The most important study investigating sexual selection theory has been painstakingly recreated and found to be completely invalid. From Science Daily:
A classic study from more than 60 years ago suggesting that males are more promiscuous and females more choosy in selecting mates may, in fact, be wrong, say life scientists who are the first to repeat the historic experiment using the same methods as the original.
In 1948, English geneticist Angus John Bateman published a study showing that male fruit flies gain an evolutionary advantage from having multiple mates, while their female counterparts do not. Bateman’s conclusions have informed and influenced an entire sub-field of evolutionary biology for decades.
Bateman’s Principle states that females are choosy because there is little advantage to their mating with multiple males. This is the cornerstone of Darwin’s sexual selection theory. The new study was led by Patricia Adair Gowaty, a distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA.
In the original experiment, Bateman isolated equal numbers of male and female fruit flies, and then checked the offspring’s genetic features to see how many males had reproduced. Because they did not have the ability to examine DNA, Bateman used flies with severe genetic mutations instead to see how they would show up in offspring. However, there was a “fatal flaw” in his analysis. Bateman assigned paternity based on flies with double mutations, ignoring the flies with zero or one mutations. Consequently, Bateman was unable to accurately quantify the number of mates for each subject. Oddly, he assigned more offspring to males than females, an impossibility. Bateman concluded:
1) The variation in number of mates for males was greater than for females.
2) The males show direct proportionality between number of mates and fertility… The females, provided they have been mated with at least once, show absolutely no effect of number of mates.
In recreating the experiment with DNA analysis, Gowaty et al found that the data were “decidedly inconclusive.”
Here was a classic paper that has been read by legions of graduate students, any one of whom is competent enough to see this erro. Bateman’s results were believed so wholeheartedly that the paper characterized what is and isn’t worth investigating in the biology of female behavior.
Repeating key studies is a tenet of science, which is why Bateman’s methodology should have been retried as soon as it became important in the 1970s. Those who blindly accept that females are choosy while males are promiscuous might be missing a big piece of the puzzle.
Our worldviews constrain our imaginations. For some people, Bateman’s result was so comforting that it wasn’t worth challenging. I think people just accepted it.
Gowaty believes that women are naturally more promiscuous and less choosy than Darwin originally thought.
“Darwin, and later Bateman, cleaved to the notion that females of a species tended to be discriminating and passive, while the far more promiscuous males competed for their attentions. In the last few decades, however, evolutionary biologists have shown that the story is far more complicated. Gowaty, who has been interested in female mating habits in insects and birds since the beginning of her career, spent 30 years in the field studying Eastern bluebirds. She published the first molecular genetics study showing that females in a socially monogamous species mated outside their traditional pairs regularly.
Gowaty describes the benefits of multiple mates as an answer to the never-ending evolutionary struggle against what may be the world’s greatest predator: disease…In this illness-driven arms race, organisms that produce offspring from multiple mates are more likely to produce some children with the right antibodies to survive the next generation of viruses, bacteria and parasites…For Gowaty, there are many open questions remaining when it comes to female mating habits, whether in fruit flies or other organisms.”
Though Gowaty is the first to recreate Bateman’s experiment, there have long been questions about Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Bateman’s statement that “there is nearly always a combination of an undiscriminating eagerness in the males and a discriminating passivity in the females” is demonstrably false, since females of many species mate with several males. Here are several other aspects of Bateman’s Principle that have long been in question:
Females can be promiscuous.
1. Females in many species do have more offspring when they mate with a larger number of males.
2. Mating with multiple males increases the likelihood of finding the strongest genetic compatibility.
3. Offspring fitness increases with heterogeneous mating, i.e. hybrid vigor. Females sneak copulations with men outside the group.
4. Many female mammals seek multiple partners to confuse paternity and prevent infanticide by the father.
5. In some species, copulation and fertilization are separated by several months. Females hedge their bets by mating with several males in order to increase the likelihood of fertilization.
Sperm is not always cheap.
6. In some species, sperm require substantial energy to produce enough to fertilize the female’s eggs.
7. Some species require repeated copulations to stimulate ovulation. A female lion may require 100 copulations from one male to initiate pregnancy.
8. Some species reverse roles, with males doing the majority of the parental care.
9. In some species, males prioritize mate guarding over sexual variety, challenging Bateman’s finding that males are more reproductively successful with more mating partners.
10. Species that spawn have either equal investment by both sexes, or in some cases, the production of gametes requires more energy from males.
Male display is often a warning rather than a pickup line.
11. Evolutionary musicologist Joseph Jordania has observed that many species display bright colors, ornaments, vocalizations, and various antics as warning displays. According to him, most of these warning displays were erroneously attributed to the forces of sexual selection.
There is certainly ample evidence in our own society that unrestrained female sexuality increases promiscuity, so perhaps this should come as no surprise. Still, I find the implications of this rather dizzying. While the theory of sexual selection has not been disproved, its most important study has been, returning us to the realm of unconfirmed hypotheses.
If promiscuity is reproductively advantageous for both sexes, then both should regard monogamous commitment as a sacrifice, or at least a tradeoff. In a time when women’s earning power is climbing steadily, the potential effects of women’s choosing multiple mating partners may already be observed.
- What will this mean for the family?
- Are we headed for a Bacchanalian nightmare that makes hookup culture look like child’s play?
- Will it be economics that ultimately drives us back into monogamy?
- Will the pendulum swing back soon, or will a crisis in number of surviving offspring be required to change course?
- What does this mean for HUSsies and others who prefer the intimate love relationship to the “zipless f*ck?” Will they succeed in creating and sustaining the relationships they crave?
Don’t kill the messenger, but if monogamy is unnatural from a biological standpoint, and all the baggage around female promiscuity really is cultural, then the next hundred years or so should be interesting and frightening.
For the record, this doesn’t change a thing I’ve been recommending here for 3+ years. If it’s monogamy, marriage and family you want, you can still have it using the same strategies. But hurry. We may be the 21st century equivalent of the Pompeiians, witnesses to the volcanic eruption that was the Sexual Revolution.
{ 1261 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 … 9 »
“If you think there is no double standard in this society, I just dont know what to say”
How about for ONCE “say” how this all-evil so-called “double standard” in any way whatsoever affects women negatively as they all seem to be willing and able to fuck anyone anytime with nothing but happy vaginal recipients.
Until this is answered, there is NO double standard to speak of and will remain nothing more than a propaganda-against-men shaming phrase and quite frankly a big joke.
“Tom represents the Establishment view of sexual relations”
Well, the established vocal minority seeking acceptance for an experiment that they, at best, feel uneasy about.
_______________
Wrong on both accounts
I have had the advantage to see the changes as they take place. 30/40 years ago no one thought the media would be as liberal sexually as it is. It is influencing the way people look at sex, want sex, have sex. Hookup culture isnt new by the way, hippies were sexually as free as any generation. they were not the first either. My Mother told me it wasnt call the roaring 20`s for nothing.
The biggest difference besides the media, over the past, is the pill. Couples have more sex because of pregnacys is not a factor, and a small more % of women are promiscuous for the same reason.
Every generation thinks it invented sex. However the sats for who is having sex and how often mirror what was happening when I was in college. susan has the studies and have shown there here at HUS. Ther percentage of promiscuous men and women is almost identical to 40 years ago. People just talk about it more and the media reports it more.
The “BEST” thing that has happened to sex, IMHO, is it is no longer a taboo subject. The more people know about sex the better it is for everyone. Many couples have diffuculty discussing sexual problems they are having. That should NEVER be the case.
@ Tom #151
When you remove pregnancy*, you’re still dealing with female brains evolved in an environment where sex equaled a high chance of pregnancy, so females are still more selective than males, much to beta males’ chagrin.
If you mean to ignore that there are sex differences in mate selection due to the historical evolutionary environment, be my guest, but don’t expect men to commit to disloyal women and women to have raucous sex with unassertive, supplicating men. Like I said before, only apex men are cleaning up in the modern sexual marketplace, and women are getting pumped and dumped, wondering why these apex men won’t commit (why do you think the quintessential female fantasy is a dominant alpha who commits?)
* Don’t forget the condom as well.
There is no good, comfortable, practical or useful reason to prefer otherwise. Thus the universal popularity of the preference.
____________
In your opinion, Abbott, in your opinion…
@ Tom #153
If you think I subscribe to some American right-wing view of women as monogamous angels corrupted by society, you yourself are wrong.
This is closer to my view of women’s nature. It also handily explains the changes you observed.
I believe it is the idea of women as delicate flowers corrupted by society that keeps feminism afloat among men who should know better. Your “changes” have resulted in broken families and innocent men punished harshly simply for boring their wives.
This does not represent a successful model of social organization.
” When young women describe aimless, unmotivated young men to me – the guitarist who sleeps all day, the guy happily living with mom and dad in his mid-20s – I respond, “blue valentine.””
Most of the guys I grew up with are living with their parents. My friend’s older brothers, guys who are in their mid 30′s and early 40′s haven’t left their parents houses. I suppose that the cost of life plus the crash of real estate hasn’t helped them make up their minds and move away from their parents house.
Although, I do have an uncle who is 45 years old, lives with my grandmother, never payed rent in his life, doesn’t have a car so he doesn’t have a money-draining hole in that aspect, has always had a job, worked overtime whenever he could, would rather work during the holidays instead of heading off to the beach or something, and managed to retire comfortably from the rat race.
He doesn’t have expenses, has his own house(his mother’s house is in his name; a rather big house located in the center of a major city) has a division of the house dedicated to music, another division of the house is the dream of any world of warcraft player and he’s not dating nor is he doing the hook-up/FWB thing, which is rather ironic as he maintained his youthful looks, all of his hair, he is thin and fit, and healthy.
I can see why young men would rather do that than work jobs the hate and take on responsibilities and obligations that are unnecessary for any individual man. Is the construction of a family and the uplifting of a man’s social and psychological status from being a teenager boy to an adult man accordingly to what society defines as masculinity elementary for the survival of society? Likely. Does the individual man need to worry about it since the lifespan of the average western man is that of 75 years and societies do take their sweet time to be collapsible when in lack of external invasion?
Nope.
On the infantile so-called “double standard” that has once again has been raised above [and it wont be the last time] -
Woman have a double standard or preference as that seems to be the newly introduced buzz word. One preference is to fuck around and the other is to commit. The men they choose to fuck are just as good later for commitment candidates if they can achieve that but most cannot due to competition. So the double preference has to do with timing.
In all fairness, men have a double preference too. It also has to do with timing. But men are less willing then women to select a life mate from the fuck pool. If there were ENOUGH men who did not feel that way there would be no shrieking screeching bullshit shame-terms like “double standard.” THRE IS CLEARLY OBVIOUSLY A SHORTAGE OF MEN WILLING TO PLAY ALONG. ITS ABOUT THE SHORTAGE, NOT THE PREFERENCE. So then the goal is to change minds so that all these sluts will have a fair shot at a mate. Can this be any more transparent?
@Susan Walsh
Sex at Dawn is rubbish.
Here are a few critical reviews;
http://evolvify.com/sex-at-dawn-journal-review/
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP093253352.pdf
The books Sex at Dawn can best be summed up by the quote;
“Everything in the book that’s true, isn’t new. And everything in the book that’s new, isn’t true.”
