-
My favorite book in 1966.
In my recent post on the economics of the marriage market I quoted economist Betsey Stevenson, who explained the importance of dating as a part of socializing and maturing as well as shopping for a spouse:
Not all dating is about trying to find a spouse. There is a difference between what you might want in a date on a Saturday night when you’re 19 and what you might be looking for in someone to spend the rest of your life with.
I met my husband at 25, and he was my fourth boyfriend. I am certain that marriage to any of the first three would have been disastrous, though I am happy to say they all married and had families, and none have divorced. It was not that they were not suitable or good men, the problem is that we were not well matched enough to carry the ball for a lifetime. In my next post I will discuss what I learned from each of them, and why those relationships are in part responsible for my having been happily married for nearly 28 years to someone else.
Today, though, I thought I’d provide a history of dating. It’s an interesting topic, as it intersects with American immigration, wars, and the mainstreaming of college education. While much has changed in the last 125 years, much of it is for the better, and most of it was inevitable. And there’s a surprise – our grandmothers shed their knickers while dating too.
A Brief History of Dating
According to Kathleen Bogle, author of HOOKING UP: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus, dating became the norm during the large waves of American immigration.
In earlier Western societies the process for most young middle and upper class people to find potential mates was heavily monitored by parents, their families, and their communities.
This was known as the calling era. Gentlemen with the honorable intention of marriage would come courting. This tradition is exemplified by portrayals in 19th century works of fiction, such as the works of Austen, Eliot, and Trollope. Currently you may see it portrayed in the television sensation Downton Abbey.
The practice required a comfortable sitting room in which to receive guests, as well as a population of gentlemen free to come calling during the day. Young women, whose education included learning to sing and play the piano, were often expected to provide the entertainment. In less wealthy populations men might “come a courtin’” on a Sunday, and perhaps be allowed a stroll or a chaperoned ride in the family buggy. Women had very limited say in who they might marry, and suitors were generally encouraged by the mother, who prioritized their daughter’s being well provided for financially. When marriages did happen, they were often between acquaintances or even virtual strangers.
The calling era did not work well for the lower and working classes. They did not have the means or leisure to provide for such forms of entertainment while observing the proprieties. In early 20th century America, large groups of young people immigrated and sought rooms in boarding houses, women’s hotels, or with relatives. With families no longer present to control the process, and receiving rooms in short supply, young people began to meet up in groups to socialize. Often dances and other activities were sponsored by churches and other community organizations.
Two people who took a liking to one another could only spend time together by pairing up at functions, and then by going out on a “date,” which often consisted of dancing, a movie, or sharing a meal. Often young dating couples did marry, but marriage was not an obligatory ending to the process of dating, and was not assumed.
College men were particularly interested in dating numerous women before committing to one for marriage. Bogle:
Courtship involves people of the opposite sex getting to know each other en route to marriage. Dating is not true courtship because the intent is not to marry. These relationships were prevalent in college because students, especially men, wanted to delay marriage until they graduated and were settled into careers.
Between the First and Second World Wars, dating became a source of status in the college environment, with a focus on acquiring the best possible mate as a marker. Willard Waller, a prominent early 20th century sociologist who studied courtship and coined the term “the Principle of Least Interest,” called this the “Campus Rating Complex.”
[Waller's study] of Penn State undergraduates detailed a “dating and rating” system based on very clear standards of popularity. Men’s popularity needed outward material signs: automobile, clothing, fraternity membership, money, etc. Women’s popularity depended on building and maintaining a reputation of popularity: be seen with popular men in the “right” places, turn down requests for dates made at the last minute and cultivate the impression that you are greatly in demand.
As one sociologist put it, “You had to rate in order to date, to date in order to rate. By successfully maintaining this cycle, you became popular. To stay popular, you competed. There was no end: popularity was a deceptive goal.”
According to Bogle, “Both men and women did not want to date someone who did not rank. Students went to great lengths to rank high on the dating scale. Women’s prestige on campus would decline once they were no longer a fresh face on campus, due to indiscretions, or if they were too readily available for dates.”
Now we know where “hard to get” and “flaking” originated – women were rewarded for it! After WWII, the man shortage appeared to spell doom:
In June 1945, New York Times Magazine predicted 750,000 women who wanted to marry would have to live alone. Around the same time Good Housekeeping captioned a photo of a bride and groom descending church steps with: “She got a man, but 6 to 8 million women won’t. We’re short 1 million bachelors!”
It was no longer possible for women to date large numbers of men at once. At the same time, the postwar boom made it possible for men to afford to marry sooner than they could in the previous era. The median age of marriage dropped, and the number of children per family increased. Over time, young people were encouraged to begin the dating process earlier.
One sociologist wrote in a July 1953 New York Times Magazine article that each boy and girl ideally should date 25 to 50 eligible marriage partners before making his or her final decision.
“Going steady” became a key feature of the new dating. Beth Bailey, author of From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth Century America, explains how it worked:
In earlier days going steady had been more like the old-fashioned ‘keeping steady company.’ It was a step along the path to marriage, even if many steady couples parted company before they reached the altar. By the early 1950s, going steady had acquired a totally different meaning. It was no longer the way a marriageable couple signaled their deepening intentions. Instead, going steady was something twelve-year-olds could do, and something most fifteen-year-olds did do. Few steady couples expected to marry each other, but for the duration of the relationship, acted as if they were married. Going steady had become a sort of play-marriage, a mimicry of actual marriage.
Going steady usually involved the gifting (or lending, to be precise) a token of the guy’s – a class ring, a letterman’s jacket, etc. The relationship might last anywhere from a few days to weeks or even years, much like relationships today. And 9 out of 10 people had premarital sex!
More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.
“This is reality-check research,” said the study’s author, Lawrence Finer. “Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades.”
Finer is a research director at the Guttmacher Institute, a private New York-based think tank that studies sexual and reproductive issues and which disagrees with government-funded programs that rely primarily on abstinence-only teachings. The study, released Tuesday, appears in the new issue of Public Health Reports.
The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people — about 33,000 of them women — in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. According to Finer’s analysis, 99 percent of the respondents had had sex by age 44, and 95 percent had done so before marriage.
…Finer said the likelihood of Americans having sex before marriage has remained stable since the 1950s, though people now wait longer to get married and thus are sexually active as singles for extensive periods.
The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44.
Of course, the Sexual Revolution changed everything, though gradually. During the 70s when I was in college going steady was still the norm for most students. More than thirty years later, we find ourselves in the midst of this highly dysfunctional phase called hookup culture. The primary “innovation” of hookup culture is the reversal of the order of intimacy in dating. Physical intimacy now precedes emotional intimacy and is a prerequisite for further contact, though by no means a guarantee. Skip Burzumato, writing about the effect of current culture on young people:
[It] has caused cultural and relational vertigo — not knowing for certain which way is up or down, and not knowing in which direction to move. Do I date one person at a time or several people? How do I know when I’m going out with a person (meaning, dating them exclusively)? How do I talk to the other person about our relationship — in modern language? When do we have the DTR (defining the relationship) talk? And what about sex? What qualifies as sex anymore — only intercourse? How about oral sex — does that “count?” For many it’s utter confusion.
It is indeed. It’s not clear what the post-feminist paradigm will look like. There will be a correction of sorts, as so many young people are dissatisfied with the status quo. I think we’ll see a real bifurcation. Those who have rejected the hookup scene for the most part will return to more traditional forms of dating. I believe this is already happening post-graduation (though not on college campuses). Others will continue to pair off for brief flings and hookups, without fear of shame, for the most part. Some will move back and forth between the two groups, which means it will be extremely important for young people to filter for character and sexual history.
{ 345 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 »
@Donkey
Thanks for the due diligence. I had no idea there was a political affiliation there.
I don’t know if anyone would agre with me, but it seems that now-a-days with how physical intimacy proceeds emotional intimacy that a FWB-phase is almost inevitable in establishing a relationship.
Not that I like it – I really don’t. But most of the couples that I’ve seen form during university and afterwards resemble something much closer to FWBs.
And since many girls hang onto the hope that emotional intimacy will develop, in time, they’re willing to put up with it.
I like some bizzaro-dude for feeling like there should be some emotional intimacy beforehand, otherwise one risks hooking up with someone that has completely different relationship-intensions. (which I have no interest in)
Speaking of Mad Men and romanticizing the 1950s, you might remember an episode of Mad Men where a client was considering placing a commercial in a tv show that mentioned abortion. That show was based on a real show called The Defenders which did have an episode about Abortion (as well as having episodes about other “highly charged” subjects). Well, while Leave it to Beaver never cracked the top 30, The Defenders made it into the top 20 on multiple occasions.
They even went head to head for one season and The Defenders beat out Leave it to Beaver.
From Wikipedia:
“Leave It to Beaver faced stiff competition in its time slots. During its next to last season, for example, the show ran against The Defenders, a program examining highly charged courtroom cases about abortion and the death penalty.”
I understand that you were not saying, “It was all Ozzie and Harriet…It was all Leave it to Beaver”, but, Americans in the 1950′s, who had just experienced the War, and before that, The Depression, and before that, massive crime increases from Mob violence, were much more connected to harsh reality than we sometimes give them credit for.
Again, I understand that you were not necessarily saying otherwise, but I still think it is worth pointing out.
Personally, my theory of the era goes like this:
After World War I, Prohibition, The Depression, World War II and the decade of a poor economy and the recent memory of so many killed Fathers, Husbands and Sons, lots of lots of people wanted lots and lots of Old Fashioned Boring Normalcy.
The more boring and the more normal, the better.
@Herb/Ana
Nope, my jumping off point was a WSJ opinion piece circa 1992. I researched more after that. Plus, I lack cable.
Too bad. I think both of you would like the Smithsonian Channel. The History Channel, OTOH, is now more like the Fantasy Channel. There’s a lot of ridiculous crap on it. (South Park did a great Thanksgiving parody of the History Channel, BTW.) All my guys love the Military Channel.
@J and Escoffier re: OOW births and healthy premature babies
This was my point about long term couples heading for marriage indulging as opposed to hookups. Even now without hookups I suspect low N people are having more pre-marital sex. It might be with the same person but over a longer period. It is also more open. The later probably has raised the typical persons N by marriage by 1-3.
Right, I was alluding/adding to that point.
As to Puritan “knobbers, ” I have it on good authority (from my kids and their peers) that the BJ was invented by 15 yos is 2003, along with marijuana and pop music. None of these things should be discussed by those over 25.
>> “I like some bizzaro-dude for feeling like there should be some emotional intimacy beforehand, otherwise one risks hooking up with someone that has completely different relationship-intensions. (which I have no interest in)”
Ha! That would be nice, wouldn’t it.
I was actually thinking about your situation recently, and I think Hope was on to something when she suggested that your female friends are probably cock-blocking you. I think it could still be happening indirectly even if it’s not overt or deliberate.
Your friend-group is mostly Alpha Males and Sluts, right? I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the commitment-oriented girls see that, assume that you’re also a player, and stay away.
Just for a comparison:
I know that not ALL frat guys are total douchebags, but a disproportionate number of them are. So when dealing with a frat guy, I tended to be more wary of him. Although I’d still be polite, I still usually assumed that he was a douchebag until proven otherwise. Sort of a guilt-by-association thing.
Maybe there’s something similar happening with you. I could be completely wrong here, but it’s just a thought.
Thank you all for the replies. I suppose that my confusion stems from a generalization or two that I can make about my undergrad students (I am a futures trader by profession, but moonlight as an economics and international affairs professor at a small, private liberal arts college).
Confining myself to trying to restate what the female students (the males are another story) are claiming to want, I hear a lot about planned semesters abroad; interest in multi-month, independent “gap year” style backpackingtrips through European hostels and SE Asian beaches; plans for grad school programs and/or exciting, elite careers; hopes to live and work overseas at some point in the future; ideas about volunteer work for prestigious, resume-enhancing NGOs…
Somewhere in all of this I suppose these women are going to fit in the search for a commitment-minded soulmate type, leading to an LTR that will, at some point, probably conflict with stated life plans. If these LTRs tend to end on a mutually acceptable note or, failing that, if the man initiates the heartbreak 50% of the time, then that’s one thing, but is this the case?
My (irrational?) concern is that these college LTRs are going to become essentially pre-choreographed, ill-fated “training wheel marriages”, destined to implode in much the same way that failed marriages do, with the young women similarly initiating the endgame in the majority of cases. This of course would be the female equiv of the “pump and dump”: escape both sexual gulag and the emotionally-unappealing hookup culture during college, kind of/sort of use a man for emotional intimacy and support during these years (the men who would be willing to provide this are by definition more sensitive and vulnerable than are the wild, fun boys somersaulting through hook-up culture), and then cite irreconcilable career/distance/schooling/travel schedules as reasons for the eventual, emotionally-brutal breakup.
