In any discussion of what women want, no trait gets more attention than social status. Acknowledged as a key female attraction cue, it’s also frequently referred to as social dominance. It’s easy to see why. One need only look around to see that men in positions of leadership and social dominance are highly desired by women. Ogi Ogas, in his bestselling book A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World’s Largest Experiment Reveals About Human Desire, confirms its universal appeal:
Study after study has demonstrated the erotic appeal of male dominance. Women prefer the voices of dominant men, the scent of dominant men, the movement and gait of dominant men, and the facial features of dominant men…Scientists believe that the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex may be responsible for processing cues indicating social status or dominance, and it appears that almost all female brains are susceptible to dominance cues.
Furthermore, social dominance is not conferred by women, it’s awarded by other men in a process of intrasexual competition for dominance and leadership. Men continually compete for dominance in social interactions with one another. The men who achieve the greatest rank among their peers may then display that dominance as a powerful advantage in attracting women for sex.
On the other hand, women associate very masculine faces with negative traits such as coldness and dishonesty. Women also perceive very dominant males as more likely to cheat and divert resources away from the family. This may be of little or no concern to women who prioritize short-term mating. For long-term mating, however, the female is faced with the challenge of optimizing the combination of leadership and provider traits.
Until now, scientists have not understood how humans evolved to prioritize pair-bonding over promiscuity, a critical development that laid the foundation for the modern family. A new study proposes that it’s entirely attributable to female choice. Women evolved to prefer cooperative, emotionally nurturing providers over physically dominant males:
Pair bonding supplanted promiscuity in human evolution when faithful females began choosing good providers as mates, a study finds. Evolutionary biologists have struggled to explain how pair bonding and the nuclear family structure took root in humans, as primate groups typically establish dominance-driven hierarchies that restrict mating privileges to a few high-ranking males.
…Using simple mathematical models, Sergey Gavrilets revealed that the most commonly proposed theories for human pair bonding are biologically unrealistic. Then, incorporating among other factors the evolution of female choice and faithfulness, the researcher devised a model showing how pair bonding can represent a key adaptation underscoring the uniqueness of human evolution.
The author proposes that low-ranked males likely began attracting mates by focusing almost exclusively on becoming the best providers, a strategy which had the added benefits of enhancing female fertility and bolstering the survival of their offspring. Over evolutionary time, the model indicates that all but the highest-ranking males would shift to provisioning females who had evolved a high sense of fidelity. The findings reveal that female choice factored critically in human evolution.
That begs the obvious question – if women have evolved to prefer men who provide both intangible and tangible resources (dads) over less agreeable or nurturing mates (cads), why does research show that women reward dominant displays?
Why do women prefer dominant men?
Since the 1987 landmark study revealing the female preference for dominance in males, scholars have theorized that women would have preferred men most likely to provide them with resources such as food and protection from danger. In addition, the “sexy sons” hypothesis states that women would have been eager to pass along dominant genes to their own offspring.
Sadalla, Kenrick, and Vershure (1987) published evidence indicating that women prefer men who are high in dominance over men who are low in dominance as potential dates (i.e., potential short-term relationship partners) and rate them as more attractive.
It seems likely that Erik von Markovik, aka Mystery, who studied evolutionary psychology to codify Game, would have relied heavily on this study. Since his focus was on short-term rather than long-term mating, this research finding would have proved valuable and highly relevant to his efforts.
However, Snyder, Kirkpatrick, and Barrett (2008) questioned the validity of the original findings. They observed a lack of consensus among scholars regarding what comprises social dominance. They also wondered how female preferences differed for casual sex vs. marriage:
Since [Sadalla et al, 1987], despite numerous studies pointing to limitations of this result, it seems that a simplistic version of their conclusion— that ‘‘women prefer dominant mates’’—has become conventional wisdom in psychology and related fields.
We wish to reopen the analysis of this mate preference phenomenon for scholars of romantic relationships with the following goals.
First, we intend to clarify and reexamine Sadalla and colleagues’ (1987) initial findings. In the pursuit of this goal, we argue that there is a problematic lack of consensus regarding what dominance as a construct is and suggest that subsequent attempts to clarify Sadalla and colleagues’ work (Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & West, 1995) were insufficient.
Second, we provide evidence suggesting that women’s preferences in regard to status are contingent on several factors, including (a) the distinction between prestige-based and dominance-based status, (b) the social context in which the behavior is observed, and (c) the particular dimension of desirability being assessed.
In their published paper The Dominance Dilemma, they shared results from three studies conducted with female students at UCLA and the College of William and Mary. For the purposes of these studies, they defined dominance as “forced or coerced leadership,” characterized by aggression and other domineering tactics in the pursuit of agentic self-interest. Dominance leads subordinates to submit to a dominant male via intimidation or fear. They tend to maintain greater physical distance from the dominant male and maintain less eye contact.
Conversely, prestige is defined as “freely conferred status” by peers in recognition of special abilities and skills. Peers benefit from association with skilled individuals, as it is more efficient to copy their expertise than engage in trial and error learning. The prestigious individual is honored, revered and praised by subordinates, and “respond[s] with self-deprecation. Prestigious individuals freely offer information and counsel. Because of this free exchange of status for information, prestigious individuals may appear to be more kind, generous, and willing to help than dominant individuals.”
The research by Snyder et al revealed several key findings:
- When given the choice between dominance and prestige, women demonstrate a clear preference for a high-prestige male over a high-dominance male.
- Women prefer low-dominance males for both long-term and short-term mating, but the preference is stronger when seeking a long-term partner.
- Women prefer high prestige partners over low prestige partners, and this preference is also stronger for long-term vs. short-term mating.
- Women find dominant behaviors attractive in the context of athletic competition, but penalize them for both short- and long-term mating.
In this light, distinguishing between dominance and prestige is essential to enhancing our understanding of female sexuality and attraction. Overall, the research suggests that women are not attracted to disagreeable males, i.e. jerks and assholes, they’re attracted to men who earn the respect and admiration of other men, and who display kindness and generosity. The degree to which women penalize dominance vs. prestige is contextual, based on their own mating priorities, i.e. short-term vs. long-term.
It should be noted that dominance and prestige are alternate, but not entirely mutually exclusive, pathways to social status. Ironically, fraternity membership and athletics may connote prestige rather than dominance, even as its members often prioritize casual sex and engage in dominant behaviors, particularly towards women.
Fraternities, which generally advertise themselves as offering both male camaraderie and access to high value females, are presumably selective in identifying males who can uphold or even improve the organization’s reputation. They court these males energetically, even arranging hookups for them in some cases. (In the documentary Spitting Game, one fraternity brother at the University of Georgia explained that girls who have sex with three brothers earn the designation of “Toaster.” High value male pledge targets are directed to Toasters at parties during Rush.)
The school athlete is perhaps best positioned to attract his female classmates, as he is rewarded with prestige for teamwork and excites female interest by displaying dominant behavior on the field.
Unfortunately for women, a male’s having achieved a high level of prestige is no guarantee of agreeable behavior with the opposite sex, particularly before he is fully mature. Indeed, he will be influenced heavily by his peer culture, which tends to prioritize douchiness, i.e. dominance, over “good guy” honesty and self-deprecation.
The implications for women are clear:
- Seek men who have earned prestige from their male peers via their abilities and skills.
- Judge a man by the company he keeps, and how much he is genuinely loved and respected by others.
- Avoid men who tend toward aggressive and controlling tactics, except on the playing field.
- Expect men engaging in casual sex rather than relationships to display more dominance, as it is less penalized in a short-term mating context.
- Men with earned prestige have much higher emotional intelligence than men with self-serving, agentic behaviors. Look for depth of emotional expression in the men you date. The emotions need not be focused on you, but a man should feel strong love and loyalty for the things and people he cares about.
- Graduate from college and date five years older!
{ 1349 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 … 9 »
Female selection in America?
SO THAT explains how wonderful things turned out.
And ignore the message that a feminized culture had fed you (though, that is changing a little bit).
And ignore the messages that your mother and aunts told you as well.
In general, ignore the advice that the feminized adults gave you and make sure, on top of all of your other studies, to study this subject as well. I mean, you can’t expect your culture to be honest with you. Right?
Herb–
Lawrencia (Lori/Bambi) Bembenek was convicted of murdering her husband’s ex-wife back in the 80s. She achieved national noteriety based on her looks and former employment as a Playboy bunny. She had a huge male fan club that included a private detective that worked gratis to exhonerate her. Amanda Knox was acquitted by an Italian court on appeal of her roommate’s murder. Known as Foxy Knoxy, she too was popular among the menfolks.
What about Ronald Reagan’s and Dwight Eisenhower’s?
@ms hope:
Then your personal experience just validates (again!) all that ive been saying; we both know that it is highly unlikely to hear such things from a more homegrown american mom, black or white. Indeed a little while back ms walsh herself said that most american parents will not give their daughters the kind of “talk” you mom etc gave you, because its too damaging to said girls self esteem and two, because its a direct admission of genetic failure on the part of the parents themselves.
@ms walsh:
What i find fascinatoing about the entitlement argument is that it only seems to pickup steam when it comes to the supposedly overinflated desires of guys; the topic was a nonstarter so long as it stayed with women. Fascinating-and just goes to show yet again to validate evpsych. We truly do expect men to settle more than women. Hmm.
Oh, and for ms j’s “tragic” response to the notion that a 3 guy cant get sexually aroused for a 3 gal-evopsych has proven that the more sexually desirable the female, the harder the erectile response on the part of the male, as well much more copious ejaculation. Simply put, a womans appearance matters-a lot. Im just sayin.
@herb: just wanted to acknowledge your point about the black communitys missing dads and the peter pan syndrome amongst far too many of its men. Tru dat.
Back to ms walsh:
I am fully aware of your target audience and my response is the same: prove it. Not with anecdote but with hard data. I can give you all manner of data as it pertains to black usa what the deal is here and whose going home w/the ladies and who aint when it matters (women under 30), and this is important since even you recognize the creep from black usa to white usa in this regard. Again: what is the empirical data that proves that there is a market for beta guys in the under 30 cohort much of whom makeup your target market? Ill wait.
You see, i do think theres such a market but for the over 30 crowd-the problem is of course, that most guys dont want to be option number two or three or four. Nor do they want mileage on the gal, her kids etc she had w/the alpha dude. So, until you or someone else can crack that nut, all this amounts to is an interesting (at best) academic exercise because young women want what they want and the beta guys, by and large, aint it…
O.
@J
Oh, okay, I vaguely remember her.
@Ramble
@Obs
OK, I’ve got Evo of Desire open to the discussion about height. It is true that women prefer men who are “tall, physically strong and athletic.” Buss sees this as evidence that women seek a mate who will protect them from aggressive men who might engage in sexual coercion or rape, and prowess is a good predictor of this. However, we know that this preference is markedly more pronounced in cultures where violence is the norm. American women cite their ideal height for a marriage partner at 5’11″. Not short, certainly, but just slightly taller than average.
Interestingly, Buss quotes evo psychologist Bruce Ellis:
“Height constitutes a reliable cue to dominance in social interactions…shorter policemen are likely to be assaulted more than taller policemen…suggesting that the latter command more fear and respect from adversaries.”
That really gets back to the heart of this post – which is that status is conferred by other males, and women respond to it. It may be that women observe that taller men are more likely to achieve prestige. Indeed, Buss states that in Western cultures, “tall men make more money, advance in their professions more rapidly, and receive more and earlier promotions. Few American presidents have been less than 6’0″.”
If men determine social status via intrasexual competition, and women respond to that, then we may speak about correlations, but cause is obviously uncertain.
@J
Yes, it is tragic in terms of its being a waste. However, it’s better than a man who’s a 3 blaming female 7s for going for hot guys.
