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 4 5 … 11 »
@Ted D
I’ve never thought of preparing for disaster in that way, but it makes sense. I’m not sure I would know how to even go about it. It’s one thing to have bottled water on hand, it’s another to decide what to do when someone is in danger of dying.
Susan – “I would venture to say that the smokier the eye is, the greater the chances you’ll get approached by a cad.”
That is a damn good point. Looking back, I met three of my four LTR partners in similar situations. (meaning they were not wearing makeup, not dressed to go out, not generally trying to attract male attention at all) In each case, it wasn’t as much about how they looked but how I was simply “aware” of them that got me to initiate. The very first time I met my current SO, she had just gotten home from work and stopped by my friends house to borrow something from his wife. She hung around for a few minutes chatting, and left. I found myself thinking about her later that night, which is VERY unlike me. (you know how I feel about “people” in general…) My ex-wife came to pickup her brother from a band practice. She had just come back from running in the part, and was wearing frumpy shorts and a tank top, and covered in drying sweat. LOL. When she walked in we were jamming, and I actually stopped without thinking. In a very uncharacteristic move, I walked up to her and asked if she would like to go home, shower, and come back so we could go grab a bite.
And even now that I think on it, the one that I met in a “club” was still introduced to me by a cousin, so she came with at least some form of pre-selection for me. (if my family liked her, I figured she couldn’t be too bad…)
I guess I’m just not attracted to makeup wearing women. To be honest, I tend to view them as very high maintenance. And I’m the type of guy that likes a woman that can throw on a pair of jeans and a t-shirt, spend a few minutes in the bathroom, and be in the care ready to go. VERY low maintenance women just trip my trigger. *shrug*
Susan – “I’ve never thought of preparing for disaster in that way, but it makes sense. I’m not sure I would know how to even go about it. It’s one thing to have bottled water on hand, it’s another to decide what to do when someone is in danger of dying.”
To be honest, it is a bit of a hobby for me I guess. I participate in Skywarn (http://skywarn.org/), which is weather spotting sponsored by NOAA (National Weather Service). I’m an Amateur Radio operator and there are a LOT of emergency preparedness type folks in that group. And many of my friends were or are security or law enforcement types.
We have bottled water and MRI’s in the basement in “go bags” for each of us in the house. I have several small “walkie talkie” type radios in there as well, and I always keep a case of AA batteries on hand. (Our kids eat batteries for breakfast anyway) I keep my Amateur radio license mostly in case I need communications in an emergency. You CAN NOT depend on the cell network and/or land line phones to work in an emergency!!! Most people don’t realize that something as simple as a flash flood can kill the cell network for miles around. (those towers all run on power, and surprisingly few are equipped to run long without juice.) Here in Western PA, flooding and severe thunderstorms are the most likely natural disaster to occur, followed by tornado and bad snow/ice storms.
If you really want to dig into this, check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/What-When-Shit-Hits-Fan/dp/1602391335
It’s pretty basic, but there is a lot of good info there for anyone that hasn’t given this a bit of thought. I will fully admit that I am WAY over the top with this stuff, but everyone should at least plan to survive in their house for a week without any contact with the outside world.
And to be truthful, I think all this emergency preparedness stuff earned me an extra point or two with my SO. She comes from the hills of New Hampshire, where they HAD to have generators because the power went out a lot, and they HAD to have 4×4 trucks to make it up the three mile dirt road to their house. She already has that “survivalist” mentality in place, so unlike most people, she didn’t think I was nuts for “being prepared.” LOL
“Men rail against women “letting themselves go” or not taking care with their appearance. They also rail against women wearing makeup and dressing to flatter their figures as deceit. Are these the same men? Or are there two camps?”
Aren’t those two different things? Make-up is, well, make-up – a touchup.
“letting yourself go” is more about gaining a bunch of weight without caring, no?
“Also, I don’t really understand the idea of makeup as lying. If a woman is gorgeous with makeup, she’s gorgeous, no?”
And if a womanis gorgeous without makeup, she’s gorgeous.
I don’t think of makeup as lying, it’s more like an attempt to impress. I actually find woman without makeup rather attractive – its usually obvious when their looking their plainest.
A woman with too much makeup can easily produce a “woah, who you looking to impress?” reaction. (and I don’t assume me, cause your on display for everyone)
I honestly always thought women put on makeup for their own pleasure. Same goes for uncomfortable shoes – men are making up wear em.
““who lies more” in this SMP”
If a promiscuous woman wants a relationship and she is aware that fact will disqualify her per the male gaze then she will lie as needed to been seen in the best light by men. Thus the degree of lying by women is directly proportional to their degree of promiscuity. Its a bad sad double hit if a man commits to a promiscuous woman turned liar.
Again: Your house, your rules. If you want to delete comments that speak to the male view of the issue, that’s your right. But that will stunt and chill discussion here on topics that everyone has strong opinions about.
I will try to make this my one and only comment as well. I’m quite surprised by the deletion of Wudang’s, Obsidian’s, Deti’s comments having read them, especially Wudang’s exposition style comments which don’t have an ounce of hostility in them. In another thread, there was a poster “Ghost of Nice Guy” whose comments seemed to me far more hostile but were not deleted.
Susan, I would respectfully suggest you overreached on deleting these 3 comments. Your most vocal critics would suggest you cannot handle real debate and want to create an echo chamber. I PERSONALLY DO ***NOT*** BELIEVE THIS, but when you delete comments such as those 3 you lend support to that view
Comments are very often opinions, and not all opinions are going to have absolute factual backing whether the opinion comes from a female or male.
I fully support the deletion of outright hostile and misogynistic comments. Respectfully, I think you made an error in judgement on this one
I don’t agree with the pushback on those comments being deleted.
I read O’s comment yesterday and I saw it as derailing. IMO, reframing the debate to say that the “real issue” is that women lie more than men in the SMP is changing the goal posts. This post is about ethics in dating and discussing what is considered lying. Focusing on who lies more, especially when there is NO data to back up these claims, is not relevant to this topic.
I’m with Susan on this one.
Deti and Mike C, as you both acknowledged this is her house, her rules. After the clusterfuck of comments on the Father’s Day post, I think it makes sense she wants to stop derailments before they take over the entire thread.
I read O’s comment yesterday and I saw it as derailing.
He tends to do that. I prefer not responding to him at all to being sucked into a black hole of endless conversation that really isn’t an honest exchange of ideas but an opportunity for him to showcase his opinions or promote his blog. While I see him as a bright guy who perhaps never found a real life venue for fulfilling his potential, I tire of his attention seeking and hijacking of conversations. It’s a shame because at one time, I really did see him as an alternative to Roissy’ more fanatical opinions and a cogent voice against the some of the racist elements in the ‘sphere.
And Obs, if you read this, take it or leave as feedback. I will not debate with you no matter how much baiting or ad hom crap you throw my way.
Likewise to any of you who want to debate his merits or comisserate his faults. I’ve said what I have to say on this subject.
@Susan
I didn’t read detis comment. O’s I’ll not pass judment on.
Wudangs however. I think you made a mistake. It was well thought out and not in anyway hostile.
———————————————————————
“I would venture to say that the smokier the eye is, the greater the chances you’ll get approached by a cad.”
The first time I met the lady she was dressed in jeans and a t shirt studying with her friends. No make up.
When we go out its light and tasteful. Theres a difference between looking like a hooker and touching up.
Same for letting yourself go and dressing up.
Not letting yourself go is easy. Don’t eat to many twinkies.
Not dressing up means not dressing like a hooker.
Lots of room in the middle.
As for where beauty should be measured. Men measure a woman as an average. Women tend to measure themeselves at their best (others at her worst).
For example. Katie Perry with make up and then without. I’d say overall shes a 7ish. Her worst is like a 5. Her best is probably an 11.
@Iggles
“Personally, I wouldn’t consider having kids with a guy who is willing to abandon his own child simply because of his feelings (or lack thereof) towards the mother.”
Smart lady.
“Honestly, this provides a powerful reason why child support laws need to stay on the books, since (some) men are eager to have casual sex and even more eager to walk away from any resulting children.”
Meh. It could also be taken that unwanted children should be set up for adoption or aborted to prevent men paying for an unwanted child.
Its all how you spin it.
I don’t put children I don’t want ahead of myself. Those I do I will treat like gold.
Man that picture of Katy Perry was a huge surprise to me. I may be biased, but seriously my SO looks 50x better than that picture first thing in the morning with bed head and bad breath. But, I’ve always thought Katy wore WAY too damn much makeup. I just figured it came with the business, but it seems the truth is it all about her “image” and to cover up the fact that underneath it all, she is just like every other average woman.
Ted–
You rreally are sort of a harder core INTJ version of my DH.
You stubborn, judgmental, musical, home recording, over prepared,weather watching, make-up hating frequenter of greasy spoon diners! Remind me to tell you about New Year’s Eve 1999 which DH and I spent washing empty milk cartons and filling them with water just in case the world ended….and how I spent Jan.2, 2000 emptying them and throwing them out.
J – “Remind me to tell you about New Year’s Eve 1999 which DH and I spent washing empty milk cartons and filling them with water just in case the world ended….and how I spent Jan.2, 2000 emptying them and throwing them out.”
LOL! I had a lot of stuff ready, but I was also “on call” for work just in case all the preparations we did in ’99 failed and our servers all crashed. The only reason I wasn’t actually in the office was because I was married and had kids. All of my single team mates were required to be IN the office at midnight.
Who says being married doesn’t benefit a guy?…
J – Oh, and next time? Just fill all your bathtubs with water. It can last for days easily if you keep the curtain/door closed, and as long as you wash the tub well first, it is completely safe to drink. Also, as gross as it sounds, if you get desperate, the water in the tank of your toilet is safe also.
@ Susan:
I am going to start this reply with two caveats. First, I’m going to use a bit of hyperbole on purpose (and declare it). Second, I acknowledge interpersonal communication is more complex than getting two computers to talk to each other.
First for the hyperbole: I am not God and cannot read the mind of the person with whom I am speaking. Ergo I cannot be held responsible for answering correctly the question which was not stated.
There is a whole class of jokes which illustrate this issue. A man in an air balloon is floating over a corn field in the middle of nowhere and past a man standing on the ground, completely lost. The man on the ground asks the man in the balloon: “Where am I?” to which is replied “In the middle of a cornfield.” The man on the ground says: “You must be a scientist because you gave a completely accurate and completely useless answer.” The man in the balloon counters with: “You must be a businessman because you asked a completely useless question.”
I don’t put children I don’t want ahead of myself. Those I do I will treat like gold.
Whether or not a child is wanted is most often beyond the control of that child. Not to be properly cared for because your parents perceive you as a mistake is a horrible fate. That sex makes babies and that accidents can happen is common knowledge. When a person, male or female, has sex outside of marriage, they need to understand that, if a contraceptive fails, there will be life-changing consequences for themselves, their partner and any resultant child.
J 317
So i can assume from what you wrote you are pro-life and are advocating abortion to become outlawed and punishable by jail time for having one performed correct? That’s what i took from what you wrote.
J – Oh, and next time? Just fill all your bathtubs with water. It can last for days easily if you keep the curtain/door closed, and as long as you wash the tub well first, it is completely safe to drink.
But then you miss the fun of washing congealed milk from the bottom of the cartoons, treating the cartons with bleach and then thoroughly rinsing the bleach from them.
J – “Whether or not a child is wanted is most often beyond the control of that child. Not to be properly cared for because your parents perceive you as a mistake is a horrible fate. That sex makes babies and that accidents can happen is common knowledge. When a person, male or female, has sex outside of marriage, they need to understand that, if a contraceptive fails, there will be life-changing consequences for themselves, their partner and any resultant child.”
Adoption is a totally acceptable option for “unwanted” babies. I think it is horrible for a child to be in the “system” once they are older, but to the best of my knowledge babies are still very much desired and are usually adopted out rather quickly. If someone is faced with trying to support a child they can’t afford, and they are truly interested in what is best for the child, adoption is the most logical route to me.
I continue to bring this up because for whatever reason, abortion or single parent families seem to be the only openly discussed options when it comes to this conversation. It is an act of selfishness to keep a baby you simply cannot provide for.
J – “But then you miss the fun of washing congealed milk from the bottom of the cartoons, treating the cartons with bleach and then thoroughly rinsing the bleach from them.”
LOL. When you paint it in that light, I can see the allure.
Just trying to help out.
People always forget that the bathtub makes a great water container for a week or less, provided your tub isn’t completely gross. And as far as it goes, even then drinking water from a tub with scum lines is STILL better than anything contaminated with flood water.
@Ted D
Ever watched Doomsday Preppers? The show is kinda like watching Hoarders, except they encourage the behavior.
Every few episodes, I see an item and think “hey! I need one of those.” – the idea of “prepping” slowly grows on you as you watch.
Like the plastic water tank (size of a book), that expands to become a 8gal in your bathtub.
The hardcore survivalists are more radical than that.
My husband’s parents live completely off-the-grid, solar powered and generator, their own underground well water source across acres of land, a garden, tons of guns and ammo, and they are miles away from the nearest city. If things get bad, we would drive down to their place and bunker down. We do keep some supplies around though.
My husband is also anti-makeup, and he likes that I don’t wear any. I am really into lip balm though, especially the natural Burt’s Bees stuff. I also have sort of an obsession against too many chemicals, especially anything that could be harmful to babies, like perfumes, hairspray, harsh chemicals, BPA, etc. I’m not all 100% natural, since I value technology and modern advances, but I do like “simple.”
Haha I guess I’m alone here in being pro-make up. I’m very much in favour of having a good “day make up” routine.
Yes, there are girls who can look gorgeous without make up, but most girls won’t fall into that category (I certainly don’t lol). I don’t look ugly or anything, but I do look very plain without it. There’s definitely a noticeable difference.
And there are ways of wearing make up without looking like a clown hooker. Make up isn’t all bad.
Cooper – oh yeah! I try to catch that show when I see it is on! I’m not THAT extreme, but if I had the $ and time, I might be. LOL
But yes, I can say I’ve picked up many good ideas from that and shows like it. To be honest, I don’t feel it is necessary to plan for more than a week or so in the house. By that time, either the emergency is past, or all hell has broken loose and its time to start stealing whatever we need to survive, including taking things by force.
