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 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 »
Why with alphas? In college, most boyfriends are betas. Here’s the most typical scenario for a woman lucky enough to lock down a guy in college:
Year 1: No BF.
Year 2: Get BF in October, date for rest of year. Break up in advance of semester abroad.
Year 3: Intense relationship with fellow FX student, ends when he returns to Sydney and you return to NY. No BF spring semester.
Year 4: Date BF beginning around January, but graduation looms. Relationship limps along as LDR for another six months after graduation.
Year 5: New city, no BF.
Year 6: Get BF.
Year 7: Still dating BF.
Year 8: Break up early in year, get new BF late in year.
Year 9: Dating BF.
Year 10: Get engaged to BF.
At the age of 28, this woman has had five boyfriends, aka LTRs. She is NOT promiscuous, by any stretch of the imagination. And it’s by no means certain that she did the dumping. Many breakups are logistical – neither party has lost attraction, they become separated by circumstances. In my experience, most relationships about to become LDRs are ended by the guys, b/c the incentives for being in a relationship are dramatically reduced by the loss of frequent access to sex.
I believe it.
Right.
However, some idiots are playing by the new rules and some are playing by the old rules.
And, back in the olden days, *everyone* got married and everyone *stayed* married.
Fuck, even Archie Bunker had a fairly good marriage. And popular culture kept showing lovable idiots on TV and in the movies.
So, yeah, they definitely could have used a better filter, but many of them, I believe, were using the old filter (which involved almost every guy and girl getting married, and marrying one of the first girls/guys they dated) instead of the new filter.
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. .
I think it’s a real and valid fear; after all, a few days ago, I described two near misses I had. But I wouldn’t say it’s a constant fear, and I’d hate to live that even if I had been raped.
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.
Different corners of the net aggregate different types of people. Their sympathy is not really surprising. I know that NAMALT; I’m saying the some ‘sphere blogs aggregate men who are like that. Even the “happily married” there seem angry. That’s who I’m talking about. I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m lumping male liberals and MRA extremists together because they all have penises.
“Thanks for proving the words of MRAs by assuming that the discussion is about you, personally.”
Thanks for defaulting to the cheap shot in lieu of argument.
You know, you guys say that your theories explain reality, and to a very large extent I agree, they do. But they way you insist in universalization and blanket statements is anti-intellectual, anti-philosophic, reductionist, simplistic, embarassing and … not true.
When people describe their own lives, the people they know, the things they have seen, and it doesn’t 100% comport with your theory, and all you have to fall back on is a cheap insult like this, you are losing and you know it.
@ Ted D
You misunderstood my meaning. When I say that I am surrounded by happily married beta males – as defined in the most neutral, non-manosphere terms – beta males who are unhappily divorced become angry because they didn’t believe betaness could exist in a happy marriage. If it can, then why did their marriage end? No, that is simply too painful to contemplate.
We had friends over for dinner the other night – and the men had an interesting discussion where they all agreed they were beta males and felt quite happy to be so. They’re brainy good guys. The disparagement is not universal.
I’m not sure what your argument is supposed to be with this college girlfriend example. Yeah, many women aren’t promiscous, and not all relationships are ended by women. What does this has to do with the argument of some men, namely that serial monogamy is the female-preferred form of promiscuity? This means that a woman who wants to be promiscuous will go the route of serial monogamy if she wants to maximize her gain and minimize the costs. Nothing more, nothing less.
Is that culture or is it just Hope and Ana as individuals?
J, excellent point. I didn’t mean to imply that every girl from this or that “foreign” place is great, but that the happily married guys who marry these girls, and see them as being both great, and different, will feed that idea.
Of course, there is selection bias, since we are hearing, mostly, from happily married guys.
================
J, BTW, your comment at 1038 did not make me any more sympathetic to those women.
I can honestly say that I have never feared being raped. Perhaps there were times when I should have, IDK.
“Yeah, great, Kathy. Thanks for proving the words of MRAs by assuming that the discussion is about you, personally.”
Ha ha ha ha!
Yet you quote Brendan who provides no proof.. Not even an anecdote or two, and expect me (or anyone else)to swallow that guff?
MRA means nothing to me.. I neither support nor follow that supposed movement.
It’d be kind of difficult to lose an argument with Kathy, dear Escoffier, when she makes no argument to begin with. “I’m not like that and neither is my “. How is that an argument?
hell hound, if your universals were true, there would be no counter-examples. Get it? The fact that there are counter-examples is a sign to the rest of us that your universalism is at best an inadequate reflection of reality.
H has just proved your point, Esc.
Defaulting to the cheap shot in lieu of argument.
He never backs up his assertions. Never provides links.
Good old Brendan gives his opinion and H is onto it like a rat up a drain pipe.
So what? That doesn’t mean they aren’t right about you and other women whose only argument is “NAWALT!”. You don’t mean anything to MRAs either and you know it, yet you keep trolling their blogs. I saw you on PMAFT’s site last month. What’s the deal?
Ted, #1033
+1000
Reread the stuff I quoted and see if it’s universalist or not, thank you very much.
J, BTW, your comment at 1038 did not make me any more sympathetic to those women.
That’s OK. It was more of a historical explanation than a plea for sympathy. I see feminism as just one social trend that came out of social conditions (affluence, Viet Nam, social unrest, individualism, etc.) during that era. A lot of people seem to see it as arising out of a vacuum and as the primary force shaping society today.
@SW
Yes, I think OTC did confess.
@Ted
I hate the term “beta” too. However, prior to my exposure to the ‘sphere, I never heard it applied to men, only to wolves and non-human primates. It’s not a term women use in ordinary parlance.
@Susan
Thank you for describing what you define as serial monogamy. That sounds normal.
As a guy when I hear serial monogamy its more like boyfriend for 3 months break up, rinse repeat over a span of years.
PS I would however have a problem with the foreigner relationship (and I say that as that guy) merely because logistically she should have known it wasn’t going to work.
@Ramble
From a monetary standpoint, a man’s paying for a child not his own and a child by another woman would be about the same, no?
As for the emotional toll:
1. She has been prevented from having a faithful mate (she thought she did).
2. She has invested a huge amount of emotional capital in some fuckface cheater.
3. She has held down the home fort as a single parent while he was out tomcatting, enabling him to spend time elsewhere.
But not from having offspring, from having genetic legacy. That’s the big difference.
Because my example is typical. I would guess that 90% or more of women marry with five bf’s or fewer in their past. Where are the women riding the alpha LTR carousel? Alphas rarely agree to be boyfriends.
Fair point, but a married man will likely have his own offspring anyway – presumably this cuckoldry occurred when his wife was ovulating and wanted to be slapped around and clubbed by a real man.
Relationships of one semester’s duration are very common in junior abroad programs. I think there are several reasons for this:
1. Guys (or girls) unwilling to commit at home are more likely to agree to a relationship when they know it has an expiration date.
2. Both sexes often feel a bit lonely and homesick in a new environment – having a relationship can make the experience much more comfortable.
3. People feel generally romantic in foreign countries.
4. People who left bfs or gfs behind are often on the rebound, or they may have permission to “take a break” while abroad.
I don’t think anyone would deny that a girl who never cheats, never has ONSs but gets a new BF every 3-4 months is promiscuous. At that rate, it won’t take long to rack up a double digit count and I for one think promiscuity begins somewhere short of that.
What’s at issue here is a woman who, by age 30, as a count around five or less, all from LTRs, all of the monogamous. She’s therefore been “serially monogamous.” The hardcore spherites insist she is a slut. By the standards of the Victorian era, they are right. By the standards of 2012?
I’m the farthest thing from a relativist. I prefer Victorian sexual mores to our own, on practical grounds no less than moral. But considering the times, I don’t think it makes sense to call a girl like that a slut or say that she has been promiscuous. In any event, whether the terms fit or don’t, I still see a qualitative difference between LTRs=5 and LTR+flings+ONSs=20. I am not the only one, or the only male, who thinks so.
On what’s “preferred,” too much is made of this. The majority of both sexes prefer to have one partner at a time. Certainly it’s a far stronger component of male fantasy life to daydream about harems. Probably there is no female equivalent. But I think most men would not actually choose a harem even if they could have one. (Susan makes a similar point about women who fantasize about S&M; very few would actually follow through.)
The reason we have serial monogamy is because both sexes are still looking for love with one partner at at time but we severed the connection between sex and marriage. The culture decided that it was bad to pressure people into early marriage and unrealistic to wait for marriage to have sex. That’s the core problem here.
A lot of people seem to see it as arising out of a vacuum and as the primary force shaping society today.
No, it most certainly did not come out of a vacuum.
“Progressive” ideas had been on the rise since the Industrial revolution. Greater wealth meant greater opportunities to be “progressive”.
I don’t understand what you meant by the second half of the sentence, but anyway: most current Western marriages have one or two children, so yes, the wife’s cuckoldry can easily rob her husband of all chance of reproduction.
“Where are the women riding the alpha LTR carousel? Alphas rarely agree to be boyfriends.”
They don’t have to agree to being a boyfriend to be rode. Duh.
No. Again, it is basically impossible to compare apples-to-apples in this case.
If I am understanding your question, then, the man is going to make sure that he provides for “his” child (though, in this case, he has been cuckholded). This act “prevents” him from having a biological child with another woman…that would make him an asshole. His monogamy, and loyalty have prevented him from having a biological child.
If he steps out on some devoted wife, who has bore him a child, he may provide for that bastard child, or he may not.
(Again, this is all evo-bio-psych speculation, I am not commenting on our modern laws.)
So, if some Don Draper provides for his family while knocking up countless sluts in various places and countries, Betty and her children are still provided for.
But if some underling at Sterling-Cooper amasses all of his pennies to buy diapers for some kid that Dandy Don had drilled into some secretary, he is royally fucked. The only way he can get out where his future biological children are unaffected is if he finds out very, very early in the process.
Susan, you will get absolutely no argument from me.
Cheating bastards are cheating bastards.
Just because our experiences are not analogous does not mean that one party is allowed to be a fuckface.
@ Cooper
Women being rode by Alphas is not the same thing as serial monogamy. Getting banged by an alpha isn’t the same thing as having a monogamous relationship with one.
A woman banging alphas is engaging in promiscuity, not serial monogamy.
@Susan 1073
Susan, tons and TONS of girls absolutely dream of having a semester abroad in Paris or Rome and having a “romantic” affair. Very few of those girls have the same dreams with respect to Tokyo or Hong Kong (though Melbourne, for them, sounds quite nice).
“You don’t mean anything to MRAs either and you know it, yet you keep trolling their blogs. I saw you on PMAFT’s site last month. What’s the deal?”
Ya crack me up Hellhound..
I could very well ask you the same question here. “Why are you trolling Susan’s blog?
In any case, I made that one comment about a month ago, and have not been back since. Nor do I intend to go back there again.
And you? What is the purpose of your trolling..Gonna go back and report like a good little soldier..( your normal modus operandi.. )
+1
Good summary, Escoffier.
@Cooper
Hey Coop, good to see you.
I was pointing out the error in this comment by Hollenhund:
I think most of these STRs occur between visiting students, not with locals.
Ted 1033
Congrats, Ted. Looks like that red pill is finally all the way down.
Susan- “We had friends over for dinner the other night – and the men had an interesting discussion where they all agreed they were beta males and felt quite happy to be so. They’re brainy good guys. The disparagement is not universal.”
Fair enough. I for one WILL NOT tolerate the label “beta” being applied to me ever again. As far as I can tell, there really is no positive attributes for that title. Men with red pill knowledge will mock you, women will tell you “someday you’ll make a great husband for some lucky woman” while crying on your shoulder about the “bad boy” that P&D’ed her, and even IF it attracts a woman, chances are she will not respect or appreciate what she has, because it simply isn’t exciting enough.
Unlike many guys in the ‘sphere though, I DO NOT believe the ideal is to “kill the beta” at all. Instead I’m turning my “beta” into my own dirty little secret. I can’t help but want to treat the people I love well, and my SO certainly gets the majority of the benefits of that desire. However I no longer frame MY contribution to our relationship as anything that comes from this desire. Instead, I frame my contribution to our relationship as being the leader, the enforcer, the planer, and to be rudely blunt “the dick”. I don’t even attempt to offer any of my more “beta” services as something I’m “doing for us/our relationship” anymore, because frankly women just don’t seem to care. Oh, for sure they WANT those beta traits, but they pretty much refuse to give men credit for them. That’s fine, but then women in general should stop complaining that men simply don’t want to “man up” and offer them.
And I hope your male dinner guests all the best in the world. But if/when they find themselves on the wrong side of family court, ask them how happy they are to be beta. I suspect you will get a VERY different answer.
Sue: Yeah, FFMs. I’ve dropped hints for a while, but my squeaky-clean beta dad image is only 95% true. Figured I’d bury it downthread, where only the dedicated readers read. There is a lot of misinformation about that kind of stuff that makes me cringe, when people opine blindly about it.
I think most of these STRs occur between visiting students, not with locals.
I wasn’t talking about reality, I was talking about “dreams”.
Ted 1033, 1086.
Grandslam homerun. Beta keeps the relationship going, but don’t for a minute think it’s sexually or physically attractive.
@Ramble #1074
Exactly.
@OTC
That puts you in a group of only 14% of Americans. Sounds to me like you’re alpha.
Agree on all but the last part – alpha and beta has little to do with looks. Women dislike hypermasculine faces, and lots of betas are handsome.
@Susan
Oh, I have been lurking – just trying not to post as much unless it’s going to contribute. Even over a long-weekend away I found myself having keep up with the comment sections. (I spent the weekend with extended-family and actually spent a fair amount of time discussing 50-Shades – which I’m not much of a fan of)
I mis-read a crutial “LTR” between alpha carousel. My bad.
The reason we have serial monogamy is because both sexes are still looking for love with one partner at at time but we severed the connection between sex and marriage. The culture decided that it was bad to pressure people into early marriage and unrealistic to wait for marriage to have sex. That’s the core problem here.
Yes, exactly.
Susan, to be clear, I’m not endorsing that view, just saying that it’s prevalent. Personally, I think the line between realism and fatalism can be awfully thin. We like to think all kinds of things that we don’t want to do are impossible anyway. But it’s not impossible to control sexual behavior. We’ve done it before and we could do it again if we wanted to.