Re: Obsidian’s repeated warnings about the Black family, which appear to fall on increasingly deaf ears:
In 1972, I was sitting in a bar in a “transitional” neighborhood, meaning one that was passing from working class White to Black. Four of us, two Black and two White, worked the midnight shift at the chemical plant (unionized, wow, that dates me), usually met for beer t the tavern after work at 7am. A discussion ensued.
One Black guy wanted to find a good girl and settle down – have kids and buy a house, etc. That resonated with us White guys and we went, -yeah, that’s great, Grover, good idea.
But Smitty wasn’t having it. My ladies pay me, he said, and I keep my factory money. He had four girls on rotation, babies with each one of them. This was in 1972. Grover asked Smitty how he did it. Smitty, predictably, grabbed his crotch, ‘my d1 ck drives ‘em crazy. they can’t do without it’
Over the time we worked together, I met some of Smitty’s ‘ladies’. They weren’t exclusive to Smitty, of course, but when I brought Smitty up to them, they got that far away look in their eyes and told me to tell Smitty if I ever see him to tell him to ‘come on by. No one lays it down like Smitty.’
Fast forward to the late 80s. I’m working as a welfare worker (AFDC, predecessor to TANF). Smitty keeps coming up time and again as the absent father of some of my clients’ older kids. I mention that I knew Smitty back in the day. They get all absent-eyed and sigh ‘They ain’t no one out there these days like ol’ Smitty.’
But that kind of behavior had spread to the urban white proletariat. As more and more factory jobs starting disappearing under Reagan, Bush and Clinton, I saw more and more young white girls coming in with multiple babies by multiple daddies. The one thing that struck me was how sexually accomplished these daddies were.
“If you ever find my kid’s daddy, you send him on by. I passed out in back of the truck it was so good.”
“That loser? Haven’t seen him in two years. ‘Can’t hold a job but he shore knows how to fvck. Ain’t had it like that since he left.’
“Had four with the first one, and six with the second. Those guys di’n't take ‘no’ for an answer. Not that I put up much of a fight.”
The kids? Completely feral. Yet, somehow I got the feeling that if we ever got hit by a nuclear holocaust, a pandemic, or Peak Oil, or some other dislocating event, these kids would survive and my gently raised little sprouts would wilt like daffodils before a smelter.
So, maybe it is a Darwinian thing. One of the most important questions you can ask yourself is if the next five years will be like the preceding five years, or whether they will be radically different. The overwhelming tendency is to answer that question in the affirmative. But imagine a Russian aristocrat asking himself that question in 1914, or a Polish Jew in 1938.
Maybe the ‘ghetto-mama’ mating strategy is a way of throwing a lot of human DNA at the wall in preparation for a coming dislocation, a sort of a man-made Toba eruption , in order to see what will stick.
Indeed, some intellectually alert Black people seem to want to institurtionalize this kind of behavior.
@Tom
there’s no double standard for the basic hardwiring of the two sexes.
Men’s hardwiring is to not value sluts for investment – cavemen didn’t know if it was going to be their kid by looks, so they valued non-slut behaviour in their women. Men only want to pay to raise their own kid. (and don’t bother bullshitting me about men who adopt – they are fine, but that’s not the core hardwiring.)
Women see men that can sleep around as having value. Hey if the herd thinks he’s hot stuff, he’s a good mating target. Our kids should be popular – WIN!
There are TWO scenarios with ONE standard for each.
NOT
ONE scenario with TWO standards.
Anybody wailing about ‘double standards’ is using the intellect of a three year old, “it’s not FAIR” waaahh!!
I rode this hobby horse for a while and, at least, Susan is on board with the idea that there are Double Standards and there are Different Standards.
And, in this example, you are right, we are talking about Different Standards.
“There are TWO scenarios with ONE standard for each.
NOT
ONE scenario with TWO standards.”
Well, today it is officially two preferences. And a shit load of preference attackers and denigrators aka the vocal minority.
Mike C, about bonobos. THere is some truth to what is said about them but reality is very different. THe guy who has spread all the “science” that has become the myth of the Bonobos have never studied them in the wild only in captivity. He has never been to Africa. It turns out they don`t have much more heterosexual sex than other monkeys but they do have a lot of homosexual sex in addition. They are also more violent than previously thought. There does seem to be a connection between Bonobos being suspected to have thrived in an environment of low competition from other animals and the human tribes with quite free sexual cultures (often matrilinear). The theory is that both showed up when life got easy but get outcompeted by more patriarchal monkeys/tribes.
I read an article about the history of violence that claimed there was very little evidence of violence amongst humans before they where so many that territory got scarce. From that point on evidence of violence increased a lot. As long as there was still plenty of territory one could just move and fighting to death over women would possibly have been less productive than sorting competition out with seduction competition and sperm competition. So, in that type of environment the laid back matrilinear multiple or rotating partner structure might have been the best option.
That matches the article someone posted back in this thread about species that have few competitors and aren`t too many to follow an R strategy with early puberty and then getting as many offspring as possible with less focus on quality. When that strategy eventually leads to overpopulation the strategy shifts to a K strategy of fewer children with more investment in the children, more competition and aggression. We are in the paradoxal situation of life being very easy in survival terms but yet being overpopulated. That could mean the temptation for R strategy is high while the need for K strategy is desperate.
We are also related to the socially monogamous Tamarin monkeys but more distantly. Tamarins do a lot of pairbonding activities such as cuddling and grooming. To me it makes sense that humans come with a wide range of sexual triggers that can set of different strategies depending on environment. We have a Tamarin inclination, a Bonobo inclination, a Chimpanse inclination, a Gorilla inclination etc. To me the Tamarin strategy seems the weakest and the one most in need of support by culture and material incentives but also the most needed one and the one in which direction we have been evolving for a long time as Susan talks about when she talks about pairbonding winning out as the supreme strategy 1,5 million years ago or somthing.
There is also the double standard where males need to strive for status within the male dominance hierarchy in order to get sex, whereas women just need to be.
@ Susan in re 122:
Well, I suppose “Happy to be of assistance” is an appropriate response. Honestly I had forgotten they had used the symmetry in mating example and can see why that one would be a touch disturbing around here. Otherwise I probably would have found an excuse to provide the link long ago.
I would like to be able to hold some of the common tropes in the comment threads here to the same standard of replication and large sample sizes. I suspect many of them would disappear in puffs of statistical insignificance.
“I rode this hobby horse for a while and, at least, Susan is on board with the idea that there are Double Standards and there are Different Standards.
And, in this example, you are right, we are talking about Different Standards.”
Well, today with this statement -
“I file it under,”personal preferences” nothing more.”
Its is now Different Preferences. Who could argue with such harmlessness?
There are TWO scenarios with ONE standard for each.
NOT
ONE scenario with TWO standards.
Bullshit. you have two sets of humans. One set of human isnt looked down upon while being promiscuous, while the other set of humans is shamed for demostraiting the exact same behavior.
This isnt evolutionary, it is conditioning…we are not knuckle dragging cave men(well most of us are not)
and the link you gave me was bullshit too, drawn up by some butt hurt beta who cant get laid.
Man up, learn some game.
Funny how the guys who do the most crying are the guys who have either
A. got burned by a woman in a divorce because they themselves fucked it up and then blamed the woman or
B…just cant get laid by anything better than a 5.
To enter into a relationship with a woman who has had casual sex is a personal preference based on a lot of factors.
I know this falls on deaf ears, but I will say it one more time…Not all women who have had casual sex are marriage material (in my eyes) but some are.
Dudes, to each his own.
Ted #140
I agree with you.
the double standard was certianly not a religious or moral based idea. It HAD to be mens ideas, based in cuckold, insecurity, whatever. But women certianly would never have dreamed it up.
“I know this falls on deaf ears”
No, its LOUD but NOT clear.
“the other set of humans is shamed”
EXACTLY how so and by whom? What is the result of said shaming? Ears are open yet its all echos and no answers.
“To enter into a relationship with a woman who has had casual sex is a personal preference”
and more men are needed with such a preference. Clearly. Obviously. Desperately…
“This isnt evolutionary, it is conditioning…we are not knuckle dragging cave men”
Ahhhh blank slate!
Don’t believe in that bullshit.
Marry who you want, just don’t try and shame men into doing the same – we don’t give a shit what you feminists say we should do (or why).
“Dudes, to each his own.” – exactly, fuck your shaming language, that is exactly what I am doing.
THRE IS CLEARLY OBVIOUSLY A SHORTAGE OF MEN WILLING TO PLAY ALONG. ITS ABOUT THE SHORTAGE, NOT THE PREFERENCE.
Abbott if there is such a shortage, how do these women end up married, hummmm?
Pump and dump and promiscuous behavior are not new and I sure dont see cities full of unmarried good looking women who could never get married because of their past, do you?
oh thats right they settle for the unsuspecting beta. Gotcha
”Dudes, to each his own.”
Then, why exactly are you attempting to shame abbot into buying your worldview? I don’t have anything against Pick-up Artists because I believe everyone is free to do whatever they want to do, and if you want to learn game and encourage other men to dance the dance you love, more power to you, but it is rather to claim that abbot built his belief system from not being able to get laid, and then you tell him to man up and learn some game.
Are you implying that only the guys who get laid are real men, or are you a more sophisticated and more adapted younger, modern version of the man who marries, divorces, and perpetuates the marriage cycles because he has to have female approval? That’s the how I see Roissy, a 40 year old trolling the nights of washington DC and calling everyone beta and omega and Alpha from left to right because his time machine got stuck in 1980 and he can’t call Doc to retrieve him.
Tom is a woman
”Abbott if there is such a shortage, how do these women end up married, hummmm?”
Who are we talking about? Which women are getting married? Haven’t you witnessed the recent(for a few years now) onslaught of articles by accomplished women who can’t find men to marry them? How about the varied shaming language used in magazines and news dedicated to women to appeal to women’s lack of satisfaction with men’s lack of interest in getting married?
Or the legion of young women who’ve been living with their partners for several years now and want to upgrade their relationship to marriage?
Or the many, many college aged women who talk to Mrs HUS about the lack of interest the young men they meet have in meeting the hallmarks of adulthood?
Have you read Sex at Dawn? You should read Sex at Dawn. Immediately.
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
“Tom is a woman”
I concluded the same and so I haven`t read a comment by Tom for over 6 months. My guess “he” has been saying exactly the same thing as he did before over and over and over and so I haven`t exactly missed anything. Am I right?
@ Tom #171
Yes, I quoted Vox; deal with it.
I didn’t deny that there is a sexual double standard; I merely explained, from an evolutionary standpoint, why it exists.
Remember, the main problem is not that men won’t have sex with sluts — they’re quite happy to — but that they won’t commit to sluts. Why commit when:
1) You’re a man who can get sex from multiple women easily (so if she suddenly ups the price, you can go elsewhere)
2) She might bring home another man’s child and claim it is yours (cuckoo’s egg strategy)
3) When she falls for another man, it means she’s bored with you (hypergamy strikes again)
You have to look at the different attraction triggers of men and women.