Make no mistake about it, I try my best to be a decent guy. But if things go truly nuts, I will not hesitate to do whatever it takes to protect my family. In fact, part of our “Zombie” plan is figuring out which stores/warehouses/etc. would be the best for pillaging. (places like Walmart would be wiped out AND probably surrounded by people trying to steal stuff. Think of places WAY off the beaten path and/or Walmart distribution warehouses) Also, where we could easily procure some heavy duty 4×4 vehicles in a hurry. (Lucky for me, there are more than a few Hummers parked around my neighborhood. If I need it, I’m taking it.) Our group already has a couple locations for meeting up (all of which are out in the boonies within a few hours driving by road. Might take the better part of the day if we have to go off-road though…)
In short, we plan to run, grab what we can, meet, and then set out to find as remote a location as possible to setup shop. Where we go would depend greatly on the type of emergency. And even though we plan for all this, we all know that our chances of surviving are limited. But no sense going out without a fight, right?
I just hope no one fires off an EMP attack on the U.S. If that happens, we are totally screwed as just about everything that runs on or uses electricity will be fried. I mean, I have a Panasonic tough book and a few gadgets that might survive. But there are NO modern vehicles that would run after and EMP. They are all controlled by computer systems. Well, some military vehicles and perhaps old assed diesel trucks might run with a few swapped electrical parts…
Another great post.
There is something worse than lying going on.
Emily – “Yes, there are girls who can look gorgeous without make up, but most girls won’t fall into that category (I certainly don’t lol). I don’t look ugly or anything, but I do look very plain without it. There’s definitely a noticeable difference.”
But you are assuming all men are looking for “gorgeous” women. I don’t. In fact, I almost always tend to pick women that are considered “cute” or very “girl next door” looking. Again, my impression of “gorgeous” women is that they are generally VERY high maintenance and take far too much time “getting ready” for me to deal with. If I wanted to deal with that much cosmetic chaos, I’d do my best to snag a fashion model. Of course, to me they are all too damn scrawny anyway…
M3
That’s a false dichotomy.
Personally, I am so pro-life that I brought two very complicated pregnancies to term (including one where a placenta previa could have caused both my son and I to bleed to death and another where it was feared that I had ovarian cancer). I am also very much in favor of religious and individual rights, with the decision to continue a pregnancy or not kept between a woman, her family and, in many cases, her clergy. In the case of my placenta previa, my husband, my very Catholic doctor and my clergy all made well reasoned moral arguments for my aborting my younger son so that I was more likely to be around to raise my older son. I personally chose not to, but I want that choice to rest with the people who have to live with it, not with a Congress controlled by the lobbies of religious groups that I’m not affiliated with. This is not an abstract question for me, but one in which my life, the life of one child and the wellbeing of my older son, husband and then aged and dependent parents hung in the balance. I am happy not to have had government interference in that decision although I do not advocate abortion.
I have since had legal run ins regarding my parents’ ability to care for themselves as they aged, and I can tell you that government involvement can worsen the situation immensely as those “helpful” folks who want to protect the rights of the elderly and senile jeopardize their health. It’s my firm belief that life and death decisions are beter made by families than bureaucrasies.
“It’s my firm belief that life and death decisions are beter made by families than bureaucrasies.”
Which is precisely why I am NOT a fan of government funded health care. It’s bad enough I have to deal with my insurance company trying to tell my Doctor what is best for my health. I don’t want some politician or appointed paper pusher in the way as well.
I can get away with not wearing makeup or hairdos because of my hair texture and coloring. I have dark, straight hair, medium toned skin, and dark eyelashes/eyes, so I don’t need eye makeup to make my eyes area even darker. As much as I envy natural blondes with blue or green eyes, they do generally look better with eye makeup and mascara.
I can’t stand the feel of makeup on my skin, so I’d rather be 2-3 points uglier than look dolled up, even at special occasions. Plus makeup and summer? No way.
Adoption is a totally acceptable option for “unwanted” babies.
Perhaps. I like it better than abortion, but, as I’ve said before here, when I worked in adolescent mental health adopted kids were ridiculously over-represented among our clientele. And, post-adoption depression is common among birth parents who often grieve their loss as though their child died.
This however is my point. When you have sex, you gamble. If you crap out, someone pays the price. What price is paid and who pays it is a matter of personal choice, but people shouldn’t delude themselves that there is no price to pay and that they won’t live with having had to pay that price for the rest of their lives.
Hope – “As much as I envy natural blondes with blue or green eyes, they do generally look better with eye makeup and mascara.
I can’t stand the feel of makeup on my skin, so I’d rather be 2-3 points uglier than look dolled up, even at special occasions. Plus makeup and summer? No way.”
My SO has blonde hair and green eyes, which is exactly why she uses eye liner and mascara. And, she said the exact same thing about how makeup feels on the skin. To me, she is hot as hell sans makeup and push-up bra. Of course she looks better when she “dolls” herself up, but I’m truly glad that in our daily lives she goes natural. It’s always a little scary to me when we go out and she crashes into bed still wearing that stuff. In fact, after her Xmas party last year, she woke up with messy hair, fudged up makeup, and she smelled like stale whiskey. When she rolled over my way I said, and I quote: “baby, I love you. But you need a shower. You look like Ke$ha on a bad day!”
Now that being said, high heels are ALWAYS a welcome accessory to me. And I don’t necessarily require her to be able to walk in them. That is HER requirement, not mine.
J – “I like it better than abortion, but, as I’ve said before here, when I worked in adolescent mental health adopted kids were ridiculously over-represented among our clientele. And, post-adoption depression is common among birth parents who often grieve their loss as though their child died.”
I’ve been told the same by people I know that work in mental health about adopted kids. I imagine it is very difficult for a kid to come to terms with the fact that their “real” mother/father didn’t want them. But as you said, I also prefer adoption to abortion or child abuse/neglect at the hands of a crappy parent(s).
And as far as depression for the mother goes? I have little sympathy. She really should have thought of that before she had sex. And so far I’ve never seen a guy torn up about his illegitimate child being put up for adoption. To the contrary, the few times I’ve seen this at all, they thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Lucky for them a swift kick to the balls is considered assault and battery.
LOL. When you paint it in that light, I can see the allure.
LMAO
>> “As much as I envy natural blondes with blue or green eyes, they do generally look better with eye makeup and mascara.”
I think this is very true. My eyes are also fairly deep-set, so makeup really helps to bring them out.
I also find that I’m treated better when I’m wearing make up. That “Sexy Girls Have It Easy” video rang very true for me. Although I don’t go around asking for free stuff and I’m more likely to wear a longer skirt, I do find that people (including women!) are nicer to me when I’m dolled up. It’s not like people are mean to me when I’m more frumpy-looking, but I do tend to be a lot more “invisible”.
And as far as depression for the mother goes? I have little sympathy. She really should have thought of that before she had sex.
So basically, you agree that people should keep in maind that thre’s always a price to be paid….
And so far I’ve never seen a guy torn up about his illegitimate child being put up for adoption.
I once dated a 30-something yo man who still carried a picture of the baby his gf gave up without his consent when they were in high school. I believe her parents made the decision for her. He still seemed pretty upset even close to 20 years had elapsed.
When I was in my teens, I participated in an online fan-community, that was strictly separated into two camps – people role-playing good guys (the Light), and people role-playing guys, who did what they want. (the Darkness)
We had a similar issue on WoW with The Alliance against The Hordes. It was interesting philosophically speaking. I had characters on both sides to see the differences.
I recall when Russell Brand tweeted that pic. He later took it down at her request, I believe. I am intrigued by the idea of image enhancement as deception, and also the question of whether it steals value or adds it. Do women adorn themselves to deceive men or please them? Would men prefer it if women wore sweats and sneakers with no makeup?
I remember on history of journalism class that in the 19th century there were denounces of grooms that after spending the wedding night with their brides wanted to return them because they were using fillers in their dress to appear more attractive. I think it depends on how much is left for the intimacy if a woman does her best to look 3 points up or more of her natural appearance I will say that I can see that being considered “deception” but wearing make up, and flattering clothes to point out the good things you have as long as the difference is not that big is completely different. I made a point of sending pics to my hubby on all situations and I also wore make up only when seeing on public and no make up at home so he could tell the difference. I had some friends that never considered marriage till they were able to see their girlfriends on casual clothes, there was a tradition of visiting the girl on the house early in the morning with the excuse to take them breakfast or walking them to school/work and the purpose was to catch her au naturel before making any future plans. Of course those were more innocent times when courting didn’t allowed for a lot of probing, I doubt that nowadays a man doesn’t know what he is getting long before he knows if he wants to keep it or not, YMMV.
Adoption is a totally acceptable option for “unwanted” babies. I think it is horrible for a child to be in the “system” once they are older, but to the best of my knowledge babies are still very much desired and are usually adopted out rather quickly. If someone is faced with trying to support a child they can’t afford, and they are truly interested in what is best for the child, adoption is the most logical route to me.
I think we will see more “options” as we age. The writer of this article agrees that infanticide should be morally acceptable since nothing is worse than a baby suffering whether by a medical issue or because he/she was unplanned. Read and weep: http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/why-its-moral-to-use-baby-boxes?utm_source=Big+Think+Weekly+Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=57bf49e70a-_Here_s_What_s_New_at_Big_Think6_27_2012&utm_medium=email
>> “I once dated a 30-something yo man who still carried a picture of the baby his gf gave up without his consent when they were in high school. I believe her parents made the decision for her. He still seemed pretty upset even close to 20 years had elapsed.”
Awww! That’s so sweet! Maybe it’s just me, but I’d consider that a major DHV. I love guys who are good with children.
J – “I once dated a 30-something yo man who still carried a picture of the baby his gf gave up without his consent when they were in high school. I believe her parents made the decision for her. He still seemed pretty upset even close to 20 years had elapsed.”
Damn that really sucks. My SO’s mother got pregnant right out of HS, and her father’s parents not only tried to talk my SO’s mother into an abortion, but when she refused THEY refused to allow their son to marry, and instead forced him to join the Army. I kid you not! In fact, he ended up becoming a “lifer” and retired after 30 years of service. My SO is now in regular contact with him, and has even met her grandparents. The first time we went to their house, she was shocked to find a room with all kinds of pictures of her. Despite the fact that they refused to talk to her or even admit she existed in public, they were keeping tabs on her throughout her life. Now they are so old that I doubt they remember when we visit.
I give her all the credit in the world for not only wanting to meet them, but continuing to see them. I’ve completely written off my “sperm donors” entire family at this point. If they didn’t want anything to do with me when I was young and needed them, I’ll be damned if they get a moment of my time now that I DO NOT need them.
The “makeup and push-up bras are deception” is meant to be a ridiculous response to the ridiculous claim that game is just deception and tricks.
It’s also a counter to the women who like to claim that game would never work on them and that they could spot it a mile away. That’s like a guy saying makeup and push-up bras don’t work on him. Yeah, sure they don’t.
I’ll be the first to admit that makeup and push-up bras work on me. And I welcome girls using that to their advantage.
“The “makeup and push-up bras are deception” is meant to be a ridiculous response to the ridiculous claim that game is just deception and tricks.”
I’ve said before that I dislike the “parlor tricks” of game theory, but to be clear, I’m not saying that ALL game is tricks and deception. I can’t find any fault in “inner game” as it is commonly described since it is primarily about self improvement. But, once we start talking about negs and the techniques commonly deployed in your average bar or nightclub, IMO the line between honesty and deception has been crossed.
To be fair, I hold the same disdain for sales people that try to use manipulative techniques to get people to buy their crap. Surely it works on most folks, but that doesn’t make it any more ethical or moral.
>> “It’s also a counter to the women who like to claim that game would never work on them and that they could spot it a mile away. That’s like a guy saying makeup and push-up bras don’t work on him. Yeah, sure they don’t.”
Haha exactly. I think both make up and Game can backfire horribly if they’re not done properly, but if they’re well-executed then they can both be extremely effective.
I’m not even against the “parlor trick” aspects of Game, as long as there’s no cruelty involved. It makes sense that if you fake confidence for long enough, then over time real confidence can develop.
It makes sense that if you fake confidence for long enough, then over time real confidence can develop.
Especially if that fake confidence gets you laid.
I don’t want some politician or appointed paper pusher in the way as well.
There you go! I spent the last 8 years of my dad’s life talking people out of pulling the plug on him. If I had a dollar for everyone who told me his death was imminent during that period, I’d be rich. He got to see his grandkids grow up and my mom got to keep her husband because I went to bat for him on at least 15 separate occasions. I have no desire to see that process get harder.
@deti
Obsidian made that claim outright, without evidence. You responded with a list of all the ways that women lie, which you have gathered from anecdotal experience. You then pimped the MRM by suggesting that men are starting to fight back.
None of that was relevant to the OP, which was not gender specific.
Surely you jest. You want to go up against St. Augustine? I knew you were getting a big head among your MRA cronies but this would be laughable if it wasn’t cringe inducing.
I am familiar with your writings here and elsewhere. They are imbued with a deep distrust and dislike of women. They are suffused with an egotistical pontificating that thrills your audience. Your male supremacy agenda is unwelcome here.
From your lips to God’s ears. There has never been a time when I let the MRAs have the floor and didn’t regret it. You derail, highjack, spew anger and distrust, and generally wage war at a blog addressed to young women.
A word about Wudang’s quote:
Wudang is indeed thoughtful and articulate. However, his comment here was part of the trifecta of adversarial screeds. It made no sense without yours and Obsidian’s, and in any case was not appropriate for this blog.
The sentiments you espouse are most welcome on a variety of MRA, anti-feminist, HBD, and PUA sites. There is no reason you should resort to sharing them here.