As for the term beta, I am one and I don’t feel offended by the term.
@OTC
I’ve dropped hints for a while, but my squeaky-clean beta dad image is only 95% true.
I can’t remember not thinking you were polyamorous or someting similar.
Sassy – “Women being rode by Alphas is not the same thing as serial monogamy. Getting banged by an alpha isn’t the same thing as having a monogamous relationship with one.”
Ummm. no. Any woman that goes through, lets say three or more “official” boyfriends a year is certainly NOT being chaste. As far as I’m concerned, unless a relationship with an alpha lasts about a year or so, it was simply an excuse to have sex with a “bad boy” under the guise of “true love”.
Bouncing from relationship to relationship is just another way of riding the carousel. And I’d be willing to bet that in many cases the alpha in these “relationships” are still getting some on the side, with or without the GF’s knowledge.
Deti – I don’t think I’ve been choking on it so much as simply being stubborn and bullheaded about facing my own truths. It takes an awful lot to change my mind, even when *I* am the one attempting the change.
@Kathy
“In any case, I made that one comment about a month ago, and have not been back since. Nor do I intend to go back there again.”
Heard that before. At least Lara can be funny…
Cooper – “I spent the weekend with extended-family and actually spent a fair amount of time discussing 50-Shades – which I’m not much of a fan of”
Some of the women in the office can’t stop talking about it either. It’s funny, I haven’t heard a single one of them discuss how “hot” it is that in the end Grey submitted to the woman’s lead. But they can’t stop talking about the S&M/hot sex scenes, or how much they’d love to be “ravished” by their own personal Grey. But hey, it’s only popular because women want to fantasize about turning the cad, right? *rolls eyes*
I hate the term “beta” too. However, prior to my exposure to the ‘sphere, I never heard it applied to men, only to wolves and non-human primates. It’s not a term women use in ordinary parlance.
There are lots of terms that both men and women do not use in everyday ordinary parlance. The entire point of using terminology is to create a classification system in order to describe and categorize observable reality.
My sense is there is a lot of pushback on using the terms “alpha” and “beta”. My sense is for whatever reason many women want to resist categorization for analytical purposes, preferring to see everything in the world as an individual case/unique snowflake.
I could really care less about the terms themselves. We could use the term rumpelfucks and tweedels for all I care. The point is many women treat, interact with, and respond sexually VERY DIFFERENTLY with men who exhibit very different personality characteristics, behaviors, and speech patterns. Alpha/beta is simply one system of classifying those behaviors.
Most areas of study evolve into some type of classification system. It must be done to make any sense of the entirety of something and to analyze. For example, stocks can be classified by sector of the economy such as Consumer Discretionary and Technology. Most companies fit nicely and cleanly, but there are exceptions like say an Apple. Is it technology or is it consumer discretionary. A plausible case can be made for either (it certainly isn’t a utility or healthcare).
There is something that I observe that I can’t quite pin the rationale or motivation for. It is an undertone of wanting to reject any hardcore analytics of categorization, tactics, etc. in favor of much more fuzzy, nebulous things that cannot be measured, analyzed, or quantified in any sense (just have “good values”), and for any guy looking to improve his life would leave him clueless where to begin.
@Ted #1086
“Fair enough. I for one WILL NOT tolerate the label “beta” being applied to me ever again. As far as I can tell, there really is no positive attributes for that title. Men with red pill knowledge will mock you, women will tell you “someday you’ll make a great husband for some lucky woman” while crying on your shoulder about the “bad boy” that P&D’ed her, and even IF it attracts a woman, chances are she will not respect or appreciate what she has, because it simply isn’t exciting enough.”
No Beta could say that. Congrats, the male version of ‘pretty lies’ lay bleeding on the ground before you. Now, when can we have a society that doesn’t implant that crap in boys in the first place? It takes years for most nice guys to work out what you just said, I’m one of them.
Mike, I totally understand the need to classify and to have a common vocabulary. I agree with you; let’s go with rumpelfucks and tweedels–anything that doesn’t make a normal husband and father look like less than a cad and a player, because, last time I checked the alphabet, A came before B.
J – “I agree with you; let’s go with rumpelfucks and tweedels–anything that doesn’t make a normal husband and father look like less than a cad and a player, because, last time I checked the alphabet, A came before B.”
Well that there is the problem. You see, in the grand scheme of things as they are now, husbands and fathers ARE lesser status creatures in many cases. If you want to fix this issue, changing the labels does nothing. Changing the attitudes of everyone in our society is the way to go. When society begins to value husbands/fathers properly, you will see more men wanting to achieve fatherhood and less just looking to add notches to the bed post.
@Ted
Well, in light of my rather new, and secretive, interest in human sexually, I couldn’t help but question female relatives about their interest in the book.
My cousin couldn’t stand his gf reading it – namely because he says he smiles, while reading, in a way he says he’s never made her smile. He couldn’t articulate his dislike more than to proclaim it’s “girl porn.”
I really wanted to identify what exactly the fantasy was, and what it meant. Although, surprisingly, I couldn’t get the women to be able to describe what has them hooked. I could though has them all agree that they wouldn’t wish to have their men treat them like Grey does.
They would argue than men have their porn and women have theirs. I had a hard time conveying that what men like in porn, men usually would like in real-life; (if a guys doesn’t dig kinky shit, he usually ain’t masterbating to kinky porn) where as women seem to have a juxtaposition between what they fantasize and what they would like in real-life.
I think the book is a amazing example of how powerful the female hamster can be. It sounds like Grey could not have been any clearer, or honest and upfront, about his relationship intensions (says “stay away” to Ana, refers to himself as a “dark knight,” all the contract stuff and previous subs) yet all the women I discussed the book with say they keep reading cause their love is going to conquer their difference. (“can’t I draw him to the light” yadda yadda)
I think that fantasy puts too much emphasy on the damaged “bad boy” side. If beta is the “soft-core” and alpha is the “tough-shell”, and women seek to find a man whom they can get through the shell to discover the core, I don’t think they have any credibility to complaint about finding cads. Cause the fantasy really teaches betas to be assholes – cause you have to have that outershell to full fill the fantasy.
I actually was reminded of Adams speech to Hannah at the end of the season. (in the Girls’ show) Hannah makes an excuse saying that ‘she’s scared’ more than most people; and Adam says ‘guess what! You don’t get to be.’ Pretty much cause everyone is scared, and no one gets to choose to be more scared.
Well, IMO, the same can be said about being a damaged character like Grey. We all have been hurt – albeit in the book Grey’s damage is an extreme.
So, those with that”tough-shell” is really guys who have chosen to let their ‘hurt’ be an excuse to act like an asshole. Where as the betas are the ones who have acted appropriately by actually not allow their damage affect their behavior. Which, thus is why I don’t understand the fantasy of finding man with a “tough-shell”
@ Escoffier:
“The reason we have serial monogamy is because both sexes are still looking for love with one partner at at time but we severed the connection between sex and marriage. The culture decided that it was bad to pressure people into early marriage and unrealistic to wait for marriage to have sex. That’s the core problem here.”
Almost. IMO we have serial monogamy because it accommodates the sexual and coupling strategies of both men and women while demanding only limited commitment, or quick-release commitment.
For the woman, it’s “a monogamous relationship” which requires his “commitment” in the form of his exclusivity, freeing her up for guilt-free not-a-slut sex. For men, it gets to the sex fast. For both, the commitment takes on whatever form they both agree on at the moment; and can be ended by one of them at any time, against the will of the other, in 10 seconds, no muss no fuss.
Cooper- IMO it is because deep down women are turned on by the potential for violence and danger, all the while trying to keep from suffering the worst effects of said violence and danger. They are the moth to the flame. They *think* they are attracted to the light, but it is the heat that burns them alive they crave. If they would just accept that getting burnt is actually the end result, they could get controlled burns instead of the full BBQ treatment. But, that would require that they admit to wanting a bit of burn in the first place. And I imagine many women do figure this out and either curb the desire to burn (which I don’t think will work long term) or figure out how to feel the heat without getting crispy. (S&M, bondage, thrill seeking,etc…)
@ Ted D
You and I are in agreement. A woman banging an alpha outside of a monogamous relationship is being promiscuous.
Serial monogamy falls into two camps, which I think some people are missing.
1. A woman who intentionally enters into relationships, knowing that they will be short lived by her own hand, and jumps from relationship to relationship is practicing one form of serial monogamy. She has sex in relationships with men who will soon be replaced to avoid a promiscuous label.
2. A woman enters into relationships in good faith and with good intentions. For various reasons, these relationships don’t work out. Instead of sleeping with random people, this woman only sleeps with men she is in genuine relationships with. This is another form of serial monogamy.
The first one seems to be the model that men are focusing on. That model is filled with bad intentions, but I suspect that most women do not ascribe to that model.
Most women have consecutive relationships with spans of singleness in between.
They’ve all been married more than 25 years. That reminds me of a funny story.
Celeste was 90, and quite demented, though she had moments of lucidity. Hank was 91 and unwell but sharp mentally. They had been married nearly 70 years. One morning Celeste came into the room and said, “Hank, we need to talk. I don’t think this is working out.”
The visiting nurse reported this to my friend, their daughter.
Re: refusing the Beta label
Over the weekend, my sister and I watched a bit of the movie “My Best Friends Girl” – the movie where Dane Cook (the asshole) gets hired by several betas (including Jason Biggs) incapable of maintaining the attraction the women they seek. Dane Cook practically P&Ds them into having a new found appreciation for their nice, supplicating, boyfriends. I could help, but create a discussion of this with female family (sister, and cousins gf) about why the theme of the movie is universally that women are attracted to “douchebags” (as I put it) and that “mr. right” always ends up “mr. Not right now” (as its put in the movie)
And both my sister and my cousins’ gf responded with saying that it is true, and that they’re sorry I’m having to realize this just now, but there is nothing that is going to change it.
Cooper @ 1105 & Ted @ 1107
The appeal of the sex scenes in 50 Shades – which is basically the only reason the book is popular, as the writing quality is poor – is actually pretty damn simple: Christian’s focus on Ana’s pleasure is total. She has a lot of orgasms. It’s framed in a way that makes Ana feel intensely desired and attractive, and it’s about her experience, not his.
That’s what makes it ‘mommy porn’ and different to the vast majority of regular porn that’s out there, which is geared towards the male gaze. 50 Shades is geared for the female gaze. The reason it snuck in there and blew up into this massively popular thing despite the writing quality, is that it is filling quite a large hole insofar as market availability goes.
This is why I love Ted. He is so honest, and he holds himself to a very high standard. Plus he’s so damn funny, even when he doesn’t mean to be!
@Mike C
Can you be more specific? Are you referring to “Don’t lie” as measured by intent?
In the meantime, women can filter out the latter and either marry a ‘dad’ or stay single, both of which are preferable options.
The tragedy is that some of the guys today who qualify as cads would never have gone that route in a previous era. They might have been decent and honorable men like the Great Generation. Instead they pursue the ‘barnyard couplings’ that Munson so eloquently derided, increasing their SMV as they decrease their MMV.
After I wrote the review of 50 Shades, a bunch of young women I know read it. Their verdict: really stupid and lame, including the sex. I think that for whatever reason, it is the over 30 crowd that digs it.
“The first one seems to be the model that men are focusing on. That model is filled with bad intentions, but I suspect that most women do not ascribe to that model.
“Most women have consecutive relationships with spans of singleness in between.”
Evidence? Statistics? Studies? Scientific bases?
Because we want to be femme fatale miracle workers, and reduce the toughest guy to his 10 year old boy self, at least some of the time. We want to be that sexually powerful, ambrosia that will destroy a man’s taste for any other woman, forever.
But hey, what do I know. Listen to Ted.
I agree with this definition. It sounds mutually beneficial, and when it ceases to be, the breakup occurs. For the record, this kind of dating has been in place since the 1920′s – see my recent history of dating. The idea that serial monogamy is new is just silly. They had fewer LTRs because they married earlier, it’s true, but most women had a bf in high school and at least a couple in college by 1960. Certainly by 1970, when I entered high school, couples going steady were all having sex, and none that I can recall married.
@Tassie
Yes, she has two earth-shattering orgasms when she loses her virginity, both timed precisely when he tells her to “bring it.”
@Deti
Isn’t partner count a good indicator? Even with a median marriage age of 26, only 2.5% of females age 15-44 have a partner count over two. (CDC National Survey of Family Growth, 2008.)
Clearly, women have very few sexual LTRs.
Deti, I’m going to ask you to respond to this data. I’ve noticed you frequently remain silent when your point is disproved.
@ Susan
Yes, she has two earth-shattering orgasms when she loses her virginity, both timed precisely when he tells her to “bring it.”
Realism isn’t the strong suit of any variety of porn.
Susan:
I didn’t make a point, other than ask for evidence to support a claim that most women follow the consecutive relationships with spans of singleness model. From reading some of the data and from my own experience, I am not so sure about that.
Frankly I don’t know if partner count is a good indicator, particularly when from the same study you cited, I found this:
“Percent of women 25-44 years of age who have had 15 or more male sexual partners, 2006-2008: 10.4%
Source: NHSR No. 36, Table 3 NOTE: Includes partners with whom respondent had any type of sexual contact (vaginal, oral, or anal sex)”
“It sounds mutually beneficial, and when it ceases to be, the breakup occurs.”
It might not be injurious if this happens once or twice. But not when the same person shows a pattern of it. Not when the person does this 5, 6, 9 times, into double digits.
“For the record, this kind of dating has been in place since the 1920′s – see my recent history of dating. The idea that serial monogamy is new is just silly. They had fewer LTRs because they married earlier, it’s true, but most women had a bf in high school and at least a couple in college by 1960.”
BFs they were going steady with? Having sex with?
And sure, maybe serial monogamy with sex isn’t new, but its widespread societal sanction and acceptance by all major influential institutions IS new.
Yeah, that’s what gets them hot, a guy being more emotional than he was before they met.
It couldn’t possibly be being with a man confident enough and dominant enough to see through their bullshit and pull their hair, spank their ass and maybe even wrap their hands around her throat.