That’s not the same thing at all, as they would have had no reason to suspect my disapproval re their preferred physical “type.”
Yeah, SW, you’re right there.
Susan, as much as I’d love to tell the story, I don’t think many here are all that interested in my dating history! But thanks for asking. I can say what worked for me (more or less).
In a nutshell, my philosophy is to play the cards you’re dealt best you can. (and in so far has Game shows guys what cards they do have and how to play them I think it’s okay. If it’s trying to reshuffle the deck, I suspect it’s a sham.)
I did date women who were out of my league, but that’s because I’m not particularly a coward. I saw plenty of rejections, but honestly, never a “nuclear” rejection. I can’t say I was unaffected – I really hurt. But it wasn’t deadly, you know?
I don’t know if I’m really such a fun guy (although my wife says she does like my sense of humor!) or if I’m of good character (even if I am a church-goer in my middle age. Of all people, I know that means nothing by itself). I do believe I was lucky, more lucky than I deserved.
It’s never going to be a popular observation to make, but I believe that’s true for most everyone too. I’m a firm believer in having patience and having faith, which is hard when you’re 20-something. BTDT.
So I’d advise everyone to GIVE UP! YOU’RE HOPELESS!
I was too. The good news is, it doesn’t matter, and you’re not the exception.
I think dominance and asshole-ishness (for lack of a better, real word) are being conflated here. I also believe that a large part of the gulf is driven by womens’ misunderstanding of how men relate to each other. Of my group of 10 or so close guy friends, I would say that none are truly an asshole. Sure, sometimes we’ll say “yeah, Jack is such an asshole”, but it’s more in the sense of “haha what a jerk” than meant as a true statement of character. However, if you took a camera and recorded a 2 hour sit-down conversation between all of us (dinner, drinks, whatever), and played it back to a group of women, most of them would probably think we’re all assholes. Most men would think we were just regular guys. Men relate to each other in large groups with insults, jokes, put-downs, and one-upsmanship. Partly that’s just what we do, partly it’s so as not to show weakness (true emotion). It’s only in much smaller groups, or even one on one, that most men will actually open up emotionally to each other. And that is ONLY with closely trusted friends, or else they risk the “wow, Zach is such a wuss” reveal to everyone they know.
On the other hand, most of these guys, especially the less “dominant” ones, put on a whole different face for women. They’re far more considerate, “nicer”, and accomodating than with the guys. For instance, if I asked a guy I knew to get me a glass of water, the responses would range from “get it yourself” to “are you f*ng kidding me?”. However, if a girl made the same request, the vast majority of my friends would get up off the couch to get one for them. I would never lump them into “nice guys” (at least most of them), but they turn into that when around women.
Now for my “punch line” on the context issues I mentioned. The guys in this group who are the most successful with women (and the range is wide, from guys with an N of 2-3, to guys with Ns of 25+) are the ones who behave largely the same whether around women or around men. The ones who are not as successful are the ones who generally turn into the “nice” guys I mentioned above. However, as I noted the “asshole” distinction is applied almost universally by the WOMEN. Men don’t see most of this behavior (insults, one-upping, etc) as assholish. As a corollary, most of the guys who are successful with women have far fewer female friends than the ones who aren’t. Also, those fewer friends tend to be more attractive girls where there is more sexual tension in the relationship as well. The “nice guys” have lots of women who love them, but they love them like teddy bears, and who wants to sleep with a teddy bear?
And before you go off on a “well the guys who are successful are just cads” be aware that every one of them has had multiple relationships that have lasted 2+ years, except myself (my longest clocked in at 8 months). I proffer the theory that this whole talk of “asshole” boils down to a difference in definition of that term between men and women.
“If we return to 20% of the men having all the children it will be ugly.”
The Western SMP is just a latex membrane or a missed pill away from that scenario
@Royale
I’m with you re brainy guys. In fact, in the 80s I had a crush on then Budget Director David Stockman
:
No, but it does speak to how aware they are of what it is that they are actually attracted to.
Now, to be clear, I don’t blame them. But, in my experience, girls get just a little wetter for guys that are taller.
@Herb
True. Ogi Ogas actually states in his book that female sexuality is much more sensitive to cultural shifts than male sexuality is. There is little doubt that female hypergamy has exploded since the Sexual Revolution. Still, it is better to be aware of what’s nature and what’s nurture, don’t you think?
Re: height. Quite true. I’m 6’4, 190, so not huge physically in the sense of a guy who’s 6’4, 225, but in bars I have a far easier time maneuvering through, as most guys will actually quite easily move out of my way to let me through. Also, I find I get apologized to for accidental bumps and drink spills far more often than my shorter friends.
I’m very turned on by the intelligence of Barack Obama.
You must be turned on very easily then. Obama’s IQ is around 116. He’s not stupid, being a full +1SD above average, but he’s not even close to Mensa material. Even if one doesn’t trust my estimate, there is absolutely no way he can have an IQ over 128 due to his performance on the PSAT and SAT. The irony is that he’s not even as intelligent as the much-mocked George Bush, whose IQ is 126 based on his pre-1974 SAT score of 1206.
Amanda Knox was acquitted by an Italian court on appeal of her roommate’s murder.
Mostly due to the illegal African immigrant who confessed to it and was convicted of it. Knox was guilty of nothing but acting like an idiot after the murder. The case was a complete joke.
@Zach
Interesting comment, and it doesn’t surprise me. I have a question – do you think women can “read” a difference in the way the guys with N = 2 rank among the males compared to the guys with N = 25? It seems to me that in this SMP, young males (esp. of the frat persuasion as you’ve said you are) might confer rank on one another based on N.
I’ve had guys tell me that having a relationship in college hurts status among other guys, unless of course, the guy has a “relationship” and still gets some on the side, in which case he is “the man.”
“female sexuality is much more sensitive to cultural shifts than male sexuality”
Maybe that is why feminists aware of this know to keep dishing out the pro-sex-poz messages or lose their constituency to the influence of men who seek satisfactory wife material.
Three additional points:
@joe:
I too, like ms walsh, am very much interested in more about the details of yor love life; for one thing, how old were the gals you married, how much taller where they than yourself and where did they objectively rate on the scale- 6 or above? What you say sounds great in theory but they dont call them “first impressions” for nothing-and many women, the more desireable and even not so desireable ones, can and will shoot you down based purely on what they see. All the things you mentioned about yourself wont count because you wont have time to display them-its all about that first impression. Youre short, end of story.
So, by all means, do tell…
2. @ms walsh:
I definitely agree that dominance and low status of the male may indeed be correlated; the problem w/your advice is simply that by definition, all men cant be prestigious, anymore than all women can be pretty and beautiful. By definition somebodys going to be left standing when the music stops-such is life per evopsych and wont change no matter how much we dont like it.
So the real question is: what do guys who dont have and arent likely to ever get “prestige” do? Or are they in a very real sense doomed?
3. @ms walsh/ms rwc:
Colorism is really a (black) female thing when you really get down to it-sure what ms walsh has noted in the earlier part of the last century etc notwithstanding, skin color impacts black women much moreso than it does black men for all the reasons ive been discussing since late last night. And yes it remains a very sore/sensitive spot for many a sista.
O.
@VD
I recall that John Kerry’s test scores and GPA were both lower than Bush’s, but that didn’t stop liberals from painting him as an intellectual.
Between Joe and the height thing now I have to give up my hopes of dating Gabrielle Reece.
Oh, & i just want to emphatically cosign what ms rwc said about aspiring black men selecting “high yellow black women”:
Absolutely-they confer higher status than their darker skinned sistas. Nothing new there, but i imagine the pain is no less acute for the sistas on the outside looking in…
Oh and btw, i suspect this is why the bw/wm marital rate is so low in comparison to say, the aw/wm marital rate (hope): because the latter (asian women) confers more status than a black woman to a white man. Again, we’re not supposed to notice these things much less discuss them in the light of day, but bang there it is…
O.
@Obs
I don’t mean to be glib, but I honestly have no idea. It depends on how you define doomed, I suppose. There are men in prison with no prestige, are they doomed? Are men lowering their standards doomed?
@Susan
I’d say, at least in my experience, that in my group of friends cheating was very frowned upon. It was generally viewed as a lack of dominance, as in the guy didn’t have the testicular fortitude to man up and break up with his girlfriend, and so resorted to sneaking around like a scared little girl. As far as relationships being looked down upon, it depended. Depended on how hot the gf was, and how much the guys liked her (was she cool/fun/not nagging). Also depended hugely on the behavior of the guy in the relationship. If he still went out, drank hard, partied, introduced his gf’s friends to his single friends, etc, then no one really cared if he was sleeping with one woman or twenty. However, if the guy turned into a boring hermit while in the relationship, then yes he did get trashed for it.
@Zach
And I’m sure that women observe other men deferring to you. If you appear agreeable in your demeanor, that’s going to read as “prestige” rather than “dominance” (as defined in the study – obviously you are physically dominant).
Obama’s IQ is around 116. He’s not stupid, being a full +1SD above average,
You’re shitting me! I would have thought his verbal IQ, if not his total IQ, was sky-high! He certainly has a very high EQ and is unflappable, and that is probably more important than anything in terms of succeeding in politics.
The irony is that he’s not even as intelligent as the much-mocked George Bush, whose IQ is 126 based on his pre-1974 SAT score of 1206.
I’ve always assumed that Bush damaged himself with alcohol.
Mostly due to the illegal African immigrant who confessed to it and was convicted of it.
I’m aware of the confession, but I question everything that comes out of the Italian court system.
Knox was guilty of nothing but acting like an idiot after the murder.
To a certain extent, she was convicted on her aura of sluttiness.
Now for my “punch line” on the context issues I mentioned. The guys in this group who are the most successful with women (and the range is wide, from guys with an N of 2-3, to guys with Ns of 25+) are the ones who behave largely the same whether around women or around men. The ones who are not as successful are the ones who generally turn into the “nice” guys I mentioned above. However, as I noted the “asshole” distinction is applied almost universally by the WOMEN. Men don’t see most of this behavior (insults, one-upping, etc) as assholish. As a corollary, most of the guys who are successful with women have far fewer female friends than the ones who aren’t. Also, those fewer friends tend to be more attractive girls where there is more sexual tension in the relationship as well. The “nice guys” have lots of women who love them, but they love them like teddy bears, and who wants to sleep with a teddy bear?
All absolutely true. Very few women can bear, with any degree of equanimity, the rough verbal affection with which male friends habitually communicate. Even fewer enjoy being around it; Spacebunny is an exception in that she actively enjoys listening to male banter and argument. Key word being “listening”.
I just talked to my best friend in the States two days ago. This was the verbatim beginning of the conversation:
Vox: Hey.
Friend: Oh, hey, what’s up? I meant to call you.
Vox: You don’t write, you don’t call….
Friend: Yeah, well, the problem was –
Vox: [Wife's name] found out you’re gay?
Friend: Nah, what happens in the truck stop stays in the truck stop.
I always find it amusing when I get off the phone after a long phone call and my wife asks how someone’s family is. I never have any idea. We don’t talk about that stuff. We might talk about who we’re keeping in our fantasy football league, the triumphant discovery of a computer bug, or the irony of how Sam Harris’s current theories about free will completely undermine the thesis of his previous book, but we don’t talk about that.
With no pun intended, it is actually a small minority that get worked up when someone attempts to say something honest. But, they get REALLY worked up about it and they will call you the worst names (in the most nuanced of ways, of course).
@VD
“You must be turned on very easily then. Obama’s IQ is around 116. He’s not stupid, being a full +1SD above average, but he’s not even close to Mensa material. Even if one doesn’t trust my estimate, there is absolutely no way he can have an IQ over 128 due to his performance on the PSAT and SAT. The irony is that he’s not even as intelligent as the much-mocked George Bush, whose IQ is 126 based on his pre-1974 SAT score of 1206.”