I think we will see more “options” as we age. The writer of this article agrees that infanticide should be morally acceptable since nothing is worse than a baby suffering whether by a medical issue or because he/she was unplanned. Read and weep
I didn’t read it because it sounds like a crock of shit, but I think we’ll actually see fewer options as we age. As techology makes it feasible to save more and premature babies and the age of viability is moved closer and closer to conception, abortion will be increasingly questioned. As health care for the elderly advances, it’ll get harder and harder to pull the plug on grandma. Unless some sort of Soylent Green-like dystopia is around the corner, not saving people who can be saved will become more and more unconscienable.
I’ve completely written off my “sperm donors” entire family at this point. If they didn’t want anything to do with me when I was young and needed them, I’ll be damned if they get a moment of my time now that I DO NOT need them.
You should see them; you’ll get a really bif sense of satisfaction when your happiness pisses them off.
My FIL was basically a sperm donor who would come into my DH’s life whenever the mood hit him. He showed up at our house about a year after my younger son was born. I had been out shopping with my older boy for whom I had just purchased a new battery operated train which DH promptly assembled for our excited kid. At that point, FIL got pissed off that DH wasn’t paying enough attention to him. He walked out in a huff. When I asked DH what FIL’s problem was he responded, “The MF is pissed that my son loves me.” The cretin couldn’t face to having been a miserable father so he missed on out his grandsons…asshole!
I didn’t read it because it sounds like a crock of shit, but I think we’ll actually see fewer options as we age. As techology makes it feasible to save more and premature babies and the age of viability is moved closer and closer to conception, abortion will be increasingly questioned. As health care for the elderly advances, it’ll get harder and harder to pull the plug on grandma. Unless some sort of Soylent Green-like dystopia is around the corner, not saving people who can be saved will become more and more unconscienable.
Except that abortion is not longer about viability but about “feelings” again I was part of Jezebel for almost two years and there were a lot more sympathy for a woman that got pregnant of twins and decided that since she only planned for one child she will abort one and did. And when they found a clandestine doctor that did all sorts of late term abortion (to a point where the babies were born alive and killed right there) a huge part of them were thinking on how those poor women had to use an unsanitary place to get a late term abortions, not on how healthy babies shouldn’t be killed. The personhood definition is getting, expanded to make sure “women’s feelings” are the primary reason to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy. The article you didn’t read had a lot of support from “smart thinkers” about the concept that life should be terminated at the slightest fear of trauma,or that terminating a life is more humane than letting it suffer, with suffering being everything from a serious medical condition to the carrier being upset for not being able to get a brand new car at her schedule, if she continues the pregnancy. So it might be a crook of shit but more people are eating that shit by the second, IMO, YMMV.
My personal line of conduct is that I ask about potential other women if we have been on at least 3 dates. I think by then I have a good idea regarding whether or not I’m attracted to the guy and want to attempt emotional investment. At that point, I would usually introduce cooked meals or movie watching together in the dating routine. And when I’m considering introducing sex, this is where I would ask past relationship history and bill of health, as well as the clear affirmation that I want to be in a Bf/Gf relationship, and that sex will mean that for me. I guess I’m giving every chance to a guy to escape if he wants to.
I read earlier about asking a woman about her number and such as compared to revealing concurrent sexual partners and I don’t agree. People have to understand that there just as relationships gradually evolve and become serious, so do the questions asked ( aside from the general ones such as if someone wants to marry and is available and dating seriously). You can’t ask a woman’s count on date one just like it’s tacky to ask about other dates to a man.
You know, with the Supreme Court ruling today, and this post in general, etc, I’ve been thinking a lot about the purpose of shaming. (And no, I don’t want to start a political debate…)
Shaming is an essential part of life. Judgement is an essential part of life. Yeah, it can suck, but it serves the purpose of letting you know that you broke one of society’s rules. And there’s a reason those rules exist, and the purpose of shame is to open a discussion on said rules.
Which is why we have this post here, and Jason saying “man, it seems like we’ve redrawn the lines a dozen times.” We have, in a way. Because we destroyed the old dating culture, made ourselves miserable, and are now trying to re-establish rules to make ourselves less miserable.
Maybe we should re-estbalish the old rules, ey? Hehehehehehehe…
Basically, we are trying to re-establish social laws. Which is cool. But laws should have purpose.
Specifically, we call this whole thing a Sexual Market Place. In actual economics, the major reason we have laws is because all real markets have failures, and we’re trying to get a market that more closely mirrors a “perfect” market.
So in the real world, a monopoly charges a higher price. But you can regulate a maximum price, and the monopoly has to sell more of their shit to make up for the lower profit, and that makes the monopoly act as if it were in a competitive market. There’s an equilibrium, you can define it, you know you can aim for it.
There is nothing like this in the SMP. We cannot agree on what the equilibrium should be, so how in the world can we dictate that certain rules SHOULD exist? For instance, why is lying WRONG?
Most people end up in serially monogamous relationships for some time and eventually enter a longer-term marriage. These usually do not break up over N. The equilibrium is not affected by N. So it actually makes very little sense to punish women for lying about how many men they have slept with.
And it is true that most women are deteriorating their MMP by participating in the lewdness of the SMP. So they are damaging the market equilibrium, with relationships of minimal value.
So the behavior you have to shame, UNEQUIVOCALLY, is casual sex. And you UNEQUIVOCALLY should NOT shame women who lie about their N.
This is actually the exact opposite of the shaming going on here.
Something to think about, I guess.
“it actually makes very little sense to punish women for lying about how many men they have slept with.”
How exactly are they being punished? Do they feel punished or regretful?
“you UNEQUIVOCALLY should NOT shame women who lie about their N.”
Lying of any sort has always been shamed. How are women being shamed for this particular lie? Who or what group is reining in all this lying?
@Ted D
I just bought that shit hits fan book for a buck on Kindle! The perfect beach read! Does it include instructions on what to do after getting bitten by a great white?
@Cooper
I generally only put on makeup when I go out in the evening. My family is used to seeing me without it. Early in our relationship my husband told me he really likes me without it, and that’s my everyday look. Actually, I’m not wearing any in my photo on here. When I get a real photo taken I’m sure I’ll wear some, though.
Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a guy say he prefers a heavily made up look.
@Mike C
And if you saw the end of that thread you noticed that I had deep regrets about allowing HUS to be highjacked to Libya and back. I’m certainly not obligated to continue making those mistakes.
Here’s the honest truth: Every time I have welcomed or allowed male supremacists to have their say here, it has been confrontational, misogynistic, hateful and incredibly time consuming for me. This last factor cannot be overemphasized. I put up a nice Father’s Day greeting and suddenly I find myself having to police the blog on a Sunday so that I can delete the dozen messages that say women are inferior to men in every way, good for nothing, liars and selfish, shallow whores, etc. It’s a total drag, and I’m sick of it. I don’t owe these lunatics anything. Most importantly, they are chasing away the young readers. Mostly young women, but I get complaints from young men too. One regular male reader has dubbed them the Lost Boys.
In short, all this venomous anger is bad for biz. It’s like owning a cafe and having paranoid schizophrenics roaming among the tables.
One last thing – Ghost turned out to be a disturbed individual, and God help the MRM with men like him on the roll. However, I am actually quite sympathetic to MRA complaints about family law in this country. I gave him an opportunity to have his say because beneath the hate speech was an argument I understand and support.
The comments I deleted had no similar merit, in my view.
Since I don’t respect them, I don’t care. I’ll proudly stack HUS up against any one of them and prove I allow a lot more debate than any of them do. I’m also proud of my commitment to controlling for hate speech – the fact that other bloggers allow their commenters free rein reflects very poorly on them, IMO. There’s also some legal question about whether a blogger is responsible for commentary on his or her site. I am conservative in this regard. I do not wish to be put in the position of ever defending the views of these crazies.
I am fully aware that some will blame me for stepping on toes. Longtime readers know I’ve had many fierce battles here, and I made a decision months ago not to indulge them any more. Father’s Day was a blunder. I hoped Ghost could present his ideas in a rational manner, and was disappointed.
I appreciate Lokland’s honesty. I also have seen enough of his commentary these last months to believe with complete certainty that he will be a model husband and father. He has always displayed the highest level of integrity, even when I have disagreed with his views.
Mrs. Lokland knew a good thing when she saw it. Smart woman, great investment.
@JQ
And I don’t think you should be. I’m just saying that if you’re the man in the balloon, and you look down and see a wandering lost man, it’s not OK to tell him he’s near a friendly cabin dweller who can give him shelter for the night when in fact, you know there is no shelter for miles around. It’s also not very nice to tell him you don’t know anything, or refuse his pleas for help, when all along you’re perfectly aware he is half a mile from his intended destination.
@Hope
I recall taking prom pictures of my son and his gf, and I was stunned – she looked so beautiful in a simple, modest dress and wore no makeup at all. All the other girls had their breasts hanging out, incredibly heavy makeup and elaborate hairstyles. There is something really wonderful about simplicity. Like you, though, she has naturally dark lashes and eyes, and lovely even-toned skin. Not all of us are so lucky…
@Ana
OK, you made me curious. I read it. All I can say is “WTF?” The author thinks infanticide is moral? WTF?
In short, all this venomous anger is bad for biz. It’s like owning a cafe and having paranoid schizophrenics roaming among the tables.
LOL. Great image, SW!
One last thing – Ghost turned out to be a disturbed individual,
Whoa, there’s a surprise! (Not!– for sarcasm impaired.)
Your most vocal critics would suggest you cannot handle real debate and want to create an echo chamber.
Because the popular manosphere sites are not echo chambers?????? OK.
I’m also proud of my commitment to controlling for hate speech – the fact that other bloggers allow their commenters free rein reflects very poorly on them, IMO.
HUS represents a nice break from the racism and anti-Semitrism that inflects a good chunk of the ‘sphere IMO. I respect you for taking a stand.
Father’s Day was a blunder.
Yeah, that’s what you get for expressing some gratitiude for to the men in your life. Next time be subservient instead of merely grateful, you silly bitch! (Again: Not!– for sarcasm impaired.)
OK, you made me curious. I read it. All I can say is “WTF?” The author thinks infanticide is moral? WTF?
I’m saddened to say that it doesn’t surprise me at all, the comments are not better either so feel free to skip it. At this point the only thing that I think can make people question the “right to live” would be the low replacement rates. Once you have a huge problem with an aging population wasting future citizens that could cushion the burden, would become one of the things most governments and people won’t agree with, but meanwhile you are going to see more people adding to the idea that if is not economically advantageous and/or if it causes the slightest level of stress to a PWV (person with a vagina) society should find a way to accept its termination, YMMV.
Zach, I’m lamenting that you *think* that is a difference between men and women.
Bottom line is, NAMALT.
Susan, might it be time to update the “Best Posts” section of the blog? I don’t see that emotional escalation post up there, and it deserves to be. (Speaking of, I would like to second the idea of a post with examples of proper emotional escalation.)
Sue: “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.”
Fine with me. But, please put the kibosh on statements like “the manosphere says” (J’s favorite) without mentioning a specific commenter here, or some specific manosphere poster (who likely does not post here). Doing so lumps us men into opinions we don’t have, frequently.
@OTC
That’s totally fair, I’ll refrain from doing that and watch out for it from others.
Thanks for reminding me, I need to do that asap. As for the emo escalation follow up, I’m going to post one today!
@SayWhaat
Yes, NAMALT, but MMALT. This is actually not just my opinion, see both links I shared as backup for this. First the metastudy of Buss etc, second the survey that shows 83% of men would jump into bed with a sufficiently attractive complete stranger.
When you finally realize what assholes are capable of, you get a new appreciation for simple idiots.
I am being dead serious.
Susan – ” Does it include instructions on what to do after getting bitten by a great white?”
LOL probably not. I think your best bet at that point would be to have DogSquat on the crew of the ambulance that comes for you.
Zach – “First the metastudy of Buss etc, second the survey that shows 83% of men would jump into bed with a sufficiently attractive complete stranger.”
83% does not equal all men. The population of the U.S. is 311,591,917 according to Google. (link was HUGE!) So for the sake of my shitty math skills, lets just divide that by half, and then multiply it my 17% (seemingly the % of men that WOULD NOT screw a total stranger) and that leaves us with: 26,485,312 – so over 26 million guys in the U.S. that are not into casual sex. Obviously it is a minority, but I think there are a few of us around IF women are truly interested.
Of course, the issue for many women is: they think they are interested in a commitment oriented guy, until they find out that many/most of them are pretty boring, low key, laid back, unexciting folks. Then they realize they want an exciting commitment oriented man. I’d imagine that is yet a smaller subset of our 26 million above. Add to it extremely hot, or perhaps for Sassy hot and alpha, and you chip away more at that 26 million.
I don’t believe it is impossible for a woman to find such a guy, but she is indeed fishing in a small pond, and in many cases she may find that she doesn’t like the taste of the fish she catches anyway.
NOTE: I realize how rudimentary that was. But, I suck at math, and I haven’t had my first cup of coffee. I am not trying to start a stat battle because I fully admit I will lose today. I don’t have the ambition or time to look crap up.
Ramble – “When you finally realize what assholes are capable of, you get a new appreciation for simple idiots.
I am being dead serious.”
Yep.
Ted, another component that muddies the waters may be this: I recently read a well-argued commentary by a veteran PUA that basically stated the thesis that game is a collection of tactics and techniques that are designed to make a man seem as if he already has many existing romantic options.
Thus, a man who does in fact have these options (a “plate-spinner”, perhaps) will probably already act in accordance with many game standards when he meets someone new: relaxed, world-weary cynicism, “amused mastery”, ironic detachment, lack of “one-itis”, “abundance mentality”, fearlessness, lack of neediness/supplication, nonchalance about rejection, willingness to escalate, etc.
If sex/commitment are negotiations, then the man would have a high “BATNA”—”best alternative to a negotiated agreement”, or Plan B. He would be more willing to walk away from bad terms because he simply doesn’t need to deal to go through that badly.
If a man does not have several romantic options, he could use game-type skills to behave as if he did. Even a seasoned SMP swordsman could benefit from same game skills if they helped him to make sure that he was fully optimizing and communicating his talents, but the biggest beneficiaries would obviously be men who were just starting out in the SMP and needing confidence and a general tactical blueprint with heuristics and techniques.
