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 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 »
Obsidian – Well I can’t name some of them because we are forbidden by our host, but I’m sure you can easily determine who they are. As for their commenters? I can start a list, but it really is pointless. If I spend 1 hour at the typical “R’s” blog, I can find a dozen commenters spewing standard hate. Now we can argue that the bloggers themselves aren’t promoting it, but they also aren’t doing much to squelch the fires. I assume they figure even the angry guys are reading, and if bringing in readers is the goal, then all that drama serves the purpose. But, it isn’t doing much to further the cause with most sensible people.
Again I agree with you that the roots of PUA aren’t promoting bad behavior, but if Susan will permit, I can quickly pull together some links to ‘sphere blogs where the bloggers and/or the regular commenters come across as very hateful, angry, and bitter. Off the top of my head Uman (http://www.theuniversityofman.com/) comes to mind. I actually enjoy some of the posts, but the comments to them tend to turn me off to the entire site. And JBAMAI (http://justbeamanaboutit.wordpress.com/) is another one where the blog host sometimes pushes the boundaries towards “woman are things to be used” type speech. Although I don’t know if these would be considered a PUA site as much as a ‘sphere site in general. But in many cases the lines between those have blurred quite a bit. If these are not considered PUA, then I will fully admit I’ve not seen a dedicated PUA site as every one I’ve frequented also touches on other ‘sphere issues.
This is simply part of the discussion we’ve had before. I think there are a lot of guys giving “advice” without really considering how they affect others. Or worse, there are a few that know EXACTLY what they are doing. Perhaps for some men there is a need for all that anger, but one thing a good father should do is teach his son’s to deal with anger in a proper and positive manner. I don’t see a lot of that online, but there is certainly a lot of “go get those bitches” type ranting to be found.
And none of this has anything to do with what women should or shouldn’t be doing. But if we view this as a battle of the sexes and/or a war, I for one would like to be on the moral side. What is the point of fighting if it isn’t to make things better for everyone involved? It seems that many men in the ‘sphere desperately want things to be better for them, but to hell with women. After all, this is all their fault…
The intra-sexual competition thing is also the main reason why preselection works. This is why having other girls flirt with you will usually earn you points, but you flirting with other girls can backfire.
This probably sounds petty, but girls loooooooooooooove making other girls jealous. They often have different ways of trying to achieve this. ie. it can be through a fabulous career, a hot boyfriend, a large shoe collection, or even flowers at the office. It doesn’t have to be malicious (some girls will even try to out-lovely each other!), but it’s pretty much always true. This is one of the few cases where I’m not going to accept a NAWALT.
Hey everyone, I’m catching up after the holiday break.
This doesn’t match my own observations at all. I think it’s very different for Millennials. First of all, they don’t go on dates at all in college. It’s all hanging out in groups, going to parties together, etc.
Post-college, dating is alive and well on online sites, but one on one dates are rare outside that. There are exceptions – guys making bank in big cities may date, e.g. Zach, and guys over 27 or so are much more likely to ask women on real dates. I’m not sure if that’s because things have changed in five years, or because they age into the practice. I suspect it’s a bit of both.
The end result is that women go out frequently with their friends, often in coed groups. They make good money and can treat themselves to whatever they desire. Young women do not depend on men in any way for entertainment. The only purpose of dating today is to shop for an LTR or husband. Which is why the “provisioning” dynamic is still apparent at times.
Just a bit of caution about flowers at the office – this is something that you should be sure she’s comfortable with first. It’s not always an appreciated gesture. For me, there are few things a guy could do that I would hate more than him sending me flowers at work, to be honest. I don’t LIKE the attention from co-workers that it elicits and I ended up feeling very uncomfortable and unhappy about it. (Why yes, I am an introvert!)
There is also the fact that I am allergic to the majority of flowers, so in my particular case, it would be a sign that he really hasn’t been paying attention. Also, I have had to request co-workers who sit near me to take their flowers home before, because their pretty bouquet makes me unable to breathe. I’ve also worked in at least one place with a ‘scent-sensitive’ policy that forbade flowers altogether, so you might wish to investigate that sort of thing before shelling out on blooms.
I think it’s time we lay to rest the assumed link between church attendance and chastity. If field reports online are valid, the reverse would seem to be true. I don’t know whether these girls are rebelling or acting out, but Karen Owen is the daughter of a Baptist preacher. I’m sure a shrink could have a field day with this topic.
Women generally exhibit an orientation toward one or the other, based on personality traits as well as the environment. Think of it as a spectrum. From Wikipedia:
Many in the ‘sphere have linked female ovulation to the idea that women pursue concurrent ST and LT mating strategies. Buss says otherwise in this study: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/ovulatoryshifts.pdf
There was a correlation between increased female sexual desire for mated partners during ovulation, but no significant relationship between fertility and extra-pair partners.
Buss examines the previous study by Gangestad (so often produced in our little corner of the internet) and discovers that a significant subset of Gangestad’s sample were in non-exclusive relationships. Buss examined the link between sexual desire, ovulation and extra-pair mating looking only at women in exclusive relationships.
Lastly, from a study published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology:http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep07179205.pdf
However, the findings from our
two subsequent studies of emerging adults of varying ages suggest that men’s and women’s
mate preferences, short-term mating desires, and long-term mating desires vary little
between the ages of 18 and 26; sex differences in short-term mating desires and in value
placed on a mate’s physical attractiveness do not vary with age, either.
This should put an end to claims that a significant number of women pursue ST and LT mating strategies simultaneously.
Emily, if you are dying to meet a girl who is not Like That, then find a girl who is very STEM.
I don’t mean some girl that is majoring in Bio and is likely to end up in management, but someone who is genuinely STEM through and through.
In general, the more scientifically logical the person, the less they get out of even mild drama.
You can see some of this in The Big Bang Theory with Bernadette and Amy Farrah Fowler. Yeah, it is a sitcom and they exaggerate a lot, but it can give you a fair idea of what I am talking about.
Obsidian 868:
I’m not even talking about dominance as “going Thug”. Men don’t have to “go thug” to demonstrate dominance in a male-female relationship.
I’m talking about dominance as male frame-setting, having her step into your frame and refusing to operate in hers, making the final decisions. making plans, telling her “no” when necessary, and directing and telling on occasion rather than asking.
In a dating situation, dominance manifests as outcome independence, making the approach, being direct and forward (without being threatening or creepy), and making plans for a date or meetup, and making her step into your frame and not vice versa.
I think Susan’s off in saying women prefer prestige to dominance. If there are studies that talk about this I’d love to see them, and evaluate the sample demographics. I know plenty of men with money, social status and a little clout in their jobs and social circles, but women turn up their noses at these men left and right because “they’re too NICE” and “they don’t stand up for themselves”. I am living, breathing proof that a good job, provisioning, status and money for a UMC lifestyle don’t attract even a wife.
@deti
The best posts to read about the downside of dominance:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/05/16/hookinguprealities/10-reasons-to-date-a-beta-male/
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/12/14/relationshipstrategies/are-alpha-males-struggling-to-remain-relevant/
Of course, you may be disputing the semantics re the way the word dominance is used to describe deploying Game in bars and other social settings. Since Game is predicated on the idea of “alpha,” and born alphas tend to exhibit both positive and negative dominance traits, it really behooves women to be careful of naturally dominant men.
That’s not at all true. If you believe a woman is using you to get free stuff, don’t date her. Problem solved. Men should aggressively filter out women like this. One way to do that is to propose a fun, informal date with limited expense, which I fully support.
In my experience, girls who CHOOSE to attend regular church services when they are in their late teens and early-to-mid 20′s are, generally, more chaste than the average girl.
Again, this is for girls who *choose* to attend regular services.
I remember hearing that when Jessica Simpson and her sister were teenagers, they *chose* to go to their father’s church in bikinis.
The problem with the immorality of lying by omission is that humans aren’t as rational as philosophers would like to believe. They don’t make dating decisions based purely on information- they make it based on signals and how you reveal facts about yourself could signal something that is untrue. People often don’t know what the right questions are to ask to get the perception that they’re looking for.
The examples I’m thinking of include a woman inquiring about a man’s educational background when what she’s really wondering is how *intelligent* he is. Or a man asking a woman about how many men she’s slept with and judges the answer to be a high, slutty number, when in reality, they were all monogamous LTRs . Contrast this with the girl who slept with only 3 men but she cheated on all of them with each other.
Right, he’s snapping up women who want thugs. There certainly are some out there! Women vary considerably in their tastes, so it would be highly erroneous (exception bias and confirmation bias) to generalize.
Mike C,
Thanks for the tips, I’ll see if I can put any of these into practice. I’ve always been wary of the whole ‘let me show you proper squat form’ opener, as it seems really transparent and corny, but hell, it has plausible deniability so I’ll give it a go if I get a chance.
Like you, I’m always pretty focused in the gym and I always wear headphones, but I look the part and do notice some IOIs every now and again. A girl who understands the lifestyle a bit would be a big plus for me, and it helps that when they look great.
Among humans, the number of male and female virgins tracks pretty closely, as does the number of sexual partners. That’s held true in data from the CDC, Justice Dept. and Census, as well as surveys on college campuses.
As for legalized prostitution I don’t care one way or the other. I certainly don’t think anyone should be compelled to mate against their wishes.
>> “In my experience, girls who CHOOSE to attend regular church services when they are in their late teens and early-to-mid 20′s are, generally, more chaste than the average girl.
Again, this is for girls who *choose* to attend regular services.”
This is key. For example, when people make stereotypes about slutty Catholic girls, they’re almost always talking about girls whose parents forced them to go to Catholic school. NOT the same thing!
You cannot generalize from that. That’s exception bias and confirmation bias both.
The male median age for marriage is 28. And there’s no way a man reaches his peak in his late thirties. By 28 a guy should have his career trajectory in place.
Your presence is key? Haha, you really are something Obs. HUS has done just fine when you haven’t graced us with your presence.
Furthermore, your superzip criticism is precisely what people said of Lena Dunham – how dare she write a show about four white women living in Brooklyn.
I write what I know, and I’ve never pretended otherwise. Mating in America is so bifurcated, I don’t think it’s really possible to mix and match SES groups. The practices, stats and trends are diametrically opposed. And zip codes are probably an excellent way of drawing those lines.
By 28 a guy should have his career trajectory in place.
Susan, personally, I had my career trajectory started at around 21-22, but, for so many guys, especially today, they don’t have it in place by 28.
Actually, I would say, that it is around 28 that many start to figure out where they are “landing”. Actually, think about Jim in The Office (yeah, I know it’s a sitcom, but, bear with me).
He did not take his job seriously at all until his late 20′s. Only then did he realize that it was his career. And this is a guy who had steady employment with a boss that (almost literally) loved him.
Think of all the guys that can’t get steady salaried job until they are, say, 28.
I would say that for most young guys today (i.e. guys that did not attend prestigious universities) they will not be certain in their career until, at least their late 20′s.
@Obsidian
That is not your judgment call. I will not have you insulting my readers. J is highly valued here as a regular, and I respect her highly. I also personally enjoy hearing about her marriage, and I would hate to think that your snide remarks would cause her to self-censor.
Do whatever you like at The Obsidian Files, but if I were about keeping it real and raw this blog would have been destroyed long ago. HUS is known for civil, respectful debate, and I intend to keep it that way. Take it or leave it.
@deti
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/06/03/relationshipstrategies/how-women-really-feel-about-male-dominance/comment-page-8/
@ Obsidian
Thank you Susan.
I may rarely agree with anything Obsidian says, but I do understand his right to free speech. Having said that, he has his own blog, and he can talk about whatever he likes over there.
I remember hearing that when Jessica Simpson and her sister were teenagers, they *chose* to go to their father’s church in bikinis.
Yikes!
@SW
I write what I know, and I’ve never pretended otherwise. Mating in America is so bifurcated, I don’t think it’s really possible to mix and match SES groups. The practices, stats and trends are diametrically opposed. And zip codes are probably an excellent way of drawing those lines.
True dat!
Additionally, you need to write for your audience. This blog attracts a certain demographic–educated/professional/MC/UMC. When I read this blog, it’s not because I want to know what the inner city SMP is like. While interesting, it’s not the SMP that my sons will operate in. DH and I worked very hard to leave the proletariat behind. Barring diaster, we have no plans to re-join. This blog gives me some insight into campus life that I expect to come in handy in the near future.
@ms sassy:
I would love to hear about the relatively few things i say that you do happen to agree with. Do tell!
And i thank you for standing up for freedom of speech, especially in light of our national holiday. It functions best when we hear that which we DONT like. Thats what its all about.
As for my keeping it “real and raw” what i mean by that is i am about telling the truth even if it hurts me. And the big huge fact that has emerged not only here over the past week but over at the good men project-a site that ostensibly airs mens voices-is that *women dont like brutally honest discourse-and men tend to do this more than do women*.
