Studies Reveal Players Like Their Women Dumb, Drunk and Easy

Does the word “Duh” mean anything to you?

I think therawness’s 5 part letter series ( http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-1/ ) is a good article for demonstrating what kind of men Players and Fake-Alpha males are and the kinds of women they actually attract.

Re: “Duh”:

It is surprising and depressing how much basic common sense today requires the authority of science before it is accepted.

“Promiscuous males avoid intelligent women.”

“The exploitative men did not find slutty women attractive for long-term.”

I promise I’m not trying to be an ass. But even without new research, wasn’t this pretty much common knowledge?

Some of this seems a bit circular. In study number 1, they postulate that signs of exploitability might be deemed sexually attractive, then they seem to validate that by assuming all of the sexually attractive traits to be signs of exploitability and all of the unattractive traits to be signs of non-exploitability. Maybe some things are just more attractive without regard to exploitative intent. Youth? Wow – youth is sexually attractive. Flirtiness? Touching the breast? Come hither look? These are signs of receiptivity to short term arrangements – which would rule out “exploitation”. Revealing clothes? Uh, half naked chicks are arousing – news at 10:00.

Note that being passed out is the ultimate in exploitable, but they found that unattractive. Also, shy and anxious could be exploitable, but still not attractive for short term mating. Almost as if they had a conscience, or something.

The study’s authors also define “exploitative” in a certain way, but then seem to go on to implicity deem all short term arrangements as exploitative by the male, if in cases where the elements of exploitation are absent.

@susan
“Promiscuous males avoid intelligent women. They rely on slow-wittedness (as the researchers phrased it) to help them achieve success in their exploitations.”

Well, more accurately, with 194 randomly chosen males, they did no associate intelligence with short term mating desirability. This doesn’t prove one way or another what a knowledgable player would feel. My guess is that he wouldn’t care one way or the other, and might even prefer moderate intelligence, unless the picture conveying “intelligence” was just a euphemism for being plain looking.

Lastly, that passed out chick in the picture is still as hot as she was the first time you posted that picture, even though she’s passed out. But I’d want to wait until she wakes up (I’m not the exploitative type).

I wanted to say “duh” as well but here’s an issue:

“Easy”
Immature
Intoxicated
Reckless
Promiscuous
Partying
Flirty
Promiscuous friends
Attention seeking
Young
Sleepy
Come hither look
Revealing clothing
Touching breast

That’s the list of what players found attractive in the study. I’ve bolded items I would argue our culture actively encourages women to have. I didn’t bold promiscuous friends but it’s often going to be a side effect.

We’re actively encouraging, as a culture, seven of those cues. I’d argue that a significant subset is encouraging young women to be easy (explore their sexuality) and as I said promiscuous friends are a common side effect of all those others. Add those two at half credit and we’re at a culture encouraging more player attractors than not.

@Susan

Gotcha. Especially on that second point. Whether by nature or nurture, it definitely seems that once a player, always a player. I have friends and associates that seemingly can’t get right, no matter how perfect the woman or circumstances in their lives. I also have a few old uncles that fit that description, ha.

So while I never say never, the odds aren’t in favor of a woman dating a reformed player.

But what about the player who was created by girls’ thermonuclear rejections in his youth?

When high school and college girls say “ewwwww, as if!” enough times to a young man and later in life he learns and successfully uses Dark Game, does that make him a player for life?

I never say never, but it’s kind of hard not to go by percentages if all you have to go in is past behavior, whether warranted or not. Just like as a man, even if a girl was molested, which is horrible and not her fault, I’d have a hard time “turning a hoe into a housewife.” So I guess I can see it both ways.

“Two new studies reveal fascinating evidence that manwhores are much more attracted to promiscuous women than to less sexually available women.”

One wonders what Womyns Studies reveals about this, since they always seem so busy studying…

@Susan

Girls need to learn that dressing provocatively is filtering out all the guys who want a relationship.

A couple posts ago I said that a girl doesn’t have to be promiscuous to be “slutty.” Perception trumps reality. If a girl exhibits a number of qualities on that list (and in my experience, most attractive girls in their early twenties do), I’m going to write her off as slutty right away.

I think it also lends credence to Ramble’s claim in another topic that “most girls today are at least kinda slutty,” and why you see a lot of young guys saying “All girls are sluts.”

Again, perception trumps reality.

I don’t want to echo the “duh” comments but is sad people is spending money and funding studies, in something any grandmother would tell you while drinking some tea and biscuits.
That being said it wouldn’t do any good for anyone to read, lately I linked someone to some studies that show that being overweight is as bad as smoking and the hamster was working overtime to try and debunk them somehow “But I want to be fat and being considered healthy and hot!” between the lines was frankly very pathetic. I can imagine women reacting similarly to this study results.