What? Get the heck outta here! I would have never guessed, especially since Barack did such an outstanding job on his election-year interview with Nature magazine.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080924/full/455446a.html
Well perhaps there’s more to it than IQ. Maybe I’m a sucker for a man who appreciates science.
@Susan #141
I’ve been doing some research into traditional aboriginal family structures because I believe they’re more representative of what we would have seen in pre-history than the mythical despotic Alpha male tribe that has been portrayed in PUA circles. From my limited understanding of these structures women would select multiple men to have children with and the tribe as a whole would be involved in rasing these children (to an extent).
I imagine why this approach died out in favour of monogomy is that communal structures do not scale well; and as a tribe grew much past 100 people the structural problems make it very likely that the society would collapse. I wouldn’t be surprised that these tribes devolved into a similar state that we’re in currently, where 10% of guys get 90% of attention to women, and the 90% of guys who were getting ignored killed off the players and “demanded” attention from women.
@O good points. To answer your questions, I was 28 when I met my first wife, she was not yet 26, and we married three years later. We divorced after 10 years together. Being as objective as I can be, she was, I’d say, about a 7. 6 on a bad day. Our sex life was fantastic. She decided to end the marriage when she discovered I was more interested in furthering my career than traveling the world. I do believe she met someone who was more interested in traveling.
I met my current wife when I was 44, and she’s older. I would not be fair to put her on the scale used here, since we’re now both past that part of our lives. But I’ve seen pictures. She and her twin were objectively 9s when such things mattered. We dated for almost five years and celebrated our tenth anniversary last year, and yes, the sex was fantastic too. I’ll admit, we’ve slowed down, mostly due to that dreaded disease, A.G.E.
You’re right about 1st impressions – clearly, the bar could never be my scene. But there are other places where 1st impressions count less and 2nd impressions count more.
I was particularly successful at the health club, the office (where I was also very unsuccessful), the internet (striking up conversations much like I see people doing here) and at home, with “the girl next door”. In each case, there was time to establish a relationship that was not based on immediate gratification for either of us. In only one case was alcohol involved!
Yes, I can remember how unflappable he was when he ran for president. I mean, The New York Times, CNN and all the rest really came at him with both barrels, asking him the hardest of questions. I can’t remember the last time a candidate was that tested.
Oh, wait…
I think that’s largely a frat phenomenon.
For most guys, getting a steady gf won’t hurt his status at all as long as he doesn’t become whipped (but unfortunately a lot of guys are conditioned to do just that).
But on the note of frats, I think that actually blows up the idea that “prestige” is entirely given between males… In most schools I’ve been to, frat membership makes up a small percentage of the general male student population, and most of the non-frat guys don’t think too highly of their frat counterparts (they usually view them as assholes and douchebags, whether fairly or not). There’s obviously a lot of female choice going on to disregard the opinions of the majority.
@PP
I’m not surprised, really. Patriarchy and the invention of agriculture are linked.
This is funny – even if there’s an important call or a crisis, my husband can be on the phone for a while, and when he gets off I ask him a bunch of questions. His response is almost always the same. “I don’t have answers for any of those questions.”
LOL, Ramble, but have you ever seen the man get angry? He doesn’t seem to, at least not on the outside. That’s a manful-looking thing and his biggest asset as a politician.
His response is almost always the same. “I don’t have answers for any of those questions.”
They never do.
@ms walsh:
Lol. I like your rhetorical dodges. Very balletic!
Of course the men upstate are doomed; by definition they are out of the mating pool. Now when they return to society, things may change for them. It all depends on where they were coming from to begin with; its a known fact that having a prison record is no bar to getting women in black usa and some would say its a boon in that regard.
As for men lowering standards? Id say yes. Its hard to see how a 3 man can keep up a longterm emotional, social and financial investment in say, a 1 woman. Or even a 3 woman. As ive just said, evopsych has proven that-pardon my being crude-the hotter the chick, the harder the…well you know the rest. So yes, a man settling for a noticebly homlier woman aint a good look.
And i agree with your premise as per buss etc about men confering status onto other men; my question(s) become:
Where is the evidence that beta guys under 30 are indeed in high demand from women in the same or younger cohort, and…
What do men who cannot achieve/acquire “prestige” do? Seems to me that they go the more bluntforce dominance route, if they can.
Makes sense to me…
O.
J,
1. Why would he…they fucking rolled him a red carpet.
2. They fucking hated W, ho often did you see him get angry…or Reagan, or Bush 41?
Clinton got perturbed every now and then and as best as I can tell, Carter was the last one to actually get angry. Though, it was rare.
@Peppermint
I was just reading about the ultimate failure of all societies that attempt to raise children communally. Apparently, the Israeli kibbutz only exists today as a tourist attraction – I had no idea. Parents want to raise their own kids. I know I did, I would never have put them in a pool to be shared.
@VD
Common start to a phone call with my friend Crazy J:
Me: You still a faggot
CJ: Depends, you still fat and ugly
Me: Broke a mirror today so I guess you’re still gay
Of course, now that’s homophobic at best instead of just male.
@ Royale W. Cheese,
I cannot help but remark what a classy lady you are!
Your intelligence shows – very much so.
And I also think your smile is gorgeous, as J noted.
@ SW,
Yes, re the height thing, I concur. At 6 ft tall, I already tower over most men around me even in low-heeled shoes.
I admit I don’t even ‘see’ men under 6ft3 as possible romantic partners
So I have never dated a man under this height.
I don’t think this is unreasonable though…it’s not like I am 5ft 2 seeking a man of 6ft 6!
I like to stand up straight when out and about with a man I am dating. If he is shorter than a certain height then I feel the need to compensate by slouching…
Illogical, I know, (in the sense that I could choose not to slouch) but there we are…
In this sense I very much ‘choose’ my father and all my uncles who are all very tall men.
I would find it impossible to do otherwise.
@Jimmy
Frat members confers prestige via males in and of itself. By definition, those guys start out with a wad of prestige, and are largely oblivious to the poor opinion of other males, which often has an element of envy to it. Similarly, most women who hang with frats do so from day one, and so are generally similarly unaware. BTW, the number of women who hang with frats decreases dramatically as women advance through school – many more first semester freshmen than seniors.
@Joe
To second this, I meet the gf when volunteering at SELF last year. She runs the vendor room and I was assigned to work for her. The layout was off and while she struggled I offered to fix it.
Afterwards she pursued me as much as I pursued her.
I think the secret in part was we were doing something not involving mating where I was able to show off competence and confidence. That allowed us both to be open to attraction without concentrating on it.
@Susan,
Communal was probably the wrong term …
Essentially a woman would raise her children with the support of the whole community. Depending on the culture there was responsibilities of fathers and extended family, but the involvement would be far less than a kinship family or the modern nuclear family.
I suspect that this structure worked well as long as the tribe was small enough, and women outnumbered men due to the disproportionate dangers of being a man in a hunter-gatherer society; but a society with roughly equal proportions of men and women that grew beyond the size of a traditional tribe would probably fall apart under such a structure.
This, I flat out do not agree with.
@JT
That makes total sense. One of the girls closest to me is 6′. Her mother was my best friend growing up – we were a funny pair at 5’3″ and 5’11″. She is very focused on both height and musculature. She often comments on a guy’s strong arms, back, etc. She wants to feel feminine and protected, and those things help.
The same discussions come up repeatedly, so I hope this is not too way off topic.
To all:
May I ask where does the– “only 40 % of men vs. 80% of women have successfully reproduced” that’s so often brought up come from?
Was it perhaps a statistic that was only pertinent to a specific time period?
Thanks.
I’ve recently stumbled upon the following Census stats “Fertility of American Men”, which oddly enough, is the only one I’ve been able to find.
Keep in mind, that the %ile of female respondents was a bit higher than that of males.
Percent of American Men (Women) reporting to have *NO* children in 1992
Men
18-19 — 97.5 %
20-24 — 82.8 %
25-29 — 59.1 %
30-34 — 38.6 %
35-39 — 28.1 %
40-44 — 18.9 %
45-64 — 12.6 %
65+ — 14.1 %
Total for men 18+ = 33.8 %
Women
18-19 — 84.9 %
20-24 – 65.6 %
25-29 – 42.4 %
30-34 – 24.1 %
35-39 – 18.9 %
40-44 – 16.4 %
45-64 – 10.8 %
65+- – 15.5 %
Total women age 18+ = 26.0 %
http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0014.pdf
@ms walsh:
Lol. I like your rhetorical dodges. Very balletic!
Of course the men upstate are doomed; by definition they are out of the mating pool. Now when they return to society, things may change for them. It all depends on where they were coming from to begin with; its a known fact that having a prison record is no bar to getting women in black usa and some would say its a boon in that regard.
As for men lowering standards? Id say yes. Its hard to see how a 3 man can keep up a longterm emotional, social and financial investment in say, a 1 woman. Or even a 3 woman. As ive just said, evopsych has proven that-pardon my being crude-the hotter the chick, the harder the…well you know the rest. So yes, a man settling for a noticebly homlier woman aint a good look.
And i agree with your premise as per buss etc about men confering status onto other men; my question(s) become:
Where is the evidence that beta guys under 30 are indeed in high demand from women in the same or younger cohort, and…
What do men who cannot achieve/acquire “prestige” do? Seems to me that they go the more bluntforce dominance route, if they can.
Makes sense to me…
@joe:
Thanks for taking the time out to answer my queries. I just think that one major reason why a lot of people have problems w/evopsych is because of its brutal, ugly conclusions, especially when it comes to mating. Simply put, being a shorter man means being at a decided disadvantage out on the open sexual market. There is no getting around this no matter how much we may try to deny it or euphemize it. Yes, it can be mitigated; but what woman want and desire are quite clear.
The bar scene is hugely important because thats where the hottest chicks are, fullstop. Its perfectly fine to have a preference for something else-i for one dont any problem in the least with that-but i grow weary of not being able to simply and bluntly say what everyone can clearly see with their own eyes. The club scene is the modern day mating grounds and it doesnt suffer fools. Yes, there are other “grounds” but lets be honest-the aggregate sheer physical quality of whats on offer in such places can go down. This matters to males especially younger ones for what should now be obvious reasons.
O.
@Obsidian
Why is it so hard for a homely man to be attracted to a homely woman? I’ve asked this question so many times, and all I get are defensive, evasive answers. Wouldn’t it make more sense that the two of them get together? I get it that many woman fight outside of their weight classes in the SMP, and that kind of skews things. But I guess my question is why is it viewed as this completely horrible thing (I believe you used the word ‘doomed’ to describe a man who can’t a desirable woman) for a guy to link up wih someone who can offer him exactly what he offers her?
#200
Forgot to add that the first column is the age brackets, I’m sure most will figure that out.
IDK, Ramble, I’ve seen Obama in situations where I thought a man might lose his cool, and then he didn’t. I can’t really think of specifics though at the moment. Lest you think however that this is an Obama supporter thing, I am actually somewhat disappointed in him. He had an opportunity to be a modern day Roosevelt by putting people to work improving the infrastructure of the country, and he wasted time on a failing health care initiative instead.
W didn’t strike me as a paragon of self-control. He would get sort of ineffectually snarky. Remember the comment about his owning a forest during one of the debates. It was silly and embarrassing.
Why is it so hard for a homely man to be attracted to a homely woman?
Because he is sooo much better off masturbating into his own hand while thinking about a 10 than he is having a real relationship with someone as homely as he is.
One manosphere blogger, a keyboard “alpha,” once said that he had contempt for his current gf, whose SMP was similar to his, because she reminded him of his own lack of value. I think that says it all.
