An interesting debate on the concept of “lying by omission” has sprung up in the most recent comment thread. Specifically, we’ve been discussing the strategic vs. moral implications of having sex with multiple people, while evaluating which of those people, if any, you’d like to be exclusive with. What are you morally obligated to disclose about your sexual motives and activities to your various partners?
Obviously, if all parties are fully aware that the sex is no-strings and concurrent with other sexual relationships, it’s “No harm, No foul.” Everyone is making an informed decision. However, from there it’s only a hop, skip and a jump to “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” This may also be agreed upon, as in an open relationship: “I don’t care if you have affairs, but I don’t want to know anything about them.”
In today’s SMP “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has become the go-to strategy of opportunists trying to squeeze out personal gain at the expense of someone else while taking cover under a plea of ignorance. It may take the form of a woman leading a guy on to get the benefits of commitment without allowing the relationship to become sexual. Or a guy may lead a woman on to get sex without ever intending to offer commitment.
Generally, intentional misleading is referred to as lying by omission. While some commenters have stated that they believe the phrase is an oxymoron, it has been widely explored as a potential form of dishonesty by philosophers, ethicists and mental health counselors.
From Wikipedia:
Lying by omission
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.
As I began to research lying, I was surprised to find that the topic of dishonesty has been a hotly debated topic for hundreds of years. From an article about the ground rules of lying in Time Magazine:
When is it permissible to tell a lie? Never, according to Augustine and Kant. Machiavelli approved lying for princes, Nietzsche for the exceptional hero—the Superman.
Tim Mazur is an ethicist and the COO of the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association. His article on lying for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University has been frequently cited. He outlines the three philosophies that deal with the problem of lying:
I. Morality
The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that lying was always morally wrong. He argued that all persons are born with an “intrinsic worth” that he called human dignity.
…Lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that gives me moral worth. My lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally. When my lie leads people to decide other than they would had they known the truth, I have harmed their human dignity and autonomy.
In Kant’s view, which is also shared by Augustine, lying is wrong no matter what. For example, it is wrong to lie about your sister’s whereabouts in order to protect her from her abusive husband in this strict view.
II. Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics also maintains that lying is morally wrong, though less strictly than Kant…Though the nature of virtue ethics makes it difficult to assess the morality of individual acts, those who advocate this theory generally consider lying wrong because it opposes the virtue of honesty. There is some debate whether a lie told in pursuit of another virtue is right or wrong.
III. Utilitarian Ethics
According to utilitarian ethics, Kant and virtue ethicists ignore the only test necessary for judging the morality of a lie – balancing the benefits and harms of its consequences. Utilitarians base their reasoning on the claim that actions, including lying, are morally acceptable when the resulting consequences maximize benefit or minimize harm.
Unsurprisingly, utilitarian ethics comes under intense criticism for its rejection of morality in favor of a flexibility to be defined by the liar. According to Mazur, “People often poorly estimate the consequences of their actions or specifically undervalue or ignore the harmful consequences to society (e.g., mistrust) that their lies cause…The problem is that too few persons adequately consider any ethical perspective when facing a situation that tempts a lie.”
Why We Lie So Much, and Lies, Lies, Lies, articles in Time Magazine, describe a sharp rise in the frequency of lying in contemporary society.
Lies flourish in social uncertainty, when people no longer understand, or agree on, the rules governing their behavior toward one another.
…We are living in a time and culture in which it’s easier to lie than it has been in the past. The message that pervades society is that it’s O.K. to lie — you can get away with it. One of the things I found in my research is that when you confront people with their lies, they very rarely display remorse. Lying is not seen as being morally reprehensible in any strong way.
You can make the assumption that because it often makes social interactions go more smoothly, lying is O.K. But there is a cost to even seemingly benign lies…Lies put a smudge on an interaction, and if it’s easy to lie to people in minor ways, it becomes easier to lie in bigger ways.
UCLA Political Science Professor Barry O’Neill has written A Formal System For Understanding Lies and Deceit. In it he describes a kind of lying via manipulation:
Manipulation is inducing someone to do something while withholding information relevant to their decision, information that they would want to know. Another is to say that manipulation occurs when one persuades another using knowledge of their particular psychology, rather than rational means. Both of these touch on the idea of the idea that the manipulator is using broader knowledge than the victim.
One example is “when the person does nothing active to induce a false belief, but deliberately hides their own actions that would correct it.” Another is “evasive talk, often to avoid blame. It is a lie but does not include anything literally false.”
The All-Important Question of Intent
In yet another Time article about the lying that goes on in political campaigns, writer Paul Gray acknowledges he difficulty of judging the morality of lies, but sees a solution:
Fortunately, there is a way out of this logical blind alley. All lies, regardless of their relationship to the truth, have one thing in common.
“We must single out,” writes Sissela Bok in Lying, “from the countless ways in which we blunder misinformed through life, that which is done with the intention to mislead.” Lies may confuse everyone who hears them, as they are meant to, but liars know exactly what they are doing while they are doing it.
In Telling Lies, Paul Ekman, a professor of psychology at the University of California medical school in San Francisco, provides a slightly more elaborate definition: “One person intends to mislead another, doing so deliberately, without prior notification of this purpose, and without having been explicitly asked to do so by the target. There are two primary ways to lie: to conceal and to falsify.”
Clearly, lying by commission is to falsify with deliberation, and lying by omission is to conceal with deliberation. Why is it so easy to conceal the truth from people? According to Eben Harrell at Time:
We are not very good at detecting deception in other people. When we are trying to detect honesty, we look at the wrong kinds of nonverbal behaviors, and we misinterpret them. The problem is that there is no direct correlation between someone’s nonverbal behavior and their honesty.
What’s more, a lot of the time, we don’t want to detect lies in other people. We are unwilling to put forward the cognitive effort to suspect the veracity of statements, and we aren’t motivated to question people when they tell us things we want to hear.
This last statement is crucial in our understanding of the impact of lying by omission. Each one of us is responsible for putting forth the required cognitive effort to make good decisions, and when we enter a state of denial we willingly avoid the truth. When we fail to do these things we commit an error of judgment, but not one of morality.
This does not in any way dilute or supersede examination of the morality of the person who does conceal. When it comes to ethical issues, intent is king.
Alex Lickerman, MD is a Buddhist physican who reflects on issues of morality. He suggests that all deceit is designed to offer protection for:
- Ourselves: avoid suffering painful consequences,shame, embarrassment, or conflict.
- Our interests: to get what we want.
- Our image: to look better to others.
- Our resources: to avoid doing what we don’t want to do.
- Others: spare others’ feelings.
What are the implications for relationships?
1. If you have information that you believe might change another person’s choice about whether to enter a sexual or dating relationship with you, you are morally obligated to reveal, rather than conceal it.
2. It is invalid to excuse lying by omission by deploying utilitarian ethics or moral equivalency. Examples might include:
- “Lots of men lie to women and lead them on, so I should be able to do the same thing to them.”
- “Feminism screwed up the SMP so badly that lying by omission is necessary to level the playing field. This will benefit society.”
- “Creating a mentality of abundance requires concealment, because honesty would reduce my options.”
- “High heels, push-up bras and makeup are all forms of lying. This deception is no different.”
- “It’s for his own benefit, I think he’d really rather not know.”
3. Our culture rewards liars. Seek a partner who subscribes to a value system of honesty as a virtue. Reject any involvement with a person who relies on utilitarian principles for moral guidance.
4. Finally, the National Survey of Family Growth found that 6.6% of American men have concurrent sexual relationships, though researchers believe the number is closer to 10%. This is a significant risk factor for STD transmission, especially for women. From WebMD:
Concurrent sexual relationships were particularly common among these groups:
- Unmarried men
- Men who had been in prison
- Men who reported being intoxicated while having sex
- Men who have had sex with men
- Men with female sex partners who had concurrent sexual relationships of their own
5. Habitual lying is a sociopathic behavior. It goes hand in hand with low empathy and is common among narcissists.
{ 1607 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 11 »
It does NOT matter if you “conceal” in today’s dating world.
The ONLY one you need be open with is your spouse.
Since marriage is no longer desirable to males and RAMPANT dating – like bunnies – IS the way to go, all honesty (in the matters you discuss) is forever dead.
Then we’re all going to hell, even if it’s on earth.
Harry G. Frankfurt argues in his essay On Bullshit that at least a liar has some regard for the truth, if only to conceal it. The bullshit artist doesn’t care about the truth.
Too much of our public discourse these days is bullshit.
As an INTJ I like being open and straightforward from the get go. Ideally the topic I’d want to discuss on a first date is what our future plans are re. career, marriage, kids, etc. I don’t see the point in continuing to date if our plans are going to be incompatible. Unfortunately, most people would be shocked by such forthrightness and I’d never get a second date. The same applies to other important social situations such as job applications, giving people advice, etc.
I’ve found that most people might denounce lying by omission, but if you actually tell them everything, they’ll get annoyed. This is why I’ve realized that the only things that I should disclose are those things for which I have been asked directly (and even then honesty isn’t the best move, as when asked “do I look fat in this dress?”), and those things that are expected to be disclosed because most people disclose them.
In the case of talking about “spinning plates”, most men don’t disclose it and most women don’t ask about it. So if (and that’s a big if) I choose to juggle multiple girls at a time, I’m not going to disclose it.
This is very “doom and gloom”…
I myself, being the eternal optimist, will have to roundly disagree :-p
I do agree that one needs to be open with their spouse. But one needs to be open with their boyfriend/girlfriend, parents, family, friends, co-workers.. You get me? I don’t see a reason to actively lie unless it’s to save a life (for example, helping out a friends in an abusive situation), or is a white lie to save embarrassment.
There is no good reason to tell lies that cause damage, inflict emotional pain, and/or aimed to manipulate for personal gain. A good example of all three — lying to a man about the paternity of your baby so he won’t leave you! Now you could say what’s good for goose is good for the gander, but I think few men on HUS would take up that argument in support of this particular lie…
Iggles, wow, busting out the big guns so fast!
Some people seem to think if it’s “strategic” then it should be used. As in, “lying will benefit me in some way so why not?” They don’t appreciate being lied to, but they will lie if it is good for themselves. That kind of thing makes me feel sick. When I used to hear a guy talk that way, he got written off immediately.
To be sure, I dislike selfishness and lying for strategic reasons. I’m just tired of losing out for being the good guy while everyone else acts strategic and gets away with it.
Also, lying for unselfish reasons is different in intention than lying for selfish reasons. There is a huge difference between action because you care about another vs. action because you want to benefit at another’s loss. The slippery slope is doing something “for your good” but that “good” is in fact more beneficial to the liar.
In the example thrown out on another thread about Nazis coming to your door, and you lying to save a person’s life, you are literally risking your own life to save another’s, which means the benefit to you is minimal, but the benefit to the other person is huge. That is the very definition of unselfish and noble intentions.
Intentions matter.
@ Hope:
Lol!
I just think the attitude of “ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies” is a cop-out! If you’re lying about something by omission then you know it would impact how the other party in a negative way!
You’re right that people don’t appreciate it when that twisted logic is applied to them. It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest — “it’s fine for me but not for thee!”
What happened to fostering integrity?
INTJ, I feel ya, but that’s kind of the “game of life.” We choose our characters and course of action. Some people choose to be “good.” Some people choose differently.
