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 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 »
“He had been rejected over a HUNDRED times.
And still no date or kiss. 
”
How about a thousand approaches and two dates with nothing happening. Every now and then there are guys like that on PUA forums. Two days ago there was a guy celebrating having lost what he called his second virginity because he got laid for the first time in four years. He found PUA two years ago and had worked hard on it since. I am always impressed by guys willing to put in that much effort, suffer that much defeat and work themselves out of such a hopeless situation. I don`t think many would.
@deti
This is going to be a good example of manosphere fuzzy math. Let’s try and get to the bottom of this:
First, let’s eliminate virgins. That leaves 54% of women and 49% of men having had sex with 1-5 partners. If the women are having sex with alphas, then who are the men having sex with? It has to be the women with similar sexual histories, unless, as I mentioned earlier, you believe there are some less experienced guys who get a ONS with a hardcore slut every now and then.
I don’t know how to assign men to Vox’s sociosexual hierarchy based on the data. What percentage of men are deltas and gammas? Does delta and gamma mean virgin? Where do the betas fit in? I believe Vox identified 15 lifetime partners as solid alpha – counting backwards how many partners would those alphas have had by junior year of college? A lot of them would have been in that 1-5 group.
Another clue is in the post I linked to, which compares dating partners to sexual partners. Those numbers are closely aligned. (Note: In college parlance dating = LTR, not going out on dates.) Here are the highlights:
1. Approximately 15% of females and 19% of males have had a dating relationship that did not include sexual intercourse.
2. More than two-thirds of both sexes have had 1-5 relationships in college. Again, 15-20% of these relationships appear to exclude sexual intercourse.
Clearly, the men and women who have had 1-5 sexual partners have had them while in relationships with one another.
This is the virgin crowd. There are slightly more male virgins than female virgins, and slightly more females in the 1-5 range. Clearly, some women with a count of 1 have sex with a guy whose N is 3. But there is no indication these women are stepping out with the 2.2% of males with N over 10.
Yes I do, and that doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said here. If you look at the women and men with high N, the men will in general be much better looking than the women. Conversely, in the 1-5 range, the women will be better looking than the men, hence the college phrase “boyfriends are ugly.”
As for marriage, that’s what I’ve been trying to explain. The high N women, less physically attractive, have no shot at marriage with these guys they’ve been chasing. The guys are unlikely to choose marriage anyway and those who do will try and snag a woman of high MMV.
I predict high MMV women will reject these men, by and large. Again, we’re talking just 2-3% of men here – really high N. It just doesn’t make sense for a woman to select a husband from that pool of cads. She’d be much better off selecting one of the many men in their 20s who have N of 5-15 (which includes Vox’s alphas).
I don’t follow your logic. First, I think most people under 6 are in low N groups. The male hotties are not going to go with 5s and under. They will happily tap 6s and 7s though. Let’s say 20% of the population is 8-10. Of that 20% of males, we know that 10% (or half) at most is slutty. To service them we need just 10% of females, which can easily be supplied by the promiscuous women who are 6-8s. Women who are 9s and 10s are the least likely to be promiscuous.
Does this clear things up? Do you understand that the data simply does not support the claims of men online with low N? If you disagree, on what basis?
@Wudang
I’m wondering about the source of the data for Roosh’s poster. Did he conduct a study with interviews? Since these studies tend to be huge, with N over 1,000 and government funded, I don’t understand how one keyboard jockey could perform such an analysis. Or are you saying the study exists, and he just found it?
The US college data does not support that claim. 3% of women and 2% of men have N over 11 in college.
Another thing at work here is that manwhores are very eager to justify their choices by claiming that they are discerning, and that they are successful in attracting very good looking women. Again, the data just does not support that claim, and evo psych refutes it directly. Good looking college women with low N have zero incentive to have casual sex with high N men. The risk/reward ratio is very, very high.
I do think that when you talk about # of lifetime partners, there are clearly more men than women with very, very high N. Occasionally, the British press features a story of a woman with 1,000 partners and she’s presented as totally nuts. But even then, I don’t see how that requires the man seducing low N women. He might wander the world seeking the sluttiest girls and drive his numbers through the roof. I believe Vincent Ignatius did this back when he blogged, and clearly that’s Roosh’s MO. In that way a guy could get to 300 with women in the 75 range, and even some women with the very low N of 25 in the mix.
@Mike C
This requires the female employing both short- and long-term mating strategies simultaneously, which is not typical, especially since personality traits correlate to mating time orientation. It also supposes that the same woman will be attracted to a low count guy for a relationship, and a high count guy for flings. I have never seen a single woman with dual attraction triggers like this. The alpha chaser has zero desire to lock down a low count guy for a relationship.
Now, if you’re really just describing the alpha carousel —-> beta provider move for women over 30, that might be different, but I remain convinced that is atypical.
@Susan
Just curious.
What percentage of the male population fall into the beta category? (On VDs scale).
My guess would be maybe 10-15% and Alphas the other 10% or less.
The rest of the guys who atleast have sex are the Deltas and Gammas.
I get your point that woman should aim for the Beta but only the SMV 7 and up or so are going to manage it.
So my curiosity, why don’t you recommend the Delta/Gamma men to the Delta/Gamma women but instead encourage them to chase Betas they cannot afford?
@Wudang
The data for American college students is consistent across sources. I use that data for two key reasons:
1. I write about college hookup culture.
2. It’s the SES group I’m writing for and about.
I make no claims whatsoever about sexual behavior among high school dropouts, I’m sure it’s a circus.
How so? From Buss’ Evolution of Desire:
“Compared with their long-term preferences, men who seek casual sex partners dislike women who are prudish, conservative or have a low sex drive. In contrast to their long-term preferences, men value sexual experience in a potential temporary sex partner, which reflects a belief that sexually experienced women are more sexually accessible to them than women who are sexually inexperienced. Men abhor promiscuity in a potential wife but believe that promiscuity is either netural or even mildly desirable in a potential sex partner. Promisciuty, high sex drive, and sexual experience in a woman probably signal an increased likelihood that a man can gain sexual access for the short run. Prudishness signals a difficulty in gaining sexual access and interferes with men’s short=term strategy.”