@Susan Walsh I have been accused of being unfair to players and cads …
And a bit unfair to the beta boys, as well. This article and this study seem to suggest that “players and cads” are selected only for “short-term mating,” and what man would want that, while those lovely, kind, sensitive, generous beta providers win the very dubious prize of marriage – all while she’s lustily dyeing the strapping young pool boy, or the hulking, gym-honed fireman.
Meanwhile, beta boy is happily providing for his mate and her offspring – buying a house, cars, tuitions, etc – while the cad gets the sex.
Beta boy probably imagines she actually IS attracted to him – in reality, she likes very much his “resources,” if not his sexuality.
Can anyone at all see how insulting this is to “beta” men?
Pardon me while I pump some more iron at the gym, and hone my DB skills. This beta isn’t going to be such a sucker.
Zach,
Nothing really to add, just wanted to say great post. Pretty much agree with everything you stated, with the part about female friends being very poignant, at least in my experience as well.
“only 40 % of men vs. 80% of women have successfully reproduced” that’s so often brought up come from?
It’s a meme. It came up on Roissy a few years ago and was quickly discredited by a commenter named Polymath, who was, I believe, a professional statistician. Yet, zombie-like, it revives itself on a regular basis. Nothing can kill it; it does not respond to either logic or garlic.
Susan, David Stockman was and is a huge asshole, so I am not sure your crush disproves the “chicks dig jerks” thesis.
Because he is sooo much better off masturbating into his own hand while thinking about a 10 than he is having a real relationship with someone as homely as he is.
He is, if the homely woman fancies herself to be a six because she can still attract above average men., which is pretty much a universal truth. She’ll never respect him because she’ll see herself as settling and will treat him like garbage at every opportunity.
If you’re an ugly guy who wants to be a beta provider in a sexless relationship with a nagging shrew, by all means go for a woman of similar objective attractiveness.
@In passing
I don’t know, but probably for the same reaosn homely women aren’t attracted to homely men.
The only advantage men have in this game of shooting high is they’re honest and that’s dying. Right now culture tells a a fat 3 she deserves her 10 just like every other woman. So that woman isn’t attracted to her fellow 3 but doesn’t need to ask herself why because she deserves the best.
Meanwhile we castigate the male 10 for not wanting the female 3, the male 3 for wanting the female 10, and the male 3 for not wanting the female 3.
If the sexes are equal and women should have the best no matter what, why are we surprised men react the exact same way.
The 80%/40% figure covers tens or hundreds of thousands of years of pre-history. It’s not a record of current demographics.
I was not aware it had been discredited. It is certainly not something Roissy made up, he got it from a scientific paper that based it on DNA analysis.
W may have gotten silly at times, but I never saw him get angry. And they actually pestered him with some real questions.
I’m with Ramble, I disagree with this 100%… It’s not like frats are secret societies shrouded in mystery. Everyone heading into college knows the score.
Frat members confers prestige via males in and of itself. By definition, those guys start out with a wad of prestige.
Now I don’t disagree with this at all.
But again, my point is that the prestige isn’t coming from being liked or respected by the vast majority of their peers (as athletes usually are). It comes from having sexual success with attractive members of the opposite sex, and by having high social status/dominance.
J
“It’s a meme. It came up on Roissy a few years ago and was quickly discredited by a commenter named Polymath, who was, I believe, a professional statistician. Yet, zombie-like, it revives itself on a regular basis. Nothing can kill it; it does not respond to either logic or garlic.”
———–
Yummmm garlic! + it wards off vampires!
(Watch Anacaona sweep in on 1, 2, …. )
Thanks J.
Only a meme?
If I had nothing better to do with my time, I might follow up on some of these.
“I think dominance and asshole-ishness (for lack of a better, real word) are being conflated here. ”
This happens often when dominance is discussed.
The ideal man with this trait is dominant, NOT domineering. He expresses his needs but isn’t needy. He is self-confident, self-assured, excited by challenges and is not afraid to stand alone sometimes. That, to me, is the dominant man.
Because of the connotations of dominance, we tend to get caught up in semantics and people often picture abusers, gangsters and thugs. That point of view is often brought into play by women, because they resent being abused or treated as second class citizens, and “nice guys” because they need to make someone responsible for not asserting themselves with the women who passed over them.
Do lots of women run off with the jerk or the “bad boy” that treats them wrong? Of course. But to downplay the importance of dominance in a relationship due to these connotations is taking ones eye off the ball a little.
To boil it down to a biological standpoint, dominance is important because it’s the trait in a man that makes a woman feel safe, secure and sexy all at the same time.
Escoffier:
“The 80%/40% figure covers tens or hundreds of thousands of years of pre-history. It’s not a record of current demographics.”
——–
We’ve come a long way, Baby?
@Jason
Thanks for the kind words. Another little bit of color re this topic. One of my roommates is a really nice guy with girls, a lot of fun, and pretty funny too. He also, around guys, gives every bit as good as he gets (ie a 5-minute “you know how I know you’re gay” rant to a friend of ours we saw with roller blades the other day). Girls LOVE him. They can’t stop talking about how “great” he is, and always want to hang out (in fact when we have pregames, probably 75% of the girls are there because he invited them, not me). The punch line: all these girls tell me “we need to find your roommate a girl! He’s so great!”. My immediate response: well if you think he’s so great, as you obviously do, how about you? The hemming, hawing, and “clarifying” that follows is usually a pretty comic sight to behold.
Maybe this was already stated, but I am very skeptical of any study in which women read descriptions of men, and then answer questionnaires. They would tend to answer as their frontal lobe tells them they are supposed to answer. Plus, those conducting the study and writing the descriptions would be inclined to use descriptive language that dictates the outcome. If they had described the forcefully dominant men with language from a Harlequin romance novel, they might have found a different answer.
I haven’t read the Obsidian/RWC debate, mostly because I never have the patience to read anything written by Obsidan. Nonetheless, Royale W. Cheese, solely by virtue of having the best new posting name seen here in quite a while, wins this debate hands down.
@Alias
Genetic testing and rollback. There is some statistical trickery to project change in genomes over time.
For women they primarily look at mitorchondrial DNA (because it can only come via the mother). For men they look at Y chromosomes.
One of the biggest things to come out of this is the difference in the time between reproductive bottlenecks. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to 200,000 years ago while her male counterpart, was more recent. Current thinking is 142,000 ya although the older estimate was an even shorter 60,000.
Clearly, for that divorce to be clear we had lots of men over a 50,000 year span who had no children.
I haven’t seen a more detailed reference on modern societies but I suspect the ratio for the sexes is closer. One hallmark of monogamous societies is men will reproduce at roughly the same rate as women. This fact is used to pull men into those societies. The black inner city and Mormon polygamous communities are a good place to look to see what happens when this isn’t true (reading about Mormon disposable boys from these communities is heart rending…well, apparently not to most people but they are to me).
Finally, be careful on your census stats. They’re not quite apples to apples. The 40/80 results are genetic over human history. Certain history is one part of the difference but the genetic nature is as well. If I adopt or have step children I might report as having kids on the census. Plus, there is cuckoldry, but I suspect steps have a bigger impact. Many men with steps don’t have kids of their own while the mothers with steps usually do. So, some children might report twice but especially for men.
“Why is it so hard for a homely man to be attracted to a homely woman? I’ve asked this question so many times, and all I get are defensive, evasive answers. Wouldn’t it make more sense that the two of them get together?”
In a “fair,” split everything 50/50 type of world, this would be the case. The reason it’s not the case stems from our motivations.
A man’s primary motivation in a woman is physical. Appearance and sex. That’s not to say that other factors aren’t important, but for most men, physical is the make or break.
Women are less shallow than men in that regard, in that while physical appearance is important, the way a guy carries himself, speaks, dresses, takes care of business, demands the respect of others, etc can EASILY make up for not looking like a movie star. Those are dominant traits that rack up more “points” for a guy than just having a pretty face.
Men are a little more cut and dry.
While we appreciate all of those wonderful traits that make a woman tick, we unfortunately will never find them out if the woman isn’t attractive to us.
Since the “marketplace” is set up so that men place high importance of looks and sex, while women place high importance on the “manly” traits outside of physical appearance, what you’ll find is guys, ugly or otherwise, going out looking for beautiful women, and women, beautiful or otherwise, going out looking for manly men, regardless of how they look.
And since ugly guys have been able to display those manly traits and pull beautiful women since the beginning of time, he’d be doing himself a disservice by limiting himself to only homely women.
On the flip side, a homely woman doesn’t have that same luxury, since men place more importance on the physical.
“I haven’t read the Obsidian/RWC debate, mostly because I never have the patience to read anything written by Obsidan. Nonetheless, Royale W. Cheese, solely by virtue of having the best new posting name seen here in quite a while, wins this debate hands down.”
Awesome.
@J
Less killed and more shown to not have immediatacy.
Genetic diversity is higher in mitochondria than Y chromosomes and runs back further. The only way for that to happen is for more women to have decendants than men.
The more important question is how that occurs in paleolithic, neolithic, copper age, iron age, classical, medieval, industrial, and post-industrial societies.
I suspect as wel move closer and closer to the medieval period the ratios converge and hold relatively steady until now. I suspect we’re seeing the ratios diverge in the West although to what degree I won’t speculate.
Because he is sooo much better off masturbating into his own hand while thinking about a 10 than he is having a real relationship with someone as homely as he is.
—-
J,
So very funny. I see these men all of the time when I am out socializing and they are often standing in a corner alone looking pitiful while completely ignoring the women that are in their leagues. After a while, they will summon up the courage to hit on a woman way out of their league, and of course he is rebuffed and then it is time to go home and do what you mentioned in your hilarious comment.
@drunicusveritas
How so? Dominant males were not desirable for short- or long-term mating. If you’re talking about the first study I mentioned, which describes the evolution of female sexuality, I don’t understand the problem. The study is billed as answering the question, “Why do women prefer beta males?”
If you can understand that it’s important to women that men stick around, then it makes sense that women would have adapted to prefer men who stick around. That preference is manifested in the form of sexual attraction. Women evolved to be sexually attracted to men who stick around. Furthermore, women are turned off by hypermasculine features and behaviors, as they signal a low likelihood that the man will stick around. Also clearly demonstrated.
What women like best are men with high prestige who stick around. That’s the highest tingle producer, right there. What women like least are domineering men, who wouldn’t stick around anyway.
All of this speaks to biology. It does not address the issue of culture, though I did address how prestige and dominance can become conflated in the college environment, especially for athletes.
Honestly, I’m just reporting the results of four studies here. My aim is to get at some approximation of how things really work, not soothe egos. That would be blatantly dishonest and manipulative.
I’ve reported before in some depth about Dark Triad men – what they prefer, and why, as well as what kinds of women prefer them. It is what it is.
There is no one-size-fits-all. There are plenty of women who don’t pursue a short-term mating strategy. Those who do are most likely to select men similar to themselves in terms of dopamine response, including risk seeking and novelty seeking, as well as disagreeableness and low conscientiousness.
It seems to me that the only way this is bad news is if you are a beta male and want to bed women of that description.
Hmmm, now that I’ve said that I see the problem. Some beta guys do very much want to bed women of that description. I guess they’ll find out how far Game can take them – if that’s your strategy, Go Dark and go Asshole – all in.
“Why is it so hard for a homely man to be attracted to a homely woman?”
In normal times I don’t think it would have been that hard but we do not live in normal times …
With obesity rates as high as they are, most women who are a 4 or below are obese; and 3 and below have class II or higher obesity. Up until about 30 years ago the average 3 man would probably have accepted a class 3 woman because she would still have been sexually attractive to a point, but obesity at that level really eliminates physical attraction to women for most men.