I play online video games. In all these games there are people who scam, hack and make the experience miserable for other people, and “profit” off of their actions. We constantly hear stories of people losing their game stuff because of others who lie and take advantage of them. Could we do it, too? Yeah, we could. But that’s not something we would ever do. We don’t want to ruin someone’s day like that, even if it’s just over pixels on a screen in a game. The way we enjoy the game is playing to help others, or at least our friends, without harming any person.
If it was actually impossible to scam or cheat, then everybody would “seem” good. But it’s just the rules holding them back. In life, we are endowed with the freedom of choice. It is by choosing to be ethical when there are unethical alternatives available to us that we show our true colors. The reason why my husband was so attractive to me from the beginning is because of the less selfish choices he made, in spite of different, much more selfish ones he could have made. Not a lot of people appreciate this, but I do. I guess that makes both of us weirdos.
Given the adversarial nature of the SMP it is no surprise that lying is on the rise. But what is interesting and sad to me is that the lying by omission portion is not just dominating but is also being applied across opposing purposes, such that we are faced with potentially unearthing these truths in an environment where we can no longer rely on our general sense of where the underlying motivations are anchored.
E.g. men may leave out the fact that they are not dating/having sex with other women in order to gain access to certain women, the ethical/moral debate on this lives on, but men may also leave out the fact that they are NOT dating/having sex with anyone else because they are told that their SMV is boosted if they project an image of having options and thus gain access to certain women. And in many circles, allowing this image to supplant the truth in her head is viewed as a positive, savvy way to bolster ones self in her eyes – at least initially.
Neither are truthful, though one may argue that there is no real ‘damage’ to the women in the second scenario, there is still the sense that these omissions are necessary to get what you want out of the current SMP. And it is that mentality, when playing out in an increasingly grey field, that can quickly devolve into all kinds of counterproductive behaviors from superficial communication to full on manipulation. Especially when it ‘works’ – or at least seems to work.
The habituation of the omission has made things like the don’t ask don’t tell approach the norm, but has also further ingrained the sense of self above all else, a kind of ‘caveat emptor’ mentality that is just one more diffusor of personal responsibility in the name of personal gain.
And once the omissions are constructed into the foundation of a fledgling relationship, the truth can be somewhere between difficult and catastrophic. The truth has a way of coming out. Of course many truths just get encapsulated in the foundation and never surface, but others can end up cratering the whole thing down the road.
@Dinkey
“Too much of our public discourse these days is bullshit.”
Reminds me of ‘Network’ when the anchor loses his shit. His rant is all about “too much bullshit”. Classic.
Yup. Lying is bad.
I agree with everything INTJ said – minus the (big if, about) not disclosing spinning plates.
On a sidenote: anyone ever play “never have I ever” – god do I hate that game. Although I can practically ALWAYS win depending on how much information I feel comfortable divulging.
What happened to fostering integrity?
Is that an exotic dish? :p
Reminds me of ‘Network’ when the anchor loses his shit. His rant is all about “too much bullshit”. Classic.
Hubby loves that speech there is a band that has it on one of their songs and he always recites it out loud when he hears the song, so cute.
I remember that one of the red flags on Falling in love for all the right reasons is lying. He does addressees that it seems that nowadays its too strict to put lying into red flags since “everybody is doing it” but he says that is still a sign of poor character and problems to come, so is something to think about it definitely.
@Iggles
“What happened to fostering integrity?”
Integrity got replaced by Achievement a while back. Just like ‘building character’ as my old man used to say when I was a kid, got replaced by ‘projecting your image’. Integrity and character are not publicly traded, they have no cash value. Achievement and Image, however, are traded in many exchanges, including the SMP.
I ‘m not really that cynical. But I am growing weary of waiting for the return of the horse-and-buggy carrying a full load of integrity.
Where I think this article goes wrong is it assumes there is a “lie.” I think we can all agree that exclusivity is not presumed in a relationship unless it is discussed and agreed upon. If this it the basis of the SMP right now, what is the lie?
Is it a lie if a woman says, yes I know we are not exclusive until we talk and agree about it, but you were actually acting that way and I wish I knew it? This isn’t a complaint about a lie. This is a complaint about a woman wanting to have more information. Characterizing it as a “lie” from the male side already frames the debate wrong and assumes an answer to the question it asks.
If a woman asks, and the guy lies, you got a lie. If the woman doesn’t ask, knows full well she is not exclusive, but gets mad finding out “reality”, all you have is a jealous woman. Calling it a lie dips deeper into a universe of entitlement based on a false reality.
Hope, I’m a gamer myself and I get your whole drift on the not-ruining-the-game aspect, but I disagree. There’s a lot of folks who just like to rage-quit or cause maximum havoc on their way out because they are pissed at the way the game went and think it was unfair, and this includes people who were, up to a certain people, extremely reasonable and productive.
There also comes a point where, if the game isn’t fun anymore, you can just stop playing the game and do something else. I’ve done it numerous times, I’m sure you have, too. SomethingAwful-types just annoy the shit out of me in MMORPGs.
In the real world, the effects of “not playing the game” are EXTREMELY dramatic. It means going without companionship and respect for years, it means getting an inferior job, it means having a higher interest rate on your mortgage than you should, etc.
I am a big believer in honesty, too, but there eventually comes a point of “fuck it.” I don’t think our world is THAT bad, yet, but I am not limiting myself to being the martyr for a world that does not deserve it and for some impossible cause.
I’m not Holden Caulfield, after all.
A Definite Beta Guy, as with all analogies, there are flaws with this one. But there are other “games” one can play in the real world. My husband was playing a video game instead of playing the dating game. I think this is happening more and more. People are dropping out because they don’t want to play in the cesspool of lies and debauchery that is the modern dating game.
I don’t think that mortgage rates are affected by marital status. As far as I know it’s by credit score, debt-to-income ratio and overall financial background. A person who’s single can often advance farther in a career than someone with a family, due to being able to put in more hours. The stereotype of the single career woman comes to mind. There are enough benefits to playing the corporate ladder game or the non-romance achievements game that more and more people are staying single for longer.
I’ve never “rage-quit” a video game, but I’ve definitely quit playing when I stopped having fun, or when I feel like the cheaters have way too much of an advantage. There are people who create “cheat-free” servers and try to keep out the bad elements, like some people try to do in real life by only dating within certain social circles that they know to have decent folks. That’s probably the best we can do right now, because as society gets larger, more urban and more anonymized, more people feel like they can take advantage.
Personally, I’d rather mingle with the few good people than try to compete with the nasty ones. They’d drag me down to their level and beat me with experience.
I’ll stick with my concept.
A lie of omission is still a lie, providing a question was asked.
A. Did you start the fire?
- No i didn’t start the fire (someone lit the candle producing the fire, i just knocked it over into the waste basket)
A. Are you sleeping with any single girls you’re dating while we’re dating?
- No of course not. (they’re all in relationships or married)
The central point is a question must be raised first for an omission to occur. Sort of like the tree falling in the forest. It most likely makes a sound, but unless you’re there, you won’t hear it yourself.
That’s how i roll.
This is very understandable, and explains why so many beta guys go dark. It saddens me, but I do understand it.
@M3
I get where the question component can be a differentiator, but there is still the challenge of intent and deceit.
Your examples are hair splitting. They are merely concealing the truth behind semantics; the intent to deceive is there all right, but it is there whether or not the question was asked of you. You know that starting fire will raise questions, the cause – responsibility will be sought out. The person(s) not asking you does not exempt you from disclosing the truth – or more importantly: the responsibility. Do you condition taking responsibility based on whether or not an outside party questions you?
Omission does not require the question, it can happen via questioning, but that is not a condition of the intent to deceive via omission. I’d argue that, at least in those examples, utilizing the literal within the phrasing of the question is also indicative of manipulative tendencies.
What about this: that girl you are dating decides to omit the fact that 5 years ago she spent a summer in Sweden. During that time she underwent gender reassignment from a man to a woman. Turns out she is a hot woman. It never occurred to you to ask her if she ever had a penis. She has always believed herself to be a woman trapped in a man’s body, so she feels that it doesn’t matter because now she is who she is supposed to be. You have no right to feel deceived, right? You weren’t there to see her penis get removed. You never asked the exact question, right? Lets say you did ask “where you ever a man?” She answers, “no”. Because in her mind, she was not a man, but a woman trapped in a man’s body. She defines the literal aspects of the question and answers accordingly. So where does the literal, the slippery slope of the burden of truth via questioning end?
There is the prudence of the other party to employ a reasonable measure of questioning and then there is withholding information you know – or even suspect – to be relevant behind an unreasonable burden of unasked questions. The former is their responsibility, the latter is yours. I understand that disclosure is not always strategically advantageous in the SMP, but I do think most of us know when something matters to the other person or not.
The semantics portion of the above is just plain troubling.
@Hope
When my daughter was 10, she read Anne Frank’s Diary and became obsessed with it, in part because her BFF (since age 2) is Jewish. She asked me one day if we could hide the family if it was ever necessary, and I said yes. She was not satisfied until we could establish just how to create a secret apartment and discuss all the contingencies.
Lest I sound sanctimonious, I realized during that time that I don’t know what I would do – would I risk my child’s life to save someone else’s child? I never could reach a conclusion with any confidence. It gave me such respect for the people who stepped up and hid Jews during WWII. I think one never knows how one will respond in a crisis – it’s like adrenalin rushes in, and your “real self” takes over – all impulse.
@Tasmin
That analogy fails. It is not widely agreed in the SMP that women can be biological women or transgendered. The opposite is assumed, you assume a girl you date is a female by biology. Thus, if you are transgendered, you know the other person assumes something false about you, and you should disclose.
With dating someone, you do NOT assume exclusivity. So why does one have to disclose what is ALREADY KNOWN? In other words, how is it deceit to fail to divulge what the other party already knows.
The answer is it’s not. There is no duty or obligation to give confessionals about who you are dating, why, etc before you are exclusive with a girl. Sorry, but the notion girls are entitled to pre-dating disclosures is borderline absurd.
@Tasmin
Yes. I feel like even people not inclined to this stance are going to assume it by default. “Everyone else is looking out for #1, I’m going to be left with nothing if I don’t do the same.”
I’ve been getting a lot of emails about the emotional escalation post – women trying it and reporting (fingers crossed!) very positive results. It really does feel like someone has to blink first. I think the guys are sick to death of all the posturing – so when a girl steps up and emotionally escalates, they’re thrilled. Of course, as always, this depends on selecting the right guys. Players couldn’t care less if a woman is emotionally invested or not.
This is my biggest fear. The corrosive effect on relationships. The foundation has to be solid, rock solid. Any weak spot will grow like a malignancy, breaking hearts, damaging psyches.
A young woman recently was describing her fledgling relationship to me. She said, “He’s laying down the tracks for something real.” That’s what it takes. Rail by rail.
@INTJ
“I’m just tired of losing out for being the good guy while everyone else acts strategic and gets away with it.”
Yep. But the thing is, we can be ‘right’ or we can ‘win’ or we can be happy. It is hard to focus on all three at the same time. And the thing is, real happiness is not a result of the other two.