No, it’s the emotional development that draws women to that book.
Serial monogamy isn’t really commitment. The man might think he’s giving commitment but he really isn’t. And the woman might think she’s receiving a commitment but she really isn’t.
A commitment that can be ended with “I don’t want to see you anymore” is not really commitment at all. If you can walk away with little more than a “goodbye” and nothing else really keeping you there, then you’ve really neither committed anything nor risked much. The risk of accidental or unwanted pregnancy can easily be reduced to negligibility. The risk of losing money or property is nonexistent since there are no legal entanglements and young singles usually don’t have much. The only real risks are rejection (for him) and an increased notch count (for her). He’s left more cynical and jaded; she’s left with another digit in her N.
That doesn’t sound very mutually beneficial, unless it ends in marriage (which it usually doesn’t).
Susan, I went to HS in the ’80s is super-lib Northern California and while there was no shortage of BF-GF couples, I would estimate that less than 50% were having sex. We guys treated it as a BIG DEAL if someone “scored” so it couldn’t have been all that common. Certainly, it was not something that anyone took for granted.
@Ms. Sassy #1108:
“You and I are in agreement. A woman banging an alpha outside of a monogamous relationship is being promiscuous.”
O: I respectfully disagree; a Woman having sex in and of itself doesn’t make her “promiscuous” – even outside the context of a monogamous relationship. What makes ANYONE promiscuous, is a demontrasted track record of INDISCRIMINATE sexual practices. Merely bedding down with a guy, “alpha” or otherwise, doesn’t a floozy make.
I”m just sayin’.
O.
@ Obsidian
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous
1
: composed of all sorts of persons or things
2
: not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate
3
: not restricted to one sexual partner
4
: casual, irregular
— pro·mis·cu·ous·ly adverb
— pro·mis·cu·ous·ness noun
Note the fourth definition of the word promiscuous. Having casual sex is considered promiscuous behavior.
You are correct that the word “promiscuous” can mean having indiscriminate qualities, but I’m also right. It means casual as well.
It couldn’t possibly be being with a man confident enough and dominant enough to see through their bullshit
On some level, I think everyone (men too) likes this if for no other reason that being with someone who sees throught our bullshit and still wants to be around is very affirming.
and pull their hair, spank their ass
Doesn’t appeal to me.
and maybe even wrap their hands around her throat.
I’d find that terrifying at first, then it would really piss me off. If a man did that to me, he have to learn to sleep with one eye open. I understand this appeals to some people, but I just don’t get it.
I resent the reference by the betas here calling alphas out as assholes etc.
That reeks with jealousy. Sure there are alpha ass holes as there are beta assholes. But not all alphas are assholes. NAAAAH…lol
I can seea beta thinking that when the alpha good guy gets the girl, but that in its self dorsnt make him an ahole.
I think the terms “manwhore” and “alpha asshat” and “alpha douchebag” are too harsh and judgmental. I vote that we institute “man of romance” in their stead.
Ted, congratulations on your red pill nourishment and well-founded suspicion of the “beta” title. Welcome to the Winner’s Circle. If you would like perhaps the ultimate disclosure on this matter, go see “Magic Mike” and enjoy Matthew McConaughey’s speech when he takes a young man under his wing during male-stripper practice and describes the alpha male’s role in the SMP trophic system. It is perhaps his finest work since “Dazed and Confused” many years ago. This film should be required viewing in high schools.
@Ted # 1033:
OK, I read your comment made earlier, and here’s my take on it:
Ideally, a Woman really wants a mixture of “Alpha” and “Beta” Male traits/characteristics. Soft/Hard, Hot/Cold, Sweet/Sour. Women love complexity, and the more complex – and unpredictable (within reason) – the more a Woman is (sexually) attracted to a Man.
Beta Male traits are very much needed to keep the day to day “stuff” of relationship/marriage going; paying the bills, keeping the lights on, keeping food on the table, and so on. All the things a Man’s “supposed to do”.
But, a Woman, in order for her to remain “in lust” with you – and this is indeed key – you need to bring on the Alpha, too.
And part of that, is the very real threat of violence.
Not necessarily against her, but against real threats to her and the home.
NOTHING turns on a Woman SEXUALLY more than a Man who’s got mad squabbles, believe me.
Now, let me be clear here – I’m not talking about a loose cannon, though a Woman with limited options will get with that before getting with the complete limp noodle guy; but what I’m talking about, is more like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taken_(film)
As I was reading your comments about survivalism etc Ted, you very much reminded me of Liam Neeson in “Taken”, the runaway box office hit in theatres four years ago. Neeson plays a middle aged and divorced former CIA Field Operative who’s trying to rebuild his fractured relationship with his daughter. When she’s abducted by human sex traffickers while on a trip to France, Neeson sets out to get her back before she disappears for good. Neeson is a One-Man Wrecking Crew in Paris, tearing down dudes left and right; he is relentless in getting his girl back.
Neeson’s character in the film is understated, seemingly like an everyday guy; this is essential for the line of work he does; you don’t want to “stand out”. Here’s a clip where he moonlights as concert security for a famous singer his daughter is a huge fan of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJYTJsSCvHs&feature=relmfu
As much as we don’t like to admit it in our “safe” world, the reality is that violence is as vital to the Human Condition as breathing. All Men know that violence is only a heartbeat away – and must contemplate how they’re going to deal with it. Any Man who has a Woman, has this thought at the back of his mind; any Man who has a daughter, same deal.
A Woman who knows you can and will handle your business, will be crazy about you – trust me. Here’s a brief real life account from my own life:
On Valentine’s Day 2012, at about 10.30 in the evening, on the way home from an art gallery showing, Ms. Brown Sugar was assaulted by three thugs. I immediately stepped in and proceeded to handle them – they had weapons, I was unarmed, and outnumbered. Minutes later two of them were screaming in pain and the third one was on the run. I put a hex on all three of them: if they showed their faces in my neighborhood again, I will send them back where they came from in a pine box each.
Ms. Brown Sugar was able to get away during the fracas since the knuckleheads were focused on me, which was what I wanted to happen; when I got back home 15 minutes later, she discovered that I was bleeding profusely from the mouth; one of the punks had scored a punch on me but I didn’t even feel it, my adrenaline was pumping so hard (recall what I said to Ms. J earlier). I had a badly busted lip but I was OK.
As she tended to my wounds, her eyes were clearly very dialated; and when we finally settled in for the night she turned to me and simply said, “I didn’t know you could move so fast!”. I’m not one to kiss and tell, but let’s just say that she was very, very aroused that night. Like, Waterfalls.
Not content to let that incident be; I take my hood very seriously – I setout to find the three punks. I put it out there that I want their heads on my front step. I waited for them where they attacked my Woman for an entire week afterwards. I guess they took my words quite seriously.
I decided to join the local town watch in order to give my…tendencies, if you will, a “legal” outlet. Eversince that night I’ve been involved – and I’ve made it clear to my fellow brothers on the watch, as well as the local district police captain and lieutanant, that if those town watch doesn’t bring down the crime and violence where I live, then I’ll handle the problem “The Other Way”; they all understood, and agreed to turn a blind eye to whatever I choose to do.
Six months on, crime and violence has dropped like a rock, almost entirely due to my efforts. In fact, aside from one other brother, I’ve been the only consistent member of the watch since that night; we’ve even gone out just the two of us, and have plans to expand the watch to more nights a week, including late nights.
I’m due to go out on patrol tonight as a matter of fact, and we’ve now a core group of Black Men (and one White Man; we’d love to have more!) to do what a Man’s supposed to do – protect his home and his Woman.
Ted, you have some really great stuff going for you. You’re smart, streetwise, experienced; but you’re also moral, kind and you love your fam. If you just tweaked some things – really get into shape, and learn a few more things – I promise you your lady will saw her right arm off before rolling out on you. Guys like Neeson in “Taken” do not come often, trust me.
And neither do you.
Please get that book “The Game”, Ted. It will change your life.
O.
This too is my favorite example. I want to know, so you take a girl from her home country and her home culture and you bring her back to the West with no family or friends near, and you think that she isnt going to absorb the culture of the West? She isn’t going to befriend all those “horrible” American women and adopt that same mindset? Shes going to remain happily married to some man that is old enough to be her father while she still has her youth and looks? Lol, come the fuck off that. I ain’t buyin’ it.
Those guys better build a tower and put her ass in it if they dont want her being influenced by the world around her. While you can get a prenup to ensure she can’t take any of your money, you won’t be able to do anything about her divorcing your ass and moving on to greener pastures. Like they always say, these girls are more feminine than American women, look younger/better, are slim and in great shape, so I doubt she’ll have any problem finding a better man once she gets full citizenship. On one show I saw, this 40 something single dad married an 18 year old girl for EE and he had the biggest fucking grin on his face because she was gorgeous. But I wondered, when she was 27 (and still able to trade up) and she was married to a 50 year old aging white man, did he really think she was going to stay married to him? I don’t think they ever really think that far into it, J.
I agree. I think the ‘sphere refuses to acknowledge that feminism screwed a lot of women in the process of screwing over men. Im not saying that it should have never happened. I fully believe that every woman should have the right to choose her path, but its gotten to the point where some women believe that becoming a SAHM is “inferior” or letting down team woman. There are women out there who are trying to fit into what feminist and modern culture have told them they are supposed to be. I can’t tell you how many forums, article comments, and blog posts I’ve read with women regretting having done X,Y, Z and only engaged in such behavior because they were told that if they were a real women, it wouldn’t bother them. How many girls are out there settling for casual relationships or FWB (while hiding the emotional toll it takes) because feminazis have convinced them that if they feel bad afterward, then they aren’t batting strong enough for team woman?
Also, women were hoodwinked by the culture as well. They weren’t born to be entitlement princesses, or narcissistic, or promiscuous liars and cheater etc. They were told that they could do it and that they should do it. There is a surprising amount of encouragement for this type of shit. The culture supports this bad behavior and so it is perpetuated and picked up by the younger generations. Im not saying that women don’t have a choice or that women cant do better, they most definitely can. I think that most people (men included) just follow whatever rules are fed to them and don’t put to much thought into it. When men were being told to play nice with teh wimmenz, women were being told they had be Ms. Independent with a high earning career and they would have the option of marrying tons of very attractive men (with even higher earning jobs) who would be fighting over the opportunity to wife them up and give them the family of their dreams. Were all finding out how much of lie it all was. On both sides. Again, Im not saying that women are the suffering more than men, but they too seem to be just as ignorant about the truth.
@Ted
I read that you were getting married again? Congratulations.
Also, I agree with Just1X. No “beta” could have said what you said. No beta could have stuck to his guns as hard as you’ve stuck to yours. One thing you have that a lot of these so called “alpha” guys don’t have is strong character and a whole lot of integrity. I don’t think you realize how admirable it is to encounter people who hold themselves to a standard regardless of what other people are doing. The fact that you never lost sight of who you were after swallowing the red pill is respectable. Its nice to find someone who didn’t just compromise who they were because they felt slighted or screwed over by women. It seems like a lot of guys try to justify all kinds of shit (that they do) because of women, but you don’t do that. Thats respectable in and of itself.
@deti
Sorry, my mistake, I was looking at a number for college educated (which I usually do) in the prior 12 months. Your number is correct, though I would use the 15-44 age range figure of 8.3%, as it does not exclude my target market.
Still, I believe the point holds. If less than 10% of women of women get to 15 including oral sex (which is usually not calculated in N) then it seems only a small minority could possibly be serially monogamous with sequential relationships of a few months duration each.
How could partner count not be a good indicator for evidence of serial monogamy as promiscuity? What other metric could possibly apply?
@Deti
So you are willing to say that promiscuity does not apply to LTRs < 10? Because I can honestly say that I have never met, read about or heard from a woman who has had 10 boyfriends before the age of 30. Kate Bolick has only had half a dozen boyfriends, and she's 40. Who are these women you're talking about?
Now, let me be clear here – I’m not talking about a loose cannon, though a Woman with limited options will get with that before getting with the complete limp noodle guy; but what I’m talking about, is more like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taken_(film)
As I was reading your comments about survivalism etc Ted, you very much reminded me of Liam Neeson in “Taken”, the runaway box office hit in theatres four years ago. Neeson plays a middle aged and divorced former CIA Field Operative who’s trying to rebuild his fractured relationship with his daughter. When she’s abducted by human sex traffickers while on a trip to France, Neeson sets out to get her back before she disappears for good. Neeson is a One-Man Wrecking Crew in Paris, tearing down dudes left and right; he is relentless in getting his girl back.
Obsidian,
It’s funny you mention Taken in this thread as I was thinking about bringing it up earlier in this thread as it was just on TV the other day and it got me thinking about “ethics”. In the movie, Neeson’s character is a bad ass mofo…no doubt. At one point in the movie, he tortures a man to get the information he needs. In another part, he shoots the wife (who is completely innocent of anything) with a fleshwound to get the French officer to give the information he needs, and when he holds back he says the next shot will be a kill shot.
Anyways, watching that movie got me thinking about “ethical dilemmas”. You know, its really only been a short period of human history with Western style civilization of settling matters in a judicial court with non-violence. Most of human history was very violent. I suspect men’s ethical systems evolved to operate in a more grey area in order to allow in certain situations “to do what must be done” in order to serve some greater purpose or overall better outcome. I loved 24….perhaps one of my favorite shows of all time because of the situations Jack Bauer was in. In my mind, there was zero doubt he was a good man but he could be an utterly ruthless bastard when the conditions called for it. I believe this is uniquely male trait except perhaps when it comes to women and their offspring, and I suspect capacity for violence is another one of those things that exists on the alpha-beta continuum. The extreme of aggressive violence is obviously not desirable, but its polar opposite is essentially fear of physical conflict and cowardice. And that is one of the greatest insults a woman can level against a man….to call him a coward.
OMG, that is the least sexy thing I can think of. Seriously, if a guy wrapped his hands around my throat I would knee his groin hard and call 911.
“The whole concept is nonsensical, frankly, which is not surprising given that it was dreamed up by a middle-aged married man”
So now middle aged married men are nonsensical?