Really? I had no idea! I just thought he was cute and nerdy. That’s very disappointing. Please don’t tell me Paul Gigot is also an asshole – he’s my other celebrity crush.
Agree 10000%… and I honestly wouldn’t just limit it to women. The vast majority of people are going to give the answer think they’re supposed to give.
As someone who’s currently spending a lot of time collecting data from surveys for my Master’s thesis…. I think it’s largely bogus. At least in social science.
The only real way to get legit data, IMO, would be to have a way to see who guys and girls are actually having sex with, orbiting, watching porn of, etc.
Here’s the link that probably inspired Roissy’s claim:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/
I don’t know if this is true of all men, but in my case, looks were never primary. I would instead use the phrase “necessary but insufficient.” I would never choose a girl based solely on looks but I would rule them out on that basis alone. And, if I made a mistake, I was far more likely to give the pretty but otherwise unsuitable girl a shot rather than the ugly girl of sterling character. But I wasn’t out insisting on 10s either, Liza.
At one point I was hanging around a certain crowd and there were two elligible girls sort of in my orbit. One was clearly into me. I called her “plain & stable” (not to her face). The other (“beautiful & flighty) I was into. I could not make myself attracted to P&S no matter how hard I tried. I never really pursued B&F because I knew she was bad news.
@in passing
First, welcome cousing.
Second:
“Why is it so hard for a homely man to be attracted to a homely woman”
In my observation, the opposite is more true – at least in terms of pure sexual attraction. In other words, if you took 1,000 randomly selected men, and 1,000 randomly selected women, each in their early 20s, and then had each sex rank the other according to general desirability (physical attractiveness, social dominance, etc.), I think the male who ranks around 750 out of 1,000 would be substantially more physically attracted to the female of the same rank than she would be to him.
Now, the question is, is the female ranked 750 worth it for the similarly male to pursue for a realtionship, given all the potential negative consequences of an LTR for a man? Maybe not, I dunno.
@Passer_By
“Nonetheless, Royale W. Cheese, solely by virtue of having the best new posting name seen here in quite a while, wins this debate hands down.”
Thanks!
Gigot has a titanic ego but he has better manners than Stockman. Gigot, like lots of such people, is used to being the highest status person in any room he is in and used to basically directing the convesation at will. He is not an asshole but it can get exhausting, we all know people like that.
Stockman is a Class A know-it-all jerk. And, if you ask me, his bitter memoir was a massive DLV. Lots of whining in there about all the battles he lost. Perhaps the archetypal Washington “If only they had listened to me!!” tome.
@Zach
How good looking is your friend-zoned buddy, especially in relation to the rest of you? If he was hot, this would not be an issue. I’ve seen this guy in a bunch of groups, and occasionally they’ll get lucky when a girl gets a “personality crush” on them. I’ve seen that happen, and in every case the guy couldn’t handle it if the girl was way out of his league. Being the least attractive member in a group is never a good idea.
Err, that should read “welcome, cousin”
@passer by:
Lol-i think its fair to say that your “debate judging” skills leave much to be desired; glad to know that i get under your skin so very well, though.
@in passing:
The answer to your question lies in the pages of prof david buss’ “the evolution of desire” and “evolutionary psychology”, third edition. He makes it all very clear.
Let me also just emphatically cosign what has already been noted: that women arent castigated for their desires, indeed our culture seems to celebrate/encourage it; while such disdain seems to be reserved for men. As ive said before, i think this is just our sexual psychology playing itself out here; because men overall have long had a record of lower sexual standards in relation to women, both men and women simply expect men to settle more than women. Of course what they dont get is that the lowered sexual standard only holds true for *short term* mating; longer term, the physical attractiveness of the female (especially facially) becomes much more important for the male.
This is why in game circles, its recommended that a man get with a woman at least a full point above him in relative attractiveness. My rule says “two”.
This ensures his longterm investment in her; otherwise, nothing doing.
As for the 40/80 thing…
Again, check your david buss; down through human evolutionary history, there have been twice as many bachelors as spinsters. This reflects the truth of both sexual psychologies of male and female as per my comments above.
O.
Herb:
“we had lots of men over a 50,000 year span who had no children.”
———
Yeah, that was my question, if it was specific to a time period.
Re: stepfathers
from the report:
“This is the first report issued by the Census Bureau focusing on the fertility patterns of American men.”
“the only fertility question asked of men was about the number of children they had ever fathered.”
Anecdotally, I have some problems with this post. It reads to me like one of those things we all wish were true, because it would make the world a better place, but it does not comport with observable reality as I have lived and seen it.
I know and have known no shortage of guys who would fit the “good” description of dominance yet who were never that attractive to women. What they lacked, in game terms, was alpha swagger even if they had all other material signs of success and were very successful at leading their own male groups. I can use myself as an example, I can think of at least two extended periods (two years each or so) during which I was the pretty clear leader of a group, one mixed the other almost entirely male. In the first instance I had a steady GF so I wasn’t really hunting for chicks. However, in the period before I landed her I had not done well at all. Also, she was not part of the group in question and really had little to do with it. Plus, the females within the group showed no romantic interest in me at all.
The second time I also had very limited success. Though I did meet my wife during that period it was toward the end.
As limiting as they can be, sometimes the old and tried “alpha/beta” categories explain things better than more sophisiticated models.
@Passer_by
Well, if we have faith in OKCupid that’s because she knows even 750 of 1000 is below average. You don’t get to average with men until 801.
@escoffier
“Anecdotally, I have some problems with this post. It reads to me like one of those things we all wish were true, because it would make the world a better place, but it does not comport with observable reality as I have lived and seen it.”
Yes, and I think it’s for the reasons I stated above regarding the method of having women read about hypothetical men and then answer a questionnaire about them.
VD
“there is absolutely no way he can have an IQ over 128 due to his performance on the PSAT and SAT. The irony is that he’s not even as intelligent as the much-mocked George Bush, whose IQ is 126 based on his pre-1974 SAT score of 1206.”
———
VD,
Not that I place such high value on IQ “scores”, nor on politicians …
My question though is:
Does socioeconomic privilege get factored in when only using PSAT/SATs scores as a measure of IQ?
“Again, check your david buss; down through human evolutionary history, there have been twice as many bachelors as spinsters. This reflects the truth of both sexual psychologies of male and female as per my comments above.”
The data doesn’t show that though …
The data demonstrates that there were twice as many women who had children as men, but this doesn’t mean that many male humans who lived a long adult life didn’t have children.
In a hunter-gatherer society men would take the bulk of the risks and die a disporportionate percentage of the time. It is not that unreasonable to expect that the young, smaller, and less experienced males died far more often than their older, larger and more experienced counterparts; or that women prefered the older, larger and more experience men. It is quite possible that 50% of men died before they were 18 or 21, while the vast majority of children were fathered by men over the age of 18 or 21. In ways you could argue that the fact that a man could survive to maturity demonstrated his value as a potential sexual partner.
# 242 Duh, to myself.
VD,
Of course, if *only* PSAT/SAT are used, socioeconomic status isn’t factored in. My question was do you actually think it’s accurate to only consider those scores.
Hymowizt also argues girls become women by bleeding. If that’s all it takes to be a “woman” is it any surprise most women make bad choices.
Take in account that becoming a mother in the recent past was a sign of full womanhood (I think it was till the woman breastfeeding her first baby) and since for being a mother you need to pick a father the preparation for womanhood included mate selection and other useful skills that although aiming at childbearing also helped in other aspects of her life. Now that you only need to bleed the only preparation necesary is to learn how to use a tampon, not a lot of though on that.
My knowledge of this issue is admittedly based on reading alone, but a common theme in literature is that light skin, e.g. “high yellow” was a mark of status for either sex among blacks. (That term was still in use less than 100 years ago!)
Look at the Egyptian statues the men are always darker than the women, you could say that they were reproducing real conditions since men worked under the sun a lot more than women, but then if you read greek and roman texts on beauty women have always being considered prettier the lighter their skin was. Even if Snow White had a lot more going on that just beauty the term was “fairest of them all” that is a key on preference, YMMV.
Across ethnicities, the average man is half a head taller than the average woman, so “at least 3 inchs” sounds about right.
We used to call it the “heels test” if can wear heels without you feeling selfconscious or the man giving you crap for it then he was probably tall enough.
If we return to 20% of the men having all the children it will be ugly. This isn’t a few thousand men in Africa at the bottleneck of human evolution about 70,000 BC. It would be over 3 billion men without any investment in their future beyond their own fun.
And imagine how much of our IQ we will lose with the high chances of incest. Total disaster. Had I mentioned my theory that the reason we have not contacted advanced civilizations from outer space is because they went through all this disaster and they devolved to a point they couldn’t developed technology to travel space beyond what we can see now? Some days I do feel this is the beginning of the end of my beautiful civilization…
You’re shitting me! I would have thought his verbal IQ, if not his total IQ, was sky-high! He certainly has a very high EQ and is unflappable, and that is probably more important than anything in terms of succeeding in politics.
He doesn’t have a high IQ but he has high charisma. That is enough for many people. Funny enough the man never impressed me. I don’t think ENFJ like each other much.
For most guys, getting a steady gf won’t hurt his status at all as long as he doesn’t become whipped (but unfortunately a lot of guys are conditioned to do just that).
For what is worth another thing I did when dating my husband was making sure his friends though I was cool and laid back when we had our cyberdates I always encourage him to go out with his friends instead if they felt like hanging out and reschedule, or to attend parties knowing that we wouldn’t be able to talk or chat that weekend or even on New Years Eve. I always though that gave me needed extra points to earn the ring.
They never do.
Oh boy so this. At this point I know more about his family endeavors than he does. “How do you know that?” he asks “err I ask?” oh well I’m okay with doing the PR in our family
@Alias
It’s more than one specific time period. I just gave the most extreme example. Except for the male line of Chromosomal Adam we can’t conclude anyone is a decendant of any man prior to him. We can affirmatively assert no man is decended from other men, although women might be.
However, it’s a trend that continues since then for a variety of reasons, the biggest being survival rate. That’s why I suspect if we could map it current world wide levels probably stablized sometime between 1500 (last great migration wars) and 1800. The West probably moved even closer to even in ratios since 1800 or so (industrial revolution) with early 20th century blips (World Wars).
I also don’t have figures for a specific ratio. I’m less interested in ratios than trends. My concern is sexual liberation means the ratios will diverge again as marriage dies and isn’t tightly bound to getting pregnant.
What does worry me is unpartnered males. They create instability. I’m not sure they even need to become a majority. A lot can happen at the margins (look at how a marginal number of women hooking up above their SMP has broken the SMP). If we move from 1 in 20 males unpartnered to 1 in 5 that’s still only 20% but what changes in society if we 15% of men from invested to uninvested?
Fair enough.
@Susan
About average looking, but short (5’6″). However, I have other friends who are the same (short, average looking) who do far better with women than he does. Personally, I think his confidence with women is shot. He barely even tries. Every new girl he meets he greets with “buddy” talk. Every new girl I meet that I’m attracted to I go straight into creating some sexual tension. I think he’s very afraid that it might become “awkward” or he’s afraid of rejection. Also very hard to talk to one of your best friends about that, b/c it’s some pretty scathing criticism if he hasn’t asked for help. As an example, a few weeks ago we got drinks with a group of girls. It was me, him, and 6 girls. As usual, most of the girls there were his friends, not mine. I thought two of them were cute, so I flirted. I obviously couldn’t get both of their numbers there, so I followed up with mutual friends a day later to get both of their numbers. Both were girls I’ve met before, but whom I see every 4-5 months or so and have never known well. My friend would never have done that for fear of not being able to hang out with them again if it didn’t go well. I honestly had trouble explaining to him that the only thing I was losing was seeing a couple girls who I barely knew from time to time, but I stood to gain a lot more (I ended up getting 1 date out of 2). I probably will see the girl who turned me down again, and it will be awkward, but that’s why I’m a grown-up, not a child, and can deal with it.