I’m wired to take the high road by default. Hell, its not that bad, the other day I saw a bighorn sheep. But after spending a lot of time trying to be right, I said ‘fuck it’ and stopped trying to be so ‘right’ and just focused on how to win. And you know what, I did. I still operated in the ‘do good/do right’ mindset – and yes, that held me back and it pissed me off to see it playing out like that, but I had to let go of those things in order to win, which in many ways was good for me.
The problem was that I was not happy because I was playing a game and not living my life on my terms. That was basically how I hacked my way into a brutal, competitive, alpha-oriented career. As for women, dating, and that happiness and satisfaction – I see it as a very similar situation. And so I have to make decisions about what is more important to me: being the best man I can be or the man I think I need to be in order to win the game or the man who is always right (and often alone).
We can’t just ‘be like everyone else’ and expect things to go our way. And our concept of ‘everyone else’ is often just as overblown as all of the other nonsense that gets tossed around here. To you, I was probably one of those ‘everyone else’ guys from afar. I assure you, I was not.
And being strategic is not a bad thing. We just have to find ways to marry our strengths with the appropriate strategies in order to increase our ability to generate our own happiness. That game is worth playing.
Yeah it is a struggle for me to stay the course because if I were to measure my ‘success’ in terms of attracting and/or shagging and/or dating highly attractive women, I’m losing out every single day to all of those real and imagined strategists, players, dbags, TD&H fellows, and that irish guy down the street who rides some kind of james dean motorcycle.
So we can either be one of those other guys we imagine or figure out how to generate happiness and play to our strengths. I can assure you that women have no interest in investing in men who may be good, but who are pissed, jealous, frustrated, disenfranchised, bitter, resentful, and/or sullen. So we either stay put and get pissed or pick a path and move on.
You want to give ‘their way’ a try? do it and see how you feel. Seriously, I’ve literally had “Manwhore Experiment” up on my board for two years. Haven’t done it, but there is still some reason that I have not erased it either…
the notion that anyone has an “ethical” duty of disclosure towards anyone with whom they have no formalized relationship (marriage, fiduciary) is patently ludicrous on it’s face. That why those formalized relationships came into BEING , to create such rights and duties among disparate, unrelated people. Just having sex with someone, even LIVING with them creates no such duty out of thin air absent a formal agreement to the contrary. does a friend have a duty to disclose they are going to lunch with other friends? does a roommate have a duty to disclose they had other roommates in the past? most people would say no.
The key for me about seeing other women at the same time is if she understands or don`t understand that you are also seeing other women. She can know this because she asks and you tell, she can know it because you tell without her asking, and she can also know by you INDIRECTLY communicating it quite clearly OR by just understanding what type of guy you are. It has been my experience and the experience of my friends that get with a lot of women and an extremely consistent finding on PUA boards that when you come across as having a certain level of game women presume with certainty that you are also seeing other women. My observation of female friends and talks with female friends also bear this out. When the question of being formally together eventually comes up explicitly the women always presume that you are still seeing other women up to that point and are never surprised, shocked or angry upon at that time getting it confirmed explicitly. So as long as you come of like that type of guy women know and I have zero problem not stating it explicitly.
An example of this dynamic is when guys who are new to game get a girls phone number in a club and she then sees him get another girls number and she gets mad at him for that but when his game gets better women never do that anymore. I have seen that development unfold a bunch of times on different boards.
The reason I do not want to state it explicitly has a lot to do with the fact that game has taught me that with women it is almost always beneficial to communicate things indirectly and a lot of things they are perfectly fine with knowing with certainty if not said can be more problematic if said outright.
I am not sure exactly why it works this way in this type of case but it might have to do with you saying it feeling humiliating for her and maybe being something that she feels needs to be fought about whenever it is actually said outright. Until then she is fine fighting for you by dating and chasing you alone but if you say it then she sees that as a possibility to push for much more commitment much earlier than she otherwise would have. One thing I have repeatedly been told on PUA boards is that if you come across as a man with a lot of game and one who has a soft harem then women will ask for exclusivity at almost exactly the three month mark. There is probably some sort of chemical thing underlying that since it is so extremely consistent. The explanation I have been given is that this is the point where she absolutely HAS to know where things are going and if you are going to become an item or not. Now if you say something explicitly about seeing other women before that mark it might very well lead her to either push for the full relationship talk or to push for semi exclusivity where you are not officially together but are not seeing other people. As her agenda is to get your commitment she will push for it whenever it is opportune and this sort of statement/talk easily becomes such an opportunity. But if you don`t say it outright but just imply it there won`t be any talk and she won`t try to push you for explicit commitment.
As a guy I want to hold of on commitment for a long time because I need time to evaluate properly wether I want to be exclusive with this girl and give up the benefits of my freedom and also, and this is very important to me, to maximize her attraction and keep the initial amphetamine love last as long as possible until it transitions to pair bonding love. The point is that the longer and harder you make her chase the stronger she will feel towards you even after you have become exclusive. A study found that frat members are more happy with their time in the frat even years after they finish college the harder the hazing was. This is the same thing. In addition to building attraction as high as possible I want it to last in amphetamine land as long as possible. People I know in real life often loose a lot of the amphetamine love even after 6 months to a year or a year and a half. I think that is because they become exclusive fast and then see each other all the time and without really thinking about it or understanding it do everything they can to create boredom and betaization. One thing I have found reading PUA boards is that they are extremely good at keeping the initial amphetamine crush going for the full three years it has the potential to operate strongly (in some couples it can, as found doing brainscans, last for life but I highly doubt it does so at the same intensity as the first three years). I want to achieve that both for my own sake and for the woman I am with. A big part of that is the long chase. So even if I might be perfectly sure I want to make a girl my girlfriend after two months I am going to wait until SHE ask if we are together, I will not do it myself. Doing it myself looses me points and having it earlier looses me points. So a big part of avoiding the explicit “you know I am seeing other people talk” is avoiding triggering her “here is an opportunity to push for more commitment earlier than I thought trigger” and getting drama and risking having a shorter chase and hence shorter overall emotions on her part.
As for FWB/FB I had to learn the hard way that what matters is not what you say it is how you act. I used to think that as long as I said this was just sex that would set the right frame and I would`t have to worry about anything. It turned out that what I said meant nothing as long as I was as cuddly as I a naturally am and showed as much interest in her as a person as felt normal for me with someone I saw that much. I learnt that what mattered was how I behaved and wether that sent boyfriend signals. Now I take extreme care in avoiding that. That is a bit hard for me because of my natural inclinations. What I learnt to do from the PUA TVA_OSLO was to set the frame of us having a crazy sexual relationship where we can explore everything we want, be honest about all fantasies and make everything an exciting new adventure and keep things fresh by not seeing each other too often etc. By framing it like this it is clear that it is a FWB, it does`t sound like you know this is JUST sex which sounds like a let down and you get all the stuff in bed you could hope for and because everything is framed so much as about being about sex and sexual exploration it further reduces the risk of her getting feelings.
Tasmin – damn man. You are becoming my favorite regular commenter. Hang in there, by the love of all that is holy I can truly appriciate and empathize (my version of empathy anyway) with exactly where you are coming from. What you described in your last post is similar to where I am mentally with “game” and some of the methods it suggests. I am confident I can succeed if I applied myself to it, but at what cost? I already know I have no desire to pursue casual sex or notch counts, so that is not even a consideration. But when it comes to my relationships, do I simply present my best self and hope for the best? If so it is the moral high road I’m taking by being completely up front and honest, but by laying all my cards on the table I’m sacrificing some/all of my leverage in the relationship. Do I actively “game” my SO? If so according to game artists I can have a stellar relationship with a submissive woman that will be happy and content to be with me, but the cost is loss of personal integrity and morality. Somewhere in between is probably the sweet spot, but I fear that by giving an inch of playroom for myself in terms of integrity to do it without guilt, I will begin to justify escalating bad behavior until there is nothing left of my original moral and ethical framework. So I find myself accepting what the red pill teaches, but unsure of how I can ethically and morally use that information to my advantage without tipping the scales too much in my favors and being unfair to my mate. A person not invested in an ethical outcome would simply do what is best for themselves perhaps assuming that by doing so they are doing what is also best for thier mate. Indeed I get this impression from ‘sphere sites geared towards relationships such as MMSL. This implies that the morality of the actions are unimportant because the results are positive for all involved. To me that is questionable at least since the person “in control” has much to gain by manipulating the situation to his favor. It may be that this also creates a favorable outcome for the woman (if she is indeed happy and content being “gamed”) but to me it is far from ethical or moral, because the original intent of the man was in HIS best interests.
I want a favorable outcome for myself and my SO that keeps us together and happy without the need for indirect manipulation or unethical behavior. There doesn’t seem to be many people that believe this is even possible, and certainly not much in the ‘sphere to help.
@Mikey
“That analogy fails. It is not widely agreed in the SMP that women can be biological women or transgendered. The opposite is assumed, you assume a girl you date is a female by biology. Thus, if you are transgendered, you know the other person assumes something false about you, and you should disclose.”
First of all, my example was to demonstrate the absurdity of hiding the truth behind linguistic technicalities in the question and then stating that it is the question that carries the burden of proof. The point was that many of these “assumptions” are often far from agreed, far from clear, and according to his logic – dictated entirely by the person withholding the information. An extreme example, yes. Nice catch.
“With dating someone, you do NOT assume exclusivity. So why does one have to disclose what is ALREADY KNOWN? In other words, how is it deceit to fail to divulge what the other party already knows.”
Agree. If both parties already know and accept this, there is no need to further disclose exclusivity. The logic I took issue with did not establish that both parties were aware and proved intent to deceit via both omission and manipulation of the question when asked.
“The answer is it’s not. There is no duty or obligation to give confessionals about who you are dating, why, etc before you are exclusive with a girl. Sorry, but the notion girls are entitled to pre-dating disclosures is borderline absurd.”
I never stated anything of this sort. Regardless we are in agreement then, that if one person knows that “the other assumes something false about them” they are responsible for disclosing. Or do the prevailing assumptions regarding the workings of the SMP trump the individual situations?
That is where I see things getting slippery. And while I don’t absolve women of the responsibility of asking questions and clearly defining the engagement or suggest some pre-disclosure bullshit, I would also never plow forward without disclosing if I had reason to believe she thought we were exclusive. My awareness of how she views our relationship is part of my responsibility. And my responsibility in a relationship (and yes, though not exclusive, it is a relationship with another human being) does not vest in the assumed normative behaviors of the SMP; it comes from my values and my respect for myself and those with whom I chose to share my life with – in any way. Her belief, regardless of its origins or failings would then be “assuming something false about me” or my intent, even if it goes against the prevailing sentiment of the SMP.
I may be in ‘right’ according the rules of engagement in the SMP, that is, it was her responsibility to ask, but because she was not responsible does not give me carte blanche to leverage that, deny any responsibility, and/or negate the act of deceit because her assumption is counter to the marketplace assumption.
I don’t believe that I would be in the right as a decent human being to allow her to believe something that is not true for the sole purpose of providing me with what I want, and/or to maintain some kid of advantage. Perhaps that is where we differ. If so, have at it Mikey. I’m just one of those beta suckers.
Hmmmm.
I wonder how this logic works out in regards to a woman and her sexual partner count.