@Deti
Dating is shopping, and it has great value, IMO. I’m sure you’ve noticed I’ve written on this topic. The goal of dating is not the commitment of marriage. Dating is an opportunity to figure out what you want in a mate, to filter out people who are not compatible, until you find a person who you feel certain, based on previous experience and comparison, is a good match for marriage. This is why couples who marry after 25 divorce so rarely. I have written that I had five LTRs total, and boyfriends 1-4 would have been disasters as husbands. I’m sure that many men feel that way too, or wish they had dated more women before signing on for life.
Now that extended adolescence reaches age 26, any recommendation to young people to marry early is foolhardy.
@Escoffier
What’s surprising about that is that I went to high school in LA, and my school was 1/3 Mormon, and they were having sex! I hung out in a fairly close crowd of 15 girls. I think about half had bfs, and they all had sex before graduation, though I don’t doubt there were months of agonized back seat petting that preceded it.
J…(in reference to women in the 1950s) “but they were also popping pills to help them ignore how meaningless their lives were”
My impression is that pill-popping is now higher than at any previous time in history. Is there data contradicting this?
Of course, we have to be careful of single-variable analyses—lots of things other than more unhappiness could cause pill-popping to increase….like, trends in the headshrinking industry and changes in the rules for insurance reimbursement.
But the picture of the 1950s as a time of drugged-up unhappy women seems oversimplified.
In the 70s, a girlfriend who swallowed was the talk of the locker room. Now Athlone McGinnis hears about the girls who give rimjobs in his Ivy Leage locker room. This is nothing more than an upping of the ante as men become inured to vanilla sex as a result of watching porn.
______________________________ ______________________________ _________________________________ OMG, that is the least sexy thing I can think of. Seriously, if a guy wrapped his hands around my throat I would knee his groin hard and call 911.
______________________________ ______________________________ _________________________________
Susan, you’ve often mentioned that women prefer a mix of alpha and beta traits and actually I agree with this. I have a theory…which is probably hard to test and verify, but I believe there is a correlation between a woman’s sexual preferences (whether she is more into aggressive sex or sensual sex) and what type of mix of traits she prefers.
I don’t want to get into excessive detail here, but I can most assuredly confirm there are women who very much enjoy the hair pulling thing and quite firm ass spanking. Personally, the hands/throat thing crosses boundaries for me and I would feel very uncomfortable even if a woman directly asked for it. Supposedly, and I don’t know this, but there is something about partial oxygen restriction that enhances orgasms. A bit too freaky for me.
@BB
LMAO. That was a joke, right?
That happens to be the same explanation Brendan has given. I didn’t want to quote from the rest of his comments in that thread because I didn’t want to post a wall of text, but anyway, here it is.
The shorter version for the TLDR crowd: the jig is up and we’re screwed.
Obsidian and Hollenhund will note that I have discovered the Delete button since they were last regulars here. I use it for OT and incendiary comments.
Charm is here, Charm is here! We have missed you!
I said the concept was nonsensical. As is their claiming to have their fingers on the pulse of the 18-30 SMP. If you graduated from college before 1995, and you haven’t spent a lot of time with college students, you’re a dinosaur in terms of hookup culture.
Serial monogamy enables women to indulge their hypergamy without getting labeled sluts, which is apparently something the average woman wants to avoid, feminist indoctrination notwithstanding. They technically don’t need “the cover of a relationship to have sex”, but it comes in handy very much. Another factor driving serial monogamy is that young women generally want to receive commitment but are reluctant to give it i.e. they are, on average, more averse to staying committed than men. You know, hypergamy, eggs are expensive etc., we’ve been through this before.
And serial monogamy is anything but old-fashioned, because the two factors enabling it are female economic independence and reliable contraception, and both are relatively recent developments.
I’d say increasing female intrasexual competition for the dwindling % of men that are alphas is a much more likely explanation.
Serial monogamy is dating, nothing more. And it was very much in vogue before either of the factors you mentioned.
Good point, I will amend my claim that it is nothing more than porn, although I do know that porn is a big factor in what young men expect, request, and demand during sex.
I would point out however, that according to my analyses, the percentage of women servicing these alphas is about the same as the percentage of alphas – 20% max, probably less. The percentage of promiscuous college students (6+ partners) is less than 10% for both sexes.
“It couldn’t possibly be being with a man confident enough and dominant enough to see through their bullshit and pull their hair, spank their ass and maybe even wrap their hands around her throat.”
Susan replied: “OMG, that is the least sexy thing I can think of. Seriously, if a guy wrapped his hands around my throat I would knee his groin hard and call 911.”
Have to say, I heartily agree with you, Susan. (and J)
Being thrown on the bed pinned down, and getting a good pounding is sexy… Slapping, hair pulling, hands around the throat? Definite turn- off for me.
I am sure there ARE women out there who may enjoy pain for whatever reason.
I am not one of them.
Reminds me of this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aYzQb6cc5E&feature=related
- Telling themselves that they want to be “free” of some harridan (and then marrying the next girl that comes along [h/t to Anacaona]).
I will add that they can act like the way MRA’s describe American women act after they get bored with their husbands, abandoning kids for a new punani, divorcing in secret, stealing their money…so the male hamster is only as powerful as society lets them be, more like female hamster. Consequences are good people never forget that.
I am guessing that Hope and Anacaonas’ husbands might feel this way.
Interestingly enough I asked my husband if he would recommend Dominican wives (trying to play matchmaker for my friends) and he told me that he will need to know a lot more of my people to answer that question. Not sure about Hope’s husband but mine was open to international dating, not actively looking to expat. I was the one who contacted him first after all.
Hollenhund, the college female competition thing does occasionally lead to some memorable lines. I overheard three female undergrads talking about plans for 4th of July weekend and one added an homage to Top Gun: “I feel the need. The need—for seed.” There were giggles all around.
From my limited perspective, a hot man on campus today is in something of the same position that a hot woman would have been in a couple of decades ago, albeit not quite as extreme. He really can be objectified sexually (and he likes it, of course). It has to be one of the most interesting social inversions in contemporary history.
Susan: you mean that you didn’t like my new term???!! I thought it had panache.
Go to any tribe around the world where the females offspring is guaranteed to be provided for and physically protected by her brothers, brothers cousins or where the custom is for the man or the men who roughly around the time of conception is singled out as the father with a lifelong tribal sanctioned obligation to provide for and protect the child and what do you generally find in these tribes. Virtually all relationships lasts for 1-3 years and they rotate endlessly. That is what is meant by the preferred female form of promiscuity being serial monogamy (with some cheating in in the mix as well probably).
What happens when you take away all formal restrictions on marriage and you make it so divorce has absolutely zero financial consequences for women and carry zero shame and being a single mom carries zero shame and does not affect a mans desire to be with you? You get a ton of serial monogamy. Feminism is fundamentally about the drive to achieve this matrilineal structure. What it ends with is the state of endless serial monogamy where women get the combined benefits of both breeding with men higher above them in SMV than if everyone had to pair of once and that would be the only man they could be with and they get the benefit of genetic variety which is huge. It is much better to have once child with a male who is a 7 because he is quite alpha and one with a man who is a 7 i large part because of artistic talent and one who is a 7 because of looks and one who achieves a lot of his rank through athletic ability and one who is a 7 because he is skilled at whatever is useful to be skilled at where she lives and one who is a 7 because of his dark triad charms and one who is a 7 because women tingle for his insanely risky bravery and stunts and one who is a 7 because he is a good warrior rather than having all the children with one who is a 7 because of only one of those things. It is basically a diversified portfolio and a diversified portfolio is much more preferable than having all your eggs (heh) in one basket. Remember that historically having ten or so children have been normal and it has also been normal for many of them to die. Having children with a wide different forms of immune systems is also extremely valuable. This also is beneficial because when you have many very different children you can safely have more risky wildcards that can get great success but might also fail because with so many different ones some son should reach that high level where he can have unusually many children even if a couple of the sons die trying. This structure is basically the most effective way to adapt quickly genetically but it is also a structure that makes society dysfunctional. Civilization is about using culture to adapt well to circumstances and this state of nature strategy is about using genes to adapt well to circumstances. Incidentally, when civilization collapses what shows up is often some form of this structure which kind of makes sense because if civilization isn`t working well enough to adapt to circumstances it is extra important to genetically adapt to the circumstances by breeding even more intensely with as high ranked men as possible AND to hedge your bets with genetic diversity since with civilization collapse many will die. My theory is that variations of this SMP will show up both when things are very comfortable for the woman such as amongst certain tribes that have a very easy time providing for themselves (some tribes in the Amazon only work for a few hours a day because they are very lucky with regards to easily available food and few competitors and in times of collapse of tightly run tribal patriarchy or of societal civilization/patriarchy such as when war or natural conditions makes things more chaotic. Haiti and impoverished Afroamerican urban areas are examples of where disorganization and harsh conditions makes this show up and Tahiti back in the day and several Amazon tribes are examples of the comfort situations that can make it show up.
IMO we are currently to a large extent in a comfort situation which has allowed feminism to show up and work on the culture on all levels in order to realize this form of SMP. IMO that is the real underlying reason for feminism. It is the result of certain instincts in women that lead them to argue for the culture and laws to be formed in such a way as to fit this structure and to behave if possible in ways to create this structure when possible. In the same way men have innate instincts to argue for solutions that create patriarchal structures of various kinds but also, if it is in the best interest of the particular man, to align himself with this female preferred SMP. All this is certainly way more complex than what I´ve said but as a very rough sketch I think there is truth to it.
Even though this view makes me see serial monogamy as the preferred female strategy in a very general sense that does not mean that all women are equally inclined to create this type of structure or to be equally happy with it. In the same way, although spreading your seed far and wide and having a harem is most effective for a man, and even though many genetically quite beta men as well as alphas probably will jump at the opportunity to bed a hundred women or have a huge harem if conditions allow not all men will be equally or even at all inclined to take that opportunity or to support the values or behaviors that would support the creation of the possibility for him to have such an opportunity. Ted D for example has zero desire for casual sex and one of the most natural alphas I know basically just goes looking for a new girlfriend to live with whenever his last relationship has ended. So in the same way there will be women who even with perfect conditions for serial monogamy, such as tahiti back in the day, will have relationships lasting longer than 3 years and will probably espouse attitudes that would be more supportive of changing the culture and society towards a more patriarchal monogamous structure.
Now in order to fully see how women will behave if they are set as free as humanly possible to fulfill whatever mating strategy is their preferred option many conditions need to be in place and we are currently only seeing some of those conditions met and those that are in some way met are only partially met. We have reduced shaming of divorce a lot but it is still stigmatized and in many social groups, especially religious ones, it is still stigmatized a lot. In tribes that have the serially monogamous structure there zero or far less stigma in rotating partners. Imagine the change in female behavior if divorce carried zero stigma, if none of the churchgoing westerners felt any sort of stigma around divorce. We certainly are still far away from that. Now add in absolutely zero economic consequences. Despite the state of divorce laws most women will suffer economically through a divorce, often quite harshly. In tribes of the kind I am speaking of the woman is supported by her brothers (they have certainty of sharing genes with her offspring but little or no certainty with regards to sharing offspring with the women they have sex with in such tribes because of female freedom to change and have multiple sex partners) or they are supported by one or more designated “fathers”. That means very much unlike today there is zero financial cost with divorce and the women will not FEEL without male protection because it is already guaranteed. So, if we are to look at what is the preferred female strategy, todays society isn`t very ideal because there are still strong outside incentives in the form of economic punishments and gains that hold women back from divorce.
A crucial difference between the west today and the serially monogamous tribes that I think virtually no one understands is that the women will usually LIVE with her brothers and her mother and grandmother and great grandmother and uncles etc. Her family provides her with the resources she needs and she will usually get few resources from the men she dates comparatively or at all. But resources is only one aspect. THe males in the family acts as perfect beta providers in all ways because supporting the sister is the only way to invest in what is guaranteed to be children they share genes with. I think it is impossible for us to really comprehend this but this in fact makes men invest in their sisters lives in ways that are analogous to the way they invest in their wives lives because that is how they invest in their own genetic material. A brother and a sister just isn`t remotely the same in these two types of societies. The point here is that there is a level of beta emotional support in this that all though not providing the intimacy of a lover etc. does provide her with something not unlike the emotional support that a pair bonded beta would do. This make her feel the absolute minimum of need for beta provider qualities in men as her genes will contextually allow her to because she more or less has enough permanent guaranteed beta provider support. I think it is impossible for us to comprehend just how much this will prime a woman to follow the tingle wherever it goes. Her needs are so well provided for in other ways, that there is little left to do than follow the feeling of excitement. And following the feeling of excitement IS the best genes indicator. In other words, a set up for alpha chasing (breeding) that is even better than western feminists can imagine because what they have never been able to do is figure out how to create the emotionally supported feeling a woman can have when her brothers invest in and treat her as not just as valuable as a sister is treated today but as a combined sister and wife. And this is I believe is THE biggest difference blurring our eyes to how women will behave if the set up is as perfect as it can be.
The key here is that when women already feels she has something she might require in a mate pretty much for certain anyway, she reduces her desire for that in a mate. Studies show when women earn more money themselves they reduce the value they put on a mans economic provider abilities and focus more on good genes indicators and on more emotional beta support qualities rather than just his economic potential. In the same way a woman that is extremely well supported emotionally in a beta provider way will reduce emphasis on those qualities in a mate. A woman who feels no need for physical strength support because her brothers and other male relatives provides that even more so than in patriarchal structures because they don`t focus on protecting their wives, they focus on protecting their sisters, will focus less on a sense of physical security in their mates but will also never feel that the loss of boyfriend is the loss of her physical protection because although it might be a nice extra benefit he is only a small part of the band of men that protects her. So what is left then is a focus on whatever is her perception of good genes in the moment.
I think there is a certain analogy in that women who have many orbiters that can step in and would gladly be a supportive step dad will become more hypergamous because subconsciously she feels more secure because of the backup provider options. Because that feels partially there by there being real options but also on a purely emotional level by her subconscious registering that there are plenty males that will listen to her emotional problems and be supportive etc. she will feel less need to go for a secure man. She can tolerate a greater risk of an alpha pumping and dumping her or leaving after some years of relationship if there are orbiter options and generally helpful males around. My guess is that if you did a study that looked at women that for some reason such as a going to an all girl school did not have male friends or if you did an experiment where you made her strongly imagine a scenario where she did not you would find greater attraction for betas in the women without actual male friends and amongst those made to imagine life without.