By the way, I really couldn’t stand frat guys when I was in college. I just never got what girls saw in them they were a bunch of obnoxious tools.
Which brings me to: does anyone here remember a reality show on VH1 called the ‘Tool Academy’? The show was about women who were fed up with their asshole spouses. The premise of the show was to trick their unsuspecting a**hole behaving spouses in participating on the show in order to reform them. The women swore if the men did not change for the better the relationships would be over. At the end, the most reformed guy got cash and prizes or something. I loved this show. It is no longer on (I think or I just can’t find it) but it blows apart the whole “women love a**holes” meme. Maybe at first the behavior was appealing but after a while it appeared to have gotten old with the women they were involved with long-term or married to.
@Liza
“Which brings me to: does anyone here remember a reality show on VH1 called the ‘Tool Academy’? The show was about women who were fed up with their asshole spouses.”
I won’t hold my breath waiting for the analogous show about reforming bitch wives.
Liza, who IS your type?
@peppermint panda:
Yes youre right-buss says the very same things youre saying above. Indeed, the key reason why men die at much larger numbers and earlier ages is because of risk taking in an effort to impress women enough to mate with them. So again, youre most definitely right.
Glad to see that we agree.
O.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for the analogous show about reforming bitch wives.
—–
It would be a great idea for a reality show. ‘Bitch Academy’.
@Herb
Right on the nose.
@Obs. Really? The hottest girls are “at the bar, full stop”? That strikes me as a needless limiting of your choices, rather like the ladies limiting themselves to “taller” men. I’m certain you could afford that much more than I.
@Escoffier, @Passer By
First, an interesting article about social science research:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/how-reliable-are-the-social-sciences/
My own feeling is that no one study can or should be believed. I rely on a wide variety of sources, including testimony and personal anecdotal evidence from others.
Still, I feel that social science research has value for several reasons:
1. The best minds at the best research universities in the country often are behind it. These are not fools with a political agenda. Particularly in the realm of evolutionary study, there is considerable disincentive to placating feminists.
2. They are asking interesting questions about human behavior, and sometimes they come up with interesting answers. In truth, social science research is the only source of new information and subsequent debate on any SMP-related topic. I find it useful to explore new avenues of research rather than retread the same old paths again and again.
3. While asking people about their sexual preferences, desires and behaviors is always a risky business (from a data standpoint) I believe it is nonetheless a potential source of new insight. One needs to take it with a grain of salt, but a large number of studies all coming to similar conclusions – as many of the evo psych and bio studies have – is potentially quite significant, in my view.
4. Asking people what they would do is obviously is not the same as observing what they actually do. Since direct observation of female brain activity around sex is difficult to come by, I believe it is useful to gauge attitudes among women. If a woman feels repelled or attracted by a story in a study, and responds accordingly, I don’t see any reason why we would assume that in real life she would do the opposite. Studies are now nearly all conducted anonymously online, so embarrassment with an interviewer is unlikely to be an issue. Similarly, women experience little if any shaming for the sexual choices, so don’t have the same incentive to fudge the truth as they did a couple of generations ago. There is still some, but it is greatly diluted.
@peppermint panda:
Let me also say that i agree with what you said wrt the pickup artists at the speed dating event; they didnt seem to do what grimble did in “the game” when he was on a dating show on tv-and won. Calibration, is always key. No two ways about it.
That said, i do think the bar and niteclub scene gets way too much short shrift, and i think its because of good ole sour grapes-those who bemoan it the most tend to be those who cant hang in such an environment. Again i say: the hottest chicks around tend to be there. I have nothing against anyones personal preference but objectively speaking, most guys would agree: the clubs are where the hot babes be.
It is, what it is.
O.
@Passer_By
That’s because bitch wives don’t exist and if they do it’s the husband’s fault anyway.
@Escoffier
I have concluded Liza will settle for nothing short of the platonic ideal mix of Alpha and Beta. She’s our own personal Kate Bollick based on her statements.
Sorry, Liza, but from what you’ve said that’s how I have to call it.
Herb:
“It’s more than one specific time period. ”
—–
Yes, i know you meant spanning throughout pre-modern history, sorry, I’m just rushing in and out of here so I’m not being clear. I did want to know if it pertained to modern history which you answered – it doesn’t.
Liza, who IS your type?
Escoffier,
The ideal guy for me (and most women) beta/alpha. More beta than alpha, of course. You know, a decent guy with good character who is confident and secure in himself. No tools. I am not saying that I was not attracted to a tool or two but they never went the distance with me–annoying and would grate on my nerves after a short while, really.
Thanks to everyone who responded to my question. I guess what I took away from some of the responses is that male appeal to women is more flexible than female appeal to men. For women, its majority looks. For men, its about being manly, confident, etc–all things you can change about yourselves and get a chance to demonstrate. Got it, it seems very unfair, but I guess it doesn’t make it any less true.
@Passer_by
Thanks for the warm welcome
@joe:
Yes youre right-what im saying wrt the clubscene is indeed limited-just like the ladies who prefer taller men and for whom this trait is a dealbreaker. But guess what-we ALL have dealbreakers and we all impose limits on what we will and will not find sexually acceptable as mates. Your own personal example notwithstanding, the majority of men dont find women notably older than themselves to be sexually attractive-even if she were smart, funny, had a great career/money etc. The age thing is a dealbreaker, and no matter of trying to shame guys otherwise is going to change that because its part of our evolutionary hardwiring to favor youth to age in a woman. It is what it is.
The niteclubs tend to attract the more objectively beautiful women-must we actually have to debate what we all know to be true here? Really? Wouldnt it be better for us all to simply acknoweldge that and move on?
O.
Herb,
You got me pegged and I guess you do not think that guy exists. That guy use to exist in large numbers a long time ago. It is rather sad that he has gone almost extinct. Huh?
@Liza
Okay, this is where we aren’t meeting.
From what you’ve said you want is a guy who never existed. That’s why I said platonic ideal . No guy can 100% of the time be that perfect of a mix.
The guy in the gym is going to condemn you for a long time.
This is, sadly, very common. What makes it doubly sad is it helps itself becoming self-fulfilling. Because trying the mix gets you little (in no small part because those looking for it want perfection) while being an asshole gets you something it convinces men being an asshole is the better choice.
As far as the whole “skin color” discussion that was happening between Royale and Obsidian, I’ll toss in my two cents.
I have never had a problem attracting black men, despite the fact that I’m darker skinned.
Having said that, I’ve always preferred white men. It’s just what I’m attracted to the most.
My nickname among my family is “white boy magnet”. The supposed ratio is that for every 1 black man that has ever shown interest in me, 10-20 white men have shown interest in me.
As far as black women dating white men, I don’t see why that’s considered such a shame. If a black woman can snag a white guy, that’s great. In all honesty, white men probably have the highest SMV out of all men. If a black woman is able to date a white guy in lieu of a black guy, it’s possibly an upgrade.
I don’t mean that to be derogatory at all, but that’s the conclusion I draw from comparing the relative SMVs amongst men of different races.
Maybe in NYC or LA… but not necessarily on a college campus.
That’s not to say there aren’t a lot of hot girls at the clubs… but there are just as many at house parties, dive bars, football tailgates, block parties, etc. And honestly, those venues are probably more representative of campus social culture than nightclubs are.
@Obsidian
It has been my experience that a large portion of the 10s in a club are 6s on the street. Many of these “super hot” women in the club are dressing and grooming themselves in a way to maximize the attention they get, and when you take that away they are often not that attractive. The following link includes far more extreme transformations that you typically see, but it is an example of the kind of transformations that some bar-stars undergo:
http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/pictures/chinese-girls-before-and-after-makeup.html
The nice girl who is a solid 7/8 with light make-up while wearing jeans and a t-shirt is often far more attractive in real life to bar-star 10s
“”I think the secret in part was we were doing something not involving mating where I was able to show off competence and confidence. That allowed us both to be open to attraction without concentrating on it.”"
As I’ve mentioned before, I missed at least half a dozen–that I know of–IOI in college and all of them were from women with whom I was associated doing something other than the mating dance.
Susan. As to men who “believe” that women frequently go for buttheads, we have the stereotypical behavior of the Nice Guy ™. Part of it includes endlessly listening to the woman’s complaints about how rotten her bf is. I suppose some of the NG believe the women. Now what? The murderers’ Pen Pal association isn’t necessarily the Big Deal with “believe” this stuff. Most guys can spot outliers and anomalies. But it does serve in the sense that, “if some even go that far, it shows how far the rest can go without going that far.” The farther out the outlier lies, the farther out the inliers can lie without being outliers.
I have no stats on the subject, and the stats would be difficult, since some women don’t think a guy is a butthead when everybody else does, some won’t admit it, some define butthead as not providing sufficient bling….
I think it’s been shown here and elsewhere that what “studies” show women want–when women are asked what they want–serve as a cross between an anchor and a way to look absolutely stupid when a guy takes it seriously and tries to attract women that way.
@
Unless you want to condition it to “black women” where I can’t really speak, I don’t know it to be true.
Nightclubs get poorly dressed women, entitled women, “hot” women, and a variety of other categories but the most objectively beautiful women as a relatively constant function?
No, I don’t buy that at all. In fact, my general nightclub experience (subculture specific draw a wider pool because they’ll draw the entire subculture from hot to ugly to just want to dance) the women are 5-8 range and those who are above that are hot more than other kinds of beautiful.
Hot fades and usually includes a side of bitchy as often as not. Other kinds of beautiful are much more common elsewhere. I’m big on handsome women and striking women for the most part although the current gf does sweet and innocent pretty well (which is a danger sign in the S&M community – straight female dominants get much rougher the more harmless they look…5’6″ sweet and innocent usually plays much harder than 6’1″ ice queens). Early twenties I adore baby dykes. I love that stage where women are experimenting with butch and while they have all the parts they haven’t blended them and lots of feminine leaks through (I remember one about 21 with short hair but still using a couple of barretts for example). They are just so cute at that stage.
@sassy:
No, what you say about white male smv relative to black male smv is something i would agree with, and partly explains why those sistas who go that route do what they do. I know its not cricket in our time to say so but lets face it-who we spend our time with does indeed make a statement about who and what we are-and part of the reason why we choose who we choose has at least in part to do with how such an alliance will aid us in terms of our social standing. For some sistas-especially many who are darker than many brothas would prefer-their hypergamous needs are constantly thwarted. Being with a white male at the very least helps offset that.
The question on the other side though, is whether a white guy being with such a woman helps or hurts his social status. Again to mention banks’ book, the early returns as we have it are not very encouraging. Please note that a black man having a white woman without a doubt increases his status.
Let me also say that when white men do get with sistas they tend to be darker skinned and, to sport more au natural hairstyles. I say more power to em.
O.
I do not get why we are told regularly that women with lots of options really do want to fuck Nice Guys more than any other kind of man. I mean, if this is so true, why even bother with HUS, or the blogs teaching the arts of Pick Up? Why not just tell young women to follow their hearts and young men to just be nice and show it?
There might be a planet somewhere where this describes reality, just not the one we live on.
1. In the past, probably with moving north, females may have simply lost the option of going without a committed male supporter even if he was beta-ish.
2. Who is to say it was “faithful” females who looked for faithful men? This is wild speculation. There was no easy DNA paternity testing back then. Just because you have to settle for a non elite man does not necessarily change the hind brain it merely requires that it be kept hidden.
3. These discussions tend to go in circles because PC demands that females must always come out on top of the moral hierarchy..