The way women bring their self is what men will look up on them, let’s try to value our self not only for sex.

@PeppermintPanda

If dressing “slutty” attracts men with “exploitative mating strategies” what does that say about slut-walks?

Don’t these studies (essentially) demonstrate that the “slut-walkers” are wrong, and the police officer they were protesting was right?

Just because you like being a tool of the patriarchy suits you doesn’t mean all women like it.

Dressing slutty and attracting bad men to have meaningless sex with is empowering, damnit *stomps foot*

“If dressing “slutty” attracts men with “exploitative mating strategies” what does that say about slut-walks?”

The walking sluts are saying that they have the same rights as men to dress any way they want in public and if they choose to present themselves to the male harem for attention and selection then they dont want the undesirable men to say or do anything to interrupt that process

@Abbot

The walking sluts are saying that they have the same rights as men to dress any way they want in public and if they choose to present themselves to the male harem for attention and selection then they dont want the undesirable men to say or do anything to interrupt that process

But later, those same men are not to judge their suitability for those same men based on their actions. Remember, it’s up to a woman to determine her suitability, not the man she choses.

Sarcasm aside, the part of me that loves the human comedy, I mean James Branch Cabell level human comedy, can’t help by smile about how empowered feminists feel by appealing to the basest instincts of the basest men who are the most likely to be close to the feminist abusive patriarchal oppressor while pinning those labels on the men who like women and want to treat them as human beings.

If you don’t think karma exists, look at what slut walkers claim, what they do, and what they get.

I found the study very interesting. It did appear as if the assumption was made that short-term mating was inherently exploitative (and so the “seduction” subset of exploitative behavior was defined in such a way that it could be a catch-all for anything that led to a one-night stand).

As a result, practically any higher N-count man will thus be categorized as a sexually exploitative individual (or “player”), which is certainly possible. However, his N could also mean that he is just a stud who is attractive to women and fortunate enough to be in the market when the zeitgeist supports his theoretically optimal mating strategy.

Are high-N count men necessarily being exploitative players when the pop-sociologist types who control much of the feminist narrative—uniform in their hatred of evo psych and typically unwilling to even attempt to test theories—are saying things like this (a sample of quotes from “The Richer Sex”, a triumphalist work by Liza Mundy)?

-”In fact, contrary to the women-don’t-like-casual-sex argument, I would argue that women are becoming the gender that desires sex more than men do (!)…Women are less likely to rely on sex as a strategic way to get resources, because women have more of the resources they need…”

-”And among those students and young singles who were having sex, my interviews suggested that women were having sex because they wanted it, and men often were having it with the hope to commit…”

-”Not every women I interviewed was having sex all the time, but quite a few were having quite a bit. The reasons were because they enjoyed it; because it was available; and because—far from being anxious to commit to one man—they wanted to have sex with as many men as they could (!), to see who was best at it…one woman actually referred to this as ‘test-driving a lot of cars before you buy one.’”

And here, of course, is inserted the classic pillar of all gender-studies department sociological arguments:

“The good news is that sexual tastes are changing, which is not surprising if masculinity and femininity are social constructs…’I was like, honey, it’s a different generation. It’s a new millennium. You’re not a whore if you’re not getting paid for it.’”

I wrote a bit on another thread about optimal search strategies using the 1/e rule: to recap, you would employ gambling theory to take your peak mating years and multiply by about 37% to estimate your calibration period (in years). Under some admitted stringent controlling assumptions, you would then use the calibration period to find your highest SMP mate value; after the calibration period was over, you would “buy” (i.e., commit to) the next person who surpassed the highest SMP value achieved during the calibration period.

If you tell a woman that she has 25 years of peak mating time and she actually has 15, and then also tell her that her peak years start at age 25-28 when they actually start at, say, 20, you are committing her to some enormous potential relationship/psychological challenges down the road. Basically her SMP mate value calibration would be artificially distorted upwards and her assumed safe time window to find a mate would be assumed to be much longer than it actually was.

The equivalent crime against a young man might be to tell him that his peak years start at age 20 and go on for about 12-15 years. In this case, he would start calibrating well before his peak years, which would skew his SMP values downwards and make him underconfident and his play too conservative. He may also go on to make suboptimal mating decisions if he felt obliged to commit during a falsely constrained window.