What of a man who does not want casual sex or to juggle multiple options, but who does want to incorporate game into his approach? I think that he would be operating in a kind of gray area: his body language and nonchalance about outcomes would suggest a man who had many sexual options, while his verbal narrative might emphasize that he disliked the idea of casual sex and wanted a committed LTR with a high-quality woman.
The point is that, at least according to this interpretation of game, a man would always *want* to behave as if he had many options, even if he didn’t (note that this does not specifically require lying in the way that it has been defined). An LTR-minded man would want to be able to communicate that he was fully equipped to be a plate-spinner if he ever wanted to be one, that he *could* be a player if he was so inclined.
Is “player body language but beta-romantic mouth” a deceptive practice? Is a multi-options guy who lies about being exclusivity-minded different from a no-options guy who lies about having options? I don’t know, but it is an interesting philosophical question if one considers how much of human communication is based on non-verbal stuff.
BB,
This is undeniably the most effective method of navigating the current SMP, and the crux of game imo.
Both are a form of deception, with one method argueably more ‘harmful’ than the other, so I don’t know. In the first scenario though, wouldn’t the beta guy, even without options, still be trying to achieve the having of options, even if he doesn’t want to exercise them?
Basiat Blogger – I hadn’t even thought about that. A guy that is LTR minded but using game is basically broadcasting a short term mating strategy if he demonstrates that he has options. (regardless of if he does or does not.)
But on the flip side, the way to attract the most attention and possibly higher quality attention is to show confidence and options. The risk is that acting that way might filter out some women, and of those more are likely to be LTR oriented, since the women most likely to respond very favorably to game are women either trying to hookup to a LTR, or short term maters.
So, what is the solution? Susan continues to tell young women to give “betas” a chance, but most women are simply not naturally attracted to very beta behavior. (in the short term, which is what matters the most on those first couple of dates) I guess it comes down to women deciding if they want to take a chance on a player and be P&D’ed, or take a chance on a guy they find less attractive from the word go, but could grow to become attracted to by virtue of their other qualities. I can tell you, although many women have said that they can indeed “learn” to be attracted to and love a more “beta” guy, *I* would much rather my SO be all hot an bothered for me WITHOUT the help of my other qualities.
Jason – “In the first scenario though, wouldn’t the beta guy, even without options, still be trying to achieve the having of options, even if he doesn’t want to exercise them?”
Well this is what Susan claims many women’s ideal is: a man with lots of options that CHOOSES not to exercise them and instead concentrates on her. Or the short hand version: a tiger to everyone else and a kitten for her. (although if he were to go “full kitten” she would probably lose attraction and/or interest and things would go down hill from there…)
But realistically, just how many of those men are out there? To be sure there are some, but most guys with options KNOW they have them, and tend to exercise them to the fullest. And of those that have this mentality, I would bet the vast majority are older men that have already exercised those options and are now ready to settle down. (so women that are turned off by high N or player histories won’t want these guys anyway)
And yes, both are indeed deception to some degree.
Just to add something: a man could have a high BATNA without having other options waiting in the wings…
1) he could be a kind of SMP wizard penis-Macguyver who currently has no other options, but knows (and can project) the ability to, if pushed, go out and attract another (presumably attractive, high-quality, non-prostitute, etc.) woman with such ease and alacrity that the net effect is basically the same as that of a man who has other existing options right now.
2) he could have no other options right now, but be so independent and self-amused that he can walk away because being alone is fine with him. An interesting, perhaps unintended side benefit of MGTOW could be that this sort of BATNA-enhancement is cultivated.
Of course, these can all be stacked into one exceedingly powerful approach: the man that has many options, who would be able to have even more options with little effort expended, and who would be fine even if he didn’t have options because he enjoys being alone.
What of a man who does not want casual sex or to juggle multiple options, but who does want to incorporate game into his approach? I think that he would be operating in a kind of gray area: his body language and nonchalance about outcomes would suggest a man who had many sexual options, while his verbal narrative might emphasize that he disliked the idea of casual sex and wanted a committed LTR with a high-quality woman.
The point is that, at least according to this interpretation of game, a man would always *want* to behave as if he had many options, even if he didn’t (note that this does not specifically require lying in the way that it has been defined). An LTR-minded man would want to be able to communicate that he was fully equipped to be a plate-spinner if he ever wanted to be one, that he *could* be a player if he was so inclined.
Is “player body language but beta-romantic mouth” a deceptive practice? Is a multi-options guy who lies about being exclusivity-minded different from a no-options guy who lies about having options? I don’t know, but it is an interesting philosophical question if one considers how much of human communication is based on non-verbal stuff.
BB,
Good stuff.
It is an interesting question, ehhh? Is it “deception” or “concealment” for a many with no options to present as one who does have options?
Here’s the thing. Much of human interaction whether romantic, on the job, whatever always has at least an ancillary objective of creating, fostering, and maintaining certain images and impressions. Where is the line between “not revealing” and “concealing”? The fact of the matter is it isn’t always clear-cut. I think one thing that has been missing in this discussion about that point is that given a certain context a person may or may not have a reasonable expectation to receive certain information.
For example, I have an upcoming medical procedure, and I would expect the surgeon to give me any material information given the nature of our relationship. Withholding anything material would constitute unethical “concealment”. The real issue is what ethical obligation does a man owe a virtual stranger who he is on a first or second date with in the current SMP which HAS NOT HAD FORMAL COURTSHIP rules for decades. What started this entire debate was the unreasonable proposition that a man had to tell a woman on a first date if he had any current sexual partners. I think as the discussion has evolved we’ve moved towards a more balanced position. I really like Mireille’s position, and what she stated she does. I think it was on the third date she inquires who else the guy is seeing or what he is doing. By the third date, the girl should have a good sense of her interest and attraction level, and the guy should have at least some sense of whether she is a possible monogamous LTR candidate. At that point, I think he is absolutely ethically obligated to reveal all to give her the informed ability to walk away or ask for some sort of exclusivity if he wants to pursue things further.
Is “player body language but beta-romantic mouth” a deceptive practice? Is a multi-options guy who lies about being exclusivity-minded different from a no-options guy who lies about having options? I don’t know, but it is an interesting philosophical question if one considers how much of human communication is based on non-verbal stuff.
This is interesting but then how much would be a true lie? I will use my husband as example given that he belongs to the minority of guys not interesting in casual sex. Did he had a lot of women in line when he was meeting me? No, he told me he had been very unlucky in love very early in the process we meet. But he had the option of going back to his miniature painting and playing Video Games with his friends if I proven to not fill his ideal of mate. He also told me that the times he had been interested on a woman and rejected for an asshole his attitude was that he dodged a bullet since the woman didn’t was what he expected to be, so not dwelling a lot on “why women’s don’t like me” of course given that he is not interested on casual sex I’m sure he didn’t had as many experiences with rejection I would guess a guy that wants to bang 85% of the women he sees, is probably hurting a lot more than a guy that wants to bang 20% of the women he goes in contact with, so there is a bit of self fulfilling prophecy there. So even though he was a bit supplicating (and I must say I was a bit clingy at the beginning but he and I kind of communicate each other that this was getting old and quit really fast) he never though of himself as a man without options so I guess it depends on the guy, if he really thinks getting laid is like the ultimate goal then if he is not getting laid anything else will not be enough to walk out of a bad deal with an interested woman, hence the whole needed to have some women on the side, while a guy that considers getting laid nice enough but not the ultimate goal then probably can and will act as he has options because he indeed has, is just options aside from banging other women, YMMV.
A man doesn’t need to have a lot of casual sex to display his willingness to reject and be choosy in the relationship market. It is all a matter of having high self-respect and high standards. Being picky about who you let into your private life is a good thing.
My husband was celibate and had no harem, wasn’t dating other girls, and didn’t have a high N count. He didn’t portray himself as a plate spinner or player. Nonetheless he made me feel very lucky that he picked me, because he was extremely discerning. He screened me, qualified me and made it very clear that he would not settle for less. He didn’t need “options” or a bunch of other women around him, real or imaginary.
Of course this pre-supposes that the man is seen as high value to the woman whom he deems high value. But it has been demonstrated via numerous studies that people are attracted to those who are most similar to themselves.
The game thing to do is what many have proposed, creating images, mirages and illusions, obfuscating the truth, concealing intentions, playing mind games, and fostering false impressions. Both men and women do this, and possibly women do it more than men.
I have to say though that when I didn’t pull these games on my husband, he was more impressed with me, and treated with honesty and openness in return. Maybe we didn’t need to play those games because we were already playing a video game together and having fun.
But, please put the kibosh on statements like “the manosphere says” (J’s favorite) without mentioning a specific commenter here
@OTC
For whatever it’s worth, I do that somewhat intentionally rather than spotting out or picking on specific individuals becasue that feels rude to me. Often, I feel that a lot of issues are either diffuse and meme-like, in which case, the manosphere really does “say.” Otherwise, I am intentionally avoiding personalizing the issue. I’d really rather, in most cases, deal with issues and not personalities. Unless I find someone’s behavior constantly annoying, I tend not to mention names. I’m sorry that my doing that makes you feel lumped in with others that you may not agree with. I really do see the men here as individuals. I would welcome suggestions of any alternative phraseolgy that does not involve spotting people out.
I see that a number of interesting comments has been posted up – and that mine were taken down. I would like to take this time to respond directly to Ms. Walsh’s comments:
MS. WALSH: Consider it self-defense against a hostile takeover. All three of you are indeed articulate but each of those comments made spurious claims without supporting evidence.
OBSIDIAN: I can only speak for myself, but I most certainly did present evidence; I specifically mentioned Prof. David Buss’ books, The Evolution of Desire, and, his textbook for college students, Evolutionary Psychology, 3rd Ed. In them both he discusses the FACT that Women do indeed lie, and use deception in the context of mating strategies. He gave numerous examples, from Women lying about their weight in online dating ads and the like, to Women who deliberately lead Men on into taking them out to dinner, then absconding sexually. If you like I can provide the exact page numbers where he says this – but I think there’s something else going on here: you, Ms. Walsh, simply didn’t like what I said. That may be regrettable, but it doesn’t, and won’t, change the truth:
That Men are constantly called to account for their actions; Women, simply are not. Not by Women, and more importantly, not by Men. Fact.
“That may fly when you’re preaching to the woman-hating choir, but it doesn’t cut it here. I hold the debate to a higher standard.”
O: So do I; and I resent the implication that I am somehow “preaching to the woman-hating crowd”. If you want to shoot down my argument, you can do it in the highbrow manner you espouse; not by lowbrow tactics of hitting the delete button and then attempting to discredit your interlocutors by playing a game of guilt by association.
“Additionally, the comments were not on topic. The discussion was not about who lies more. That’s a red herring and an attempt to derail a productive discussion to further your own agenda.”
O: I beg to differ; the comments were indeed on topic, because quantity matters, and who is actually held on the hook and who isn’t matters as well. The discussion you presented proceeded on the basis that Men need to be held to account; I ask all the Men reading this if I am wrong? Your own agenda is quite clearly articulated – you are writing for a narrow subset of Women. I was merely pointing out the fact that Women are more than capable of engaging in manipulation and deceit out on the SMP, and worse, not only are they ever held to account for it, they are often either tacitly encouraged to do so by varying “contexts” – Ms. Hope’s response to my comments in this discussion provides a case in point. The very people – in this case I am speaking of Women as a group – who complain about “lies and deceit” are the very ones who either engage in a goodly bit of it themselves, or at the very least knows other Women, often close friends, who’s done and continues to do it – with nary a mumbling word coming from them. Now, to be sure, this is your blog and you have every right to run it as you see fit; but again, it won’t change a mumbling word I’ve said (again, I won’t speak for the words of other posters here, not the least of which because I didn’t have the chance to see what they actually said before you took them down).
Just because you can’t – or won’t – deal with the argument, doesn’t mean that its not valid – or “on topic”. I was talking about ethics, and how they actually play themselves out in the realworld, in real time, out on the SMP. Much of Game, in fact, directly addresses this. I’ve offered reputable sources to back me up that you are intimately familiar with. Now then – I would like for you to actually deal with what I said.
“You don’t see misandry here, and I won’t allow misogyny either.”
O: The jury is still out on the former point; as to the latter, nothing I said was “misogynist” in the least – if it was, then what Buss himself has said on this front is itself “misogynist” since again, that is where I rooted my comments in. Moreover, I don’t have a “misogynist” bone in my body, and have actually put my life on the line to protect Women, while others talk a mean game about it from behind the safety of their computer screens.
Holla back – I am most definitely looking forward to it…
O.
@ Susan in re 356:
“if you’re the man in the balloon, and you look down and see a wandering lost man”
What makes the setup for the joke work is precisely that the context is unambiguous. Despite asking a useless question, the context communicates the real intent behind the question. I submit that in the very messy world of real world early-stage relationships context is often not nearly so helpful.
“when all along you’re perfectly aware he is half a mile from his intended destination”
Unfortunately for the poor businessman, the context need not provide quite that level of information–at least in my eyes. To be fair, I suspect you are layering more detail into the context than is assuredly present for the purpose of making a point. However the very act of doing so reveals a larger point: it is critical both parties agree on the context and the implications thereof. Where this is not true, I hold both parties are at least partly at fault if things go wrong.
It is certainly honourable for the scientist to proffer information about the nearest source of material assistance to the lost businessman. Just as nothing explicit in the scenario compels the scientist to do so, nothing prevents the businessman from asking further questions.
When you finally realize what assholes are capable of, you get a new appreciation for simple idiots….I am being dead serious.
LOL. Ramble, I know exactly what you mean, but that is so funny in a such a sad and pathetic way.
I agree that there’s sort of an innocence in being ignorant or limited. My FIL was neither. He was an intelligent and complex man who was the culmination of many generations of underfathering and lacked the strength or grace to be happy that his own son had broken the cycle. And ironically, he paid a bigger price for that than DH or my kids did. The saddest thing of all was that beneath the damage, he was a lot like my husband. If he could have just dropped the bullshit, my kids would have loved him. A pity….