“Men’s shift in percptions of attractinveness near closing time occurs regardless of how much alcohol has been consumed.”
“The great initial parental investment of women makes them a valuable but limited resource. Reproductive resources cannot be allocated indiscriminately or dispensed to many men. Those who hold valuable resources do not give them away cheaply or unselectively. Evolution favored women who were highly selective about their mates. If a woman walked away from a casual encounter pregnant, she bore the costs of that decision for decades afterward. Today, the pill alters that cost. But sexual psychology evolved over millions of years. We still possess this underlying sexual psychology even though our environment has changed.
Evolution has favored women who prefer men who possess attributes that confer benefits and who dislike men who possess attributes that impose costs.”
In an era when slut shaming is not permissible and sex as empowerment in preached in sex ed programs, this seems extremely unlikely. As we’ve seen from numerous sources, the women most ashamed of their sexual histories are the virgins.
This does happen, but not the way you’re describing. Female freshmen are particularly vulnerable to older male students who run false beta/nice guy game, pretending to be interested in having a hot new college girlfriend. Many have held out for two or three weeks of rapid escalation, only to find that touchdown = game over. That’s the most common form of P&D. True ONSs are rare in college except among the most promiscuous women.
@deti
Eh, that’s not really true. The debate on Father’s Day proved that. The Flying Monkeys read every single comment (not just post, but comment!) on this blog, and I regularly get linked by bloggers I want nothing to do with.
And to be honest, your comments here often reflect that ugly mindset.
Finally, while I don’t read what is said about me elsewhere, I do often get forewarned by readers – your cronies say some vile, vicious, misogynist things about me personally.
All in all, though I have tried, it is difficult to remove this ugliness from my blog entirely.
Susan:
Rooshs poster took the data from a huge study and calculated the percentages. So the numbers are good. The US college data contradcits all other surveys I have seen, and that has been many over the years, about the partner numbers of men and women which show the most promiscuous men having way more partners than the most promiscuous women. If I have to chose betwenn the US college data, and all other studies, I am relying on all other studies. The techniques used by Rooshs poster, of taking the data and calculating what percentage of the total number of sex partners had by men where had by the men with the highest numbers and comparing that to the women is a method that bypasses the problem of the genders lying about the numbers and that method clearly showed the pattern of the top men having had sex with many less promiscuous women. That backs up the findings of virtually all other studies which find the most promiscuous men havign ahd far more partners than the most promiscuous women, which backs the experience of every man I have ever talked to about it and what I see every day and evoloutionary theory.
“Another thing at work here is that manwhores are very eager to justify their choices by claiming that they are discerning, and that they are successful in attracting very good looking women. Again, the data just does not support that claim, and evo psych refutes it directly. Good looking college women with low N have zero incentive to have casual sex with high N men. The risk/reward ratio is very, very high.”
This is utter bullshit and theoretical nonsense. Firstly, as the studies I linked to show, attractive women are higher sociosexuality and have more casual sex than less attractive women. Secondly, I have gone out a lot in my life to clubs and bars and it is just plain false that there is a big gap between the SMV of the men and women who hook up at the end of the night. There IS a disparity and SOMETIMES it is big, but for the most part the men are close to the women in terms of SMV. Sure, there is always some guys that hook up with a woman they would be embarassed to have hooked up with but those are exceptions from the rule. This is plain to see for everyone who goes out. I´ve seen it every weekend for over 10 years. I don`t care what theoretical construction you come up with that is supposed to show otherwise because there is no possible way it works any other way. I`ve seen thousands upon thousands of couplings making out and getting a taxi at the end of the night, I know exactly what kind of SMV women players get with. I also know exactly what level my friends get with and I get with myself and getting casual sex with very hot women IS NOT HARD OR RARE IN ANY WAY.
I have to actually get some work done, but…
What Wudang, Mike C, Ted D and I have been talking about is how to explain the phenomenon of a small group of alphas getting the majority of the sex. It certainly is what it looks like to us.
What we’re saying is we’ve made an observation, obviously at different times and in different places. We are seeing and hearing about women taking momentary rides on the carousel with one or two or three alphas. A woman who is N<5 is going to be VERY selective about who she has sex with. She's not going to give it up to Joe NiceGuy or Bob Bookcarrier. She's going to give it up to an alpha or a player — a fratboy, a college athlete, a very good looking guy. A guy like Zach or Jason. Maybe it's weakness. Maybe it's scratching an itch. Maybe she just wants to have sex with this very gorgeous man. Maybe he lures her into bed with promises of boyfriend lurrrrvv. And you're right — it IS atypical for them. They don't do it all the time. They do it very infrequently, on a lark, on a whim. The alphas dip down into the population of women who are not regular carousel riders.
I know you don't believe it and find it oddly disturbing, but many women have talked about this to me and in my presence. What I hear from just about every woman I've talked to about this is the same thing, every time. It's something like "I just couldn't help myself. Here was this positively beautiful man, he was so charming and sexy. I had to have him, and so I did." MY OWN SISTER told me a similar story.
Susan, the chart that shows even distribution of N between men and women — I can accept the numbers are what they are (but I don't accept that they account for underreporting by women). That chart does NOT prove that all the high N men are sleeping ONLY with all the high N women all the time.
The only reasonable explanation has to be that high N men are, on occasion, sleeping with the not so high N women. It fits with the reports we're hearing. It fits with what we know about how women act when their hypergamous instincts are not restrained — they sleep with the hottest, most attractive men they can find. (Susan, I pointed out above that promiscuous men are that way because they are the most attractive. They get the most sex from the most women. Respectfully, you are ignoring this glaringly obvious fact. I know you know this.)
How else can it be that you have four different men in the SMP in four different locations at different times reporting the exact same experiences and stories? Do you believe all of us are lying about this? What incentive do we have to come here anonymously and lie about such a thing? And please don't say that it supports some sort of MRA "narrative" about "teh wimmminz" (which I don't subscribe to)? Even if you believe that about me, you can't discredit Ted D, or MikeC, or Wudang with that tar brush.