What I see happening in my odd little anecdotal corner of the campus SMP is that the choices these ambitious, driven young women are presented with realistically converge on: 1) abstinence (“OMG, LOL”); 2) embrace hook-up culture and casual sex; or 3) lock down an equilibrium f-buddy arrangement of some kind. In each case, there is usually a plan to eventually settle into a determined soulmate/partner search once the life script has stabilized (late 20s).
This is partially due to the sheer scarcity advantage that men enjoy (I average about 8 men and 18 women in class), of course, and its predictable results. But there is a more complicated dynamic in play: one could almost think that the women themselves are afraid to fall in love in college if doing so will cause them to end up moving with the guy post-college to follow his career path and begin the process of motherhood.
I’m glad your gf is taking care of you, Herb. A couple really should have each other’s backs in that department. I would not consider a relationship with a man who would not take care of me when I was sick, and I don’t think guys should either.
I have to say thought that people who are willing to do that must be becoming few and far between. My DH and kids were treated like kings when I was in the hospital, largely because the nurses and other personnel didn’t see concerned families as often as you’d think they would.
<i<Good point. 60 years ago women menstruated at 13 and married at 18. Five year wait, and 90% didn’t make it.
LOL. Sex is powerful drive; all of life depends on it.
Haha seriously. I can actually remember conversations among the moms having coffee, doing the math about so and so, and chortling in the realization of that exact thing happening.
Ah, the good old days….
My dad’s sisters, who were fairly slutty for their day as young women and stupid to boot, would count off the months between a wedding and a birth on their fingers!!!! Young women who were related to us were plagued by prematurity; those not related to us were “who-ors,” as they pronounced the word.
America is a nation of immigrants. Huge waves of new people arriving in the early 20th century, often separated from close family, meant that new modes of courtship were required.
As I mentioned in an email, I believe that the mixing of white ethnic immigrants in school and in the workplace was a huge factor in the decline of arranged marriage. While the majority of whites at the turn of the last century immigrated from countries were arranged marriages were common, they were unable to continue that tradition here. Once Mary O’Leary ran off with Stash Kowalski from school or Mario Martino paid court to Esther Goldfarb from the sweatshop against the wishes of both their parents, arranged marriage fell prey to the American romanticism that says love can conquer differences.
Susan,
“I confess I’m feeling a bit beleaguered by debate the last couple of days”
Don’t let the haters get you down, or, worse, defensive. That anger is the sound of minds changing. You’ve been consistently knocking it out of the park with this last series of posts.
“The good guys were there all along, but after college the barriers to visibility seem to come down somehow. On the other hand, it’s harder to meet people in general.”
Hmmmm
“I think, great, because my actions are congruent with my stated preferences.”
Was your husband unaware of his SMV?
David Foster: But if you made a *major* mistake, and married someone really bad for you (or just plain really bad), then you were totally screwed, and not in the good way.
SW:You make a good point. Before divorce people stayed in very, very unhappy marriages and made each other miserable until they died. They endured cheating, abuse, a spouse’s substance abuse, irresponsible financial ruin, etc. I think that miserable marriages were very common. Both of my sets of grandparents were very unhappy together.
Yep, the good, old days. Being old enough to have vivid recollections of the tail end of that time period, I’m always astounded by commenters and bloggers who demand a return to “the good, old days.”
I remember the challenge of washing out the period rags as well.
As late as the early 1960s, women in Ireland could send out their period rags to be washed by their less fortunate sisters who had been placed at the unwed mothers’ home and needed something “to keep them busy” while they waited to give birth to kids that the nuns who ran the homes would then place for adoption often against the will of the mothers. The good, old days….
Susan/J with regard to the “good old days” – the thing is, back then the only people that suffered from being forced to stay in a bad marriage was the two married people and possibly their family. Now that misery is spread among all of is with increased single motherhood, increasing costs in public assistance, and a pretty messed up SMP. Call me selfish all you want, but I believe as a society we were better off when people had to stay in crappy marriages. It was the cost of their choice to marry, and they got to pay it mostly alone.
Bastiat,
“What I see happening in my odd little anecdotal corner of the campus SMP is that the choices these ambitious, driven young women are presented with realistically converge on: 1) abstinence (“OMG, LOL”); 2) embrace hook-up culture and casual sex; or 3) lock down an equilibrium f-buddy arrangement of some kind. In each case, there is usually a plan to eventually settle into a determined soulmate/partner search once the life script has stabilized (late 20s). ”
Exactly. In number 3 they are very careful to avoid the kind of man they might want to end up marrying lest they end up tied down. Some will go for a spot in the harem of an alpha, others will choose a supplicating herb to continue providing the self-esteem fix they got hooked on growing up.
Three problems:
(1) The career plans are increasingly unrealistic in this economy, although less so for women than they would be for young men, given the AA boost and the female hiring networks.
(2) They’re squandering the height of their sexual power – this is established by biology, good luck changing that. The pickings available when they get around to looking will be considerably slimmer for them.
(3) The good men they would have gotten with in other generations are left out in the cold, with all sorts of deleterious effects.
Young women taking themselves off the market is a net deadweight loss for societal happiness. Job one for a revitalized in loco parentis would be encouraging healthy options for getting them back in.
“Americans in the 1950′s, who had just experienced the War, and before that, The Depression, and before that, massive crime increases from Mob violence, were much more connected to harsh reality than we sometimes give them credit for.”
I think there’s much truth in this. Arthur Koestler wrote about what he called “the tragic and the trivial planes of life,” where “tragic” really refers to emotional intensity and “trivial” refers to ordinariness. The concept was well-explained by Koestler’s friend, the writer and fighter pilot Richard Hillary:
“K has a theory for this. He believes there are two planes of existence which he calls vie tragique and vie triviale. Usually we move on the trivial plane, but occasionally in moments of elation or danger, we find ourselves transferred to the plane of the vie tragique, with its non-commonsense, cosmic perspective. When we are on the trivial plane, the realities of the other appear as nonsense–as overstrung nerves and so on. When we live on the tragic plane, the realities of the other are shallow, frivolous, frivolous, trifling. But in exceptional circumstances, for instance if someone has to live through a long stretch of time in physical danger, one is placed, as it were, on the intersection line of the two planes; a curious situation which is a kind of tightrope-walking on one’s nerves…I think he is right.”
People who have of necessity lived on the tragic plane for many years may well find the trivial plane to be a necessary relief.
Bastiat,
IME the dumper/dumpee roles in “college marriages” tend to be split pretty evenly between the sexes. YMMV though.
@Emily
Yeah, you’re spot on.
I see how by-association I could be unintensionally projecting the wrong image to those unfamiliar with me, but why would girls that do know me wish to cock-block be? (when they’re probably familiar with the fact that I don’t sleep around casually)
Damn, I would’ve thought that would have them suggesting me girls they know that want something more serious – cause I’m probably one of the more mature guys that they know.
(you’ve got me thinking – cause I really don’t know)
Maybe I’ve positioned myself to have the complete opposite of preselection working against me.
Hmmm…. *thinking*
I hear you, Ted, and I agree that people need to be responsible for their own bad choices. I also believe that time is an arrow that only points one way. It’s impossible to turn back the clock, but I’m hopeful that today’s problems will be ameliorated as we find modern solutions to them.
As the MC becomes more resistant to paying for the mistakes of others (for example, as my high tax bill limits what I can do for my own kids) there will be fewer bail outs for the proletariat. They’ll either have to curtail their actions or suffer the consequences. I see signs of this already, BTW. As welfare to work programs have been instituted in my state, single moms have been having smaller families and embracing educational programs that will allow them to better support the kids they have. The pendulum swing has already begun.
@Emily
On a side note: my group of friends were recently celebrating one of my guy friends 24th BDay, and we’d planned a party. The guy, who’s birthday it was, has a couple of girlfriends. (as in dating multiple girls) And he actually had to plan separate BDay parties so that he could celebrate with each of them. On the night our group was celebrating (which was a Sat. and I think had a party with Girlfriend#1 on the Fri. night) he actually was juggling having two girlfriends come by. One arrived with him and had to leave shortly and another was showing up later on. Not only did none of either the guys or girls speak out about this being uncool, but everyone agreed to keep their mouths shut about the other GFs when talking to another gf. Even the girls of my group had a kinda “atta-boy!” attitude to his multiple girls.
Ever since frequenting HUS, I’ve starting noticing bizarre things like this. I’m was shocked that there was no shaming at all towards his behavior.
Cooper, girls tend not to play matchmaker to girls they don’t know. Ever heard of the expression “catty” girls? That refers to female-on-female sexual competition. The girls you know might think of you as “a friend” but would not want you to be happily paired off in a LTR with a cute, relationship-oriented girl.
Jealousy and competition are powerful motives! Those girls want to play the field with alphas, have the social proof of having a good looking guy hanging around them (going by what you said about your looks), and not have other girls be your girlfriend. That would call into question their own choices and actions.
BTW when I met my husband, his “social circle” was basically his immediate family and a few video game friends. Only one of them was female, and she was in a LTR of a few years with another guy, and that couple didn’t live anywhere near him. If he had been surrounded by a bunch of good-looking single women who were hooking up casually a lot, I would have been like WTF and never escalated with him.
@Desi #159
Cool link regarding having too many choices. It reminds me of the days in which my kids had four living grandparents and, as a result, way too much crap. They would have frequent meltdowns because they had “nothing to play with.” As a “punishment” for acting spoiled, I started to take things away. Surprisingly, that make everyone much happier. Eventually, I purchased a bunch of big Rubbermaids tubs that I filled with a variety of duplicate toys. Each tub contained a book, a car, an art supply, a plush toy, a ball etc. I stored away all but one tub. Every week or two, I rotated the tubs. It was like Christmas twice a month. Lots of novelty for the kids without the feeling of being overwhelmed.
Cooper, reading your descriptions of your social circle are like one facepalm after another, lol. What do you see in these people? Any smart, sane, relationship-oriented girl would see you associating with those people and run the other direction.
Sorry if I come across as a bit harsh. I just always stayed far, far away from any group like that. In high school I hung out with people who were bound the elite colleges, the honors students who never partied. In college I hung out with fellow work-study students, dean’s listers and older folks who were married or in stable LTRs.
I always evaluated the prospective guys very carefully. If the guy had any female acquaintance or talked to any non-relative female on a regular basis, I would want to know about her and what she was about. If she was the kind of girl you describe as being in your social circle, or if he was around a whole bunch of such girls, I would have been like, um, no thanks dude. Have fun with your hot girlfriends.
Hope, why would single girls, that are friends of mine, not want to see me in a relationship? That makes absolutely no sense. That’s like saying “I wish you the best, but I would never like to see you happy!”
I do have other social circles outside of the city, which is where am currently living. Even though I’ve known those friends for probably longer they offer little to zero chances on meeting girls through them – they are more like the gamer friends you mention your husband having.
Cooper,
My guess is that they’re probably subconsciously cockblocking you. As in they might not even realize that they’re doing it. It could be happening in a couple of ways:
* The guilt-by-association thing that I mentioned
* They like the attention they get from you and as Hope said, they enjoy “the social proof of having a good looking guy hanging around them” and they might naturally fall into cockblocking behaviours without really thinking about it.
Do they ever do things like giggle and pull you away when you’re talking to a girl, or suddenly start flirting with you when you’re in the middle of a conversation? If so, they could be cockblocking you. (In some cases this could work as preselection, but other times the girl will just assume that you and your female friend have a “thing” going and give up.)
Also, I wouldn’t trust this group to find girls for you to date. Odds are that their friends will be exactly like them. Or at the very least, they’re more likely to nominate the friends that are most like themselves (it’s a female ego thing).
You don’t need to completely abandon your friends, but you’ll probably need to look outside this group to find the right kind of girl.
Cooper, why would your female friends have YOUR best interests in mind? Really, sit down and think it through. Are they that good of friends?
In my heart of hearts, I may want to be a bright-eyed idealist, but I know how the world works. People, for the most part, look out for their own best interests first and foremost. This is usually not a terrible thing, but you can’t expect others to come through with matchmaking services for you.
Women even cockblock their own “best friends forever” from getting a boyfriend, so they can keep going out with their bestie to have fun.
Use some NT logic! Why would your female friends pluck some sweet relationshipper girl from random somewhere and present her to you on a silver platter?
“Do they ever do things like giggle and pull you away when you’re talking to a girl, or suddenly start flirting with you when you’re in the middle of a conversation?”
Lol, I DO know what cockblocking is; and would never put up with a female friend even attempting to sabotage, especially that overtly.
“Use some NT logic! Why would your female friends pluck some sweet relationshipper girl from random somewhere and present her to you on a silver platter?”
Look, I’m not relying on them to be my dating service. But I don’t think presuming your friends would wish you well is too much to assume.
I understand everyone hold their own interest first and foremost, but how is keeping my single to their benefit?