This is why you want me to scurry back to my blog so you ladies can go back to, as steve harvey put it on tyras show (look it up on youtube) “pass bad information back and forth between each other”. Women know deep down that the info they get on relationships and the like from other women is at best suspect-hence why harveys book is a huge blockbuster, and why women really desire to have male “friends”-read your buss.
Everything i say, here or anywhere else, is open to examination and inspection-indeed, i welcome it. It stands or falls on it merits and more often than not its more the former than the latter.
But theres something else at work ms sassy, and this harkens back to our previous exchange(s) last month:
You made it a point to note how tactless i am-and you would be right. Theres a stylistic way in which i do things that in itself is important; the medium is the message indeed. When miles davis strikes that discordant note on his horn it aint because he cant do no better-its because hes making a point. When rappers talk about the truths of their lives in the way that they do-and i remind you that the biggest purchasers of hip hop are guys that makeup your self-professed “man mkt”-they are indeed making a point. What is that point you may ask?
That men would rather deal with the “truthiness” of things rather than attempt to seek consensus, which is a hallmark of the way women think. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
You didnt ask, but heres one for you to consider: if in the future you come across something that deeply upsets you, more often than not it does, because its true.
The trick is whether youll grapple with it or not.
The exchange btw you and zach repays study and reflection, btw. I know it did for me…
O.
J is highly valued here as a regular, and I respect her highly. I also personally enjoy hearing about her marriage, and I would hate to think that your snide remarks would cause her to self-censor.
LOL. No worries there. There’s some lovely slobbering on your new thread.
Susan, I really appreciate your kind words and your respect. Right back atcha, babe! You provide a valuable service for your readers and have turned doing something you love into a huge success.
I also respect your right to enforce civil discourse on your blog and to keep it a welcoming place for new commenters who might be cautious about enter the fray, but for FWIW I really don’t read much of what Obs posts. Skimming this thread over right now, I have the impression that Obs is upset at me for having a nice marriage, being happy that some ugly people found love, and for viewing his posts as derailing at best and disrespectful to the dead at worst. I don’t see that changing in the near future.
My plan is to continue ignoring Obs, mostly because time wasted in dealing with him is lost forever. I’d have expected him to do the same, but apparently, I’m currently ocupying a lot of real estate in his head. I just hope he’s not expecting a check for the rent.
And other people as well. There really are some things that are better left unsaid.
J – “When I read this blog, it’s not because I want to know what the inner city SMP is like. While interesting, it’s not the SMP that my sons will operate in.”
This is MY sticking point. I never expected my children to have to operate in the lower SES SMP, but here I am watching my school district go from MC/LMC to LMC/welfare and there isn’t a damn thing *I* can do about it unless I move. With the housing market as it is now, moving really isn’t an option. And from where I’m sitting, the lower SES has a FAR more messed up SMP than UMC by leaps and bounds. To be completely frank, things down here just look REALLY bad. If I wanted to push my boys for easy sex and lots of hookups, this environment would be optimum as there are literally plenty of young girls with low self esteem and “daddy” issues around me. That being said, there are also plenty of young men that think they are gangsters causing trouble for people that just want to be left alone, because they have to make a name for themselves in the “hood” somehow.
The more I see this transformation, the less sympathy I have for UMC folks having a hard time finding a marriage partner. I’m sure things seem pretty dire up there, but perception is reality. If anyone wants to feel better about having difficulty finding a husband/wife at Yale, come stay with me for a few weeks. After seeing what there is in terms of mate selection around here, even the worst choice at an ivy league school will seem like hitting the lottery.
This is one of the few cases where I’m not going to accept a NAWALT.
Sorry, Emily, but NAWALT. I agree that a lot of women are very competitive, there’s still a sizable majority that don’t care to play that game. It just doesn’t seem that way because the non-players fade into the woodwork or appear to be even more stuck up because they can’t be bothered to compete. IRL, I’m often preceived in the latter category. I’d bet Hope is happy to fade into the woodwork when the shit hits the fan because I can ‘t see her wanting to play.
I agree that a lot of women are very competitive, there’s still a sizable majority that don’t care to play that game.
J, did you mean to say sizable majority or sizable minority?
Because, I, for one, cannot agree with there being a sizable *majority* that do not enjoy at least a little bit of that jealousy inducing game.
@Ms. Walsh #925:
*quoting me*: “As for my keeping it “real and raw” what i mean by that is i am about telling the truth even if it hurts me.”
“And other people as well. There really are some things that are better left unsaid.”
O: One of your valued readers/commenters would beg to differ:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/07/03/hookinguprealities/i-didnt-mean-to-blow-up-your-spot/#comment-132839
I quote:
“True. Absolutely true.”
As I was saying…
O.
I sympathize with you, Ted.
I grew up in a white ethnic prole neighborhood that was separated from the inner city by a narrow band of barrio. On the other side of my school district was a small UMC band that had been gerrymandered in to the district to provide racial and economic balance. What saved me (and several of my neighboorhood friends) was a determination to escape the working class and have something better and the fact that the school was tracked. We had some educational opportunities that we would not have ordinarily had because we were placed in the uppermost track with the UMC kids. It’s important to have some skills.
While the economy continues to suck, the financial sector, in which DH works, continues to expect slooooow recovery. There will continue to be well-paying jobs for those with real skills. While I worry that Charles Murray is right about the death of an emotionally and socially healthy proletariat, I still do think that people who aspire towards living a good life can indeed live one. (We haven’t reached the Idiocracy scenario yet.) If I were in your place, I’d point my kids in that direction.
@Ms. J #924:
“LOL. No worries there. There’s some lovely slobbering on your new thread.”
O: Ugh…TMI…
“Susan, I really appreciate your kind words and your respect. Right back atcha, babe! You provide a valuable service for your readers and have turned doing something you love into a huge success.”
O: No doubt. Here, here!
“I also respect your right to enforce civil discourse on your blog and to keep it a welcoming place for new commenters who might be cautious about enter the fray,”
O: OK, what exactly does “civil” mean? We know that Women don’t always say what they mean nor mean what they say – and I for one suspect this “civil” to mean something else. I say this because I don’t cast personal aspertions on others, or call them names – and both you and Ms. Sassy has done this to me, with nary a mumbling word from Ms. Walsh. She didn’t think what either of you said to be “uncivil”. So, I really wonder what the heck is really meant by such pleas?
“but for FWIW I really don’t read much of what Obs posts.”
O: Yes, which explains your recent diatribe…
“Skimming this thread over right now, I have the impression that Obs is upset at me for having a nice marriage,”
O: Nope; I couldn’t possibly care less about your or anyone else’s mariage that I don’t even know. Strike one!
“being happy that some ugly people found love,”
O: Nope; I’m all for people finding love however and wherever they find it – and that includes ugly folks. If anything, YOU have a problem with PUAs and the like, who want to pursue hot Women. For all your blathering about “interests” (to which Ted most eloquently spoke to), you sure seem to be “interested” in stuff that by your own admission, you don’t even have a dog in the fight on or about. That was what I was responding to in the Munson thread, and like a coward you ran off without addressing it.
“and for viewing his posts as derailing at best and disrespectful to the dead at worst. I don’t see that changing in the near future.”
O: Nor do I see your hit-and-run commentary changing much in the future.
“My plan is to continue ignoring Obs, mostly because time wasted in dealing with him is lost forever.”
O: Hallelujah! I’ll drink to that…
“I’d have expected him to do the same, but apparently, I’m currently ocupying a lot of real estate in his head. I just hope he’s not expecting a check for the rent.”
O: Can we expect anything less of squatters?
O.
@Ramble
LOL. I meant a sizable minority.
I’m the world’s worst proofreader of my own writing. My mind automatically plugs in what I meant instead of what I wrote.
I don’t think I expressed myself very well. :S
What I’m referring to doesn’t have to be aggressive, high-drama competition. (I agree that NAWALT when it comes to that sort of thing.) But I still think pretty much all woman like the idea of having something that other women secretly envy, although different women will have different things that they take deep pride in.
@ Obsidian
Whenever I’ve agreed with anything you’ve said, it is because it’s a concept or idea that I’ve known about and agreed with before you’ve ever mentioned it.
As far as how you “keep it raw and real”, I have no problem with it in and of itself. As I said earlier, everyone has a right to freedom of speech. With that being said, people also have the right to refuse to be an audience. Say anything you want, but say it in places and situations that allow you to without grief.
At the end of the day, this is Susan’s blog. This is Susan’s place and she is an ever pleasant host. She has rules and regulations that we, as commentors, must abide by. Doing so promotes a friendly atmosphere for everyone to engage in.
The problem is that your “raw and real” way of speaking to people isn’t welcome here. Susan and many other commentors have voiced their negative opinions of your way of speaking. Despite such protestations, you’ve seemed reluctant to change your ways of speaking to people on here. That breaks the rules and it causes grief amongst other commentors here.
If you want to talk “raw and real”, I don’t understand why you don’t do it on your own blog or other places that welcome it. We all have to abide by the rules. If a person doesn’t do that, they get banned. Would there be any problem with you if you changed how you spoke to people on here?
J – “If I were in your place, I’d point my kids in that direction.”
No worries there. I came from a similar background myself, being a poor white kid in a MC/UMC school district by virtue of being absorbed by a larger school district. (after grade school. I did the Catholic school thing 1-6 and there was surrounded by rather rich and nasty kids.) I’m not worried so much that our kids will be pulled down by the environment around them, but more so that I want them to know there is more out there. Part of why we ship them off to family in the summer is to expose them to other places than here. My ex lives near Newark Ohio, which gets my son to a more rural/agricultural area AND close enough to Columbus to let him feel another city. My SO’s kids go to South Carolina for part of the summer, and back to New Hampshire for the other, and in both cases they also get to experience a different environment. (we jokingly call it our personal “fresh air project”, where inner-city kids are taken to the country as a learning experience…)
And as it stands, our school district is at an odd place. There is a bit of a divide between the haves and the have-nots, and mostly the kids “stick to their own”. But, like I said, the up and coming thugs need to prove themselves, and this always seems to lead to violence. Unfortunately, the focus of that violence is often boys from the “haves” group, since they make easy targets. How you ask? Well the “haves” tend to follow the rules, and since they have morals and manners, they do their best to avoid fighting, which means they get pushed around a lot. Lately they’ve started to push back though, and as much as I like to see them stand up for themselves, I also fear it may come to a standoff situation that may lead to some major fights. To the school’s credit, they are trying to keep a lid on things (The Superintendent stepped down this summer so that they could bring in someone younger and better able to deal with the situation, or so rumor says…) But I can’t deny that having metal detectors at the doors of our schools makes me nervous.
But I still think pretty much all woman like the idea of having something that other women secretly envy, although different women will have different things that they take deep pride in.
Most, I’m sure. Being envied is validating.
Nonetheless, it really is possible, I think moreso as we get older, to stop caring about other people think. Maybe it’s needing less external validation, or just the realization that life is short, or knowing that goes on inside the heads of others is beyond our control, but I do find that as women get older, it gets easier to let it go.
@Obs
I did see that Scoot appreciated your advice, and I was relieved because I thought it was rather harsh. It’s also not always true that the failure to get a man to commit can be traced to the woman’s hotness. For example, in this SMP most male 9s or 10s will not commit to a female 9 or 10. Market forces at work.
In any case, HUS is not a place where you should feel obligated or entitled to tell women what they need to hear.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO3vrf8j9JU
J – “Nonetheless, it really is possible, I think moreso as we get older, to stop caring about other people think.”
I’ll cosign this, although I think it has less to do with “age” and more to do with “maturity”. I only point this out because I firmly believe you can be young AND mature, it’s just pretty damn rare.
You and I really do have a lot in common, Ted!
I’m glad your kids have a chance to great a wide variety of experiences. That can only do them good.
My kids, though located in a UMC area, also has metal detectors. It IS a nasty everyday reminder that something can go wrong. OTOH, between the non-district kids who may bring their neighboorhood conflicts to school with them and the odd suburban kid who might go Columbine, I’m glad the metal detectors are there.
I’m really glad that the school superintendent is on top of things. Often they have their hands tied by too much policy or are too afraid for their jobs to do much.
@Ms. J & Ted:
Very interesting exchange! Here’s my take on it:
Ms. J: While the economy continues to suck, the financial sector, in which DH works, continues to expect slooooow recovery. There will continue to be well-paying jobs for those with real skills. While I worry that Charles Murray is right about the death of an emotionally and socially healthy proletariat, I still do think that people who aspire towards living a good life can indeed live one. (We haven’t reached the Idiocracy scenario yet.) If I were in your place, I’d point my kids in that direction.
O: With all due respect, have you even read Murray’s book? Here’s a presentation he gave on C-SPAN a little while back:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304306-1
Murray’s argument is that the UMC is so far removed from the “Fishtowns” of the world that they don’t know, or care, what happens to the latter; and this is on top of the fact that it is harder and harder for the latter to “escape”. It’s a book that merits discussion here in this forum, precisely for the reasons Ted has enunciated – which brings us to –
Ms. J: “When I read this blog, it’s not because I want to know what the inner city SMP is like. While interesting, it’s not the SMP that my sons will operate in.”