My personal view is that while flirting is okay, both men and women should avoid casual sex — because women who have lots of sex are more likely to be unfaithful to their men, and men who have lots of sex enable these women, starting a vicious cycle.
@ Wudang
Yes, everything about the way Tom posts (shaming language, defense of sluts as wife material, NAWALT, etc.) suggests that.
@Wudang
as she doesn’t listen to any facts, or arguments against her, why would she change her views?
“My guess ‘he’ has been saying exactly the same thing as he did before over and over and over and so I haven`t exactly missed anything. Am I right?”
Yes.
“women who could never get married because of their past”
any woman can get married if she develops a strategy and tries hard enough. For obvious reasons its much easier for some than for others and its not just about looks
i like this one Tia.
Ironfoot
abbott only gets what he gives.
I dont try to shame him to do anything. He has his standards and I have mine. We both know the standards of the other.
He has said on many occations that any woman who has had casual sex, is not marriage material. not just for him, but she is not marriage material, period.
At least I give him credit for liking what he likes. I can see his point of view, while he doesnt see mine, but that is ok with me.
I do think his ultra strict view shades his view to some extent.
I too think Rossie is not right in most of his views. I am not a proponet of game or players. I wasnt referring to Abott when I said learn some game, far from it. He has found his woman of his dreams in a latin country..more power to him.
Mule Chewing Briars, I’m fairly sure those kids are not sure-fire survivors of a doomsday scenario, because they don’t increase genetic diversity and in fact decrease it, they don’t have sufficient future-time orientation to be able to plan ahead for disasters, and they are too “feral” as you call them to band together and work in a team with other men, which is traditionally how tribes have survived disasters.
Countries can be highly populous and yet have generally low illegitimacy rates and higher familial cohesion/social order, for example some Asian nations where having a child out of wedlock is both socially and legally stigmatized. In China a woman is literally fined a huge amount of money for having an illegitimate child, much more for multiple children. That is not the case in the communities you see.
Rules and dis/incentives do work. If a woman is shamed and name-called everywhere she goes for having a child out-of-wedlock, you’d see a lot less of the behavior. This is true of certain communities in Africa that are very traditional and religious. There are strict controls and expectations of both men and women, and the young are required to work hard instead of act like little wild animals. My husband taught classes to some of these African children who called him “sir” and performed chores dutifully. Are they genetically so different?
Wudang is a gay guy?
“the main problem is not that men won’t have sex with sluts — they’re quite happy to — but that they won’t commit to sluts”
That’s the double preference. Accept no substitutes.
Now, why do women have a problem with that when men apparently do not?
Mule – your last post was very eye opening, and depressing…
“gay guy”
“double standard”
Is this play in the sandbox day?
@tom
“Wudang is a gay guy?”
tsk tsk, shame on you for trying to shame someone with lesbian/gay shaming…
p.s.
for shaming to work, the target has to care what you think – tom fails again
well he may not care, but…hed shit if he had the balls to call me a woman to my face
“He has said on many occations that any woman who has had casual sex, is not marriage material”
It has been stated numerous times that it is perfectly acceptable and normal for a man to not consider a promiscuous woman for marriage and that such consideration is universal and very common.
Are any other corrections needed?
“My guess ‘he’ has been saying exactly the same thing as he did before over and over and over and so I haven`t exactly missed anything. Am I right?”
Yes.
_______
Oh look Mr. insecure is back.. you see two can play that game.
Is this play in the sandbox day?
_________
donno all your playmates want to gang up on the guy with a different point of view.
Tom, you’re retort to the charge that you post the same thing over and over is to call me insecure? Way to disprove that one.
“well he may not care, but…hed shit if he had the balls to call me a woman to my face”
beyond the shming language about whether he has balls, what’s wrong with being a woman? hmmmm?
the ‘macho’ stuff is far too late BTW. Cheap stuff over the net.
You argue like a feminist who thinks men can be shamed into confirming to your delusional beliefs – we can’t. That’s where the ‘where have all the good men gone?’ comes from. Reality doesn’t care what you think reality should be, reality IS.
It has been stated numerous times that it is perfectly acceptable and normal for a man to not consider a promiscuous woman for marriage and that such consideration is universal and very common.
_______________
It has also been said here on HUS many time the even up to 10 casual affairs is ok with some guys….In one of the biggest surveys to date, college guys dont even consider a woman promiscuous until they are close to 10…..
so I guess your view isnt the only view afterall?
Then why do you view our views as threatening?
If men don’t care about counts of ten, what’s the problem?
Why your hysteria about ‘double standards’?
@Ms. Walsh #106:
*quoting me*:”The “satellite” or “sneaky f*cker” strategy is well known and documented in evopsych circles…”
“So what is the human equivalent?”
O: The “Friendship Strategy” – particularly, the MALE Friendship Strategy. Buss covers this in some depth on pages 283-285 of his Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of The Mind.
Of course, as Buss makes so painfully clear in the newer edition of his The Evolution of Desire, such strategies have a very high failure rate, accruing to the fact that Women rarely reciprocate feelings of affection; Women’s primary reasons for acquiring opposite sex friends arise mainly from a need for free Manformation Consultants (gaining crucial information needed about Men so they can apply it to the Men they actually desire), and Bodyguard Services (physical protection from outside Male threats).
The great philosopher Biz Markie breaks it all down here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aofoBrFNdg
O.
You make me laugh Just 1as..s go on keep up the good work.
please go back and cut and paste where I was shaming anyone. Other than abbott that is…lol..he is just so wierd in his staunch belief system that is slays me anyone could be that strict.
I’ve certainly never met a promiscuous woman in a happy relationship, or even in an arrangement beyond hooking-up with Alpha males or handsome Beta males. My mother’s friend has a 32 year old daughter who is conventionally very attractive and youthful but she can’t keep a boyfriend to save her life. I see her from time to time with a Beta male and the fella is clearly interested in something more than sex, but she has the tendency to blow it.
Maybe the fact that she has slept with 30 guys per year since her 16th birthday has something to do with it?
Another young woman, this one still in her 20′s has a daughter who is 5 years old and latches herself onto any man she sees because children need paternal figures and she’s instinctively looking for a man to fill that role.
The child’s mother maintains an harem of Alpha males to satisfy her sexual needs and goes on dates to examine each beta’s aptitudes and whether they can step up to the plate. She hasn’t had a boyfriend for 3 years now.
The next example is most interesting. My social circle is comprised of mostly beta males and a few Alpha males. The Alpha males are the first to sample the promiscuous girls, then they pass the women to the greater betas down to the base beta male. What fascinates me is that after the Alpha males and the higher betas are done with the promiscuous women, the beta medium sized in betahood males turn their noses away from the women. It’s as if even the lowest betas are wired to not want promiscuous women.
I’m not saying that men should care about a count of ten. Just that in my experience most men do care about it (particularly when of college age 18-21). I even asked the question on HUS some months ago – the guys don’t like it.
That’s the fact.
Using evo-p we have theorised why that might be. Take the theory or leave it, I don’t care what you feel, the fact stands. That’s the tricky thing about facts, they don’t care what you think, or how much shaming you throw at them.
Wudang is a gay guy?
Uhm, why?
Just1x.. I could give a rats ass about the double standard, but to deny there is one is just stupid.
I never lived by it anyway. I was an athlete that never had to chase pussy. I had my fill of empty sex, got married and stayed that way for over 20 years..she died. so I got back out there.Still didnt have to chase pussy. Found a wonderful divorced woman who has had casual sex, from a select few, not just any John out there.
So am I to buy into the notion that women who have had casual sex are unworthy of my attentions? it really is one of the most ridiculous statements Ive heard. There are a lot more important factors than if she had some casual sex when making an evaluation.
So pardon my point of view.
Wudang is a gay guy?
Uhm, why?
Tit for tat
You know nothing about me..ask Susan if I am a guy or not.
”Wudang July 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Wudang is a gay guy?
Uhm, why?”
It seems that when you don’t agree with a feminist woman there has to be something wrong with you. What confuses me is since when has homosexuality transformed itself from a natural part of this world’s life forms to being a shaming tool used by the same feminists who argued and shamed and pushed for the acceptance of lesbianism. What’s good for the gander is not good for the goose?
I’m not saying that men should care about a count of ten. Just that in my experience most men do care about it (particularly when of college age 18-21). I even asked the question on HUS some months ago – the guys don’t like it.
That’s the fact.
Using evo-p we have theorised why that might be. Take the theory or leave it, I don’t care what you feel, the fact stands. That’s the tricky thing about facts, they don’t care what you think, or how much shaming you throw at them.
_____________
Dude the guys here are not representive of real life…most of them..Well never mind..
Calling a guy a woman because he has a different point of view isnt shaming either…right, move forward….
@wudang
I’ve never thought of you as gay *hugs*
I’m not sure why I’m supposed to be against gay guys, who are so clearly not interested in me sexually, and who are not in competition for the same target population. I worked with a guy who ‘came out’ at work, boy was he surprised at the number of guys saying it made no difference to them.
Neither do I find transgenders threatening, rad-fems hate them, not sure why. Perhaps they threaten the blank slate agenda by feeling so strongly that they have the wrong body, that they undergo painful surgery?
it wasn’t intended to be shaming numb-nuts
@Ms. Hope #188:
“Mule Chewing Briars, I’m fairly sure those kids are not sure-fire survivors of a doomsday scenario, because they don’t increase genetic diversity and in fact decrease it, they don’t have sufficient future-time orientation to be able to plan ahead for disasters, and they are too “feral” as you call them to band together and work in a team with other men, which is traditionally how tribes have survived disasters.”
O: Uh-huh. Which explains why their ancestors survived one of the worst tragedies to befall Humanity in the past 500 years (Slavery/Jim Crow) – right? Have you seen Spike Lee’s documentary?
If God Is Willing and Da Creek Don’t Rise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_God_Is_Willing_and_Da_Creek_Don't_Rise
Trust me, Ms. Hope – we were here before there was a such thing as a United States of America, and you can best believe that we will be here long after its gone…
“Countries can be highly populous and yet have generally low illegitimacy rates and higher familial cohesion/social order, for example some Asian nations where having a child out of wedlock is both socially and legally stigmatized. In China a woman is literally fined a huge amount of money for having an illegitimate child, much more for multiple children. That is not the case in the communities you see.”
O: China is also an incredibly repressive, Communist (and utterly corrupt, I might add, courtesy of the Party Bosses/Chinese Politburo) State. Not sure how many people here would like to head for Beijing…
“Rules and dis/incentives do work. If a woman is shamed and name-called everywhere she goes for having a child out-of-wedlock, you’d see a lot less of the behavior. This is true of certain communities in Africa that are very traditional and religious. There are strict controls and expectations of both men and women, and the young are required to work hard instead of act like little wild animals. My husband taught classes to some of these African children who called him “sir” and performed chores dutifully. Are they genetically so different?”
O: Actually, if you’re asking in relation to their American cousins, the answer would be YES; the average African American has somewhere between 10-20% White and Native American admixture DNAwise. For example, my maternal great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee, and I know for a fact that I have a White MALE ancestor about three or four generations back. This is common for any Black American who can trace his/her lineage back to the antebellum South. Same deal for Ms. Brown Sugah, who has Creole roots and ancestors coming straight from France.