“Women even cockblock their own “best friends forever” from getting a boyfriend, so they can keep going out with their bestie to have fun.”
Well, that’s just down right crazy.
>> “Lol, I DO know what cockblocking is; and would never put up with a female friend even attempting to sabotage, especially that overtly.”
Haha sorry, I should give you more credit than that. There are just so many clueless guys out there that I had to make sure. Plus if it’s in a situation where there’s drinking involved, it’s very easy to make that kind of behaviour seem coincidental.
Cooper, keeping you single is to their “benefit” somewhat the same way that you hanging around these hot girls and looking at their fine appearances is to your “benefit.” It’s not a huge benefit, but it’s enough of one that you don’t want it to just disappear tomorrow. You are likely seen as a good friend, and if you got a serious girlfriend, the benefits of your friendship would likely greatly diminish or even disappear.
When I first met my husband, I knew he was getting *something* out of talking to that girl, who was even in a stable long-term relationship. She was smart, sweet, and quite a valued member of that gaming group. I saw her as competition. Maybe that sounds catty of me, but she was providing at least some degree of friendship and emotional outlet for my husband back then. He even said so himself. When my husband and I got closer and closer, and more and more serious, he talked to her less and less. That’s the way things tend to go. If my husband was still talking about all sorts of stuff with her, I would have been quite jealous and unhappy, and it would have put the future of our relationship into question.
The women you can really trust to have your best interests at heart and matchmake for you: your mother, your sister, and your female relatives. They truly want you to be happy. Most other women just want you to make them happy. If you ever meet a girl who genuinely, whole-heartedly, deeply wants you to be happy and want to make you happy, don’t let go of that girl. She’s a keeper.
To the girls who don’t want to hook up, but are afraid they will simply lose all the men who are expecting them to do it: just draw the line and be who you want to be. You’ll find someone who respects that.
“why is being “friends with benefits” with a hot alpha male-type (I’m talking about a genuine, psychologically-stable friend you can occasionally have sex with, not a ONS artist) generally considered a poor alternative to an LTR and attendant “deep emotional intimacy” with a potential husband (who I will ruthlessly assume has lower objective SMV than the alpha f-buddy does)?”
It kind of makes sense, doesn’t it? Assuming that women have feelings, why would they enjoy being treated like shit? And, not to get all relativist, but what is “objective SMV”?
@Jackie
“So many guys think we are helpless before “alphas” that we will sacrifice a great guy with a truly good heart, for the potential to be some low-life’s receptacle for a few moments. THIS IS NOT TRUE. It’s actually incredibly insulting as well. Please believe us when we say we know ourselves and what we want. Especially when our words and actions have been absolutely congruent.”
I completely agree with this position and believe that the perception of the FWB/Alpha playtime is overblown by many men. I would, however, call attention to your last sentence which to me is the critical caveat: “Especially when our words and actions have been absolutely congruent.”
Determining whether or not there is congruence – or better yet, since we are talking about a continuum, the extent of congruence, is the most challenging (and often troublesome) part for me.
There are the actions and words in my presence, the time we share in the get-to-know phase, but there is also that period between 15 y/o and say 25 or 30 when we meet that, at least in my experience, can put that continuum to task. And as I, and others here have said, it often has less to do with the alpha/beta issue and more to do with consistency in terms of desires and values over time. Which is why Susan’s advice young women to hone their dating focus early on for the type of man they view as marriage material is critical: it establishes that consistency and congruence early on, thus avoiding the (common situation in my experience) in which a switch is flipped and the values-words-actions shift suddenly at 30 or based on some other external factor.
I contend that the challenge of underwriting those situations is quite similar to that of women who have to navigate that slippery subset of men who may very well be beta or whatever, but will occasionally indulge in casual sex while actually desiring a relationship, be it somewhere between actively looking or just open to the idea of a committed relationship. In both cases, we have to be a bit more aware, diligent, and even occasionally take a hard-line approach in order to hold our beliefs-words-actions congruent.
In doing so, I have had to ‘filter’ women who have not given me enough to overcome those inconsistencies or lack of congruence, just as women often end up filtering out (potentially) good candidates because of where they currently choosing to participate in the SMP. We all have our own filters – tolerance levels, and that is just part of the challenge. And while I have never been filtered out for not waiting for sex because I value intimacy highly, but I have been filtered out because I was not aggressive/confident/tall/outgoing/enough at that critical moment of attraction. I guess how I see it is that we all are constantly filtering for all kinds of things; so why the agony over a guy who won’t stick around because a woman is delaying sex? Most of those guys would have been filtered out before even getting to that point if more attention were paid to his own congruence. But I suppose if he is tall/aggressive/confident/outgoing that initial filter tends to get pulled pretty quickly.
And finally, I will go out on a limb and say that the actual number of relationship-oriented men who allow themselves to get filtered out because a woman holds her ground is inflated in many of the same ways as the alpha-chasing women them is. There are quality men who can manage that seemingly impossible task of not indulging in all of these (perceived) options for easy, no-strings sex – particularly in light of the fact that a relationship option is on the table, just as there are women who can manage the impossible task of not falling onto the alpha dick carousel.
A guy that is unwilling to build a relationship to some level of mutual investment before sex is either not interested enough in you to begin with, not interested in a relationship with anyone to begin with, and/or is indeed some kind of alpha asshat with plenty of real options for free sex. As usual, most of the challenge is in the early stage of attraction. Which is part of where the ‘women can’t resist alpha’ comes from. It is just too easy for the invisible men to extrapolate what they see taking place around them into ‘all women…’. Women don’t need to go home with the alpha to perpetuate this belief, they need only respond positively to them in most settings and the male hamster runs wild.
In other words, I’m a “beta” female prone to oneitis and falling deeply in love with “beta” males. Only in my world, “betas” are the real alphas.
Can I steal that line and put on a T-Shirt? So true. Gold comment
Monday was laundry day, and after one day the wife’s hands were bloody from the lye. I remember the challenge of washing out the period rags as well.
I handwashed all my clothes till I was 15…I’ll pick going around naked to go back to that. I do like a sweet spot like modern technology with past social norms, but please washing machines I can deal with cold water and cooking from the scratch but someone needs to do the laundry also toilets latrine’s not good either.
Susan, I think the tendency to romanticize is a trait that got us humans through all those tough times. There are many men and women still toiling like that today, in many places of the world. On the whole they feel quite happy and fulfilled, sometimes more so than those of us with “first world problems.”
I still remember things like handwashing, cooking in a mineral carbon stove, making a cake with wooden spoon instead of a mixer (cake never got right though and mother stopped using the anafe because the heat was affecting her eyesight) and I still have relatives that do those stuff and they are really thankful for what they have and achieve, small things like buying their first CD players or first home computer make them feel happy and accomplished is so different from here…
Too bad. I think both of you would like the Smithsonian Channel. The History Channel, OTOH, is now more like the Fantasy Channel. There’s a lot of ridiculous crap on it. (South Park did a great Thanksgiving parody of the History Channel, BTW.) All my guys love the Military Channel.
I asked hubby if there is any custom made channel programing or something so we could get only those channels but sadly not…yet and really I wouldn’t like to pay for having 400 channels when I’m watching less than a dozen of them. Oh well I need time to write I guess.
Susan/J with regard to the “good old days” – the thing is, back then the only people that suffered from being forced to stay in a bad marriage was the two married people and possibly their family. Now that misery is spread among all of is with increased single motherhood, increasing costs in public assistance, and a pretty messed up SMP. Call me selfish all you want, but I believe as a society we were better off when people had to stay in crappy marriages. It was the cost of their choice to marry, and they got to pay it mostly alone.
I don’t think is cruel but people assume that people that stayed in bad marriages were made bad because of the marriage they are the same people that nowadays are slutting/cadding up and breaking havoc in the MSP their damage is more spread and for all to see. This is not any better.
Hope, why would single girls, that are friends of mine, not want to see me in a relationship? That makes absolutely no sense. That’s like saying “I wish you the best, but I would never like to see you happy!”
I think this is more a group think that a gender thing as explained before any woman expressing interest on foreigners in front of male friends get shamed and cockblocked I guess is instinct of keeping the group together and also a bit of a Plan B. If she/he doesn’t pair of and one day I feel desperate enough I might be able to snag her. This happens with some families too were if they see one of the members moving up too quickly and up they can start sabotaging him/her because they unconsciously want to keep the status quo and don’t want to feel bad about their own idiotic choices, YMMV.
Women even cockblock their own “best friends forever” from getting a boyfriend, so they can keep going out with their bestie to have fun.
I have a friend that is struggling with her weight and when mentioned to another friend that is slim or average and married how much it worries me and I try to support her efforts to lose weight she was like “but she looks nice like that” the girl I’m trying to help is almost 200 pounds at 5’6″ there is no way in hell she looks good. I think there is a bit of cattiness on wanting her to feel good about being fat so as to see her in a lesser light, which I don’t personally get but that is women for you. “If mama ain’t no sexy no one is sexy”, YMMV.
Haha my new apartment doesn’t have a washing machine so I handwash my clothes in the bathtub. At least I don’t have to deal with lye.
What a great story, thanks for sharing it with your readers! Brought back memories when my husband and I first started dating.
@ Carmen
I am glad to know that I haven’t chased you off or offended you. I am sure I would get some sort of flak for that, not to mention feel like crap myself
In response to your question
“So, now that you know I would date a guy with the intention of a lifelong partnership, do you still suggest me to entirely skip dating and ‘not to play’?”
Yes.
You may have high MMV, but that’s not what the college SMP necessarily rewards. Remember, guys at your age are, generally speaking, not looking for, not interested in, not even capable of supporting, life partnerships. They are therefore not going to put in a whole lot of effort into securing life long partnerships, which may very well mean your core asset is significantly undervalued.
And YOUR value isn’t determined by what YOU Think it is, or else I’d be a millionaire because I think I am worth a million dollars. YOUR value is determined by what OTHER people will pay for it.
(Unrelated to you, skip this part. Preempting Abbott: This is highly relevant to sluts. YOUR VALUE IS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR IT).
Anyways, most of the men in your situation are not going to be very willing to pay a very high value for you, at least not for your long-term relationship aspects. Your attributes just aren’t that important yet. ADDITIONALLY, you have a LOT of competition, both from porn and from other women.
Now, as men shift into a lifelong partnership mindset, they will get pickier about the women they date, because these women need to be lifelong partners. Note I do NOT say LTR, because LTRS ARE NOT MARRIAGES. I can absolutely date a girl and know that I am not going to marry her, which means I can accept certain attributes about her.
For example, Escof recently talked about his experience with a girl who did not share his love of great books and just wanted to be a teacher in NC, whereas he wanted to move around. In college, this girl is fine. As a life partner, she is not useful for him. Different job attributes needed.
Which also means a man doesn’t have to be as picky as college, which means your UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES are worth a lot less.
So the only guys who are going to be willing to wait, are pretty much guys that have a hard time getting girls. Which there are going to be a lot of. But…there’s a REASON they can’t get girls.
Which means you probably won’t like most of them, either, because you’re a girl. This is what I mean by insta-DQ. You will probably instantly disqualify them.
Which is fine. I am picky, too.
And even of the ones that do get through, you don’t really know if they are in the for the long haul, and they probably won’t be.
So, I fail to see the point in the exercise.
So, my advice is still the same:
Stay away from boys for romantic entanglements, learn a lot instead. The only winning move is not to play. The boys will be there when you graduate college, and your hand and chance at getting a lifelong partnership will be MUCH improved.
For whatever it’s worth, and it’s probably not much, that’s my advice.
And that’s my advice to any college student:
1. Try to attend most of your classes
2. Make some friends and network a lot
3. Get lots ofinternships
4. Study something marketable
Girls and boys are absolutely secondary considerations, and if you are a lifelong partnership minded person like myself, and I guess Carmen, there is little point in college dating.
It’s funny the importance other people can put on your dating life. It’s crazy that popularity could be decided by who it was you were dating. This shows a lot about people in general. It seems as though this phenomenon happens more in youth populations than it does in more adult ones.
@ADBG
Am I understanding you correctly? You’re advocating celibacy for any lifelong partnership minded people.
@ Cooper
“Am I understanding you correctly? You’re advocating celibacy for any lifelong partnership minded people.”
I am advocating only entering into relationships that have a chance of being lifelong partnerships and that this effort is mostly wasted in college. So, yes.
Celibacy is not that bad.
This is based on the advice I would give myself if I could talk to 18 year old ADBG. Learn more, be a better person, girls aren’t that important.
I would venture to guess, that your generation – and previous ones – are happier than today’s.
And, I will say that when today’s 20-year-olds hit 50, they will be greatly disappointed they didn’t live during your time.
Fire
“Celibacy is not that bad.”
I can testify to this. But does any woman tingle for a celibate-man? I fear not.
