romantic attraction, simply that they can be both a very effective hook and a great asset to the strength of an LTR in the long run. I was responding to JimmyHendricks’ quote that interests were only perceived to be attractive but were in actuality ENTIRELY irrelevant, and only attraction to the male’s display of dominance mattered. Well, sorry, but no–I’ve been in situations where one guy might be taking lots of initiative and being very charming on some topic I find absolutely dull, while another far quieter guy who displays some level of interest in things I also like catches and holds my attention just by those factors alone. He doesn’t even have to be intentionally engaging me, he could be chatting to one of his guy friends and if he’s talking about things I am into, I’ll make some effort to at least talk with him a bit and gauge him a bit more. I eavesdrop shamelessly in big groups-sometimes it’s a much better way to get a feel for someone. :D

  • Underdog

    @Courtley

    “Complete, 100% bullshit and falseness. I have never gotten turned on/seriously attracted to a guy until I discovered we had some common ground. ”

    It must be easy as hell to seduce you.

    Courtley: “…so anyways, I like turtles.”

    Guy: “No way! Me, too!”

    Courtley: “OMG, I’m so wet!”

  • Courtley

    @Underdog

    Yeah man, that’s exactly how it works. You’re an expert on female sexuality.

  • Harkat

    @Underdog,

    FFS dude. Do you honestly think Courtley’s point was “mutual interest=insta-fuck”? It’s been established we’re not talking about ONS’s here anyway. The argument is about the importance of developing yourself (while retaining a baseline level of sociability) is a viable way for men to get an LTR. It’s not about wether having a shared interest in polish trance music will lead to a same-night lay.

    Are you still interested in this debate?

  • Richard Aubrey

    “”I worked with a woman who was fabulously attractive, fifteen on a ten-point scale. And not the Audrey Hepburn look, either. Refined features, terrific figure.

    I had a friend that used to call this women “cold beauties” he said that he could see objectively they were pretty but couldn’t think of him having sex with them “”

    Ana. I can see I wasn’t clear. Everybody thought of having sex with her. We were a two-person team, which meant, among other things, I was watching out for her–we were in a dicey area–and I found out I had to correct others of the group who were rude. This sounds more civilized than it was. Fortunately, although I was born cuter than the Gerber baby, things went downhill fast and people listen to me when I get agitated.
    Thing is, her aura was probably deliberate, or at least an unconscious way to get through the day with minimal hassle. When she was with one or two friends, it was completely different.
    She dressed every day, from the second frost–we started in Michigan–on in a shift with absolutely no shape. Figured she figured she’d have less hassle than if she wore a tank top, I suppose.
    I’ve been in commission sales for almost forty years. Sales trainers tell you to act as if you have a couple of thousand bucks in your wallet, so you don’t need the sale. If you need the sale, as you say, something is off. “Make me sell this to you. You sure?”

  • Underdog

    ONS, LTR, what does it matter? If the man can’t attract/seduce the woman, his chances at either with her is zero.

  • JP

    @Courtley:

    “Only you can decide what you believe and what sort of religious community that is right for you. The point I was making was merely that if you’re willing to jump through the right hoops, there’s still a substantial amount of very sexually/morally conservative young people in North America ensconced in certain religious communities.”

    Then you get people like me who are sort of in a cult of one.

    Apparently, I’m effectively Mormon in mores and general attitude. Although I drink coffee and alcohol.

    I’ve also learned to keep my mouth shut in terms of what I think.

    No one wants to hear my opinions. It’s generally not a good way to get along well in the world.

  • JP

    @Courtley:

    “Common interests and generally being interesting people with specific passions has been a big part of all my friends’ successful relationships. I think it’s much more important to young people today than it was to my parents’ generation. How much a couple has in common has become a huge benchmark for how good of a match their social circle will assess them to be–it simply goes without saying that people who like the same music/sports/films/art etc. are more likely to dig each other and make a good couple.”

    I’ve never been able to figure out how people form social circles after school is finished and you’re in a career. My number of actual friends has dropped to essentially zero and has remained there for some time.

    Once you have a career and family, you seem to have little time for things you actually enjoy doing.

  • http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Mike C,

    As I understand it, ‘DH’ stands for ‘Damn Husband’.

    Seems a little harsh, I know, but there we go. Housewives are sure angry these days.

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

      As I understand it, ‘DH’ stands for ‘Damn Husband’.

      I always thought it was Dear Husband.

  • Richard Aubrey

    As a wannabe writer of fiction, I once spent some time on a romance writers’ workshop board. It appears that the female character’s job is to tame the raging alpha.
    So, says I, what happens when another raging alpha comes along.
    “Aubrey, that’s another book.”
    Since Jude Deveraux has written at least three dozen, and the romance novel biz is bigger than the GDP of a number of members of the UN, it appears there’s a lot of that going around.

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

    @Court
    “Yeah man, that’s exactly how it works. You’re an expert on female sexuality.”

    : )

    I think Susan’s pointed out numerous times that female attraction triggers are distinct (with a bit of overlap) for short-term vs. long-term mating. It stands to reason that women only interested in a LTR would have very different priorities in a potential mate. Overt displays of sexual interest early on may get him written off. Of course, the general consensus seems to be “the hookup key opens every lock every time”. It’s sophistry played on a broken record.

  • Brendan

    @Courtley –

    I don’t doubt your sincerity but in my own experience common interests do not attract. They can create the basis for a friendship, but it is other factors that differentiate the guy who you have common interests with but who is friend zoned as compared with the one who isn’t. Lots of guys who know quite a bit about history and could have an interesting conversation with you about it but only some of them are going to be attractive. That’s why it’s more important for men to focus on the development of what is attractive more than anything else. It isn’t like these guys don’t have deep interests — most normally do. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that they aren’t attractive and it’s for other reasons. They are not displaying attractive traits.

    My ex-wife and I shared a lot of common interests and we still do. They didn’t impact our attraction to each other or the dissipation of the same over time — other things did. And the common interests remained intact. They aren’t really, in my experience, very important in attraction or in maintaining attraction in the long run. My current gf and I have fewer interests in common and are actually therefore more interesting to each other due to our differences. But in any case it wasn’t our interests that attracted or hindered attraction, because in many cases they’re different.

  • Brendan

    @Susan –

    In the context of a guy seeking an LTR, the alpha attractors to focus on aren’t the dark triad ones, but the leadership and confidence ones.

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

      @Brendan

      In the context of a guy seeking an LTR, the alpha attractors to focus on aren’t the dark triad ones, but the leadership and confidence ones.

      Yes, but I would suggest that a lot of men in the non-alpha 80% have some of these traits. I understand that Game helps men ratchet these up, and I think you know I am also a strong supporter of Athol’s work. But I do think there are lots of beta men who have enough leadership and confidence based on career achievement or personal fulfillment that they are able to sustain attraction with their partners.

      Obviously, there are two things that predict whether this will be enough:

      1. The requirement for dominance of the woman in question.

      2. The change in the relationship dynamic over time, as either or both parties slip into behavior that snuffs out the attraction.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “A man can be fully self-actualized and be a monk, in which case he is not going to attract women.”

    No, I think being a monk attracts women.

    At least if you are Thomas Merton.

    I would have to get in touch with a guy I knew in college who became a monk to check on that one.

    And my college roommate was a catholic priest. It certainly attracted the church secretary to him, which ended in marriage. Apparently, this caused some problems with the local bishop. He ended up unemployed.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    This has been apparent to me for some time. Lots of guys want to learn Game and then roll with the most alpha of alphas to get access to ONSs (all the while saying they’re not getting with sluts, but high quality girls).
    —-
    Susan,

    Most of those guys are getting with sluts. I do not care if the women are Ivy-league educated, very hot, upper class, or whatever. A slut is a slut and sluts are of low quality no matter their pedigree.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    You’re talking about behaviors, not traits. I think that’s a very important distinction.

    A man can be fully self-actualized and be a monk, in which case he is not going to attract women.

    A man can be his “best self” but if he doesn’t display, he will go unnoticed.