TED: This is MY sticking point. I never expected my children to have to operate in the lower SES SMP, but here I am watching my school district go from MC/LMC to LMC/welfare and there isn’t a damn thing *I* can do about it unless I move. With the housing market as it is now, moving really isn’t an option. And from where I’m sitting, the lower SES has a FAR more messed up SMP than UMC by leaps and bounds. To be completely frank, things down here just look REALLY bad. If I wanted to push my boys for easy sex and lots of hookups, this environment would be optimum as there are literally plenty of young girls with low self esteem and “daddy” issues around me. That being said, there are also plenty of young men that think they are gangsters causing trouble for people that just want to be left alone, because they have to make a name for themselves in the “hood” somehow.
O: Speak on it, brother. Speak on it.
While Ms. J can “escape” the brutal reality is that WHITE PEOPLE like Ted, CAN’T. And discussions like those that take place here at HUS don’t really take him into account – not because he doesn’t share the same aspirations, desires or fears, but because he wasn’t lucky enough to be where Ms. J is. Whatever you may think about Black folk like me (assuming you know me, and it’s pretty clear that Ms. J doesn’t – more on this in a minute), the reality is that, as Murray notes, not only is there a growing and very real class and cultural divide among White folks, but one half doesn’t “see” the other – and I think Ted and Ms. J, in this forum, speaks right to what Murray was talking about. DEEP
MS. J: Tru(e) dat! Additionally, you need to write for your audience. This blog attracts a certain demographic–educated/professional/MC/UMC. When I read this blog, it’s not because I want to know what the inner city SMP is like. While interesting, it’s not the SMP that my sons will operate in. DH and I worked very hard to leave the proletariat behind. Barring diaster, we have no plans to re-join. This blog gives me some insight into campus life that I expect to come in handy in the near future.
TED: The more I see this transformation, the less sympathy I have for UMC folks having a hard time finding a marriage partner. I’m sure things seem pretty dire up there, but perception is reality. If anyone wants to feel better about having difficulty finding a husband/wife at Yale, come stay with me for a few weeks. After seeing what there is in terms of mate selection around here, even the worst choice at an ivy league school will seem like hitting the lottery.
O: I don’t know about anyone else, but I find the above two quotes utterly fascinating – and again, here we see the brilliance of Murray, and if you can’t see how all that connects to topics obtaining here at HUS, then your “court vision” (a popular – and powerful – basketball concept) sucks. It’s so powerful, I won’t even comment on it further; it stands on its own.
Oh, what the heck I changed my mind. Ted’s point is powerful: in the end, THE UMC’S GONNA BE ALRIGHT. After all the handwringing and the like that’s done by the Ms. Walsh’s of the world (and here we have to include Women like Kay Hymowitz, et al), their daughters are going to be OK. Murray’s scads and reams of data, points to this.
It’s the daughters of the Ted’s of the world, who’s future is very much in question. And they are the ones who NEED the “HUS” type stuff the most, but rarely if ever get it. Like I said, DEEP.
I just want to repeat something Ted said above, which cries out for an answer:
TED: That being said, there are also plenty of young men that think they are gangsters causing trouble for people that just want to be left alone, because they have to make a name for themselves in the “hood” somehow.
O: But, WHY do “they have to make a name for themselves in the “hood” somehow”? WHY?
I’ll tell you why: BECAUSE THE GIRLS LIKE IT.
Young males who have nothing else going for them are the ones who are the most likely to take the most life-threatening risks in order to display mate-worthy traits to females. That’s why.
And that is key in the sidebar discussion between Deti and Ms. Walsh on the question of “dominance vs. prestige” – which I’ll be dealing with in a moment. But for now, understand: by definition, the VAST MAJORITY OF GUYS CAN’T ACHIEVE “PRESTIGE”. There just aren’t enough avenues, especially in our time for that to happen – there are only so many Ivies/internships/etc to go around – and – “prestige” takes time, usually years, to attain. It correlates with older (male) age. And it explains why BEAUTIFUL Women, tend to select for older Males (Buss).
Finally…
Ms. J needs to understand something. While “the inner city SMP” is indeed interesting, we have to be careful here – I often refer to Black America, but it’s a varigated place. I grew up solidly middle class, but like most middle class Blacks, I had/have a foot in the underclass “street people” life, working class life, and have been able to rub a lot of elbows in the “Buppie” classes, too.
Here’s the real trick though: what’s happening in Black America, is slowly creeping upward in White America – with no end in sight. It is for this reason that I said what I did to Ms. Walsh earlier, about my presence here being so important. True, she can and has done extremely well without such a voice at the table. But that doesn’t mean that my voice isn’t valid – and on this score I have the writings of Murray, Tiger, Hymowitz, and Hacker to back me up. Like it or not, we are truly all in this, together.
Holla back,
O.
<i?That men would rather deal with the "truthiness" of things rather than attempt to seek consensus, which is a hallmark of the way women think. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
Girl writes what (who rocks) had a great blog post that touched on this:
http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2012/03/transcript-of-men-not-marrying-how-deep.html
”
Women have this bias, which provides them a natural ability to form cooperatives, relate to other women, and seek consensus though their strong mechanism for own-group preference based on gender alone. Given their gender roles through most of human history, this mechanism makes sense. Their individual value as, to put it bluntly, breeders, meant that in a survivalist environment, you didn’t throw a woman on the trash pile without a pressing reason. Adjustments were made when possible to keep as many women as you could within the sisterhood. ***This is where you find a ton of attention in female spaces given to things like “tone” and “being nice” and “getting along” even when there are disagreements. It’s all about comfort level and feelings of acceptance.***
She continues:
A male space that leads to a positive male identity need not be free of women, but it still needs to be male–men need an environment that suits their psychology, not one in which they must be metaphorically castrated in order to steer clear of trouble with HR. And I’m not even talking about vulgarity or expressions of sexuality, but aggression, ambition, ribbing, competition, passion, authority, and plain speech–all of these are often discouraged when women are present, in order to spare feelings and prevent discomfort. Outspokenness is replaced with drawing room rules of discourse and ingenuity with protocol, all of which render a feminized workplace, though tolerable to men, no longer a path to a positive MALE identity.
Based on my experience here commenting for the last 2-2.5 years I think, I think this is one of those massive divides between the sexes that just is what it is. I think men prioritize getting to the truth and correctness of a matter….to hell with anyone’s feelings. Women on the other hand prioritize everyone feeling good and a strong emphasis on not offending someone’s sensibilities.
Me personally, I think there is a grey zone between stark, blunt, direct no holds barred articulation of one’s views and positions versus being an asshole, but I think many women often tend to view the former as the latter much more than is really the case.
Anyways, my position is online at various blogs they generally become more of a “male space” and a “female space”. Both spaces are entitled to define the rules in their particular space. Now there are female spaces that don’t want male participation except of the mangina sort like a feministing or Jezebel, and I would never comment there in a million years realizing the total futility/ridiculousness of it. Other spaces at least officially “invite” male participation. In those cases a balance has to be reached between playing by the “female space” rules while not neutering one’s typical language. Otherwise, the invitation for male participation really isn’t genuine. Whether warranted or not, it is a simple fact that most male oriented blogs don’t engage in much censorship except for blatant trolling but almost never for content. Female blogs tend to use a lot more censorship of comments. I do think many guys quite sensibly and rightly “tone it down” here on HUS versus elsewhere. I know that I generally dial down the bluntness here.
For the record, although I don’t always agree with Obsidian, I respect the man. I’ve had the opportunity to interact with a lot of black men in my life (I was a hardcore b-ball player at one time) and they tend to be more “in your face”. Me personally, I like it as it is devoid of pretense and fake propriety. And if one is going to give, you’ve got to be prepared to get it back. I’d have to go back and check, but I’m pretty sure some people went after O first before he came back firing.
@Ms. Walsh:
“@Obs
I did see that Scoot appreciated your advice, and I was relieved because I thought it was rather harsh.”
O: I don’t know nor in any likelihood ever meet Ms. Scoot, but I have younger sisters, and I came at her like she was one of them. Which is why I signed off the way I did. What I said to her was based not only on my own experiences and observations, but all my studies too. It was real. She saw that for her ownself.
“It’s also not always true that the failure to get a man to commit can be traced to the woman’s hotness. For example, in this SMP most male 9s or 10s will not commit to a female 9 or 10. Market forces at work.”
O: Not always true, but true more often than we’d like to admit it – which again goes to Ms. Scoot’s point about the big lie she’d been spoonfed as a girl and young lady growing up etc. BY OTHER WOMEN, I might add. Deep.
“In any case, HUS is not a place where you should feel obligated or entitled to tell women what they need to hear.”
O: I feel neither, Ms. Walsh; I am merely speaking on reality as it actually happens.
“httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO3vrf8j9JU”
O: LOL! I LOVED “The Fockers” series of films!
O.
@Ms. Sassy:
While I definitely appreciate your comments directed at me, I think your time would be better spent thinking on the exchange between yourself and one Mr. Zach – who by all accounts, is the kind of guy you would want – yes?
So, let’s agree that Obsidian is bad for business – fair enough? OK.
Now, let’s go back to the exchange between you and Zach here.
You know what was fascinating about that exchange to me, Ms. Sassy?
What was fascinating about that exchange, was how Zach so nonchalantly blew. You. Off.
When you came at him with the line – I’m paraphrasing now – about you having problems with a guy you’re seeing also having sex with other Women, even though you’re not yet exclusive – his response was basically, “I’m good with it” when you suggested a kind of power move (“I’m outta here”).
In fact, I recall Zach saying something like he could stand a 35% net loss of gals like you, because he would still have 65% of gals who not only would be up to his standards, but they would also NOT sweat him about what he was doing with his free time; indeed, I distinctly recall him saying that he would “think about changing it” if he found that the numbers of Women like you sweating him the way you would be got to be around 50%. He’d “think about changing it”. NOT “he’d change it” – he’d “think about it”.
Now THAT’S Gangsta.
If I may – and, in the words of the late great Mike Wallace, please forgive me – but you have much bigger fish to fry, than Obsidian, if what Zach has said is even half true.
Good luck with that.
O.
@Ms. Walsh #912:
“Right, he’s snapping up women who want thugs. There certainly are some out there! Women vary considerably in their tastes, so it would be highly erroneous (exception bias and confirmation bias) to generalize.”
O: No doubt; but this notion that Women are neatly put into various “camps” just doesn’t hold water. For example, how do you explain the “50 Shades of Grey” piece? The guy in the book comes a heck of a lot closer to a “thug” than not, only he isn’t covered in tats, wearing a wifebeater and saggy jeans, etc. The truth is, that Women have highly variable sex drives and interests, and indeed strategies, all of which are heavily context-dependent. I don’t see why that’s such a big deal, Ms. Walsh.
Do you?
O.
Obsidian – “O: But, WHY do “they have to make a name for themselves in the “hood” somehow”? WHY?
I’ll tell you why: BECAUSE THE GIRLS LIKE IT.”
You nailed it further down. These kids KNOW they will never get a “prestigious” career. Sure, they may have the same chance as any other poor kid, but statistically only a small percentage of them ever get out and up, so the easier route is to be infamous. If you can’t become a doctor or a lawyer making six figures to attract attention, you “pop some caps” and earn “street cred” to clean up with the hotties on the street that are looking for the “father figure” they never had. And to even be able to run in these gangs, you have to prove yourself to them, which usually involves some sort of violence or illegal activity. And again I want to point out that at least around here, this is NOT a black/minority thing. There are plenty of white kids pulling the same thuggery. If anyone doesn’t believe that this is no longer a minority issue, here are the stats I found online for my town. (from the 2000 census, so a bit dated…)
**The racial makeup of the city was 87.85% White, 9.84% African American, 0.12% Native American, 0.23% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 0.37% from other races, and 1.58% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.72% of the population.**
Notice the area is still mostly a “white” community, yet we are seeing an increasing amount of gang type activity in specific areas (not surprisingly near the section 8 housing) which is rapidly spreading around to other areas. Also note, that although I say I live close to Pittsburgh, these numbers are NOT for the downtown Pittsburgh area. I live in an eastern suburb of town that like many others used to primarily be a “mill” town.
@ Obsidan
I didn’t have a problem with what Zach said or how he said it. He conveyed his message clearly and with tact. We did differ in opinions, but I have no problem with that.
Notice how neither he nor I became irate with each other or got into an arugument. We merely disagreed.
He has every right to decide not to change his actions. I have every right to do so as well.
We simply had a discourse, and I enjoyed talking with him.
Bringing up Zach doesn’t change anything I said to you in my last post whatsoever.
“The guy in the book comes a heck of a lot closer to a “thug” than not, only he isn’t covered in tats, wearing a wifebeater and saggy jeans, etc.”