For sure we can expect women under such conditions to still have SOME focus on the factors that are provided by the brother structure in her mates because it is so genetic but the focus will be reduced to the absolute possible minimum and it is a minimum we are unable to grasp having only lived in a modern western society. THe main focus however will be be whatever her hindbrain signals is the most beneficial genes given the circumstances. That can vary, in harsh circumstances you want hardier men but if life is just picking bananas on a pacific island for three hours a day I suspect you get a lot of focus on guys developing charm/game/seductive abilities. If you look at patriarchies with VERY little divorce my theory is that you will find very game less men because there is no incentive to develop it. But the more intense the partner changes the more guys will develop great game.
It is important to remember that we live in a culture where not only the practical realities are different and so we have incentives from that in the given situation such as when we are pondering breakups there are no economic consequences. We also live in a culture where we have been aware of the incentives for our entire lives and the culture has been aware of them since forever and so have norms that we have been influenced by that have primed us to trigger those parts of our programing that are suited to deal with those incentives. In other words our awareness of the practical realities and our cultures norms surrounding relationships that are there to support good choices have influenced us to trigger a lot of our lifelong monogamy strategies. So when a westerner today has felt a loyal pairing even beyond the first 1-3 years without much effort that is a combination of genes, practical incentives and being primed from birth to active genes supporting maintaining the pair bond. We can`t make the inference that because we feel bonded now we would have done so both without the practical incentives and the cultural priming. Remove all that and a far greater number would have broken that pair bond for a more exciting new partner after the strongest amphetamine crush of the first 1-3 years wears down.
I think the pair bonding love that tends to be the main love feeling taking over from the more intense initial crush love feelings are quite weak. When influenced by the emotions of the first few years we have a very strong sense of glue. After that sexual desire diminishes and boredom sets in to a very large degree. This is NOT just about the man loosing frame or sex ranks diverging. It is just a fact that for most people the initial chemical cocktail runs out quite fast regardless of male leadership and continuation of a sex rank relationship between the man and the woman that does not create strong incentives for leaving. People get bored. Dopamine does not produce as strongly from a n object or experience that we have experienced many times before. Sure, by playing it right Athol style odds go up a lot but the fact remains that for most people the super glue of the initial crush just can`compare to the pair bonding stage. Sure this will also vary a lot between different people. But to a very large degree what does happen is that people are playing musical chairs going from one 6 month-4 year relationship to the next up until they get children and marry. I think if you removed the relevance of children, the relevance of partnering economic resources, if you removed the support of the institution of marriage and norms supporting lifelong monogamy the dance of musical chairs would continue to a very large degree for a lot of people today. Already half divorce and in the absence of marriage and usually children they would have split far earlier.
The way I see it lifelong pair bonding for close to everyone is entirely dependent on strong support from the institution of marriage, from economic incentives, from the need to cooperate on raising children and from norms regarding marriage and sexuality. In the absence of all of that the emotions naturally produced paribonding wise will be too thin for most.
The glue from the initial tingle and crush though is such superglue that it will keep people together for a few years. THat is incidentally enough make a baby and to bond the father to the child so he remains a provider for the child in most cases even after a split. I think we are built to alternate strategies depending on conditions and that the first stages are so intense because they are all about that initial gluing of the father to the child. THat would be important in all sorts of societies where but less so in the matrilineal brother supported ones. So in Afroamerican impoverished inner cities and in Haiti and in tribes that don`t have the bother structure but obligate the men who sleep with the woman to be the father of the child that she gives birth to around that time you get baby daddies that provide some support because of the bonding that takes place int he first few years. In matrilineal brother provider societies the father bonding isn`t really important but people are glued enough to produce a child at least. In societies that have cultures that support lifelong pair bonding the pair bonding potential is strong enough to produce decent results in terms of making people want to stay together if the practical incentives are in place and the cultural support is good enough. But without that support, and it does not always exist, we fall back on either baby daddy gluing or brother support systems.
So, when we ask the question what is the preferred female mating strategy in a sense there isn`t one. It depends largely on conditions although women have differing degrees of genes inclining them towards one or the other. However, what we can say is that when women are as free as they can be to follow exactly what they FEEL like at any given moment, such as they are to a degree in the brother provider tribes we just can not fathom, the preferred strategy clearly is serial relationships (the degree to which it is fully monogamous relationships varies a lot I suspect) leading to babies from many different fathers with males ranking significantly above them.
Because this is the strategy that shows up when women are given the maximum of choice and can do what they feel, which reflects what they most “want”, the serial thing is the choice. Now, it might very well be that even under such condition a rare few do live their entire life with one partner but from what I have read that are very, very few if any. I find it plausible that the emotional cost and dislike of that sort of life is much higher for the women who are more genetically inclined to life long pair bonding. I also suspect that any time a culture starts moving a bit from a serial structure towards something more permanent there will be a group of women that will very much support that movement strongly based on their instincts. If you add in an intellectual understanding of the consequences of the different options, such as we have here today at HUS, the amount of women supporting a cultural shift from the brother provider serial structure towards lifelong pair bonding would probably be much stronger. And in a similar fashion I expect a similar number of men are genetically inclined to in various ways support the shift towards a serial structure. But this does not take away the fact that women’s initial instinct is to push for norms that eventually leads to the serial structure.
By pushing for removal of consequences of divorce and for creating security for women and single mothers in all sorts of ways and by removing all sexual shame on women, by pushing for giving women such powerful positions towards their husbands that the husbands become easily betaised which in turn leads to finding new men that are once again betaized etc. and a myriad of other things feminism does that moves us towards a matriarchal/matrilinear society that resembles the brother provider society (the state is now the brother), women’s innate tendency is to push for this structure, to push for the system that gives her the option of serial monogamy.
I in absolutely zero ways judge women for having that tendency. The tendency isn`t a problem either but is probably evolutionary adaptive in most circumstances. It probably is best to breed more intensely hypergamoulsy and diversify the portfolio in crisis situations and if life is so comfortable that survival is given, evolutionary speaking, it is probably best to just focus on the groups genetic fitness and not focus on building the society in a way that is as functional and happiness inducing as possible.
Also, this innate tendency in women is naturally balanced by mens innate tendencies towards creating patriarchal structures. My belief is that when there is reasonable gender parity in terms of power you get the naturally most harmonious structure and that is life long monogamy being the predominant strategy.
It is remarkably interesting to read books on chinese medicine and chinese philosophy that analyses disease and emotional imbalances and everything in nature and in life in terms of the balance and imbalances between yin and yang and see how remarkably similar the general characteristics describing a state of too much yin (to much feminine) or too much yang (too much masculine) resembles states where women are too powerful and can run wild and drift around and chase their own tails or how where men are to powerful they become too controlling, things become to rigid and dry and cold etc. Also the masculine man that has become feminized and the feminine woman that have become masculinized and who have found each other are described as imbalances that describe really well such a dynamic in a couple.
For me these things are like natural law where the microcosmos and the macrocosmos operate under the same general dynamic. What is interesting to me and which is always the goal is the harmony you get when you balance yin and yang. When they are in balance you get a result that is greater than the two parts combined. More than the value of the separate parts is created by the interplay of the two diametrically opposed energies if they are in balance. It is kinda like seeing a couple between a feminine woman and a masculine man that is very harmonious. There is something about that that is far greater than the sum. But it is only present when the dynamic is right and when yin is where it is supposed to be and yang where it is supposed to be and if one is stronger than the other it will invade the others territory and mess things up. So from my perspective men have an innate tendency to create stuff like the Taliban and Saudi Arabia or to become heartless despotic masters of real harems or aloof ashore managers of soft harems unless they are met with sufficient counterbalance from enough female force. So from my perspective there is no particularly problem with an innate female push for a serial relationship structure or any shame in the matter and it is not just something the superior males needs to control as without enough female power to indirectly keep the males in line there will be equally damaging excess in the other direction in one form or another depending on the context.
Despite that there is an innate push in females towards the serial brother provider structure and the various forms it can take in different contexts that is not the whole story. That is what women do in the absence of sufficient male power. The tendency is always to push in that direction but when met with sufficient male counterbalance women stop pushing in that direction and can work largely to further more patriarchal goals or benign led male relationship goals or whatever you want to call it. Men and women are contextual to each other and although on some level you get to some core characteristics of the feminine by looking at what happens if you free up women completely and look at contexts where there are only women and only feminine norms etc. But just look at what happens when you introduce some men. Behavior changes instantly. You can`t really say women ARE only what they are when there is only other femininity around them and no male power is relevant. Women are just as much what they are and how they behave when in the presence of male influence and power and vice versa. In the near total absence of females you get quite close to the wild west. INtroduce some females and the males softens. So what is a man? The cowboy or the softened man in the presence of a woman?
So from that perceptive it is both right to say something about the innate tendencies in women when there is an absence of male power such as in pure female groups and in brother provider societies. This gets us closer to femininity in isolation and tells us about its core direction and core agenda and push. But it is equally valid and important to look at women in the context of male influence and power and see the way they in the presence of that will change and be much more aligned with a balanced agenda which is the case for many women at HUS and around the sphere and which has been the case historically to a large degree. Get a balanced society and most women will subscript to norms that work in favor of it and behave in support of it and their emotional life will change to make supportive behavior happen naturally. Same thing is the case in reverse for men.
I`ll give a practical example. I firmly believe men provide the overall boundary setting, disciplining and structure of raising a child well and women provide more of the nourishing, supporting and permission giving and forgiving etc. If men get to run rampant in the absence of female influence we get the forms of extremely strict, emotionless, rigid, militaristic, harsh and unforgiving upbringing you can read about being frequent in german families around the turn of the century. If men disappear physically or their masculinity is stripped away and their role as leader and setter of boundaries is destroyed you get the overly permissive, self esteem boosting narcissistic, be yourself follow your dreams and all good things happen type upbringing of the last few generations. You get parents trying to explain and argue with their kids instead of having rules and enforcing them.
When male and female influence is balanced you don`t get a military disciplinarian and permissive hippie mom, you get a man that has far more empathy than the militaristic father but still is the setter of strong boundaries and the CONSISTENT and FAIR deliverer of punishment. And you get the loving nourishing mother that also is a quite good boundary setter who is mostly consistent and coming from a place of fairness as well but is not as consistent and not as good at using the mental stick as the father. So, the extremes balance out when we are in the presence of a balanced amount of power from the other gender. As such we ARE also that which we are in a more balanced state but that is not what we are in ISOLATION. And we need to isolate and understand what we are in isolation to understand the dynamic. And to work meaningfully with all this we need a language both for the isolated tendency and the tendency we lean towards in balance. And we need to understand that you can indeed have an expectation of both. If conditions are right you can expect more balanced behavior but you can also always expect some pull or push towards the tendencies displayed in isolation.
Phew. That was one monster of a post. Anyway, that is my complicated take on both what the preferred female form of strategies are for mating and for in a sense the female and the male imperative. The problem is that currently we are in a state where male influence has mostly disappeared from most spheres. Just as childhood and school the last 40 years have reflected the female tendency in isolation so has a myriad of other aspects of society and the totally imbalanced mindsets that follow that state with psychological and cultural castration of the masculine in most areas. So from my perspective, yes we are soaked in the “mindsets” of the “female imperative”, we are drowning in it. But that is not an evil female ploy. It is not what women in a deeper sense want it is what reflects their innate push in isolation and. What women in the deepest sense WANT, wether they know it or not, is in fact the balanced state. But that is achieved by the balancing of opposite forces not by controlling the evil female or anything like that. It`s no worse than when the “male imperative” or male tendency in isolation gets to run rampant either. So the paradox is that what we really, really want, male and women, is what we get if we push in slightly different directions that if successful would destroy the goal of what we want but as long as in equal measure leads to a harmonious stand still. The fact that it is what we really want is reflected in that this is when we are the most happy, the most balanced, the most in flow, when society is the most ethical, selfishness is low and empathy high, and while one part of us just want to run in our preferred direction some part years for the result of being held back sufficiently by the other.
Disclaimer: I don`t have any sources for any of the stuff I wrote about. It is the results of reading her and there over the years, talking to people who studies anthropology, watching something on tv and remembering that stuff only partially and then making my own theories based not that etc. I know it is imprecise and I know there are a million more things to say to nuance all of it etc., but I think the basics are pretty good. There is though loads of literature on stuff that relates to this. I plan on eventually digging more into it but I don`t have the time or will currently.
Før giftet seg flere forhold. Stoldansen tar ikke slutt før barn og giftemål og selv etter da så starter halvparten på nytt med ny runde med forhold, ekteskap of ytterligere skilsmisser. Hvis barna ikke lenger er knyttet til en mann og hvis øknomi er fullstnedig fristilt fra en mann og hvis barna allerede har sterke “farsfigurer” og hvis kvinnen har livslang sterk emosjonell beta støtte og fysisk beskyttelse fra brødrene som hun bor sammen med, er det noen grunn til å tro at stoldansen ikke ville fortsatt? I hvert fall for et voldsomt mye større anntall mennesker enn i dag?
As for cuckolding, a man who is cuckolded is evolutionary dead if it his his only or all his children. Having your husband divert some resources to another child, which historically they mostly have not done, is no where near as damaging as being evolutionary dead.
“Because my example is typical. I would guess that 90% or more of women marry with five bf’s or fewer in their past. Where are the women riding the alpha LTR carousel? Alphas rarely agree to be boyfriends.”
While I know some alphas almost never are in formal relationships, according to VDs definitions in his survey, with 15+ partners or something most of my alpha friends, also the more super alpha ones with 150+ partners have had multiple, sometimes many LTR. I don`t think that is all that untypical.
Wudang…”Incidentally, when civilization collapses what shows up is often some form of this structure which kind of makes sense because if civilization isn`t working well enough to adapt to circumstances it is extra important to genetically adapt to the circumstances…”
It certainly seems possible that a perception of imminent civilizational collapse leads to changes in mating preferences/patterns.