@Abbott:
“If a promiscuous woman wants a relationship and she is aware that fact will disqualify her per the male gaze then she will lie as needed to been seen in the best light by men. Thus the degree of lying by women is directly proportional to their degree of promiscuity. Its a bad sad double hit if a man commits to a promiscuous woman turned liar.”
O: We don’t even have to go that far, chief – how many of us have heard of the lady who tells an unwanted suitor that “I have a boyfriend” when in truth she does not? That’s lying, straight-up, I don’t care what the “context” is. Lying is unethical.
Period.
Does anyone disagree with what I’ve just said – and the near ubiquity with which Women, overall now, in aggregate, engage in this – with near total impunity?
O.
Did you just read my mind Obsidian? You just said exactly what I wanted to say. And in deed you said it very well.
@MikeC:
“I will try to make this my one and only comment as well. I’m quite surprised by the deletion of Wudang’s, Obsidian’s, Deti’s comments having read them, especially Wudang’s exposition style comments which don’t have an ounce of hostility in them. In another thread, there was a poster “Ghost of Nice Guy” whose comments seemed to me far more hostile but were not deleted.”
O: Tru dat – Ms. Walsh’s lumping me in with the “angry MRA” crowd was a pretty low shot, especially given the guff I’ve taken on both ends of the MRA spectrum – The Spearhead AND the Good Men Project(!). I mean, really…
“Susan, I would respectfully suggest you overreached on deleting these 3 comments. Your most vocal critics would suggest you cannot handle real debate and want to create an echo chamber. I PERSONALLY DO ***NOT*** BELIEVE THIS, but when you delete comments such as those 3 you lend support to that view”
O: Speak on it, brother…speak on it…
“Comments are very often opinions, and not all opinions are going to have absolute factual backing whether the opinion comes from a female or male.”
O: Again, tru dat, but please note THAT I ACTUALLY DID MENTION SOURCES TO BACK ME UP and that didn’t prevent Ms. Walsh from taking my comments down. That’s just whacked.
Period.
O.
I fully support the deletion of outright hostile and misogynistic comments. Respectfully, I think you made an error in judgement on this one
@MikeC (again):
“I fully support the deletion of outright hostile and misogynistic comments. Respectfully, I think you made an error in judgement on this one”
O: Forgot about this comment – yup, she most certainly did
O.
Hope – “It is all a matter of having high self-respect and high standards. Being picky about who you let into your private life is a good thing.”
IMO this nails it. Being super selective in and of itself is a DHV to me. But the problem is, most people ARE NOT very selective, and they have NO idea of how to spot it when they encounter it. I’ve said before, anyone (other than co-workers I have to communicate with) I spend time talking to at all has already made it through one set of filters. And if I call you “friend”, then you’ve probably come close to the odds of getting hit by lightning or maybe winning the lottery. I’m a picky, snooty, pain in the ass when it comes to who I “let in” to my inner circle. But most of my friends didn’t realize it until AFTER the process was over and they got to know me better. So although I may be very selective, it doesn’t necessarily show early on in a relationship, unless I were to start from “Hi, I’m Ted and generally I don’t like people or casual sex. What’s your name?”
yeah, it really just doesn’t work. That being said, I’ve been told that my friends often “prepare” people for meeting me. That is, if/when they are introducing me to some of their other friends, they will often tell them up front that despite the fact that I may appear to be very friendly and personable, that it takes me a long time to “warm up” to people. In other words, it is their way of nicely telling their friends not to take it personally if I don’t add them to Facebook after meeting them. I find it humorous to be honest, but I guess it also means that my friends know how I am, and that they are members of an exclusive club.
And it isn’t all my “high standards” at work either. I simply don’t have time to dedicate to having a large group of friends. The handful I have now take up all the time I’m willing to expend on socializing, and unless someone truly unique appears in my life, I really don’t plan on making any adjustments. Surely I could, but I’m perfectly happy with the quantity and quality of my personal relationships at the moment. Adding more wouldn’t make it any better, and would probably stress me out.
It always gets interesting when O.’s around.
*grabs popcorn*
Obsidian, lying is not universally unethical, as was illustrated by the extreme example of lying to save someone else’s life.
Now, let’s dissect the “I have a boyfriend” lie. What is the intention there? Most of the time, the girl is trying to spare the guy’s feelings. Instead of saying “sorry, you’re extremely unattractive to me,” she says she’s not available. This is very different in intention from the “I weigh 120lbs” lie when she actually weighs 170lbs. In such a case, the girl is being selfish and lying to gain an advantage.
Let’s take the sex out of it and give a market analogy. Let’s say a salesman comes to your door and offers you a product, and the product is inferior or not to your liking. You can insult the product and say it sucks and nobody would ever buy it, or you can say “sorry, it’s just not in our budget.” What would you do? Tell the salesman he’s awful and yell at him for wasting your time, or try to be more polite?
To summarize, lying is unethical when done for a purely selfish purpose, out of a motive to personally profit at another’s expense, or to unnecessarily cause harm to others. While most lies do fall under this category, there are some exceptions.
Internationally known polite lies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polite_lie
@Ms. Walsh:
*Deti says*:”I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the deleted posts were about “who lies more” in this SMP.”
*Ms. Walsh responds*:”Obsidian made that claim outright, without evidence.”
O: Let’s count the ways, shall we?
I said that, on balance, Women, taken as a group, tend to lie, deceive, and manipulate MORE, than do Men, on balance, out on the open dating and mating market. Here’s a short list of the ways:
1. Women (in aggregate – not all Women do this, of course) telling unwanted suitors that they have a boyfriend/husband – lying
2. Saying that they are in fact younger than they actually are in online and other personal ads – lying
3. Radically altering their physical appearance – from wigs, hairweaves and hair dyes, to makeups, heels, push-up bras, Spanx and othe body shapers, you name it – deception and manipulation
4. Faking orgasms during sex – lying
5. Giving out fake or otherwise defunct phone numbers to unwanted suitors – lying
6. Using Men for drinks, meals and gifts, then absconding when it comes time to ante up sexually – lying and manipulation
7. Posting up deceiving photos of themselves in personal ads and the like – deception and manipulation
8. Using Men for “friends” when they know they have no sexual interest in them or have any intention of reciprocating sexual interest (Women also will use Men for father figures of their kids; I just recently observed a case of this just the other day, btw)
Again – in no way am I saying that “all” Women do these things; but having said that, “all” Men don’t rape Women either – so what? The point is, that rape was a major important issue for Women, and they saw to it that it be addressed, and for my money, rightly so. Our society is a better place for it.
The current discussion proceeds along an abstract line that, when measured against the real world in real time, plays out only in terms of what is in the best interests of Women. I have a huge problem with that, only because of how so many Women attempt to take the moral high ground with it, hence terms like “ethics” – it’s not about what’s ethical, it’s about what’s in the best interests of Women – because it that weren’t true, Women themselves either wouldn’t engage in the short list of things I’ve mentioned above, or they wouldn’t tolerate it in their female friends and relatives.
Men are constantly called upon to call out their fellow Men in their lives for their bad behavior, yet Women are rarely called out for the things I’ve cited above. This forum is home to many Men here, the vat majority of whom no one with a straight face could accuse of being foaming at the mouth rabid MRA misogynists. I would wager a princely sum, if I were a betting Man, that virtually none of them would disagree with what I’ve said here.
That Ms. Walsh attempts to shut my voice down on this crucial point, is chilling, because she is indeed “killing” the very kinds of guys she wants to step forward out there on the SMP. Guys know they’re getting a raw deal when it comes to things like this, folks. Stuff like Ms. Walsh is doing here, doesn’t help things.
They only make them worse.
Oh, and again, for the record – everything I’ve mentioned here and other comments on this thread I can back up with the writings of Buss.
Holla back – if you can…
O.
@Bastiat Blogger
Perhaps it would be instructive to study men who already do this without Game.
Ah, this comes dangerously close to “instilling dread.”
When a man uses Game to create an abundance mentality for himself, he is displaying those behaviors that imply preselection even when there are no women present to demonstrate that he does in fact have options. Because there is only so much he can do to present himself physically, Game relies very heavily on social dominance to communicate “this guy does well with women.”
Men with options and no knowledge or need of Game are often more subtle. Just by looking at them, women understand they do well with women. Assuming they don’t have poor social skills or behave in a supplicating way, these natural Adonises can afford to be gracious, modest, etc. and no one will suspect they strike out with women.
This is where it gets tricky. A woman senses quickly whether a man might have options. I can’t imagine not figuring this out on a first date – we observe how other women, even strangers, relate to a man. We observe his behavior with them, as well as with friends, family, etc.
The high value male either seeking an LTR, or perhaps even married, gets attention from women and does not respond in a flirtatious way. Women provide options and openings, which are observed by other women. That’s the demonstration of high value. His flirtatious response signals that he is not interested in exclusivity, or that he is attempting to manipulate his partner’s perception of him into a plate spinner. As this behavior serves to shame his date or wife in front of other women (Remember, female intrasexual competition means that we observe everything.) she will feel dread or insecurity, and lose faith in any commitment or the potential for one.
For this reason, I maintain that flirting with other women to increase a woman’s affection is a very poor strategy if the goal is an LTR.
I don’t think that dog hunts. It’s not congruent. Player body language is different than “having options.” It’s a cocky broadcasting of how sweet you think you are. That makes no sense with beta romantic mouth. So I don’t see it as deceptive, particularly, as much as odd in a way that likely to earn you the creeper label.
I think you can go cocky/player/asshole and refrain from any affection whatsoever. Or you can go high beta with a less “in your face” self-confidence and display more affection. These two types have different target audiences.
Oh, and since I’m talking about Buss, he also mentions, in both of the books I’ve cited, that Women are known to use their “feminine wiles” on Men in order to get favors and the like. He’s produced studies in his books that speak directly to this. Again, where is the accountability for that?
Anytime any of you are ready to actually engage my argument, I’ll be all ears…
O.
@Ted D
Remember, I subscribe to Vox Day’s sociosexual hierarchy:
I don’t agree with every aspect of this definition, but I think it captures the beta very well – far better than the usual “betas are loathsome, ineffectual creatures” you find on most Game blogs.
@BB
An interesting distinction between the man cultivating options actively, i.e. spinning plates, and the man choosing to pursue one woman at a time, knowing full well that he can pull out his little black book and get women on the line whenever he wants to. Or at least be back in the saddle and working his magic in a weekend or two once he’s single.
The difference, as Ted pointed out, is that the former is communicating, “short-term” while the latter is communicating “long-term.”
This sounds like Vox’s sigma (which is what he considers himself):
@Ms. Hope:
“Obsidian, lying is not universally unethical, as was illustrated by the extreme example of lying to save someone else’s life.”
O: Ms. Hope, are you aware of studies that have been done that show that Men and Women have vastly differing views when it comes to questions of morality and justice? I believe the feminist Naomi Wolfe has spoken to these studies and poo-pooed them, but I think they speak to our – that is to say, Men’s and Women’s – evolved psychology. It is an observable fact that Men tend to value abstract principles like justice and the like in a more “black and white” way, whereas Women tend to look at “context” more. I say all that to say that your opening shot above reminds me of just tat study. My response?
Rubbish. A lie is a lie, period. No exceptions. Women lie. Regardless as to the “reasons” why they lie, they do. And it is very, very important that Men begin to get serious about calling them on it. End of.
“Now, let’s dissect the “I have a boyfriend” lie. What is the intention there? Most of the time, the girl is trying to spare the guy’s feelings. Instead of saying “sorry, you’re extremely unattractive to me,” she says she’s not available. This is very different in intention from the “I weigh 120lbs” lie when she actually weighs 170lbs. In such a case, the girl is being selfish and lying to gain an advantage.”
O: So what. The bottom line is that she lied, and that Women engage in this “little lies” all the time, since even as Ms. Walsh has admitted in a previous post, most Men will get shotdown by Women when they approach. A lie is a lie is a lie, Ms. Hope. What part of that don’t you get?
“Let’s take the sex out of it and give a market analogy. Let’s say a salesman comes to your door and offers you a product, and the product is inferior or not to your liking. You can insult the product and say it sucks and nobody would ever buy it, or you can say “sorry, it’s just not in our budget.” What would you do? Tell the salesman he’s awful and yell at him for wasting your time, or try to be more polite?”
O: I’d tell him the product sucks and close the door. And this is comes from someone who’s actually worked in sales – and that includes door to door.
“To summarize, lying is unethical when done for a purely selfish purpose, out of a motive to personally profit at another’s expense, or to unnecessarily cause harm to others. While most lies do fall under this category, there are some exceptions.”
O: When it comes to the current topic, which has to do with the modern day SMP, and when it comes to the minds of Men, THEY ARE NO EXCEPTIONS – A LIE, IS A LIE. PERIOD.
And, Women have indeed been documented to lie in this context. That’s all I was saying.
Wanna try again?
O.
@Hope #387
Beautifully explained. I cosign.
Obsidian, “saving face” is a very important concept in many cultures, and in most societies it falls under basic social skill and social graces.
- You are given a gift that you absolutely loathe. You say “What a wonderful gift! I love it!” A lie.
- You are faced with a business partner who has terrible breath. You do not mention it at all. A lie of omission.
- You are having a terrible day, and your friend had just gotten a big promotion. The friend cheerfully asks you how you’re doing, and you say, “I’m fine.” A lie.
Several of the examples you give as typical female lies fall under the category of saving face and social graces. Would a guy rather get that fake number so he doesn’t look like a loser among his buddies, or get a nuclear rejection such as “you actually think you’re going to get a number?”
Example from my own life. I am visibly pregnant, and I get asked, “Is this your first baby?” I reply yes. It’s not my first baby. I had a stillborn at 9 months and lost several others. But do most people want to hear that? No. I must be a horrible liar for not disclosing the fact that this isn’t my first baby. Right?
Obsidian, if you cannot see beyond “a lie is a lie, period,” then I must withdraw from this conversation.
@Mike C
I’ll happily cosign that! As I’ve said, I think the information is important when sex is on the table. That’s where the real risk for the woman is.