But yea, you’re right, continental Africans are a goodly bit more sexually conservative than the stereotypes would have us believe.
O.
@Hope
I don’t know much about Israeli kibbutzim (I don’t even know if that is the correct plural), but I was told recently that they no longer function as communes, other than as tourist attractions. Apparently, Israeli parents tried them and hated the collective parenting and care of children – they wanted time with their own kids, and only their own kids. It makes sense to me.
@ Tom #210
Okay, I was wrong about you being a woman. It’s just that in most cases, women argue using shaming language and Not All Women Are Like That thinking.
Similarly, in most cases, a promiscuous girl isn’t a good bet for a girlfriend or a wife, since commitment-oriented men aren’t as exciting as promiscuous alphas, and promiscuous women mostly have sex with alphas who don’t commit. Once they’ve tasted it, they can’t get enough of it, so they will be dissatisfied with a stable man. You may have gotten lucky, but most men can’t count on being the exception.
Sorry to hear about your first wife dying. Must’ve sucked; glad you were able to move on.
“consider a woman promiscuous until they are close to 10″
Note that its “up to guys” and not up to women to determine what is marriage material. That is a huge rub and the source of a lot of angst out there
” I could give a rats ass about the double standard, but to deny there is one is just stupid”
How about for ONCE explain how this all-evil so-called “double standard” that YOU PROMOTE AS AN EXISTING PHENOMENON in any way whatsoever affects women negatively as they all seem to be willing and able to fuck anyone anytime with nothing but happy vaginal recipients.
Until this is answered, this double standard thing WILL be denied as being part of social reality and will remain nothing more than a propaganda-against-men shaming phrase and quite frankly a big joke. And yes, just stupid.
“Just1x.. I could give a rats ass about the double standard, but to deny there is one is just stupid.”
it is not a double standard, it is one standard for each sex.
I don’t care if you think that it’s fair, or not, because reality says that that’s how things are. You will not shame men into changing their views.
You don’t share that view – that’s absolutely fine by me – I do not fucking care what you think.
Do not tell young women that they won’t be judged by the majority of men for having a high number – because they will be. I care about those women. I don’t want them to be victims of the hateful feminist dogma.
Caring about a slutty background is hard wired into the majority of men, it will NOT be changed by feminist shaming. Give young women the truth and then let them make whatever decision that they want – that is their right. It isn’t yours to deny them.
Perhaps feminists do, but personally I’d have no problem with it. I don’t know why any innocent woman would.
@Chris:
Spot on. This is one of the worst books I have read – tendentious, ill-informed and utterly implausible. It has attracted attention only because its conclusions are politically popular with feminists.
@Chris
I love Evolvify! Thanks for the links.
If I’ve been pumped and dumped by a man that I genuinely cared about does that makes me a slut?
How long did you know him/wait before doing the deed? I’d be curious how long one must be with someone before you ‘genuinely care’ about someone.
@Angel
no it doesn’t, sorry to hear that it occurred.
All kinds of women get P&D, sluts, non-sluts, good, bad, ‘human’. HUS is a good place to try and make the best of the SMP, but nobody said that it was easy (or fair).
Susan is your friend.
it is not a double standard, it is one standard for each sex.
__________which means a double standard…lol
you have men..you have women there is a standard for each…that means two standards which means double…..quit knit picking. Its obvious men for the most part get away with being dogs while women get shamed. I dont care if it is fair or not, I just dont care, but the fact is it exists.
I have stated here many times, because of the existing double standard, most women would be wise to keep a low number and I think what Susan does here is worthwhile.
Really I think there is much adew about nothing. Less than 5% of all women would be considered promiscuous by most men. So 95% of women have no problem what so ever.
@MCB #161:
“Re: Obsidian’s repeated warnings about the Black family, which appear to fall on increasingly deaf ears:
In 1972, I was sitting in a bar in a “transitional” neighborhood, meaning one that was passing from working class White to Black. Four of us, two Black and two White, worked the midnight shift at the chemical plant (unionized, wow, that dates me), usually met for beer t the tavern after work at 7am. A discussion ensued.
One Black guy wanted to find a good girl and settle down – have kids and buy a house, etc. That resonated with us White guys and we went, -yeah, that’s great, Grover, good idea.
But Smitty wasn’t having it. My ladies pay me, he said, and I keep my factory money. He had four girls on rotation, babies with each one of them. This was in 1972. Grover asked Smitty how he did it. Smitty, predictably, grabbed his crotch, ‘my d1 ck drives ‘em crazy. they can’t do without it’”
O: Bang (pardon the pun), there it is; need I say more?
“Over the time we worked together, I met some of Smitty’s ‘ladies’. They weren’t exclusive to Smitty, of course, but when I brought Smitty up to them, they got that far away look in their eyes and told me to tell Smitty if I ever see him to tell him to ‘come on by. No one lays it down like Smitty.’”
O: Fact: Black folks have a much higher rate of concurrent sexual partners than anyone else, this is per CDC data. Banks talks about this in his book. And yea, don’t kid yourselves – Sistas LOVE the Magic Stick. Where I come from we have what’s known as “Two A Piece, No Release” – that’s where you bust multiple nuts in the same session, without any refractory period (guys know what I’m talking about). Trust me, your Women WILL either pass out, or go right to sleep afte you’re done, LOL.
“Fast forward to the late 80s. I’m working as a welfare worker (AFDC, predecessor to TANF). Smitty keeps coming up time and again as the absent father of some of my clients’ older kids. I mention that I knew Smitty back in the day. They get all absent-eyed and sigh ‘They ain’t no one out there these days like ol’ Smitty.’”
O: *nods*
“But that kind of behavior had spread to the urban white proletariat. As more and more factory jobs starting disappearing under Reagan, Bush and Clinton, I saw more and more young white girls coming in with multiple babies by multiple daddies. The one thing that struck me was how sexually accomplished these daddies were.”
O: *More nodding*
“If you ever find my kid’s daddy, you send him on by. I passed out in back of the truck it was so good.”
O: Ahem…
“That loser? Haven’t seen him in two years. ‘Can’t hold a job but he shore knows how to fvck. Ain’t had it like that since he left.’”
O: Gun Game can and will go a long way…
“Had four with the first one, and six with the second. Those guys di’n’t take ‘no’ for an answer. Not that I put up much of a fight.”
O: How can they resist?
“The kids? Completely feral. Yet, somehow I got the feeling that if we ever got hit by a nuclear holocaust, a pandemic, or Peak Oil, or some other dislocating event, these kids would survive and my gently raised little sprouts would wilt like daffodils before a smelter.”
O: Dig this (looks at Ms. Hope): these guys live in places like Philly, NYC, DC, B’More, Chitown, L.A., New Orleans, Houston, ATL – some of the most violent, volatile places ON THE PLANET. Here in Philly, the cops confiscated something like 1300 firearms between Jan and Jun of this year – think about that. In the Chi, they’ve had one of the worst crimewaves, mostly involving shootings, since the 90s. Same deal here. Any of these places is on par with, if not worse, than Baghdad, Kandahar, Mogadishu, Kinshasha, or the former war torn Kosovo – all official war zones, United Nations designated. On the streets the term “soldier” is a term of endearment, and its very real. Trust me when I tell you, if you can make on the streets of any of these inner cities, you can make it anywhere.
“So, maybe it is a Darwinian thing. One of the most important questions you can ask yourself is if the next five years will be like the preceding five years, or whether they will be radically different. The overwhelming tendency is to answer that question in the affirmative. But imagine a Russian aristocrat asking himself that question in 1914, or a Polish Jew in 1938.”
O: My guess is that things will continue as they are in the respective social classes of American life; the UMC that is the bread and butter of HUS will continue along the lines Ms. Kay Hymowitz has discussed, ala “the mission”, while the classes you saw in your days as a factory worker and social worker will continue to do their thing.
The wildcard here is the middle class, and they’ve really been taking it on the chin. Already we have evidence that OOW births are going up there, both among White AND Asian Women(!) of late, though in both cases, nowhere near the levels that is true for Black folks. My sense is that these numbers will slowly creep upwards, while the UMC fights like hell (take note again: HUS was born at least in part, as a direct rersult of these mating trends) to stave off what’s happening to middle class White America. How long will they last? Unknown…
“Maybe the ‘ghetto-mama’ mating strategy is a way of throwing a lot of human DNA at the wall in preparation for a coming dislocation, a sort of a man-made Toba eruption , in order to see what will stick.”
O: Hmm…
“Indeed, some intellectually alert Black people seem to want to institurtionalize this kind of behavior.”
O: I’ll need to look into this; thanks for the link!
O.
@Mule
From the NY Times article on OOW births:
Clearly, there are several things at work. It’s noteworthy that cohabitation accounts for most of the increase, rather than the revolving door of baby daddies. And education is increasingly prominent as a class divider, though that obviously overlaps with race as well.
Overall, I don’t think it seems as straightforward as Black America being the canary in the coal mine. Check out this description of women going for the bad boys:
Why women would have children by these knuckleheads is beyond me. Their sons are likely to be as bad as the fathers! Is this really the “sexy sons” theory at work?
How about for ONCE explain how this all-evil so-called “double standard” that YOU PROMOTE AS AN EXISTING PHENOMENON in any way whatsoever affects women negatively as they all seem to be willing and able to fuck anyone anytime with nothing but happy vaginal recipients.
_________________
Ok abott I`ll bite
it doesnt effect most women negitively. 95% of women are not considered promiscuous. so the women who may think it isnt fair is a very small percentage.
Judge not and yee shall not be judged….lol
Well, the comments today have made for some particularly interesting lunch-break reading.
Isn’t this whole one (separate) standard, for each sex, all put of the Red Pill?
no LOL it doesn’t. wow, just wow, hmmmmm
a double standard implies that the different populations are arbitarily determined, at root equivalent apart from a slight difference. they aren’t. egg-layers and seed-sprayers have fundamental differences (I don’t believe in blank slate – remember?)
two distinct populations + two different rules does not make a double standard.
I’m afraid that I can’t cater for your lack of intellect further than that.
And finally, don’t deceive people that their count doesn’t matter. I am no supporter of man-whores any more than I am of sluts. Society has different standards – not me. Don’t throw young women under the bus just because it fits your dogma. They are likely to suffer, I care about that. you? I don’t give a shit about.
@JQ
I suspect you’re right. I think everything should be on the table. It’s just too easy to hear something, think, “Huh, that makes sense.” and boom, we’re spreading the word that this is the way the world works.
While I am interested in how and why we got here, it’s much more effective for me to stay focused on assessing the environment, and then strategizing ways of creating benefits within it.
Yes I do, and their numbers are increasing, as evidenced by online dating as well as press coverage. Kate Bolick is the most famous, but quite a few have written spinster lit memoirs in the last few years. Most of them confess having spent their 20s making “poor choices.” And now there’s a whole movement praising “single life” as noble and “friend families” as better than biological families.