By this logic, a woman never has to tell a man her number unless he specifically asks. This logic also suggests that men have no right to be upset if they learn the truth down the road, and it’s not what they had hoped it would be. If they failed to ask for this information during the early stages of the relationship, they have no right to be bothered with the information later. The onus is on them to ask, or else they are SOL. By failing to ask the question, and assuming that her number is low, the fault lies with the man (by this logic).
I wonder how well this will go over.
1. If you have information that you believe might change another person’s choice about whether to enter a sexual or dating relationship with you, you are morally obligated to reveal, rather than conceal it.
In theory, this sounds perfectly reasonable, but in practice it can get a bit more messy and complicated. I’ll give you a personal example. I have OCD. It isn’t crippling like some super extreme cases, and I’ve got it down to pretty mild. I’ve never revealed that early in meeting a woman. Is that something that would affect their choice? Maybe, I don’t know. I know I generally try to conceal it until I know the person isn’t going to mock me or think I’m crazy. I just think it is unrealistic to expect someone to turn over every card a few minutes into the game.
What about job interviews? Do you reveal any negative stuff about your work history to give the person full knowledge to choose to not hire you?
It would be nice if the world was a cartoon where everything could be reduced to absolute black and white principles, but I think there is a grey area where most people reside in terms of interpersonal dynamics with other human beings.
BTW, it has occurred to me there is an element of deception and lying with regard to pretty much all female shit testing.
The only relevant question to ask someone who maintains that the misdirection and lying in game to get girls into the sack is immoral is whether they are willing to go so far as to say tha wearing make-up, push-up bras and high heels are just as immoral. Somehow I’m willing to bet that you wouldn’t go that far Susan, which makes you a hypocrite.
@Sassy
I’m completely on board with that.
Amen.
There is the prudence of the other party to employ a reasonable measure of questioning and then there is withholding information you know – or even suspect – to be relevant behind an unreasonable burden of unasked questions. The former is their responsibility, the latter is yours. I understand that disclosure is not always strategically advantageous in the SMP, but I do think most of us know when something matters to the other person or not.
Basically agree although I’m not sure that line of demarcation between the two is as clear cut as you suggest.
It has been my experience and the experience of my friends that get with a lot of women and an extremely consistent finding on PUA boards that when you come across as having a certain level of game women presume with certainty that you are also seeing other women. My observation of female friends and talks with female friends also bear this out.
I made this point earlier and I just wanted to highlight that Wudang is something like either the 4th or 5th guy to make the same point. For the most part, I think most somewhat savvy women know highly attractive men have other irons in the fire if they haven’t defined exclusivity which on some level makes the debate academic.
I learnt that what mattered was how I behaved and wether that sent boyfriend signals. Now I take extreme care in avoiding that. That is a bit hard for me because of my natural inclinations. What I learnt to do from the PUA TVA_OSLO was to set the frame of us having a crazy sexual relationship where we can explore everything we want, be honest about all fantasies and make everything an exciting new adventure and keep things fresh by not seeing each other too often etc.
One of the things I remember learning from the David D stuff was the difference between treating a girl like a girlfriend and more casual. I”m going to give girls some credit here. Most girls are not stupid. They know what’s up. I think where a girl can feel “deceived” and have a legitimate beef is when a guy treats her like a girlfriend but then has other girls. She rightfully might be like WTF. I think most girls are smart enough to differentiate between a guy who seems emotionally invested and one who is more casual, and rightfully be pissed off if the guy who seems emotionally invested has other girls he is running that same script on.
This is deep.
That’s an amazing dilemma, Susan, your “Anne Frank” story. It’s powerful. My own is closer to the example in the post – do you lie to your brother-in-law if you know he’s beating your sister? My conscious says not only do you lie, but if he murders her, you’re culpable. It comes legally under aiding and abetting (and if the courts didn’t convict me, I’d still condemn myself in such a case).
But the logic of the “no lies ever” position is equally unassailable, especially when two people are married and really have to trust each other. At this, I have to take the (small c) catholic position that we are all born sinners. Lies are inevitable for all of us, and contrary to popular opinion, it doesn’t get any easier after you’re married (the stakes do get higher, though).
The hard part is to not just give up here and admit to failure. What the moral person does is to strive to do the best he can, always, always, always. Certainly, when a person lies out of convenience or self-interest, he’s failed. The proper course after that is to admit failure and do better next time.
By this logic, a woman never has to tell a man her number unless he specifically asks.
I agree with you. The onus is on the guy to ask. Interestingly, I can recall a very recent comment that advised women to state it is none of your business. Would that answer suffice if a woman asked are you dating or having sex with any other women right now? See principle 1 above. Internal consistency is important and a person cannot selectively apply what is rightful disclosure versus concealing information depending on which gender happens to be in the position of discloser versus non-discloser.
This logic also suggests that men have no right to be upset if they learn the truth down the road, and it’s not what they had hoped it would be. If they failed to ask for this information during the early stages of the relationship, they have no right to be bothered with the information later.
I’m not sure what this really means. Whether or not someone is bothered by something results from an emotional reaction, not a logical analysis. So let’s grant that someone doesn’t have a right to be bothered by something, but yet still is. Then what? What’s the next move? My point is sometimes it doesn’t make sense to establish whether someone has a right to feel the way the do. It isn’t going to make the feeling go away.
The onus is on them to ask, or else they are SOL. By failing to ask the question, and assuming that her number is low, the fault lies with the man (by this logic).
@Sassy
I’m with Mike that everyone really has a “right” to feel however they want to about anything. We can’t control what people think. So, no, it’s not wrong for him to feel upset about it.
But I do agree with you that if it’s important for the guy to know, then it’s on him to ask. If he doesn’t ask, I think it’s overly judgmental to characterize the girl as evil or unethical for not volunteering that information up front. And the same goes for guys when the shoe is on the other foot. As Mike said, no matter where someone draws the line with deception, there should be consistency no matter which sex is in the position of power.
@Mike C
“Interestingly, I can recall a very recent comment that advised women to state it is none of your business. Would that answer suffice if a woman asked are you dating or having sex with any other women right now?”
Hi Mike C,
I actually abide by this, since it makes sense for me (small, religious niche). The only person who needs to know this would be a fiance. And vice-versa. If it was necessary for him at that point, to get checked out for any STI’s.
Honestly– and this is just me– having a guy I was dating question my sexual history would be mortifying, incredibly presumptuous and, as my date, completely none of his business.
Once you start having sex with someone, you are crossing into a new territory, though. My way is high-risk/high-reward. I get dumped a lot! but I don’t have to suffer that agonizing debate. For me, working towards marriage, this makes sense. I realize I am a tiny, super-duper small niche, tho.
@Mike C
“.I’ll give you a personal example. I have OCD. It isn’t crippling like some super extreme cases, and I’ve got it down to pretty mild. I’ve never revealed that early in meeting a woman. Is that something that would affect their choice? Maybe, I don’t know. I know I generally try to conceal it until I know the person isn’t going to mock me or think I’m crazy. I just think it is unrealistic to expect someone to turn over every card a few minutes into the game.”
====
Agree with this, Mike C.
I think that sometimes people will “bare all” — not just physically but emotionally– at the very beginning in order to get closer. Which is probably related to instant gratification, somehow.
But I think the better choice is “be your best self” and reveal the personal stuff at an appropriate time. On the first few dates, guys will date Positive Jackie: upbeat, fun, interested in them. It’s just not appropriate to bring up sad stories at that stage in the game. It will not only not bring you closer, it may very well drive them away!
In the words of my mom, Leave them wanting more of you– not less!
Also: In the words of my sister, Your date is not your therapist!
The only person who needs to know this would be a fiance. And vice-versa. If it was necessary for him at that point, to get checked out for any STI’s.
Honestly– and this is just me– having a guy I was dating question my sexual history would be mortifying, incredibly presumptuous and, as my date, completely none of his business.
Jackie,
Then you implicitly disagree with this principle Susan posted above by what you just said:
1. If you have information that you believe might change another person’s choice about whether to enter a sexual or dating relationship with you, you are morally obligated to reveal, rather than conceal it.
Your sexual history is something that for many men might change their choice about whether to enter a sexual or dating relationship.
Here’s the problem and I see it already. This principle is going to be very selectively applied and honestly that is just a total crock of shit. The information that a woman might want from a man he is morally obligated to reveal, but the information the man might from the woman doesn’t have to be disclosed if she deems it not necessary or “none of his business”. I’m not trying to pick on you Jackie…I think you rock…but don’t you see the absurdity of that. Either one believes in that principle above or you don’t, but its just hamsterizing to start trying to carve out exceptions to what information doesn’t have to be revealed for reasons X, Y, Z.
By the time this thread is over I’ll bet $100 we’ll see all sorts of specious reasoning about what women do NOT have to reveal because it “isn’t important” or “warranted”.
Hi Mike,
I probably do have a hamster on steroids. And I don’t think you’re picking on me. But I am not sure I am understanding you– why do either of us have to disclose anything if we’re not having sex?
Are you talking about a relationship down the road? Does my qualifier or explanation of niche make any sense? I am focused on the guys in my church. Once things get serious, we’ll have to talk. But just dating?
By the time this thread is over I’ll bet $100 we’ll see all sorts of specious reasoning about what women do NOT have to reveal because it “isn’t important” or “warranted”.
I wouldn’t bet against you
I personally knew that being a virgin will close many doors so I tried to reveal it before things were to far ahead and a man felt that he invested too much time for not nookie or I felt emotionally involved and then suffer the consequences. Funny enough this one was the easiest one since most men in my culture pressure for sex early on, so it was probably the first thing they knew about me, not that all of them believed me but that is also comes with the territory. I was also upfront about looking for a husband and cheating being a deal breaker, but I think if you know how to talk to people this comes organically no need to lie or conceal more like the occasion arise and you are honest. I don’t think that being that hard when you are actually are trying to get to know each other. I think the problem is that there is more interest on concealing or making sure you are not taken for a chump/P&D than on getting to know the other. I know I asked all sorts of questions when I was dating someone because I did wanted to have as much info before my emotions got the best of me and I started to hamster for the sake of attraction, so organically one of them will lead to the “are you seeing other people?” naturally and me revealing the same naturally as well. Dunno I’m weird as noted before, YMMV.
Hi again Mike,
First off– no WAY am I betting against you
Just had to say that!
Second, did you see where I said “his history is none of my business, either.” He is not “morally obligated” to reveal ANYTHING about his sexual history to me, if we’re just dating. When things get serious, then you need put your cards on the table.
But just dating? It wouldn’t be my place to ask.
@Mike
I could be misinterpreting it, but here’s Susan’s direct quote from the other post:
Susan, I’m not trying to pick on you…. but why the clear cut “The guy MUST IMMEDIATELY notify the girl if he’s having sex with anyone else whether she asks or not, or he’s unethical…”
But in this case she’s only unethical *if * in her interpretation he’s curious about her number. Why does she get to make a judgement call on the situation and he does not? We all know that will just lead to girls rationalizing “I honestly didn’t think he would care about it…”
Maybe I’m misinterpreting your stance. If that’s the case, then I apologize and by all means please clear up my misunderstanding.
@Jackie
I think that’s fair and reasonable, and it basically reflects my stance that everyone is a free agent until it’s explicitly decided otherwise.
But I am not sure I am understanding you– why do either of us have to disclose anything if we’re not having sex?