I do think that many women would be repelled if a guy escalated on the third date and then admitted he’d had sex with other people between dates one and three. It really comes across as lacking discernment, self-discipline and also hedging one’s bets. From a female POV, it’s the opposite of abundance. We think, “Whoa, I know you’re hot, but you can’t hold off for two weeks while you’re getting to know me?” I would want a waiting period of sorts – “I was seeing other women, but I’ve stopped and I’d like to be exclusive with you.” I’d give it at least a couple of dates to make sure that would stick.
I fully acknowledge that other women would consider it a DHV, and in fact, would see it as the ultimate triumph to be banged after someone’s gf leaves his apartment.
Anyway, I can’t imagine a guy working to conceal his activities between dates one and three. If you’re down for disclosure by date three, then I think the concealment argument is largely moot.
Perhaps the real positive of this SMP is that it is starting to strip away the eternally problematic, transactional “commitment in exchange for sex” proposition and (eventually?) replacing it with “sex in exchange for sex” and “commitment in exchange for commitment” running on parallel exchanges.
Susan – “Remember, I subscribe to Vox Day’s sociosexual hierarchy:”
Thanks for the reminder. I actually forgot this little piece of info.
So what would be VD’s name for the more commonly portrayed “beta” in the ‘sphere? I guess I need to hit his site and read for myself…
@Ms. Iggles:
“I don’t agree with the pushback on those comments being deleted.”
O: Of course not…
“I read O’s comment yesterday and I saw it as derailing. IMO, reframing the debate to say that the “real issue” is that women lie more than men in the SMP is changing the goal posts. This post is about ethics in dating and discussing what is considered lying. Focusing on who lies more, especially when there is NO data to back up these claims, is not relevant to this topic.”
O: But I did indeed back up what I said with sources – highly, highly reputable sources, I might add – and, the discussion, again, is kind of abstract at best, because it doesn’t take into account realworld realities out on the SMP. “Lying”, Deceiving” “Manipulating” and the like in these kinds of contexts, is usually in terms of Men doing it to Women, rather than the other way around; they ostensibly have the “all’s fair” appearance, but that’s not how it plays out in realtime. My comments only pointed out the fact – FACT – that Women engage in every bit of lies, deceit and manipulation, and worse, unlike Men, they are rarely if ever called out for it. That’s all I was saying. I didn’t say anything about MRAs. I didn’t say anything about me or any other Man being “superior” to Women. I didn’t say anything “misogynistic” or “woman hating” unless you consider merely speaking on the truth to be “misogynistic” and “woman hating” – in which case, Buss would be a “misogynist” and “woman hater” par excellence, since he was primary source for my comments here.
Again: Both Men AND Women use lies, manipulation and deceit out there on the SMP, but in truth, only one side gets culturally called out for it, and that’s Men. That was my point. And it’s one the ladies here at HUS – both the readers and commenters alike – would do well to consider. Because again – there are lots of good guys out there who see all this, and it doesn’t make them feel very good. If they see Women taking “ethics in dating” seriously – like not only not engaging in lies, deceit and manipulation themselves, but actively and loudly distancing themselves from other Women who do it, it will go a heck of a long way towards good will out there on the SMP. I’m just sayin’.
“I’m with Susan on this one.”
O: I don’t doubt it…
“Deti and Mike C, as you both acknowledged this is her house, her rules. After the clusterfuck of comments on the Father’s Day post, I think it makes sense she wants to stop derailments before they take over the entire thread.”
O: Oh, no doubt; but as I had nothing at all to do with what went down on the Dad’s Day thread, one would think that my arguments would be weighed and considered on their merits before being lumped in with the thoughts and words of others I don’t even know. Just a weebit kneejerky, if you ask me…
O.
Example from my own life. I am visibly pregnant, and I get asked, “Is this your first baby?” I reply yes. It’s not my first baby. I had a stillborn at 9 months and lost several others. But do most people want to hear that?
More inportantly, so you want to tell them. I didn’t feel obligated to tell very curious soul in the supermarket my entire medical history because they congratualated me on my pregnancy. Who needs to constantly rehash that nonsense in the name of “Truth”? It’s not anyone’s business.
Obsidian, if you cannot see beyond “a lie is a lie, period,” then I must withdraw from this conversation.
Smart move on your part. This reads to me more like Obs is interested in playing devils’s advocate than in having a real dialgue with you.
@Ms. Hope:
“Obsidian, if you cannot see beyond “a lie is a lie, period,” then I must withdraw from this conversation.”
O: Why am I *not* surprised? A Woman tells a guy she has a boyfriend when in truth she doesn’t, and you’re good with that?
Yea, I agree, you definitely need to see your way out of the convo at this point…
O.
@Ms. J:
“Smart move on your part. This reads to me more like Obs is interested in playing devils’s advocate than in having a real dialgue with you.”
O: No; just that I actually take the concepts “ethics”, “truth” and “justice” very, very seriously, and apply them, even when the hurt me. Too bad far too many of the ladies don’t hold such convictions…hence my original point. I care about these principles whether they serve my interests or not. Women, again, as a group now, only seem to care about them if and when they happen to gore their own ox.
Huge difference. Again, in aggregate – I clearly recognize that all Women don’t do these things, and they have nothing but my utmost respect. It takes true courage to go against the herd, which Women tend to be wired for.
O.
Susan, there is an amusing analogy to this stuff that I heard once: an HR director was interviewing a job candidate for a middle-management, cubicle-type position at a not-for-profit—think it was a museum—and learned that the candidate was independently wealthy to a striking degree (approx. $100 million in an asset protection trust vehicle of some kind). The question posed was whether or not this made the candidate more or less attractive for the job.
On the plus side, you know the guy doesn’t need the job, so he must really like the subject matter. It’s also quite a coup to land someone with so many other options.
On the con side, his tolerance for BS and tedium will be extremely low and he has a ready supply of “fuck you money” (in hedge fund and I-banking parlance).
I submit that this can be a useful thought experiment when considering some of the dynamics involved with high-SMV participants in the SMP. Just as it does in other areas of negotiation, the high BATNA and abundance of options could be seen as positive if they force all players to seek genuine win-win scenarios and remain on best behavior long after the initial stages of courtship.
Susan, when you think of Game equaling confidence (plus some other things like social dominance and creating comfort), your comments in 389 become almost amusing.
For instance:
would become
Perhaps it would be instructive to study men who already do this without confidence.
and
would become
Men with options and no knowledge or need [for] confidence are often more subtle.
Again, Game is simply that set of skills, experiences and knowledge that enable men to be more attractive to girls.
@Ms. Hope:
“Obsidian, “saving face” is a very important concept in many cultures, and in most societies it falls under basic social skill and social graces.”
O: I don’t disagree; but we’re not in those cultures. Here in the West, and especially in America, self-expression is sancrosanct, not “saving face”, and the way in which I choose to express myself is in the brutal relaying and expression of truths, come what may – and I have what could only be described as something beneath contempt for anyone who lies, or cheats. Male, or female. Period.
“- You are given a gift that you absolutely loathe. You say “What a wonderful gift! I love it!” A lie.”
O: I say, that I don’t want it, but I thank the person for the thought.
“- You are faced with a business partner who has terrible breath. You do not mention it at all. A lie of omission.”
O: I’ve given coworkers who funked up the place bags full of toilietries – on the down low, of course. I may be a rabble rouser, but I can be discreet when I have to.
“- You are having a terrible day, and your friend had just gotten a big promotion. The friend cheerfully asks you how you’re doing, and you say, “I’m fine.” A lie.”
O: I say, “NO, I’m NOT having a good day – but how’s yours?”
“Several of the examples you give as typical female lies fall under the category of saving face and social graces. Would a guy rather get that fake number so he doesn’t look like a loser among his buddies, or get a nuclear rejection such as “you actually think you’re going to get a number?””
O: As a Man, let me tell you that the vast majority of Men would rather get nuked that get played. The other Men here in the forum can either validate what I’ve said or tell me that I’m all wet.
“Example from my own life. I am visibly pregnant, and I get asked, “Is this your first baby?” I reply yes. It’s not my first baby. I had a stillborn at 9 months and lost several others. But do most people want to hear that? No. I must be a horrible liar for not disclosing the fact that this isn’t my first baby. Right?”
O: I never said that the Women who use lies, deceit and manipulation were “horrible people” – just that they were liars, deceivers and manipulators who do what they do with impunity. It is indeed very possible to be a nice person and also be a liar.
No exceptions, Ms. Hope. When Women try to parse out stuff like this, it makes us Menfolk lose more and more respect for you out there on the SMP, and only gives the likes of Roissy more power and leverage. You need to know that.
Stand up for truth.
O.
““Several of the examples you give as typical female lies fall under the category of saving face and social graces. Would a guy rather get that fake number so he doesn’t look like a loser among his buddies, or get a nuclear rejection such as “you actually think you’re going to get a number?””
O: As a Man, let me tell you that the vast majority of Men would rather get nuked that get played. The other Men here in the forum can either validate what I’ve said or tell me that I’m all wet.”
Actually I would like option three. The women simply tells me that she isn’t interested in chatting with me any further, and to have a good evening. I would be bummed, but at least I’d know EXACTLY where I stood and why it didn’t go any further.
I don’t understand why the only options are a nuclear rejection or a fake number? Is it really that hard to just be honest? And as far as it goes, if you want to help him “save face”, simply explain that you aren’t interested, but that you will be happy to write a number down on a napkin for him if he’d rather not look like he got blown out. I can’t imagine any but the most hardened assholes could take issue with that. You have no need to help him, but you are offering anyway.
Ted D, I’ve never given out a fake number, nor have I ever told a guy I had a boyfriend when I didn’t. The option you mention would be more honest for sure, but I think the key is that women tend to think in terms of “face” and err on the side of too much social lubrication than too little. You might like the option you mentioned, but some guys might get red-faced and start yelling in the bar. I have no idea since I don’t hang out in such places, but I would guess that is a risk, with alcohol involved.
I have rather thick skin. Since I was online from the age of 12, I’ve had guys give me grief. I’ve been cussed out, derided, mocked, called fat, ugly, and all sorts of names. Is that “honesty” or is that just rudeness? I understand that men are more blunt, but when I meet a man like my husband (or quite a few of the male commenters here) who can speak the truth diplomatically and with good social graces, it’s really a breath of fresh air. It is my natural inclination as well, but a lot of men are not quite capable of this level of social adroitness. In their cases, white lies can help de-escalate and avoid bad situations.
YMMV, as Anacaona would say.
@Ted D
Re: nuclear rejection or fake number
I’ve only once ever gotten a fake number, but I have been blowtorched by a girl before. Usually I find it very amusing, and laugh as I walk away (just the venom at a stranger is amusing, but often the comments are quite funny as well). What pisses me off isn’t necessarily those things, it’s the utter inability of women to say NO. I’d much rather have NOT give me her number if she’s never going to answer it when I call. It’s just wasting my time and hers. However, very, very few women are capable of saying no in that situation, and I have yet to figure out why.
Actually I would like option three. The women simply tells me that she isn’t interested in chatting with me any further, and to have a good evening.
Few people have the social skills to pull that one off in a non-hurtful manner or in a way that does invite further questioning along the lines of “Why aren’t you interested in chatting with me?” “Because I find you boring, ugly, eveil-smelling or whatever.” If a man really feels a woman is lieing about having a boyfriend, he should ead through the lines and consider himself told.
A male friend of mine was recently approached by an unattractive and aggressive woman who offered him NSA sex. He politely declined, making up a rather transparent excuse. He didn’t want to say, “Look, I find you fat and ugly, and your aggressiveness makes my dick retreat so far into my stomach that I won’t be able to find it next time I have to piss” because he wanted to spare her feelings. He just hoped she’d take the hint.
“When they marry, it is not infrequently to a woman who was one of the alpha’s former girlfriends”
So many times have I got, subtle, IOIs from girls that just fell short of throwing themselves at my social circles’ AMOG. (or by girls that’ve been recently discarded by him)
By that point they’re of absolutely no interest to me.
Although it’s unfortunate to think that this quote above is probably accurate.
@Ms. Hope:
“Obsidian, you mean there’s no mass-level shaming of female deception.”
O: I am, but that’s not all of what I “meant”. I mean there’s NO visible shaming and/or punitive measures taken against Women who lie, deceive and manipulate, be that big or small. In contrast, there are for Men on both counts.
“There is plenty of micro-level shaming and intrasexual competition between females, but men often do not see it unless the fight gets public.”
O: If a tree falls in the forest, and all that. Moreover, you’re right, the ladies do it, not because lying and deceiving and manipulating is wrong in themselves, but because they stand to get something out of it, hence the “intrasexual competition” thing, and this is again something that Buss has spoken to in his books that I have mentioned. I see Ms. Walsh has yet to actually speak to this; perhaps it is because she knows that I am right.
“For example if a girl wears too much makeup other girls might call her trampy, or if she wears overly revealing clothing other girls will call her slutty. If a girl lies, another girl who is in competition with her might call her out on it. Girls also shame each other on rumors, gossip and other such behavior.”
O: Agreed; see above, and which only makes a Man’s respect for ladies go down even further. I’m just sayin’.
“There are also lots of women who don’t like the manipulative women, who pollute the pool and lie/deceive men. But these are not the types of women who make it big time, who influence the media, who like the public limelight, etc. So no you generally won’t hear some mainstream media outlet or popular fashion magazine shaming women for lying about having a boyfriend or whatever else. But that doesn’t mean those things are tacitly approved by all women.”
O: No, it doesn’t. But just like all Men don’t rape, it doesn’t change the fact that it became a major issue. I am saying that Men need to make A LOT OF NOISE ABOUT THIS. And it can be done. We’ve seen proof of that right here in this forum – Ms. Walsh basically had a bird behind my comments because of what she’s experienced at the hands of the MRA/Roissysphere, a small yet highly vocal group of Men who, say what you will about them, have indeed managed to make their voices heard on these issues. The more Men speak up/speak out, the more Women will take notice. They need to know that we take ethics and their purported allegiance to same, very, very seriously.
“The thing is, when women who don’t like it judge or call out such behavior, they are also seen as catty and bitchy! So it’s a lose-lose situation. Such women are better off just staying quiet and being good, because to do anything else makes them subject to mockery, ostracization and looking mean in the eyes of both men and women.”