“The data for American college students is consistent across sources. I use that data for two key reasons:
1. I write about college hookup culture.
2. It’s the SES group I’m writing for and about.
I make no claims whatsoever about sexual behavior among high school dropouts, I’m sure it’s a circus.”
No it is not consistent at all. It is directly contradicted by masses of other studies that show the most promiscuous men having more partners. Your focus is college hookup culture but your claims are explicitly about the promiscuity of all men and all women. Ad the data for the poppulation at large supports what men in the manosphere say far more than what you say.
@Esau
A few unhinged bloggers and comments stand out very memorably. I treat them as toxic waste.
This is no game, it’s war. I’m aiming to emulate Artemis, or maybe Calamity Jane.
“In an era when slut shaming is not permissible and sex as empowerment in preached in sex ed programs, this seems extremely unlikely. As we’ve seen from numerous sources, the women most ashamed of their sexual histories are the virgins.”
But, the study where they first asked for numbers of sex partners and then told them they would be checked by a polygraph showed the women increasing their numbers A LOT.
“The alphas dip down into the population of women who are not regular carousel riders.”
aka wife material staining
“In an era when slut shaming is not permissible and sex as empowerment in preached in sex ed programs, this seems extremely unlikely. As we’ve seen from numerous sources, the women most ashamed of their sexual histories are the virgins.”
Exactly so, Susan…
In particular, I know of a beautiful young 21 year old who, when asked by a smooth talking Frenchman (aptly named Frenchy) how many partners she had, had. (this before having sex with him) blurted out 3!
Why? Because, (sadly) she was ashamed to admit that she was a virgin..*sighs..
@Wudang
This horse gets beat in every thread about females taking sex surveys. Here are the facts:
2003 study, has not been repeated.
200 college undergrads, aged 18-25
Assume 100 women, split into three groups.
Group 1: Asked # partners, told researcher might view their answer. Mean = 2.6 partners.
Group 2: Completely anonymous. Mean = 3.4 partners.
Group 3: Polygraph. Mean = 4.4 partners.
Lead psychologist says women appeared to feel under pressure to meet expectations of being more relationship-orientated and not promiscuous.
Results for men: “In contrast, men’s answers did not vary significantly. Those attached to the lie-detector reported an average of 4.0 partners compared with 3.7 for men who thought their answers would be read.”
My comments:
Most of the research done on hookup culture has taken place since 2000, showing a marked shift in female attitudes toward relationships in the last 10 years or so. College women often express they don’t have time for a boyfriend because they are under significant pressure to achieve. Not being in a relationship is the default norm. In addition, the sex ratio on college campuses has shifted dramatically toward women in this time, so there are fewer men available for relationships.
I’m not sure what the significance of Group 1 is. Perhaps these were students who believed their own professors would see their sexual history? If they knew the researcher in any way, they would have an incentive to appear responsible to an authority figure who might be in a position to grade their work.
The more meaningful comparison is between groups 2 and 3 – 2 wouldn’t get caught, 3 definitely would. That did add one partner, high in percentage terms, but hardly in absolute terms. Clearly, these women are in the <5 N group.
The male mean was similar to the female polygraph mean (10% less).
In summary, we’re referencing a study with a female sample size of around 65, conducted in 2003. It’s the only study I’m aware of ever to look at this question. It is interesting, clearly statistically significant, but hardly a basis on which to generalize about female attitudes toward sex in 2012.
There is one study that does attempt to investigate the differences in reported means of sexual partners between men and women:
http://www.mindingthemind.com/reprints/Truth.pdf
They found:
Dishonesty did not account for the discrepancy.
Smaller numbers of males on campus did account for a small portion of the discrepancy.
Inaccuracy accounted for some of the discrepancy.
Removing female students who had engaged in prostitution reduced the discrepancy somewhat.
Males tend to round up in reporting the number of partners.
Jakie 596
Hi Jackie.
Yeah the analogy isn’t the greatest, but i’ll see what i can work off it.
In real life there is no Humane Society for these wounded animals. Only women. If women follow the path of the animal kingdom and revert back to Alpha prides and harems, and assortive mating ceases.. there will be more of these ‘wounded animals’ for the rest of society to deal with.
And if they take enough abuse and being kicked, and lash out, biting everything that moves, we cannot fault them. We call that dark game.
If they are shunned, isolated and ignored and left to starve, they will never trust again, go lone wolf and scavenge on their own caring only about their survival, not womens or society at large. We call that mgtow.
If the abuse and neglect is severe enough, the animal may simply wander into traffic. We call that the invisible epidemic.
http://www.bcmj.org/articles/silent-epidemic-male-suicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_suicide
I have no answer to this problem. But all signs point to the Cappy’s slogan of ‘Enjoy the Decline’. Every generation there is a massive influx of animals ready to be abused. But once the streets are full of scary dangerous animals fending for themselves.. everyone starts complaining.
That’s me take on it.
@Wudang
I’ve already agreed that the most promiscuous men in society have higher numbers than the most promiscuous women in society. I’ve written about that many times:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/
The male median is 6.8 partners, compared to 3.7 for women. The means must obviously be the same.
There are also dramatic differences by race:
Lifetime Sexual Partners by Race
0-1 2-6 7-14 15+ Median
Mexican American M 23.8 38.2 18.1 19.9 4.7
Mexican American F 45.1 41.5 8.7 4.7 1.7
Non-Hispanic White M 16.6 34.8 21.3 27.4 6.2
Non-Hispanic White F 24.2 44.1 22.1 9.6 3.7
Non-Hispanic Black M 6.4 22.2 25.2 46.2 12.5
Non-Hispanic Black F 13.0 47.2 27.3 12.5 5.0
Shift the headings as necessary, it’s hard to format.
There are huge differences by race, and by education as well.
The source for this data is the 2007 CDC report.
What data contradicts any of my claims? You keep talking about what you’ve read on PUA forums, even citing a PUA as the most credible source of sex data. That just doesn’t make sense, when PUAs have a distinct motive for telling a certain story, and finding stats that fit with the narrative.
I’m much more inclined to take Roissy’s citing of studies seriously, though he tends to cherry pick.