This was actually one of the thoughts I had when I first heard about the book, and partly why I dislike it so much. I’ve seen lots of “all woman don’t like thugs/asshats” here and elsewhere, but there is no denying that a large portion of the western female populace certainly has some hidden “violence” triggers they may not like to discuss, but sometimes act on even against their own better judgment. The popularity of 50 Shades tells me that FAR more women would like to be roughly dominated than they care to admit. For sure, I bet many of them would be scared during and maybe even swear it off after the fact, but many would try at least once. And I’ve seen enough seemingly intelligent young woman end up pregnant to an unemployed thug to know that no matter what they might say, they find those dangerous men sexually attractive, even as they fully admit that on an intellectual level they are repulsed by those same men. Thing is, many of those young women don’t believe they will ever be able to “snag” a doctor or lawyer any more than those thugs believe they can ever BE a doctor or lawyer. So they settle for what they can get.
I have to wonder how many UMC women get all excited imaging a romp with a gangster type thug? They seem to like the their version: a young, rich guy into S&M. Take away rich and switch S&M for generally douchebaggery, and you have the average thug.
I’ve noticed that at male space blogs, the women are almost always obsequious, and often willing to say very negative things about their own sex to curry favor. Women who do not tow the line are virtually crucified by verbal attacks from men – this is often essentially hate speech. I’m not talking about blunt, direct honesty here. I’m talking about all the generalized pronouncements about the inferiority of women. I firmly believe that hate speech should be censored.
I know they do, because I’ve come across familiar names at other blogs and have been quite surprised! I appreciate the adjustment very much. That does not include commenters who are civil here, then go mock or trash HUS elsewhere. I don’t generally read those blogs, so I only become aware if a reader emails me, but I have banned people for that and will continue to do so.
” I firmly believe that hate speech should be censored, or the whole blog devolves into mud-slinging, which is what most of those male space blogs engage in, sadly. Male blogs without this kind of action in the comments are very unusual. ”
This goes along with the point I was making to Obsidian elsewhere: that many ‘sphere blogs not only allow but encourage some very nasty attitudes toward women in general. The blog authors may not directly instigate it, but so far I’ve seen NONE of them do anything to squelch those attitudes in the comments. I’m of the opinion that if they are not stopping it, they must support it. I’m all for free speech, but there are plenty of ways to communicate without adding in hate.
I find it ironic since so many professed “players” like to talk about how they LOVE women. If that is their idea of love, then there is NO HOPE for them to ever have a successful relationship. It seems for many of them, “love” is all about what they can use a woman for.
@Obs
Zach is a player. Sassy would never try to date him.
I agree. That was my point. I think you paint women with too broad a brush, in general. Specifically, when you say thuggery “works” – OK. Sure. So does being a poet.
As for 50 Shades, I know you read my posts, so I’m not sure why you claim the guy is a thug. He’s anything but. He’s a puppy dog who got kicked and now he needs the love of a good woman to heal him. He escalates emotionally from the very first cup of coffee with Anastasia, and he finds that he no longer needs to dominate women once they are together.
This is the problem when people don’t know what they’re talking about. Ted, WADR, there is one incident in the book where he roughly dominates her, and she dumps him for it. Let’s not discuss 50 Shades unless you’ve read it. Or you go back and read my posts on it, which lays this out quite clearly.
“Let’s not discuss 50 Shades unless you’ve read it. Or you go back and read my posts on it, which lays this out quite clearly.”
Well I’m not gonna read it, so that is out of the question.
You don’t consider signing contracts and S&M to be abnormal sexual behavior? OK then. I can’t argue with you on it if you think it is perfectly normal, but to me there isn’t much difference between a guy that ties women up for pleasure and a guy that calls women “ho’s” while he throws dollar bills at her. They are both demeaning to the women, and a “power trip” for the man. In fact, from what I know about S&M and what Herb has posted, the entire thing seems to be about transfer of power. So in the case of 50 Shades, the women was “giving” away her power to be “dominated” by the man. In the “hood”, the woman gives away her “power” to be bossed around by a thug. It all still comes down to dominance and power, just different flavors. I think Obisidian’s point is: some women can easily flip from one “power model” to another. Or put another way, the typical “hood rat” can probably be just as happy being tied up by a rich white guy as she is happy being treated like crap by a thug. Either way she gets a guy to dominate her. I just think that women tend to be ashamed of that desire, and therefore hide it. Which is why I think stories like 50 Shades are so popular: it is a “safe” way to get that domination fix in.
By the way, I’ve read your posts on the book. I simply disagree with most of your conclusions on it.
@Ms Walsh:
“This doesn’t match my own observations at all. I think it’s very different for Millennials.
First of all, they don’t go on dates at all in college. It’s all hanging out in groups, going to parties together, etc.”
O: Well, Ms. Walsh, with all due respect, we both know that the “Millennials” aren’t all the same; quite a few DONT go on to college (see Ted’s point(s) below), so right off the bat, we aren’t even talking about a full cohort here, just a slice. So, I would argue your “observations” are very interesting indeed.
“Post-college, dating is alive and well on online sites, but one on one dates are rare outside that.”
O: What’s “alive and well” is the financial balance sheets of onlie dating sites – the actual numbers of people who meet and, this is important given the nature of this forum, actually stay together as a result of said sites, is paltry, at best. It’s long been known that online dating is a massive timesuck and a moneypit for guys (see OKCupid’s studies in this regard) and since it is not at all unusual for Women to date FOR YEARS on such “personals” venues (I’ve actually met quite a few – WOW), I don’t know if it’s as great as you may be led to believe.
“There are exceptions – guys making bank in big cities may date, e.g. Zach, and guys over 27 or so are much more likely to ask women on real dates. I’m not sure if that’s because things have changed in five years, or because they age into the practice. I suspect it’s a bit of both.”
O: And guys in those cohorts have the kinds of concerns we’ve been discussing in this thread, and to which has no cultural voice, vocabulary or force. Interesting.
“The end result is that women go out frequently with their friends, often in coed groups. They make good money and can treat themselves to whatever they desire. Young women do not depend on men in any way for entertainment. The only purpose of dating today is to shop for an LTR or husband. Which is why the “provisioning” dynamic is still apparent at times.”
O: Or to have a “princess experience”. This is very real, and I’ve explained this a bit in this thread. Many older Black Women, for example, DEMAND to be “properly dated” even while knowing that they ain’t really feeling that poor dupe like that. Sure, your response may be that said dupe’s to blame if he can’t figure it out, but that doesn’t change what I said, even if you’re right (and for the record I would agree with your position if indeed that’s it).
“I think it’s time we lay to rest the assumed link between church attendance and chastity. If field reports online are valid, the reverse would seem to be true. I don’t know whether these girls are rebelling or acting out, but Karen Owen is the daughter of a Baptist preacher. I’m sure a shrink could have a field day with this topic.”
O: LOL. Ms. Walsh, we both know that, per capita, Black folk are far and away more religious than just about anyone else in America. Black Women fill up churches every Sunday like nobody’s business. How many of them are Baby Mamas. How many of them have STDs. How many of them have concurrent sexual relationships. To ask the question is to answer it. No, I won’t say this is the case for American Women over all; but I’ll be doggoned if it ain’t for the Sistahood.
“Women generally exhibit an orientation toward one or the other, based on personality traits as well as the environment. Think of it as a spectrum. From Wikipedia…Many in the ‘sphere have linked female ovulation to the idea that women pursue concurrent ST and LT mating strategies. Buss says otherwise in this study…This should put an end to claims that a significant number of women pursue ST and LT mating strategies simultaneously.”
O: Hmm. Well, this is what Buss says in his textbook, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of The Mind on the matter:
“The number of sperm a woman retains is also linked with whether she is having an affair. Women time their adulterous liasons in a way that is reproductively detrimental to their husbands. In a nationwide sex survey of 3,3679 women in Britain, all women recorded their menstrual cycles as well as the timing of their copulations with their husbands and, if they were having affairs, with their lovers. It turned out that women having affairs appeared to time their copulations, most likely unconsciously, to coincide with the point in their menstrual cycle when they were most likely to be ovulating and hence were most likely to conceive. Furthermore, women who are having affairs are more likely to be orgasmic with their affair partner than with their regular partner.”
There’s more from the same section:
“The behavioral evidence also suggests that women in all but the most restrictive societies sometimes engage in extramarital sexual unions. In the United States, studies yield an affair rate ranging from 20 to 50 percent for married women.”
- pp. 185
Buss then goes on to outline “five classes of benefits” that women can receive from all this: “resources, genes, mate switching, mate skill acquisition, and mate manipulation”. Clearly, Buss is of the view that Women can indeed engage in BOTH short AND longterm mating strategies, WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND IT.
Yes, I think Buss puts the issue to bed, indeed…
“That’s not at all true. If you believe a woman is using you to get free stuff, don’t date her. Problem solved.”
O: Keyword being “if”, LOL. That’s just it – many guys don’t and won’t know “if” until it’s too late. The reasons why have been explained, but I’m more than happy to explain to/for you again.
“Men should aggressively filter out women like this. One way to do that is to propose a fun, informal date with limited expense, which I fully support.”
O: The problem with this – and I do think this is in the older cohort – that Women will accuse the guy of “being cheap” – you suggested as much yourself, when you think about it.
“Among humans, the number of male and female virgins tracks pretty closely, as does the number of sexual partners. That’s held true in data from the CDC, Justice Dept. and Census, as well as surveys on college campuses.”
O: And this is data going how far back in time…? Surely, you must know that most Men died without ever mating, right?
“As for legalized prostitution I don’t care one way or the other.”
O: That may be true, but you DO care, or purport to care, about Women like Ms. Jackie. Well, studies have indeed shown that in those areas where legalized prositution and widespread availability of Porn is there, sexual assaults and the like – and that includes street harassment – go down like a rock. So, if Women truly cared about curtailing all this stuff they’d get behind a US Dept of Tricks & Ho’s
“I certainly don’t think anyone should be compelled to mate against their wishes.”
O: What does “compelled” even mean?
“You cannot generalize from that. That’s exception bias and confirmation bias both.”
O: Uh, YES I can; gangsta thugs rarely are alone twiddling their thumbs on Saturday night, all dressed with nowhere to go.
“The male median age for marriage is 28. And there’s no way a man reaches his peak in his late thirties. By 28 a guy should have his career trajectory in place.”
O: You said “prestige” NOT “career trajectory”; I was responding to what you actually said, and responded with the FACT that “prestige” by its very definition, is a very, very narrow field for a number of reasons I’ve already stated in this thread page. Would you confirm or deny that “prestige” correlates with (male) age, and that it usually doesn’t happen until the 30s, at least? Exactly what do you mean by “prestige”? Please explain?
“Your presence is key? Haha, you really are something Obs. HUS has done just fine when you haven’t graced us with your presence.”
O: Thank you – I accept!
Surely you haven’t seen the exchange between Ms. J and Ted:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/06/26/relationshipstrategies/the-ethics-of-concealment-in-dating/comment-page-7/#comment-132915
“Furthermore, your superzip criticism is precisely what people said of Lena Dunham – how dare she write a show about four white women living in Brooklyn.”
O: if you will kindly recall, I fully supported Ms. Dunham’s show and the experiences – hers and others – that inform it. Nevertheless, what cannot be denied is that the very same sexual dynamics obtaining on the show were taking place in Blacker parts of NYC, for years. In this sense then, Ms. Dunham in no way “discovered” anything; it just caught up with her, finally.
“I write what I know, and I’ve never pretended otherwise. Mating in America is so bifurcated, I don’t think it’s really possible to mix and match SES groups. The practices, stats and trends are diametrically opposed. And zip codes are probably an excellent way of drawing those lines.”
O: So says Murray.
At any rate, I think he, Hymowitz, Hacker and Tiger all would disagree with you; “Mating in America” isn’t as “bifurcated” as you may like to believe…
O.
@Ted
She never signs the contract. Because she considers S&M to be abnormal sexual behavior.
The scene that ends their relationship consists of his slapping her bottom six times. I daresay quite a few guys on this site do that every week.
@Ted #947:
“I have to wonder how many UMC women get all excited imaging a romp with a gangster type thug? They seem to like the their version: a young, rich guy into S&M. Take away rich and switch S&M for generally douchebaggery, and you have the average thug.”
O: Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson is a fixture on the Rachel Ray Show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyPTqXae2Sk
And has bowled over Oprah’s ace boon coon cut buddy Gale:
http://bossip.com/487162/gayle-king-and-50-cent-discuss-new-book-playground-and-bullying-90210/
Let’s see what Ms. Walsh & Co. have to say to thaaat…
O.
Susan – “She never signs the contract. Because she considers S&M to be abnormal sexual behavior.