Some feminists may be (unintentionally) lying to women by engaging in what some call “the moralistic fallacy.” The moralistic fallacy is the reverse of the better known “naturalistic fallacy” (which is variously also called the “is-ought gap” and “Hume’s Guillotine”). In the moralistic fallacy, the mistake is to consider how things *ought to be* according to some particular worldview, and then to argue that, because things ought to be this way, they automatically *are* this way in the state of nature. So little things like biological clocks are completely ignored because they don’t fit within the accepted worldview.

Hello Ms. Walsh,
Once again, excellent post – and I recally very well, reading Prof. Buss’s words on the “Dumb Blonde” strategy in his “The Evolution of Desire”.

A few points, but first, I just had to annouce –

That I’m on the Good Men Project!:) My debut, which was May 6, 2012, can be seen here:

Towards A More Thoughtful (& Personal) Discourse On “The Double Standard”
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/towards-a-more-thoughtful-personal-discourse-on-the-double-standard/

And if all goes well, there will be many more such articles to come.

Now then, to your post here…

I am wondering about the dumb blonde strategy in relation to say, the African American community, where a common refrain from many of its more highly educated Sistas is that the Brothas simply cannot handle a “strong woman”. While I don’t think the claim is totally unfounded, I do think that men in general don’t want to have to do verbal combat with a gal just to get a date – and, again, I speak purely in terms of the Black community – there ARE Sistas who seem to delight in cutting (or trying to cut) down men, on the pretense of being “strong” and “intelligent”.

What say you, about this?

Second: I am wondering just how “hot” women can indeed be for “Beta” guys. Now, I know that this is a forum that is highly self-selected – but, and I am sure I don’t need me to tell you this – the sexuality of women can be and has been demonstrated to be quite context dependent.

Assuming that all you say here is indeed true – and I think it is – how are we to account for the fact that so many Beta guys wind up, “mopping up”?

Your response?

As always, keep up the good work!

O.

Quite a few men claim that guys don’t care about intelligence in a mate, and may even consider it a detriment above some baseline “slightly above average” level. I find it interesting that the men who felt this way in the study were the men who were disagreeable and promiscuous.

I believe I was one of those who suggested this. Note that male intelligence isn’t a factor in disfavoring female intelligence, much less male insecurity, but rather disagreeability and promiscuity. It makes sense, as if you’re not planning on spending the rest of your life with her, it doesn’t really matter what her level of intelligence is. Because you’re not going to be around her all that long anyhow. That being said, people are never entirely predictable. One of the sexiest club sluts in the city back in the early 90s was an avid Dickens reader with a complete collection and respectable literature covering every wall in her apartment. Go figure.

Sarcasm aside, the part of me that loves the human comedy, I mean James Branch Cabell level human comedy, can’t help by smile about how empowered feminists feel by appealing to the basest instincts of the basest men who are the most likely to be close to the feminist abusive patriarchal oppressor while pinning those labels on the men who like women and want to treat them as human beings.

I wonder if that appealing to those base instincts of base men is somewhat the point. While not all feminists are alike, it seems that women that are attracted to the whole slut-walk thing were women who were done dirty by their dads and other men in their life. In turn, they develop this repetition compulsion where they seek out these loser men in order to, at minimum, turn their bad behavior into a positive experience or, hopefully, turn these bad boys into respectful womynists with enough quality “brain”.

With regard to Obsidian, I think the same thing happens in the Black community on steroids, especially since a lot of dads not only weren’t worth anything, but often times, just flat not around. They end up doing the same dumb stuff that happened to them as kids. Accordingly, Black boys do the same thing aswell. Look up “African-American men” and “concurrency” on Google, and you’ll see a lot of sociology papers about men with seemingly stereotypically female mindsets.

And lol @ everyone deducing that the drunk chick pictured is high maintenance and spoiled because of her clothes. I’m not a fashion expert but that looks like regular ass beach/summer wear to me.

@Stephanie

Without knowing all of the facts, I would assume he’s one of those guys that pulls a girl a lot younger than him because those his age don’t give him the time of day. It’s always easier to get with the young, naive girl.

@ Rone

That makes sense, but even though there are women his age that find him attractive?

@Ian

I wouldn’t whore around if I was an alpha at all. I was just playing Devil’s Adovcate here.

However, how do I know I wouldn’t whore around if I was an alpha? The answer is, I don’t. That’s why temptation can seen as a postive thing in Christianity. It’s once we conquer the tests that we can overcome the threat of the vice.

Also, why do so many celebrities whore around? The vast majority of Apex Alphas are notorious for having casual sex. Do you really believe if Tiger Woods was not good at golf, he would be getting all sorts of strange? The man has the personality of a brick wall. He appears to have no chrisma at all.