    Game is about behaviors – strategic tactics that may be congruent with a man’s self, or entirely artificial in the “fake it till you make it” sense.

    The corollary to your monk is a man can less than fully self-actualized and attract women because he has learned the attractive behaviors.

    Therefore: how much you are yourself or your passions is irrelevant to the question “how do I attract women” (or the man version of the common Google result that gets women here “Why don’t I have a girlfriend?”).

    Therefore any answer about “being yourself” or “follow your passions” is less than useless. It causes a man to emphasize something completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. It is as though I asked you “how do I get from the Harvard Square Redline station to your house” and you spend time telling me how to get around on Boston mass transit. The two questions intersect at precisely one point but you’ve answered a different one.

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

      @Herb

      Therefore: how much you are yourself or your passions is irrelevant to the question “how do I attract women” (or the man version of the common Google result that gets women here “Why don’t I have a girlfriend?”).

      You’re correct that a man with no interests, or even one with unproductive interests like drug dealing, can attract women, though not the same women as the man who is dynamic and interesting via competence and mastery. As I pointed out in another comment, the problem is congruency.

      Acting like a sociopath is going to come naturally for the sociopath, but be very stressful and disoriented for a man with empathy and a moral compass.
      If acting like a sociopath is not appealing to you as a man, then you’re better off investing your energy in real self-development of the kind that brings opportunities for leadership and builds self-confidence.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @MikeC and @Byron
    Re: “damn husband”

    I always thought DH stood for “dear husband” or “darling husband.” *shrug*

  • Travis

    @Alias,

    “Darnit! In my usual rush, I left out some crucial information.
    In addition to searching for their SMV equivalent (7+), and looking for women of good character/low Ns -another reason these guys had difficulty finding “quality women” was due to their looking for a very narrow niche in the market- specific ethnicity/religious beliefs, don’t know if that’s your case too?”

    Nope. I don’t really have a problem with any of those things. I live in a pretty racially homogenous area, so I know I’m not excluding anyone on that basis, simply because there’s no one to exclude. I wouldn’t be against dating a woman with a different racial background, but there AREN’T any women of a different racial background in my area.
    As far as religion goes, as I said before, I fall somewhere between athiest/agnostic. Religion doesn’t really enter into my thinking. As long as a girl has some decent morals, I don’t really care what God she prays to. Or whether she prays to a God at all, for that matter.
    But I appreciate the reply and the kind words…

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

    Ana. I can see I wasn’t clear.

    Sorry I think I confused myself since we were talking about unintentionally not attracting people, the intentional ones I know them as well it was not my own choice.

    I’ve been in commission sales for almost forty years. Sales trainers tell you to act as if you have a couple of thousand bucks in your wallet, so you don’t need the sale. If you need the sale, as you say, something is off. “Make me sell this to you. You sure?”

    Heh never got that bit of a training info. Maybe I just needed a better sales trainer.

    But in any case it wasn’t our interests that attracted or hindered attraction, because in many cases they’re different.

    You are right about that but is interesting the few times I found a guy that liked comic books in my country I used that as a “maybe he is nice” and I purposely spent more time with him trying to both getting to know him better and find attraction in my culture is hard to find a woman that assumes that the guy has to make her spark instantly before she consider him as potential romantic mate. Is like the opposite here “Every guy can be dateable till proven otherwise, while in here is more like every guy is undateble till proven otherwise”, YMMV.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    Susan: How long to I have to ignore her before I can start being attentive to her?” If I were a guy I would find this piece critical – going through life wearing some kind of behavioral armor to sustain someone’s attraction sounds exhausting and unpleasant
    —–
    This is the part of Game I do not quite grasp, feigning disinterest/being aloof. I have known and encountered many authentic players/assholes and none of them has ever been aloof to me. They often want you to know they are interested right away and I have never had to guess if they were. I suppose they do not want to leave any doubt in a girl’s mind that they desire her sexually right from the start. Moreover, they are escalating right from the gate, which makes it hard for you to friend zone them. Players are exuding sexual energy at all times because they do not have time to play the waiting game.

    Real players do not play aloof. This is how you know Game was invented by “betas”. Even though they are aspiring to be “alphas”/players they are still afraid of being rejected and are hung up on the outcome. Therefore, they use aloofness to shield themselves just in case she is not interested.

    This is not how real players operate, in my experience.

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

    I always thought it was Dear Husband.

    Three to one. J needs to clarify.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Anacaona
    It was Byron, actually, but now I wonder whether he was deliberately joking.

  • also intj

    I thought he was joking.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    You’re correct that a man with no interests, or even one with unproductive interests like drug dealing, can attract women, though not the same women as the man who is dynamic and interesting via competence and mastery. As I pointed out in another comment, the problem is congruency.

    When you’re attracting no one, sometimes attracting trashy women is better than nothing.

    I think that’s what too many women don’t get about beta guys who bang sluts via Game when they really want girlfriends. Some sex is better than no sex even if we’d rather have relationship sex.

    If that weren’t true, prostitution wouldn’t exist to the degree it does. Sometimes even a paid for blow job beats your hand, trust me.

    If acting like a sociopath is not appealing to you as a man, then you’re better off investing your energy in real self-development of the kind that brings opportunities for leadership and builds self-confidence.

    Paid Game seminars are four figure affairs. Men who can afford four figures on “how to get laid” have expended that energy more often than not and often with female relatives and “friends” (probably including at least one person they’re doing the beta orbit).

    Yet, it added nothing to getting laid.

    Sometimes I think it would be better for women, in terms of finding men worth dating, if all women would just STFU about what they find attractive in men. The wrong signals are more likely to lead to both bitter men and men who decide to learn fake asshole (and the intersection of the two who head straight to the Dark Triad) than not. No signals would be more helpful.

    And women could STFU about where have all the good men gone while dispensing the “be yourself advice” that leads men to conclude women are liars or being beta is not “a good man” (or both).

  • Herb

    @Susan

    In that way, the “display” doesn’t have an expiration date, i.e. “How long to I have to ignore her before I can start being attentive to her?” If I were a guy I would find this piece critical – going through life wearing some kind of behavioral armor to sustain someone’s attraction sounds exhausting and unpleasant.

    Well, at least some men go through a period (lifetime) of preferring strippers and hookers. You don’t have to pretend to like them, but they’re damn good at pretending to like you.

    I know the period after my wife left when I was a stripper’s regular I enjoyed the fact that getting her to pretend to like me was cheaper than a girlfriend and I actually believed the pretend affection/attraction than I got from most women I wined and dined.

    To a lot of men hookers and strippers are the honest women. I think Game sadly reinforces that view.

  • Herb

    oops..that should be more than I got from most women I wined and dined.

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

    It was Byron, actually, but now I wonder whether he was deliberately joking.

    I meant that he answered the question of DH directed at J so now she has o say which one is which.

  • JP

    Has anyone tried to use Transactional Analysis to deal with this game thingy?

    “With its focus on transactions, TA shifted the attention from internal psychological dynamics to the dynamics contained in people’s interactions. Rather than believing that increasing awareness of the contents of unconsciously held ideas was the therapeutic path, TA concentrated on the content of people’s interactions with each other. Changing these interactions was TA’s path to solving emotional problems.”

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

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Ana
    Ah! :)

  • Brendan

    @Susan –

    In my experience the kind of confidence and leadership that come from career development and personal interests is quite different from leadership and confidence when it comes to relating to women. I knew quite a few very accomplished guys when I was younger who had well developed non-Geek interests who nevertheless did quite poorly with women (not just talking about ONS attraction) as compared with other similar looking, similarly otherwise situated guys. It’s a different kind of confidence just like being charming is a different kind of social ability than being affable is. Lots if guys just don’t have this out of the box even though they have everything else. This is why it can be frustrating to read that guys should develop their interests and so on. Sure, but that doesn’t have much to do with actually attracting a woman. You need to be able to parley those interests in a charming, enticing way rather than in a friendly and affable way. The latter is the route to the friendzone, while the former can generate attraction because of how it us being conveyed and how that reflects on persona. That is in my experience more important than the content (within limits if course … There are some things that are useless in terms of supporting attraction regardless of how they are conveyed, like geeky things — not useless, but DLVs for most women, with the few women for whom they are not do enjoying a huge sex ratio advantage, which is also bad for the guys … Even guys who are geeks need to have something non-geeky going on of they want to be able to attract a non-geek due to the repulsion factor). As long as you aren’t in the repulsion box I think the actual substance of ghe interest isn’t that important in attraction while how any interest is conveyed is remarkably important.