@peppermintpanda, @herb, @jimmy hendricks:
Listen, i know the internet generally, & this forum in particular, has a tendency to “niche” itself-and as ive said before, i dont have a problem with any of that. Whatever floats your boats, guys.
But me? I like dealing on the groung with the majority of the people, the majority of the time. Simply put, what i said is true. There is just no getting around that. The hotter gals tend to be in these venues, and in larger numbers/concentrations too. Guys like mystery and style arent making this stuff up. It is what it is.
Again: im not hating on what any of you like-do you by all means. But cmon fellas-please dont try to blow smoke up my behind because i know better.
Only by staring the truth dead in the eye can we at least understand why things are the way they are.
O.
@ Obsidian
There’s no question that dating a black woman hurts a white man’s social status, in some eyes. It’s also true that black men get a bump in status for dating white women. There are some things to take into account though.
1. White women who date black men are very stigmatized in our society, even more so than white men who date black or ethnic women. One thing that non-white women have going for them is the idea that minority women are exotic, physically and sexually. Throw in the well documented concept of men valuing sexual variety, and any loss of status by dating a minority woman is pretty much nullified. Men are encouraged to “sample flavors of the rainbow”, if you will.
2. White women who date black men are practically forever tainted in the eyes of some people. White women, despite how PC our society attempts to be, don’t have the luxury of sexual variety without castigation. A white man can get away with diddling whoever he wants, regardless of their race, but a white woman is held to a different standard. I think this stems from the overall idea of purity that is associated with Caucasian women. Interracial dating was forbidden for a long time primarily to dissuade white women mating with black men more than anything else, since we know that white men and black women interacted and reproduced with each other quite frequently in the past.
So overall, I think the white male/black female couple has a better chance of weathering the storm of scrutiny than a white female/black male couple. The scrutiny of a white male dating a black female is fairly nullified due to the fact that sexual variety is championed among men. White women, who are idealized to be pure and untainted, can’t escape the scrutiny attached to dating a black man.
It explains why I’ve heard some white men, I don’t remember from where, who claim that a white woman completely disqualifies herself amongst some white men if she has ever dated/slept with a black man.
I don’t agree with that sentiment though. I think people should love and date whoever they want.
@O
And I’m calling bullshit.
For nightclubs to have a monopoly on attractive women you have to conclude:
1. Attractive women don’t exist outside of major metropolitan areas. You die on that one alone.
2. Attractive women choose to spend most of the their spare time in high cost, high time venues.
3. You have to explain why clubs have to have ladies nights to attract women if they are all flocking to the clubs.
4. You need to account for why attractive women choose night clubs over all other activities in mass.
5. You need to account for why unattractive women choose night clubs at much lower rates because if the clubs monopolize attractive women almost no unattractive women can be going at the current levels of club attendance.
You’re failing to realize that the urban club scene is extremely niche as well.
Guys like Mystery and Style’s PUA type game would get laughed out of a house party with a bunch of 18-22 year olds (you know, the age when girls are at their hottest).
@Obsidian
I think you’re missing or ignoring my point …
Women communicate far more with their clothing and grooming than the typical man does, and women who are looking to get laid tonight dress and groom themselves much differently than women who are looking for relationships. Women who are looking to get laid spend their evenings in different venues than women who are looking for a relationship, and they both value different traits in men.
One of the most attractive women I have ever met was a former gymnast, ballroom dancer who worked as a fitness model who rarely went to clubs, dressed rather conservatively, used make-up sparingly, and always had her hair in a ponytail. The reason for this was she already got too much attention from the wrong kind of guys, and not enough attention from the right guys. In hindsight I recognize that she probably wanted me to make a move, but at that point in my life (being 20 and having just lost 100 pounds) I didn’t have the confidence to handle a woman who was a 10 without makeup.
Maybe my experiences can not be generalized, but I have tended to find that most of the hotest women were holding out for more than a 1 night stand in a bar; and most of the “10s” in bars were women with caked on makeup and skimpy clothes trying to get attention to make up for the holes in their souls.
The fact that many of the PUA gurus fixate on strippers, who are some of the most toxic women in reality, speaks volumes in itself …
@ PeppermintPanda
Bingo.
Women who are natural beauties can attract men wearing burlap sacks practically. Makeup isn’t required for their radiance to shine through.
Whenever I do venture out to a bar/club, which is rare nowadays, the “hottest” women have butter-faces when you get up close to them. Take away their pushup bras, hair extensions, and pounds of makeup, and you’re left with a 5-6 at best most of the times.
Hence why beer goggles are so vital in those environments.
I’m not saying that truly attractive women don’t go to such places, but there is a big discrepancy between being hot in nightlife situations and hot in broad daylight.
With that, I’m off to theatre rehearsal.
Of course, if *only* PSAT/SAT are used, socioeconomic status isn’t factored in. My question was do you actually think it’s accurate to only consider those scores.
Yes, for PSAT/SAT prior to 1986, because the tests were straightforward IQ tests. Since they’re now achievement tests, they are worthless for IQ purposes post-1986. As for socioeconomic status, Obama was at Punahou. It’s an elite school. After a bit more thought, I realized it can be confirmed that Obama’s IQ must be sub-118, not merely sub-129, because he is half-black and therefore qualified for National Achievement recognition, which he also does not appear to have received.
Guys like Mystery and Style’s PUA type game would get laughed out of a house party with a bunch of 18-22 year olds (you know, the age when girls are at their hottest).
House parties? Please. Almost all the most beautiful girls are in the clubs. Why? Simple. That’s where all the models are. You know, the ones who are paid very well on the basis of their looks alone. And they’re usually 16-20 because they don’t get carded. It’s amazing what you’ll see at the Milano airport sometimes, with all the international models flying in and out of Malpensa.
@Zach
Women can detect fear of rejection. If they’re already attracted to the guy, a little flutter in the voice or a trembling hand can be charming and increase affection. If not, it’s a dealbreaker. The only way a guy can stimulate attraction if it’s not there at first sight (or via preselection) is with confidence and (seeming) indifference to the outcome.
I wish your buddy would broach the subject with you – it sounds like you’re in a position to give him some good advice. In any case, he’s not going to change the way his current crop of girl BFFs see him. But he could do better with new girls if he can build up his confidence. Maybe you need to supply the girls for a change
Why nightclubs cannot monopolize attractive women, a back of the envelope calculation.
Baseline facts:
1. Atlanta metro area has 5.3 million.
2. Median US age is 43.
Assumptions (remember, back of the envelope here):
1. Atlanta’s population breakdown is national average
2. Distribution of people by age is linear below 43.
3. People club mostly from 21 to 30
4. Distribution of attractiveness is a triangle with the same numbers of 5s and 6s and the number halving each step away from the center. This means for every 8 6 there is one 1 10. Note, I’m assuming this among 21-30 year old where women peak and thus probably underestimating.
7. Women are 50% of the population.
People of clubbing age = (Population under/2/43) * (30-20) = 616,000
People of clubbing age who are 10s = 616,000/62 = 9935
Women who are 10s and of clubbing age = 4968
Altanta’s largest night club is Wild Bill’s. From their website:
First, it’s not the urban nightclub scene, it’s CW. Second, it’s capacity is 5000. We know at most it can hold all the hot women in Atlanta and 33 guys.
Not working. Night clubs are almost always more men than women (hence “Ladies’ Night”).
So, we’ll assume only half of that 5000 is women. Even if we assume that only women 8 or above go to nightclubs but in the nightclub they are distributed as in the general population it would take nine clubs the size of Wild Bill’s to attract all the 10s of clubbing age under my assumptions.
There are not 10 clubs that size and of the few that are most are not urban night clubs in the PUA sense but, like Wild Bill’s, concert venues. Each is specialized and thus draws a narrow section of the population. Masquerade probably has zero overlap in customer base with Wild Bill’s.
Dance oriented, urban night clubs hit about 1/10 of that capacity but now we need 100 general purpose ones and that’s assuming no women under 8 every enter them.
Sure you can futz around with assumptions but basic back of the envelope math tells you there isn’t enough room for one PUA and all the rest 10s in all the night clubs in Atlanta.
@pennies
Further upthread, I pointed out that one of the happiest marriages I know of is between two 3s. Lots of mutual gratitude in that marriage.
Why is this too much for Liza (or any woman) to ask? At least this is in reach for a large number of guys.
@Herb
Genetic diversity is higher in mitochondria than Y chromosomes and runs back further. The only way for that to happen is for more women to have decendants than men.
Polymath actually did a very cogent job of breaking down numbers to explain that. He did agree that more women than men had reproduced, but nowhere near twice as many. I attempted a google search in Polymath’s math and can no longer find it–which is interesting.
@Peppermint Panda
Those before and after pics are crazy! I especially was struck by the first example. Wow!
Here’s a spoof that is nonetheless right on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZgyG-wvq2I
A woman’s beauty can’t be truly judged until she is viewed with no makeup.
VD hits the nail on the head wrt my points about why niteclubs etc are still useful in terms of overall female beauty assessment. So nuff said there.
@sassy:
The problem with everything youre saying is that it doesnt even comport with what banks, who is supportive of sistas like you, has had to say; the marital numbers dont bear you out. “Sampling” is on thing-putting a ring on it is sometjhing else. And per banks’ book you best believe that white guys who marry black women are facing a fate not unlike their white sisters-by their family, friends, you name it. In fact-and buss talks about this-men are judged far and away more harshly for the kind of company he keeps than are women. This is why again, relatively few bw/wm marriages exist-because the hit such a man takes to his social standing and status is too high in most cases. Banks discusses all this in his book.
And yes i know about the early evidence that suggests more stable marriages that do take place btw bw/wm-but of course at least part of this can be explained by the fact that, as you point out, sistas like yourself will see any tradeoffs being w/such a man as necessary; after all, white men still command the highest smv of all men in america. As buss points out in his books, women can and will put up with quite a bit in their men if said men bring enough status to make the trifles worthwhile.
Lastly youre correct to note that black women and white men have long had “interaction” in this country; what you failed to mention was the fact that most of that interaction didnt include any kind of longterm commitment that any women would choose in our time today. To be sure, white men will definitely sex up a black woman; whether there are enough of them to wife the sistas up, is a question that still is very much up for debate…
O.
@Susan
Two reasons in the specific case of Liza:
1. She’s waited until over 30 when most men who easily do it are off the market and the remaining market is encouraging men to go asshole (by intent or accident is irrelevant).
2. She’s demonstrated that the above requirement is necessary but not sufficient. This is problematic at 25 but by 30 is going to make things even worse.
As for the general case, it isn’t but expecting that and everything else women today want is a big order. Might as well hold out for the pony as well.
To get top results in one life category you have to prioritize it. It you want the best mates you better get to the party early. In fact, being willing to mate in your mid-20s is probably more important than most other factors. It’s an early bird gets the worm issue.
Also, not only does the best product go off the shelf early the product degrades over time. A big source of the degredation of the product is something you don’t see in cars, say. It’s the fact that men have feelings (I know, I know, but trust me we do and they matter to us even if not to women on the whole) and those good ones left on the shelf (ie: not a priority) until 30 won’t be as open to their age peers as the ones picked early.
So, it’s not unreasonable but it’s unreasonable to expect that plus a high power career plus fun in your 20s plus he knows what an Eames chair is plus talk dark and handsome plus rich and on and on and on.
I remember people dumping on Adam for choosing Hannah. I choose my current gf. You all heard me work through one hard thing and there are other women who are tempting for other reasons but you know what. I’ve found someone with whom I enjoy waking up, having dinner, watching TV, and having sex. We don’t annoy each other and bring out the best in each other. If I take off the goggles she’s a 5-6 probably.
So what, she’s a good match and I love her.