You can concentrate–as in boil down–some of the benefits of dating such as being around people who might be prospects if you are involved in activities not devoted to dating/hooking up/courting/mating which include numbers of men and women.
First, you are in the presence of a number of folks of the desired gender without having to do the dating/clubbing/partying thing. IOW, very little social cost, depending on the activity. You see them dealing with the world, which is to say the object of the group which could be sports, food pantry, advocacy, or anything else. This gives you a view of their personalities outside the mating dance. Makes it easier to filter somebody if you’ve seen them losing it at some setback, or handlingit competently, and so forth.
In addition, if you don’t find a good prospect, you’ve seen individuals of the desired gender in the real world, so you learn something about the group.
And, not to get all relativist, but what is “objective SMV”?
Guy A – 6’4″, makes 100K in high status job, and has extended social network
Guy B – 5’4″, works as cashier, and spends a ton of time playing video games at home.
This is one of those things we could debate at the margin, but generally we know what traits are the SMV boosters so it is pretty simple to rank a guy across those variables. As a random side point, the one that surprised me the most in terms of its overall contribution to total SMV is height.
And yes, I know different women will rank order different traits differently.
Who has a higher “objective” SMV?
Tasmin, good comment
A guy that is unwilling to build a relationship to some level of mutual investment before sex is either not interested enough in you to begin with, not interested in a relationship with anyone to begin with, and/or is indeed some kind of alpha asshat with plenty of real options for free sex.
I’ll cosign this, and I’ll emphasize the first part about “not interested enough”….at least from a relationship perspective. The challenge for women who want to be strategic about this is they really have to suss out whether a guy is genuinely interested in them as a human being or whether the guy is like “eh, she is doable”. And a key element here is how much the guy wants to involve you in other parts of his life.
I have unconventional wiring and am attractted to the niche guys whom other girls find nerdy. Conversely, the more preselection / popularity a guy appears to have, the less likely I am able to feel personal attraction.
Hope, I am genuinely curious. Do you literally believer you are in fact “hardwired differently” or do you think your preferences are more a result ot your experiences growing up. You seem to me to be very introspective so I am wondering if you literally rewired yourself through careful deliberation on what type of man would make the most loyal partner in the long-term?
Haven’t you heard.. marrying yourself is all the rage!!!!
Haha. Can you even imagine a guy doing this? He’d be lampooned as the ultimate pathetic loser (deservedly so). So much going on here with this sort of nonsense. It is a narcissistic attempt to broadcast publicly “I don’t need a man” while ironically the very act itself is an admission of the insecurity of not being able to “land a man” for commitment. One of the “red pill” things that was one of the last I really understood and internalized is that the vast majority of women absolutely need the validation of a man being willing to commit to them. The public, vocal insistence to the contrary is an attempt to lie to themself.
@Desiderius
I’m not sure what you mean???
@ Cooper
“I can testify to this. But does any woman tingle for a celibate-man? I fear not.”
No, but be careful about projecting your sexual history preferences onto women. You’re talking about an attraction mechanism: you can be attractive in other ways.
Men look at this as a must-not, as in you must-not be a slut.
Qualifier vs. disqualifier, totally different things.
IME:
I am N=1. There were still girls who found me attractive in college and there are many more girls now that find me attractive. I do not need to attract every woman in the world, I just need one that I also like and is commitment-worthy.
HOPEFULLY I have found one, and that’s more than enough for me.
Mike C 192
Oh Michael Michael… haven’t you heard?
http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore/
@Susan:
I did not intend to imply that men are or should be in a “get-only” mode. Frankly, I was responding to some of the comments earlier that were very much in favor of regarding women as sex toys.
I believe women also want the 4A’s from a relationship…but the priorities are different. The key is, of course, a relationship that is a two-way street.
Jackie at 131: “Please believe us when we say we know ourselves and what we want. Especially when our words and actions have been absolutely congruent.”
That cuts both ways, of course. If I can testify that, to an overwhelming majority extent, I have observed young women’s words and actions as not having been (at all) congruent, then you have to believe me when I say that women in general do not know themselves and what they want. (Exceptions exist, of course — NAWALT is true but that doesn’t alter the main conclusion.) It all goes back to evidence, hey?
Besides, doesn’t Susan often admit, straight up, that young women in general don’t understand their own attraction triggers? That is, they’re undoubtedly aware of which men they find sexy, but when you ask them to describe why they do, their answers are often either vague or wrong.
Now, some exceptions do exist:
Susan at 146: “When men say to me (and they do constantly), “Watch what a woman does, not what she says.” I think, great, because my actions are congruent with my stated preferences.”
Of course, this exact same claim will be made openly by people for whom, on any objective observation, it is plainly untrue. The truth is, that almost no one — very, very few people, men and women alike — is/are a reliable judge of whether their actions have really been congruent with their preferred self-descriptions. That’s why the concept of the “rationalization hamster” was codified, and rings so true: it describes the quite common habit of repressing an uncomfortable reality of desire and instead conjuring an alternative, fictional, socially acceptable explanation for desire.
Of the regular female commenters here, for example, I would say that Hope and Sassy win the prize for honest introspection and self-awareness, so I’d be inclined to take their self-assessments seriously. But that’s only after seeing many dozens of heartfelt comments from them, and one certainly can’t grant the same credence to anyone’s first statement on first meeting them.
Congruence is much better judged from the outside, either for a specific person or in the objective aggregate. There’s a great anecdote about self-reporting — I believe it’s in “How to Lie with Statistics” — where British people in the 1950′s were asked how often they bathed. The average answer was something like twice a day; but if you looked at actual water usage, it was clear that the average could not exceed once every other day. So if a group of four such Brits, randomly chosen, had all told you they bathed twice a day, then odds are very, very good that at least three of them would be lying. Just from hearing the answers one can’t determine who the liars are, in particular, but you can be quite sure that they’re there in force. Similarly, while I can’t dispute Susan’s claim in particular, I would wager a great deal that if the truth could actually be determined, then at least nine out of ten women who claim to be congruent in this way actually aren’t. (I can go into statistical numerics, for those who truly have nothing better to listen to.)
So, sorry, no, I’m not buying it. When I was young, bright-eyed and bushy*-tailed, I reflexively believed, prior any evidence, that women generally spoke the truth about themselves and their desires. But a lifetime’s experience of observation, in parallel with many, many, many — thousands? of — other men’s testimonies, now forces me to conclude otherwise. I’m sorry if you think that’s rude; but in the end it’s all about the evidence, and the evidence here is simply overwhelming.
* That’s a joke, of course.
But does any woman tingle for a celibate-man? I fear not.
I’ve seen women fall in love with Roman Catholic priests.
@Esau
Hi Esau,
I think my remark makes more sense when you consider it in context: Earlier BastiatBlogger asked why we would prefer a relationship with a beta type to a FWB with an alpha. The tired trope of “5 minutes of alpha.” My post #131 is a response to Hope (#115).
“So many guys think we are helpless before “alphas” that we will sacrifice a great guy with a truly good heart, for the potential to be some low-life’s receptacle for a few moments. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
It’s actually incredibly insulting as well.”
I would wager each of us can be an unreliable narrator at times– maybe even you, Esau.
And I am sure there is a huge swath of behaviors, triggers and responses that I am wholly unconscious of.
But nothing about that negates my words and actions in regards to an “alpha FWB” situation, which only fills me with revulsion. If years of consistency in actions and words (in regards to this context) aren’t enough to convince you, I don’t know what will.
Haha. Can you even imagine a guy doing this? He’d be lampooned as the ultimate pathetic loser (deservedly so).
Maybe no if he was gay…and hot.
I’ve seen women fall in love with Roman Catholic priests.
That happens a lot on catholic countries too, the difference is that some women won’t try to be “occasion of sin” while others would see it as a challenge and well God shouldn’t had made it this hot if he wanted him for himself…. But oh boy the priests have their fanclubs’s alright.
But nothing about that negates my words and actions in regards to an “alpha FWB” situation, which only fills me with revulsion. If years of consistency in actions and words (in regards to this context) aren’t enough to convince you, I don’t know what will.
Jackie, FWIW, I think you are in the same group with Hope and Sassy in terms of what you say matches your behavior. At least to me, when you read a a great number of comments from someone you start to get a sense of whether they are A. Earnest and B. They know thyself. You seem like that to me.
I don’t think Esau was trying to refute you personally but speaking more generally about the consistency of what is verbalized versus actual behvior with regard to many women. As always, NAWALT.
@Esau
I’m glad you stated this, it is correct. We do know whom we are attracted to, even if we don’t know why. Most claims I hear in the manosphere claim that women do not know who they want. They say they don’t want the asshole, then they go and bang the asshole. I’m sure some women do that – perhaps they are coy, sheepish about their low taste in men. Or perhaps they are especially slow-witted.
In general, though, we know what makes us tingle. We’ve read enough books, seen enough movies and TV shows, and known enough attractive guys that we know our weak spots.
The why is indeed more complex. In fact, I still couldn’t tell you why I knew I wanted to marry my husband the first time I saw him. I truly have no idea.
Jackie, notice two things from your comment here, lined up together
““So many guys think we are helpless before “alphas” that we will sacrifice a great guy with a truly good heart….”
and
“But nothing about that negates my words and actions in regards to an “alpha FWB” situation, which only fills me with revulsion.
In the first, you’re using “we”, which — since not otherwise qualified — indicates all women, or at least a large, representative majority of women. But in the second you’re using “me”, as to what fills you personally with revulsion. Don’t you see that there’s a substantial error, in making a statement about what women in general do or don’t like, but for evidence referring solely to your own preferences? Notice that in Hope’s comment at 115 she was very careful to delineate her own feelings in particular, saying “I cannot speak for them, but I can speak for myself.” You should strive to be as careful.
Here’s another example of just this counterproductive ambiguity; when you write:
If years of consistency in actions and words (in regards to this context) aren’t enough to convince you, I don’t know what will.
are you declaring the “years of consistency” in the actions and words of women in the main, ie tens of millions of people, or just for yourself? In the former case I think you’d just be plain wrong; in the latter case, then of course as I described above I can’t gainsay you in particular. So in neither extreme does this line really have any meaning; what is is that I’m supposed to be “convinced of” is not well-formed, and so the whole thought is meaningless to the reader.
Re the congruence of HUSies on this thread:
Sassy: Likes alphas, dates alphas
Hope: Likes nerdy guys, married one.
Anacaona: Likes beta guys, married one.
Susan: Ditto.
Emily: Likes nerdy guys, dating one.
SayWhaat: Likes beta emo types, dating one.
J: Hmmm, not sure if DH is beta or alpha, but she’s happy with what she’s got.
Jackie: Dislikes alphas, has always avoided and on occasion humiliated alphas.
Iggles: Likes beta guys, looking for a beta guy.
1 alpha fan
8 beta fans
1 unknown
All congruent, all the time.
@ Esau
Thanks man.
I realized the other day that I’ve been commenting on this blog roughly 2.5 years now. It’s been such a crazy journey, for sure. I’ve changed and learned so much from reading this blog and talking to other people on here. HUS is like my second family, in a sense. I’ve become quite attached to the site and the commenters. It’s only natural to be so honest with everyone here.
Have you seen this article, Susan?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-8217-t-have-it-all/9020/?single_page=true
All congruent, all the time.
Without parsing the names on the list…I take this to mean that you would bet your life and your childrens’ lives that ALL the women who claim to be “beta lovers/chasers” have never hooked up with or pursued something with a more alpha guy ONE SINGLE TIME?
And yes, I know that is hyperbole but I’d throw money on the table that at least some of the girls who comment here and are self-professed “beta” girls have an alpha dalliance or two in their somewhere.
@Esau
Hey Esau,
Thanks for your response– I appreciate your criticism and will strive to for greater clarity and articulation! I am only speaking for myself –and was not using the royal “we” nor am I pregnant, so I will, as you suggested, delineate my remarks as Hope did. Thank you again!
Esaus, is it possible for you to imagine this:
Being told repeatedly and vehemently that you are wrong about your feelings, and that strangers on the internet know you better than your own self, believe they can analyze you and believe that you should take this anonymous criticism as gospel truth.
This seems to happen so often on blogs and, really, I find it quite offensive. How do you respond when this happens to you?
Susan at 207: “All congruent, all the time.”
Umm, how far back does “all the time” go? If all you’re saying, is that what these women appear/profess to prefer right now at this moment appears to be congruent with what they profess to prefer, well then I’d say that’s a pretty weak statement. If a woman describes herself — as, say, you describe Emily — as “liking nerdy guys”, then the only real, meaningful question is, what has the correlation been, historically, between guys’ nerdiness and her attraction to them? Just saying that the two match up at this particular moment doesn’t mean much IMO, as a lot of other things could be going on in any one single case.