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

      @Brendan

      You need to be able to parley those interests in a charming, enticing way rather than in a friendly and affable way. The latter is the route to the friendzone, while the former can generate attraction because of how it us being conveyed and how that reflects on persona.

      That makes sense. I would think that is where the sexual energy or escalation comes in – if a guy is making his sexual interest clear, he’s not going to be perceived as simply affable. I believe that men should make it clear from day one they’re not in the market for a platonic relationship, and they will not go into the friend zone

  • Escoffier

    “If I were a guy I would find this piece critical – going through life wearing some kind of behavioral armor to sustain someone’s attraction sounds exhausting and unpleasant.”

    That is more or less the way I see it, but as we have seen, it is a minority view among the guys here.

  • Herb

    @Escoffier

    “If I were a guy I would find this piece critical – going through life wearing some kind of behavioral armor to sustain someone’s attraction sounds exhausting and unpleasant.”

    That is more or less the way I see it, but as we have seen, it is a minority view among the guys here.

    I agree…that’s my fundamental problem with the argument that a man has to Game his wife for a happy marriage.

    I already have a job which involves working to please people who aren’t deeply attached to me. What does “marriage” bring me if it’s just that the hours I’m not at work. Maybe I’m naive, but I figured part of the value of an LTR is having someone I don’t have to Game constantly to make enjoy being with me and happy spending time with me.

    How is a hooker, a maid, a cook, and a surrogate mother not a better set of interactions if married Game is required to keep a drama queen happy.

  • http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Bellita, Susan, Ana

    that was a late April’s Fool ;)

  • someINTP

    I’m just moved to country where prostitution is legal. From a distant perspective, this controversy over sex is a controversy of modern welfare state. Who deserves free stuff? Or, who deserves free sex? Should women put-out (or subsidize) for the elites–in economics, the rich, in relationships, the cads–or should we float all boats. Should men marry (with great financial risk) and support the domestic ambitions of women who clearly aren’t wife material? Should sluts get free stuff? I suppose it all depends on who can cry and tell the better story. F**k them all I say.

    My opinion: the economy has globalized, but society hasn’t. Your lifestyle is deeply connected to people you’ve never met across the globe, yet you will only walk a few blocks to find a mate. The solution: globalize society. Don’t like the local girls and guys? (Really, females have many more options in the US. So I speak to the men.) If finding a proper mate is important to you, invest in a little travel. Familiarity breeds contempt and contempt breeds broken families. Get out before you OD on the red pill and f**k with someone you don’t really love.

    It’s also good to be a place where you don’t have to look at every woman like a slut to get laid or the “game” as the self professed gurus of masculinity like to call it. It’s a religion of imploding decadence that is more pitiful than praiseworthy. You’re the symptom of a venereal disease–not the cure, MF. Having followers doesn’t make you a god–it means you are popular with desperate idiots. Here, sluts can make money being sluts. You know which pill the woman is on. I can take either pill, any time of the day. But f**k this false choice. There is no choice when the consequences are all the same.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    That makes sense. I would think that is where the sexual energy or escalation comes in – if a guy is making his sexual interest clear, he’s not going to be perceived as simply affable. I believe that men should make it clear from day one they’re not in the market for a platonic relationship, and they will not go into the friend zone

    I get what you’re saying, but especially among your target female audience doesn’t that carry a high risk of the “creepy” label? Or maybe a “all he wants is sex” (ie, player) label?

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

      @Herb

      I get what you’re saying, but especially among your target female audience doesn’t that carry a high risk of the “creepy” label?

      I’ve been thinking about that. I don’t think women consider all men they’re not attracted to creepy. In my experience, the creepy label is reserved for one or more of the following behaviors:

      1. Won’t take no for an answer, or inability to receive rejecting signals.

      2. Romantic interest without sexual interest, which often comes off as supplicating.

      3. Sexual interest expressed clumsily, i.e. long bouts of staring without verbal communication.

      I’ve experienced these, usually all together. It is true that some guys can pull it off regardless, as in the Tom Brady SNL skit. A very good-looking guy who acts cocky and won’t give up is going to be received differently, as is the same guy who does the eye f*cking thing without speaking.

      The truth is women are very, very good at reading a lot of different signals. If you’re anxious or fearful, we can literally smell it. As a rule of thumb, I think guys are much better served attempting to signal sexual interest early. That doesn’t mean they have to get it right away, but acting like you expect it in the near future is probably self-fulfilling to some extent.

      Or maybe a “all he wants is sex” (ie, player) label?

      Funny you should say that, I’m working on a post about “cad management” now. I think the best approach is a balance – legitimate interest in dating (as opposed to ONS or booty call) coupled with making a physical connection asap. If she won’t kiss you at the end of the first date, move on. That’s a far cry from sex in 3, but I do agree that if a woman is attracted, she will be willing to show it right away, and if you let the opportunity pass by, you risk killing it off.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    If I were a guy I would find this piece critical – going through life wearing some kind of behavioral armor to sustain someone’s attraction sounds exhausting and unpleasant.

    You’re right, it is unpleasant.

    But constantly trying and failing is far more unpleasant, and can lead to depression.

    I’d rather take my chances with the former.

  • Mike C

    I believe that men should make it clear from day one they’re not in the market for a platonic relationship, and they will not go into the friend zone

    Yes,…BUT this can’t be done as a declarative statement or ultimatum. It must be subcommunicated. That is the tricky part many guys don’t understand, or grow up not learning. The corollary to this is guys need to be told that “friends first” is mostly bullshit. Sure, there are relationships that can evolve or develop out of friendship, but they really are the exceptions, not the rule.

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

      @Mike C

      BUT this can’t be done as a declarative statement or ultimatum. It must be subcommunicated.

      What is the best way for a guy to communicate zero tolerance for LJBF? I’ll hazard one guess – if you’re getting any flaking or weakening of interest, immediately pull back? And of course, sexually escalate early – the problem is this can really come off as an ultimatum. I know some women who have felt really put off and disrespected by guys who pushed too hard or assumed too much the first night – even though they were very attracted to those guys. The mere hint of a possible P&D is enough to shut some women down.

  • http://thedatingnook.com Liza207

    I get what you’re saying, but especially among your target female audience doesn’t that carry a high risk of the “creepy” label? Or maybe a “all he wants is sex” (ie, player) label?

    Women already know men want sex from us any time they attempt any kind of interaction with us whether it is verbal or non-verbal. A man chatting us up in a bar or anywhere you encounter us is rarely doing so because he is seeking a platonic friend and we know it. Women naturally interpret any attention from a man as sexual interest. Therefore, you are not pulling the wool over our eyes by feigning disinterest.

    Yes, some men may come across as creepy but they are usually desperate losers (gammas) who are socially clueless. One should not act overly eager unless he is ridiculously hot.

  • Jon

    I agree with the post. If a woman is looking for the most secure and dependable marriage partner, marry a beta guy.

    However, it’s also sounds a little like Jimmy Soul’s advice in his song If You Want to be Happy.

  • HR Lincoln

    Liza207-
    “These guys (betas like her boss) and their choices in women often bewilder me.”

    You are projecting based upon your worldview as a woman. In nature, males display, females choose. Generally speaking, only women and alpha men truly are in a position to execute choice of their mates. Beta males mostly take whatever woman that shows interest in him and meets his minimum attractiveness standards.