I challenge anyone to successfully discredit my sources or analyses. I stand by every one of them. Furthermore, I have no motive to lie. I can write a blog based on the truth, whatever it is. It doesn’t matter – my audience is women who want relationships. If they were slutty I’d write for slutty women who want a strategy for success. Instead, I’ve got a large readership here of women who are not slutty, so I write for them. And according to my analyses, they are the vast majority of women. I really have no interest in what PUAs are up to, they don’t concern me, and they siphon off my time by arguing about how hot sluts are. I don’t care – if it’s working for you, keep doing it.
“This is no game, it’s war.”
Hence the moniker and concept of “combat dating”.
@deti
All of your misunderstanding about female sexuality rests on this one claim.
So do you accept the corollary, that high N women are, on occasion, sleeping with low N men?
Hypergamy is not restrained by society, but is restrained by upbringing, personality and character traits.
Just google the sociosexual index, and how the female population is dispersed.
I have not ignored it, I am stating unequivocally that they are getting sex from a roughly equal number of women, less attractive than themselves. Why are you having difficulty with the arithmetic?
I’ve also described the cad strategy for tapping fresh meat each fall, which can easily add a partner or two per year to a cad’s N. No argument there.
As far as I can tell, you are determined to ignore the fact that the numbers are equal across the sexes. How do you explain that?
First, I believe you are all extremely non-representative of young American males. I also believe you are all extremely invested in a certain narrative to explain your own disappointments with women. Wudang is Norwegian, so he’s not even part of the SMP I describe. The rest of you have either traumatic divorces or near divorces you have experienced and continue to grapple with. You have good reasons to be angry with women in general, to feel deceived, robbed, disrespected, etc. That doesn’t make your feelings invalid, but it makes your analysis suspect. I’m sorry, but none of you is anything close to objective. You’re also all around 40, and partnered, so none of you is anything close to active in the SMP today, even for your age cohort.
Honestly, it’s summer, I’m going on vacation, and I think I’ve covered it all and then some. I’ll excuse myself from the discussion here. I’m not too keen on the idea of having to watch the threads like a hawk, so I’ll ask you to continue in this vein on one of the many sites where your views are championed.
Ok time to jump back in here.
Ive been reading the back and forths involving ms walsh on one side, and the reports of wudang, deti, mikec and ted on the other, and i gotta tell ya, w/all due respect ms walsh:
The fellas are right.
Let me be crystal clear here-im a heck of a lot closer to the highschool dropout set than you are and i can tell you that its NOT “the circus” you claim it to be. In fact it falls a lot closer in line with what the fellas have been saying all along: theres a small cadre of guys-call em alphas if you like-literally getting all the booty, while the rest of the guys get either the leftovers, the ugly gals or nothing at all.
One of my bestest friends works for one of the citys and even the entire countrys organizations that advocate on behalf of black youth in junior and senior highschool; in fact his organization is unique in that it specializes in teaching black boys about their bodies and their sexual health and offering mentoring services etc.
Well, they conducted a citywide std study for the black population and they liased with the cdc down in atl; the results were striking:
The highest incidences of stds ranging from spyhillis to hiv, was a roughly ten black radius/area out in southwest philly encompassing woodland, chester and baltimore aves. This is a virtually all black area comprisong a mix of native african americans, hatians, and africans from various countries which included ethiopia.
The women there reported vastly higher rates of infection than the men, which again flows right in line with what the fellas are saying here and what ive seen over and over again in my own life: that the alphas are indeed getting vastly more sex than any other guys and it aint just from the slutty gals though no doubt they be in the mix too. It all fits.
Personally i dont make that big a stink about all this like my white(r) brothers do, mainly because if i was all that concerned about a womans sexual history id have her take a battery of std tests as well have her take a polygraph and that would be that. Plus im very confident of my skills in the bedroom and havent had any complaints to date so im not at all worried about a woman pining away for some knucklehead from back in the day. She spend a night with me and she will forget all about that guy.
But the point stands ms walsh-are all of us wrong? What do we all have to gain by shining you or any other woman on here? I know ive yet to receive my check thats for sure.
Holla back
O.
I have no idea, that’s a question for Vox. And applying the same labels to women is tricky – whenever that’s attempted it usually gets shot down. I’ve never written about deltas and gammas, I’m not so clear on those. I tend to see men this way:
Short-term mating orientation: 10%
Most men, long-term orientation: 80%
Incel or asexual men, no mating orientation: 10%
Ted
“The rub though is: I also tend to be attracted to the types of women that more often than not have a promiscuous past of sorts. Why? Well I like women that like sex. So I have to decide how to balance my cost/benefits to hedge my bets as well as I can.”
________
Ted that is a pretty typical attitude for us. Most men want the same thing, myself included. You bet that before I started to get serious with my now fiance, I put her through about every test one can think of. I watched her eyes while we were out, I watched her reaction when we would talk to other men, I watched her reaction when we crossed paths with one of her former guys. She has passed them all. I do think when a woman finds a guy she knows is the “one”she can love, honor, trust and yes fuck long term, her wanting of other men dissappears…most promiscuous women probably do like sex, but that typically is not why the seek out men. They do it to heal a wounded self esteem, for the most part. Now the woman who is out do a different guy every weekend, Im not sure what makes them tick and I dont want to know either, they are not my type…I wont even do them myself. A lot of women are in a mode of auditioning for a LTR, right or wrong it is what it is.
I dont think you are unusual at all Ted, pretty typical instead.
We all want a lady in the street and a freak in the bed. In my lifes experience, and knowing and talking to a lot of my buddies, most women are not like that. If you find one, as I did(and you did?) we are lucky indeed.
@Wudang
I don’t understand. Study of what? Percentages of what? I’m at a disadvantage because I can’t access the data, I don’t even know what you are talking about.
Why are you still arguing this point? I’ve said clearly that this is true. There are two excellent and reliable sources of college data:
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Campus Sexual Assault Study, 2007
American College Health Association, annual report, sample size = 30,000 +
It is very, very important to separate the statistics by education. That one factor changes the entire narrative – age at first sex, # of sexual partners, age at marriage, rate of divorce, lifetime sexual partners, and sexual satisfaction in adulthood.