@susan
I think tom was referring to women who couldn’t get married specifically because of their “number”, not because they wasted too much time and were too choosy. I suspect he is right, but that doesn’t mean they fared as well as to who they could marry. And, of course, very good looking women probably have more leeway, though they are probably less likely to have the high N in the first place.
Also, Tom is proabably also right in that most people outside the manosphere and it’s adjacent circles are operating on more of a don’t ask don’t tell policy.
@Ms. Walsh #222:
“Why women would have children by these knuckleheads is beyond me. Their sons are likely to be as bad as the fathers! Is this really the “sexy sons” theory at work?”
Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-Marriage/dp/0520241134
I’ve actually chatted a bit with these authors; I asked them if they interviewd the baby daddies at all, and I got a lot of hemming and hawing. Then I asked them if they were familiar with the work of Lionel Tiger of Rutgers, and they said they were. Still more hemming and hawing.
I am telling you Ms. Walsh, there be lots of PC bias, White Knighting, and just a big hole where studies involving guys are concerned.
O.
@Ms. Walsh #227:
“Yes I do, and their numbers are increasing, as evidenced by online dating as well as press coverage. Kate Bolick is the most famous, but quite a few have written spinster lit memoirs in the last few years. Most of them confess having spent their 20s making “poor choices.” And now there’s a whole movement praising “single life” as noble and “friend families” as better than biological families.”
O: Yea, but why doesn’t someone call these Women out for the delusional people they are? I remember your post on Bolick and thinking that you should have told her the deal. Here she is trying to make a buck on all that stuff and foist it on other Women. It’s whacked and you know it.
O.
“it doesnt effect most women negitively.”
When it does, what exactly is the affect? So far, NO answer.
“you have men..you have women there is a standard for each”
Exactly who or what is determining this standard for each? How are these standards being broadcast so that women and men know what they are? Until answers are provided, it will remain a fact that women create their own standards and men create their own as well.
“men for the most part get away with being dogs while women get shamed.”
Who or what enables men to get away with whatever and who or what is shaming women? No answer means no truth and no infantile double standard claims.
“because of the existing double standard, most women would be wise to keep a low number”
People are wise to keep a low number because it is wise. Since no examples of how this DS affects anyone have been given, it does not exist so there must be another reason good women act accordingly.
@M3
2 months. Once we slept together he stopped be sweet and attentive. I was hesitant to be with him because he was in a fraternity but he told me he went inactive because he hated it but come to find out he had been kicked out. He had lied to me about a lot of things. I guess I’m asking because the whole situation made me feel disgusting.
“operating on more of a don’t ask don’t tell policy”
Yeah, nothing like a powder keg foundation with a short glowing fuse
“Most of them confess having spent their 20s making “poor choices.” And now there’s a whole movement praising “single life” as noble and “friend families” as better than biological families.”
This is clear evidence that such women prefer to do the best they can with the cards they dealt themselves rather than appease men. This is welcome news since maybe this trend will reduce the number of dupers who develop numbermentia.
Why are there all kinds of new readers recommending Sex at Dawn?
Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Christopher Ryan:
Here are some other choice nuggets from Ryan:
Meanwhile, Brad Wilcox of the National Marriage Project in the NYXs:
It seems very clear to me that Ryan has an agenda here – he is not a dispassionate scientist in the way that Helen Fisher is (who also speaks about female promiscuity, but without the same investment in the outcome).
Ryan is selling open marriage. Why is that?
Hey Danny good to see you!
Wouldn’t Game be the sneaky fucker strategy? Beta sneaks in disguised as alpha? (Playing devil’s advocate here.) The friendzone strategy can’t possibly be the primary human example precisely because it doesn’t work. Surely human beings are better able to produce alternative or satellite mating strategies than any other species.
@Tom
You’re pyramiding swampland here.
I posit that those kids living in third-world conditions would survive several doomsday scenarios far better than the “feral” kids spawned by some sexually attractive alpha in the inner city.
Those third world kids have real life skills, can harvest water from wells, already survive heat, famine, disease and intense poverty, and have extremely hardy immune systems. Those inner city kids have the edge on violence and sex.
So, doomsday scenarios:
1) Nuclear/global warfare, infrastructure breakdown. Third world kids survive because attacks would be concentrated in the big cities that wipe out those populations first. They have no need for modern infrastructure to survive because they are already surviving.
2) Deadly disease. Crowded cities spread disease more quickly and can kill off masses of people, but sanitary conditions are poor in rural, underdeveloped areas. Innate immunity would help, lending an edge to those who have been exposed to a greater variety of pathogens.
3) Natural disaster. Earthquakes, flooding, bad weather, etc. If one survives the first wave, violence may or may not help in the ensuing chaos in a city. In the aftermath of Katrina for example, those who could afford it left the city and went elsewhere. The ghetto kids would be the ones staying and relying on other people’s assistance. On the other hand, undeveloped nations also rely on international aid during disasters. This is a draw.
So I do not see the inherent survival / evolutionary advantage of the out-of-wedlock, no father kids Mule Chewing Briars mentioned vs. a more traditional family structure, hard-working and hardy kids born into a marriage, with parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and other next-of-kin who are all known and stable quantities.
@Ms. Walsh #237:
“Wouldn’t Game be the sneaky fucker strategy? Beta sneaks in disguised as alpha? (Playing devil’s advocate here.) The friendzone strategy can’t possibly be the primary human example precisely because it doesn’t work. Surely human beings are better able to produce alternative or satellite mating strategies than any other species.”
O: Very good questions.
1. Game *can* be a variation of the “sneak f*cker” strategy (figured you’d like that name, LOL!), IF the guy doesn’t internalize it (aka, Inner Game). Hope that makes sense.
2. The friend strategy *can* work, it’s just that it has a very high failure rate; Buss puts it at about 80% based on studies done. But from an Evo POV, ANYTHING that worked even a fraction of the time, was considered beneficial from the standpoint of mating and reproduction. So we’re talking about a sliding scale of effectiveness here.
3. And finally, mate poaching would come under the “sneaky f*cker” umbrella, too, something else that Buss discusses in his book(s). I’m not sure about the pass/fail rate of this, though.
O.
Susan, can you elaborate on #237?
@Ms. Hope #239:
“I posit that those kids living in third-world conditions would survive several doomsday scenarios far better than the “feral” kids spawned by some sexually attractive alpha in the inner city.”
O: Name the city, and let’s compare stats.
“Those third world kids have real life skills, can harvest water from wells, already survive heat, famine, disease and intense poverty, and have extremely hardy immune systems. Those inner city kids have the edge on violence and sex.”
O: Says you. Have you seen Spike Lee’s documentary?
“1) Nuclear/global warfare, infrastructure breakdown. Third world kids survive because attacks would be concentrated in the big cities that wipe out those populations first. They have no need for modern infrastructure to survive because they are already surviving.”
O: Tell that to the Japanese…
“2) Deadly disease. Crowded cities spread disease more quickly and can kill off masses of people, but sanitary conditions are poor in rural, underdeveloped areas. Innate immunity would help, lending an edge to those who have been exposed to a greater variety of pathogens.”
O: Most African Americans are Southern and (more) rural to begin with, but OK let’s play. African Americans have a higher rate for all kinds of illnesses and infections and yet we’re still here. Next?
“3) Natural disaster. Earthquakes, flooding, bad weather, etc. If one survives the first wave, violence may or may not help in the ensuing chaos in a city. In the aftermath of Katrina for example, those who could afford it left the city and went elsewhere. The ghetto kids would be the ones staying and relying on other people’s assistance. On the other hand, undeveloped nations also rely on international aid during disasters. This is a draw.”
O: Again: have you seen Spike Lee’s documentary? That would be a yes or no.
“So I do not see the inherent survival / evolutionary advantage of the out-of-wedlock, no father kids Mule Chewing Briars mentioned vs. a more traditional family structure, hard-working and hardy kids born into a marriage, with parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and other next-of-kin who are all known and stable quantities.”
O: Somehow MCB’s life experience, up close and personal, with such people beats out your ruminations from the safe confines of the Utah plains. Hmm, I’ll take MCB’s word for it…
O.
Mule Chewing Briars wasn’t talking about rural southern African Americans.
My husband had real life, up close and personal experiences with Africans.
The inner city with ghettoized kids isn’t an attractive place to be, as Ted D has attested.
Finally, Utah has a huge rate of gun ownership and disaster preparation.
@Tom
+1
The double standard is a feminist theme that is based on the assumption that the sexes are biologically wired the same way. We know that is not true, there is ample hard scientific research to prove it. Therefore, different standards are appropriate wherever there are differences, and they will be set by the opposite sex. You can cry about it for the next ten years, it won’t make a bit of difference.
@Ms. Hope:
“Mule Chewing Briars wasn’t talking about rural southern African Americans.”
O: He wasn’t? How do you know – because from his post, he didn’t specify for certain. Unless you know…?
“My husband had real life, up close and personal experiences with Africans.”
O: So have I. How many countries?
“The inner city with ghettoized kids isn’t an attractive place to be, as Ted D has attested.”
O: Which goes precisely to my point. Any one of them is on par or worse than the aforementioned officially designdated war zones.
“Finally, Utah has a huge rate of gun ownership and disaster preparation.”
O: When people think “inner city warzone”, Salt Lake City somehow just doesn’t come to mind…
O.
@Susan
“You’re pyramiding swampland here”
could you provide a translation please?
I’m still smarting that no-one asked what ‘J Arthur’ meant (a couple of days ago, another thread(?). If you explain the pyramiding thing, I promise not to explain what J.A. means – because it’s just the right thing to not do)
“different standards are appropriate wherever there are differences, and they will be set by the opposite sex. You can cry about it for the next ten years, it won’t make a bit of difference.”
If a standard is set by the opposite sex or just another person why is there such trepidations? Could it be that some people are just more sensitive to the opinions of others? If woman truly are independent in terms of thought, why would they care about what men think of them or anything else? If they do not like men with certain attitudes why can’t women just avoid them and keep company with others?
@Susan,
” The friendzone strategy can’t possibly be the primary human example precisely because it doesn’t work.”
Well, it may not be a primary strategy, but it’s success rate isn’t 0%. Heck, it worked for me during my the most beta of my grad school days, and I’ve seen it work enough to keep “hope” alive in a poor beta’s heart. Problem is, it doesn’t work very often, and even if it does, more often than not, it works only for the short term…
Told her what deal? Her two previous relationships were with men 11 years younger than herself. She knew what was up. And she’s not foisting anything on anyone. She got approached for both a book deal and a TV show based on that one article in the Atlantic.
I call that honest work. I have no problem with her planning the second half of her life with the recognition that she may not marry and have children. In fact, I respect it.
@Ms. Walsh #249:
“Told her what deal?”
O: That she was f*cking up, that’s what.
“Her two previous relationships were with men 11 years younger than herself. She knew what was up. And she’s not foisting anything on anyone. She got approached for both a book deal and a TV show based on that one article in the Atlantic.”
O: No, just the wider culture is that you’re fighting tooth and nail against (the hookup scene is connected to this in some ways).
“I call that honest work. I have no problem with her planning the second half of her life with the recognition that she may not marry and have children. In fact, I respect it.”