    In all likelihood, your boss’s wife chose him, and not the other way around.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    What is the best way for a guy to communicate zero tolerance for LJBF? I’ll hazard one guess – if you’re getting any flaking or weakening of interest, immediately pull back? And of course, sexually escalate early – the problem is this can really come off as an ultimatum. I know some women who have felt really put off and disrespected by guys who pushed too hard or assumed too much the first night – even though they were very attracted to those guys. The mere hint of a possible P&D is enough to shut some women down.

    This puts us back into the combat dating dilemma. If a guy doesn’t push early he’s risking getting LJBF, often with “friends” meaning “you take me on expensive (time or money) dates with no hope of a return”. If a woman gives up early she risks a P&D.

    The more one side gets burned (LJBF/P&D) the more likely they are to respond in a way that makes the other side feel disrespected and more likely to push back.

    I am more and more thinking men, at least, should follow a “by 30″ rule. If you want to get married, actively engage women, and haven’t by 30 (and I mean wedding bells…unless you’ve got matched rings then that eternal fiancée at 30 isn’t interested in marriage in this framework) then move on. You’re better off building a happy life and getting your nut off with hookers than wasting your time on what is left of the field.

    My theory is the women interested in mating and not games will be snatched up by 30. The ones who wait until after 30 to “get serious” are more likely to be in baby rabies mode and once that’s done are a high ELP or just making your life miserable risk. You’ll at best be third after the kids and the career she couldn’t do without before 30. You’ll probably be below that.

    Are there woman past 30 who were good catches but got serious late or just got missed. Sure there are. There are also winning lottery numbers every night.

    I don’t bet on those either.

  • also intj

    As a widow over 30 who had a great marriage I hope good guys my age take a woman’s specific situation into account.

  • Richard Aubrey

    alsointj
    For what it’s worth, if anything, I met a woman in her sixties who had a hope. She hoped there would be a lot more good men half her husband’s age so that women half her husband’s age would quit pestering him.
    I gather he’s got it going on, but not flamboyantly, and he’s married, but….apparently a shortage of good guys in their thirties.

  • A.

    Going back to the Newton reproducing / Einstein / genius thing…

    This reminds me of some comments about how alphas compete with their own children. One anecdote I heard was that the mathematician Carl Gauss specifically told his children NOT to go into mathematics, because he was worried that if they were merely decent mathematicians, it would lower the prestige of the name “Gauss”.

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

      @A.

      This reminds me of some comments about how alphas compete with their own children.

      As the mother of a boy who played sports, one thing I saw time and time again was the alpha dad/coach who wanted his son to be the best, bar none, but also felt threatened by his son’s prowess. I witnessed some especially strange father son interactions where the son’s being the MVP was both validating and threatening to the father. It struck me as so dysfunctional that I was quite surprised to see it several times.

      One of those boys wound up doing quite well as a baseball player:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/mlb/stanford-degree-in-hand-jack-mcgeary-can-focus-on-baseball/2011/03/24/ABbT9CQB_story.html

      He was on my son’s Little League as a 10 year old. On the rare occasions he struck out, he was terrified of his father. Alpha disapproval is a powerful thing for sons.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    AlsoINTJ, here’s another quick story.

    My dad’s oldest sister lost her husband to cancer when she was in her mid-forties. I didn’t realize it at the time – she looked much older. After a few years, with lots of encouragement from her (adult) children and weight watchers, she got social again. Actually, she found a pretty nice guy.

    I recall that a lot of her relatives were discouraging her a bit – he was a life-long bachelor and as I understand it, he was not healthy either. Heard once that he only expected to live a few years.

    Well, they did get married and spent about 16 great (her words) years together. We’re celebrating her 95th birthday this year.

    The moral is it’s not too late, ever.

  • Herb

    @also intj

    As a widow over 30 who had a great marriage I hope good guys my age take a woman’s specific situation into account.

    If there were good men over 30 they might. But ask all the single ladies: there are no good men. More and more men who are good by the definition in the OP are taking the fact that “there are no good men” implied by the “where have all the good men gone” and “man up” articles to heart:

    1. They realized that the men described in the OP are not good men (because they look and count 6 or 7 that they fit plus the 1 or 2 more from before the ex-wife or batshit crazy ex-gf got done with them) and man up: become fake assholes.

    2. They realize that women who wanted men like them got married early and are gone. Sure, a handful are widowed but, no offense, finding you is like finding a June 14th gallon of milk today. Might be possible but what is the opportunity cost relative to the benefit.

    If I was still single, had instituted the “no marriage after 30″ rule, and randomly met you I might consider your history. I would not, however, be actively looking for you.

  • Harkat

    Every day a little further…

  • this is Jen

    How is a hooker, a maid, a cook, and a surrogate mother not a better set of
    interactions if married Game is required to keep a drama queen happy.
    ———————————————————

    If you really see it this way, I am not sure any amount of information or examples will change your. mind.

    But I think a little game goes a looong way in marriage.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    How is a hooker, a maid, a cook, and a surrogate mother not a better set of
    interactions if married Game is required to keep a drama queen happy.
    ———————————————————

    If you really see it this way, I am not sure any amount of information or examples will change your. mind.

    But I think a little game goes a looong way in marriage.

    Call it a variation on what do women bring to marriage to make Gaming them in an on-going sense worth while.

    1. Game is work: it’s a skill set to learn and to practice.

    2. As was asked earlier: if you have to act like someone other than yourself forever to keep a person won’t that get tiring. Also, if you have to do that you’ve just admitted emotional intimacy can’t be part of marriage.

    3. Most women in the post feminist era expect you to share maid and cooking duties even if they are SAH wives/mothers. I know. I was married to one. I don’t see many articles complaining women aren’t doing enough to earn as much as their husbands but plenty about husbands not doing half the housework which excludes from housework all the traditional “male” jobs. Apparently men do those for fun.

    So, more and more I see women trading sex for commitment but to honor said commitment and keep supplying sex you need to be in courting/mating behavior 24/7 and if that’s not the real you, tough luck. BTW, if you want her to do wifely things (a term from Idaho’s common law statutes back in the day, might still be) you’re sexist.

    The killer, though, is #2. What does a wife, a real partner bring besides sex, cooking, cleaning, and children that the four things I mentioned never can: an intimate, a confidant, a supporter, or as I put it a partner.

    How many people today, male or female, consider that part of marriage. Oh, we have this airy-fairy concept of a soulmate but no one wants to talk about what that actually means.

    Might I suggest someone you have to have an act with every day is not someone who can be that for you or that you can be a partner for either.

    That’s the real killer. If you aren’t an alpha and have to pretend to be to keep a wife in the end resentment will set in or you’ll slip up. If it’s the former, then the asshole becomes real and you’ve lost anyway.

    What happened to the idea that “I made a commitment and he’s not sufficiently alpha today but he was yesterday and probably will be tomorrow and as a mature adult I’m responsible for my emotional state and my choices and I’ll choose to find happiness in honoring my word and looking forward to more of what I remember”.

    Why is that so hard to ask of women?

  • Herb

    Oops, that should be at “this is Jen”.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I don’t understand the difficulty in understanding the apparent contradiction between decrying women for being too slutty and yet wanting to be a player.

    Women are too slutty to meet our standards, according to standard male belief. We want LTRs with them, but they cannot meet our commitment standards. The only thing they are good for is STRs. Thus we wish to become good at STRs so we can at least get sex and SOME occasional intimacy.

    Also, we do not want to feel like failures that cannot get laid.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Also, Re: Being comfortable around women.

    To some extent, true. You need to be comfortable to be able to playfully tease them. If you freeze up, you’re fucked. Still, different tactics.

    There can be different levels of confidence, too. When I was younger, I had a nice little argument with a Shimon Peres. Still have no problems getting in front of a room of a couple thousand people and ranting about some topic I don’t really know anything about.

    But talking to the girl across the coffee shop? Yeah, not something I was particularly comfortable with until recently, something most of my guy friends aren’t comfortable with, and they spend all day arguing with the federal government.