The scene that ends their relationship consists of his slapping her bottom six times. I daresay quite a few guys on this site do that every week. ”
LOL I never count my bottom smacks, but now I might have too…
I get that SHE didn’t sign, but the fact is she fell for a guy that asked her to do so. But, since the story is aimed at women, in the end HE is the one that “gives” and allows her to “snag” him. In the real world, he would probably have kicked her to the curb, or she would have signed and done what he wanted. The way the story turns out IS the fantasy part, not so much the part where the woman got all tingly for a guy that likes to dominate women. THAT in my opinion is natural and normal as rain. And, for many women, I don’t think the specifics regarding the domination are important. It is simply the excitement of “being taken”, of being “out of control”, of having a man totally control you that draws many women in. Surely they like the story to end with the man succumbing to the woman’s “feminine ways”, but in reality that simply doesn’t happen. No, in the real world, those women end up P&D’ed, abused, or worse. Because the dirty secret is: the guys that are into this stuff DO NOT WANT to be ‘saved’ by a woman.
I think you are looking too much at specifics of the 50 Shades story when I could care less. What I find more interesting is the fact that the main man in the story, is by all accounts a total sexual freak using societies current metrics, yet women far and wide are unable to resist his allure. You seem to think it is because in the end, the woman “gets” the man. I disagree. I think that ending is just to make women feel better about the truth: that deep down they want to be dominated by a man like that.
@Ms. Walsh #951:
“I agree. That was my point. I think you paint women with too broad a brush, in general. Specifically, when you say thuggery “works” – OK. Sure. So does being a poet.”
O: Oh, without a doubt, a poet is definitely a fave with the ladies. No argument there in the least.
“As for 50 Shades, I know you read my posts, so I’m not sure why you claim the guy is a thug. He’s anything but. He’s a puppy dog who got kicked and now he needs the love of a good woman to heal him. He escalates emotionally from the very first cup of coffee with Anastasia, and he finds that he no longer needs to dominate women once they are together.”
O: I mention it because what they have in common, among many other things, is the threat of violence. Which is a HUGE TURNON for Women, no matter how much they may want to deny it.
“@Obs
Zach is a player. Sassy would never try to date him.”
O: That may be, but Zach is the kind of guy Ms. Sassy wants – White, good looking, highly educated, “tactful”, gainfully employed, cultured, etc et al. And he told her right from the rip, that he was good with it if 35% of the Women he was seeing tried to come at him in the way Ms. Sassy did.
O.
@Obs
I quoted Buss and linked to the study on the effect of ovulatory cycles on female sex drive and motivations. If Buss is contradicting himself elsewhere I’m not sure what to tell you. He is quite clear in the paper I linked. For the record, I wouldn’t use any data on British women – they subscribe to very different mating habits, at least as of today.
This blog deals with hookup culture, a phenomenon traced to college campuses, the end of in loco parentis, and the absorption of feminist principles. While some of what I write here may apply across the population, I write for a specific demographic. If you or Ted wish to see the inner city addressed and advice given, by all means go for it. I have plenty still to say on my topic as it is, and am currently not seeking to expand the subject of the blog to encompass all groups, even if that is needed. That job will have to be done by someone other than myself.
@Ted #901:
There’s no need to mince words here, Ted – you mean, Roissy and Roosh, and clearly, the blogs (that I’ve never even heard of before) that have been informed by them. While they definitely know what they’re talking about insofar as the technical aspects of Game are concerned, they do NOT represent the more mainstream elements of the community, and definitely don’t represent Style or Mystery. That’s the reason why I mentioned them in the first place – because you can tell right away if any “guru” is outta pocket just by going by what Style and Mystery do and measuring that against Roissy/Roosh etc. They’re outta pocket, Ted. Take it from me, they are.
You really should get the Mystery Method and The Game and read them for yourself. When you do, you’ll see what I mean.
O.
Well, 50 Shades was written by a woman who chose for her female character to be completely turned off by the threat of violence. She doesn’t have sex until he suggests “vanilla.” Make no mistake, Christian Grey does it her way, he is at her mercy. Not the other way around. Men just don’t get 50 Shades at all.
No he isn’t. Because he is a player, and that is a dealbreaker for Sassy. That’s why she speaks so truthfully about the odds she’s facing. She wants the hot alpha who will commit to her alone, and she’d rather stay single than compromise on that.
Most (not all) poets are beta.
Disagree. What women can’t resist is the reformation of a freak into a hottie with oneitis.
@Ms. Walsh:
“I quoted Buss and linked to the study on the effect of ovulatory cycles on female sex drive and motivations.”
O: Yes, you did.
“If Buss is contradicting himself elsewhere I’m not sure what to tell you. He is quite clear in the paper I linked.”
O: I’m going right from the textbook that was in his class at UTexas at Austin – my actual copy sat in front of him.
“For the record, I wouldn’t use any data on British women – they subscribe to very different mating habits, at least as of today.”
O: OK – so what do you have to say about this – “The behavioral evidence also suggests that women in all but the most restrictive societies sometimes engage in extramarital sexual unions. In the United States, studies yield an affair rate ranging from 20 to 50 percent for married women.”
Your response?
“This blog deals with hookup culture, a phenomenon traced to college campuses, the end of in loco parentis, and the absorption of feminist principles. While some of what I write here may apply across the population, I write for a specific demographic. If you or Ted wish to see the inner city addressed and advice given, by all means go for it. I have plenty still to say on my topic as it is, and am currently not seeking to expand the subject of the blog to encompass all groups, even if that is needed. That job will have to be done by someone other than myself.”
O: I can dig it – problem is, no one’s doing it. What a shame.
O.
I’ve seen many studies that put the number in the high teens. Those same studies link female cheating to relationship dissatisfaction, not a search for “good genes.”
His textbook was written before the study, though you may have a later edition.
I can’t think of anyone better qualified than you Obs
@Ms. Walsh:
“Well, 50 Shades was written by a woman who chose for her female character to be completely turned off by the threat of violence. She doesn’t have sex until he suggests “vanilla.” Make no mistake, Christian Grey does it her way, he is at her mercy. Not the other way around. Men just don’t get 50 Shades at all.”
O: Wait, didn’t they have sex the S&M way? Didn’t he use violence on her in the form of spanking her – I think with a belt? Am I wrong about that?
“No he isn’t. Because he is a player, and that is a dealbreaker for Sassy. That’s why she speaks so truthfully about the odds she’s facing. She wants the hot alpha who will commit to her alone, and she’d rather stay single than compromise on that.”
O: Ms. Sassy wants fried ice LOL. No wonder she’s so confused.
Most (not all) poets are beta.
O: I wouldn’t disagree with that – but the fact remains, as I’ve clearly demonstrated with the examples of 50 Cent, that there’s no shortage of Thug Love, and it ain’t from the hoodrats – it’s coming from the UMC gals…
O.
Obsidian – “I mention it because what they have in common, among many other things, is the threat of violence. Which is a HUGE TURNON for Women, no matter how much they may want to deny it.”
THIS! If you boil it all down, it is the threat of violence that turns many women on. It just so happens that the “threat” can come in many different flavors: from “tie me up” to “drive by on the west side” it’s still all about violence and dominance. And the fact is, I think many women spend a good deal of effort trying to find the MOST violence/dominance they can WITH as much safety as possible. I think where each individual woman ends up has much to do with if she is generally a “safety” kind of girl, or a total “thrill seeker” type, and exactly what she has access to in her environment. Women that have options probably lean towards safety, after all no one wants to actually be hurt or injured. For women with less options, well they will put up with a LOT of crappy treatment to keep getting their fix of violence/dominance.
What I find amusing is how much some chase the thrill while wanting it to be safe. If it’s safe, it really isn’t a threat, which means it really doesn’t trip the right trigger. I firmly believe there are few women that actually WANT an extremely violent/dominant man, but most want some level of it within whatever boundaries they’ve decided is safe. I think much of the “dread” type stuff we debate about so often here derives from that place. It may be hurtful to a woman, but having to endure their man openly flirting with another women is FAR safer than hooking up with a thug for thrills and it certainly shows a certain level of dominance and power OVER the women in question. Why else would she stay with a man that obviously doesn’t respect her? Because although it may hurt her feelings to see it, it also might just be triggering her desire for dominance. And even if she won’t acknowledge it openly, it demonstrates that her man does indeed “control” her, because if not she wouldn’t tolerate that behavior.
I don’t like it, and it isn’t something *I* would ever be interested in. But obviously there are a lot of folks into such things, and I suspect far more that simply won’t admit to it.
@Ms. Walsh:
“I’ve seen many studies that put the number in the high teens. Those same studies link female cheating to relationship dissatisfaction, not a search for “good genes.”
O: “relationship dissatisfaction” would fit into the five areas of hypothoses Buss talked about – “mate switching” and so forth.
“His textbook was written before the study, though you may have a later edition.”
O: Indeed it might; I have the 3rd ed., which was published in 2008.
O.
Susan – “Disagree. What women can’t resist is the reformation of a freak into a hottie with oneitis.”
I said I disagreed with your conclusions, and this is the root of it. I don’t fall for the idea that the allure of the story is that she “turned” Grey at all. I think the allure is that Grey is violent, and the “turning” was added to make it OK for women to like it. And in fact, game theory agrees with me since making him a victim of “oneitis” would instantly KILL all attraction for him, correct?
She allows sex in his “S&M room” but he goes further than she has agreed to. When he hits her with a belt, she sobs, runs out, and ends the relationship. I don’t recall how he wins her back, but I think he essentially promises to get help, or something similar. He is very penitent and ashamed.
“He is very penitent and ashamed.”
And how many men into real S&M are “ashamed” of it? Again, he is a fairy tail ONLY because he allows a woman to “tame” him. But, it isn’t the “tame” Grey that women are attracted to, is it?
@Ted D
The entire industry of romantic fiction is based on the turning or changing the cad. The woman doesn’t win over a cad, she changes him so thoroughly that the mere idea of sex with another woman fills him with disgust. It’s fantasy.
Women want oneitis from a desirable man. I can assure you that if George Clooney fell head over heels in love his gf would not lose attraction for him. Angelina didn’t lose attraction for Brad, and he’s the most pussy whipped male celebrity ever. Except for maybe Tom Brady, and Gisele doesn’t mind him either.
What women do not want is a man to develop oneitis without even knowing her or qualifying her. It suggests he has low standards due to few options.
@Obs
I suggest you write to David Buss and demand an explanation for his inconsistency.
@Ted
You’re not understanding female sexuality. The underlying fantasy is the taming and domestication of the alpha. Where men get off on watching sexual acts, women get off on reading situational stories.
Perhaps this quote from Ogi Ogas in A Billion Wicked Thoughts will explain it better:
@Ms. Walsh:
“I can’t think of anyone better qualified than you Obs”
O: Well, there are quite a few who would beg to differ, LOL. And you know what? I’m good with that – because, I want to question why all these “experts” in Black America still don’t have a freakin’ clue.
One of the reasons why I’m here is because, real rap, I can’t get the same level of discourse in the Afrosphere. Not the level of sophistication, or information. Everything surrounding “relationships” in Blacm spaces is the same old tired crap that isn’t cutting edge and scientifically informed. And worse, it’s coming from the supposedly “best and brightest” Black America has to offer. It’s a joke, and everyone here who has spent any time actually reading Black blogs and websites and compared them to the White ones knows what I’m saying is true. There, I said it.
I mean, WHY isn’t there a Sista HUS – after all these years? Black Women have an education rate on par with White Women like you, Ms. Walsh. What is up with that? They can do tv shows, movies, magazines, this, that, but they can’t put together a HUS type site or venue – when they suffer the most, hands down, of ANY Woman in the USA? Really?
I’ve talked about the fact that, among the Brothas, there IS no such thing as a “seduction community”. Indeed, one of the biggest takeaways for me, was to see, up close and personal, week after week, Men coming to each other’s aid, helping each other out in argubaly the most important part of a Man’s entire life. That just isn’t the case in Black America; “the Game is to be sold, not told”. For all the bad press “PUAs” get, what perhaps is the unsung story, is the true “band of brothers” feel that community has – you even saw a goodly bit of this in Style’s book The Game (though he was brutally honest about detailing the problems as well). It’s something I’m both envious of and saddened by at the same time.
Black Men are incredibly resistant to any form of outside information – and I think there are deep psychological reasons for that. We tend to be deeply suspicious of others, especially if they happen to be White. Unlike Black Women, who suffer from what I call Ms. Ann Syndrome, Black Men are quite good with being distant from the mainstream, if you will. And part of that “distance” is things that, to be frank, White folks are associated with. When it comes to Game for example, many Brothas take the attitude that they can’t be told anything about that, because they already got the game on lock, and lemme tell ya, that’s only true for a small cohort of Men. All the other Brothas are workin’ it out with the hand, same as their White brothers.
So yea, it ain’t your job to do any of that, and yea, in theory I could do it. It’s just a shame that those who already have the means and/or “real skills” as Ms. J put it, in Black America, either can’t or won’t do it.
O.
It looks like the path for rationalizing rough sex has already begun.
“I wanted to please him but didn’t think he would go that far. However, he promises that he will change and he is really sorry.”