@Rone

And lol @ everyone deducing that the drunk chick pictured is high maintenance and spoiled because of her clothes. I’m not a fashion expert but that looks like regular ass beach/summer wear to me.

I didn’t say clothes, I said look. Don’t confuse the two.

The hair cut including dye job and highlights are part of it. Plus, the clothes are typical beach clothes but a matched set in pretty much new condition.

Finally, I find most Hot Babe types are high maintenance and princesses. That’s my experience. Note, not all attractive women skew high maintenance but Hot Babe types (which this lovely lady is) do.

I’m sure some don’t but as people might have guessed readying my other posts, I try and work the odds. Call it “statistician Game” which I prefer over “look at how much I can fake being an asshole Game”. It’s worked well enough, is intellectually stimulating, and doesn’t leave me feeling like shit when Nicole tells me to practice flute in front of the mirror to correct some mechanical issues.

I was thinking coming home that one ‘sphere thing I really don’t get is the whole hooking up with a hot babe. Not just for my reasons above (I’m sure the real men and women will tell me it’s just hamstering because I can’t get one) but because, well…

Are there really that many ugly women? I mean, when they’re not trying to be are really that many ugly? Sure, when they put effort into it they can look better than otherwise. I love the relaxed but put together business look (try the cover of At Her Feet for the classic example…last year my gf met me at the airport in a suit just for that reason). I love peasant skirts with shells or blouses. Short, bobbed hair is fun and playful while I love long, hair.

Hell, depending on the day of the week my perfect woman is a tall, red headed tomboy, Francesca Annis, Helen Mirren (did anyone else see *Red*…I realize she was 65 when she made it but she’s still got it…looked better than Mary-Louise Parker who is 19 years younger), Anna Torv, Amber Benson, or one of a dozen other women, famous or otherwise.

I’m dating the most beautiful woman I know. I thought the checkout girl at B&N tonight, who looked a little like the one from Girls whose boss was harassing but instead of trying to look bad played it up. For one, she had on a purple dress that gave her a great feminine feel and smiled in a way that made you thing she was happy to see you (again, who dresses the actresses on Girls, I mean really.

Anyway, I’m a guy. I get wanting an attractive mate. I get the evo-psych behind it. Still, damn people, why is the only attractive worthwhile “hot”? What happened to cute, striking, lovely, pretty, handsome, or stunning? Each is completely different (Mary-Louise Parker, Tilda Swinton, Jane Seymour, Audrey Hepburn, Katherine Hepburn, and Rachel Welsh are respective examples) and generally better than a hot babe. How does Kim Kardashian beat any of the above listed women?

Susan’s readers who don’t post: Don’t be a Maxim girl. Yes, it’ll attract men. Men who want to fuck you and that’s about it. If you have to look to media, I’d suggest you watch movies prior to about 1965 although there are some contemporary examples up there. Look for someone who fits your personality and body type. At one time, “hot chicks” weren’t just the latest cookie-cutter generic blonde made from Hollywood blonde dough when the last one got moldy.

You’ve got more potential. You can attract better men.

@Michael Singer

LOL, isn’t that a wedding ring on her ring finger ?

Looks more like a “three months salary” engagement ring, which is another part of my “high maintenance” case.

I didn’t pay that for the car I drive.

To be honest, him “dating” her may not be that serious. She may be a young girl he likes having sex with and spending time with when he wants her around, but not quite the traditional relationship. I’ve seen plenty of guys do this, having a “girlfriend” that’s easy, guaranteed sex while still dealing with other women. I’ve never known a guy to keep his girlfriend a secret unless he had reason to.

@Rone

Thank you for answering my question.

The hypothesis is more ridiculous than I originally thought:
What are the hypotheses re exploitative mating?

The authors developed two hypotheses:
It is possible to identify observable cues that signal which women are exploitable.
Men will find those cues sexually attractive.

14 cues were significantly positively correlated with exploitability (in order of significance):
“Easy”, Immature, Intoxicated, Reckless, Promiscuous , Partying
Flirty , Promiscuous friends, Attention seeking , Young, Sleepy
Come hither look, Revealing clothing, Touching breast

Before moving forward – here is the definition of exploitation:
1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one’s talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically:
3. To advertise; promote.

Here are the obvious questions:
- who is exploiting who ????
-why are men blamed ?
- why aren’t the females blamed “exploitation” given the demonstrated 14 cues ?