Composite numbers of the American population are meaningless for my purposes, and I do not doubt the story will differ. However, since my readership and the manosphere is highly educated, it seems to me that studying that population makes the most sense, unless one is studying demographics or trends for the nation as a whole.
You’ve just described that you are fishing in a very specific pond. The extrapolation to the entire female population is ludicrous. Also, do you live in the US? Because if your observations are of a Norwegian SMP, I’m pretty sure they’re not really valid here, based on the widely divergent cultures of our respective countries.
Susan:
Thanks for the debate. I don’t agree with your assignment of biases to the other men and me, but if it suits you, you can rely on those perceived biases to explain your views. For the record I’d just point out that my experiences and observations on this were gathered in the 1980s and early 1990s, years before I was married, and have nothing to do with my current situation(s).
You can have the last word on it. Or perhaps Obsidian will, since I see he’s weighed in and written half the comments left on this site in the last week or so.
Exactly. Pacifism doesn’t work when you’re being bombed.
@Obsidian
See my comments on what education means to the SMP. College graduates inhabit a completely different planet in this regard.
I believe you see what you say you see, and I believe Wudang has witnessed many thousands of couplings in Norwegian nightclubs. That is irrelevant to me and to my readers. Just as Mystery’s Field Reports about Hired Guns are irrelevant to me.
It’s not about whether Game works. It’s about the wide variety of female attraction triggers and their distribution in the population. As you will recall, Ogas goes on about this at some length. There is a bell curve of female attraction, and you’re hanging out way off to the right and in the long tail.
The preservation of your internal script and worldview.
SW: The preservation of your internal script and worldview.
Does this not apply equally well to you?
I don’t rely on your bias to explain my views, I rely on it to explain yours. Big, big difference.
Obsidian will not have the opportunity to play Emperor on this debate, as I can’t trust my blog to him while I’m away.
Perhaps I’ll close comments if he comes at it hard.
Jackie @ 592:
“I was just thinking about this today. As part of my girl-game development in empathy, I started reading some men’s spaces, to see if I could understand them better.”
“I can’t see myself ever becoming a female MRA, but I believe in empathy and trying to understand people who have suffered. My 0.02.”
That’s a good comment. The more women can empathize with what men feel and the issues unique to them, the better the relations will be. Too many women expect their men to be “tough” all the time, and think “well, he’s a man, so he just needs to man up and take it”. And then women wonder why their men withdraw from them. That’s not good for any of us, men, women, husbands, wives, fathers or mothers.
“Exactly. Pacifism doesn’t work when you’re being bombed.”
Equally true for both men and women, unfortunately.
“I don’t rely on your bias to explain my views, I rely on it to explain yours. Big, big difference.”
Not “our biases.” I think a more accurate description is your perceptions of what you believe are our biases. Big, big difference.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I won’t say anything more about it.
Not in the same way, no. I did not take up this subject to come to grips with my own experience in the SMP. I saw a trend among young people that surprised and shocked me, and I began to read up on it while supposedly looking for a corporate job.
My own bent is analytical – only a fool willingly wears blinders. I have no value to offer anyone if I don’t get this right. Only the most brutal and honest analysis of the SMP and related issues will permit the creation of an effective approach to sex and relationships. I’m telling it like it is so that young people can make informed choices.
I don’t care if women want manwhores. I’m not trying to convince women not to go with manwhores. I’m telling women who want to avoid players what the red flags are. It seems to me that manwhores don’t like that much, but they needn’t worry. My reach is still very, very small.
I’m a little confused about the AIDS epidemic as it relates to promiscuous women, because promiscuous sorority girls are not contracting it, regardless of who they sleep with. I have a few questions I am just throwing out there. 1. Aren’t some populations immune to diseases like HIV/AIDS in Europe, thanks to a mutant gene from the bubonic plague? I remember hearing that. If not, do we argue that for example, Nigerian and Chinese women are more promiscuous than Brittish and Swedish women? 2. Criminals will have both consensual and non-consensual sex in prison. 3. Women are more likely to contract aids than to give it, so gay sex, not female promiscuity, created the problem in places like the U.S… Again, not sure.
I must say that I am shocked by the data about # of partners. 5 is a lot of partners for any woman to have in my opinion, but I met so many women in school who had more than that. In undergrad, I knew black men had 50+ partners, and white female sophmores who had racked up something like 20+ in a few semesters. Meanwhile the black girls I knew in school didn’t know how to flirt, were extremely withdrawn, and ended up just not dating or having sex -like me. I think this experience is coloring my perception, I have no idea what poor women are doing. 12 does seem low for black men I encountered both in college, and out of college though.
@Ion
“Aren’t some populations immune to diseases like HIV/AIDS in Europe, thanks to a mutant gene from the bubonic plague?”
I’m not sure how this fits with the rest of the discussion but yes. However even amongst a serious white European lineage its very rare and it takes a homozygous (two mutant copies) individual to be totally immune. A heterozygote (1 copy with 1 normal) will still be a carrier.
I don’t know the frequency off the top of my head but its low, really really low.
Whereas in African populations its basically nonexistent. Not sure on other continents.
Hey Susan,
A little off topic, but what are your female students saying about the move Magic Mike?
A couple women friends who are in their 40`s just saw it and they were saying OMG!…lol
They said it had a good story line as well as good abs.
Knowing them, their hubbys were glad they went to see it.
I think the guys are right. The high N men are sometimes dipping into the low N women, seducing them, pumping and dumping them, what have you. Every now and then high N will get into relationships with low N women as well, though that is rarer and tends to be unstable.
The forces at work here are preselection and hypergamy, as well as the belief of snowflaking and believing she is special enough to turn a player. I was personally extremely wary of players because of the history with my caddish father, so I avoided any hint of them. If I didn’t have that background though, I may well have wanted to “try” for Mr. Big. Many women do, once or twice, and learn from getting burned. I happened to learn from observation, not experience.
“I don’t understand. Study of what? Percentages of what? I’m at a disadvantage because I can’t access the data, I don’t even know what you are talking about.