“It certainly seems possible that a perception of imminent civilizational collapse leads to changes in mating preferences/patterns.”
Danger and emergency type situations and just big “events” like a demonstration triggers adrenal and dopamine and makes getting laid casually a lot easier. It is why a an older Roman man once asked about where a young man should bring his date recommended the circus (as in Roman circus with killing etc.). It is called misattribution theory I think. Studies have shown if someone is aroused by danger such as being on abridge high up they become more attracted to attractive people they meet there and are more likely to ask them for a date than they would had they met them somewhere without the general adrenal arousal trigger.
If you don`t have a perception of society being safe and stable and you think things are going in the wrong direction you will focus less on long term goals and be more self serving and focused on immediate gains. But, certain other forms of danger pressure such as food shortage will probably trigger uneven stronger loyalty to safe providers. I`m certain the danger of “the hood” and the danger of the streets in Haiti trigger more promiscuity. Also, if the risk of your partner dying is high, why be loyal.
@Wudang
I’ll be honest that was way TL;DR the whole thing. However, I’ll throw some questions and ideas out there.
You mention “any tribe around the world” where the female does not take up residence with her sexual partner, but stays separate with her natal family. How many tribes meet this description? Additionally, the problem in studying tribes is that they are often representative of a unique and crude economic civilization. They live in a manner hundreds or thousands of years behind Western civ. In very small groups, they are able to enforce their customs, perhaps, but it may not be valid to extrapolate from their experience. If we were to go back and study female sexuality during the Dark Ages, for example, we would most likely draw very different conclusions.
It also seems to me that residing with one’s fathers and brothers after mating prevents pair bonding. It doesn’t seem any different than the current practice of denying fathers access to their own children. It’s hardly surprising that “relationships” last 1-3 years when there is no commitment exchanged at any point. Mating is strictly short-term in that case. Literally no strings attached other than financial. I imagine all those unwilling fathers grumbling about having to pay child support and demanding Roe.
I don’t think it is true that women typically gave birth 10 times at any point in history (correct me if I’m wrong), though infant mortality was obviously a big concern and they often had to try repeatedly. Whether they would have stopped at 4 or kept going is hard to say. Perhaps we might study what was considered the ideal family size at various points in history. For most of history, children were an economic asset, so it’s certainly reasonable that people would have preferred more (especially sons) rather than fewer. Still, any Dickens tale will demonstrate the living hell that women with large broods often inhabited.
There is no question that female promiscuity is a strategy that succeeds in producing genetic diversity and bet hedging, as you describe. The question is, when is this strategy employed, and by whom? The personality trait research is quite clear that individuals vary enormously wrt their short-term vs. long-term mating orientation, with short-term folks in the distinct minority. Of course, situational circumstances may push someone into one column or the other, essentially against “their nature.” These are the risky bets for LTRs.
Helen Fisher’s research focuses on the three systems humans access for mating. They are lust, falling in love, and attachment. They may be sequential, though they don’t have to be, and people may feel all three at the same time for different people. She describes it as a committee meeting in your head. However, attachment is powerful, and many couples remain in love and sustain attachment long after the lust phase has ended. I believe she has said that our female ancestors most likely practiced serial monogamy in a 4-7 year rotation. Of course, life expectancy being what it was, that would allow each woman a couple of mates, most likely.
I would estimate that without the societally sanctioned institution of marriage (which is eroding in the U.S.), the 4-7 year pattern will prevail. Less than a quarter of cohabiting couples make it past the five year mark. Without a legal contract, couples are much more likely to split during hard times. It is hard to say whether this dynamic is driven primarily by women or men.
I think we must define LTR differently.
Susan, I’ve said this before but my point was, I think the ’70s were looser and wilder than the ’80s and ’90s, at least when it came to teen sex (and perhaps some other things). Which goes to show, society can demoralize and remoralize. These trends are not ratchets fore-ordained to move in only one direction.
Tribal mating/living patterns have been discussed a few times at this site. Right here in the US, we had lots of people in tribal environments only a few generations past living memory: ie, the American Indian Nations. There is very extensive documentation and also tribal folklore on the way things worked in these groups.
I claim no expertise in this field, but my general impression is that mating patterns in most tribes (and there were huge differences between tribes, of course) were generally a lot less wild and free than is often implicitly assumed in discussions of tribal lifestyles.
Do we have any Native American history experts (even better, actual Native Americans who are familiar with tribal history) here?
“He really can be objectified sexually (and he likes it, of course)”
Amanda Marcotte just boiled over and blew all corks…
@Ms. Sassy #
“Note the fourth definition of the word promiscuous. Having casual sex is considered promiscuous behavior.”
O: “Casual sex” in what context, madam? THAT’S the burning question here, for the vas majority of people (read: MEN) when the word “promiscuous” comes up (because, let’s face it – it only really applies to Women, for what should by now be very obvious reasons).
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the matter:
“Promiscuity, in human sexual behavior, is the practice of casual sex with multiple sexual partners.”
Wiki sources MSM’s Encarta Dictionary – and is much more in line with what the majority of people think when they hear the word “promiscuous” – MULTIPLE SEXUAL PARTNERS is key here.
Not merely a one night stand, or even a more informal casual mating.
I know what you’re saying here, but the real trick is whether Men by into it or not; by all accounts, they don’t.
O.
@Wudang
I love your analysis! One of the things I try to warn manosphere guys that seem to paint the idea that if only all men became Alphas the world would become a better place is that I lived on “Alpha paradise” all my life. Alpha’s can’t do shit. They break the rules just for the lolz and have no sense of loyalty and honor unless society heavily enforces it, the same way American women are described as feral, feral is the natural state of Alpha. All you have to do is look at the third world countries and see those as men’s countries and also how they lack on technology and advances. The balance should be the goal if this is to make sure civilization were to survive. That is why I like Athol more than anyone he tries to get men to have both not to turn them into assholes swimming on punani whose more meaningful relationship is with their penises and the mirror. That might sound fun but trust me it won’t save civilization from burning, it will only make men responsible for your downfall in the far away future, YMMV.
@Ms. Anacoana:
One of the big problems I personally have with your many, many derisive statements about the Men of your home country is that they sound incredibly onesided and just…emotive/subjective. Per Wikipedia, the DR has a population of roughly TEN MILLION PEOPLE, madam. Are you seriously going to make the case that you happen to know, intimately, roughly half of the population of your home country, and can vouch for the behavior of all of them? Really?
Come on.
As for neverending Alpha vs. Beta thing – the other big problem I have with you and so many ladies here, is that you attempt to “moralize” these catergorizations; you all are gravely mistaken and misinformed. “Alpha” or “Beta” is NOT a “good” or “bad” thing, and I think the reason why you, Ms. Walsh and others work to make it so is because of the very same self-interests you all excoriate in the Manosphere; a Beta can be evil, and an Alpha can be good. Or the reverse. Or, and here’s the real kicker – a bit of both. As the vast majority of Humanity is and has always been.
These “black hat/white hat” slots wrt Alpha and Beta really is sophmoric, madam. It really needs to stop.
O.
@Escoffier
OK, I totally missed that! Selfishly, I like that idea – because it means that we might have a tipping point that shifts the dynamic rather than an inevitable bottoming out and rebuilding of civilization.
@ Esco, Hollenhund:
“The reason we have serial monogamy is because both sexes are still looking for love with one partner at at time but we severed the connection between sex and marriage. The culture decided that it was bad to pressure people into early marriage and unrealistic to wait for marriage to have sex. That’s the core problem here.”
In addition to my explanation and to Hollenhund’s quoting Brendan, I’d quibble on this one thing though I think Esco is mostly right:
I don’t think the sexes are looking for love in serial monogamy. They’re looking for sex. If it were really about love and commitment, it would be about marriage (which really just means a lifetime commitment enforceable by some external body, be it church or state).
Serial monogamy is really a quicker path to sex for both genders. It has few of the encumbrances of marriage and the commitment is illusory. It is perceived and sold as more moral than a ONS or SNL or STR.
HAHAHA! I wonder if most guys here would reserve the judgment of promiscuity for only those women with concurrent sexual partners.
Men don’t like any discussion of male promiscuity, and deny that is has any ill effect on female attraction, even as terms like manwhore, manslut, trash dick, etc. continue to spring up and permeate contemporary speech.
I said the following over on the “I Didn’t Mean To Blow Up Your Spot” thread, but since the current convo is about “50 Shades of Grey” here, I’ll repost it…
Wrt “50 shades of grey: the movie”…
You know what im very interested in seeing if they can pull that off; what made the twilight series so popular was its demographic which was much younger women for the most part. In the case of “50 shades” is from all i can tell, that its biggest audience seems to be suburban upper middle class married mom types. Will they support a film version of “50 shades” to the same degree that was the case as twilight etc? That remains to be seen.
All in all i dont see the book(s) having much of an impact among the under 30 female cohort; i havent seen much evidence of this, and in any event definitely no evidence that black women are feeling em at all. Im not entirely sure quite why that is: whether its due to lack of interest in what “50 shades” deals with, or if its the simple fact that black women have their own genre(s) of lit aimed at them or what. I just know that i havent heard much discussion or interest in “50 shades” among the sistahood.
But what the furor surrounding “50 shades”, to the extent it exists, does say to me is that its a heck of a commentary on what umc older married women think and feel about their men. Among a great many things…
I know ms walsh has taken up the topic before but perhaps she will revisit it with the above observations in mind-?
O.
Of course! I’ve never made any other claim. In fact, I’ve said in this thread that dominance can be a good thing or a bad thing. It can generate sexual attraction or exhibit leadership, and it can also prompt violence and authoritarianism. Conversely, emotional capacity can make relationships deeply gratifying, but it can also drown a budding relationship the way too much watering will drown a seedling.
Women have evolved to prefer a mix of traits that often get described as alpha and beta, though they needn’t be. I’ve known sexually attractive betas who were assholes and emotionally sensitive alphas who were not sexy.
@Ms. Walsh #1171:
“HAHAHA! I wonder if most guys here would reserve the judgment of promiscuity for only those women with concurrent sexual partners.”
O: Yea, I’ve been following the discussion along those lines, and I gotta tell ya, them dudes on some other isht for real. SMH…
“Men don’t like any discussion of male promiscuity, and deny that is has any ill effect on female attraction, even as terms like manwhore, manslut, trash dick, etc. continue to spring up and permeate contemporary speech.”
O: The question is whether there actually IS any real deliterious effects for Men along those lines? Thus far, from what I can, I’d say the answer is NO.
O.
“Men don’t like any discussion of male promiscuity, and deny that [it] has any ill effect on female attraction, even as terms like manwhore, manslut, trash dick, etc. continue to spring up and permeate contemporary speech.”
Eh. I don’t mind discussion of male promiscuity either way. But I’d point this out: promiscuous men tend to be alphas. And those men don’t seem to have any problem finding women to have sex with them. Call it apex fallacy if you want, but what it looks like to me is that such men have no shortage of women lining up for their turn to ride their carousels.
@Ms. Walsh #1173:
I’m sorry Ms. Walsh, but I’ve seen you deride Alphas far too much for me to ignore it, and I think this is the case because of the fact that you have such a vested interest in the Betas. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it belies any claim you or anyone else could have towards being an honest broker of sorts.
What astounds me about this forum is the overwhelming NEED to frame EVERYTHING in a “Good vs. Evil” way. Why is this so very necessary? I was reading the mini-convo about various sexual practices i.e., choking during sex (which is a lot more popular than many would like to believe) and the language by a number of commenters, including YOU, was just…wow. I don’t get it. I mean, I can dig it if something isn’t your shot, but why the need to put a kind of “evildoers” spin on everything? What is up with that?
I’ve learned to take a morally ambiguous stance to many things in life, and that has served me well; among other things it has taught me to see things from all sides of an issue – this is why I can “bob and weave” so well, as you like to put it (and yes, I also borrowed it from my boxing training as well).
Anyway…
O.
@Ms. Walsh #1176:
“Obsidian and Hollenhund will note that I have discovered the Delete button since they were last regulars here. I use it for OT and incendiary comments.”
O: Correction: “Obsidian and Hollehund will note that I have discovered the Delete Button to silence points of view I or my (female) commenters find too brutally and painfully true to look on in the broady daylight. Meanwhile, anything incendiary or indeed personally derisive said about either of them by my (female) commenters shall stand, as I do not consider them worthy of deletion as well. I am nothing if not (in)consistent.
There, fixed that fer ya.
O.
Are you seriously going to make the case that you happen to know, intimately, roughly half of the population of your home country, and can vouch for the behavior of all of them? Really?
Heh this is so funny aren’t you telling the same about “sistas not selecting for intelligence “so why your “experiences” are valid and mine (all 30 years of them” are just biased?
I don’t know every single men, but all you have to take a look at the stadistics, number 1 in feminicides on the caribbean, 84% of cheating by males and the Domestic Violence being declared a national emergency at least twice in the last decade. You can also read Oscar Wao or seek out other Dominican authors and see how do they see the world. And how our story was full of selecting Alpha traits (and not only sexually the first conquerors were death row recluse brought by Columbus, then we have the african slaves that survived the trip, we have had idealistic Betas but all of them were killed by bigger meaner Alphas before they could fun a proper base for a better development). i’mnobody and the spearhead has a lot of people that has traveled overseas and can testify the same.
Unless you think I’m making up the news/books how do you explain that?
Also is 5 million men if you have 4 million men doing all this you just have a big gettho culture…don’t you warm people from this in America? Or do think this gettho has a natural rooftop and after a few millions they just stop to be Alpha?
As for neverending Alpha vs. Beta thing – the other big problem I have with you and so many ladies here, is that you attempt to “moralize” these catergorizations; you all are gravely mistaken and misinformed.
I don’t moralize I’m a woman of results. I actually know a couple of so called good Alphas and their own need to lead has gotten into troubles and hinder their plans. Had you seen two roosters on the same territory? Same principle even the “good” Alpha’s break havoc because they cannot help it. So if I see Alpha’s that cannot keep a job because they try to rule their own bosses, another Alpha, or that they have all sorts of plans that they self sabotage for the sake of whatever destructive force they have inside themselves or just not going into a fight with the wrong person. I also tried to get a degree on Physics and all the guys there (all 12 of them the STEM fields are so unpopular that they are free on our university, still barely anyone takes them) were Betas not a single asshole on the career (and before you ask I tried to get with them all of them were dating at the moment I was trying for it) so yeah, I have a good memory and I observe. I also read a lot of studies done by psychologist students there with similar results, those studies are never published beyond the college library so this are things that are out there but no one cares to explore but me. So I repeat Alpha’s can’t do shit.