The hypothesis is false and hence the whole study is faulty. The question is why?
Here is my hypothesis given what was presented:
1. Why are the researchers looking for a excuse to dismiss promiscuous female behavior ?
2. Why are men being blamed for responding to exploitation and then blamed for exploitation and the females are not despite displaying 14 cues ?

To relieve a person from the consequences of their actions and then vilify and falsely accuse another person is evil and perverse beyond words.

Wow, that list of cues in the study looks like the cast of characters in a reverse-gender-role version of Snow White & the 7 Dwarfs, for playas:
~ Sho’ Might and the 7 Horfs ~
*Easy
*Reckless
*Flirty
*Sleepy
*Tipsy (intoxicated)
*Juvy (immature)
*Humpy (promiscuous)

It’s playing the odds: if she wants a cooperative relationship, then she’ll let you know. If you’re not her type, you can still get her and the associated social proof.

Allow me to suggest – The study does support the following:

Dumb, Drunk and Easy Women will exploit themselves via 14 cues to attract players.

How the following 14 cues are identified as “short-term mate attractiveness” and are not seen as self exploitation to attract men.

Btw, Key Implication #3 is true and is self incriminating since “Sluts find fellow sluts most sexually attractive.”

Key Implication #3: Men don’t settle for less when looking for casual sex. Men who prefer casual sex are actually most attracted to women who also prefer casual sex. Sluts find fellow sluts most sexually attractive.

@Herb

I love the relaxed but put together business look (try the cover of At Her Feet for the classic example.

I googled the book. I thought the pantsuit on the cover model was OK, but I loved how she accessorized it.

Time to wake up the husband….

I can wear a nice, modest sundress that doesn’t show any amount of skin that would be considered “indecent”, and my boyfriend (and boys before him) would go absolutely nuts.

Amen x 1000. There are few things hotter than a cute girl in a sundress.

Regarding the correlation with men who rape. Doesen`t this indicate that alphas with low agreableness are amongst the most likely to rape. I have always been sceptical of womens evaluation of who has rape potential. THey often say that the awkward and needy guy htat aproaches them gives them creepy vibes they figure indicates he is a potential rapist. Those men to me often seem very harmless and weak and like they rarely will have the violence potential to rape. On the other hand when I meet alphas with obvious and strong dark triad indicators they strike me as extremely likely to be rapists when they don`t get their way. I think rapists are probably most often alphas and sometimes omeas that totally tipped over.

Bastiat…”Under some admitted stringent controlling assumptions, you would then use the calibration period to find your highest SMP mate value; after the calibration period was over, you would “buy””

One of the implicit assumptions would seem to be that your search effectiveness remains constant over the interval….for example, that you’ll be able to meet people just as well once you get out of college as you will during college. Also, I suspect that the math if done in detail would show that someone who is enough of an outlier from your distribution should be snapped up immediately….say you’ve been dating 5 years and the people who like you are in the 4:8 range according to whatever your criteria are. Now you meet a 19 who is really crazy about you. Shouldn’t you snap him/her up?

My most recent post: Movie Review: Little Man, What Now?

“How so? The men are responding negatively to women who look intelligent. Are you saying that a dumb looking woman implies higher sex drive? Interesting.”

I was refering to the MIT study not your studies. The fact that the students where so much less likely to masturbate indicates lower sex drive.

David, that’s absolutely true: the approach assumes that you have steady access to equally-attractive mating opportunities throughout your peak mating years. It also assumes that there are no equivalents to depreciation costs involved in the sampling and search processes; higher partner N counts are not punished in this model, as it only considers the years spent in the game (imagine that it did not do this and instead required a statistically significant number of romantic partners!).

This can have serious ramifications… Someone could begin college and assume she was starting fifteen years in the peak mate selection window, but then find, for example, that four years in a college environment gave much greater access to opportunities than did the eleven years after college (or vice-versa—college could also be a very poor environment).

In effect, this would mean that her peak mating window would have to be segmented into tranches. The first, lets call it “AAA” tranche would last for only four years. Post-college, she would have to operate according to a less-attractive opportunities window. After that window closed, an even less attractive tranche would provide the appropriate search criteria.

Away and away and way it goes, and where it stops, nobody knows.

I wouldn’t argue that this framework should be taken literally, but I would argue that it dramatically demonstrates the effects of time decay on mating opportunities, predicts the need to manage expectations downwards if windows close, and thus may be an important, weaponized”Red Pill” device. 1/e may also prove to be a particularly bitter pill to swallow if it causes major planned-life script conflicts, so I don’t think that many will want to take it.