Ted 968
No, i think Susan’s got it on this one Ted. Remember.. it’s all about a woman’s desire to get the Alpha remove himself and his awesomeness from the market and commit all that awesomeness to her and her alone. Oneitus is OK so long as it’s a guy who has/continues to have options.
The guy who has NO options and performs Oneitus is a desperate creepzilla chump.
Know your roles. It’s the female imperative. Get the best and lock him down exclusively. Problem is, it’s pure fantasy.. just like Twilight. Why would an immortal vampire with infinite time and possibilities choose an emo chick forsaking all others? View and learn: http://youtu.be/K4uuGvmAxTI
I had one woman confirm some of my suspicions for me here: http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/one-womans-take-on-mr-grey/
No, the underlying fantasy is being dominated by someone they are attracted to. The idea of “taming” him is the rationalization.
I’ve noticed that at male space blogs, the women are almost always obsequious, and often willing to say very negative things about their own sex to curry favor.
And even those gals are sometimes castigated if they deviate from the party line! Without mentioning names, I’ve seen the male commenters criticize Christian home-schooler types for not being submissive enough and submissive Christian types criticize each other for not being submissive enough.
He escalates emotionally from the very first cup of coffee with Anastasia, and he finds that he no longer needs to dominate women once they are together.
So the heroine tames the beast? That sort of makes her dominant, no?
@Ted
I recently saw a routine on Jimmy Fallon’s show in which they did 50 Shades karaoke. Men from the audience read passages from the book aloud to sexy music. I LMAO’ed. It was so NOT hot.
Ramble – “No, the underlying fantasy is being dominated by someone they are attracted to. The idea of “taming” him is the rationalization.”
Precisely put.
M3 – the problem is IF she “tames” the alpha she will lose attraction for him. So if this is actually why women are attracted to things like 50 Shades, they are deluding themselves. In the real world, guys into S&M don’t just give it all up for that “special” woman. In that respect 50 Shades is a disservice to women, especially if any of the, believe this kind of thing happens.
I think it’s time we lay to rest the assumed link between church attendance and chastity.
This is a great comment. Mike C very brilliantly presented the whole “male thinking vs female thinking” and I think this is part of the divide. Men see a group of women being part of an organization and assume all of them are the same and after the same goals. So if one of them open her legs to the sight of any asshole with game all church girls are the same and of course all girls are the same. Mike mentioned a very important truth is that women accommodate women to the very minimum into their groups, but inside the group that joins then a common goal you are going to find many herds that actually are more close to each other that is why when a PUA sleeps with a member of a herd he very likely will sleep with of all of them, because he stumbled upon a slutty herd. If he had stumble upon a chaste herd the first girl would had made clear he was not getting any and all her friends would had being out of reach. The problem is as mentioned that non slutty girls are probably invisible to PUA’s anyway so for them if they getting a huge rate of success they are not going to count the women they are not sleeping with at the moment and more likely think that if they wanted they would be in their notch post as well.
As mentioned all my friends were virgins when they meet their husbands but I do know another bunch that was not, so the best test of chastity is not location but friends, chaste friends = chaste woman more often than not. So having a slutty friend should be added as red flag, for both genders, I might add men might be a bit less prone to judge but IME a man that is covering for a friends cheating is counting on getting the favor to be returned at some point, YMMV.
The more I see this transformation, the less sympathy I have for UMC folks having a hard time finding a marriage partner. I’m sure things seem pretty dire up there, but perception is reality. If anyone wants to feel better about having difficulty finding a husband/wife at Yale, come stay with me for a few weeks. After seeing what there is in terms of mate selection around here, even the worst choice at an ivy league school will seem like hitting the lottery.
Hubby and I were having a discussion about it and he kinds of thinks I’m too hard on American women and wonders why is that. I think I’m similar my hard lines are coming the most I see women complaining about not having it all, when I come from a place were women have to deal with the worst market conditions and will give their arm and hair for a “boring beta” and a decent job to raise their children, so this is becoming a first world problem really fast. Again a boot camp for teenager women on third world countries or the ghetto seems to be a good idea on general terms, YMMV.
Ted
“the problem is IF she “tames” the alpha she will lose attraction for him.”
No. She will only lose attraction for him if he’s not envied and wanted by other women. And taming means he doesn’t lose his confidant dominant edge. It means she’s taken him off the books. The female equivalent of a ‘trophy wife’.
“attracted to things like 50 Shades, they are deluding themselves. In the real world, guys into S&M don’t just give it all up for that “special” woman. In that respect 50 Shades is a disservice to women, ”
Agreed. But that usually goes towards all men who have major options, not just ones into domineering s&m rough sex. That’s why these books and movies are called ‘fiction’…
it doesn’t happen in the real world. That’s why there’s no shortage of woman crying about men being ‘commitment-phobes’ or ‘all men are assholes’. Pareto principle, apex fallacy, we’ve all sung this song before. The big guns at the top have it all and no woman short of becoming their little maid servant brings anything to the table worth them stepping off their stoop. That’s why it’s a ‘fantasy’, that the woman actually contains some inner quality that makes this top dog, apex alpha stop dead in his tracks and desire her like a puppy to the exclusion of every available option on his table, to let the thousand spinning plates come crashing down…
Anacaona…”a boot camp for teenager women on third world countries or the ghetto seems to be a good idea on general terms”
The effects would probably last for about 2 weeks. I’m reminded of Leonard Cohen’s lines:
I saw a beggar leaning on his broken crutch
He said to me, ‘you must not ask for so much’
And a pretty woman leaning in her darkened door
She said to me, ‘hey, why not ask for more?’
Anacoana…I posted on your Pride & Prejudice post a couple days ago but still under moderation. No need to respond to me here about it but would be interested in reading your response on your blog.
Maybe because the pay is lousy?
I don’t know of any other blog like HUS anywhere, to be honest. It appears I am the only person in the world crazy enough to do this.
Interestingly, yes. The backstory may explain it – Grey was seduced at 17 by a female dom, and was her sub for 8 years or so. He has only recently become a dom himself.
Boy, not for this girl. I’ll let other women speak for themselves.
One is the short-term goal, but the taming assures the long-term commitment, and that’s what we want. Even female rape fantasies feature a “favored male,” not a hot stranger. And they usually resolve with the rapist bonding to the woman.
@Ted
I don’t understand why men love to see “girl on girl action” on porn when I find it so boring and unappealing. So accept you see something different than women do but it doesn’t mean that what we see on it is not true.
I probably never going to read 50 shades (as much as I love Twilight, Twilight is fantasy I can accept a lot of things from fantasy but realistic and futuristic fiction I really need some reality so not having an email account or being a self made billionaire at 27??!!! DOES NOT COMPUTE!!! ) but I still wouldn’t try to presume what are women responding too. I have talked to a lot of Twihards and there are a lot of different angles of Edward (or Jacob) they love so again NAWALT
The effects would probably last for about 2 weeks.
Why you have to be so negative
@HanSolo
I took all your posts out of moderation a while back. It will be in the thread where you first intended it to be.
Interestingly, yes. The backstory may explain it – Grey was seduced at 17 by a female dom, and was her sub for 8 years or so. He has only recently become a dom himself.
Isn’t that role called a “switch”? Where’s Herb when you need him?
@ms walsh:
You know you bring up a very good point about the rape fantasy piece; its always with a favored male and not a hot stranger.
I know youre not a rape specialist but i wanted to ask-how about the case of date rape? In that case the woman and man know each other. Whats going on there that isnt the case w/the fantasy?
O.
Boy, not this girl. I’ll let other women speak for themselves.
Me neither, and I think I know why. M3′s post on 50 Shades talks about women who want to be children and cared for in that way being turned on by the book. I value my autonomy and my role as an adult. I can certainly understand wanting to be cherished, but there’s a limit.
@Obs
Well, women don’t want their rape fantasies to play out. They only feel safe in the realm of the imagination. In the case of a date, the woman generally has the opportunity to give consent and does not. Then the man rapes her. I have never heard of a date rape where the girl was turned on or pleased, but as you say I am no expert.
J @ 990
Isn’t that role called a “switch”? Where’s Herb when you need him?
A switch is a person who operates as both a dominant and a submissive, during the same period of their life – not at the same precise time, obviously, but they may be the dom in a scene on Tuesday and the sub in a scene on Friday.
I haven’t read ’50 Shades’ but my understanding is that Christian got into BDSM as a sub, and then transitioned into being a dom after that relationship ended (badly, IIRC). So he was one thing, and is now another, whereas a switch would be both things.
Hopefully that’s clear!
Fine.
You are attracted to the “favored male” more than you are attracted to the “hot stranger”. It is still wanting to be dominated by the man that you are attracted to.
That is the base fantasy.
Having him stick around is what makes it feel better. You get the rough sex and you *don’t* feel like a whore.
But the fantasy is not taming the bad boy and getting gentle, thoughtful love making.
The fantasy is getting
rapedravaged, and then having the fucker stick around to help protect the baby.But she does not get hot for the sticking around, she gets hot for the fucking.
But, in the end, all of this is hair splitting.
Re: “50 Shades”. I think Christian Grey is a useful template in that he reveals much in terms of popular female characterizations of the idealized male SMP romantic hero.
There is a very interesting work of social criticism called “Extravagant Expectations” that skewers the narcissism inherent in modern dating and contains excerpts of many personals-type ads placed in The New York Review. The majority are posted by affluent, highly educated big-city women and they typically feature the writer’s projection of an extremely improbable wish-fulfillment version of herself. Almost invariably, the desired LTR lifestyle will include the following elements:
1. locavore foodie dining…gourmet organic meals, farmer’s markets, lots of fine wine
2. high culture…everyone mentions an interest in art, museums, the opera, the symphony, the ballet…
3. outdoors adventure travel and hobbies…trail hiking, beaches, kayaking, exploring Central American ruins, etc. The coast of Maine comes up frequently.
It can be safely assumed that another, unspoken element of this lifestyle blueprint would involve shopping at prestige-brand boutiques.
These elements are repeated again and again, with remarkable, almost formulaic consistency.
So the ideal partner at this point in the executive summary would be a refined, culturally sophisticated man of letters (economic success being obviously correlated) who also has a passion for the outdoors. He’d presumably dress stylishly, be a natural raconteur, have good manners, etc.
Beneath these public pronouncements, however, we have the “revealed preference” of what women choose to purchase for porn material when they just want to get off: the “urban romance/fantasy” novel trope of the dangerously hot bad boy with a link to genuine physical violence…perhaps a Magic Mike-style gigolo stud with an MMA background or some jacked-up ex-paramilitary operator with some ink, a Harley, a six-pack, and surfboard.
I think that the two romance tracks—wholesome, quietly rich eco-lifestyle partner and wild, dominant sexual/combat athlete—are combined in characters like Christian Grey, hence their remarkably broad base of appeal.
Thanks, Tassie.
Susan at 948: “I’m not talking about blunt, direct honesty here. I’m talking about all the generalized pronouncements about the inferiority of women. “
Hmm; can’t one be blunt and directly honest about female inferiority? And here our star example would be none other than: Susan Walsh! Blogger, ban thyself.
Susan, haven’t you said, in so many words, that “women want to be led” by men? And without even a chaser of NAWALT to wash it down? You can doll this up an euphemise it all you want, but to me this is an undeniable statement of generalized female inferiority. Just to be clear, here’s the dictionary definition of “inferior”:
Adjective: Lower in rank, status, or quality.
Noun: A person lower than another in status or ability.
Synonyms:
adjective. lower – subordinate – low – under
noun. subordinate
I’m not suggesting you agree with the “lower in quality” option, but you sure do seem to subscribe to the “lower in rank / status” part. Be honest: wanting to be led inescapably means accepting lower rank or status. You can try to soften the contrast by invoking phrases like the “captain/first officer model”, etc.; but that doesn’t hide the plain fact that the one giving orders is the superior while the one taking them is, by direct implication, the inferior. A subordinate can have a lot of skills and worth, but is still the inferior in a relationship; that’s just what the words mean.
I’m guessing that you had something stronger than “subordinate” in deploring some “generalized pronouncements about the inferiority of women,” so maybe next time a word like “unworthiness”, “wretchedness” or perhaps “abject inferiority” will be closer to what you have in mind?
Regardless, though, I’m just seizing this convenient opportunity to point out, that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t recommend that men generally “bring the dominance,” which inevitably involves a reflexive posture of superiority (and hence inferiority in the other direction), and at the same time expect men to reflexively regard and treat women, by default, as beings of equal status and rank. Sorry, the two just don’t intersect, and anyone who thinks they do is ordering fried ice all over again. Rather than getting into another tangle of euphemisms and a fog of hair-splitting, I think you should own up to this elemental truth: default male dominance and default M/F equivalence are not compatible operating states.
@Esau
That’s a very interesting insight!
Yes, I do. I have often referred to research as well as observation on this point. Women prefer to mate with men of higher status, though many do enthusiastically mate with men of equal status today – market conditions. Conversely, men prefer to mate with women of lower status. It’s not something to approve or disapprove – it just is.