You are messing with me right Jackie
I’ll try again. This is Susan’s principle from above
1. If you have information that you believe might change another person’s choice about whether to enter a sexual or dating relationship with you, you are morally obligated to reveal, rather than conceal it.
There is nothing in there about information being disclosed or concealed contingent contingent on the two of you not having sex. Using your argument, if I am dating girl A non-sexually and having sex with a girl B, I don’t have to disclose it to girl A since we are not having sex. That is completely consistent with what I’ve quoted you above.
Really, ultimately, I am trying to point out the absurdity of this full disclosure principle as outlined. It sounds good in theory, but once you hit reality, it quickly falls apart especially once you add the conditions about “might change a person’s choice”. Really, the simpler, cleaner principle is that direct questions deserve honest answers. No more, no less. Under that principle, you are free to answer with “none of your business” and he is free to walk if he doesn’t like that answer.
But to me what is unacceptable and absurd is to start trying to carve and parse out what information has to be voluntarily disclosed especially when it appears guys have to do 110% full disclosure, but women are free to hold back on stuff they think isn’t warranted.
Does my qualifier or explanation of niche make any sense? I am focused on the guys in my church. Once things get serious, we’ll have to talk. But just dating?
No, because I’m not talking about you personally or your personal examples. I’m discussing the universal applicability or lack thereof of the principle outlined above.
@Ana, Mike
No one is going dare to lose $100 to Mike C on this thread.
Ana, I liked what you said about asking questions and sussing out character. Believe me, just because I’m not asking about sex doesn’t mean I’m not asking about anything else! Talking about goals and values is something you can bring up on a date, and still keep it light and friendly, without becoming invasive.
(BTW, remember that promiscuous guy who put me on speakerphone in front of his brosephs? We were talking about “most cherished values” on our date. Mine was “integrity;” his was “persistence”– as he tried to slide his hand up my leg. TOO FAR, PAL! And it was obvious, from other clues, that we were not on the same page.)
I will definitely think about what you guys are saying and re-evaluate. Thanks for the perspectives
No one is going dare to lose $100 to Mike C on this thread
You know how many diapers I can buy with that kind of money?
Believe me, just because I’m not asking about sex doesn’t mean I’m not asking about anything else! Talking about goals and values is something you can bring up on a date, and still keep it light and friendly, without becoming invasive.
Why sex is not part of the “everything else”? I mean you don’t see to be waiting but us waiting people also worry about sexual compatibility I knew what my husband liked or not sexually long before we started to have it. I just wanted to make sure he didn’t had weird fantasies that I couldn’t fulfill, not that I have many things I wouldn’t at least try once, but I do remember a guy I meet with some cuckolding fetishes and I’m glad I found that out before things got too deep, *shrugs* so again when do you feel is in your “right” to ask about this things?
@Mike
I could be misinterpreting it, but here’s Susan’s direct quote from the other post:
*If* the guy has indicated curiosity in any way at any point in time, or the girl suspects he cares or she finds herself avoiding the subject hoping not to reveal that information, then yes, it is a lie by omission.
Well….I do recall another comment that said something quite different. If I am misremembering I apologize to Susan in advance, but I have a very good memory and I’m pretty sure she told the girl to tell the guy her past sexual history in terms of how quickly she may have slept with a guy was none of his business.
Again, all I”m really trying to point out is the standard of full disclosure of any and all information that *might* change the person’s beliefs is an unworkable position. An ethical/moral principle should be easy to apply, not full of potentially convoluted twists and turns as I’ve already demonstrated and you pointed out with your question about the distinction of *immediately* versus *might be curious* and you are 100% spot on that most women will use the loophole to drive a truck through that she didn’t think the guy would care about certain information.
It all goes back to the much simpler principle that honest information is warranted in response to a direct question not random assumptions about might or might not be relevant based on that person’s beliefs.
Absolutely.
Lies even white is still lie and a form of sin.
You know how many diapers I can buy with that kind of money?
If you buy them by the case at Sam’s Club, hundreds.
If you buy them by the case at Sam’s Club, hundreds.
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
I love cheap baby tips.
getting interrogated and being on the hook for being totally honest is an interesting power play. What makes the person asking all the questions think they have a “right” to the answer? Imagine a tit-for-tat trade off of questions between two people dating. Why, I can foresee that the man can end the questioning (and the relationship) within three questions. And yes – these would be relevant as women are the sex gatekeepers and men are the relationship gatekeepers. It devolves into a trade off and power play. Putting the shiny spotlight of TRUTH on every nook and cranny of a relationship – well, you will be a fully informed single person again very soon.
By this logic, a woman never has to tell a man her number unless he specifically asks. This logic also suggests that men have no right to be upset if they learn the truth down the road, and it’s not what they had hoped it would be. If they failed to ask for this information during the early stages of the relationship, they have no right to be bothered with the information later. The onus is on them to ask, or else they are SOL. By failing to ask the question, and assuming that her number is low, the fault lies with the man (by this logic).
The first part of the logic is correct. A woman has no obligation to volunteer her number. Nor does a man. As for how it would go over, considering that I have observed the vast majority of non-virginal women instinctively lie about their number, I think most men would be quite content if they could depend upon women telling the truth when asked. If they don’t ask, they probably don’t want to know.
The second part is a category error. Feelings are not rational, by definition, so a man, like a woman, has a right to be upset by whatever happens to upset him, even if there is no logical basis for it. In general, however, you are correct and a man should always ask if he wants the information. A woman should not volunteer it, but she should answer honestly when asked.
“If they don’t ask, they probably don’t want to know.”
I have noticed on non PUA and non manopshere forums that there are a not insignificant number of guys who never asked and some of them say outright they don`t want to know. I`m not sure exactly why but I think it might be because they don`t want pictures in their heads or to make it a reality they need to think and feel about. If they don`t ask they can sort of just imagine her with him and never think about others.
Do you think this would be a fair “ethical dating” rule?:
You’re only obligated to disclose information if you think that the other person is assuming something else.
Like Mike C said, most women will know that a high SMV man will probably be dating other women. So a guy only needs to tell her about the other “plates” if he gets the sense that she is assuming exclusivity.
Likewise, if a girl with a “past” gets the sense that the guy she’s dating thinks that she’s more innocent than she actually is, then she has an obligation to let him know.
Otherwise, “don’t ask, don’t tell” is allowed on both sides. I dunno, do you think this is fair?
One should definitely read Nietzsche on this subject (if only because he writes so well): http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Nietzsche/Truth_and_Lie_in_an_Extra-Moral_Sense.htm
@Emily
I’m not really opposed to that situation…. but the problem is, if there’s a disagreement on anything one side will always say “I didn’t know they were assuming that” and the other side will always play victim and say “They should have known I felt that way.”
So yeah, I’m not opposed to that scenario, per se. But I think an easier and more effective rule is simply “Don’t assume anything in today’s SMP.”
@Emily
And honestly any guy who’s sexually active with multiple women, or a woman with a high count will simply fudge the “if you think that the other person is assuming something else” and not think about what the other person’s thinking.
“By failing to ask the question, and assuming that her number is low, the fault lies with the man”
That is why, across society, it must become expected acceptable and normal for men to ask and for men not to feel ashamed to do so whatsoever. Think about the social implosion that would occur if that were the case…
@Tom:
A relationship which cannot survive the disclosure of information that one party deems relevant is not worth maintaining. Each party in the relationship is free to decide what information he or she considers relevant – neither the other person nor anyone else gets to choose that. The other person always has the option of refusing to answer the question, leaving the questioner to draw whatever inferences he or she will from this refusal.
Yes, this means that men will ask women about their sexual pasts, and the answers may lead the man to disqualify a worthy woman from consideration for a LTR. That is HIS choice and HIS loss, not anyone else’s.
Yeah, this approach would require a degree of self-awareness that’s probably pretty difficult to pull off. It would be nice though.
@M3
That is not logical. Since the act of lying by omission is one of concealment, and is designed to avoid questions in the first place, only poor liars would be detected under your definition.
In addition, it fails to address the question of *intent,* which is central. If there is no intent to conceal, there is no lie. If there is intent to conceal, there is a lie and the liar is guilty regardless of whether they are found out.
As it has been stated before, the male equivalent to push-up bras and high heels is Game, not lying by omission. The female equivalent to spinning plates is maintaining a circle of beta orbiters milked for resources like time, money, availability as emotional tampons and so on. I’ve yet to see anyone argue that a woman is obligated to reveal to her potential boyfriend/husband that she has beta orbiters.
@Mikey
The post does not claim that there is an obligation to disclose who you are dating. The post suggests that it is moral to disclose information that would prevent another person from making a decision that would harm them while benefitting you.
This can be achieved simply by not hiding anything. We all know when we’re hiding something, when we say we were out with a friend from college, when we were really out with an old FWB that we had sex with. When we are out with one woman and hope we’re not seen by the other woman or her friends.
It doesn’t require pre-emptive disclosure. Just transparency and full honesty. I think people owe each other that. Without it, we’re all just sexual jackals.
“Yes, this means that men will ask women about their sexual pasts, and the answers may lead the man to disqualify”
THAT is the definition of “slut shaming”
“HIS loss, not anyone else’s.”
The angst felt by women over this “issue” is extremely clear evidence that it is not only his loss [although he probably feels relief, not loss]. Women lose two ways when disqualified by men. They lose good men and they lose their own sense of well-being due to feelings of guilt and self-destruction over what they have done to themselves.
@dana
You’re the second person who appears to have commented without reading, or at least understanding, the post.
Nowhere do I or anyone else recommend pre-emptive disclosure.
All you need to do is avoid falsifying or concealing information that you believe would change another person’s course of action. If you’re hiding it, it’s a lie.
You are unlikely to hide a lunch with friends, and there’s no reason you should conceal a date with someone else pre-emptively either. That is not what this discussion is about.
For all the male outrage being expressed here, I should say that a lot of men volunteer this information up front. A guy who is eager to sleep around and has the opportunity to do so will often tell the women outright that he is not looking for a relationship. Even college douchebags do this with some regularity.
The problem is, you want to have it both ways. You want to sleep around while keeping the option open for an LTR. That’s fine if you’re honest about that. Why wouldn’t you be? Because the high quality woman you hope to snag for something real would bolt upon hearing it?
“spotlight of TRUTH on every nook and cranny of a relationship”
Nope. That is not what is being done.
“the man can end the questioning (and the relationship) within three questions.”
Yep. That is what is going on. And rightly so.
@Wudang
Great comment, your behavior sounds entirely ethical and empathic. It reminds me of Style in The Game, who had eight LTRs going at the same time, all sexual, obviously. All eight women knew he had seven other sexual partners, and when he fell for Lisa he ended it with all of them. Lisa also knew. This is an example of highly ethical behavior. Apparently, disclosing this does not hamper one’s sexual access and may even improve it, based on what you’re saying.
That’s an interesting point about intent. We may not intend to injure another person but we can just by sending incongruent messages. I think we all do this, and learning how to avoid it is part of maturing and learning via life experience. This reminds me of a post by Ricky Raw:
http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-double-messages/
So here’s an example where there was full disclosure, but then the guy sent a lot of confusing messages that implied he was getting emotionally invested after all.
Susan, you could easily flip that around to:
You want to jump into an LTR after racking up less than respectable numbers? That’s fine if you’re honest about that. Why wouldn’t you be? Because the high quality men you hope to snag for something real would bolt upon hearing it.