That backs up the findings of virtually all other studies which find the most promiscuous men havign ahd far more partners than the most promiscuous women, which backs the experience of every man I have ever talked to about it and what I see every day and evoloutionary theory.
Why are you still arguing this point? I’ve said clearly that this is true. There are two excellent and reliable sources of college data:
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Campus Sexual Assault Study, 2007
American College Health Association, annual report, sample size = 30,000 +
It is very, very important to separate the statistics by education. That one factor changes the entire narrative – age at first sex, # of sexual partners, age at marriage, rate of divorce, lifetime sexual partners, and sexual satisfaction in adulthood.
Composite numbers of the American population are meaningless for my purposes, and I do not doubt the story will differ. However, since my readership and the manosphere is highly educated, it seems to me that studying that population makes the most sense, unless one is studying demographics or trends for the nation as a whole.”
What? Haven`t you been arguing now for a long time that the sexes line up almost perfectly in terms of those seeking short term mating and those seeking long term mating so that the promiscuous men are only having sex with the promiscuous women and the long term oriented ones with each other? Are you in fact arguing that the line up of promiscuous men and women are only the case for the college population and that in the population at large it is in fact the case that the more promiscuous men are having sex with a fair share of the less promiscuous women in addition to the promiscuous ones? Because from how you have been arguing that has seemed to me to be your argument.
I know you target and focus is those in college for the most part but we do talk about a lot broader mechanisms here in virtually every thread and if you don`t specify that that what you are saying is only valid in the college population and is different in the population as a whole it will be misunderstood. From how you have been arguing in this thread and previous threads I can`t see how it can be understood differently. Certainly when Deti and Mike C argue that alphas also get with fairly low partner count women and you refute that and claim they only get with sluts that is the way it will be understood. Unless that is you specify and say that only college alphas only get with sluts while alphas outside of college also get with non sluts.
Anyway, the numbers I am refering to are here:
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-10656-page-2.html
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-10656.html
The numbers are based on these studies:
http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_DataReport_Fall2010.pdf
http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA_Reference_Group_Report_Spring2000.pdf
What the poster did was look at the numbers of each sex and look how many of the sexual encounters each sex had the different segments of the sex had and then compare them to each other. So for men it looked like this:
lays per year # of guys % of guys #of guys*lays/yr % of total lays
0 3460 34.33% 0 0.00%
1 3839 38.09% 3839 22.15%
2 995 9.87% 1990 11.48%
3 619 6.14% 1857 10.71%
4 365 3.62% 1460 8.42%
5 259 2.57% 1295 7.47%
6 146 1.45% 876 5.05%
7 77 0.76% 539 3.11%
8 57 0.57% 456 2.63%
19.1 263 2.61% 5023.3 28.98%
Total men 10080
Total lays 17335.3
Mean lays per man 1.719771825
When he compared that to the women he found:
“I said before that the top 2.6% of men were responsible for 29% of the lays. For the same proportion of women, 2.6% (n = 491) are responsible for 18.8% of the lays among women. That means the top guys are taking a much bigger share of the lays than the top girls are. The sluttiest guys are sluttier than the sluttiest girls. The only way that’s possible is if slutty guys are banging girls less slutty than themselves. Which is what I have been saying all along, and directly contradicts Walsh’s explanation of players banging whores.”
Looking only at at the behavior of college students is interesting for many purposes, but has its dangers, especially when one is also trying to figure out the general alpha beta mechanics etc. I think the numbers would be highly influenced by the fact that since there are far more women than men in college, and college men and women differ in promiscuity from non college educated men and women, the sample size would compare to partially incomparable gender groups. If college men are less promiscuous than non educated men and the non educated men are far higher in number than the non educated women, the college numbers are going to get a little weird. There is also the factor that the students aren`t only sleeping with each other but with people without education as well. For example, if indeed the number of sex partners for college women and men are exactly the same then it follows that because there are so many more female students a very, very large percentage of their hookups are with non educated men. They are highly valuable numbers to look at, but the gender ratio are going to twist them quite heavily in ways I`m not really sure about and which should be considered more I think.
Anyway, the numbers of the Roosh poster is calculated based on a survey of 30,093 students from 39 schools so that makes the mechanism he demonstrates valid for those in college as well.
Lockland, thanks for your reply, and I am sorry if that question came out of left field.
I was just curious, I remember hearing something about Europeans having natural resistance, but really didn’t remember the extent of it. It does seem like the sexual revolution was mainly in western Europe, England, and in the U.S., yet these countries have less of an AIDS epidemic than Africa and China (where I assume there is less general female promiscuity), so it is unlikely that free spirited female sex is a factor in the epidemic. I believe O was arguing the opposite.
Oops, Lokland!. Forgive the misspelling.
This requires the female employing both short- and long-term mating strategies simultaneously, which is not typical, especially since personality traits correlate to mating time orientation.
Susan, I don’t think women box nice and neatly into “short-term” and “long-term” mating strategies. Honestly, what I find bizarre about the philosophical position you’ve staked out with an adamantium rod is that it isn’t even consistent with YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You’ve mentioned in your 20s some one night stands and short-term stuff if I recall correctly along with boyfriend sex. Were you “short-term” or “long-term” oriented? I suspect there are some women who are EXCLUSIVELY long-term or short-term oriented but my experience is that many women are much more fluid and can bounce back and forth.
Addressing another comment elsewhere I’ll say this. I pride myself on being a no bullshit straight shooter. My sense is many people read me that way,and I think it is because I come across as real…simply laying out the reality as I’ve seen and experienced it. I’ve got no “agenda” to “sell”.
I think I’ve had a rather unique life experience in that I have been able to observe a lot of things up close that most people simply have not, never will, and can only theorize and read studies about. I spent about 1.5 years in the late 90s going out regularly with a group of alphas. I know what I saw. I spent a year bouncing. I know what I saw. But I respect your right to have finally arrived at your sort of final destination in terms of views on the SMP and female sexuality even though at times they bear absolutely no resemblance to my actual experience.