@Ms. Walsh #1055:
“@ Ted D
You misunderstood my meaning. When I say that I am surrounded by happily married beta males – as defined in the most neutral, non-manosphere terms – beta males who are unhappily divorced become angry because they didn’t believe betaness could exist in a happy marriage. If it can, then why did their marriage end? No, that is simply too painful to contemplate.”
O: BINGO!!!-and this is what it all really comes down to, for the Manosphere. I know because I’ve spent time there and have had actual articles and the like published at one of the premiere Manosphere haunts, The Spearhead.
Two Summers back, I had a piece published there, that was about looking good for yourself and your lady. I got a vile and bile-spewing orgy of more than 600 comments(!)-then an all-time high for them – calling for my head on a pike. I was likened to Anderson Cooper (gay, faggot, this was what I was called by the readership), was accused of “putting the p*ssy on a pedestal”, being a sellout, you name it.
And you know the thing about it? Ms. Brown Sugah predicted that I would get such a response, before I even sent it. We went out for the day around mid-morning after I sent the final draft of the piece to Welmer, and by the time we got back around 7PM or so, there was all the comments.
I mean, who attacks a guy for his suggestion(s) that Men could do a bit better in the area of basic personal hygiene?!?! Who attacks a guy for daring to suggest basic clothing advice?!?! Why vilifies a guy for suggesting that looking halfway decent for your lady is, you know, a good thing?!?!
Although I would have a few more pieces published at The Spearhead, I realized that my days there were numbered, not the least of which because I just couldn’t get down with the completely negative vibe not only there but in many places in the Manosphere – this is why I bowed out of a lot of it – with great sadness. The plain truth of it is that the ‘sphere is chockfull of deeply angry and bitter Men who refuse to Man Up, and I say that in its purest sense. Of the nearly two dozen pieces I’ve written for The Spearhead, half of them have been about Game or were Game-related – and just about all of them have been denounced for “pandering to Women” or some ridiculous crap.
The narrative in the ‘sphere is that all these great guys were just done in and done dirty and wrong by these vile and evil Women, when the truth is that while those Women may have been vile and evil, nothing could happen if those guys didn’t sign off on it. Many of them simply refuse to own up to their own failings as to why their marriages etc came to an end in failure. This is what the whole “MGTOW” thing is REALLY all about – these guys aren’t fooling anybody (at least Kate Bolick is able to parlay her stuff into a show, movie, book etc) – everyone knows a (Male) Loser when they see one. And the real deal is that many of these guys are losers – because they refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their lives.
It’s so very easy for any Man to simply “dropout” – unlike Women who, barring out and out homliness, HAS to field suitors daily – most of them unwanted – the vast majority of Men can go on about their business and do their thing unmolested. The problem with that is, that it has been well documented how Men who are unsocialized are so very detrimental to the larger society in so many ways – and please do not try to come at me with that “higher purpose” crap. Most of these guys simply aren’t as talented or focused for any of that to matter. They’re simply using a Male version of the Rationalization Hamster to justify them taking their ball and going home, instead of confronting their demons and slaying them.
I’m not sure if Ms. Walsh and her readers are aware of it, but there was recently a huge blowout (again!) between the PUA and MRA communities. Because of the ubiquity of Roissy and to a lesser extent Roosh, most people in these parts may be under the impression that there’s a lot of overlap between the two; trust me, there is NOT. And the recurring dustups between these two camps bears this fact out.
Here’s the thing, though – the REAL reason why the MRAs so hate the PUAs, is because the latter is actually doing things and making them happen, ALL THE WHILE SUCCEEDING WITH WOMEN. In fact, the Seduction Community is about the closest real thing to a “Men’s Movement” out there, with no end in sight, and nothing even coming close to a rival. The cold, bitter truth is that the “MRA” is a cruel joke; none of their self-appointed aims or goals have been realized in more than two decades, and here comes along a movement of funny looking and sounding youngbucks who’ve gone mainstream in half the time. It has to chap the old guard’s hides, and it shows.
I think one of the big strengths of Game and the community from which it comes is its real time focus on real world results – Game truly can be considered an “applied science”. This forces its adherents to actually address the concerns of other practitioners. MRAs don’t have this. Moreover, Game focuses on the individual, though there are groups and the like to interface with. And I’ve seen firsthand the Band of Brothers comradarie the Seduction Community has.
The MRA is one of the big tragedies of the past decade; what makes it so is that it doesn’t have to be. There will be major changes as it relates to the sexes, but the truly sad thing is that the MRA won’t have a danged thing to do with it. They truly are irrelevant.
“We had friends over for dinner the other night – and the men had an interesting discussion where they all agreed they were beta males and felt quite happy to be so. They’re brainy good guys. The disparagement is not universal.”
O: The question is, how big is the market demand on the part of Women, concerning “brainy good guys”? I can tell you, that the Reed Richards Brotha is NOT in demand amongst Black Women; there is a reason as to why the Thug Gangsta type is so ubiquitous in Black America; that’s because its what Black Women want, no matter how many protest to the contrary. And not just among the hoodrats, either; I know for a fact that very well educated Sistas yearn for Thug Love too.
O.
@Ms. Anacaona:
“Heh this is so funny aren’t you telling the same about “sistas not selecting for intelligence “so why your “experiences” are valid and mine (all 30 years of them” are just biased?”
O: Because I can back my up with more than mere anecdote unlike you my dear. For starters. That’s why.
“I don’t know every single men, but all you have to take a look at the stadistics, number 1 in feminicides on the caribbean, 84% of cheating by males and the Domestic Violence being declared a national emergency at least twice in the last decade.”
O: Where can I find this data? I’d very much like to see for myself and compare/contrast to other areas of the world…
“You can also read Oscar Wao or seek out other Dominican authors and see how do they see the world.”
O: Thanks for the reference. Will do.
“And how our story was full of selecting Alpha traits (and not only sexually the first conquerors were death row recluse brought by Columbus, then we have the african slaves that survived the trip, we have had idealistic Betas but all of them were killed by bigger meaner Alphas before they could fun a proper base for a better development). i’mnobody and the spearhead has a lot of people that has traveled overseas and can testify the same.”
O: ? Excuse me?
“Unless you think I’m making up the news/books how do you explain that?”
O: I was hoping you would explain the above.
“Also is 5 million men if you have 4 million men doing all this you just have a big gettho culture…don’t you warm people from this in America? Or do think this gettho has a natural rooftop and after a few millions they just stop to be Alpha?”
O: I am sorry, I am having trouble understanding what you’re saying; I don’t know if it’s because of the language barrier or if its because of your being emotive. Could you please clarify? Thanks.
*quoting me*:”As for neverending Alpha vs. Beta thing – the other big problem I have with you and so many ladies here, is that you attempt to “moralize” these catergorizations; you all are gravely mistaken and misinformed.”
“I don’t moralize I’m a woman of results.”
O: You’re a Woman of ignorance and arrogance (a truly dangerous combination), of hyperbole and making everything personal. And you most certainly do moralize, which is not only boring but a serious anti-intellectual turnoff.
“I actually know a couple of so called good Alphas and their own need to lead has gotten into troubles and hinder their plans.”
O: So that means that all Alphas are bad? Really? Based on your “couple of” personal examples?
“Had you seen two roosters on the same territory? Same principle even the “good” Alpha’s break havoc because they cannot help it.”
O: Now your thesis revolves around two roosters? This is what informs your worldview? Really?
“So if I see Alpha’s that cannot keep a job because they try to rule their own bosses, another Alpha, or that they have all sorts of plans that they self sabotage for the sake of whatever destructive force they have inside themselves or just not going into a fight with the wrong person.”
O: I am sitting in a cafe owned by an undeniable Alpha. He’s been self-employed for years. This is his second location. He can literally write his own ticket in terms of the Women he wants to bed. I’ll discuss him more in the future. Stay tuned.
“I also tried to get a degree on Physics and all the guys there (all 12 of them the STEM fields are so unpopular that they are free on our university, still barely anyone takes them) were Betas not a single asshole on the career (and before you ask I tried to get with them all of them were dating at the moment I was trying for it) so yeah, I have a good memory and I observe.”
O: Seems you have memories of being dissed by the Alphas…
“I also read a lot of studies done by psychologist students there with similar results, those studies are never published beyond the college library so this are things that are out there but no one cares to explore but me. So I repeat Alpha’s can’t do shit.”
O: You repeating “Alphas ain’t sh*t” don’t make it so. You need to calm down.
O.
“such men have no shortage of women lining up for their turn to ride their carousels.”
and it seems that they are aware of their follow passengers and derive satisfaction from such knowledge. There are some very twisted female behavioral manifestations rearing up and most men do not know how to reckon with it
@Obsidian (#1177)
Hi Obsidian,
I was just about to write a appreciative comment of your fantastic post on the Blowing Up thread — about harshing on people’s looks. But gosh, you make it awfully difficult sometimes for people to support you.
You are — just like the rest of us– a *guest* here, in Mrs. Walsh’s virtual living room. Has anyone ever talked with you about the self-awareness and tact befitting a guest?
Your comments have been moderated repeatedly, you took over a eulogy thread to make it about your issues instead of memorializing the deceased, valued people like Hope do not wish to engage with you and you are telling Ana you know more about her culture than she does.
Yet you surmise that you are the one who suffering injustice.
Obsidian, is it possible the reverse may be true? Instead of imediately pontificating in a long-winded screed, why not take time to reflect on this?
You prize being brutally honest to others. Allow me to return the favor: You seem to be more fixated on the brutal part than telling the truth in love.
Obsidian, you are brilliant and could have a *huge* following and presence. You could be iconic in the black community. Instead your tone is repelling a lot of people. In my opinion, the only one holding you back from true greatness is *you*.
If an “alpha” guy is getting his high N count because he’s legitimately attractive to women, I don’t think he suffers any penalty whatsoever in this SMP. Women will hook up with him and if pressed they just won’t count it in their reported Ns.
What I think *can* happen, however, is that his strategy will shift slightly over time—given a reputation for swordsmanship, he may become more inclined to broaden his tactical toolkit and may feel that he has to occasionally dangle LTR commitment in front of suspicious new prospects (assuming they are high SMV), and this will of course rev up the “I tamed the bad boy, I’m the best” delusion to his advantage.
He may even do some old-fashioned dates, since he can operate in the knowledge that a woman who holds out on sex for more than 3-4 of these charming evenings—they are also probably seeing each other on campus during the day—is going to be a subject of some concern and controversy (besides, he can always supplement his daily diet with an FWB or just fapping away to porn). In fact, she should probably be worried if he does *not* escalate sexually by the third date, since this is likely to be indicative of supplementation being provided by a third-party.
@Ms. Jackie #1182:
“@Obsidian (#1177)
Hi Obsidian,
I was just about to write a appreciative comment of your fantastic post on the Blowing Up thread — about harshing on people’s looks. But gosh, you make it awfully difficult sometimes for people to support you.”
O: Hello, Ms. Jackie – I’ve heard quite a bit about you. For what it’s worth, here’s hoping you aren’t street harrassed so much. Believe it or not, I think a Woman should be able to go about her daily business without being rundown by a knucklehead. Anyway…
“You are — just like the rest of us– a *guest* here, in Mrs. Walsh’s virtual living room. Has anyone ever talked with you about the self-awareness and tact befitting a guest?”
O: All the time, LOL. Nah seriously, I feel you.
“Your comments have been moderated repeatedly,”
O: No, my comments have been deleted repeatedly…
“you took over a eulogy thread to make it about your issues instead of memorializing the deceased,”
O: I made it clear that I did not know the deceased like that but I did know death…
“valued people like Hope do not wish to engage with you”
O: So I just should ignorre what they say, right?
“and you are telling Ana you know more about her culture than she does.”
O: I never made any such claim; what I said was that her perspective is heavily skewed, and anyone with a modicum of objectivity can see that.
“Yet you surmise that you are the one who suffering injustice.”
O: I Never claimed to suffer anything. What I do claim however, is that there is no objective standard.
“Obsidian, is it possible the reverse may be true?”
O: Anything is possbile.
“Instead of imediately pontificating in a long-winded screed, why not take time to reflect on this?”
O: I reflect on many things, all the time.
“You prize being brutally honest to others.”
O: I do…
“Allow me to return the favor: You seem to be more fixated on the brutal part than telling the truth in love.”
O: I have gone on record as saying that the single best thing that can happen to a Man is for him to get nuked. I meant what I said because it’s happened to me, and I will go on record in saying that it’s also happen to the vast majority of Men out there, certainly the vast majority of the Men on this blog right now. Without that brutal nuking, most Men will go on living in an SMP Matrix, imbibing Blue Pills. To this day, I am thankful to the ladies who brought the pain and told the truth.
“Obsidian, you are brilliant and could have a *huge* following and presence.”
O: Thank you for the compliment. I do alright.:)
“You could be iconic in the black community.”
O: I’ve already explained why the Black community is where it is. They’re as much mired in Blue Pill reality as anyone else, moreso even. Black Men DON’T READ OR BLOG, nowhere near as much as White guys do. Moreover, BLACK MEN FEEL THEY DON’T NEED GAME. Denial is much more than a river in Egypt.
Black Women don’t want a kind of HUS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO MUCH INVESTED IN THE TROPES THEY BELIEVE IN; IT GIVES LIFE MEANING FOR THEM. Please, do not take my word for any of this; go and see for yourself.
“Instead your tone is repelling a lot of people.”
O: Are you sure? MikeC has gone on record as saying that he respects me. Me and Just1X seem to be brown. Same with Jason, Ted D, even Tom. In fact, the only people who seem to have problems with me are the ladies, and here again MikeC has spoken to this. So are we really talking about “people” or are we talking about something else?
“In my opinion, the only one holding you back from true greatness is *you*.”