Test
“Because the high quality men you hope to snag for something real would bolt upon hearing it.”
Its a two-standard situation because there are MANY more high N females than high N males. Thus, men have to be more bolt-ready and on guard for lying females.
@Susan
Maybe I’ve been misinterpreting you this whole time… but I thought in the other thread you said that if someone has multiple sexual relationships, they are morally and ethically obligated to divulge that information up front even if the other party doesn’t ask about it. You called it a lie of omission.
Am I wrong in thinking that?
Re: female N count. I’m in the apparently small % who don’t ask and don’t really want to know (assuming the N isn’t some truly astronomical number). I assume that if I did ask I would probably be told whatever she thinks I want to hear, anyway.
Some kind of selectivity % stats thing would be fascinating to be able to track and model, at least from an analytical standpoint: SMV9 who was hit on 10,000x and slept with 7 world-class badasses may be revealing greater restraint than her SMV6 colleague who was hit on 500x and slept with 3 commitment-sluts.
I would like to know if the girl has slept with any of my friends or associates because I find this to be of great practical significance.
I’d also rather be lied to about my sexual performance if someone in her past was “better” in the sack, was more attractive, etc. Self-concept is a delicate thing—please let me keep my dream!
Jackie, I am guessing that your N is not that high. But let’s say your doppelganger *did* have a fairly high N and her man, after he proposed and she accepted, then found out her N…and vomited.
I mean, is that the right process?
I am not suggesting that people start asking that question on the first date, but I, for one, definitely want to know before possible engagement is on the table.
“I assume that if I did ask I would probably be told whatever she thinks I want to hear, anyway.”
The real shame is that women, by virtue of being promiscuous, have mastered desperation and devolution to such a low point
@Mike C
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it’s necessary to take the stand at Starbucks.
Neither of your examples matches the risk to a woman of sex with someone who is not going to commit, IMO. There’s little risk of harming a woman permanently by not mentioning you’re a bit compulsive early on. There’s no risk of harming an employer by stating that your greatest weakness is working too hard. Now, if you’re Melvin Udall or didn’t really go to Harvard like your resume claims, that’s different.
I think there are gray areas, and the answer to them is what you are feeling. Are you concealing OCD during the date? Are you sitting on your hands to avoid performing repetitive motions? Then you should be disclosing that. Are you hoping your employer doesn’t find out you never really worked at Goldman Sachs?
In the end, intent is really the only rational moral guide.
Sassy – “By failing to ask the question, and assuming that her number is low, the fault lies with the man (by this logic).
I wonder how well this will go over.”
I for one am good with this. I make it a point to ask specifically for this reason in fact.
Jackie – “Honestly– and this is just me– having a guy I was dating question my sexual history would be mortifying, incredibly presumptuous and, as my date, completely none of his business.
Once you start having sex with someone, you are crossing into a new territory, though.:”
the issue for me is: I won’t let a relationship get sexual until:
1. I know about her past
2. I’m pretty sure the relationship is going to get serious and be for the long haul.
3. I know beyond ALL doubt that the woman has feelings for me past the desire for sex
So at some point before we have sex (but probably after kissing and initial “make out” sessions) I will need to have this info IF I’m going to be comfortable getting naked. So, as a “date” yes, I agree it would be uncomfortable. But, would you feel the same if you already decided you wanted to get serious and/or have sex with the guy? Would you consider his asking your past the same level of presumptuous behavior?
Tom – “getting interrogated and being on the hook for being totally honest is an interesting power play. What makes the person asking all the questions think they have a “right” to the answer? Imagine a tit-for-tat trade off of questions between two people dating.”
Well for me, I believe I have the “right” to ask because the implications of “dating” is that she will want more of my time and resources as the relationship continues, and to me the information I’m requesting is pertinent for me to make a decision if she is worth my time and commitment. Or, put another way, I honestly feel I have the “right” to ask anyone anything damn thing I want IF they are pursuing any kind of personal relationship with me. They have the “right” not to answer, and I have the “right” to walk the second they don’t.
Seriously? Did someone just go there?
I defy you to find one single example in hundreds of years of philosophical debate that classifies female beauty practices as deceit. If you can name a single profound thinker that made this point at any time in history, I’ll cede the argument.
As Jimmy pointed out, Game and makeup are equivalents, and both are amoral. Lying is immoral.
Cosign this, but there’s still the question of intent. One of the most commonly discussed questions in the literature is whether it’s a lie when you are actually mistaken about something. George Costanza once said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
To the degree that a shit test is consciously manipulative it is immoral. My notorious shit test at 14 was clearly immoral. Unconscious fitness testing is not immoral because there is no intent to deceive.
“I am not suggesting that people start asking that question on the first date”
But as soon as possible so you know if your sticking around or bolting right after you get sex
BB – “I’d also rather be lied to about my sexual performance if someone in her past was “better” in the sack, was more attractive, etc. Self-concept is a delicate thing—please let me keep my dream!”
I’m on the fence here on the better in the sack point. Surely it would be a hit to me ego if I was told I wasn’t anything less than her best ever. But, I would never learn to get better if she didn’t tell me I wasn’t up to snuff. I think in this particular case, I wouldn’t want a “you suck in bed” or “Dave was much more aggressive with me in the sack” as my wake up call, but I certainly wouldn’t mind some gentle suggestions or even a few straight up commands during the act.
I guess it really comes down to the delivery. If a woman I’m intimate with straight up blurted out that compared to so and so I need work in bed, I’d likely walk out and never come back. My issues with past partners would flare up to epic proportions and I would never be able to look at her the same again. But, I am more than willing to take constructive criticism of my technique, and will gladly switch things up so she can enjoy it as much as I do. So at least for me, it is all about the delivery.
Not really. If you are right, you lose nothing by making that explicit. If you happen to be dating a woman who is not somewhat savvy or has not dated a plate spinner before, you are not obligated to make it explicit, but you are obligated not to conceal it. So as a general rule, avoiding concealment is the minimum required from an ethical standpoint.
I would also reiterate that several of the experts pointed out that people often don’t ask questions they fear hearing the answers to, and they also avoid asking questions that make them appear weak or without options themselves. It’s the old hamster.
I am interested to hear what Jason says about my understanding of college dynamics, because I have heard many stories of banging multiple girls causing the shit to hit the fan. And also, to be frank, a clear understanding on the part of guys that slutty girls are the ones who tend to look the other way.
What probably is academic is the focus on multiple partners, as that applies to only 6.6% of men.
Come on, Susan, get real.
If this is advice for couples that are getting serious, then, I would cosign.
But for a guy and girl who have gotten drinks a few times, and enjoyed each others company, come on.
But when you’re considering the girl as a possible LTR, as you were with your fiancee, you will in fact be getting emotionally invested, and she will pick up on that.
Guys who absolutely do not want relationships generally make it very clear, and women who hope to flip them are assuming the risk. There’s no concealment there. A guy who is open to a relationship may treat one girl like a casual sex partner while treating another more like a legit date. Women shouldn’t be expected to sleuth this.
Susan, that chick is not a victim, she is a fucking idiot.
When you are that upfront about your intentions, I don’t care if he sent Triple Messages, she knew the score from the word, “Go”.
I am not saying that he was also not an idiot, but she is not a victim.
@Joe
Agreed. We’ve all concealed our intentions. Sometimes it’s for little stuff, sometimes larger. I once took a job as a management consultant shortly after learning I was pregnant. That meant I knew that working 80 hour weeks with constant travel was something I would not be able to sustain for long. My firm was not pissed when I told them at the three month mark, but I felt that I had clearly concealed this information, and it was wrong. The fact that they would have been legally obligated not to consider the information is immaterial, because my intent was to deliberately withhold it to avoid the risk. I’m not proud of that.
Ramble – “Susan, that chick is not a victim, she is a fucking idiot.
When you are that upfront about your intentions, I don’t care if he sent Triple Messages, she knew the score from the word, “Go”.
I am not saying that he was also not an idiot, but she is not a victim.”
I can already imagine the response from some women: “but women are more in tune with actions and emotion. They base everything off of how they feel, so what he said didn’t matter because he made her FEEL like he was serious!”
Honestly isn’t this kinda what “game” is all about? Sending the correct “messages” by overt means to trigger a response from the woman? So, even if he was saying he wasn’t serious, acting like he was became deception.
To be clear, I’m not saying I agree with this, but I can imagine that many hamsters will find it very pleasing.
Which is why, IME, girls do not like finding out about their shit tests. IME, people, girls or guys, do not like becoming more self-aware.
For most people, self awareness means that you are a Jim or a Pam suffering the fools of The Office. Other times, it is a fool being made more aware of how foolish they are.
@Mike C
I don’t know if you are referring to me here, but I think either party has the right to state they are unwilling to disclose the requested information, and let the chips fall where they may. I also mentioned a young woman I know whose N=3 and she has decided not to answer that question “on principle.” Now, I don’t know exactly what her principles are – this is probably influenced by feminism. But I respect her right to keep her sexual history private.
Whether it’s a man who can’t ascertain a woman’s sexual history, or a woman who can’t ascertain a man’s current sexual activities, refusal to disclose heightens the risk for the other party considerably, and will shrink the pool of potential partners. On the other hand, there have been several guys on HUS who don’t care much about the number, and guys here claim that there are women who don’t care either, or who even consider it preselection, a positive.
There is no such thing as hell -
Still, being cajoled to a mall
by every current gv
comes close
gv should read “gf”
Susan, I got $5 that says you are going to jump through hamster hoops to back this statement up.
If I have met some girl for drinks twice in one week, I have no obligation to be explicit about other girls I might be meeting as well. In fact, I would find it kind of awkward and unnecessary.
But, let me try to make this concrete:
Let’s say I met Jackie for drinks on Tuesday and Friday. She likes the cut of my jib and wants to protect herself before anything goes further. On Friday, she asks me,
Jackie: “Are you seeing anyone else”.
Ramble: “Nothing serious, but another girl asked me out for drinks on Saturday.”
Jackie: “OK. I understand. But, TBH, I am not that comfortable with that. So, after tonight, I think it is best that we do not see each other again.”
Ramble: “Oh, OK. Well, I am sorry to hear that.”
====================================
If you are completely ignorant of the modern SMP, then, that is on you. Like with anything else, ignorance can hurt you.
Ted, re: waiting for LTR-compatibility info before escalating sexually. I admire your self-discipline, my friend! I personally like to retain mystery/uncertainty for awhile, but to get the physical ball rolling, so to speak.
Just a general piece of advice for women who want to get honesty out of alpha and uber-alpha types: consider getting a big, badass, lovable dog—German shep, Rotty, pit bull, Akita, that kind of thing—as a pet and giving the potential BF a chance to play with the animal. I find that men have a harder time remaining aloof to an attractive (still important) woman who can command loyalty from such a noble animal. It’s a weird, quirky thing, I know, but for some reason I think that it triggers whatever the male equivalent of a nesting instinct is. You can also get a very rough sense of the man’s fatherhood potential by how he behaves.
Re: hamsters and mixed-messages. A staple of femporn that Edward/Christian Grey/Jean-Claude the Chippendale-dancing bisexual vampire overlord/Eric Northman acts unavailable—if not toxic—in the beginning and this makes the woman’s ultimate conquest so much sweeter.