What I will readily concede is the sample does not equal the population. I suspect if I were single and active out in the SMP, women like Hope, Anacoana, etc. would filter me out immediately based on some initial observations. I would probably filter them out immediately as well based on some initial observations. That isn’t negative on any of us, but having read comments here I recognize there are women who exclude certain types of guys quite rapidly. So my life sample is not totally representative of the population. I know that…I get that. The rather odd position you’ve staked out though is the sample doesn’t exist either. I’ll note that whenever I’ve brought up a real life personal example to refute a general principle (like earlier in this thread) you simply ignore it. I can only assume you do that because it doesn’t fit in your “internal script”. Was that woman “short-term” or “long-term” oriented in that situation? You’ve divided women into the short-term hardcore promiscuous and the other 80% that never has any short-term casual activity.
It also supposes that the same woman will be attracted to a low count guy for a relationship, and a high count guy for flings. I have never seen a single woman with dual attraction triggers like this. The alpha chaser has zero desire to lock down a low count guy for a relationship.
Huh? I’ll point out just one example. Jesus Mahoney and his former fiancee.
Ion, I read that prostitution/drugs are huge factors in the spread of AIDS, and that in more “promiscuous” populations the virus actually spreads less quickly. It’s somewhat counter-intuitive, but the math is sound. Here’s an article about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/books/chapters/0708-1st-land.html?pagewanted=all
This again ties back to what has been said: the most “attractive” men have the highest Ns, and the females with the highest Ns are prostitutes. Both groups are walking petri dishes of sexually transmittable infections.
About high SMV women not having any incentive to hookup I`ll just once again point to what I linked to before showing that they in fact do hook u MORE than lower SMV women. Additionally, it turns out people can tell that by looking at their faces. People are also able to tell many other things quite well just be looking at faces such as the likelyhood of many other things such as criminality, lying, ability to be a good father etc. :
“Unrestricted sociosexuality was generally associated with greater attractiveness in female composites and real female faces and greater masculinity in male composites.”
http://www.facelab.org/include/download?id=169
Also from wikipedia:
“It has been found that symmetrical men (and women) have a tendency to begin to have sexual intercourse at an earlier age, to have more sexual partners, and to have more one-night stands.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Social_effects
“The forces at work here are preselection and hypergamy, as well as the belief of snowflaking and believing she is special enough to turn a player.”
I agree totally Hope. I never thought I was particularly special, or at least special enough to win over a players love or affection. I do encounter women genuinely shocked by their inability to win over a player though. So I know that its either snowflaking or an extreme lack of self-reflection (and analytical thinking) are common factors.
Mike C, I’ll agree with that. I have filtered out tons of men immediately just because they appeared “too normal and mainstream,” as funny as that seems.
There are guys who are tall, good looking, charming and smooth, and girls basically throw themselves at such guys. They don’t have to lie or manipulate to get tons of sex. They’re the lower rung equivalent of the rock stars and celebrities.
I have always known objectively that those men are “attractive,” but I was too much of a pragmatist even as a teenager to go after them. I think I had maybe two celebrity crushes ever, and two “popular guy” crushes total. I just wasn’t nearly as subjectively attracted to them as I was to the nerdy guys. Incidentally one of the celebrity crushes was Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, where he played a genius.
But I have definitely seen and heard other girls talk about the “cute” guys they have crushes on, and they tend to be the same guys over and over again. Even the girls who aren’t forward all went for the same guys. So I can imagine if those guys showed some interest, the girls would be very receptive to those proverbial “alphas.” The side effect of this is that those girls are not receptive at all to any guy who isn’t one of the chosen. The average guy basically has to win the girl over her fantasy of the alpha in addition to selling himself.
@ Hope:
+1. Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
“Even the girls who aren’t forward all went for the same guys”
and
“those girls are not receptive at all to any guy who isn’t one of the chosen. The average guy basically has to win the girl over her fantasy of the alpha in addition to selling himself.”"
Q.E.D.
But I have definitely seen and heard other girls talk about the “cute” guys they have crushes on, and they tend to be the same guys over and over again. Even the girls who aren’t forward all went for the same guys. So I can imagine if those guys showed some interest, the girls would be very receptive to those proverbial “alphas.”
Yes, exactly right. And what happens in the real world of on the ground operational reality versus abstract discussions about “short-term” versus “long-term” orientation is that guy and that girl get together alone where logistics permit, he escalates hard, and she goes along with it and voila they are having sex. “It just happened”. What I think is not many girls make a habit of this. Maybe once or twice, or a handful at most, and then they start to screen more rigorously. I think some small minority of women make a lifestyle of it and become the “alpha chasers”. I think the more accurate description is to think of casual sex with higher N guys more like a train with many stops. Some women NEVER get on like yourself, Anacoana, Jackie, etc. Some women get one, ride it for a few miles, don’t really like the ride, and get off early. Some women ride for a very long time (like say JM’s former fiancee) before they “settle down” with a lower N guy. And finally some women never get off the train. Those are the hardcore alpha chasers. But I think just about every woman except for a small minority either ride the train just a bit or are tempted to ride it. I think in your case, your upbringing along with your experience with your father led you to realize very young the train ride wasn’t going to be enjoyable so you were never tempted in the slightest to get on board. I think the same thing holds true for Anacoana given her experience in the DR seeing the end result of getting on the train.
@Tom
To my knowledge, none has seen it. I have no interest in seeing it.
I haven’t claimed otherwise. The hookup behavior of freshmen, which drops off a cliff after one year, demonstrates that. I think many attractive women get burned by a cad or two, that’s nothing new here. I’ve estimated players on college campuses probably P&D one or two low N girls per year.
But that still doesn’t explain equal numbers of high N women. Are they seducing and dumping male virgins?
I don’t have time to analyze now, but this cracked me up. That’s one of my two primary sources of data, the National College Health Association survey.
I also find it very amusing that said forum member set out specifically to discredit Walsh.
I’ve never said almost perfectly. I’ve said, and believe, that at any given point in time, about 10-20% of the population, both male and female are engaging in short-term mating. The other 80% are either not mating, or are in LTRs.