O: *Kanye shrug* – doing the right thing rarely feels good. If that were the case, MLK would probably be alive right now. So would Malcolm. And so on. Telling the truth and standing up for it often carries with it costs – more often than not, heavy costs. Again, are you doing it because it’s the right thing to do, or because of some other motive, like intrasexual competition? See, I force the Women in my cipher to confront these questions – because I need to know exactly where they stand on these things. If and when they fail, they are summarily dismissed.
Ms. Brown Sugah is with me today, because she passed.
Next question?
O.
@Ms. Walsh:
“Well then men have the advantage because they can easily get an accurate look in the morning. Worst case: 12 hours of deception. Cost: sexual intercourse.”
O: LOL, nice try Ms. Walsh, but with all due respect you don’t get to tell me what my cost/benefit balance sheet can or should look like; I, and many, many Men, consider deceptions like that which you mentioned above to be a HUGE nonstarter; such a scenario for me the morning after would be harrowing. This is among the reasons why I created Cafe Date Theory – something you highly praised, as I recall – to precisely combat such instances of deception that Women are very well known to employ. I quote:
“4. Also, make sure you do the meet in broad daylight, the sunnier the better-if at all possible, sit outside. This adresses several things: you’re meeting at a time of day most dont associate with sex; you’re able to fully assess her goods since women are known to use shadow to cover their more unflattering features (think Blanche DuBois); and meeting in such an open, public space puts her at ease (and also protects you in case she’s a headcase-always have witnesses).”
Cafe Date Theory
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/88661
By the way, I’ve got a “remix” on that getting ready to drop soon, so stay tuned!
“Also, I don’t really understand the idea of makeup as lying.”
O: That’s perfectly understandable; but just because you don’t get it, doesn’t mean that it isn’t deceptive. It is.
“If a woman is gorgeous with makeup, she’s gorgeous, no?”
O: Yes, she is – but she is presenting an image of herself that is patently false – deception.
“Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian without makeup? Kate Moss without makeup? Scarlett Johansson? They all drop 3-4 points.”
O: No, I haven’t, and again, what you say above only goes to prove my point…
“Those photos are regularly published in the media, yet no one revises their estimates of those women’s beauty. Because the standard of beauty applies to a made up woman. Perhaps plastic surgery should be the standard. But Megan Fox is Frankensteinian in her facial surgeries, and no one believes that the “real” Megan Fox is that Katy Perry wannabe from way back.”
O: Plastic surgery, aside from purely corrective measures and purposes, also falls under the deception and manipulation catergory, and by all accounts, lots of Men are good with it (and, for the record, Buss mentions all this at length, in The Evolution of Desire). That they are, still doesn’t change the fact that Women engage in these practices. No matter how you want to slice it, Women do indeed engage in deceit and manipulation, and makeup and plastic surgeries are only two of a myriad examples that prove this.
By the way, for what it’s worth, I loathe Women who wear warpaint; I need to see her face, that’s very, very important to me. Any deceptions on her part to obscure or artificially augment it nets an instant “DQ” from me.
O.
“I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS THREAD TO BE DERAILED BY MALE HAMSTERBATING ABOUT LYING. THIS IS UTILITARIAN ETHICS, REJECTED BY ALL RESPECTED PHILOSOPHERS AND ETHICISTS.”
O: NO ONE IS “MALE HAMSTERBATING” ABOUT LYING; I AM MAKING THE CASE THAT WHILE THE DISCUSSION PROCEEDS ALONG “UTILITARIAN” LINES, IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, IT IS ONLY MEN WHO ARE CALLED OUT FOR BEING LIARS, DECEIVERS AND MANIPULATORS. AND I AM SAYING THAT NOT ONLY IS THAT PATENTLY UNFAIR, BUT IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE VERY “UTILITARIAN ETHICS” YOU CHAMPION IN THIS VERY POST. IF WOMEN TRULY WANT A CHANGE OUT THERE ON THE SMP, THEY CAN START BY TAKING ETHICS SERIOUSLY – DON’T LIE TO GUYS YOU AREN’T INTERESTED IN, DON’T LIE ABOUT YOUR AGE OR WEIGHT, DON’T POST MISLEADING PICS OF YOURSELF, DON’T FAKE ORGASMS, ETC ET AL. TAKE THE HIT FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. THAT’S WHAT PART OF STANDING UP FOR ETHICS IS ALL ABOUT.
FREEDOM AIN’T FREE – SOMEBODY’S GOTTA PAY.
“NO PERSON MAY JUSTIFY LYING BY CLAIMING THE BEHAVIOR OF ANOTHER PERSON WARRANTS IT.”
O: I HAVE NEVER TAKEN SUCH A POSITION, NOR WOULD I TOLERATE IT, PUBLICLY OR OTHERWISE. A LIE IS A LIE, PERIOD.
Zach, here’s a good article about why women don’t say “no”:
http://www.quora.com/Do-women-have-a-harder-time-saying-no-than-men-If-so-why
I have made this point earlier as well. Women have to be careful when we state an opinion, make an assertion, or stand up for something. If men want feminine women, and the feminine way is to be polite, deferential and socially “nice,” then it’s very hard for the same woman to be blunt, honest and say firm no’s.
There are also studies that show the more attractive the woman, the greater the man estimates his chances are with her, and men tend to overestimate an attractive woman’s interest. She can be saying no, but he thinks she really means yes and presses on. By transferring the “no” to a third party (i.e. boyfriend) she is “firming up” the no.
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-36191323932401/
@Ms. Hope:
“I have made this point earlier as well. Women have to be careful when we state an opinion, make an assertion, or stand up for something. If men want feminine women, and the feminine way is to be polite, deferential and socially “nice,” then it’s very hard for the same woman to be blunt, honest and say firm no’s.”
O: Being afraid of the consequences doesn’t change the fact that lying is lying. Take the hit, if you truly believe that ethics matters. I do, and am willing – and have, far more than once – paid the price for it.
Ride or die, Ms. Hope. Ever heard of that?
“There are also studies that show the more attractive the woman, the greater the man estimates his chances are with her, and men tend to overestimate an attractive woman’s interest. She can be saying no, but he thinks she really means yes and presses on. By transferring the “no” to a third party (i.e. boyfriend) she is “firming up” the no.”
O: Nope; she can nuke him if he doesn’t take the hint. I’ve already told you that I’d rather be nuked outright than lied to, regardless as to the “reason”, regardless as to the “context”.
A lie, is a lie. Period.
O.
P.S.: For the fellas – and ladies – reading along, ask yourself this fun question:
Would any of these ladies here be so willing to consider the “reasons” and “contexts” of why a cad, was a cad? Hmm? And, why he lied about thus and so? If you’re answer is “no” – why then should we be so understanding of “reasons” and “context” when Women engage in lying? Can someone please explain this to me? Am I missing something here?
Obsidian, my response was to Zach, not to you. I am done talking to you.
Is that honest enough?
@Obsidian
There’s no need. I’ve got my Buss right here. Here is everything he says about the use of deception by each sex. (I am not happy I have to type this out.
)
Do not even attempt to dodge and weave on this one Obsidian. Buss makes clear that women suffer more from deception at the hands of men than vice versa. Please acknowledge this before posting any other comments.
@Ms. J:
“Few people have the social skills to pull that one off in a non-hurtful manner or in a way that does invite further questioning along the lines of “Why aren’t you interested in chatting with me?” “Because I find you boring, ugly, eveil-smelling or whatever.” If a man really feels a woman is lieing about having a boyfriend, he should ead through the lines and consider himself told.”
O: I find it deeply amusing that we’re seeing you and Ms. Hope and possibly others here going through all these gyrations to justify and rationalize a Woman’s lies. Moreover, let’s cut right to the chase – in most cases, it ain’t about “sparing the guy’s feelings”, its about NOT WANTING TO TAKE THE HIT IF THE GUY GETS PISSED OFF FOR YOU REJECTING HIM. Well, tough – that’s life. If you truly value ethics, then you do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. That is the adult approach to life.
“A male friend of mine was recently approached by an unattractive and aggressive woman who offered him NSA sex. He politely declined, making up a rather transparent excuse. He didn’t want to say, “Look, I find you fat and ugly, and your aggressiveness makes my dick retreat so far into my stomach that I won’t be able to find it next time I have to piss” because he wanted to spare her feelings. He just hoped she’d take the hint.”
O: While that may be gentlemanly on his part, it still doesn’t address my point; nice dodge. And for what it’s worth, I actually have told Women flatout that I found them highly unattractive and dismissed them when put in a similar situation to your male friend. Big big whup. *shrug*
Stop making excuses. We don’t want to hear it in the case of Men, and rightly so – and this comes from one who has publicly and directly distanced himself from Men who were known liars and cheaters to the Women in their lives. I made it clear in no uncertain terms that I could not be seen to be associating with them because if I did, others would think the same thing of me. Though it cost me friends, again, I take principles like ethics and justice seriously.
There is simply no excuse for Women to lie and deceive and manipulate in the way they do, just like there is no excuse for Men to do same – and I have gone on record, and Ms. Walsh knows this, about my loathing for Men, like Roissy, who do these things.
O.
@Hope #416
I tend to be more direct than the average woman and I can vouche for the fact that it does alienate some people. My good friends value it, are amused by it or tolerate it, but there are definitely men who find it unfeminine and women who find it bitchy. I work to moderate it when I feel I am in danger of hurting others, but I often wish I were better at the little white lie.
#418
Brava!
@Obsidian
Sorry, that was only intended for Deti. In that case, the woman-hating blog is important because that’s Deti’s primary online home.
That is not true. The OP was written to both sexes, and included examples pertaining to both sexes. I estimate that 30-40% of my readership is male, and while I usually address women, I also write posts that apply equally to all. I try to carefully signal this with proper use of pronouns, examples, etc.
Re misogyny, I was not accusing you of that – same story as above. However, I do maintain that engaging in moral equivalency based on the claim that women lie more is irrelevant to the post, and what’s more is not morally defensible.
@Ms. Walsh:
“Do not even attempt to dodge and weave on this one Obsidian. Buss makes clear that women suffer more from deception at the hands of men than vice versa. Please acknowledge this before posting any other comments.”
O: Yes, I acknowledge what Buss has said, and I would gladly concede that Women suffer more, on Evo grounds, when they are victims of deception. Duly noted.
That said however, the point does not diminish mine – that Women do indeed engage in all manner of deception, do indeed lie, and do indeed sexually manipulate Men. Fact. Moreover, the issue was about ethics – not whether one suffers more than the other, though again, I freely admit that Women do on Evo grounds. The point is that both do, and we really don’t take what Women do on these fronts seriously, because, well, it ain’t a big whup to Men, ostensibly. To that I say, bunk. Either ethics matter, or they don’t. It’s about the principle here, Ms. Walsh.
Please acknowledge that.
O.
@Obsidian
Objection! Sustained.
Whether you’ve heard of the lady or not is immaterial. Ubiquity, impunity. You’re using inflammatory language to start a debate with zero evidence. I will not allow it.
“Few people have the social skills to pull that one off in a non-hurtful manner or in a way that does invite further questioning along the lines of “Why aren’t you interested in chatting with me?” “Because I find you boring, ugly, eveil-smelling or whatever.” If a man really feels a woman is lieing about having a boyfriend, he should ead through the lines and consider himself told.”
I can see this is true. And I also didn’t take into consideration that *I* value blunt honestly over all else in communications, which it seems IS NOT what most folks are looking for. I’m not one to chat up strangers anyway, so IF I actually approached a woman, and she politely yet clearly indicated to me she was not interested, I would thank her for the time and consideration she gave me and make my exit.
I’ll chalk this one up to my INTJness and leave it at that. But I’m on Obsidian’s side in terms of honesty. All else being equal, I’ll take brutal honesty over deception any day. It may hurt my feelings, but at least I know exactly where I stand. Nothing pisses me off more than being lied to, and then acting on that lie as if it was correct and truthful information. I’d much rather a women tell me that she isn’t interested instead of “I have a boyfriend.” If she is honest, I can use the rejection as info to improve my next approach. (this is assuming I would actually ever desire to get better at approaching, but I digress.) If she tells me “I have a boyfriend” she is denying me the opportunity for that self improvement, because I’ll walk away thinking I did everything perfect and she just wasn’t available.
J, I have some INTJ and INTP female friends in real life, too. We get along just fine, but they do alienate the more SP and SJ types.
I think being pregnant makes me less patient than usual, too.
“If a man really feels a woman is lieing about having a boyfriend, he should ead through the lines and consider himself told.”
It’s not very hard to read between the lines when girls use these “nicer” rejection lines. I usually find it insulting. Not being attracted to me is one thing, concluding that I’m so pitiful that I probably couldn’t handle the truth (within MOMENTS of meeting me) is another thing – a insult.
So, as Ted said, I’d rather “get nuked than played.”
I feel more certain than ever I did the right thing in deleting those three comments, though I owe a couple of apologies.
The MRA/misogyny accusation was meant for deti alone and I stand by it. I apologize for implying that Obsidian and Wudang were guilty of this. I have no evidence of that whatsoever.
As we now see, Obsidian attempted to highjack the thread with a source that not only does not validate his claim, but refutes it.
Wudang’s comment was deleted because it responded to Obsidian and Deti, and because in my view it did engage in the form of adversarial debate that I do not wish to host here.
HUS is not a place for leveling accusations at the opposite sex. Period. I don’t allow “all men suck and are douchebags” like so many blogs by women do. Nor will I allow, “all women are lying bitches.”
It’s very simple: Please adopt a tone that respects the manner of debate here. That means leaving your weapons at the door.
Cooper – “I usually find it insulting. Not being attracted to me is one thing, concluding that I’m so pitiful that I probably couldn’t handle the truth (within MOMENTS of meeting me) is another thing – a insult.”
This is a stellar point that I hadn’t even considered, but in other cases where I am lied to I do feel insulted. And I also think Obs is right in that most of the time the “little white lie” is more about the woman avoiding any possible outbursts from the guy and less to do with trying to be mindful of his feelings.