@Mike C
Why would you say that? A man can wink and say he doesn’t “kiss and tell.” Or just flat out state he prefers not to share that information. Then the woman can decide how to proceed.
I won’t allow that. I believe that information about the sexual activity of a person one is seeing is extremely important and full disclosure is warranted, certainly essential before having sex. If I were a guy and a woman refused to tell me her history, I would assume she had a promiscuous past and act accordingly. If I were a woman and a guy refused to tell me whether he was having sex with people while dating me, I would delete his number from my phone.
There’s no double standard here.
Actually, if I understood what Ricky was saying, this guy may not have been that deceptive. He was more likely an idiot.
Basically, that he believed that he did not want a relationship but, deep down, he wanted at least some of the things that come from more intimate relationships, like closeness and intimacy after sex.
@Mike C
There is no parsing required when we consider intent and only intent. Are you concealing information? Then you are lying. Are you not in the least bit concerned about her finding out you are having sex with girl B? Then you are not lying.
It is easy. That’s the point of the post. Intent is all that matters. Which is why we allow lies to save people’s lives. Few people today would abide by Kant’s or Augustine’s view. And the utilitarian view is Machiavellian and generally accepted as exploitative. That leaves us with honesty as a virtue, and concealment as a moral failing.
What troubles you about this?
Here’s the issue though: what constitutes something you are obligated to share? It’s similar to the idea of a MAC (material adverse change) clause in a merger agreement. What exactly is defined as material? Often this is set in stone in the clause, but even in those cases there are many, many disputes over what exactly is a material event. And that’s in cases where it has been pre-defined. In dating, there is no MAC clause, and there are no predefined material events or characteristics. These vary from person to person, and ask 100 people what’s important for them to know, and you’ll probably get 200 answers. For one person, they have to know if their potential partner likes cats. For another, they must know if their partner likes to travel, and on and on ad infinitum. Taking this to the extreme, I’m obliged to disclose my entire life story at the beginning of date one, as there may be SOMETHING in there that would affect this girl’s decision to date me or not.
For instance, I slept with a girl this Saturday. Am I obliged to disclose this to the girl I’m going on a second date with tonight? We’re not exclusive, and the topic of exclusivity has never once come up. Does she have a right to know what I’m doing in the rest of my sex life? Should I tell her the height, weight, birthday of the girl I slept with, because those may affect her decision?
The “DTR” conversation serves the purpose of the MAC clause in a merge, in that it defines what exactly is a material piece of information. Exclusivity is the main purpose of this conversation, but it could revolve around how much you see each other, keys to each others’ apartments, or anything else. Up until that point, what is material is endlessly vague and undefined, as it is asking each person to guess what might be material to the other person. That is why the onus is on YOU to ask the question. I have never lied to a girl who’s asked me anything directly. In turn, if I want to know something about her that’s material to me, I’ll ask her. It’s really not very hard, all it requires is a set of b*lls. That’s because I’m the only one who knows exactly what is material to me, so I’ll be the one who defines that to her. Asking her to guess what I might find important is a very, very harsh demand in a nascent relationship.
@Tom
The sexes always have been and always will be at cross purposes in mating. It is up to every pair to negotiate the terms of that transaction. I’m talking here about ethics for fair negotiation. One is not required to show one’s hand and forfeit all of one’s advantages at the negotiating table, but concealing relevant information is unethical. Which is why courts don’t allow it, for example.
This principle is essential to all forms of human interaction. Without it, as Firepower pointed out so eloquently in the first comment, we destroy our humanity.
Ramble – “Which is why, IME, girls do not like finding out about their shit tests. IME, people, girls or guys, do not like becoming more self-aware.”
This may be the truest comment made on this thread yet! and it is at least part of why I’m so hung up on the moral aspects of game. Now that I know, is it deception if I use any of it?
“Basically, that he believed that he did not want a relationship but, deep down, he wanted at least some of the things that come from more intimate relationships, like closeness and intimacy after sex.”
In that case I read it all wrong. If what you say is true, then this guy is indeed an idiot and is expecting a lot from a woman he isn’t committing to.
As a follow-up to that last post, it’s one reason why I prefer to date women from outside my circle of friends or school. I like finding out about a woman myself, with my own biases and perception. I don’t need to hear 20 other people’s opinions about her, because honestly they don’t matter so much to me. I’d rather find out about someone for myself than have that information thrust upon me by 10 friends, all through the filter of their particular biases.
No pre-emptive disclosure is required. All you have to do is not conceal the truth. Or at least admit that you intend to conceal the truth – same thing.
Every one of us knows when we’re hiding something. Don’t do it. It’s that simple. I don’t understand the debate, really.
@Jimmy
But that put’s the responsibility for not being deceived on the victim, without considering the morality of the deceiver. That is like saying that a woman who gets roofied at a party is responsible if she gets raped. Your advice might be smart – I think it is – but it doesn’t address the ethical question.
@Abbot:
You’re right. I was responding to the sex-positive feminist argument that men who disqualify women for high N counts are only harming themselves by ignoring worthy potential partners. I should have expressed this thought differently.
Cosigned.
I’ve seen several guys say they wouldn’t stand for them. I think it’s a totally valid question to ask a woman. If a woman is using a man for anything in a selfish way, it reflects on her character and a man she is dating should have access to that information. Fortunately for men, women rarely hide their orbiters in the way men hide sexual partners, so this information is generally quite easy to come by.
@Jimmy
No it’s not the same thing, because Game says that women see that as preselection for the male while men see the opposite.
Ted, if you find that wearing nice clothes, and nice shoes (even though you would prefer to bum around in sweatpants) is immoral, that is up to you.
We have gone back and forth on this many times, so, I will not say much more about it. I will say that you definitely *want* to see men making themselves more attractive as being immoral and so you will continue to focus your attention on the outliers and you will attempt to find fault with anything that might be construed as “Game”.
Susan,
You should post a few of these emails if you can. Field reports are always interesting and I’d like to see some examples of ‘go to’ emotional escalation moves from women.
I’m legitimately confused by this.
In the other thread you said that it is morally and ethically wrong for a person to enter into multiple sexual relationships without explicitly telling all parties involved, whether they ask or not. You said “don’t ask don’t tell” isn’t a legit excuse for not doing that.
Have your views on that changed?
If not, I don’t see how it’s possible to believe that and then say “no pre-emptive disclosure is required.”
So, you got some girl meeting some guy for drinks. She knows that her family is crazy. I don’t mean in that, “aren’t they cute” sitcom sorta way…I mean that she has, to a degree, distanced herself from them.
She knows that if they get serious that this is something that he will need to know.
Now, if he starts asking explicit questions about familial relationships on drink one, then she might need to be completely open about it (or diffuse it in some way, but she probably could not be deceptive). But, otherwise, she will probably keep this information to herself until the relationship progresses.
Now, were all of her assumptions in this scenario right on? Who knows. But, her assumptions, given our understanding of social dynamics and the modern world, were completely reasonable.
Susan, you have already convicted the guy. You have convicted the guy for not handing over his complete docket on drink one. It is ridiculous.
– Not being up front about being married? Well, he was wrong before they ever went out for drinks.
– Not being up front about being in a serious relationship? Well, he was wrong before they ever went out for drinks.
– Not being up front about meeting other girls for drinks? Today, in 2012? In the day of Match.com, “It’s Just Lunch”, City Recreational Leagues (you know, those kickball leagues that girls organize for “fun”), GrubWithUs, etc. ?
Come on. If she is a victim, then it is of her own ignorance. And, for the record, I can sympathize. But she is not a victim of a modern guy living a fairly normal modern life.
Ramble – “Ted, if you find that wearing nice clothes, and nice shoes (even though you would prefer to bum around in sweatpants) is immoral, that is up to you.”
I don’t take issue with nice clothes. There is nothing overt or deceptive about wearing designer labels. I’ve stated many, many times that what I take issue with is all the behavioral stuff (like negging, dread, agree & amplify). Hell man, I’ve been working on dropping weight for months now, and I see NO moral issue with it at all. Yes, I’m looking better, but I’m also improving my health and hopefully increasing my lifespan so I can enjoy my grandchildren. Yes my SO benefits from MY increased sex rank and better health, but the primary motivation for this is for my own benefit. I won’t deny that it makes me more attractive, but it is also an obvious change that anyone can see.
And honestly I’m not trying to pull you into another argument. I’m just pointing out where morality comes into this for me. I understand how robbing a bank works, but I still see it is immoral and illegal. I understand how “game” works, but I still see some of it as immoral and unethical. For me I try to draw the line at any actions that are deceptive that benefit me directly. Things I do that are out in the open are fair game, and I’ve been doing so for months now. But for me to get further into “game”, I have to leave behind the obvious stuff and delve into the deceptive stuff. And the only way I’ve managed to make it “OK” for myself is if I tell my SO what I’m doing up front. Most likely that would backfire in a spectacular manner, so for now I have to leave that stuff alone. I’m hoping that I never have to use it, in which case I never have to solve the moral dilemma I’m facing.
Did I really give you the impression that I didn’t think it was moral for a man to improve himself? I thought that all along I’ve been promoting self improvement. I’ve only suggested that men should leave the “magic tricks” to magicians.
Wudang,
What do you think about being direct as the next step in Game for men? When starting out I too communicated my situations, expectations and desires, for the most part, indirectly, and have gradually gone away from this. Through my path, I’ve found that openness was my latest evolution and it works easier and is less problematic on the psyche.
“concealing relevant information is unethical”
That assumes a person knows what is relevant and it can be assumed with substantial surety that women know how men feel about promiscuous women when commitment is being considered.
I’ve stated many, many times that what I take issue with is all the behavioral stuff
OK, understood, you have a problem with playful teasing.
I understand.
Why do men lie or omit? Because women don’t value honesty and women do omit by lying themselves. Men who tell the truth are penalized.
Women are often touted as better communicators than men. This is false. Women like to talk, talk, talk. They love to hear their own voices, but they are not saying anything of consequence. They think trivial matters are important. They are worse listeners.
However, it is important to know when to tell the truth. It is important based on the timing of the relationship. To me, sleeping with someone is the biggest leap you can take. If you’re willing to sleep with someone in 3 dates or within 3 months, why is honesty important? It isn’t.
“Men who tell the truth are penalized.”
I would say that in our modern society, people who tell the truth are often penalized, regardless of their sex, race, religion, etc. And that really is the bigger issue here. We can argue about the ethics of dating all we want, but when our society at large doesn’t put much value in the truth, how can we expect our dating habits to be any better?
>> “Just a general piece of advice for women who want to get honesty out of alpha and uber-alpha types: consider getting a big, badass, lovable dog—German shep, Rotty, pit bull, Akita, that kind of thing—as a pet and giving the potential BF a chance to play with the animal. I find that men have a harder time remaining aloof to an attractive (still important) woman who can command loyalty from such a noble animal. It’s a weird, quirky thing, I know, but for some reason I think that it triggers whatever the male equivalent of a nesting instinct is. ”
Bastiat,
This intrigues me. Would you mind elaborating on this a bit more?
I’m a Sheltie person myself, but I’d still love to hear more about Puppy Girl Game.
Sassy,
I have no problem with this logic, but I’m also one who wouldn’t shy away from asking at some point. Most guys won’t out of a fear of being labeled ‘judgemental’.