  • .this is Jen

    Herb,

    Yes game is work, but so is being a great wife. I think both should participate. And just to clarify..I don’t believe a little game I marriage equals a guy pretending to be someone else.

  • Lokland

    @Herb

    Just my opinion but if I was in an LTR/marriage that required just plain dominance, king of the house type deal. I can do that.

    But if it required a conscious effort. No woman would be worth it.
    I would go the hooker route.
    —————————————————————-

    I’ve seen it above a few times and I’ll agree. Mating has gone global and American woman provide the worst odds of a successful, life long , fulfilling marriage where her tits stick out farther than her stomach.

    Doesn’t mean there are not diamonds in the rough but certain places cut the grass occasionally.

  • .this is Jen

    Just my opinion but if I was in an LTR/marriage that required just plain dominance, king of the house type deal. I can do that.

    But if it required a conscious effort. No woman would be worth it.
    I would go the hooker route.
    —————————————————————-
    A wife/mother to your children isn’t worth a conscious effort?? do you think she shouldn’t have to make effort for you?

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

    Susan…”the alpha dad/coach who wanted his son to be the best, bar none, but also felt threatened by his son’s prowess. I witnessed some especially strange father son interactions where the son’s being the MVP was both validating and threatening to the father.”

    One of the most vivid descriptions I’ve ever read of the interaction between a highly-competitive/very-successful father and his son is “Father, Son, & Co”, the autobiography of long-time IBM CEO Tom Watson Jr. The descriptions of his interactions with Watson Sr, the company’s founder, are alternately painful and touching. I reviewed it here.

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

      @david foster

      100%
      Confidence
      Appreciation
      Admiration
      Love
      Dad

      Thank you for that link. I burst into tears at the above note. That book sounds like a great read. And what a fortuitous name change for the company!

  • Richard Aubrey

    My son was all-conf fb, bb, tennis his senior yr in HS.
    Captain and MVP of the latter two.
    Twenty seconds before the end of the last bbgame of his career–losing in the second round of playoffs–the coach pulled him.
    It was, imo, to allow him to get a standing O for his season, separate from the end of the game applause.
    Which he got.
    I didn’t stand. Figured, since he was my son, it would be unfair, or partisan or favoritism, or something. I was proud, although as I told him more than once, good hand/eye coordination is…good hand/eye coordination and is in no way a virtue.
    Not sure I was right, but it seemed so at the time.

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

      @Richard Aubrey

      I was proud, although as I told him more than once, good hand/eye coordination is…good hand/eye coordination and is in no way a virtue.

      What a rare and admirable view. Athletic talent is most definitely a gift, but not a virtue. I fear we mix them up too often.

  • Alias

    Travis:
    “Nope. I don’t really have a problem with any of those things. I live in a pretty racially homogenous area, so I know I’m not excluding anyone on that basis, simply because there’s no one to exclude. I wouldn’t be against dating a woman with a different racial background, but there AREN’T any women of a different racial background in my area.
    As far as religion goes, as I said before, I fall somewhere between athiest/agnostic. Religion doesn’t really enter into my thinking. As long as a girl has some decent morals, I don’t really care what God she prays to. Or whether she prays to a God at all, for that matter.
    But I appreciate the reply and the kind words…”
    ———-

    Ugh, it doesn’t sound good- I just wondered if you were looking for a very specific type, not that I was objecting to whatever standard you set. If marriage is what you truly want, you gonna have to get really creative to find what you’re looking for.
    Good luck to you and to the rest of the folks looking for love in the SMP, I’d hate it if I were still in it today. How depressing!

  • Herb

    @this is Jen

    Yes game is work, but so is being a great wife. I think both should participate. And just to clarify..I don’t believe a little game I marriage equals a guy pretending to be someone else.

    I guess I’m typical of the ‘sphere in that I think the majority of women, including the one I married, weren’t overly interested in doing the work of being a wife.

    That said, the thrust of the comments has been:

    1. Yes, we want beta
    2. But you’d better supply sufficient alpha
    3. If you ever fail at #2, #1 won’t matter.

    That’s where the question comes in about “honoring your commitment”. Isn’t part of the work of being a good wife is understanding that your hubby can’t be the perfect alpha day in and day out? If that’s the case then why is it the man’s fault when he fails to be alpha enough. Didn’t that “better or worse, ’til death do us part” stuff mean anything?

    Plus, all the beta stuff Susan listed isn’t exactly effort free either.

    I guess we’re getting to the nub of my problem with Game: it’s all about making women happy so they either offer sex or, if you use it for LTR, honor a previously made commitment.

    What are women putting on the table, besides sex, in exchange for me putting time and energy into Game that could go into something else. Because for the majority of women I’ve met in person who didn’t marry by their late 20s (and remember, I did clarify that this route was something post 30 on the assumption that the number of single worthwhile women at 30+ was vanishingly small).

    Susan occasionally writes about what women should do for me but does write more about screening men. Cosmo and other women’s magazines seem to only worry about what women should provide men in sex articles.

    Which, in all honesty, is pretty sad.

    @ADBG

    Women are too slutty to meet our standards, according to standard male belief. We want LTRs with them, but they cannot meet our commitment standards. The only thing they are good for is STRs. Thus we wish to become good at STRs so we can at least get sex and SOME occasional intimacy.

    This is what I’m trying to say. Women are annoyed men who learn game only want ONS/STR. Well, LTR, as Jen pointed out, are work. How many women want to “women up” and do the work instead of complaining “men want only sex” or “where are all the good men”.

    Yes, I get you want Susan’s 10 bullet points plus sufficient alpha (whatever that means) and for that I get…

    …laid?
    …a lifelong commitment from you? (not to you…lots of us got those and the women, in the end, got them for free via ELP).
    …home cooking? (see the stats on eating out vs. home over the past few decades?)
    …children? (one, maybe, if we’re lucky and it doesn’t interfere with your career)

    This list is classic pre-feminist husband, especially when combined with the sufficient alpha. Don’t blame you for wanting it, it’s quite a package.

    Hell, the beta alone is quite a package.

    But pre-feminist women offered complimentary items. Do most post-feminist women? I’m not talking the active HUS posters, but the average, run of the mill, “why don’t I have a boyfriend” woman who comes to HUS eventually?

    We hear all these stories about women failing by trading a hook-up for a LTR once or twice and failing and them come to HUS.

    Good for them. Aunt Sue will tell them not to sell themselves so cheap but that’s half the equation. They’re trading sex for LTR by waiting but guys won’t wait because…well sex is easy to get.

    So learning to screen and not give it up easily is only half of it.

    Why did men invent Game while women seem to only have invented “man up” articles?

  • Courtley

    Susan Walsh May 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    @Brendan

    In the context of a guy seeking an LTR, the alpha attractors to focus on aren’t the dark triad ones, but the leadership and confidence ones.

    Yes, but I would suggest that a lot of men in the non-alpha 80% have some of these traits.

    Exactly. I mean, I’m writing my opinions under this assumption. None of the guys I’d describe as “betas” are like, 100% devoid of confidence or assertiveness or masculinity or even differing levels of ‘dominance.’ They’re just relationship-oriented, honest, decent-hearted and simply not interested in being players. I get that lack of opportunity is not the same thing as virtue and there’s lots of guys out there who’d be players if they could pull it off smoothly, but there’s also lots of guys who I’d describe as ‘beta’ in the sense that their own emotional makeup and set of ethics is really what prevents them from being cads. They are attractive and endowed with enough social skills to chat up chicks in a club with at least some level of success, if they wanted to–maybe not as much success and aplomb as Tony Romo in a club or something, but they could probably pull ONS fairly often, especially in college settings where there’s now a surplus of women.

    A lot of men on this site seem to define alpha and beta as purely inborn traits that manifest themselves with very little input from the man’s frontal lobe. :D I’m saying I think a big part of what makes someone behave in alpha or beta ways are beliefs and family background/environment, not just “traits.” This is why I’ve known some confident, very attractive star-athlete types who were also faithful boyfriends-turned-husbands and quite happy with that, and much less-typically ‘masculine’ guys who were still extremely promiscuous and looked upon the idea of committed monogamy with a lot of contempt. Inborn personality traits and physical attractiveness are factors in all of this, sure, but not the sole determinants.