O: Hmm…that explains some things…
O.
@ENY
Kind of like hooking up leading to relationships 12% of the time. I guess that would be the female version :-/
“So I do not see the inherent survival / evolutionary advantage of the out-of-wedlock, no father kids Mule Chewing Briars mentioned vs. a more traditional family structure, hard-working and hardy kids born into a marriage, with parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and other next-of-kin who are all known and stable quantities.”
Especially considering that a large part of those stably brought up kids live int he countryside and so are better placed than inner city kids and have some relevant skills for surviving.
@Susan #244
“The double standard is a feminist theme that is based on the assumption that the sexes are biologically wired the same way. We know that is not true, there is ample hard scientific research to prove it. Therefore, different standards are appropriate wherever there are differences, and they will be set by the opposite sex. You can cry about it for the next ten years, it won’t make a bit of difference”
Ahhhh, so much more succinctly put *bows to your superior skills*.
No swearing either, must try that some time…
I hadn’t realised til today how closely feminists’ attitude to young women mirrors trad-so-cons’ attitude to young males.
Don’t listen to how men think of sluts, do what you want with sex, there will be no consequences because that would be unfair.
vs
Don’t look at the 50% divorce rate, marry someone, any consequences are because you married the wrong woman / were not man enough.
Neither POS movement gives a crap about the proles. One only cares about their dogma (blank slate), the other about society (that’s society == women). Neither give a crap about men, one pretends to care about young women.
@Susan
Re: NYT article on the rise of single mothers
I’ve known a few women in this exact situation: Cohabitating with some guy, lotsa stuff is there out of convenience rather than intended planning. I.e. cheaper to live together, split rent. It feels “safer” to many as either one can leave at any time. (Although this would make me CRAZY, as I would be growing more committed by the day and would have to abdicate my desire for a true commitment to a live-BF’s indefinite decision.)
Plus, some people feel they are moving more towards marriage by living with someone, rather than being on their own, even if they’re not serious about the guy. (Even though I disagree with this, personally.)
Basically, it’s a relationship of convenience, now way more socially acceptable than Peggy on Mad Men. Until a baby shows up! I think, too, that a lot of these women are pro-life, and can’t conceive of aborting.
Once that happens, it puts everything in stark contrast: There are so many life-changing things happening. The mom tends to get WAY more serious, as she’s about to bring a new human into the world. They realize the guy is never going to step up and marry them, and they decide they’d rather be a single mom.
I can’t even conceive of the amount of work before them. “Single motherhood” of cats is more than enough for me!
@Just1X
Pyramiding swampland was a Ponzi scheme in Florida in the early part of the 20th c. Unscrupulous men (including my husband’s paternal grandfather) went down there and sold the same “beautiful lot” (really a swamp) many times over to unsuspecting buyers.
Tom is trying to sell a product here for which there is no market. You can only sell that to Blue Pillers, i.e., unsuspecting buyers.
I didn’t even realize I missed a joke with J. Arthur. Now you have to tell us! BTW, I like how you said you were not getting “fussed.”
J Arthur is short for (British Film Producer) J Arthur Rank.
So it’s British rhyming slang for Wank (fap).
As is common with rhyming slang, you need to complete the phrase before you know what has to rhyme. Similarly, ‘Going out for a Ruby’, Ruby Murray => Curry (it’s not all rude).
I remember a Miami Vice episode with Phil Collins where he called Izzey a wanker. He then went on to translate a tool etc etc
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=j%20arthur
Oh what a ‘rich’ ‘culture’ we have.
Oh, and thanks. Pyramid selling swampland – ta
‘fussed’?
wasn’t me, or maybe you mis-typed?
@Ms. Walsh #251:
“Kind of like hooking up leading to relationships 12% of the time. I guess that would be the female version :-/”
O: This is exactly what it is, the mirror image of the “friendzone/FWB” strategies. Women hookup to get the relationship; Men offer friendship to get the sex. Neither has a very high success rate, though both strategies *can* work, some of the time.
You really like that “sneaky f*cker” referencem dontcha? LOL
O.
@J1X;
Isn’t the whole rhyming thing you Brits do come out of the Cockney subculture? We do it here in America too, though its a bit dated; can’t recall what we used to call it, I think it was the Name Game, or some other. Anyway, I recall the whole Cockney rhyming thing in To Sir, With Love (one of my favorite movies) with Sidney Poitier. Very interesting mix of cultures you Brits have over there!
O.
For the historically challenged (gol durned youngsters) Phil Collins was the Vocalist/Drummer for a pre-historic group in the seventies and eighties – Genesis.
Genesis – Land of Confusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac-wto_Ur6A
(with added Ronnie Reagan and Bonzo the chimp goodness)
ahhh the student memories and the poster on my student digs’ wall.
Phil is the source of that (UK only?) Cadbury’s advert with a gorilla drumming
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy52yueBX_s )
@Obs
yeah, mostly called Cockney rhyming slang. Cockneys are those born within the sound of Bow Bells in London. It’s supposed to have been evolved to stop the plod/pigs/coppers (police) listening in on conversations. (it did spread a bit, but you’re right)
Apples – Apples and Pears – Stairs
Trouble – Trouble and Strife – Wife
Dog – Dog and Bone – Phone
Chalfonts – Chalfont St Giles (a place) – Piles
Did you see the Genesis video?
So many famous faces from the past. Some of them lasted for so much longer than you’d expect Col. Khaddafi, teh Queen, others died years ago Princess Diana, Ayatollah Khomeni (sp?)
a real blast from the past. they were ‘Spitting Image’ characters, a TV show of the time. The French still have a daily news / current affairs show using something similar.
@J1X:
Yea, I gotta peep the vid. Phil Collins had a huge following over here in the States back in the day; I saw a bit of a very interesting VH1 “Behind the Music” special on him. Good stuff.
Oh, and another thing I used to watch quite a bit was a soap opera called The East Enders. And of course there’s Masterpiece Theatre with Aleister Cook. Yo, you know they dismembered his body and sold him for parts not far from my hometown Philly (over in NJ) – whew!
O.
——>
luffs his Tia.
I vaguely remember the Cook thing. IIRC he died of cancer aged ‘lots’ and they sold his body parts for transplant…
You watched Eastenders? (still going BTW), wasn’t real life depressing enough? At least Aussie Neighbours had Kylie in it (ohh yeah!) love that petite scrumptiousness. I will have happy dreams tonight…cheers (and good night)
Here in Philly, the cops confiscated something like 1300 firearms between Jan and Jun of this year – think about that. In the Chi, they’ve had one of the worst crimewaves, mostly involving shootings, since the 90s. Same deal here.
Come now. Gangbangers with Tec-9s they hold sideways have little chance against middle class men who go deer hunting twice a year, and forget about the southern country boys patiently waiting for Round 2 to kick off. In the scenarios proposed, the inner city soldiers will be getting picked off at range by scoped rifles before they get anywhere close to the women, children, and food.
The survival advantage that MCB mentions is simple r selection, which means numbers. And typically, unless the numbers are completely overwhelming, K selected types massacre them. This has been witnessed in military history since the Assyrians were spending their summer vacations crossing the river and burning cities.
I don’t think Tom is wrong. A lot of guys will be somewhat accepting of a wild girl, and there is actually some value in that. Not all sluts are irredeemable, it just takes a lot of hard work, and she has to be stellar to make up for her past bad choices.
Deti thinks the same thing.
Abbott is also correct that trying to accept this requires a lot of effort on the guy’s part as well, and a lot of guys are not going to want to put in this effort. Good god…that “effort” can suck.
Asking college guys what constitutes a slut is irrelevant. Their LTR filters aren’t activated yet. The reason most of the guys here are anti-slut and fervently so is BECAUSE most of the guys here filter for LTRs and they do it intelligently, aggressively, and with no remorse.
They may be slut shamers, but I imagine they are, on average, FAR better marriage prospects than the average American man.
@Tom
Our society used to shame promiscuity in BOTH genders. The so called “double standard” began when women started to let promiscuity slide from men.
Men, on the other hand, have opted to keep the set of standards they always have.
Women could end the “double standard” tomorrow if they started holding men to the same standards men hold them to.
I also recall one honest account where a father described his young son asking him why he slept with a new woman at night instead of his own mom.
This and
So, from the perspective of children, poly/communal/multi-female/multi-male arrangements are NOT appealing whatsoever.
One of the things I’m learning with my pregnancy is that babies/kids might be the perfect machines of survival, aside from their features that are designed to awake the protection instinct according to evobio. They recognize their mother smell, skin and all that and latch onto her as a way to keep the most invested person in their well being around, but then the second person around also gets a role. My baby recognizes my husband’s voice and moves differently if you think about it the baby edges their bets to attach to the people they think are more likely to care for them, and the only thing that can indicate this is the amount of time they spent around. A revolving door means no one cares enough to stick around and also means that the resources might be compromised at some point (they could take things with them). IME even males despise their fathers philandering ways towards their mother, regardless if they eventually do the same. So I would say kids are probably a good thermometer of how the parents should behave for their well beings, at least kids that are too young to get brainwashed, YMMV.
The kids? Completely feral. Yet, somehow I got the feeling that if we ever got hit by a nuclear holocaust, a pandemic, or Peak Oil, or some other dislocating event, these kids would survive and my gently raised little sprouts would wilt like daffodils before a smelter.
No one can really predict this things, we had a lot of homos that were war machines, and yet the fact that they were specialized on one thing let to their own demise. That is what many people theorize made the Neanderthals go extinct culturally (even though we have some of their DNA on us they were absorbed) so who knows. It might be that whatever disaster hits them hardest or that they will survive the disaster but are unable to organize anything beyond Wild West version of the future and we know how things were back there, so yeah don’t claim the winners of the zombieapocalypse just yet, one never knows…
@Jimmy H
“Our society used to shame promiscuity in BOTH genders. The so called “double standard” began when women started to let promiscuity slide from men.”
Jimmy, can you specifically identify this? When men were shamed for promiscuity? I think that it’s always been OK for men, as long as it was :under the radar” and not overt.
Because I think that the “double standard” has always existed– whether during a “wholesome era” like the 1950s (Mad Men does a good job of showing how) or Game of Thrones type eras, where women were basically madonnas or whores, with nothing really in between.
There is a great fiction book– although incredibly brutal– that shows this divide, “_Slammerkin_ by Emma Donoghue (I think? Irish author). As weird as it is, I think the pozzies and feminists (of both genders) are the people who have erased the double standard the most.
PS: Before you get mad at me, I would LOVE for promiscuity to be societally “wrong” for both sexes!
@JH again
“Women could end the “double standard” tomorrow if they started holding men to the same standards men hold them to.:
Again, this would be completely awesome! But I don’t think this has ever happened in human history, outside of plays like Lysistrata.
If you read about societies– even today– where fornication is outlawed (Saudi countries, UAE, etc), where women are chaste, there is still a TON of prostitution. Besides that, it’s not really the women holding the standards, is it? It’s the other men.
I would be thrilled to rule Prudelandia as its queen, where promiscuity would cause you to be an outcast! But I can’t think of a society where this has occurred, outside of communities like the Shakers, who were in fact, bound by celibacy. Please correct me– I would be love to be wrong about this.