Perhaps a tragic, but realistic, result is that responsible life-strategy guides may find themselves having to give very different advice to young men and young women, and to do so knowing that the strategies are going to result in some friction and conflict down the road. However, that’s what efficient market-clearing price discovery is all about, right? Susan, do you find yourself being torn on this? I know that your initial constituency was skewed towards young women, but I would think that you will increasingly find yourself in a position where younger guys are also asking for your thoughts (as evidenced by reader e-mails, etc.).

David, I also agree about the need for some kind of failsafe mechanism that should be triggered in the event that someone encounters a true extreme event, “Black Swan” type of opportunity. Under those circumstances, the search should be abandoned in order to aggressively secure the treasure. Clearly this requires the ability to know a very, very good thing when you see it, and that may be a skill in shorter supply than we would like to think.

“It may be that a woman’s short-term orientation is what attracts the male, and that her looks are less important.”

Its the ease and equality of readiness

VD: One of the sexiest club sluts in the city back in the early 90s was an avid Dickens reader with a complete collection and respectable literature covering every wall in her apartment. Go figure.
—
What I do not get and find contradictory in the manosphere is the claim that men are not interested in smart women but will trot out all kinds of studies and shit to prove that Game is most effective on “intelligent” women.

The impression I get is that even though they claim a woman’s smarts means absolutely nothing to them in the scheme of things there is almost a desperate need to prove that intelligent women are the only ones they are bedding using Game and that it is most effective on them. It is as though they are insulted at the notion that others would think that they could only pull dumb women.

Why won’t they trumpet the dumb women they claim to prefer? Nevertheless, instead they are only trumpeting the smart ones. I guess it would be too embarrassing to admit to only banging dumb chicks. Moreover, let me repeat, these are the women they claim to prefer to spend their time with, supposedly.

They need to make up their minds.
.

Bastiat…Under (the true extreme prospective mate of a “Black Swan” level of wonderfulness), the search should be abandoned in order to aggressively secure the treasure. Clearly this requires the ability to know a very, very good thing when you see it, and that may be a skill in shorter supply than we would like to think.”

I read somewhere–maybe it was here–a comment by someone who had been with someone she (I think it was a she) was really crazy about (in a positive way) but had ditched because she thought she really *should* play the field a bit more and see what was out there…and was now regretting it very much.

My most recent post….Little Man, What Now?

VD – “It had really never occurred to me that any man wouldn’t find drunk and sleepy to be arousing. What’s not to like about dreamy, half-lidded eyes and tousled bedhead? Do BETA men seriously like chipper, spunky, hey-up-and-at-’em women? The mere thought fills me with horror.”

Not exactly. To be honest, for me it is about presence of mind. By that I mean, I have NO desire to have sex with a woman that isn’t fully “in the moment” with me, which means she has to be at least sober and conscious enough to be into it. There is nothing at all attractive to me about a woman that is two sips away from passed out, or one yawn away from falling asleep. Now I LOVE some good bed head, and I’m perfectly OK with “dreamy” as long as it is dreamy with mostly full mental facilities. For me, at least half the pleasure of sex is the spiritual/emotional/mental connection part. Otherwise all I’d be doing is jerking off with some woman’s vagina. If that is really all I’m looking for, I’d rather do it myself. It will feel better, end better, and require much less work and risk.

@Ramble, Bellita

So much of it depends on what you define as “smart”.

But, an easier and more straight-forward approach is to think about those girls most likely to trot out in some blog/forum, “I’m smart!” (think Huffington Post).

Most men, as far as I can tell, do not desire those kinds of girls.

Basically, the smartest people I have met rarely refer to themselves as smart.

From what I’ve gathered, intelligence is not the major factor in either case, but a woman’s sense of superiority when she believes she is more intelligent than everyone else. It is the attitude, not her smarts, that makes her both a pain to be around and an easy target for a well-delivered “neg” to her intelligence.

I’d say they’ve got it.

It’s probably similar to my reaction to a lot of liberal people. More than one person who knew me somewhat already upon learning I’m politically conservative has given me, “I thought you were smarter than that”, “Wow, I thought you were smart”, or “Why, you’re smart”.

Next time a political debate came up the good manners gloves were off and 9 times out of 10 (or even more often) I learned they were “smart” because they were “liberal” and they had little to not thought process behind it. It was just their environment that was mostly intelligent people who were also liberal (I was living in New England at the time), therefore they figured they were the same. In the process they were happy to conclude non-liberal people were stupid.

It really makes you want to put them in their place and I suspect a lot of “smart” girls are the same thing. Look at me, I got a degree in something so I’m smarter than you when it’s really, honey, get all the degrees you want. I’m still smarter.