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    @Bastiat and OTC”

    “I think that you are absolutely right and that the man’s attraction value is probably based more on the female’s assessment of the presence of the three alpha traits, while his actual value as a long-term reproductive partner is different ”

    ___________________________-

    You fine gents are circling around to one of the biggest problems in the present SMP – that of perception.

    How many times have you heard a man say,”But I’m everything I am supposed to be, and she left me anyway.”

    The female example is “I got burned by another player.”

    People are evaluating, but they’re using defective Partnerscopes.

    Might be the mirage coming up from the “line in the sand”, too, but I’ve got my own suspicions…

  • http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com Dogsquat

    Leap of a Betas said:

    “You can do that by having something in common or, as I mentioned earlier, having the ability to make her care about the things you care about. It is rare for men to be able to do the second, and more common to be able to do the first. ”
    __________________________________

    Here’s a technique that works, once a level of baseline attraction is established:

    Tell her she’d be good at Interest X because of Attribute She Hasn’t Mentioned.

    I used to do this all the time. I’m a paramedic, and I deal with a lot of grisly stuff. I also really, really like emergency medicine and I talk about it a lot.

    When girls say,”Oh my god. I could never do what you do…”

    I’d come back with,”I bet you’d be a great medic. You’re actually very even-keeled, and that’s important in my field.”

    The trick is to have the positive attribute be something that’s true, but that she hasn’t brought up yet. Most girls will tend to highlight what they see as their positive attributes – “I’m SO not like most girls…I’m more ABC…” Don’t use ABC – that’s boring. You’ve got to mention XYZ – that activates the Hamster, but in a good way. From then on, she’ll be picturing herself doing whatever it is your interest is, whenever you talk about her interest. It personalizes things a bit for her, and it’s easier to be interested in things that involve you, even if it’s a “fantasy you”.

    Give it a rip sometime, and name your kids after me.

  • Courtley

    @A Definite Beta Guy

    If you really define “women,” like alllllll women, as “too slutty,” then you’re definitely only seeing that outgoing, promiscuous 20% and glazing over the rest. Pretty standard young-dude behavior and all, but your statement is really just inaccurate.

    It does depends on what your definition of “slut” is, though. If you mean women who’ve had numerous ONS and are entrenched in the hookup lifestyle, then again, something like 80% of women don’t have regular ONS. That’s a pretty chunk of the population there. If your standard for non-slut is, like, being completely virginal that’s going to be much harder to find, but if non-slut is just women whose sexual activity has mostly been experienced within the context of an LTR? That is at least half of the young women out there.

    If your standard really IS, like, virginity, you’re only probable shot is to find the right kind of religious community–Mormons or conservative evangelicals mostly. Most of the female friends I grew up with in church, who are not yet married, are still virgins at 24-27ish. None of them are fat or unfeminine, either. :D So are most of the still-single guys, though they tend to get married right after college if they’re doing the saving-it-till marriage thing for obvious reasons. But . . . you’d have to become a very committed believer to get with one of them and that is understandably not everyone’ s thing (and no longer my thing). Still, as someone who comes from this background, this is part of why the whole “the womens are all sooo skanky!” just rings pretty hollow to me based on a lot of people I personally know.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Courtley
    Apex Fallacy. You’re only focusing on the guys who are players or in relationships, and completely ignoring the very large group that’s involuntary celibate.

    Note ADBG’s description of his friends who argue with the federal government all day, but couldn’t generate interest in girls if their life depended on it. You’re VASTLY underestimating how many guys like that are out there. I used to be one. Many of my friends are still like that. And I see countless guys like that every day.

  • Courtley

    @Brendan, #599

    I understand. We all know people we share interests with that we’re also not attracted to. That’s a given, and I wasn’t saying interests could always generate sexual interest or even be enough to sustain a marriage by themselves. I do think they’re a vital part of attraction and compatibility for a lot of people.

    Regarding your ex-wife and current GF…look, I’m not sure how old you are. I think this whole dynamic where “he’s into cars and football, she likes shopping and gardening” is sort of dying out among couples in their 20s. I hear the “opposites attract” thing a lot from my parents and their friends when they talk about their own relationships (which are mostly quite happy, by the way). It’s a dynamic that still might be preferred by some, but I really don’t think it’s reflective of the priorities of the current generation. Obviously no one’s interests are going to match up with someone else’s 100%, but most of my friends seem to prioritize this type of compatibility very highly.

  • Courtley

    @Jimmy Hendricks

    I know they exist, but are those qualified as ‘betas’ or ‘omegas’? I get that these labels are quite arbitrary, but I am talking specifically about the guys who I think of as ‘betas’–they have decent social skills and some level of ‘Game’ who still aren’t doing a lot of hooking-up, and really haven’t engaged in that scene very much at all. And also, I’m mostly referring to people I actually know in real life, and most of my friends of both genders are in LTRs. Yes, that’s a specific demographic of people. Guys who are involuntarily celibate and can’t find ONS or LTRs are a separate concern and the advice for them to gain confidence and assertiveness is probably solid. So, of course, is my advice for them to work on ways to communicate their interests positively in social settings. :)

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

    @Court
    “Still, as someone who comes from this background, this is part of why the whole ‘the womens are all sooo skanky!’ just rings pretty hollow.”

    Hell, there are regulars here that have basically said all young women, even those attending community college no less, are “nuts or sluts”, welfare moms, or basket cases : |

    Having a generally low opinion of women ~ women having a generally low opinion of you? Very possibly a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’ll admit to a certain amount of resentment during my single days after being turned down for a 2nd date often enough. It probably affected my attitude without me even knowing it.

    By the way, you’re making way too much sense in this environment : )

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Courtley
    That reminds me of Susan talking about “betas” that she knows who get ONSs and have 10+ partner counts. Your average guy couldn’t even imagine that being possible.

    Alpha – Generates sexual attraction in a good portion of attractive girls
    Beta – Can generate platonic friendship with girls, but struggles to escalate to sexual relationships (That includes ONSs and LTRs). Knows the term LJBF very well.
    Omega – Actively repulses girls. Gets called “creepy”. Never has a chance.

    ———-

    Again, from what I’ve seen at a number of different cities, schools, and socioeconomic backgrounds… The experience of ADBG’s friends who are successful, interesting, good at their jobs, etc. but absolutely hopeless with girls is the norm.

  • Courtley

    @JimmyHendricks

    The “norm” for MOST men to be involuntarily celibate? Really? I just don’t believe this, it is not my experience. It may very well be a problem for what works out to be a large number of men, though, and that’s still worthy of consideration.

    @Megaman

    Yeah, I’m beginning to sense that. :P Nuancing a dogmatic worldview is scary for a lot of people, regardless of what they’re dogmatic about. “All women are sluts” is, after all, a pretty simple and uncomplicated perspective to have. It saves you the pesky trouble of having to think of them and interact with them as individuals.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Yes, it is absolutely the norm. My co-workers can express themselves perfectly fine in social settings: they are quite popular for the most part, actually. Most of them have superior social skills to me, most of the time. They are fine socially, have good social networks, etc.

    They cannot deal with women, at all. One of them, I felt so bad, I started talking to some girl at Target he liked, introduced him into the conversation. Dumbass grin across his whole face, conversation lasted 15 seconds, he left.

    These guys cannot even talk to girls in CUSTOMER SERVICE. That’s how freaking bad they are women.

    And that’s pretty much the norm.

    What they need to do is drop their fear of women and build more positive experience with women. This is purely an interaction problem with women, much like an arachonphobic cannot deal with spiders.

    WRT sluts:

    I am just describing why men are willing to decry sluts while directly feeding the problem. I’ve seen the stats, too, but something doesn’t ring true about them. Though, to be fair, I have pretty high standards: I had a number of hook-ups, but a strict “no sex” rule and was a 24 year old virgin and stopped the hook-up thing years ago.