Jimmy, can you specifically identify this? When men were shamed for promiscuity? I think that it’s always been OK for men, as long as it was :under the radar” and not overt.
It was was more practically enforced for the average male than shamed, IMO. As mentioned before you cannot shame men.
But think about it the average male didn’t had the charms to attract the sluts, if he wanted to opt out he needed to use prostitutes and in small towns this were not a lot of them and everyone would know, they also cost money, money he could use to you know attract a young virgin with gifts and displays of status. And once married do you think the church/parents will let them spent money on prostitutes when his kids needed food and shelter? And wives were usually willing and compelled to fulfill their duties except on extreme circumstances like period, childbirth and pregnancy.
The thing is most people remember the big men with tons of women but the majority of those women wouldn’t had risk their reputation/resources for an average guy, they have a lot to lose by become sluts, and you can’t even count poligamy given that you could only have as many wives as you could support (poor men couldn’t have that many) and if you had sex with a virgin you were to marry her or will be heavily penalized, the same for adultery even though it was about sleeping with the wife of another man it was really tricky and both could die on the bible or the husband could kill them both out of rage. The logistics of cheating/promiscuity for the average male were really, really tricky.
I would say probably slavery on places like Rome were more prone to the average men using his slaves as supplemental sex workers, but not sure how was that worked out other environments like America (I’m sure Obsidian can expand on that)
It would be great if we could actually find out how many of this men actually cheated on or had tons of women. I think we as society would be surprised of how little they actually did, YMMV.
If you read about societies– even today– where fornication is outlawed (Saudi countries, UAE, etc), where women are chaste, there is still a TON of prostitution.
Really? I have a friend that went to middle east and sick of not getting laid asked to get a prostitute and it took him a lot of time and it was a covered girl he was supposed to do it and not look at her. He wasn’t into that. Of course this was on the 60′s (really old friend, traveled a lot on his youth). But if my current reports are right they bring white women to prostitute themselves on this countries so not sure if this was the norm all through history, again if you have links I would love to read them.
@Ana
I also just thought of something:
Ana, great post (as usual).
A big divide happened when men stopped “having to get married” to women they impregnated. That was a big game-changer, I bet. Before, the guy was basically enforced into a role, as was the girl, like you said, through community standards.
Also, being the “head of the house” really had a great deal more of social cache then it does now, I think. My maternal grandfather (king of the alphas
) basically was waited on hand and foot by my grandmother, ruled the house, ruled the money, his word was law.
It would have looked *weird* to not be married, and I bet it would have hurt his career, social life and other things.
@Ana
Hi again Ana,
Most of the prostitutes in Saudi Arabia are Nigerian, Ethiopian and Indian. Typically, they will come on a pilgrimage and stay behind. BTW, the punishment for prostitution is flogging — something like 80 lashes
— or prison. Coincidentally, alcohol is strictly forbidden and under the same punishment.
Here is a link for you from the Beeb (BBC, not Justin Bieber!
) “The Saudi Sleazy Underworld”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1660406.stm
PS: For the super-wealthy oil bajillionaires, they are the ones most likely to get white prostitutes. I’ve heard and read of girls being trapped into human trafficking that way.
Also, some washed-up and faded movie actresses, “models” and even former pageant contestants with drug problems, ended up as very high-priced call girls to these types. CREEPY, and so sad.
@Jackie
I think the monogamy was one of those things that both genders agreed upon on terms they were more or less okay. The men weren’t told “You cannot satiate your variety needs, you totally can if you can sort out this XYZ issues with it”
The women weren’t told “you cannot get the best man you want…You will get him with the help of the family and once in the house he will show you how Alpha he is nothing as Alpha as a husband, obviously”
The problem is that it was too delicately balance out and they kind of forgot to tell us why this things were important and why even though a minority of our members (really rich men and really pretty women) could get away with it the majority of us should stick to it no matter what. So the kids started to question and the answer was “just because”, hence destroying the system seemed innocent enough…how wrong we were.
@Ana
You know, I wonder if that kind of “aspirational” stuff– look at how WELL we live compared to even 30, 40, 50 years ago– somehow got extrapolated to the SMP.
My dad and I were talking the other day. He said that in the 1970s, most people didn’t have AC, only 1 car, no cable, no computer (obviously!), and even a dishwasher was kind of a big deal.
Now look– even today, I saw a panhandler with a fancy cell phone! (Much fancier than my own, I might mention!) And it was like everyone wanted to have the best of everything, immediately, for the cheapest price.
Ana, my parents stuck to the old ways and raised us in the old style. Part of me really wishes that things had never changed. Even though they already had by the time they (my parents) were dating, just not as extreme as today. I would gladly give up the fancy tech stuff to be able to date like they did 50 years ago.
Even though they already had by the time they (my parents) were dating, just not as extreme as today. I would gladly give up the fancy tech stuff to be able to date like they did 50 years ago.
Jackie, just curious..where are you trying to meet men to date. I’m assuming you are looking mostly in active church-goers.
When I was in undergrad, there was this guy who was brilliant and very religious. I know he got married shortly after college, and I’m pretty sure they were both virgins when they married.
I’ve got to think your best route is for elders in your church to try and set you up with some of the men they think could be suitable matches and where they have some sense of the guy’s character.
I guess a lot of people are not familiar with this but I hope I can share this to my friends too.. Anyway, I am really amazed with this post here..
@Mike C
Hey Mike C!
Thanks for asking about this. I am a pretty recent transplant to my metro area, so I am doing what you suggest:
I have found a church that I really like, that has a huge % of 20s-30s. I am part of the YW (Young WOmen’s Group), also the 20s-30s social group.
I will say, though, that “church elders” are not doing squat! Maybe there was a time when matchmaking occurred, but right now it’s DIY.
Basically, I go to the dances they organize (swing dancing, mostly) and I also stick with a group of girls that will go other places to hang out, play games (Settlers of Catan! yay!).
The guys who have asked me out from my church… Mike C, I applaud betas and think they are awesome. But MANY of the guys are… not sure of the right word: How would translate, “At 35, their career is minimum-wage service work, they live at home with momma and they take 2 months of orbiting to ask you out”?
I am cool with a guy saving money and not making scratch, but some of them show “controlling” tendencies, and also, some have put me down for having goals, saving up money (for a wedding, or towards a house). I’m probably playing in a tougher market than Sassy. Maybe Bellita can chime in? She is in the same boat.
In the “real world” they would be what– deltas, gammas? But due to so few guys, they are automatically upgraded on an extremely sharp curve.
Thank you again, Mike, for thinking of me. I have made a kind of “Girl Action Plan” and will be implementing strategies in the weeks ahead.
I would gladly give up the fancy tech stuff to be able to date like they did 50 years ago.
I rather have a combo, the old rules of dating with the new technology without the consumerism and competition aspect of it. I know I’m delusional. Is a dirty job but someone has to do it :p
I’ve got to think your best route is for elders in your church to try and set you up with some of the men they think could be suitable matches and where they have some sense of the guy’s character.
That would be a good choice but then is the church still doing that? I was surprised when I suggested this to some friends that it looks like matchmaking is only done by selective churches and most of them prefer for their people to sort themselves out in a personal way and then “bless” the union. Curious to know if Jackie can actually have this option.
(Settlers of Catan! yay!)
Cat person, nice, smart, pious and a Twilight and Catan fan?! Hope you better have that baby girl soon! Jackie is officially on my list of possible mothers of my kid’s spouses.
@Mike C
Hi again, Mike,
Here is one more experience, from a church friend who set me up with a Christian guy (although not from my denomination): He was really smart, but bankrupt and unemployed. He had his own house– but paid for by his parents. He didn’t own a car, so I had to drive us everywhere. (Not exactly the most “girlish” feeling– having to pick a guy up and drive him home.)
Also, he really pressured me to put out, drink and smoke. And that’s not cool, for someone who claims to be a Christian (the putting out part– I am ok with alcohol, but not overconsumption). Plus, he blatantly looked at other girls on dates and talked about how he was seeing other people all the time.
He was depressed, I think, and pretty overweight. I am totally cool with guys with “meat on their bones” but people should be healthy, or trying to be healthy, I think.
He let me pay for dates. When I told him that I just didn’t think we were a match, he cried and tried to make me feel guilty.
I just felt like the girl who set us up, must have hated me. Maybe I am being unkind? But I would rather be single than date a guy like that. But that is what a LOT of guys in church are like.
@Ana
Thanks, Ana!!
Coming from the heroine of the Dominican Republic, that means quite a lot!
But the only “baby” I have right now has four feet, fur, really sharp claws, and breath like a compost pile. I need to get the right guy first, then begin our HUS Intermarriage Communtiy.
Thanks for the good wishes! If any interesting developments occur, I will be sure to let you know.
Thanks, Ana!!
Coming from the heroine of the Dominican Republic, that means quite a lot!
Heh it looks like you read about my historical name sake
But the only “baby” I have right now has four feet, fur, really sharp claws, and breath like a compost pile. I need to get the right guy first, then begin our HUS Intermarriage Communtiy.
HUSies: The next generation…most happen. Who better to match our kids than with other red pillers. I mostly meant Hope our comrade in HUSiness I know you have two cats now.Funny I like my cat’s breath for some reason.
I’m also feeding two stray cats that like to hang out in our backyard and hubby was joking that I was on my way of becoming a cat lady.
I told him “Honey my options if things didn’t worked out with you was becoming a nun or a cat lady so don’t be surprised if you see cat toys on the backyard one of this days”
Thanks for the good wishes! If any interesting developments occur, I will be sure to let you know.
GOSSIP!!!! Woohooo!!!!
I can totally empathize with what Jackie is up against.
Jackie, it sounds like you’re doing all the right things. Young Adult groups are probably the best place to look. And I’ve also found that the culture (and even what kind of guys are there) can vary a LOT from church to church. But it can be very difficult if you’re living in a more secular city.
Thanks, Emily!
I would hope to be a really good wife and have spent a LOT of time and effort preparing for marriage. Plus, my cats and I are easy to live with and a good cook (well, maybe not the cats so much!)
But, you know, even if I do my very best and it’s not meant to be, I will accept it. I really do walk by faith and trust in God. No matter what happens, I will still strive to live a good life and be the best that I can be.
Hi Jackie,
I really hope you find someone who is a good match for you. The example you gave definitely sounds like it was a bad fit, but let me try to offer a different perspective on a few things.
He was really smart, but bankrupt and unemployed. He had his own house– but paid for by his parents. He didn’t own a car, so I had to drive us everywhere. (Not exactly the most “girlish” feeling– having to pick a guy up and drive him home.)
Ha. Some of this hits home so to speak. Look, it is your prerogative to filter on whatever you want, but I’d encourage you to not focus too much on surface stuff where you could miss a “diamond in the rough”. When I met my fiancee, I was unemployed from professional employment, working part-time as a bouncer, and living with my parents. My car was 12 years old with 100,000+ miles. I drove my car to see her, but she drove everywhere else. Long story short, I think she saw past some of that surface stuff to the person I really was, what had happened to me in my life that got me to that point, and that I had a plan to improve the situation. Fast forward to now, I’ve got a white collar analyst job that puts me probably in the top 25% of wage earners, my own business, and I do all the driving in my 2009 leather interior Maxima. Had she ruled me out earlier because of some of those reasons, we wouldn’t be engaged now, and although it would have been my loss as well, it would have been a big loss for her. Point being, you may want to give a second thought to stuff like this until you at least get to know the person better and can gauge whether it is temporary or permanent.