Also, I see you’ve completely missed the point about the fallacy of relying solely on self-reporting. Not to pick on Emily in particular, but how many nerds did she reject over the years, and why? And even if she told us her story, how are we to know the truth? Maybe she says it’s because the rejects had funny-looking noses, or some such thing, and not at all because they were nerds; but how do we, the readers, know that that’s not just some kind of rationalization? I know you want to be kind to the commenters, to give them the benefit of the doubt, and that’s sensible for your role here. But I stand by my previous statement: just like the British bathers, if all we have to go on is self-reporting then that’s not very trustworthy evidence at all. Though I cannot name the exceptions, I would bet heavily that at least some of the HUSsies on this list have a history of behaving otherwise (as Mike C also suspects).
Like you, for example! Here’s your entry from the above:
Anacaona: Likes beta guys, married one.
Susan: Ditto.
Was “likes beta guys” your sincere self-description back when you took up with your dumb jock BF for three years? (IIRC your description) Or was it something that evolved later, after you’d gotten all you could from the dumb-jock experience? It’s not hard to imagine you, or many young women in that same age and position, being heard to say “I don’t really put a lot of emphasis on looks, I’d really rather have someone smart” just before they spend their youth and beauty on the dumb, handsome guy. If I only had a nickel for every time I’d seen that happen in person, … well, I wouldn’t be rich but I could at least afford a nice lunch (not at Per Se, though).
This is so awesome! It’s only half an hour into a new day and you’ve made mine. Thank you!
* sorry, the first “appear/profess” should be “appear/demonstrate”
@j2
Thanks for the link, I appreciate your watching out for me! I plan to read it and comment first thing tomorrow.
@Mike C
Hi Mike C,
First, congrats on your engagement and best wishes to the future Mrs. C!
Thank you for the kind words and explanation, Mike. I responded rather emotionally — sometimes I wish I could be more like many of the commenters here, who are able to address points logically and methodically. Thanks again
I couldn’t possibly say. Even about myself! I recall saying I’d never gone for another alpha after my first bf in college, and immediately someone said, “you hooked up with a fighter pilot, that’s alpha.” I mean, IDK who was alpha and who wasn’t. I said the same college bf was the quintessential alpha but he was boring and dumb, and Escoffier said it isn’t possible for an alpha to be boring. Alphas are exciting.
It’s practically meaningless at this point.
But, if you’re asking did any of the women on this list go chasing a manwhore? I’d bet no.
Just to clarify my question about “5 minutes of alpha”: I wasn’t really wondering why a woman who had reached a point in her life plan that she was truly in the market for husband would prefer an LTR with Captain Commitment over FWB status with Stud King. That makes sense.
I was really confining my question to the college environment, where an emotionally-intimate LTR with Captain Commitment would seem to, in the final analysis, pose an existential threat to the stated timeline and life trajectory expectations that *female undergrads* were themselves expressing.
I know that plans can and will change, but these women are apparently interested in a 5-6 year post-college self-development excursion/career focus. This period will supposedly culminate in the creation of a stable bubble of affluent, stylish professional life—probably in a major city—during which the search for Mr. Right can begin.
I know what some may be thinking: believe it or not, I’m not trying to poison the well for young beta males by persuading these women to want to work in refugee camps in northern Uganda, to move to France for MBAs at INSEAD, and so on; these are primarily their ideas. I will provide support and encouragement for any young adventurer, male or female, but I’m not trying to push a personal agenda on them.
What I don’t hear mentioned: “I’m not sure what is next, because I’m in a serious LTR with a sweet, commitment-minded beta and I want to make sure that my future includes him. Serious compromises will be necessary.” The silence on this front makes me believe that A) the more aggressive, ambitious, and outspoken Power Girl types are dominating the narrative and setting the bar, B) that at least some of those involved in campus LTRs do not expect them to survive the post-college transition (which begs the question of what “commitment-minded males” actually means, since the desired commitment level appears to be capped); and C) that these LTRs are simply in short supply for a variety of reasons.
This is making me want to re-visit my dating history and see if perhaps I am completely blind to my blind spots! The things is, though, does *anyone* even have a clear definition of “alpha” and “beta” that is generally agreed on?
For the record, Susan, you can put me (and probably Bellita?) as down for searching for a religious “beta” with titanium-strength character. (That’s the secret “true alpha” that nobody talks about– JK!)
Jackie: “Being told repeatedly and vehemently that you are wrong about your feelings, and that strangers on the internet know you better than your own self, believe they can analyze you and believe that you should take this anonymous criticism as gospel truth.
This seems to happen so often on blogs and, really, I find it quite offensive. “
And where did this happen to you? I don’t remember making any statement about your veracity in particular (though it is late, I may be mis-remembering); I’m mainly countering your statement as regards women in general. To be fair, this does make your short statements suspect and reduces your credibility, perhaps unfairly, simply by being a member of a group which has shown wide historical evidence of unreliability.
You know, somewhere in Nigeria there probably is at least one widow of a high government official who really would like your help in getting her money out of the country, and who will give you your cut if you participate. But, what chance does she have of ever being taken seriously? And, what strategy can we recommend for her?
More to your immediate point, if you don’t like the treatment you get at the hands of strangers on the Internet, then why do you offer up descriptions of your own feelings in public? What are you getting out of it, or hoping to get out of it?
I couldn’t possibly say. Even about myself! I recall saying I’d never gone for another alpha after my first bf in college, and immediately someone said, “you hooked up with a fighter pilot, that’s alpha.”
We could parse this a million different ways to Sunday…but I think you overreached with the “ALL CONGRUENT ALL THE TIME”. As Esau points out, your college boyfriend is a completely different type from your husband. Now that people evolve, and grow, and change preferences so I see nothing wrong with that at all. But I think it is a stretch to say that all women always go for the guy that they say they prefer if asked.
In fact,one crystal clear example of this that I have either seen or have heard of that it borders on laughable is when a 23 or 25 or 27 year old absolutely unequivocally insists she would NEVER date a guy over 30 or over 40, and with the “right” guy the age factor drops right off the map. Seriously, I have seen this many times.
Thanks Jackie for the well wishes
This is making me want to re-visit my dating history and see if perhaps I am completely blind to my blind spots!
It is admirable that you want to do this exercise
The things is, though, does *anyone* even have a clear definition of “alpha” and “beta” that is generally agreed on?
Ha. No. I think who is alpha and who is beta is like debating how many angels dancing on the head of a pin. I think it is more useful to think in terms of “alpha” and “beta” traits. For example, cocky swagger is an alpha trait while its “beta counterpart” might be meek reservation. So imagine that on a spectrum. In my view, the extreme points are both undesirable but there is a happy medium point that maximizes attractive masculinity for MOST WOMEN. Some women might be utterly turned off by even the slightest hint of cocky swagger.
But I’ll give you an example of the typical BS, and I’ll actually use my fiancee. We were having a discussion and she said “I don’t like eocky guys”. In my head, I laughed and thought you are full of shit, and I proceeded to rattle off a couple of TV characters she likes who epitomize cockiness. This is the disconnect men often see. I suspect women have some sort of blindspot where they hear cocky and think obnoxious while a guy recognizes cocky without obnoxiousness.
Anyways, I could go on an on and on listing traits. Alphas are bold risk takers, betas take the conservative play by the rules route. Again, the extremes are bad. But there is a disconnect if you say you don’t like risk takers, and then date the guy who rides his motorcycle at 100 mph on the highway.
Hi Esau,
I meant the “understood you.” Esau, is it possible we are having two different conversations here? I find the treatment of women as a group personally offensive.
I actually like sharing my thoughts and feelings with many of the people here. I probably share more on HUS than I do anywhere else. It serves several purposes: I learn a lot, can be honest about things cloaked in anonymity and like just about everyone here.
It’s getting pretty late, so I better sign off. Thank you giving me a lot to think about, Esau. Best wishes and good night–
Oops, the last sentence, second-to-last paragraph is: *I* like just about everyone here.
There are a lot of awesome, knowledgeable and generous people around HUS.
One last word for Jackie, and then I have to turn in.
“Esaus, is it possible for you to imagine this:
Being told repeatedly and vehemently that you are wrong about your feelings, and that strangers on the internet know you better than your own self, believe they can analyze you and believe that you should take this anonymous criticism as gospel truth.
This seems to happen so often on blogs and, really, I find it quite offensive. How do you respond when this happens to you?”
I see that I didn’t answer the question of your last sentence here, and it certainly deserves one. The fact is, that exactly this happens to me all the time, even right here on HUS. I’ll say something like, “I have seen from a lot of up-close observation (ie not my own life, but people I’ve known) the direct correlation between a guy being decent and held unattractive because of it, and another being a sexist jerk and being held sexy exactly because of it”; and then I’m deluged with responses that I’m crazy, I’m biased, I must be missing something, I deep-down want to be a jerk and just want to have an excuse to be so, and so on. Susan herself has a list of equivocations as long as your arm, to explain why decent men being passed over for that reason can’t be held against women’s account. No, it must be that these men “aren’t showing up” or “don’t have any mastery” or they’re “spineless supplicators”, and so on and so on, anything to push the blame back onto the male, despite the fact that I know, and have repeatedly stated, that none of these equivocations apply in the cases I’m personally familiar with. Yes, it can get quite frustrating at times, though there are far worse venues than HUS, which is relatively sensible as these blogs go.
So I’m not quite in the same boat with you, since it’s not my testimony about my own personal history that’s being questioned (since I never bring that up). But rather it’s my grip on the reality of what I’ve seen, and the logic by which I can extrapolate, that’s being denied, for essentially ideological reasons rather than factual ones; and I guess that this is a similar experience to what you’ve felt.
Now to — finally! — answer your question directly, I respond by trying to stick to straight rationality as much as possible (admittedly this is my own subjective appraisal, and so necessarily limited in reliability). It’s not necessarily productive, but you might call it a coping mechanism. I focus on what people have said and written, without changing the subject to presuming their motivations, and see what I can argue just “logically and methodically” as you put it. As they say, your mileage may vary.
And yes, I know that is hyperbole but I’d throw money on the table that at least some of the girls who comment here and are self-professed “beta” girls have an alpha dalliance or two in their somewhere.
I can surely tell that my short dating story I never got romantically involved with anything resembling an Alpha. I have a real gut reaction to Alphas flirting like I would remove myself from a room, avoid eye contact and not even talk to him and I’m not beyond painting myself in the worst light so they will stop pursuing me and think it was their idea as to avoid getting killed or something worse. I think I also mentioned that my father, brothers and uncles were all Alpha’s I really get the “uncle smell” from them on I think there is some sort of incest protection from us girls cursed with the Alpha’s blood, so maybe I couldn’t help it but I still can assure that any Alpha interested back in DR on me probably thinks I’m a lesbian or something like it. Would you consider a warhammer, videogamer an Alpha? The funny thing is that given that manosphere reads Alphaness (got girls even if is only one) I’m sure hubby will get that label just out of the fact that he won me over, but given his dating story and how other women react to him, like so far only one has gone out of her way to flirt with him, he didn’t noticed I was going to choke a bitch, I think he is more likely to be beta.
Priests are hot (in theory), they’re the forbidden fruit … Or maybe just some type of fruit
That’s a pretty great post, really enjoyed the chronology of dating mores.
I would like to come back on some points.
I read people observing that the divorce rate was lower and that people usually lived unhappily together for years in spite of abuse, alcoholism/gambling and infidelity and that they deserved what came to them. We have to consider that if courtship/ dating were heavily/somewhat chaperoned, the longevity of the marriage was as well; communities would intervene or turn the blind eye regarding what was happening in the household. Your husband was cheating? “Boys will be boys!”; crazy angry ranting “he’s just showing authority”, etc… And so on, not happy times. And remember they didn’t have all those precious structures spouses can rely on to solve issues with equity and respect like we do today.
Regarding the choices young people and especially women make when it comes to life after graduation; it might be hard to believe for some around here, but women want a FULL life, with the necessary experiences and challenges that come with becoming an adult. We’ve said it before, adolescence keeps being pushed further and further away. Why would women, in this state of affairs, chose to jump in a life-long enterprise when they don’t even know how to handle themselves? There was a time when all a woman could hope for was marrying early and marrying well; her whole universe would be the household. Failing at that was failing at reaching the main/single goal of her life. OTOH, men could live full lives, be awesome and admired at work, and come home and be an awesome dad as well (with a “little” help from the wife) so we had a 2 vs 1 situation. Today, women can get access to this full life, it doesn’t necessary means acing everything they’ll do and it certainly doesn’t mean sleeping around but getting a sense of self. Not just someone’s daughter, girlfriend or wife. I think that is important in one’s life, it makes you somewhat reliable and even keeled and in the end a better partner because you can carry your partner if needs be at some point.
Just my two cents.
Alright Esau, I’ll bite.