Come to think of it, I think most high value men would bring this topic up (assuming they are thinking of locking it down) because they know what they have available to them in this marketplace. The only guys IRL who have told me they would never ask this (to a potential relationship partner, no guy cares about the number of a slam piece) are generally sexless pedestalizers.
@Jimmy
I’m sorry, I’ve tried and failed to find this comment on the other thread. If you recall, while arguing on the other thread, I was considering your commentary and decided I was not on firm ground with my arguments. Which is why I spent the day reading about lying. This post is the result. If my position has changed, that’s why.
In any case, I don’t believe it’s reasonable or rational to expect people to volunteer information, which is quite different from not concealing information.
It is certainly everyone’s individual responsibility to ask before sex if the person is having sex with anyone else or has recent STD results, etc. I am not absolving either party of that. In the spinning plates scenario, it’s very possible to be dating one woman without sex while banging other women the whole time. There is nothing wrong with that if you’re not hiding that information in any way.
I believe men often do hide that information. In fact, several guys have said right here that they have no problem waiting with a quality girl because they’re generally getting sex on the side from sluts anyway. I believe this is the player’s typical strategy.
And just to reiterate, there are no double standards here, and no one gets to decide what another person deems important.
@Susan
Pre-selection is as much about the presentation as game itself is. Directly saying “Hey, check out all the chicks I’m banging” isn’t going to help at all, and will probably hurt the cause. It’s all about INDIRECTLY communicating that you could be banging other chicks, and that you may or may not be doing so, and letting her rationalization hamster do the rest of the work.
But honestly, plate spinning really isn’t about pre-selection. It’s more of a philosophy of “success breeds more success.” It’s about creating a legitimate abundance attitude, instead of just thinking about it in theory and trying your best to fake it. It’s about flipping the script on girls, and making them prove themselves to you instead of vice versa. And I still maintain that a normal guy who isn’t delusional can’t possibly cultivate those attitudes until he actually starts to have some degree of success.
IMO, those factors do a hell of a lot to help a guy than the pre-selection by itself.
That’s not accurate. The data shows there are about the same number. About 10-20% for each sex.
@Ramble
Well, we are specifically discussing spinning plates while determining whether a woman is compatible for an LTR. Not a bunch of people hooking up randomly.
If it’s just getting drinks, and neither party has hopes or expectations, why should hiding even be necessary?
Mike C,
This is quite possibly the worst answer a woman could give, and for me, would lead to an insta-NEXT. Most women don’t have an understanding of the SMP like we do here, but a low N woman (for her age) 100% KNOWS that this is a huge benefit when looking for a relationship, even if she can’t articulate why.
So when the ‘none of your business’ line comes, a guy will just assume she has been slutty and can’t even be honest with herself. Hell, at least if she is honest and owns up to it, that honesty can be respected and there is a possible chance that the guy is still ok with it (maybe not happy, but might look past it).
Ramble – “OK, understood, you have a problem with playful teasing.”
Ya know, I have to give this some serious thought. As a child in a single parent home in the early 70′s, I caught a LOT of shit from other kids because I ‘didn’t have a daddy!’. It didn’t help that my mother worked hard to send me to a private Catholic school where I was surrounded by rich, bratty little snots. And, I was stupid and honest with them when they asked me questions about why my dad never showed up for school stuff…
Anyway, my point is that back then I was teased a very great deal, mercilessly at times in fact. The one and only time I got in trouble for fighting at school was because some boy just wouldn’t let up on the daddy stuff, and I snapped and went ape shit. I wonder how much that has affected my views on morality, ethical behavior, and “teasing” as you called it?
@Jason773
“Field reports are always interesting and I’d like to see some examples of ‘go to’ emotional escalation moves from women.”
=========
Hi Jason,
This isn’t a romantical context, but something I did recently: It has been really hot lately and a client came over yesterday.
I know he 1) is diabetic 2) struggles with his weight 3) likes orange 4) HATES the heat. When he came in, I asked, Do you want a popsicle– sugar-free, only 10 cal and your favorite flavor?
It was a really small act– just remembering his preferences and restrictions. But he seemed SO happy that someone was noting the things he liked and thinking of him. This is a person who is pretty negative and thinks pretty lowly of many people. He opened up way more, seemed more confortable and positive, I believe.
We live in a very disposable and “me first” society,unfortunately. So when someone is showing they think of others I think it prompts emotional escalation. I’m sure the other girls have much better examples than the popsicle one!
@Ramble
If you’re referring to Ricky Raw’s story there, she may be an idiot, but that is not the point. He is holding the male accountable. FYI, there’s a female version of the story at that link as well.
And for the record, *most* relationships start with hooking up and do morph into something else. It also happen with FWB when one or both parties catch feelings. This naturally causes confusion as both parties attempt to interpret new and different messages and signals.
@Susan
I’ll see if I can find that quote, which is honestly the reason I’ve been debating on this. I’d venture to guess Mike too.
But anyway, now that you’ve written this:
I think we’re basically in agreement. I’ve never advocated for lying or deception, I just believe it’s not fair to label a person (male or female) as imoral or unethical for choosing not to volunteer information. And it looks like you agree with me.
I don’t really see how that’s hiding information if she doesn’t ask.
Agree 100%.
As for my last comment, the girl always has the option of lying as well, in which case nothing can be done about that. I suppose the best route to go to avoid the lying would be to make it explicitly known that being with someone who would already lie during the foundation stage of a relationship is disgusting and reprehensible. If she still chooses to lie, and you never find out the truth, then she is a sociopath anyways and you’re gonna need all the luck you can get.
@Emily, BB
“Bastiat,
This intrigues me. Would you mind elaborating on this a bit more?
I’m a Sheltie person myself, but I’d still love to hear more about Puppy Girl Game. ”
Seconded!
“a low N woman (for her age) 100% KNOWS that this is a huge benefit when looking for a relationship”
They rule.
I believe this is the third comment to anticipate and then pre-emptively criticize predicted female response. Please do not do this. If a woman proposes it, fine, have at it. No strawmen please.
That’s hilarious. My husband has not stepped foot in a mall since 1983. He refuses to even go to a restaurant in a mall.
Jackie – “I know he 1) is diabetic 2) struggles with his weight 3) likes orange 4) HATES the heat. When he came in, I asked, Do you want a popsicle– sugar-free, only 10 cal and your favorite flavor?”
If you had done something like that for me, it would have caused me to look at you in an entirely different light. As someone that has a very difficult time feeling empathy for people and remembering details about their likes and dislikes, I am always floored when someone does it for me. This type of behavior early on in a relationship would seriously make me take notice and make me take the women in question MUCH more seriously. Just taking the time and effort to remember something so insignificant about my tastes would show that she is very interested in me, and I would hardly be able to remain “aloof” with her if she displayed this behavior.
In fact it worked very well for my current SO.
“In fact, several guys have said right here that they have no problem waiting with a quality girl because they’re generally getting sex on the side from sluts anyway.”
What does “on the side” really mean? Sometimes, sleeping with many people means you’re preoccupied and have no time for dating quality women. They are inhibited from finding their good girl.
I don’t advocate such compartmentalization. It is foolish behavior.
Why would they not have any hopes? Why would they not have some basic expectations?
But, whatever, I play along: Who is hiding anything? Like you said, not volunteering and concealing are two different things.
Susan – “No strawmen please.”
Guilty as charged. Ceasing and desisting…
Anyway, my point is that back then I was teased a very great deal, mercilessly at times in fact.
Mercilessly ~= Playful ?
Like I said Ted, you will keep reframing and changing as much as you can to see “Men attempting to make themselves more attractive” as an immoral thing. And that is your prerogative.
@Ramble
I’m not sure I understand your comment, but I’ll try to respond.
In this case (which makes Jackie a psycho) you have concealed nothing. Ethical.
If Jackie asked you and you said no, you would be lying. Unethical.
If Jackie asked you out for Saturday and you said, sorry I have plans, you are not concealing. Ethical.
If you said, “Sorry I promised to grab drinks with a buddy” you are lying. Unethical.
If Jackie asked you if you are seeing anyone else, and you are in fact having sex with other people, you should say, “Yes I am.” No concealment, ethical.
Most women would not ask about sex outright until their own decision about whether to have sex with you was imminent. Obviously, you must come clean about that.
If Jackie had sex with you without ever asking a thing about other sexual partners, that’s on her. Ethical.
However, we could concoct scenarios forever, and the standard is still the same.
Did you or did you not actively conceal information?
@ Susan Walsh
I think that sexually promiscuous women are the ones who are more likely to look the other way, in regards to a man’s sexual escapades. Women of lower SMV probably also look the other way because they might think that they can’t do any better. They may be more willing to accept crumbs of a man.
@ Zach
This is EXACTLY why I ask men such questions. I always ask men if they are sleeping with other women, at the time that we are dating. I just can’t believe that a man is genuinely interested in dating me if he is fresh off of another woman’s vagina. I’m not flattered that a man is on a date with me knowing that he was shagging some other chick a few days ago. Just…..no.
@ Jason
I agree. I think that the same thing can apply to women. High SMV women, primarily those who aren’t promiscuous and who value relationships, won’t think twice to drop a guy who is spinning multiple sexual plates. They may feel like they don’t have to put up with it because there are other options available to them.
This whole topic is bringing up the memory of “hickey guy” over and over again.
Great. Honestly.
The point that I am making is that she is NOT a victim.
And that is fine. I understand that. But, when a guy is that explicit, she is not a victim.
I am sure that at this point you are picking up on that this is a hobby horse of mine. I will continue to reduce the number of areas where “modern” girls (and guys) can view themselves as victims.
@Susan
Here are come of your quotes that got the topic going:
So it looks like your views have changed, or have at least become more nuanced in the last 2 days. I’ll take credit for that
@Bastiat
I’ve been meaning to do a post on Canine Game for a while.
A nitpick here. Edward and Christian Grey are actually all in from the get go. Eric Northman was definitely toxic but Sookie doesn’t find him attractive until he gets amnesia and becomes beta boy.
@Ramble
“The only person who needs to know this would be a fiance.
Jackie, I am guessing that your N is not that high. But let’s say your doppelganger *did* have a fairly high N and her man, after he proposed and she accepted, then found out her N…and vomited.
I mean, is that the right process?”
=============
Ramble, I don’t think my advice would work for a high-N person. They would need, at some point, to disclose their history. If only to protect their partner.
To be honest, it’s really hard to advise, or even imagine , Slutty Me. Not because I’m so great– I have tons of faults!– but because being slutty would hurt so many important things in my life.
Even if I told no one, kept it completely secretive, it would affect my relationship with my family. Because I know, deep down, that it would hurt them TERRIBLY. It would go against everything they invested in me– it would be such a slap in the face. Remember the concept of honor that came up yesterday? It resonates very strongly with me, which may explain my fascination with those cultures!
Sluttiness would affect my relationship with my mentor, my friends, people from my church. The teenage girls I mentor– there is no way sluttiness would be a good example. Even if it was *completely* tacit to them, I would know. It wouldn’t show up in my words, but you would see it in my eyes and demeanor.
I know this contrasts with the ideas people have about “freedom”– but I value my family, mentor and people in my life so much that I want their respect and good opinion. More than just about anything else in the world.
With more than one female commenter agreeing.
1 2 3 … 11 »