I can completely understand that, but as Obsidian pointed out, if ethical behavior is your primary concern, lying to avoid negative consequences should not be an acceptable course of action. In fact, a truly ethical person would tell the truth KNOWING that it could/would cause them a negative reaction.
But in the interests of full disclosure, I answer “fine. and you?” to the question “how are you today?” even when I’m far from fine, simply because no one wants to hear about my problems, and even if they did I have no desire to share. I’ve never claimed to be a model of morality, but I still get the impression that I’m closer to the top than the bottom of the list.
Susan – “That means leaving your weapons at the door.”
OK, but when the zombies show up, you are gonna wish I had that shotgun handy…
I’ve never really understood the male objection to this. In using this excuse as a means of rejecting a male, the female generously allows him to save face, especially when others are present (which is usually the case when this line is used).
I believe it is the rejection itself that irks men, and while I understand their disliking it, I don’t believe men have a right to be angry at women for rejecting them (and vice versa).
How many men would prefer to be told any of these things in front of a woman’s friends, and possibly his own?
You’re unattractive.
You smell bad.
I hate beards.
Sorry, you’re not my type.
I like blonde guys.
You’re way too skinny for me.
You seem dumb.
Your fingernails are long and dirty. Gross!
Your high pitched giggle turns me off.
etc. etc.
And then of course, some women do have boyfriends.
Personally, I think the best response is a simple “No, thank you.” Unfortunately, many men view that as an invitation to increase their attentions in hopes of changing her mind. “Oh, really? What, I’m not your type? You too good for me? You think you’re such hot shit?” etc.
@Obs
There is considerable evidence that men are more “fluid” in their morality. I wrote about one study here:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/05/04/hookinguprealities/the-malleability-of-male-morality/
And from Eric Barker:
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/why-do-women-apologize-more-than-men-its-not-76454?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bakadesuyo+%28Barking+up+the+wrong+tree%29
This makes it all the more crucial to examine intent rather than the materiality of the lie itself.
Is the intent to gain personally at the other’s expense?
In the case of “Sorry, I have a boyfriend” clearly not. The intent is to allow the other person to lose with the minimum expense.
And I also didn’t take into consideration that *I* value blunt honestly over all else in communications, which it seems IS NOT what most folks are looking for.
Me too. I just realize that we are the outliers here.
I’ll chalk this one up to my INTJness and leave it at that.
I think its an INTx thing, maybe even being a little ‘spergy. I am not a great reader of social cues, so I prefer verbal honesty. A non-sexual example: When I moved from one house in my neighborhood to a nicer one, a soon-to-neighbor approache me and told me how excited she was that our boys would be acroos the street from each other and could play together all the time. After the move, she started to dodge me. It took two friends to explain that she probably over-estimated the friendship between the kids and was now embarrassed. I would have preferred for her to not have been so efflusive in the first place. She seemed unforgivably phony to me, but my friends understood immediately where she was coming from; she was just “being friendly” and, to a degree, I misread her politeness as real friendliness. OTOH, in her place, I just would have said, “Welcome to the neighborhood,” but some people find me aloof.
If she tells me “I have a boyfriend” she is denying me the opportunity for that self improvement, because I’ll walk away thinking I did everything perfect and she just wasn’t available.
That’s true, but a lot of people don’t want to mix in to other’s self improvement to that degree. It’s a big responsibility to take on, especially if they lack any real knowledge of you and are just operating on a feeling of simply not being attracted. And actually, being unattractive to a random person in a bar is not really grounds for embarking on a self-improvement plan. I have a lot of traits that some people love (“You are such a straightshooter, J! I always know where I stand with you.) and others just hate (That J, what a bitch!”).
Oh that must be very hard. It’s a great example though. How about this one:
Hi, how are you?
My anal fissure hurts today.
My husband flirted with my son’s kindergarten teacher at our conference this morning.
I don’t like you and wish you would stop talking to me.
My bank says I bounced a check. I have to call them.
Very frustrated. The avocados are not ripe and I’m supposed to serve guacamole tonight.
Another failed in vitro procedure! No embryo!
Just had an abortion, feeling a bit dizzy.
My hyperhydrosis is acting up. Let’s shake hands.
Are all of these preferable to “Fine, you?”
I’ve been notorious, in my dealings with men, for being very blunt with them. I am one of the women who DOES tell guys that she’s not interested, point blank.
Do you know what I get in return for my honesty?
I’ve been called a bitch, a lesbian, a prude, and other names far too many times to count.
I know that there are some men out there who genuinely do appreciate honesty, when it comes to being turned down, but I have been thoroughly surprised by how many men have flipped their shit when I turned them down.
In my mind, I’m always thinking, “Sorry, but I’m not obligated to like you. Why are you so pissed?”.
I know that rejection stinks, but I don’t understand why some men take rejection from any particular woman so personally.
Susan – I certainly wasn’t suggesting women should tell men they smell bad, unless that is something they feel the need to do. But there is a lot of room to work between “you stink” and “I have a boyfriend” (when in fact she does not).
“Personally, I think the best response is a simple “No, thank you.” Unfortunately, many men view that as an invitation to increase their attentions in hopes of changing her mind. “Oh, really? What, I’m not your type? You too good for me? You think you’re such hot shit?” etc.”
I get the impression that the players/gamers (not Hope type gamers. Guys who consider themselves “game practitioners”) might see a simple “No, thank you” as a challenge and step it up. In fact, this is exactly the type of behavior that irks me with sales people. “Is there something I can help you with today?” “No, I’m just looking, thanks.” “Well we have some great sales today on…” And I’m thinking: I just said no thanks to your offer for help, back off! (why do so many sales people have a general lack of regard for people’s personal space?)
I am probably one of the worst regulars at HUS to discuss social interactions with. Frankly I see most social “niceties” as a waste of time and effort, and fully believe that if everyone was just honest (not rude or mean, just honest) life would be MUCH simpler. But I’m learning that not only do most people dislike “simple” (I guess it is just too damn boring), but most also actually enjoy the complexities of social interaction. Perhaps that’s why I think so much. I don’t waste half of my mental faculties making sure I’m acting in a social and politically correct manner. (although at least at work I’ve learned my lesson about watching my PC filter.)
@Bastiat Blogger
I’ve been thinking alone these lines recently. The bifurcation of the SMP in this way would prove very efficient, I think. Of course, there would be actors who moved back and forth between the groups, which could be especially difficult for women. Overall, though, that’s the direction I’ve been heading. The emotional escalation post is really a “commitment for commitment” post. Of course, this can only work if the commitment for commitment proposition assumes plenty of sex in addition. Really, it’s STR vs. LTR, with all players understanding the terms up front. That’s the tricky part.
J, I have some INTJ and INTP female friends in real life, too. We get along just fine, but they do alienate the more SP and SJ types.
That makes sense. Isn’t S a more feminine mode? I seem to alienate more women than men with my directness. Men tend to like it or at least to be neutral about it.
Sassy – “Do you know what I get in return for my honesty?
I’ve been called a bitch, a lesbian, a prude, and other names far too many times to count.”
Yeah, I’m willing to concede that the issue of gracefully rejecting a guy’s approach is complex. I truly do forget sometimes just how messed up some people are. Why someone would take offense to a pleasant and polite rejection puzzles me to no end. I guess many people take it as a personal insult that every single person they talk to doesn’t adore them.
Me? I’m happy when people think I’m an asshole. It saves me from having to deal with them.
I respect those of you who want the truth at all costs, but “blunt honesty” can suck it as far as I’m concerned. I cannot imagine insulting a woman who merely attempted to be friendly with me, regardless of her physical appearance, and I have no problem with a woman trying to lessen the impact of a rejection by saying she has a BF or whatever. Call me shallow, call me amoral, but I do believe that the line between “deceptive practices” and “elegant manners” can be a thin one indeed, and that subtle contextual considerations may require different approaches.
As for cosmetic enhancements, I say bring on the NARS, Guerlain, 650cc breast augmentation, Balmain boots, highlights, etc. I’d rather someone bring her “A” Game and make me feel that I have to bring mine, too.
It’s not very hard to read between the lines when girls use these “nicer” rejection lines. I usually find it insulting. Not being attracted to me is one thing, concluding that I’m so pitiful that I probably couldn’t handle the truth (within MOMENTS of meeting me) is another thing – a insult.
I’m not sure they take the time to determine that you are so pitiful that you can’t handle the truth, especially within moments of meeting you. They just want to break off the interaction before it gets really uncomfortable.
@Obsidian
I knew you would taunt me by posting your “let me count the ways women lie” list. Fine, I’ll leave it up because you are just wrong wrong wrong.
Every ethicist and philosopher I referenced was male.
We’ve already determined via Buss that both sexes use deception and that women suffer more for it. In that sense, reducing deception overall in the SMP would benefit women more than men, because they pay a higher price for every lie. Buss notes that men risk very little even when a woman is deceptive about her intentions.
Flirting with a beta orbiter to get him to carry your backpack is not on the same page as pretending you like a girl when you know you’re going to pump and dump her if you talk your way in.
It sounds to me like Buss thinks that men have the better deal. In Evolution of Desire, he also give a lot of attention to the sexual ratio. In this SMP, that heavily favors men. Why the need for deceit in that case?
@SW #434
LOL. Ever go to the doctor and become unsure if “How are you?” is social or medical? I’ve actually gotten stuck and confused over that one.
@Ted D
Delta or Gamma. Here’s the link:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html
Perhaps it would be instructive to study men who already do this without Game.
Susan,
This is an incorrect view on this issue. In fact, what you’ve stated here is an oxymoron. ***ALL*** men who are good with a good number of women have “Game”. It’s just a question of when it was developed, under what conditions, and what timeline.
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _____________________________________________________
http://www.rooshv.com/the-myth-of-the-natural
The term “natural” is usually thrown at a guy who has always done well with women. He possesses charm, alpha traits, and the logistical know-how in sealing the deal. He’s so vaulted in the pickup community that a lot of gurus advertise “natural game,” where you, too, can be natural like the naturals.
I believe that just because you see a guy get laid without game, that doesn’t mean he’s a natural. Man has been getting laid for millions of years without conscious study of game, yet the term is thrown out so frequently that even your father could be considered a natural simply for getting with your mom.
If I were forced to agree on what a natural is, it would be a man who’s a prodigy of sex—someone who gets laid way above other men with no formal instruction in game. This means he was not exposed to any 12 DVD “Cocky Humor” sets or seminars in a hotel room with three dozen other guys. You look at him and think, “Wow, he gets laid automatically. He was born to get laid!”
But he wasn’t. Just because he didn’t read a book doesn’t mean he didn’t learn through trial and error like you did, practicing his game on a
large number of women. It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t conscious and deliberate with his behavior, incrementally improving his moves and tactics over a long period of time. He has experimented like you have experimented, and he has also connected his attempts with results to figure out what works and what doesn’t.
He may not be obsessive about it enough to log his data into a spreadsheet, but he’s mindful and aware of what he’s doing. He understands the mechanism behind charm and can often turn it on or off depending on what he wants. He has learned the type of humor and story-telling that gets a positive response in women. The last thing you can say about him was that he was born into the world with the “automatic” ability to fuck a lot of girls.
The reason he blows you away isn’t because of his genetics, but because of how early he started. A unique set of circumstances threw him into the sex game years before you, during a time he was lucky enough to be surrounded by giggly schoolgirls. By the time you did your first approach, he had already practiced his game on hundreds of women. At this point you may be thinking,
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _____________________________
So. The guys who are “good with women without Game” are simply the guys who learned and developed this stuff at a young age that it was seamlessly integrated into the core of their personality at a very young age. With these guys you don’t recognize it as a set of tools and tactics and specific communication (like a neg). You just see it as “that is who they are”. But that is because you are NOT looking hard enough. Their “Game” is so good it seems effortless and natural without the slightest hint of artificiality. Guys who have to learn to “be good with women” in their 20s face a more uphill battle in terms of seeming “natural”.
Ah, this comes dangerously close to “instilling dread.”
Boy…this “instilling dread” thing really is a hot button for you
I can’t find it now, but later I’ve got an Athol Kay post to link for you to read. I’m curious if you’d throw him the camp of the “bad character” guys advocating “instilling dread”?
This is the point in “Deletegate” that has some merit. I can only wish that this point was made in a manner inviting open discussion rather than a pile-on. The listing of all the ways in which women lie is inflammatory as well as inaccurate. Since I defined the debate as being about intent, and the deleted comments did not address that question, they were not relevant.
The question of how society at large treats female deception is an interesting one and I would be more than happy to discuss it.
Objection.
Sustained.
Ah, this comes dangerously close to “instilling dread.”…Boy…this “instilling dread” thing really is a hot button for you.
I can’t say I’m a fan of it either. I would find it hurful at first and then become discouraged and back out of the relationship.
I tend to like people who like me.
@Ramble
Yes, but it all depends on the application. I personally have witnessed a huge difference between the behavior and demeanor of “natural” alphas vs. those guys who have acquired Game. That is hardly surprising, especially among young men who are learning. They are “faking it till they make it” and body language definitely does not read the same way. Some men do achieve mastery of Game, and then I think the two would be indistinguishable. But I believe this is a small minority of men.
IMO, a guy with cocky, player body language and a romantic beta mouth, as BB termed it, would read as false.
@ Ted D
Haha!
I hear you man.
I know that some women may not be completely honest when they say that they have a boyfriend, and they don’t, but they are avoiding some very big risks and scary situations that I have dealt with because of my honesty.
I wrote once before on this blog about a guy in a bar who refused to take no for an answer. He ended up following me out to my car in the parking lot and blocked my car door so that I couldn’t get in it. He stood there screaming at me and calling me a bitch until 4 random men came outside and physically carried him away from the situation. They weren’t even bouncers. They were just 4 guys, probably college aged, who saw what had happened between the guy and I and decided to intervene. I was extremely grateful to them for a long time afterwards.
There was also one time where I told a guy who was hitting on me that I had a boyfriend. I really did have a boyfriend at the time, and I was being 100% honest with him. You want to know what his response to me was?
“I don’t care about your boyfriend.”
What do you say to that? I remember being struck dumb, at the time.
« 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 »