On the other hand, there are areas where women have superior skills. We are generally deferred to on all matters emotional and/or nurturing. We are usually the primary parents, handle family relationships (even with in-laws), and all social plans and activities.
In my view, sex differences wash out to a fairly equitable division of labor, or equilibrium.
However, I’m talking about something very different at “male space” blogs:
1. Mocking female nature, e.g. the hamster. (Men have hamsters, yes they do.)
2. Generalizing female nature as selfish and cruel, e.g. gold digging, cheating, frivolously divorcing.
3. Overt claims that women are not intelligent, often portraying us as mentally childlike, e.g. solipsistic, illogical, irrational.
4. Demands that female suffrage be repealed because women are incapable of good judgment.
5. Claims that women purposefully force men to live in a “gynocentric, femcentric, or female imperative” driven society. The most common proof cited is women’s desire to be in relationships, aka “the female preferred form of promiscuity.”
6. Referring to women frequently as fat whores and sluts, whose only value is a snug, warm, wetness.
7. Describing women as a conniving and deceitful sex.
8. Describing rampant narcissism as a mostly female problem.
I could go on, there’s much more, but you get the idea.
I welcome recognition of differences in the way women and men communicate. As always, the question is one of intent. Regardless of sex, is your aim to promote understanding, or is it to “win,” i.e. gain personally at the expense of someone else?
@Susan
In regards to your last post.
“Describing rampant narcissism as a mostly female problem.”
You’ve said this yourself.
“Generalizing female nature as selfish and cruel.”
It is. So is the male nature. The difference is men don’t have to deal with male mating nature so why would they even consider it?
If you wanted to get serious, female nature isn’t inherently more cruel or selfish just accepted. Women can get away with it, men cannot.
Now consider some of the finer female mating strategies that work against men. Now consider the set of laws that make them legal (or lack thereof). Its hard not to be angry.
“Claims that women purposefully force men to live in a “gynocentric, femcentric, or female imperative” driven society. The most common proof cited is women’s desire to be in relationships.”
This rolls nicely from the last point. We do live in a gynocentric society. Its not women forcing men into it it just is. That doesn’t mean its right or good for them. However I agree there anger is misplaced. It should be at politicians, lawmakers and lobby groups not women.
Susan, I get what you are saying, and I don’t disagree with the underlying message, but I think a better example of the male hamster would be:
- Thinking that they are 5 sit-ups away from looking like Magic Mike
- Telling themselves that they want to be “free” of some harridan (and then marrying the next girl that comes along [h/t to Anacaona]).
…things like that.
The examples you used were more of the “I am going to greatly exaggerate the minor foibles I sometimes see in some girls”.
@Lokland
I’ve spoken to the increase in female narcissism, it’s true. However, traditionally NPD diagnoses have been 75% male. The gap is narrowing, but it’s hardly a “female problem.”
How does this square with the oft-repeated claim that women dig assholes? Aren’t the cruelest men the ones cleaning up in this SMP?
I get this, but agree with you – the anger is misdirected. Here I am, relatively sympathetic on these issues, and I am routinely dissed, mocked and reviled by these men. The biggest problem with the MRM is the MRA.
@Ramble
Ah, sorry, those were not meant to be examples of male hamstering. I will go back and number those.
Anacanoa – “I don’t understand why men love to see “girl on girl action” on porn when I find it so boring and unappealing.”
I’ve never been a fan of girl on girl action myself. If I’m watching any kind of porn, I like male/female couples for the most part. Although I may like looking at naked women during girl on girl, the actual “sex” part doesn’t trip my trigger.
I get your point though, and I agree that what I’m describing is simply MY perception of female attraction triggers. I can even understand that TO WOMEN it may *seem* like the attraction is the fantasy of “turning” the alpha, but the truth is that DOES NOT HAPPEN in most cases, which takes me to:
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
So MY perception of this issue is that women are simply attracted to the possible threat of violence from a man, and they wrap it in the concept of “making him a better man” to make it OK to want him. That way, when anyone says “why would you EVER be with a guy that mean” she can reply “he has a tender heart if I could just get him to show it…” *rolls eyes*
Even if that is 100% true, women should learn that lesson after the first “bad boy” leaves them high and dry. The truth is, even the ones that DO learn the lesson are still turned on by the idea, and yet again in fantasy novels the “bad guy” falls for the women and they live happily ever after so that women can feel OK about reading such material. Self delusion at its finest IMO.
And further, to me any women that truly enjoys such fantasy is a bad mate. Why? Well, to me it implies that in her eyes I am either:
1. the “bad boy” she tamed – will end in loss of attraction and failure
2. the “nice guy” she settled for after realizing she couldn’t actually get the bad boy.
Yep, this is exactly why I dislike romance fantasy so much. To me any women that reads it is indeed trying to “fill a void” she is unable to fulfill with her man, if she has one in her life that is. If not? I see it as no worse that men looking at porn when they don’t have a regular sex partner. But just like I tell my boys to NEVER expect a woman to act like a porn actress, women need to realize men will NEVER act like Grey as well.
Susan – “How does this square with the oft-repeated claim that women dig assholes? Aren’t the cruelest men the ones cleaning up in this SMP?”
You realize that part of the reason those men are “assholes” is that they DO NOT play by the rules, right? The primary cause of “alpha hate” isn’t just that they are getting laid, it is that they manage to break the rules and NOT be punished. In fact, they break the rules and get laid.
@Ted D
Exactly. Lokland was saying that only women get away with cruel behavior.
Thanks, Susan, you post at 999 was very clarifying, which in turn opens a few new questions.
The kind of vituperative misogyny you describe seeing at “male space blogs” has, to my scattered reading, an insular quality that is found in many sub-spheres on the internets: those writers display a tone/frame, that their basic orientation is correct, doesn’t need to be demonstrated, and everyone reading is expected by default to agree with their worldview.
To note this insularity is not to say that they’re right or wrong, per se. But people like you, who do think the vituperative misogynists are flatly, factually wrong, face a particular challenge, which is to wonder how did they get that way? What experience does a man have to live through, to then hold reflexively and subconsciously that women are by nature unintelligent, selfish, conniving, and all the rest? Did they come out of the womb with this view? were they dropped on their heads as infants? Dietary deficiency? Cub Scout indoctrination? Really, where can you imagine that this is coming from?
And I might add, for the most part the “rules” I’m talking about were primarily for the benefit of women. So in a way, women are telling men in general to “play by the rules” while sexing up the men that don’t. And then after the ride is over, they start looking for a “rule follower” to give her a safe and secure life, for as long as she can tolerate him.
I know NAWALT, and I agree 100% or I wouldn’t be with a woman at all. But, in terms of generalities, this is indeed a reoccurring theme.
Susan – “Exactly. Lokland was saying that only women get away with cruel behavior.”
Woman and asshats get away with it. However, even asshats get a bad rep for it…
If by “relationship” you mean “serial monogamy”, this proof is true, no matter how we slice it.
Susan: “I’ve noticed that at male space blogs, the women are almost always obsequious, and often willing to say very negative things about their own sex to curry favor. Women who do not tow the line are virtually crucified by verbal attacks from men – this is often essentially hate speech. I’m not talking about blunt, direct honesty here. I’m talking about all the generalized pronouncements about the inferiority of women. I firmly believe that hate speech should be censored.”
Indeed, Susan.
IMO you are one of the few bloggers who will respectfully allow differing views without disparaging the commenter. As long as said commenter conducts themselves in a civil tone.
This was the problem with s’kcorlaD blog..
Allowed some terribly crude and vulgar comments directed at women.. Also unfounded criticisms and just plain hate language.. (and this bloke called himself a Christian!!)However when women made reasonable comments that he disagreed with, they were derided as feminists. Ridiculed!
Terrible hypocrite.. As Ted says (and I have a lot of time for him and his opinions)
“This goes along with the point I was making to Obsidian elsewhere: that many ‘sphere blogs not only allow but encourage some very nasty attitudes toward women in general. The blog authors may not directly instigate it, but so far I’ve seen NONE of them do anything to squelch those attitudes in the comments. I’m of the opinion that if they are not stopping it, they must support it. I’m all for free speech, but there are plenty of ways to communicate without adding in hate.”
Indeed Ted.. This particular blogger would just weasle his way out by doin’ a Pontius Pilate and wiping his hands, by saying that he did not necessarily agree with some of the (male) commenters. Pfft..
If they were women he would take them to task.. If they were men like yerG tsohG who said that NO woman was ever capable of loving a man.. That he hoped they all died alone with their cats..( to give you a couple of examples) Then this good Christian blogger who loved his wife would just let it all slide..
I really know of no blogger like Susan, who bends over backwards to accommadate all opinions. As long as those commenting are civil and do not seek to troll nor undermine Susan’s mission and objectives.
Susan’s a bloody good host.. And as I have said here and elsewhere we do not always agree.. But I gotta tell ya she has my utmost respect.. You always know where you stand with Susan.
She treats all, men and women, fairly.
You cannot ask for any more than that.
I don’t understand why men love to see “girl on girl action” on porn when I find it so boring and unappealing.
I would guess that it’s having twice the number of pretty girls to look at, combined with the fantasy of getting in the middle of them.
J – “I would guess that it’s having twice the number of pretty girls to look at, combined with the fantasy of getting in the middle of them.”
I’ve known a fair share of men that have a lesbian fantasy that goes something like…
Meet two REALLY hot lesbians that are a couple. Be SO DAMN MANLY that you “turn” them and they have sex with you, and ONLY you (because you are the only man manly enough to turn them on) or some such variant. Like I said, it really does nothing for me other than the nakedness. I suppose this is a male version of the “turn the alpha” fantasy women have?
One of Steve Sailer’s readers explained it well:
http://isteve.blogspot.hu/2006/02/brokeback-mountain-posts.html
But people like you, who do think the vituperative misogynists are flatly, factually wrong, face a particular challenge, which is to wonder how did they get that way? What experience does a man have to live through, to then hold reflexively and subconsciously that women are by nature unintelligent, selfish, conniving, and all the rest?
I think most of us really do understand that these men have had bad experiences. Here’s the problem. We also know women who have had bad experiences with men. Half of the nonsense on the extreme end of feminism (ie. Jaclyn Freidman, et al,) comes from women who have had bad experiences, and you don’t see these guys sympathizing with her. There’s a huge injustice in getting stuck on AMALT or AWALT–both to yourself and to the gender you are discussing. In terms of the latter, it’s no different from firebombing a AA church because six years ago a black teenager mugged you or starting a second Holocaust because Dr. Goldman screwed up your appendectomy. These people need to realize that you can’t fault an entire gender just because you feel screwed over. In terms of the former, you are biting off your own nose to spite your face. I can’t imagine that either Jaclyn Freidman or the former Spearhead commenter who was constantly attempting to launch internet revenge campaigns against his ex-wife will ever be happy. And that, I think, is very sad because nothing will make the average person as happy as a good relationship with a person of the opposite sex. At some point, mature, emotionally stable people let go and move on.
I suppose this is a male version of the “turn the alpha” fantasy women have?
Could well be. You know, at the heart of it, I think both of those fantasies are really about aggrandizing one’s own desirabilty.
@Hollenhund
Very interesting idea. The converse of “Girl-on-girl porn “proves” that women want sex” is the glee some men in the ‘sphere have over “lesbian bed death.” It’s like saying, “See, it’s OK women don’t want sex with me. They can’t even maintain a sexual relationship with each other.”
@SW
I cosign #999.
@Susan
I used the word cruelly poorly.
Let me re-explain.
I think women can get away with many behaviours that are inherently good for them and bad for the man in question. ie. my personal go to example.
I think men cannot do that to the same degree. A cad who P&Ds a girl does face a large array of obstacles IF the woman chooses to use them. IE. false rape accusation. The wife of a man who cheats is not responsible for his other offspring (though admitedly she does lose some resources).
Now, to define cruelty.
I think cruelty is treating others in a way they don’t want to be treated.
So that asshole. Is he cruel if those women wanted to be treated like whatever the asshole treats them like?
I would say he is not. I’d say the situation is weird and unhealthy but not cruel.
J: “I would guess that it’s having twice the number of pretty girls to look at, combined with the fantasy of getting in the middle of them.”
Guess?? This should be obvious! If you have to guess, how well do you really know men?
It really is as awesome as they say. Though I wouldn’t recommend it to a man, if you cannot absolutely master one woman in bed… you might be humiliated.
@Ramble
My favorite example of the male hamster is the belief that hot 19 yo Eastrn European women are genuinely interested in fat, bald “gentlemen of experience” because those women, unlike women in the Anglosphere are “real women.” The more resistant 19 yo EE gal can be influenced by what some call “money game.” Umm…aren’t those women hookers?