    I’m not a Christian, but I believe strongly in forgiveness. The specific number does not matter to me. But that requires actual repentance and recognition of wrongs. A girl who firmly believes she was “finding herself” has no use to me. A girl who tells other girls to “get it out of her system” has no use to me. A girl who endorses casual sex as something to do between relationships has no use to me.

    This also requires a very big commitment to make me feel secure in the relationship. Yes, the past is the past: it’s also part of who you are. I am going to be wary of a promiscuous past. It’s a giant red flag.

    Oh, and I’m against price discrimination. If you had a ONS 3 years ago, whatever. If you had one 3 days before you met me and you make me wait 3 months so you can feel “special,” you have insulted me in a matter almost as bad as pissing on my grandfather’s grave.

  • Courtley

    Also, Jimmy…what would you classify successful, attractive guys in LTRs with attractive women as?

    What about average-looking men in LTRs with average-looking women?

    The latter is what I’d call the majority (at least over 50%) of men out there at any given time. There seems to be a huge jump from Alpha to Beta in your “classification” system–going from sexual interest in most/many women to “struggles to ‘escalate’ platonic friendships.” You’re skipping over what I’d call the most typical kind of man out there, someone who generates romantic/sexual interest in a decent number of women and is able to ‘escalate’ that interest with at least enough to have a girlfriend if he wants, or some varying number of ONS depending on the guy. The definition of Omega as dudes who get called ‘creepy’ is probs pretty accurate.

  • Courtley

    @ADBG
    To clarify, you think this “norm” describes the majority of American men in their 20s-30s (to narrow down the demographic a bit) or is it the norm of people YOU know? Which are you postulating here? I have met a few guys like you describe, who can’t even talk to women in customer service, but this group is simply not more than 50% of young men out there (that’s a simple, definable majority). I’d guess no more than maybe 10%. Which, you know, if we’re talking about “all Americans,” is still a lot of people. But it’s not “most guys.”

    Your standards for women are similar to ones I employ for men, so I have no quarrel there. I won’t discriminate against a guy who’s ever had a ONS or anything, but his attitudes towards casual sex are very significant. Any guy who thinks it’s a necessary part of finding yourself/finding what you like sexually/has no real impact on someone’s emotional makeup is probably not very emotionally compatible with me.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    Please do not confuse “All women are sluts” (what you’re hearing) with “most women having nothing more to offer than the sluts”.

    If all women have to offer up is sex then sluts are going to win because they sell the only goods on the market cheaper. For whatever reason, lots (the majority in my estimation) of women think all men want is sex. Thus, they have to price compete with sluts.

    If women started to wonder what they can offer that men want besides sex then maybe men wouldn’t work on the “all women are sluts (or frigid)” theory while hoping to find a virgin.

    Virgin has become a proxy for “has something to offer other than sex” even if that something other is you being the only one she gives sex. In a world where most men think, based on what they’ve seen friends and fathers go through, that women’s ability to commit is non-existent the virgin at marriage has already won. She’s offered something upon commitment.

    Women who aren’t virgins can’t offer that even if they were a virgin until their last boyfriend.

    Again, we’ve seen the list. You want us to do the work you gotta put something on the table.

    A 30 second list of things a woman could offer to stand out and thus not have to price compete with sluts:

    1. Be the one to approach and thus share the risk
    2. Wear lingerie and let it peak out
    3. A kiss on the first date
    4. Home cooked food
    5. A back rub

    Doesn’t seem like much, does it?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I am not sure a big a proportion of men it is. It seems a substantial minority, because it consumes most of the men I know. Most of these guys have had some LTR experience. They just can’t open new girls. They’re passive, they are expecting something to just fall into their laps.

    My suspicion is that this is indeed the norm. Some guys DO have higher exposure to women through social circles, work, whatever, and that will result in higher Ns, but that doesn’t mean more game, it just means more exposure.

    I also am among college graduates, which is a minority of the population, still, but one with a bit more restraint in the SMP. So it’s skewed towards a more conservative count.

    This is not true among my similarly-attractive female friends. I am absolutely aware of the plight of women who literally cannot get male attention: I did spend a lot of my college years on the internet, after all. But SMP ranks differ totally, and women have a vastly higher SMP value for short-term relationships, which is something that most of my similarly-attractive female friends seem to have cashed in on, at least temporarily and in some form.

  • Esau

    Replying to Susan at 436; I’ll try to pick up on mainline substance when I have more time, but meanwhile I thought it worth addressing this:

    Esau, you are a very smart and compelling writer,

    I’m not smart enough to disagree.

    but you’re also very negative. …I can’t imagine meeting you out somewhere and having a friendly conversation.

    And so … what? Why do you think this is an interesting point, worthy of your (limited) time to remark upon? Why does this catch your eye? If you’re not making some sort of vague ad hominem gesture, then I’m curious what you think the significance is of my being “negative”.

    My goal is to have the truth about the world be told, and the truth does not depend on who says it or how they say it, be that person negative or positive, Buddhist or Hindu, extraterrestrial or a dog. No matter how pleasantly or acidly it is told, I’m interested in truth. What are you interested in? (And, what are your silent readers interested in?)

    You have a right to your anger,

    Perhaps risking my status as “smart”, I have to say that I don’t know what this means; but it sounds decidedly condescending to me. Who are you to judge whether I, or anyone, has a “right” to their anger? What would cause you to judge that someone did not have a right to their anger? do you have any examples? If you’re not making a judgement, then is this just some kind of tautology or empty social nicety?

    which is undoubtedly justified.

    No doubt. But, if anger is justified by circumstances then shouldn’t everyone, or at least everyone with similar values, feel the same way? One of my favorite artifacts from the Bush II era was a friend’s T-shirt reading “If you aren’t completely appalled then you haven’t been paying attention.”

    And so, I must express doubt that we hold in common, what the truth behind this justification might be. So let me state my orientation as directly as I can. To me, the subject of your blog is neither light-hearted nor academic. The SMP is a crime scene, plain and simple; and nothing short of a full investigation can possibly do justice for its victims, their dignity, and their scattered human remains. And inhuman would be anyone, who can walk that scene with their eyes open and not recoil; negativity is a sign you’re doing something right. So say I, and so say we all.

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

      @Esau

      The SMP is a crime scene, plain and simple; and nothing short of a full investigation can possibly do justice for its victims, their dignity, and their scattered human remains. And inhuman would be anyone, who can walk that scene with their eyes open and not recoil;

      Do you count any women among the victims?

  • Courtley

    @ADBG

    “They have some LTR experience but still can’t talk to a woman who works at Target without looking like a chump? How did they get that LTR experience in the first place? Also, how do you know these men–are they colleagues/people who work in the same industry as you and if so, what line of work is it? I mean…I don’t wanna stereotype here, but it’s pretty-well known that certain very male-dominated vocations out there who also seem to employ a dearth of involuntarily celibate men. I won’t name which ones, though, you can tell me if that’s the case with your friends or not.

    “My suspicion is that this is indeed the norm. Some guys DO have higher exposure to women through social circles, work, whatever, and that will result in higher Ns, but that doesn’t mean more game, it just means more exposure.”

    Aha, now you’re playing into my hands. :D Exposure is absolutely key. If you’re a software engineer who’s stuck in an office with mostly other guys all week and you don’t have the social skills for pulling in a bar, OR you’d rather not go that route for other reasons, you’re going to have to put some work into just meeting people through other means.

    And I’d never dispute that it’s generally easier for women to get casual sex/short-term casual flings than men . . . but only AFTER they hit a certain level of attractiveness/youth. That’s not really what we’re debating here, though.

    The guys you seem to know just seem to suffer from a lack of basic confidence and people skills. I feel for them, and hope they can find whatever type of therapy/Game/whatever they need to solve those problems. If they want to learn how to be playas at da club, they’ve probably got a LOT of work to do and it will be tough to pull off that persona with such a genuinely sky personality. If they want to be more viable LTR candidates, I’d say it’s very doable if they commit to working on their confidence levels and people skills, and especially if they learn how to focus on women with good character traits for LTRs who would appreciate them.