The assumptions that many here seem to hold completely contradict my reality. Sex is not a win-lose deal. I love sex, women love sex. I’ve never been with a woman who didn’t. A woman doesn’t give anything up when she has sex with me. We both gain something (sometimes a relationship, sometimes just a great experience).

Even when I want sex, I look for attractive, intelligent (and conscious :p) girls. Low intelligence is a turn-off. Insecurity is a turn-off.

I do not have to lie to get sex. I am honest and direct. If women desire sex as much as I do and will enjoy the experience as much as I will (whether it be a one-night stand or a longer term relationship) then no deception or pressure is necessary, is there?

It seems like another example of how our beliefs shape our experiences. If you believe high self-esteem, intelligent women don’t want sex outside of relationships and that women have to be deceived and pressured into having sex, then what you’ll find is high self-esteem, intelligent women reject you and you only ever get the slutty, insecure, promiscuous girls. If you believe that awesome women love sex and that this is a great thing, you’ll get the awesome women..

Halo Effect – “It seems like another example of how our beliefs shape our experiences. If you believe high self-esteem, intelligent women don’t want sex outside of relationships and that women have to be deceived and pressured into having sex, then what you’ll find is high self-esteem, intelligent women reject you and you only ever get the slutty, insecure, promiscuous girls. If you believe that awesome women love sex and that this is a great thing, you’ll get the awesome women..”

Or, you believe that like men, all women enjoy sex, but the ones with quality character don’t simply jump into bed for the sheer physical pleasure of it, but instead save it as something special to be shared with someone they love. I’ve never said that women don’t enjoy sex, and in fact I believe it would be detrimental to us as a species if they didn’t enjoy it. But, exercising the will to refrain from what “feels good” in order to add value to something long term to me is a very good indicator of quality character.

I LOVE sex. It feels freaking great, gives me energy, and makes me feel good physically and emotionally. But that doesn’t change how I “use” my sexuality, which is as an added value to a committed relationship with someone I love and care about. I don’t understand why some people insist that anyone with a conservative sexual value system don’t like sex. The two are in no way connected, and at least personally it couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Marie, it is interesting that you chose a picture of Miranda Kerr as an example of a nice girl in a cute sundress (she definitely looks cute) since her taste in men, when she was at the height of her fertility, was very interesting.

In feminist circles, only alphas are visible as being men. All others are swept into the caste they call “Nice Guys ®.

This is the greatest irony of feminism, IMO.

And, according to Feministing, Nice Guys® are not really nice since they are just pretending to be nice. So, you might as well go for the assholes since they are being more honest.

Also, and this is completely unrelated to my previous statement, they are HUGE fans of Mad Men. Although, I am racking my brain as to why.

Susan — Women need to understand that there are men who would rather see them in that state than any other. She’s a sitting duck.

Long ago, when in college, there was a young women – the sister of a friend – who insisted on going to frat parties and being stupid. I managed to intercept her twice when she was drunk being led up-stairs. Of course the frat-boys weren’t happy at having their fun removed, but such is life. Anyway – she continued till she was “gang banged” and wanted sympathy. She didn’t get it, since unlike the Federal government and its VAWA stupidity – I believe women are accountable for their foolish actions. She obviously was looking for this to happen for some reason, and no one was going to stop it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of women out there like her.

Or maybe that is “fortunate” for the guys who enjoy that sort of woman. I never saw a need – I like my women fully aware, and very interactive. But that is me, some guys just need a warm body…

Or maybe that is “fortunate” for the guys who enjoy that sort of woman. I never saw a need – I like my women fully aware, and very interactive. But that is me, some guys just need a warm body…

For some guys, when they are drunk (and stupid) and see a girl who is drunk (and stupid) they think to themselves, “Wow, I just found my hole-mate”.

My point was, guys who utilize Game claim they have no interest in intelligent women. However, on the other hand will claim that those are the women they attract the most using it.

I am just calling them out on their B.S. That’s all.

Fer: “An interesting test is to give these men the tools to have casual sex and then see if they act on it. Give them money, have them go on an intense workout rountine, buy them expensive fashionable clothes and give them game instruction. See if they refuse casual sex then”

Already been done, and we’ve referenced it here. There was a study where random men were proposed for casual sex by a woman. Something like 75% accepted. That should tell you how at least how many men will accept casual sex, and that’s not controlling for other “woulda” factors like having a girlfriend and not wanting to cheat.

So, you’re right. Not pursuing casual sex because of the risk/reward being deemed unacceptable is very different than wanting it. I don’t agree with Sue’s conclusion here.