I dunno… I’ve actually been pretty consistent on the nerd thing. At least 90% of the guys that I’ve liked have had an above average level of nerdiness. I definitely do favour the cuter nerds (girls are shallow too), but I’m pretty nerdy myself so that’s who I end up spending time with and who I’m most likely to “click” with. I remember I once instantly developed a crush on a guy because he brought up an interesting piece of random trivia early on in the conversation. (I already thought he was cute, but it was at that point that the little cartoon hearts would have popped up above my head.) That being said, I don’t think that “Useless Trivia Game” would work on most girls.
As for Alpha/Beta, I like a pretty comfy level of betaness, although there is a limit. For example I appreciate beta comfort traits in a relationship, but platonic beta orbiting is an attraction killer. I don’t like douchebags, but supplication isn’t attractive either.
I once had a drunk makeout session ages ago with a guy who I would probably describe as Alpha (sorry Susan!) Even then though, he was an honest alpha. ie. I told him all I wanted to do was kiss and he made very little attempt to escalate further (although I’m sure he would have taken sex if it was offered), didn’t lie about anything etc. Other than that though, I have a pretty good “record” of alpha-avoidance. And he has a PhD, so even my one “alpha” is pretty consistent with the nerd thing haha.
Hope that helps.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand just for fun!
:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1BRboE5A6_Y/TfrXYx-UFsI/AAAAAAAAABY/Uhj66T-Mw1c/s1600/1208.jpg
@Tasmin
“Which is part of where the ‘women can’t resist alpha’ comes from. It is just too easy for the invisible men to extrapolate what they see taking place around them into ‘all women…’. Women don’t need to go home with the alpha to perpetuate this belief, they need only respond positively to them in most settings and the male hamster runs wild.”
Thank you for articulating this.
I intended this as more of an advertising slogan – a joke, really. Re alphas, I think what Hope said is exactly right. I can observe and even understand that a hypermasculine guy surrounded by women is objectively attractive. But he leaves me flat. He doesn’t push the right buttons for me. It may even be that knowing he’s unlikely to commit on some subconscious level sends a “turned off” signal to my brain. Like I said, I don’t know why.
Now you’re committing the fallacy. Liking a type doesn’t mean you like every guy in that type. But a woman who says she likes beta guys and has a history of dating beta guys means she selected from that pool. Who knows, maybe she even got burned by a cad and saw the light. The point is, it’s not settling if the sexual attraction is there.
Sassy is the only HUSie I can think of who confesses liking alphas. Guys here think she’s just saying what most women really feel. I think she’s saying what she feels, and that other women here don’t share her viewpoint. Are there women going home with very dominant strangers for sex? Yes, obviously. But they don’t read this blog. And they’re a small minority. The rest of us are probably wired quite differently.
I had no clue until three years ago what an alpha or beta was. In my mind, there was no distinction among the guys I dated. I started dating the dumb jock at 17. The second bf was a total emo with long hair and super skinny jeans. I was trying out different kinds of relationships, different dynamics, figuring out what long-term compatibility meant for me. It wasn’t a case of being conquered by an alpha, riding him for alpha seed until I grew bored, and then looking for Oliver Twists to take pity on.
Honestly, for all the talking and the reading and the practicing Game, I feel like a lot of men have a really solid understanding of about 15% of female psychology, and are clueless about the other 85%.
@Jackie
Are you kidding? If Just1X is Mr. Congeniality, you wear the women’s crown. I love the emotional verve you bring to the discussion.
@Bastiat
I think that college women and college men both know that marriage is a long way off. Of the college relationships I’ve been aware of, several ended amicably, as the couple basically knew they’d reached the end of the journey. Several were ended by guys who were a year or two older and did not want to do the long-distance thing with a girl still in school. Personally, I don’t know any ended by the girl, but my sample size is less than 25.
Some students do express a preference for casual hookups for the very reasons you mention. As it happens, kids from divorced parents are more likely to feel this way. But it is certainly rational to conclude that a close relationship in college makes no sense if marriage is not a possibility. There aren’t all that many relationships on campus compared to prior generations, and I’m sure that’s a big part of the reason.
But research also shows that more than half of both men and women hope that a relationship will develop from a hookup. Some people are cut out for relationships, regardless of whether they can get casual. When I met my husband he was successful with women (was clearly preselected in our class) and he hopped into monogamy without looking back. I know guys are wired to like sexual variety, but I’ve seen guys with plenty of options go off the market. They like being part of a couple, and I think that happens in college too. Falling in love is a pretty awesome experience.
NO! It’s just a rabbit hole we go down again and again!
Cooper,
That’s pretty douchey. Hell, if a guy want to do this, just be congruent and upfront about it from the start. If his frame is strong enough the girls will accept it and no lying has to be involved.
@Mike C
Funny you should say this. One of my girls is 23, and has avoided dating older guys, for the most part. Of course, I keep saying, “Go five years up.” So she met a guy, figured he was 25 or 26. He figured she was 25 or 26. When she learned on their first date he was 32, and he learned she was 23, they were both taken aback. He said, “Now that you know, do you want to bolt?” She said, “No way, do you?” He said, “Hell no.”
I have no idea what the long term is, but I get the sense she’d be psyched if he was looking for “the one.”
@Mike C
This is really interesting. It sounds like you take one trait, like “self-confidence” and see a spectrum with alpha and beta at either end.
I see two different manifestations, not on a spectrum. For example, in my mind, the beta equivalent of cocky swagger might be quiet confidence. Or high EQ, great conversationalist and listener.
I think this goes a long way toward explaining why “10 reasons to date a beta” makes total sense to me, and none to you.
The contrast between Esau’s praise and Sassy’s just gave me whiplash.
@Mireille
One of the biggest bestsellers of the late 70s was The Thorn Birds, about a young woman and priest falling in love in Australia. That was a great read! So sexy!
I agree. I would also add that in the period between age 21 and 25 I acquired experience and skills that allowed me to increase my standard of living significantly. I married the smartest, most talented man I ever dated, by a mile. If I’d married my college bf I would have been solving problems like “ring around the collar.”
In general, though, we know what makes us tingle.
Susan, I would change this to:
In general, though, we find out what makes us tingle
Think of all those girls that do not realize how much dominance they appreciate until they really experience it?
This can happen a number of ways:
- started reading 50 Shades and got all excited
- started dating some guy that exhibited some dominant behaviours and she really lied that part of him
- etc.
Think of how many girls who meet “alpha” guys that they are attracted to but then run their reasons for being attracted to them through the hamster mill.
By the time they are done, they have convinced themselves that they were attracted to him because he “makes her laugh”.
So, put me down as one more man who thinks that many young women (say, under 25) are not that aware of what really gets them going.
If it makes you feel any better, I think that many guys are clueless as to why they date/marry girls. But, that is probably another post.
@Emily
That pic is hilarious! Here is one of my favorite nerdy guys, he looks like the cute nerd:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd_bVk3ajk0
Susan at 232: Not to pick on Emily in particular, but how many nerds did she reject over the years, and why?
Now you’re committing the fallacy. Liking a type doesn’t mean you like every guy in that type.
No, you’re — methodically? — mis-quoting me: I never said “every” or “all”, what I said was “correlation” (read again carefully at 213 above). Do I have to send you some literature on statistics now? Really, mis-quoting me as having set an extreme standard when I really said something else, is just a waste of both our times.
But a woman who says she likes beta guys and has a history of dating beta guys means she selected from that pool.
As per Emily’s testimony at 229, this _is_ evidence of correlation, but it’s really very weak evidence. As the comic Emily posted at 230 — good one!, E — suggests, there may be a great deal more going on, to the point where “I like nerds” is hardly the primary motivator in reality.
The point is, it’s not settling if the sexual attraction is there.
I agree with this, though it seems puzzlingly off-topic — who said anything to the contrary? But since you brought it up, I think that within HUSpace it’s worth reflecting on the fact that the two women here who seem (IMO) to be the most happy and fulfilled with their partners are the all-out, honest nerd lovers Hope and Anacaona. I wonder what young Carmen might make of this observation?
Now, regarding the younger SW and her preferences:
I was trying out different kinds of relationships, different dynamics, figuring out what long-term compatibility meant for me.
Playing the field to learn how you and the world works is perfectly fine and even quite traditional (at least, for those pretty enough to have options). But the question is about congruence between actions and words. Apparently you didn’t have a particular “type” at that age, which is fine; but is that what you said to people in words at the time? If someone asked — as I guess your girlfriends did — “what kind of guy do you like?” did you answer “I don’t know, for now I’m playing the field to find out”? If so, then you were being congruent, props to you. But if you were heard to say, as might be typical of girls that age, “I really don’t care about looks” then you probably weren’t being congruent between words and actions.
And, from 239
The contrast between Esau’s praise and Sassy’s just gave me whiplash.
Perhaps you should take time for some stretching exercises, before reading the blog so early in the morning. Just sayin…
@Ramble
You are right – it is totally a learning process. Which reminds me, I need to get back to writing that post about what I learned by dating.
Susan,
“When I met my husband he was successful with women (was clearly preselected in our class)”
“For the record, these guys make great catches because they don’t know their own SMV.”
Lot of great things about you, Ms. HUS, but “all congruent all the time” is a standard nobody reaches. Certainly not this commenter, and definitely not our illustrious hostess
“Thanks for the link, I appreciate your watching out for me! I plan to read it and comment first thing tomorrow.”
Princeton has some interesting dynamics. Another place with a lot going for it that falls pretty far short of all congruent all the time.
@ SW:
Yep. Am dating a beta guy. We’ve been together about six months
Indeed. I didn’t know what my attraction triggers were when I was younger, but I knew what I didn’t like. I never chased after/hooked up with alphas. In fact, I skipped the whole hook up scene in college because it held no appeal for me. I’ve always been a relationship-oriented even though I spent many years single.
One of my girls is 23, and has avoided dating older guys, for the most part. Of course, I keep saying, “Go five years up.” So she met a guy, figured he was 25 or 26. He figured she was 25 or 26. When she learned on their first date he was 32, and he learned she was 23, they were both taken aback. He said, “Now that you know, do you want to bolt?” She said, “No way, do you?” He said, “Hell no.”
I have no idea what the long term is, but I get the sense she’d be psyched if he was looking for “the one.”
I’m not surprised. There is a lot to unpack with the whole “I’d never date a guy over 30 or over 40″ notion.
First, I don’t think there is any biological, instinctual basis for it….it’s just an artifact of our current culture which strongly suggests roughly same age relationships are “correct”. I think that is the reason the age factor just completely disappears from the equation *IF* the guy is attractive otherwise.
Second, there is 32 and then there is 32, there is 42 and then there is 42. What do I mean? Some guys just look older, and some guys can pass for much younger. And I think there is a mentality at play. I see this at work with guys who are +/- 5 years from me. The way a guy dresses, acts, talks, etc. If you check out my MP3 player, I’ve got a bunch of 80s songs on there, but I’ve also got Rihanna and Lady Gaga, not showtunes from the 20s or 30s. Some guys just act “older” and by older I don’t necessarily mean more mature but more of a fuddy-duddy.
Anyways, when a girl says I wouldn’t date a guy over 30 or a guy over 40, there is a very clear image she has in her mind what that guy is like. If she meets a guy that age with a more youthful appearance and youthful vibe, the actual age goes out the door. When I was bouncing (31-32) I was getting interest and flirtatiouis interactions from 21-22 year olds and even some underage 19-20 year olds (sometimes underage girls are allowed in if they are really hot and the fake is good enough that it would pass muster).
I’m not surprised. There is a lot to unpack with the whole “I’d never date a guy over 30 or over 40″ notion.
I also think I would never date is an overused word. I prefer men less than 10 years older than me strongly but I never used the word “never” I prefer men some inches taller than me but I never said I would never date a shorter guy. I preferred men with jet black hair, hubby is a ginger, although of hair color red is my second favorite so that might had been just a tiny preference. I think this statements depend on the woman and how flexible she is I did said that I would never date a man in a relationship and I never did, I made sure to ask and investigate and bolted out in the light of any red flag that there was someone else and for a seasoned “cheater hater” this are easy to spot.
Also if the guy asking or around her is blond she might be just saying that “I would never date a blond guy” to discourage any approach. I did that occasionally: find unchangeable physical trait to make sure the guy has a deterrent, it didn’t worked all the time but it did created a bit of a delay, YMMV.
This is really interesting. It sounds like you take one trait, like “self-confidence” and see a spectrum with alpha and beta at either end.
YES, EXACTLY!
I see two different manifestations, not on a spectrum. For example, in my mind, the beta equivalent of cocky swagger might be quiet confidence. Or high EQ, great conversationalist and listener.
In my view, this is both inaccurate and problematic from the perspective of a guy doing self-assessment and trying to make adjustments. Once you create the either/or dichotomy, now you are forcing the issue of trying to box a guy into either the alpha or beta category. In your system, a “beta” guy cannot have any swagger at all, while an “alpha” guy cannot have any EQ. In my view, this is a self-limiting system for any guy to work from.