@Esau
I fully understand that many of these men have had traumatic experiences, in which case they certainly have reason to make such claims about their ex-wives or whomever. The descent into hateful groupthink is the real danger, IMO. I get the real sense that many of these men are loathe to take responsibility for their own part in their history, e.g. didn’t vet the woman they married, withdrew emotionally, ignored her for years, etc. A sub-sphere online is a source of validation and comfort, i.e. “It’s not your fault, it’s the fault of women.” I once had a male commenter fly into a rage when I observed that my community appears to be populated by happily married betas. Any evidence that it might be “you” is most unwelcome.
Of course, the logical approach for women is to ignore all of it, which I attempt to do, with mixed results.
By the way, the female analogy might be the woman who has been pumped and dumped too many times to count. She only wanted love, she treated men well, she gave them everything they said they wanted, and they tossed her away without a second thought.
Homosexual relationships are rather instructive because they demonstrate how men and women would behave in heterosexual relationships on their terms only i.e. if they could get away with it. Gay relationships normally involve lots of casual sex with little or no drama, while lesbian relationships are an endless emotional rolleycoaster with lots of drama, tantrums, backstabbing but very little amount of sex actually happening.
@OTC
LOL. Women tend tend to couch their language in terms like “guess” because we don’t want to be presumptuous. After all, who am I to presume that four boobs are better than two?
Promiscuity is defined as:
1. an indiscriminate or unselective approach to sex
2. having many sexual relationships, especially transient ones
Most serial monogamy does not meet this standard. An exception might be the woman who has three “boyfriends” per year for several years running, but I’ve never met a woman who has done that.
This meme is promoted by men who define slut as N>1, and the one must ultimately be the spouse.
No need to debate this, I’m just making it clear that we disagree.
I understand that you were addressing the “extreme end”, but, as far as I can tell, the heart of Feminism was born from entitled girls who were complaining that their lives should be even *more* entitled (i.e. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, etc.)
Idiots like Dworkin simply took the ball and ran with it.
Whereas the heart of the manosphere was born from guys like Glenn Sacks. People who were genuinely concerned with boys and men getting railroaded. However, men being men, we can take anger and bitterness to a whole new (pathetic, disturbing) level.
@Lokland
The potential costs of P&Ding were high among our ancestors – violence from a jealous lover or angry father. That is one of the reasons why males evolved to welcome pair-bonding. The Dark Triad males were holdouts who did not conform, preferring (and being best suited for) a strictly short-term mating strategy.
I do think that the wife of a man who has a second family has effectively been cuckolded. She may lose a large share of the resources previously provisioned for her and her offspring. I do not see how this is any different or better than a man’s providing for a child who is not his own. Cuckoldry is primarily about the divestment of resources.
Holle–While I agree that lesbian relationships tend to be high drama, I have no idea if “bed death” is common or not. What interests me is not whether or not it exists, but the glee with which some men contemplate it. Why not just be neutral about it?
That’s a very slippery slope. How can you know what a person really wants? The only defensible position morally is “do no harm.” Scouting for masochists who welcome cruel treatment is pathological, as it demonstrates a complete lack of empathy to maximize personal gain.
To quote Brendan from a blog that cannot be named here:
This is the problem – women of all stripes, tradcons, feminists and non-feminists, demanding validation and social acceptance of their own promiscuity by loudly declaring: “No sex before monogamy!” It’s an insidious and destructive tactic, not a “meme”.
My guess is that those guys fall into 2 categories:
1. The guy that is fairly honest with himself and is looking to use his western wealth to bang some non-fat girl, and
2. The guy that is, basically, scared of women and is hoping that white girls from the former soviet bloc were less likely to be indoctrinated with western baloney.
However, as pathetic as some of that sounds, there have been many, many guys who have touted the brilliance of marrying girls who were not born in North America or Europe (or Down Under).
I am guessing that Hope and Anacaonas’ husbands might feel this way.
Did OTC just confess to a threesome?
Susan – “I once had a male commenter fly into a rage when I observed that my community appears to be populated by happily married betas. Any evidence that it might be “you” is most unwelcome.”
You’ve seen what the ‘sphere thinks of “beta” for yourself. Does it really surprise you that most men get upset when they are described as beta? I know I have plenty of good “beta traits”, in fact I am fully confident that on that side of the coin I am unbeatable (that is, I have very good betaish relationship skills). But the fact is, it isn’t my “beta traits” that earn me a long and happy relationship. For sure my SO wants the benefits of those traits, but they won’t make her want me and certainly won’t keep her interest and attraction. For that I need to bring in alpha, which unfortunately isn’t something I’m good at. Not because I’m incapable, but because I have to fight my own mental blocks every step of the way.
So although my beta traits have great utility, it isn’t really something *I* want to be known for or proud of. Before I found the ‘sphere I used to think otherwise. And it pissed me off to no end that for all of my quality (that is beta) traits I simply wasn’t on most women’s radar. Well low and behold, I’ve come to find out that although women seem to value those beta traits a great deal, they amount to absolutely nothing if there isn’t some alpha to add “edge”. Or put another way, NO amount of security and comfort will keep a woman interested in me for the long haul. So, although I realize my beta traits are useful, I would NEVER again want to be known for them. I’d rather be known as an asshole than a beta. And the funny thing is, I AM an asshole at heart. I’ve just spent most of my life hiding it because being an asshole isn’t socially acceptable.
I understand that you see ‘beta’ as a term of endearment or perhaps even a compliment. As a man that is a “recovering betaholic” I can tell you I want NOTHING to do with the title now.
This is only the MALE-preferred form of promiscuity. In other words: a harem, in one way or another. No woman wants to have indiscriminate and unselective sex – they want exactly the opposite. But that doesn’t rule out female promiscuity.
Susan, almost everything you said here could be phrased this way, “These (stupid) men were playing by the old, nice rules instead of playing by the newer, unspoken, misogynistic rules that they should have.
This is where the anger from bitter men and the anger from bitter women is really, really different.
I think that many of those guys really were being nice. But soon enough, they find out that their wives are not that caring and nurturing and they have no idea what a Shit Test is.
Then, later on, they find out that their are communities like Brookline that are filled with men and women who graduated from prestigious universities, have the choicest of professions, the leafiest of lawns and they fucking blow their tops.
I sorta hate when I act as the defense for these guys, because I dislike so many of them. But I honestly believe that so, so many of them were caught in perfect (modern) storm.
I disagree with Brendan here. I respect him highly, but I also believe he sees the world through a certain, not entirely distortion-free lens.
The data just doesn’t back up the claim that more than a small minority of women leave their husbands to upgrade, at least in his SES group.
That’s an oxymoron.
Also, monogamy is not just the preferred female form of relationship – it’s the most successful and productive system for human mating, for both sexes.
I’m about to post on a new study that calls sexual selection into question – fascinating.
My recollection of the Steinem/Freidan/Greer era was that there was a genuine malaise among bright women–and this is of course was to whom these women appealed. I was a college student during this era. I knew so many middle-aged women who were miserable in the gilded cages of suburban America. Yes, they had stuff–nice homes, labor saving devices, endless rounds of PTA meetings or bridge games once the kids left home–but they were also popping pills to help them ignore how meaningless their lives where. Is this a problem of the privileged? Yes. A first world problem? Yes. But that’s what happens to people once their basic needs are fulfilled. Their problems become existential; they need meaning.(Read Maslow if you don’t believe me.) Many of the “liberation movements” of the 60s and 70s were existential in nature. Would there have been so many hippies if Daddy had looked happy when he came home from his corporate job?
Right, her older sisters prevented guys from saying that they want demure girls that can cook. She is not demure, nor can she cook, and she gave those frat boys everything they said they wanted.
Come on, Susan.
I know that you were looking for an analogy, but it simply does not work here. Again, our experiences are not analogous and, especially in the modern culture, the lies were created to help the one side and hold back the other.
J: We also know women who have had bad experiences with men. Half of the nonsense on the extreme end of feminism (ie. Jaclyn Freidman, et al,) comes from women who have had bad experiences,
One decided contrast I’ve noticed between the HUSphere and typical feminist blogs, is that the female writers in the latter seem to devote an enormous proportion of their time and energy to worrying about being raped. Constant mention of the constant fear of rape, every waking moment. Here’s an example I just happened to be reading a few hours ago:
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/05/infringements-on-workers-rights-not-imaginary/#comment-421039
Representative quote, waling on a prior male commenter: A man of subzero empathy who cannot imagine the ordinary female experience of constant fear of rape and harassment to mention just one issue.
I wouldn’t for one moment want to minimize any — legitimate? — fear of rape that any woman — rightly? — feels. But, I wonder: is the “constant fear of rape” really “the ordinary female experience”? Perhaps I’m just among those who can’t imagine it; but what’s the evidence? Conversation at HUS has gone down many byways since I’ve been reading, but I don’t remember the female writers here ever describing such an omnipresent fear of rape as a main feature of their lives. Have I missed or repressed something? It makes me wonder whether this shore of feminism is largely populated by people who’ve had such a personal trauma, or been close with someone who did.
J: and you don’t see these guys sympathizing with her.>
Actually, if you were to read through that entire Crooked Timber comment thread — you have infinite free time, right? — you would see that a staunch majority of the male commenters are completely sympathetic. And that’s not an overtly feminist blog per se, just typical left-leaning academics.
Generally, though, in reply to both J and SW, I think the “they have this view because of their own personal traumatic experience” explanation, applied to men and women alike, is rather stingy and doesn’t give people credit for noticing any evidence beyond their own senses.
Not to mention the most obvious difference, namely that a woman can get invited on TV shows and actually make piles of money just by openly complaining about men and sh*tting all over them, see Katie Bolick. Every imaginable socially sanctioned outlet is available for her. For men, however, complaining about women or criticizing them in any way is not permitted, period. Anyone who does becomes a social pariah with zero status.
I am guessing that Hope and Anacaonas’ husbands might feel this way.
Is that culture or is it just Hope and Ana as individuals? Even in the ‘sphere, there are guys who voice regrets about importing a golddigger whose entire attitude changed once she got to America.
And lest I sound like I’m picking on Asian, EE, or the third world women, I’ll add that my father chased off a guy who attempted to court me when our family visited the old country in Western Europe. Too many of my cousins had brought home guys who just wanted sex and a green card.
That is the accepted dictionary definition. And I think it refers to a revolving door rather than a harem.
Well, about 10% of women do make that choice, though you might claim that ONSs with alpha asshats is being selective.
“generally what women “want” is serial monogamy, not a real commitment from *themselves*. Sure, they want the man to commit, but they never really want to commit themselves, so that they can keep their options open, even when married, if/when an “appropriate upgrade” becomes available. ”
How the hell does Brendan know this?
He was a virgin when he married (and there is nothing wrong with that, I was one myself!) I am sorry, but that is just BS!.
I am not like that. Have been happily married for 16 years. Never ever thought of being with another man. Even in the first few years of marriage before my husband’s business became successful.
My sister is not like that. Nor my sisters-in law.
My two closest female friends… Nope..
Why is Brendan the oracle ?
Sources? Links?
I really think that Brendan is basing his opinions on his own failed marriage, here.
And yes , I had one of those, too!
Serial monogamy is the female equivalent of spinning plates. A woman who has one short monogamous relationship with an alpha after another, starting and ending all of them at her whim? Of course she’s promiscuous.
Yes – as long as it’s lifelong, plus legally-culturally enforced.
@Ramble
I don’t think being nice is what got most of these men into trouble. Hearing them go on about their ex-wives makes it very, very clear they chose poorly. I don’t know why some of the behaviors they report now wouldn’t have been dealbreakers back then. Errors in judgment reflect a lack of understanding about particular actions and consequences – we can argue about whose fault it is, sure, but “I didn’t know any better” can only get you so far.
Susan, you are WAY too smart to not see the difference. (For the record, I am not defending any cheaters).
When a woman has a child, she knows it is hers. If her man steps out and has children with other women while providing for his wife’s children, she has been humiliated (if she finds out). But her family is still provided for.
If he steps out and ditches them, then she has been humiliated and her children have lost very valuable financial, physical and emotional resources.
If she cuckolds him:
1. He has been prevented from having his own children (he thought he was)
2. He has had huge amounts of money stolen.
3. He has invested huge amount of emotional support for some fuckfaces child.
4. He has helped some woman who did these things to him.
Our experiences are not analogous and the one situation is definitely worse than the other.
And it all stems from something you say all the time: Sperm is cheap and Eggs are expensive. (Some idiot, at this point, will want to jump on this and say, “Well, if sperm is cheap, then, well, he could have a kid with someone else…it’s easy” Of course it does not work like that.)
Ms. Walsh has touted him a number of times as the man all MRAs should emulate, because he’s “non-judgmental”, logical, restrained etc., so I guess it’s warranted to quote him here.
Yeah, great, Kathy. Thanks for proving the words of MRAs by assuming that the discussion is about you, personally.
Every imaginable socially sanctioned outlet is available for her.
That’s right.
Our experiences are not analogous.
Fuck, I might as well change my tag from Ramble to that line.
Well there is no logic nor proof in that comment of his that you quoted H. You are obfuscating..
« 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 »