O: Well, assuming I wanted to be great, that would be a big deal, indeed. I nevertheless respect your opinion.
O.
@ Obsidian
For the several years that I have been visiting this blog, I have read thousands of comments from many male commenters here about promiscuity. Whenever they describe a “promiscuous” woman, they have defined them by two criteria.
1. A woman who sleeps with many men is considered promiscuous.
2. A woman who engages in forms of casual sex, including one-night stands, friends with benefits, vacation sex, and flings are also considered promiscuous.
This is not what I have come up with. This is what thousands of male commenters have said when defining promiscuous women. We are both right on this one. If you have a qualm with the second criteria being included in the definition of a promiscuous woman, take it up with the men here. I’m almost positive, however, that you won’t be able to change their minds about the second one.
The problem is this. The stats you provide may be true, BUT THEY DO NOT APPLY TO ME. The fact that you cite them is irrelevant because they don’t aptly describe my situation or circumstance, aside from the fact that I happen to be a black female.
I’ve never had a problem with dating white men. I am hot enough to date them, and my looks aren’t the reason that I am still single. I’m single because I’m in no rush, I’m choosy, and I’m filtering out men until I find a great match for me. The fact that I’m black has never been a detriment to me. I prefer white men, and they like me just fine.
You claim to speak the truth, but you don’t. You frame your OPINIONS as TRUTH, which couldn’t be more erroneous. That’s why your comments are being deleted. They are unsolicited and ill-founded.
I suggest that you simply stop talking to me or about me. I don’t care enough about you to talk to you until you bring my name up in conversation. I’m not going to let you say things about me without calling you out over it.
This is the final warning.
What you are doing is harassing me, and I won’t tolerate it. I come to this blog to read Susan’s posts and to interact with other people who comment on here. It has been proven several times over that civil conversation cannot be had with you. I have asked, several times in fact, for you to refrain from speaking to me or about me. I wouldn’t have a problem with you if you simply did that, by you fail to do so.
I shouldn’t have to have my experience here be ruined by you and your insistence on pestering me. Stop it. Please respect my request.
@Ms. Sassy #1185:
“For the several years that I have been visiting this blog, I have read thousands of comments from many male commenters here about promiscuity. Whenever they describe a “promiscuous” woman, they have defined them by two criteria.
1. A woman who sleeps with many men is considered promiscuous.
2. A woman who engages in forms of casual sex, including one-night stands, friends with benefits, vacation sex, and flings are also considered promiscuous.”
O: Well, I think it’s fair to say that quite a few of the male commenters here, such as they are, don’t seem to tally all that well with what the rest of the fellas on the outside in real life think about such issues. Ms. Walsh has even spoken to this at various points herself.
“This is not what I have come up with. This is what thousands of male commenters have said when defining promiscuous women.”
O: “Thousands of male commenters”? Really? You’re literally telling me that THOUSANDS OF MALE COMMENTERS are saying this? Here? Are you sure about that?
“We are both right on this one.”
O: No, we, well, actually, you, are splitting hairs on this one, which is your wont to do, I’ve noticed. The vast majority of guys outside the confines of HUS, assuming what you say about them is indeed true, will look on female promiscuity in the way I described.
“If you have a qualm with the second criteria being included in the definition of a promiscuous woman, take it up with the men here.”
O: Oh believe me, I have some choice words about all that…
“I’m almost positive, however, that you won’t be able to change their minds about the second one.”
O: I’ve never argued to persuade, madam.
My response to the rest of your comment can be seen here: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/07/03/hookinguprealities/i-didnt-mean-to-blow-up-your-spot/comment-page-2/#comment-133312
And I stand behind every, Single. Word.
O.
@ Obsidian
Cool story bro.
Why are you still talking to me when I’ve explicitly asked you numerous times to stop talking to me or about me?
I hope that was your last post directed towards me or concerning me.
Adieu.
@ Susan Walsh
Once again, feel free to delete any comments that Obsidian makes directed towards me or about me. I’m done with trying to explain things to him. If he continues to harass me, despite the many times I have told him to stop, I hope that you will put him in moderation, or ban him.
A major rule of the squared circle is: can’t give a hit if you can’t take one.
Too bad some people can dish it, but they got glass jaws.
I’ve taken many a hit.
And I give as good as I get.
Thanks.
O.
@ Escoffier
Speaking of the 70′s, I’m going to a dance club tonight called “Boogie Nights”. It’s in the Hollywood Casino in Indiana, and the club only plays music from the 70′s and 80′s. I’m really excited. They have a lit dance floor similar to the one in the movie “Saturday Night Fever”. I can’t wait!
Ok time to weigh in on all this sociosexual stuff.
1. While i know its a very popular theme/meme in the sphere, im with ms walsh: there aint gonna be some great gettin up morning when we have an smp extinction level event, civilization collapses and we go back to a kind of sexual planet of the apes. Ms walshs take is more like it-american society will continue to limp along at least for the foreseeable future, and by that i mean the next few decades easily. Women will continue to gain at the direct and indirect expense of men, while a larger and larger share of american men will fall by the cultural wayside. That will leave the winners among the males from which the ladies will choose. When it comes to the largely white umc that is hus’ focus, what this amounts to is increased and fierce(r) female intrasexual competition to snag the hottest guys. Because by definition only a relatively few women can win, what will end up happening is we will see more defacto spinsters and all their attendant focus in the media etc.
Meanwhile, society simply will not take the red pill-i remind everyone of that “red dress” scene from the matrix and what morpheus said: that there are people who will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo and that includes people who know the deal(!) too.
So, we can expect more of an inexorable decline, a kind of new normal, and it will continue to unfold over the remainder of our lives. Bright spots here and there will be seen and makes the man bites dog human interest sections of the news but thats about it. Kinda like the duggars.
2. All this handwringing on the part of the fellas about a womans sex life, alpha/beta stuff etc is really a cover for some very deepseated insecurities-and worse, a stubborn resistance to confront and overcome them. In the end thats really whats going on-and its a sign of weakness in a man.
Personally i couldnt care less if a woman im with had 5 or 7 boyfriends or whatever-its what she does with me that counts. Moreover im more than confident that she’ll remain with me when other dudes come tryin to holla-thats because i have a clear sense of what i bring to the table of any woman worth her while. The are many men who are afraid and angry because what they had to offer has diminished or become irrelevant outright-and, they either cant or wont upgrade their skills. This is the real reason why theres so much fierce resistance to game and so forth. They may be shining on ms walsh but they aint foolin me not even for a minute.
3. I am always amazed by the guys who shout the loudest about civilization, society and the rest of it but they never let on whether they have a woman in their lives or not. After awhile you figure it out that the “society” argument is really an elaborate ruse to cover over the fact that these dudes are inadequate and cant get the job done. And they are a sad sight to witness.
Hollenhund, do you have a girlfriend? A wife? If so how long? Even people who get on my nerves like ms j are mated and to that extent speak from a position of having a dog in the fight-this i can deeply respect. We may disagree and even dislike each other but i cant knock her desire to see her family and kids do well or at least be alright. In some two years of knowing and at turns fiercely debating you i have no idea whether you actually have some skin in the game and i just find that real odd. You know the deal with me and many others here; whats up with you? Why does all this mean so very much to you? If youre single and dont have anyone then i can see that. But if you are booed up what gives?
O.
“we will see more defacto spinsters and all their attendant focus in the media”
Feminists do not seem to like that trend. Yet, they do not want to tell women to lower standards and so far no one is telling men to rise to expectations
I think that women in the UMC have very valuable strategic options they can exercise unilaterally (or wish to be able to) at three critical inflection points in the mating dance:
1. If a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to terminate the pregnancy or have the child with no input from the father. If she chooses to have the child, the coercive power of the state can—if necessary—be brought to bear on the father at that point.
2. Many young women would like both exciting high-powered careers and satisfying family lives. At such time as their biological clocks might indicate, they would like the option of either a brief maternity leave and return to career track w/o penalty OR the option to leave the career path and concentrate on motherhood, with a family-oriented (beta), affluent husband available to cover the family’s expenses.
The current theme is basically to do all the prepwork for the career track so that it is front-loaded, but to realize that priorities may change in the late 20s or 30s. I just wrote a recommendation letter for a young woman who applying to Harvard Law School. She told me very honestly that Harvard Law would hopefully provide her with two prestigious degrees: her JD and her MRS. In the event that 6-10 years down the road she decides to emphasize being a mom over being a lawyer, her HLS experience and the mating pool it provides would still prove to have been a positive economic decision, and she was very clear on this being an important consideration.
There is probably a net deadweight loss to society involved in this scenario via misallocation of education resources, but let’s leave that alone for now.
3. In the event that the marriage is unsatisfying, women would like no-fault divorce laws with a starkly biased family court system behind them. I believe that said divorces are now initiated by women 75% of the time; this is probably a fairly clean indicator of the biases in the system and the incentives that it creates.
You can make a good case for any of these things and they may in fact be great for society in some macro sense. I find the first one mildly offensive, the second benefits me, and the third is pretty scary, but these are subjective views. What you cannot do is to say that these options come for free—there are trade-offs involved at each level.
Let’s consider that alpha and beta males are differentiated on a single dimension: their views towards the traditional family and committed husband/fatherood. The alpha does not really want it; the beta does. This is not normally how we men define alpha and beta among ourselves, but I think this is ultimately the way that the terms are used at HUS.
Now look at how the value of the beta male is not constant across the three female decision nodes; on the contrary, an alpha attitude towards family life would be preferable in the event that a woman chooses to abort her pregnancy (the beta would be more inclined to argue in favor of the birth and cause her emotional distress about her decision; the alpha would exhale a sigh of relief); the alpha attitude would be preferable in the event that the woman chose career over motherhood; the alpha attitude would be preferable for the woman in the event of divorce, as he would be less inclined to put up a bitter fight over custody.
I think that a lot of the pushback from family-traditional beta males is due to their perception that they are being increasingly seen as a hapless, passive contingency resource to be exploited at the woman’s discretion should she choose—unilaterally—to push the “family” button.
“they are being increasingly seen as a hapless, passive contingency resource to be exploited at the woman’s discretion should she choose—unilaterally—to push the “family” button.”
Overall, women must know at some conscious level [or are being coerced to know] that these men are out there, always in the wings, always ready. If that were not the case, why would a woman believe the family-option exists? If she does not think there will be sufficient husband options in the future, would she embark on her current plans in the same manner? She must also be convinced that these men will not pay any mind to her current exploits because, if not, she would modify her current sexual behavior.
Where can I find this data? I’d very much like to see for myself and compare/contrast to other areas of the world…
http://www.cladem.org/index.php?option=com_rokdownloads&view=file&id=1096:monitoreo-sobre-feminicidiofemicidio-en-republica-dominicana&Itemid=599
http://www.gurabolive.com/noticias/comportamiento-sexual-de-los-dominicanos/
O: So that means that all Alphas are bad? Really? Based on your “couple of” personal examples?
http://www.worthethic.com/the-alpha-male-syndrome.html
O: Seems you have memories of being dissed by the Alphas…
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Asociaci%C3%B3n-de-Estudiantes-y-Egresados-de-F%C3%ADsica-AEF-UASD/87418996384
Now your thesis revolves around two roosters? This is what informs your worldview? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
@Abbot
Abbot, sit down, because this might blow your mind
:
http://jezebel.com/5923855/turns-out-getting-slutty-on-the-first-date-can-lead-to-marriage
There were hundreds of comments with SO MANY of them detailing how their “sluttiness” led to their current marriage.
Can someone explain how this is possible?
I don’t hate –or even dislike– these women, but they definitely make it difficult on the prude(nt)s and HUSsies. How are they succeeding in the face of *everything* that HUS is based on?
I would really like to know the answer. As always, prude support is welcomed and encouraged.
Jackie 1195
Jackie.. it’s JEZEBEL. You need to take anything you read there with a grain of salt. I’ll bet 50% of the slutties there coaxed their men into marriage by giving them sex (and are waiting to revoke it once they become disenchanted with their submissive men and ready to eat pray love their way to another.. or it’s a case of like marrying like, and as Susan says.. the sluts married the sluts. Still i’m not betting on that horse crossing the finish line years from now.
Frankly anything i read from Jizzabell i take with the same seriousness as i did reading MSM and rags like Worldnetdaily when it came to being absolutely positive that Saddam had WMD’s… i’m still gloating over the fact i was right and that war never should have happened on a lie.
Don’t read Jizzabelle, it rots braincells. Stay a prude. But once you find a guy you really like, become HIS slut and you’re set for life
“it’s JEZEBEL. You need to take anything you read there with a grain of salt”
Like all sluts reaching desperately for redemption, the Jezzies latched onto a BRAIN study and twisted it into a “sluts are good to go for marriage” diatribe.
ho hum
“prude support is welcomed”
concern troll
Here is some more desperation reeking from feminist sluts
“men aren’t doing nearly enough.”
No they are not. TOO FUCKING BAD.
They are not stepping up and committing to women who reach to the curb and fuck whatever and whomever whenever. But they will fuck them, so not all is lost…
And then these non compliant defiant go-fuck-yourself dudes are not helping around the house.
Clearly, there is a MASSIVE shortage of men ready willing and motivated to accommodate some unacceptable contrived notion of what it means to be wife material, as defined by some women and their delusional chip-on-shoulder feminist advocates. So once again, TOO FUCKING BAD
http://www.thenation.com/blog/168612/daddy-wars#
Jackie.. it’s JEZEBEL. You need to take anything you read there with a grain of salt.
IDK, M3, I actually believe that it’s possible. Didn’t SW once post a statistic that said that 12% of hookups lead to relationships? Some of those relationships will eventually lead to marriage. While it’s not a strategy I’d want a hypothetical daughter daughter to embrace, I’m sure that a certain, probably small, percentage of marriages began with a hookup.
I would really like to know the answer. As always, prude support is welcomed and encouraged.
You need to remember the self selected bias. How many of feminists do you know that are prudes and against ONS? So is only logical that a proportion of them will get some level of success. Don’t try to follow the steps of a site that doesn’t even have a million subscribers if that were the case you have more chances of success of following Lady Gaga. Stay prude and strong.
« 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 »