With the spectrum way of conceptualizing you can realize that you are most likely off the mark at both extremes, and then it gets to one of the core concepts of calibration. I think this also does a better job of explaining female attraction in that any given woman is going to have a different calibration point that maximizes her attraction. For example, few if any women are going to want a totally submissive doormat but as you ramp up the confidence to the extreme of full-on braggadocio you are going to turn off more and more women.
Really, this works for many traits and makes total sense when measured against real world female response. Another contrast might be complete indifference/aloofness on one extreme versus full on 24/7 every minute of the day emotional attentiveness. You’ve said yourself you’ve had guys writing in to you to you for advice, and it becomes clear they are too attentive, too emotionally invested too soon. In other words, they lean too much to the beta end of the spectrum. On the flipside, the extreme alpha side of the spectrum may leave a girl in a LTR feeling paranoid and insecure in the relationship. The “rules” you sometimes take issue with are really connected to where a guy is going to sit on that spectrum.
I think this goes a long way toward explaining why “10 reasons to date a beta” makes total sense to me, and none to you.
Probably. Because to me isn’t about dating an “alpha” or a “beta” but a guy finding the right part of the spectrum on these various traits.
Now the reality is the vast majority of guys sit too far on the beta end of the spectrum. And I think there is little to no chance of some mass migration of guys to complete alpha assholes.
Just my opinion…but think about how I am conceptualizing this here. I really believe it is the more accurate way to think about it, is more useful, and allows you to bypass the whole stupid question of is this guy alpha or beta.
Susan, the cover of the book on this post has a young woman wearing pants.
I understand that you are not an expert on these things, but how common would that have been for books aimed at girls in 1966? And, how common would it have been for girls in, say, 1956? (Your best guess is fine.)
I understand that she is wearing a glove and holding a ball, so context in this instance might be important, but I am still curious.
Regarding women not knowing what we want…speaking for myself, I could see how my desires would garner that interpretation.
I want love, loyalty, and compatibility with a happy, physically healthy looking man. I’ve never been good at boiling these down to objectively measurable traits. The closest I can get is “physically healthy looking”…straight-ish teeth, not obese, smells nice. So, my desires are kind if immeasurable and hard to interpret, and I have trouble finding them. As I flounder around the SMP, it may appear that I have no clue what I want.
Aftreasons recent education on men and Greek letter rankings, I can say in retrospect I’ve dated betas and omegas.
I can admit with 100% certainty that I have no idea what my own SMV is. I never have. Well, I know I’m probably higher than a 5.
*aftreasons = after recent
Mike C…Alpha and Beta…”Once you create the either/or dichotomy, now you are forcing the issue of trying to box a guy into either the alpha or beta category. In your system, a “beta” guy cannot have any swagger at all, while an “alpha” guy cannot have any EQ.”
There is a model sometimes used in sales training in which people are categorized on two dimensions: assertiveness and responsiveness. These are not two ends of a spectrum, but two separate dimensions, and the idea is that the really good salesperson should be strong on both of them. (Responsiveness is pretty close to EQ.) Prospective customers can also be considered on the grid.
The mix of assertiveness and responsiveness that most appeals to an individual woman is obviously going to vary from person to person, but it’s rarely going to be zero for either dimension.
Maybe the assertiveness/responsiveness terminology could help get beyond oversimplification of Alpha/Beta.
Hope, I am genuinely curious. Do you literally believer you are in fact “hardwired differently” or do you think your preferences are more a result ot your experiences growing up. You seem to me to be very introspective so I am wondering if you literally rewired yourself through careful deliberation on what type of man would make the most loyal partner in the long-term?
Mike C, I believe there are three different strands of influences on my “wiring.”
1) The first is cultural, obviously. There’s an east Asian (Chinese/Japanese/Korean) stereotype about loving nerds and glorifying intelligence. It is a huge status marker since I was a little kid, and so that part was ingrained in me environmentally.
2) The second is parental. My father cheated on my mother and left her, and he also wanted a son while I was a daughter. So my mother always talked about how men were unreliable and cannot be trusted. I did not want to be abandoned when I was older (middle-aged) with a daughter. I looked for men who were the opposite of my father’s type.
3) The third is instinctual. I have heard other women talk about how they get turned off by “displays of weakness” in men. But ever since I was little (kindergarten age) I liked guys who displayed some sort of pain. There was a boy who had stomach aches frequently, and I had a huge crush on him. Likewise the guy in high school whom I never noticed until he broke his foot and walked around on clutches. When guys were emotionally opening up to me, it would make me significantly more attracted to them. This is a part of my wiring that I really had no control over. It manifested before puberty and continued throughout my adulthood. I still have to be very careful to NOT go too deep in conversation with guys and keep my distance, lest I find myself catching feelings for a vulnerable guy in emotional pain.
Does that answer your question?
Likewise the guy in high school whom I never noticed until he broke his foot and walked around on clutches.
That reminds me the only friend that I develop a huge crush in spite of being “just friend” was after he cried on front of me because of a fight he was having with his brother. I felt myself melting it was like “So he is human after all and he needs affection. I have tons of those!” Of course I never said anything since he was totally uninterested but I did discovered that particularly weak spot, interestingly enough hubby’s had a family lost early when we meet and he told me how much he was crying I do wonder if that was what sealed the deal. I also think is because we don’t cry in my family maybe I’m just looking for something missing, do your family or your father cries Hope?
@Desiderius
First, you may have seen my earlier comment that “all congruent, all the time” was meant as a glib tagline, Mad Men style. No one is congruent all the time – I assume this is impossible for mere mortals.
Second, did I say that my husband was a great catch because he didn’t know his SMV? I daresay that would have been true of him right after college, when he was dating the crazy Sturbridge Village candlemaker. But he definitely knew it by age 27, at which point he had come into his own and I had to fight hard to attract and win him. It would have been much, much easier five years earlier.
@Mike C
Great comment, I think the mentality is a big piece of it.
This cracked me up. It’s so true.
@Ramble
Sandy is a serious softball player, and she’s dressed for a game. Her “three loves” are softball, horses, and eventually, Tad. Even the names are so retro!
Even at 10 I was a sucker for these little romances. I ordered that book through my school – we would place an order and a couple of weeks later the teacher would hand them out. I loved that! I recently went on Amazon and bought a used copy of this book, just to have around. It makes me happy to look at it.
@Anacaona
I understand why you did this, but I have to say, it’s really an awful thing to do. I don’t think that girls – women in general – know how devastating it can be to be rejected out of hand for something that’s so immutable and trivial as hair color or any of the various physical characteristics that you might pick out.
The very guys you want to meet are the ones who believe you, who are generally trusting enough to believe your honest. They don’t believe you’re letting them down with a harmless little white lie.
I really advise that no one, of either sex, follow this strategy.
I understand why you did this, but I have to say, it’s really an awful thing to do. I don’t think that girls – women in general – know how devastating it can be to be rejected out of hand for something that’s so immutable and trivial as hair color or any of the various physical characteristics that you might pick out.
Well this might hurt the good ones the ones, the ones I did this went to pick on other women ASAP and got someone else. I’m sure they don’t even remember me or were butt hurt I just saved them time.
J: Hmmm, not sure if DH is beta or alpha, but she’s happy with what she’s got.
At the risk of opening up yet another debate as to what these terms mean, I see my DH as predominantly sigma with both alpha and beta traits. Many would see him as beta because he has a relatively low number, was an LTR guy, as opposed to a ONS guy before we met, and is absolutely faithful to me (just as he was to all his exes). A guy like that may not be an alpha is Roissyland, but, in my book, a guy who who grew up on welfare but ended up a senior executive is pretty damn alpha. Socially, he fits Vox Day’s description of a sigma as the guy who wins by refusing to play the game. Some call sigma a subset of alpha, but one of VD’S commenters linked sigmahood with being an INTJ, which is DH’s MB type. That lead me to do some reading about INTXs in relationships that really helped me to understand our relationship (and our parenting styles) better.
I understand the need to use these terms in order to develop a shared vocabulary, but I’ll say it again–these terms are overly simplistic and reduce men to one dimensional stereotypes. I really refuse to think of my husband in that fashion.
J- sigmadom may be related to MBTI type? Looks like I have some Googling to do…
@Ramble #251
I think you’ve picked the wrong years to compare. Dresses were everyday wear in most of the US until the late 60s when hippie chicks started wearing jeans to college. High schools relaxed their dress codes around 1970. The working girl’s pantsuit came later. In 1966, slacks were still sportwear–hence the ball and glove.
@Ted
Check out VD’s sigma post first, then read some M/B stuff.
Sandy is a serious softball player, and she’s dressed for a game.
I understand that she was appropriately dressed for the occasion, but, I was still curious.
Still, any thoughts on how common that was (i.e. pants on a girl for, say, a book cover)?
I think you’ve picked the wrong years to compare. Dresses were everyday wear in most of the US until the late 60s when hippie chicks started wearing jeans to college.
No, J, that is exactly why I chose 1966. I have a fairly good idea for, say, 1976, but, 1966 is a little harder.
Sandy is a serious softball player, and she’s dressed for a game. Her “three loves” are softball, horses, and eventually, Tad.
Horses, and eventually, Tad!!!! Hurray for horsey girls in love!!
I don’t think that girls – women in general – know how devastating it can be to be rejected out of hand for something that’s so immutable and trivial as hair color or any of the various physical characteristics that you might pick out.
Oh, IDK about that. Woman are acutely aware of how important looks are to men. I’ve often thought I’d have been a lot better off as tall, blue-eyed blonde than a petite, brown-eyed brunette. And I’ve seen plenty of girls rejected for being too fat, too tall, too flat-chested, etc.
I also recall being fairly anxious about my looks until I was in my mid-twenties when I finally accepted that I had grown out my ugly duckling stage–which meant that by manosphere standards I was already past my peak by the time I had realized my power.
@Ramble
FWIW, I think we started seeing women’s trousers as sportswear in movies in the 1940s. The jeans on the cover of Susan’s book indicate, Id gues, that the heroine will find love and thus experience a transistion from tomboy to young women by the end of the book.
“I don’t think that girls – women in general – know how devastating it can be to be rejected out of hand for something that’s so immutable and trivial as hair color or any of the various physical characteristics that you might pick out.
Oh, IDK about that. Woman are acutely aware of how important looks are to men. I’ve often thought I’d have been a lot better off as tall, blue-eyed blonde than a petite, brown-eyed brunette.”
J speaks the truth. I remember one guy who flew me to Chicago to be his date for a work dinner, met all his colleagues, met his family over the weekend.
2 weeks later: I change my hair color, from blonde to dark auburn. *insert ominous noise here* He gets upset and breaks it off because, “I wanted to be dating a blonde!”
Also: I have had several guys — including my ex-fiance– state that it was VERY important for me to stay a certain way (i.e. don’t you dare gain 10 lbs). At the time, I ran 5 miles a day and I remember him saying, You better keep running after we have kids.
Yeah– running in *the opposite direction* from you!
(I remember this because at the time, one of my mentor was put on Prednisone, as part of her medical treatment. For those not familiar, it’s a steroid that makes you gain a ton of weight. She gained like 40 lbs in less than 6 weeks.
I remember her crying– for the first time in front of me, EVER– saying how she was afraid to go to [a social event] because people were going to make fun of her for being fat. That is when I made up my mind to never trash-talk heavier peeps.)
The point of this digression is a remember feeling,–although I couldn’t quite articulate it at the time– OK, I better not get fat, sick, unattractive and if I need Prednisone I might as well throw in the towel.
Luckily I have inner beauty.
Interesting link, j2.
I think it shows how much things have changed in the last 40 years. We used to debate if a woman could work and be a mom. Now, we have two extremely high powered career women, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Hanna Rosin, discussing how to balance jobs that many would have argued women were incapable of. The point they make regarding women being able to work hard but needing a flexible schedule ring true to me.
He gets upset and breaks it off because, “I wanted to be dating a blonde!”
Yikes! What a loon! He did you a favor by breaking it off.
The story about your mentor is tragic. It’s a very hard blow to realize how much the way you look influences the way you’re treated. And it does! A few weeks ago, someone complimented me on my sons’ looks. I replied, “Yeah, thank God!” They were truly surprised because it seemed like a shallow response, especially coming from me. I admitted that it was shallow, but the sad fact is that, fair or not, it’s a real advantage to be nice looking.
@ J:
+ 1
Indeed, women aren’t immune to rejection. And as a black woman I’m acutely aware of how WOC can be dimissed as a dating prospect due to race, skin tone, hair type, or all of the above!
@ Royale W. Cheese:
Ha! I think Alpha/Beta is a false dichotomy since there are men who are Gamma and Omega.
My Ex was a Gamma. Knowing what I know now, there’s no way things could have worked out between us. We just weren’t a good match. I needed a partner with a higher level of dominance and confidence.