    I’d put the guys you know in a different category than the ones I know, then. The men I know are mostly the boyfriends/husbands/brothers of friends, guys I hung around with at my liberal arts university, or have met through my work in nonprofits and education–which tends to attract highly sociable, very kind, generally relationship-oriented beta-types. Few of these people are ‘players’ or do much club-scene/hooking up, but they also can confidently talk to people who happen to be women in the course of their day and are able to generate some level of quality female interest and have a decent amount of LTR experience (if they’re not currently in one already).

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Courtley

    I’m guessing you don’t realize how condescending you come of toward guys who used to or still struggle with this.

    “Oh you must not have people skills… Oh you must not be comfortable in social situations.”

    You couldn’t be more out of touch.

  • Ian

    OP, in term of men having “Alpha” and “Beta” genes, most dominance hierarchies are set in place by stressing underlings. Stress/cortisol reduces testosterone (and estrogen, I assume), animals stress underlings to reduce sexual competetion. Stress at a young age reduces height, immune response, symmetry.

    The words used here to describe unattractiveness in men “anxiety, fear, comfort” are proxies for describing stress. It may be that the men known as Alpha have had some advantage in terms of dealing with stress, better-functioning cortisol receptors, better early maternal bonding, less stressful family environments, in-the-moment personalities, less affinity for a sugary diet, whatever.

    Betas, for their part, I’d think were more likely to have been stressed. Meditation reduces baseline cortisol levels (thus increases testosterone), phosphatadylserine supplements repair cortisol receptors, positive socialization (oxytocin, especially cuddling) reduces cortisol sensitivity. Acute cortisol response, I believe it was called.

    A rat injected with cortisol will display signs of anxiety, absent any stressors. A monkey baby, given complete nutrition and no stressors, will degrade into an anxious, twitching heap if removed from its social group. Social animals have an oxytocin feedback loop, need it constantly, every few days or else degrade.

  • Ian

    Anyway, Stress-Beta Theory would allow for an entire population of men to become Beta-ized over time, testosterone levels dropping across the board. You’d need some global trends that disrupted group bonding, especially early maternal bonding (cesarean sections, daycare), an increase in dietary sugar, maybe a more sedentary life. Other factors, maybe.

    Stress-Beta Theory leads into Tebow Theory, which is that Tim Tebow would not have the same abilities if he had not been home-schooled. A lack of stress allowed for increased testosterone, a 240-lb, low-fat frame. Lack of social stress fosters group leadership traits. No dearth of oxytocin allowed for sex and orgasm de-emphasis; orgasm provides an oxytocin burst. Better stress response means better handling of pressure situations.

    Rambling, but I’m onto something. Maternal disruption (working mothers, C-sections ), sugary diets, and social isolation (television, internet) are Beta-Izing trends, on the mechanical level. Social dominance is predicted by levels of three hormones: high oxytocin, high testosterone, and low cortisol. The three are interrelated, and not inherently socially harmful to have that profile.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Court:

    What I mean wrt to the exposure is that MOST men are pretty bad with women, and most men are going to go involuntarily celibate for some period of time. Some are going to appear more successful, simply because even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    But they still couldn’t generate new attraction because they don’t know what they did right.

    And, again, these guys are for the most part quite sociable. They just suck with girls. My line of work is insurance, btw, there are plenty of girls in the building, they just. Can. Not. Approach.

  • also intj

    Joe, thanks for sharing that story about your aunt. I appreciated it.

  • deti

    The general pattern of this thread has been:

    Women: We want beta men. We love beta men. Women should mate with and marry beta men.

    Men: Great! But here are these facts that show that women DON’T really want beta men and DON’T want to marry them, because women aren’t attracted to betas. And here is this study and here is our personal experience, and the personal experience of countless men who have lived through divorces, wives EPLing them, repeated STR and LTR failures. So you SAY women want beta men, but that’s not what women outside HUS are telling us.

    Women: Guys, guys, guys! You just need to increase your leadership and confidence skills! We women will love you and fall all over ourselves wanting to date and marry you! Get with the program! Be more attractive!

    Men: Uh, we do all that stuff. We increase our confidence. We do well at work. We earn good livings (if we are employed). And women still don’t want us. Plus, it’s not worth having to game a wife every day to keep the attraction going. Too much work.

    And what will we get in exchange for doing the gaming? Will we get a woman who stays with us when it gets tough? Will she make us a home cooked meal every so often? Will she at least be nice and pleasant to us? Can we at least get that?

    Women: Come on, guys! That’s not MY experience. We love betas! Step up! Man up! Be more attractive! Lead us and show us confidence (but not too much, or you’re an arrogant asshole; and not too little, or you’re a pussy wimp).

    Men: I give up.

  • deti

    ADBG, Courtley:

    Courtley, I’m guessing you’re not yet 30 and haven’t spent a great deal of time seeing or studying the changing workplace and male-female relations. Male female relations have been completely overtaken by sexual harassment and gender equity law.

    The dynamic ADBG is describing among men he works with who are incels (involuntarily celibate) and awkward at approaching women is very, very common. These are men who have spent their whole lives being marinated in and inculcated with the following:

    1. You are a man. Your sex drive is evil, toxic and bad.

    2. You are never, never, NEVER to approach a woman sexually. You must NEVER escalate sexually unless she gives you express verbal permission to do so.

    3. You are allowed to ask a woman for a date once, and ONLY ONCE. If she says no, you must never, never, NEVER again talk to her, speak to her, look at her, or even think about her in any way, shape manner or form.

    4. You are a potential rapist. Any time a woman says no to sex, you must immediately back away and leave the scene immediately. A woman has an absolute right to stop sexual contact at any time for any reason.

    5. A wife has all the marital rights and has no obligations whatsoever. A husband has no marital rights; he has only obligations. A husband has no right to have sex with his wife. She can refuse sex at any time for any reason, for as long as she wishes. The husband is not allowed to push for sex. He is not allowed to sexually escalate. If he does, and she gives in and has sex with him, it was still against her will and he has raped her.

    Courtley, with all due respect, you are a good woman with a good heart. But you just don’t get it. At all. These men are running scared all the time. They’ve been rejected so many times they’ve accustomed themselves to it. They are scared shitless of being accused of sexual harassment, or being accused of rape. Allegations like this end careers. They result in bankrupting legal fees. They can even result in criminal prosecution.

    These men are afraid to be men, because one ill-placed approach can result in the end of his life.

    Please, Courtley, don’t try to speak to things of which you know nothing.

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

    @Ian
    Interesting theory about stress levels and “Anxiety approach with women” I will add that another think I noticed is the lack of coed interactions at early age unless the guy has a sister or two, and for the ones that have it I noticed parents being very protective of their girls while the boys start learning the messages that being male is bad and women are blameless so “give your sister/cousin whatever she wants to”. So men don’t learn early to negotiate with females to find a common place, but to surrender to their needs, YMMV.

  • Wudang

    Deti at 683

    +10

  • Emily

    Okay, if female commenters aren’t allowed to talk about what men are attracted to (fair enough), and we’re not allowed to talk about what women are attracted to, what exactly ARE we allowed to talk about?

    I understand that I can’t speak for ALL (or even most) women, but I have a problem with the idea that we aren’t qualified to talk about our own experiences/attraction triggers.

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

      @Emily

      Okay, if female commenters aren’t allowed to talk about what men are attracted to (fair enough), and we’re not allowed to talk about what women are attracted to, what exactly ARE we allowed to talk about?

      Bravo!

  • lovelost

    so after 686 comments, how many women on HUS wants to date a beta guy?

  • A definite beta guy

    We can all talk about how awesome dog squat is

  • A definite beta guy

    Women are indeed victims. They are also perpetrators. If they want protection and pity, they must also admit fault and ask for forgiveness.

    Field report from Barnes and noble: not a single girl in sight.

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