Susan – “Maybe her fiance is the one who wrote “fun” with an arrow pointing to her vagina. If that was meant to be private, it’s a disaster. The image is in the top three when one googles “drunk slut.””

For real? Wow that really sucks for her. Not only because its a bad rap, but because everyone uses the ‘net to look at people, including employers. We can argue about practices that include invasions of privacy, but the fact is if it is publicly available, I see no problem with an employer using it as input to a hiring decision. If this young woman wanted to be a teacher, and she applied at a school I ran, I’d quickly pass on her as soon as I dug that picture up. Not at all the kind of thing I would want the parent’s of my students calling me about.

My point was, guys who utilize Game claim they have no interest in intelligent women.

Again, almost any guy looking to be more attractive to you, or any other girl, is likely employing some “Game”.

However, I think that you are saying, “Many PUAs couldn’t care less about ‘intelligent’ girls”, which may very well be true.

However, as one PUA once pointed out, the really idiotic girls tend to go for those cavemen that have the base physical features that they desire, and that is all.

On the other hand when I meet alphas with obvious and strong dark triad indicators they strike me as extremely likely to be rapists when they don`t get their way. I think rapists are probably most often alphas and sometimes omeas that totally tipped over.

This is sadly my second hand experience too. Most of the Alpha’s are used to have all the women they want don’t take kindly rejection or a high level of resistance and rather do something extreme to get the girl than just move on on someone else, this is also a factor on at least 80% of the men that kill women in my country those women were whether theirs and once they broke up they just couldn’t handle it or never wanted them on the first place, Manosphere usually don’t talk about the dark side of being an Alpha but is really dark and is darker that you can imagine, YMMV.

Now you meet a 19 who is really crazy about you. Shouldn’t you snap him/her up?

Clearly this requires the ability to know a very, very good thing when you see it, and that may be a skill in shorter supply than we would like to think.

He/She should, but then we live in a choice addiction, most people don’t realize that the perfect opportunity presented to them till years after the fact. That is one of the reasons parents and older relatives used to assist on mate selection on more traditional societies because they could tell someone a good deal that might escape them out of lack of experience.

I read somewhere–maybe it was here–a comment by someone who had been with someone she (I think it was a she) was really crazy about (in a positive way) but had ditched because she thought she really *should* play the field a bit more and see what was out there…and was now regretting it very much.

This is really common Bellita had a recent example and I personally saw several of my fellow male friends really in love with their girlfriends/wife but unable to settle down (and in one case divorced) because they weren’t done with all the sex they wanted to have with multiple women, breaking up and being really miserable and depressed for months afterwards, breaking your own heart for the sake of your penis is a completely strange concept for me.
Men are very different in that aspect the fact that he is in love with you doesn’t guarantee he will stay and/or commit if other factors don’t fit on their logic, a woman in love will endure anything, that is pretty much the cad goal in my country: make her fall in love and then do whatever they want to (reveal they are married, drug users, gang members…) because he knows her feelings will keep her around 9 times out 10. I only know one woman (aside from myself I had done they whole I feel really strongly about this guy but I rather keep my distance) she got divorced while crying all the way from hiring the lawyer to the signing of papers and the lawyer even asked her if she was sure about her choice seeing how much of a mess she was, because her husband had moved in with a teenager and pretty much told her “to wait for him to be done with her” I guess it was too much for her, YMMV.

Maybe her fiance is the one who wrote “fun” with an arrow pointing to her vagina. If that was meant to be private, it’s a disaster. The image is in the top three when one googles “drunk slut.”

I told my husband that I want to make a pic of myself barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen but I chickened out thinking that somehow it will make it to the net even if I keep it in my camera, this day nothing is safe.

Oh, I’ve seen it from atheists. I saw it from Protestants when I became Catholic despite being brought up Presbyterian and Baptist. I’ve seen it from fellow conservatives when confronted by knowledgeable liberals and other believers confronted by thoughtful agnostics (more so than atheists).

I saw from Dragon Ball Z fans to Naruto fans…WTF!? People doesn’t do anything for fun anymore? Is everything some sort of superiority contest? I can deal with fandom wars that make some sense (Harmoniacs scared the shit out of me though) but to other fandoms? and “I’m better than you because I like Saint Seiya the best” are just stupid and annoying, YMMV.

I would love to hit the big reset button and go back to a time when men became aroused glimpsing an ankle.

Start slut shaming like crazy.

@Susan, Ramble

What was arousing/sexy about my date’s behavior was because it was evidently for MY benefit and not for the generic androsphere.

Even today I think it would be a good strategy for a young woman, calibrated, of course.