Also, he really pressured me to put out, drink and smoke. And that’s not cool, for someone who claims to be a Christian
Yeah, clearly this guy didn’t really believe in or abide by Christian principles. I get the sense that your faith is very important to you, so it makes sense this should be an immediate dealbreaker
I don’t think meeting men in conventional ways is going to bear much fruit, especially in a metro area. Susan says you are 9 so I’m assuming you are stunning and literally catch the eyes of men everywhere all the time. The type of guy who is likely to approach you though…say a successful, handsome SMV 8-9 isn’t likely to be compatible with your principles which is why I thought the “set-up” route might be most effective. Its hard for me to understand there aren’t any somewhat successful Christian men who take their faith and principles as seriously as you do.
@Jackie,
“Even though they already had by the time they (my parents) were dating, just not as extreme as today. I would gladly give up the fancy tech stuff to be able to date like they did 50 years ago.”
Mike C. had some good advice. I’ll add another alternative.
STEM guys.
Advantages:
1) Favorable ratios. STEM guys aren’t a majority of women’s cup of tea, so it’s more of a buyer’s market.
2) Lack of competition: STEM guys don’t have many women in their classes/work, so you don’t have as many competitors.
3) Egalitarian: if you find a STEM guy that you fancy, he’ll likely be fairly egalitarian in any relationship…you won’t have to worry about being a doormat, and more than likely, he’ll defer to you on a lot of things.
4) Loyal: Your average STEM guy wasn’t on Punani Island (Anacaona’s term), so he’ll be much more likely to be faithful (and with the lopsided ratios, temptations are harder to come by).
Disadvantages:
1) Beta central…if you don’t like betas, look elsewhere. You can target the greater betas in this group, but anecdoteally, some greater betas have swallowed the red pill, so you may need to screen a bit for incipient cads or find greater betas who don’t want to be cads. If you need more dominance, you may have to look a little more. If you require alphas, well, then look elsewhere.
2) Lack of emotional IQ. Don’t expect a mind reader, though you may be able to train one to be more sensitive to your moods.
3) Different hobbies. You may need to develop a taste for some of his hobbies, though if you play your cards right, you may increase his loyalty to you this way.
If you’re in school, the best way to meet STEM guys is taking classes with them. If you’re not STEM yourself, you can find “Liberal Arts” classes that have lots of STEM guys (most STEM programs require some amount of non-STEM courses). The less socially awkward STEM guys enjoy such classes, as it gives them something different than their regular coursework.
If you’re out of school, then working as STEM companies is one alternative, or relying on social circle to introduce you to guys who work at such companies…
@Mike C
Mike C, you are wise and I will definitely contemplate your words and wisdom in this matter. Thank you!
The “secular” men I dated before him were already quite financially successful; I think I got used to getting nice things all the time and overlooked more sterling qualities of character. Thank you again, MC.
Also: This is something that I realized, I am extroverted once I feel comfortable, but I tend to run away/avoid things that are out of my comfort zone. It took a LONG time lurking before I started posted here, even though it’s still pretty anonymous!
Also, I will be frank: I need to up my “girl game” of emotional escalation, smiling and not running away when a guy indicates interest. I have never done “the heavy lifting” this way, and really need to improve.
I will work on it and let you know how it goes after social this weekend.
On a somewhat related note,
I really enjoy this slightly “manosphere” blog:
http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/
I think she’s evangelical, but a lot of what she says applies to Catholic culture as well. She talks a lot about the challenges of Christian dating, and she’s hard on the girls as well as the guys.
I will say, though, that “church elders” are not doing squat! Maybe there was a time when matchmaking occurred, but right now it’s DIY.
This kind of surprises me. I always thought one of the functions was to try and match up some of younger people.
Basically, I go to the dances they organize (swing dancing, mostly) and I also stick with a group of girls that will go other places to hang out, play games (Settlers of Catan! yay!).
That sounds like fun.
I am cool with a guy saving money and not making scratch, but some of them show “controlling” tendencies
Could you give an example of what you mean by this. To play devil’s advocate, I’m not a Bible scholar, but any guy who takes Christian biblical principles seriously is also probably going to have some very strong views on male/female roles.
and also, some have put me down for having goals, saving up money (for a wedding, or towards a house). I’m probably playing in a tougher market than Sassy. Maybe Bellita can chime in? She is in the same boat.
That isn’t right to put you down for having goals. I think that is a strong suit to have goals. The guys against that probably just don’t have any goals themselves. You might be playing in a tougher market than Sassy…I don’t know. I think it really depends on how selective you are in terms of traditional attractiveness traits versus prioritizing strict adherence to Christian principles. I think the more you try to combine the 2 in the same guy, the more you venture into unicorn territory from a distant galaxy. But I’ve got to think out there is a good Christian man who isn’t horrendous looking, has a good demeanor, and is at least decently successful in terms of employment. There has to be some way to find that lake with just those fish for prospects.
Thank you again, Mike, for thinking of me. I have made a kind of “Girl Action Plan” and will be implementing strategies in the weeks ahead.
I think the type of guy you are looking for might be open to more serious commitment talk earlier in the dating process. To my understanding, “dating” from a Christian perspective really is more about finding a husband and finding a wife, not just dating to kill time. So I would think you would to communicate that objective maybe a bit earlier than in a more secular dating format.
PS: Also, about looks… Susan is way too kind.
You have to remember: My entire life, my mom *never* focused on looks/appearance for me or my sister. She only talked about “good character.”
The only things I heard from family (grandmother) about my appearance was constant flaws– bad bone structure, awful German “blood” wrecking the rest of my heritage, that I would never be reign in a cotillion or pageant. She (my grandmother) used to put me in front of the mirror, point out every flaw, then ask, How can you stand to look like that? after I lost my mom at a pretty young age.
My sister says its called “body dysmorphia” but I have not a lot of confidence in appearance, if that makes any sense.
@Mike C, Em, Ex-NY’er
Hey, I just wanted to say, Thank So Much for the help. You guys are “awesome possums”
It’s *way* late, but I will make sure to re-read, think and reply to you.
Thanks again
Mike C, you are wise and I will definitely contemplate your words and wisdom in this matter. Thank you!
The “secular” men I dated before him were already quite financially successful; I think I got used to getting nice things all the time and overlooked more sterling qualities of character.
Thanks Jackie. What’s the line from Jesus….it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. I think there is something there for you to ponder in evaluating men. Based on what I’ve read and my take on your beliefs, I just have a hard time seeing you having relationships success with a secular man. What’s more important. Someone who believes in the principles you do, of someone who has the earthly “trappings of success”. Something to ponder.
Also, I will be frank: I need to up my “girl game” of emotional escalation, smiling and not running away when a guy indicates interest. I have never done “the heavy lifting” this way, and really need to improve.
I think this is doubly important for you because your principles regarding sexual action. You’ve got to give a potential suitor something to work with. If there is no sexual interest being actualized, and no emotional escalation then the guy really has nothing to go on. In your case, strong emotional escalation can substitute for delaying the sex part. I think Hope’s model is applicable for you.
I will work on it and let you know how it goes after social this weekend
Good luck!
@Jackie
Had I mentioned that my very good husband is agnostic? In my culture is really common for the woman to be the religious one and the family slowly following her included the husband my aunt second husband (she is a widow) took around 20 years to convert to evangelical Christianity but two of her three kids are evangelical now and this is more or less the pattern of the men that had converted to any other religion in my culture: usually through the mother or the wife. Remember that in the Bible God warned men from marrying foreign women that worshiped false idols? And many of the ones that did ended up sinning against the Lord? One of the pastors on the church my cousin visit (I know I’m a bad catholic raised girl going to other churches) said that sometimes the woman can bring a man into the faith.
Just think about it, if you find a good man with all the traits you want and that has not problem with your faith maybe you should think twice before ditching him just because of that. Weirder things had happened. I know a marriage between a democrat and a republican, YMMV
@Jackie, Mike C, Em, ENY
I’m from a religious background and have seen much of what you guys are talking about of trying to find someone within the faith or at least with the same values. There tended to be more single women than men at church. Not allowing premarital sex and other things probably caused the men to leave more, causing the imbalance. But at least in the congregations I was at there were a lot of good guys with good character, varying degrees of charisma and with good current or future careers. A lot of 7-9 MMV kind of guys who were looking to get married, some right away and others eventually. These were guys at high-status grad schools and even though they had no money and no car at the moment in a few years they were going to be doing quite well. There were also a lot of low and medium status guys too. One such guy literally called every girl at church and asked each one out and finally married one of the homelier girls. I’m LMAO remembering some of the stories. Anyway, my point is that I know a lot of good Christian/moral guys who are looking for a relationship with the right girl.
I think Mike’s advice to look for the potential in the guy is huge. Don’t avoid red flags but have your “snipers on the rooftop” stand down a bit to get to know someone a bit more. For example, if he doesn’t have a car but is on a path to have one sooner or later maybe that’s alright. And you could let him drive your car so you can feel like he’s more the man. (And I’m imagining this ending poorly–him crashing or being such an either timid or aggressive driver that you never want to see him again. lol)
Anyway, the examples you gave don’t sound very promising. The guy who pressured you to drink, smoke and put out sounds like a douche. The 35 y/o minimum-wage guys are probably too far below your healthy minimum wage threshold.
I sense a bit of conflict when you were saying that you’re dad told you that they didn’t have as much material stuff in the 70′s and you say that you “would gladly give up the fancy tech stuff to be able to date like they did 50 years ago” but then you also lamenting the low economic status of the Christian guys that ask you out vs the wealthier secular guys and that you “got used to getting nice things all the time and overlooked more sterling qualities of character.” Is receiving gifts one of your love languages? As Mike said you can have whatever criteria you want but I think that honing in on the most important traits you want and realizing which ones are not so important for your happiness is huge.
Finally, have you tried internet dating? Especially sites geared towards people of your faith or values? Like anywhere there are a lot of dweebs and incompatible people but there are some great people too. It’s just one more way to expand your circle of contact. Once you make contact it’s up to you to get to know the person very well. I have a religious friend who met a good guy of her same faith on the internet and they’re married now, expecting their first.
Also, have you thought of either getting a dog, or barring that, getting multiple leashes and figuring out how to walk your cats in the park?
Who knows, maybe there will be some righteous dog walker or even a low-voiced batman out there looking to “save” a classy catwoman from cat-lady purgatory.
Anyway, to sum up, there are good Christian guys out there. They’re just a bit harder to find maybe but patience and a good, realistic plan can help “winkle” them out of hiding, to (mis)-paraphrase Mrs Jennings.
lol. there’s a reason i stay out of your discussions Tia. hope i talk to you soon.
« 1 2 3 4 … 9 »
{ 3 trackbacks }