I prefer the Captian/First Officer relationship model Athol talks about on his blog, MMSL. (With my Ex it often felt like I was the Captain and it was not a role I wanted or felt comfortable in!)
Current BF is Beta and we’re a much better fit.
And as a black woman I’m acutely aware of how WOC can be dimissed as a dating prospect due to race, skin tone, hair type, or all of the above!
I’ve had this discussion with black and bi-racial women friends. It’s ridiculously hard on people.
Indeed, women aren’t immune to rejection. And as a black woman I’m acutely aware of how WOC can be dimissed as a dating prospect due to race, skin tone, hair type, or all of the above!
Oh yeah. Is very interesting that seems that Joe finds it devastating when most people here agree that if you don’t like something about the other person that cannot be changed that is more fair that not liking a person for something they can change. I got plenty of “Too skinny” “No meat on the bones” when I was growing up in no polite terms and God knows I even though and drinking anabolic’s to force myself to gain weight and be more attractive. I also preemptively described myself as black on my profiles to avoid any suitor that might not like interracial dating.. But I never though it was their fault you like what you like.
J – Yep, I agree! It is what it is, unfortunately.
When it comes to dating, focusing on people who don’t think that way is the best mode of action. I wouldn’t want to date someone who doesn’t accept/like/isn’t attracted to me because of my heritage/looks/hair/complexion/etc. *shrugs*
My philosophy for dealing with things you can’t change –
You can be as mad as a mad dog at the way things went. You could scream. Curse the fates. But in the end you have to let go.
(Yeah, I’m a movie nerd so I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to use that quote
)
Can you believe a guy would care about something like that?!
J, let’s say that situation had been reversed.
Let’s say the mentor had run into someone who had just gained 40lbs (the mentor did not know why). Do you think that she would have been without judgement?
@Ramble
“J, let’s say that situation had been reversed.
Let’s say the mentor had run into someone who had just gained 40lbs (the mentor did not know why). Do you think that she would have been without judgement?”
==========
Hey Ramble,
My mentor is really cool. I think she would have remarked on it with concern. But not meanness or shaming. It would mean something is out of wack– depression, illness or using food as an anaethestic.
Ramble, you will never see me arguing that men should be attracted to certain things. I *know* that attraction is immutable and unchangeable. As the wise Iggles remarked, It is what it is.
Believe me, I know. Lots of times for [my profession], I’ve had calls where they will take pics of the girls hired, with the request you wear a black halter top or whatever. Then after the pics are approved, you get contracted.
You can be ugly enough to stop a clock and still do this profession (which takes a LOT of talent, training and skill). But in the above situation, you could be the best in the world and never get hired. Especially if it was a higher-visibility contract.
I am an optimist who lives in the real world.
@ A Definite Beta Guy
“You may have high MMV, but that’s not what the college SMP necessarily rewards. Remember, guys at your age are, generally speaking, not looking for, not interested in, not even capable of supporting, life partnerships. They are therefore not going to put in a whole lot of effort into securing life long partnerships, which may very well mean your core asset is significantly undervalued.”
I see what you mean now. Seems to be a very accurate observation, I have to keep in mind that 99% of the guys my age are not looking/interested in life partnership. I kinda noticed this myself now I’m at university, but this is a valuable reminder for me to always keep this in mind.
“Girls and boys are absolutely secondary considerations, and if you are a lifelong partnership minded person like myself, and I guess Carmen, there is little point in college dating.”
I take your advice to heart. As I mentioned before, I’ve always mainly been focused on other things beside guys, like my studies and friends. But you’ve made me realize that I should pretty much completely forget about “romantic entanglements” for the moment and focus on things that are more valuable for now. And trying to gradually increase my MMV for the SMP after university. So thanks for that!
Since I think you give great advice so far Beta Guy, I might as well ask you what you’d suggest a girl does during university to increase her MMV for later? I’ve thought about skills like learning how to cook and taking an interest in (international) politics, but maybe you can give me some ideas on this that I can’t think of myself.
@Esau
“But since you brought it up, I think that within HUSpace it’s worth reflecting on the fact that the two women here who seem (IMO) to be the most happy and fulfilled with their partners are the all-out, honest nerd lovers Hope and Anacaona. I wonder what young Carmen might make of this observation?”
I can see why nerds would make great partners. They tend to be introspective, introverted (so you won’t quickly see them flirting with other women), intellectual, long-term minded etc., qualities that would make nerds good husbands. However, I can’t help but wonder how exactly Hope and Anacaona qualify their partners as nerds? Is this by their hobbies and interests or by abstract qualities such as personality, status, social skills, and physical appearance (or both)?
The reason I’m asking this is because I’m not a “nerd lover” myself, but I would like to be as happy and fulfilled with my partner as Hope and Anacaona are. I know Hope has described herself as being a bit of a nerd, and I know I am not a nerd myself, which is perhaps why I’m not a nerd lover – rather I’m looking for someone similar to me (I think).
I’m trying to figure out the qualities that make Hope’s and Anacaona’s partners so great, qualities that are found in nerds but can also be found in “non-nerdy” guys (so guys I’d be attracted to) too. Perhaps (part of) the answer can be found in Susan’s article “10 Reasons to Date a Beta Male”?
@Emily
“Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand just for fun!”
LOL! How true haha. Zooey Deschanel is extraordinarily beautiful though – she can get away with a lot!
However, I can’t help but wonder how exactly Hope and Anacaona qualify their partners as nerds?
This is one of the mysteries that had puzzle philosophers and scientists through millenniums…not really.
Mostly is a hobby and personality thing, IMO. Hubby likes anime, warhammer, board games and sci-fi . He also never had casual sex, is introverted, smart, caring, loving, sweet, hates flirting and dating, didn’t had a lot of girlfriends and his self worth doesn’t come from how many women he bedded or not, I don’t think he is the type of man that will make every woman in the room swoon, but I don’t think he misses or desires this level of attention from the opposite sex either, he is very critical of dumb women, gold diggers and women that have sex with men of low character or smarts, he loves to wear funny T-shirts and has a lot of preferences for obscure new things, Hey….that maybe why he liked me :p.
Here is the definition of Nerd per wiki:
“Nerd is a derogatory stereotype of a person typically described as socially-impaired, obsessive, or overly intellectual. They may spend inordinate amounts of time on unpopular or obscure activities, pursuits, or interests, which are generally either highly technical, or relating to topics of fiction or fantasy, to the exclusion of more mainstream activities.[1][2][3] Other nerdy qualities include physical awkwardness, introversion, quirkiness, and unattractiveness.[4] Thus, a nerd is often excluded from physical activity and is a social outsider. In the stereotypical high-school situation, they may be either considered loners by others, or associate with a small group of like-minded people. As with other pejoratives, nerd has been reappropriated by some as a term of pride and group identity.”
And if you want to know you level of Nerdiness here is a fun quiz (short version promise last one I took was really long) http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php
OK, I can understand that.
@J and Ramble
I remember wearing maroon corduroy bell bottoms in 1968 and they were the height of fashion. Before then I think I mostly wore dresses to school. But definitely shorts in the summer. The book, btw, was written in 1955.
@Anacaona
I scored somewhat nerdy. (nerdier than 57% of the test takers)
Although I answered nearly everything periodic table question, the test didn’t give me a chance to flex my encyclopedic Star Wars knowledge.
@Cooper
Not a bad score
I’m a supreme nerd and on the longest version cool nerd queen. My strengths are history and physics they mixed up physics and Math with chemistry so I didn’t got more points since I sucked at chemistry for some reason. Good to know you have a vast SW knowledge I’m more of Trekker than a Jedi and more of a Superman girl but the rest is Marvel comics. The test needs work for sure. I think I lost points also because I’m married like…seriously?! :p
I just took the nerdy test as well. I scored as a high nerd (nerdier than 83% of test takers).
Hmmm.
@Jackie
“The point of this digression is a remember feeling,–although I couldn’t quite articulate it at the time– OK, I better not get fat, sick, unattractive and if I need Prednisone I might as well throw in the towel.
Luckily I have inner beauty. ”
You sure do! Jackie, I had a terrible colitis flare-up in my early-20s. I was prescribed prednisone and went from weighing 120 to 140 in two months. The skin on my face was stretched tight. I had acne and the hair on my arms grew dark.
What I couldn’t understand is that my bf found me just as sexually desirable. We perhaps even had more sex because I was so moved that he didn’t mind. I would not have been insulted at all if he had wanted to take a break because I looked like a watermelon head. Love makes us blind if it’s a real connection.
“I’m more of Trekker than a Jedi and more of a Superman girl but the rest is Marvel comics.”
Blasphemy! -2!
I kid.
I just took the nerdy test as well. I scored as a high nerd (nerdier than 83% of test takers).
Hmmm.
Don’t be surprised. You are just a nerd trapped in a beautiful body.
For clarifications you can take the longest version it has more questions.
I was clearly out of line when I chastised Beta Guy a day or two ago for being mean to Carmen. They’ve hit it off! Apologies all around.
Jackie, my mother-in-law is on prednisone. It is a really harsh medication. :/ She struggles with it a lot, but she has incredible self-control and self-discipline, so she has actually lost a TON of weight after starting it. It is because the drug puts her body in a diabetic state, so she eats literally no carbohydrates or anything that could spike her blood sugar. She is on strictly protein, dairy and vegetables. Perhaps this can work for your mentor as well?
Carmen, my husband and I met in World of Warcraft, so yeah it doesn’t get much nerdier than that. But I don’t think every nerd is cut out for marriage.
I think the non-nerdy/hobby qualities that make my husband so great are the same ones that Susan often mention in her “why choose a beta” posts. He has high self-control, and conscientiousness. He is als positive, family-oriented, compassionate, loving, capable, and never flips out or gets overly crazy. A good marriage is about two people who are both responsible adults, emotionally mature and have their lives together. That’s incredibly important.
Also one of my favorites is Nerd, Geek or Dork from OKcupid. Is really good and finally makes a difference between the three terms. I hate when people mix them up!
Is 40 questions but is really fun, here is the link http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-nerd-geek-or-dork-test
I got a 34 on the nerd test. I’m surprised it was that high.
Ack! Too many negatives.
Sorry, Anacoana. I’m having a hard time parsing this. What?
But in any event, it seems like most missed my point completely. I absolutely agree that men make snap decisions about women regarding characteristics that no one can change. I also agree it’s uncool and bad.
But one of the Js almost stumbled on my point:
…and neither are men. It appears that women here think (as Shakespeare put it) men don’t bleed, so they can cut them at will (and that’s what I reacted to originally, Anacoana). Sorry. We’re human too, even when we’re not allowed to show it.
I’m hoping I mis-read (and mis-read *a lot* of posts). But that seems to be the message.
…and neither are men. It appears that women here think (as Shakespeare put it) men don’t bleed, so they can cut them at will (and that’s what I reacted to originally, Anacoana). Sorry. We’re human too, even when we’re not allowed to show it.
I will say that this is not a direct rejection I never told anyone to their face “you have the wrong hair color” I mostly made an statement as part of a conversation sometimes with a third party as soon as I could, to save some face for the sake of both. This is the opposite of nuclear rejection what I meant in my paragraph is that men here had said again and again that prefer to know if they have a chance sooner than later and not being led on or used for free dinners, validation or emotional tampons. But then to be fair tell us in your personal take what is the proper way of a woman that doesn’t find a man attractive to let him know?
@Mike C
OK, I’ve been giving this a lot of thought. I think you make a good point here. The problem, as I see it, is that cocky swagger absolutely precludes the possibility of meaningful conversation. Cocky swagger is a screen of sorts that hides all emotion, much less vulnerability. It’s designed to convey an attitude of “I don’t care about others. Everyone should pay homage to me.” Lots of great alpha leaders have not been like that at all.
On the other hand, a timid guy in the corner who tells a stranger he knows he would never have a shot with her is so emotionally vulnerable and needy that women (and other men) will recoil in his presence. So the perfect blend of alpha and beta traits might include a warm, self-assured greeting, followed by conversation designed to amuse or entertain the person, but also to get to know them. Not “I own the room, bitch” but “You interest me, and I believe I can interest you.” That guy, the one I described as my idea of a highly attractive man of high value, is most likely to be high beta. He is a mix of alpha and beta traits, and he is the man I described in the 10 Reasons post. He is definitely not the alpha buck with all the swagger – no way. And I think he will be preferred by 75% of women.
The very real problem is that as far as I can tell, most Game blogs, certainly the non-LTR oriented ones, promote the cocky swagger. In fact, the bloggers themselves have cocky swagger. It’s like a caricature, an online Brutus (from Popeye). Heartiste epitomizes this. I haven’t read Bang, but from what I hear Roosh’s style is more down to earth – there’s an element of false nice guy in there. (LADIES BEWARE!)
I can see the spectrum – perhaps we just identify the ideal in very different ways.
« 1 2 3 »