For so many women that can’t be enough. For most men, it’s plenty.
@ms walsh:
The reason why so many guys are upset at what liza finds most desirable, is easy: because by definition what she wants requires LOTS of work, and LOTS of multitasking, constantly making subtle adjustments and going back and forth between “soft” and “hard” if you will. Simply put, most men cant pull that off-not for long periods of time anyway.
Go back to the 50 shades discussion-every romance/erotica book is about that-a hard guy who has a soft center that i accessible only to that special lady. Hes vulnerable but not too much, and knows when to “go hard” at just the right times. Im sorry ms walsh, but most men just arent that socially adroit.
Hence the averse reaction on the part of the fellas to what ms liza says she most wants in a man…
O.
Your article about dominance has me thinking. I have long noticed the difference between prestige and “domineering”. But there is another facet to this, at least for a part of the populace.
How much do you know about D/s and BDSM? There are a surprising amount of women who identify themselves as submissives. They actively seek dominant men. This doesn’t men the type of man who is abusive or disrespectful. Sure, there are a lot of self-claimed “Doms” who are those things, but most submissives in D/s aren’t looking for that. They seek a man who is strong, a “take charge” man, a man who can guide and protect and nurture and cherish her, yet who also can provide the discipline they need and actively seek.
Such dominance isn’t something conferred like prestige, and it is far from the caddish domineering which submissives abhor and reject. The woman who penned the dreadful “Shades of Grey” series obviously doesn’t know what it is, despite the popularity of her books. What a load of claptrap….
The D/s world encompasses a spectrum of beliefs and needs and kinks, of course. But most submissives avoid the cads and wackos. Most submissives want a real relationship, and they want that relationship to be with a dominant man. And that dominant man doesn’t fit either of the types discussed in your post.
I enjoy your articles. They always make me think.
All the best….
So what, she’s a good match and I love her.
For so many women that can’t be enough. For most men, it’s plenty.
Yep.
And that’s why I read this blog and the comments. Whatever women want from men and feel for men when a guy meets the endless requirements of her checklist is not “love” in any sense of the word as I understand it and 90 percent of the content here just serves to remind me of why MGTOW is the only sane option when my hormones are trying to convince me otherwise.
@ms j:
Assuming what you say to be true, can you understand why at least some 3 guys find getting with the female equivalent detestable? Or is that beyond your comprehension?
Im not trying to be snide or smart here just very curious as to the point youre attempting to make with your one personal anecdote. Youve had at least six guys all openly disagreeing with you in this forum. Please explain what gives?
O.
@Richard Aubrey
For the record, I don’t think anyone should use a study to craft a mating strategy.
I do think that Game was codified a long time ago, and much has been learned about female sexuality since then. It seems insane to keep Game static. You may question a study, but in fact, the research is all pointing in the same direction. Why put one’s head in the sand? Game principles are valid, but for example, this set of studies calls into question the efficacy of Dark, or Asshole Game.
I went to a nightclub the first time this past weekend. Met quite a few girls. A couple wallflowers and the less attractive sent some IOIs, probably because I was the ONLY Beta-looking guy in the entire place and just having a good time listening to the music.
Fuck that shit, though. Way too expensive and way too long a line. Once I have a girlfriend, seems like a nice place to get a little sexual and dance hardcore, but LOOKING for a girl there? NOOOOO!
@ Susan
“Why is this too much for Liza (or any woman) to ask? At least this is in reach for a large number of guys.”
It is extremely difficult for men to reach any level of confidence with women. Keep in mind that the reach of the red-pill is very, very small. We will reach, at most, a few thousand men. Utterly trivial. The rest are awash in a culture that hates men being masculine and get very bad advice.
And then it’s crazy hard to do this stuff by yourself. Everyone is rooting for you to fail. Your Dad, your Mom, your Boss, your Friends, everyone. With that pressure on you, in addition to the normal pressure of near-constant rejection from women that’s absolutely necessary in the opening stages, in addition to the pain from swallowing the redpill in the first place….
Yes. You are asking for a LOT from men. That’s why so few men do it.
@Rum
There is a whole lot of daylight between the high prestige male and the Nice Guy TM. And what separates them is supplication, pedestalization, low self-confidence and fear. There is a tendency among men in the ‘sphere to think in very binary terms. Alpha vs. beta. The reality is a spectrum, with infinite variations.
In sharing information about female sexuality, I hope that women who feel repulsed by assholes derive support. They also learn that women who do, in fact, go for assholes have certain characteristics that set them apart. I cannot tell you how many women have stated, “I don’t like jerks, I really don’t! I’ve never been with one, never dated one, never crushed on one.” The typical manosphere reader says, “Oh yes you do. You just don’t understand your own attraction triggers. Women like assholes, Game proves it, and your hamster is running at lightspeed.”
I am not an unusual woman. I would describe myself as having a high sex drive (sorry for the TMI). I can tell you that never once in my life have I felt the slightest tingle for dominant, callous, insensitive, asshole, cocky behavior. Not. One. Time. I know many other women like me. Please don’t tell me what I like, or that I don’t know what I like.
How so? Because they presumably rejected bad men? Why can’t the good men come out on top? Females choose, as ever. If they want their children to grow up, it makes sense they would choose a mate who would stick around.
Pair bonding did evolve. We are descended mostly from men who stuck around. To me, these studies are one big DUH. As a woman, it’s all patently obvious.
@Emanon
While very true in my experience, this:
is mixed. I mean, the 30+ newbie femsub who gets chewed up by an abuser is a stereotype for a reason. Also, depending on the particular city and subset prestige is important. In the leather world it’s paramount although problematic in some ways.
Also, the rules of engagement and what constitutes date versus a relationship are very different from the vanilla world. Also, those seriously into D/s tend to be in supportive social circles (sometimes I’m still amazed at just how much kinky people dominate my social life even though it’s mostly non-kinky).
Finally, I have suggested to one poster who seems to be looking for exactly that kind of dominance that she go to a much and even put out my email for her to respond. I didn’t get an email so I’m not sure suggesting that avenue is going to help much.
@Susan
Tell that to feminists and the broader culture. Do you honestly see us providing that view to the majority of the population through the various institutions that transmist cultural knowledge?
@ms walsh:
W/all due respect you have not responded to the points made by rum, and which i think goes right to the heart of the discussion-as ive been saying for a good long minute now, there isnt much in the way of realworld evidence that supports your position; meanwhile there is evidence that supports the a**hole game position. Mind you now, i dont support it personally; but i pride myself on dealing w/the world as it is not as i want it to be. And the truth of the matter is, that the a**holes of the world tend to get more action than the “light” counterparts. Thats just the plain truth of it.
Im not justifying it but in the end guys are going to do what works. The a**hole gamers may not get much ltr mileage out of their game but they are getting laid-thats more than what the good guys can say. And like rum said, there simply isnt much in the way of hard evidence that nicer guys are in sexual demand by the ladies. There. Just. Isnt.
Finally, what you said earlier about some beta guys being attracted to the hot chicks is 100% true-and is something that requires more examination. Its one thing to go for ladies that might be interested in you; its something else to be attracted to them. We often conflate the two when nothing can be further from the truth. Sexual attraction just doesnt work that way.
Its time we stopped denying this truth.
O.
“Women can detect fear of rejection. If they’re already attracted to the guy, a little flutter in the voice or a trembling hand can be charming and increase affection. If not, it’s a dealbreaker. The only way a guy can stimulate attraction if it’s not there at first sight (or via preselection) is with confidence and (seeming) indifference to the outcome.”
This is true, even in marriage. A half-hearted, afraid of the outcome flirt or move on the wife is an instant turnoff from my experience.
@ms walsh:
I think you will like “is marriage for white people?” by ralph richard banks. What he says in the book directly speaks to this discussion. He talks about how so poorly matched many of the black women he writes about in the book were to their boyfriends or hubbies who were black, but then got better matched with their white boyfriends/hubbies. What he leaves out is the fact that these women have done the very thing many men in the manosphere talk about-get with the callous alpha, got burned, and now settled in with the beta-only the beta is white. Other than that, its the same. Old. Song.
Its a heck of a read. Check it out!
O.
Prestige is derived by dominance in action. Actions speak louder than words and also speak to a persons character and reflect what is in a persons heart and mind. A man who has acquired genuine prestige – respect of his peers and friends has done so – with intelligence, by acting with integrity and skill i.e. being his best self. The person with prestige may not be the most attractive physically or on the flashy aspects. They have achieved a level of excellence, superior ability i.e. dominance in what they do and in life; while exhibiting strength of character, will and determination.
This kind of dominance is attractive because is bespeaks intelligence, confidence, competence, strength of character, integrity, endurance for the long haul and strength of will/discipline. That inspires a sense of confidence in women – they know he is capable and willing to handle his business and strong enough to protect and provide for her and generate a feeling of safety. As a feminine woman I want a man who is trustworthy, intelligent (book smart and life smart) and has prestige as noted above- actions vs words and strong enough to not always agree with me even as we mutually respect and celebrate each other and our differences.
@O – Raphael Saadiq – gotta love the music – great choice
@Susan great post sorry to late to the party been a busy few days.
@Emanon
That doesn’t surprise me. The researchers didn’t intend for this to be the last word on attraction and dominance. In fact, it’s more like a baby step. Recognizing the lack of consensus around the concept, they sought to split it into two distinct concepts in hopes of understanding specifically what women like. They were right to say that until now, both kinds of dominance were lumped together. The dominance of thugs, and the dominance of a humble, gifted leader. Surely we benefit from distinguishing between them.
In any case, I think there is probably a lot to be learned from the BDSM community, as communication is a cornerstone and people can (must!) openly say what they want and desire. Perhaps we will see some research in that area – I’ll keep my eyes open. What you seem to be describing is also true of the Taken in Hand folks, I would think. It’s clear that many women do indeed like to submit in that way. Also, there’s the Athol Kay style of Captain and First Officer in marriage – I think many women like that. I suspect that the number of successful marriages where the woman dominates the man (not just sexually) is rather small.
Susan,
“I do think that Game was codified a long time ago, and much has been learned about female sexuality since then. It seems insane to keep Game static. You may question a study, but in fact, the research is all pointing in the same direction. Why put one’s head in the sand? Game principles are valid, but for example, this set of studies calls into question the efficacy of Dark, or Asshole Game.”
Susan. AFAIK, Game was not assembled by reading a bunch of studies asking women what women want.
Some years ago, for various reasons including getting it right when trying to write some fiction, I started looking at relationship sites, including the PUA folks.
Game appears to be a combination of assumptions about evpsych–which, as I have said, is, with exobiology a field of scientific study with no actual facts–and the experience claimed by the practitioners. In addition, on some of the threads, and elsewhere, you’ll find guys saying they went butthead on purpose, possibly out of desperation, and things improved markedly, even though they’re uncomfortable with it.
Big pharma didn’t discover the red pill by running focus groups among college girls, or any other group.
Over and over and over, surveys show women say they want beta behaviors. Once in a while, drilling down, the respondents want somebody “exciting”, or “edgy”, which doesn’t mean dominant or prestigious. In fact, their definitions are all over the place. A stubble will do it for some women, a Harley for others, skydiving for yet others, all having to do with the guy’s dealing with the world, not with her.
You think Doqsquat came to his epiphany by reading surveys?
@Herb
Yes, those pesky feminists certainly get in the way, don’t they? I don’t think we’ll get through to the majority, but I think the message is reaching a minority, and I think that minority can become sizeable. Based on the general curiosity among people I meet, I would say that people understand there’s something seriously wrong in the SMP, they have no idea what to do about it (for their children) and they want a solution. There’s a receptive audience, if I can reach it.
« 1 2 3 4 … 9 »
{ 1 trackback }