I’ve also said that people can and do go back and forth between those two groups. Female dual mating strategies are common, though I do not believe they are adopted concurrently as Mike C has suggested. Unpaired women are more likely to engage in short-term mating, obviously, and may “change lanes” from time to time. However, sociosexual orientation, which reflects both genetic factors as well as the sex ratio in a geographic location, plays a large role. There are women who are not at all inclined toward long-term mating, and many more who are not at all inclined to ONSs.
I have stated all of this on this blogs dozens, or even hundreds, of times.
My Pareto Principle analysis also suggested approximately equal size groups of promiscuous males and females. Roughly speaking, 20% of males and 20% of females are having 80% of the sex. That includes marrieds, who have more sex than anyone else.
However, for my purposes, the education divide is an important one. Education is inversely correlated to promiscuity, so it may be that college educated males beef up their numbers with non-educated females. As you saw, in one study, the discrepancy in reported partners changed when they removed the prostitutes from the sample! And that’s college students!
Anyway, I’m packing for a trip. If I have time, I’ll look at your friend’s data later today.
Just catching up on a few articles here- a few comments:
@Wudang & Susan
Wudang is actually spot on, Susan. To you it doesn’t make sense, but I’ll break it down for you: 1) Hotter girls know what they want, and are used to getting what they want and never being questioned for it- if she decides she wants YOU for that night, she will have very little problem making that choice (even moreso than a less attractive girl) as long as you don’t fuck it up. What about decreasing her long-term value, you say? Doesn’t matter, because she’s got what men want that will cause them to overlook her other faults: looks. Trust us, hot girls are not sitting with their arms folded frowning in disgust and turning their noses up at the lesser girls getting laid (LOL), they’re getting theirs too, with guys that are at and above the standard that they view themselves to be worthy of.
Susan, I’m also going to cosign with a lot of what MikeC, deti, and Wudang have said because I have seen and lived some of the same things. There are statistics, and then there is going out and seeing the reality of it for yourself and watching the dynamics at work. I can respect your analytical bent, but you seem to have way too black and white a perspective of what’s really going on. The stats don’t tell you what people do but don’t talk about. I suspect that, unless you walk a mile (or several) in a guy’s shoes, you may not get it. And that’s fine, because I’m definitely not here to force your viewpoint.
Just my 2 cents- happy friday, people
@Mike C
Never at the same time! I had a few ONSs when I got to graduate school, before I got together with Mr. HUS.
To be honest, I was always Long-term oriented. However, the guy I wanted didn’t want me, so I said what the hell and sought validation elsewhere. This is, I believe, the most common female reason for engaging in a ONS. It’s not that she’s so hot for the guy, she’s desperate for the feeling of being intensely desired by a male that other women find attractive. This is also what female college students say about their hookup experiences. It gets at self-esteem stuff much more than sex drive.
I’ll be very frank here. First, your N is low. You married a woman who was taking you to strip clubs and was sexually adventurous. She cheated within a few months. You then went to work as a bouncer, where you observed women who, according to your previous descriptions, may have been “hot” but were also slutty, and correct me if I’m wrong – not educated. You do not value intelligence or education in women, particularly, which is fine, and have sought women from the general population without regard for this. You also describe yourself as struggling constantly with the desire for sex with new women – you were clearly invested in describing this as a need rather than a want in the male sexuality thread. You speculated that you probably have extremely high testosterone. You get a fair number of your stories from your office mate, who, last I heard had a count of 226 or so?
The upshot is that your experience is not typical of a man with a master’s degree. I think your experience is, in fact, highly unusual. That doesn’t make you wrong, of course, but it does make generalizing your experience problematic.
For the record, I didn’t deliberately ignore your example. I’m short on time, and I already know the position you’ve staked out. If Olive were here you’d be egging her on with +1,000,000!
@Mike C
Again, you said, concurrently. JM’s fiancee was slutty from age 18-21, and was with him from age 24-28. Did you not say that women have two piles? JM’s fiancee did not.
@Wudang
Do you have a link that isn’t a download? I’ve had to stop downloading from the net. It is true that people can read faces very well, my post the other day highlighted that women can easily pick out males who are likely to cheat.
To qualify what I’ve said, I haven’t hung out with too many super high N people of either sex. The upper limit of anyone I’ve known is about 15-20 (for a guy), though that was also around college age. I never went to bars or clubs, was outside of the Greek scene in college, and was a busy student then worker-bee. So I don’t know much about high N folks.
But I do know the side of the low N people. The men who aren’t good with women have really low Ns. They don’t “get lucky” with high N, promiscuous women. Either they’re in LTRs or are long-term single. The low N moderately attractive women tend to be in LTRs of multiple years. The low N non-attractive women (due to weight factors) tend to be chronically single. I know of low N women who have been pumped and dumped by higher N men, and regretted it. They then go back to being single or in a relationship.
I don’t know much about the most attractive women because I was never in their social circles.
@deti
QED? Really? Hope’s observation completes the proof? Then you should know that a WOW playing math nerd with MGTOW tendencies got her juices flowing like no alpha ever could. QED?
I think a problem with the data sets that we have is that they are not granular enough at the upper reaches. If studies basically stop at “15+” or “25+”, then we can’t learn much from them in an era in which 50, 100, 200 etc. are by no means common but also by no means nonexistent.
Susan’s point is that since the percentages of men and women with the highest counts surveyed are pretty well aligned, then if it were true that the high count men were dipping down into the low count women, in order for the high count women to rack up a similar number of partners as the men, they would have to be sleeping with low count men, which does not appear to be happening.
Here’s the thing though. “High count” in these studies just means above some set cut-off that the researchers chose. Let’s say that number is 25. So, for the purposes of the study, 26 means you are in that super-promiscuous category, and so does 126, or 226. All three of those people are the same according to the study.
The guys are saying, but wait, there are far more men who are >50, 100, 200 or whatever than women. For that to be true, it MUST be true that low or lower N women must be sleeping with super-alpha cads. The highest count men are not getting all or even most of their experience with super-sluts.
The guys, for all I know, may be right. It sounds plausible. But Susan is right that their claim is based on anecdote and experience, not data.
Susan always wants to bring the debate back to the data, which is reasonable. The problem is we don’t have the data to prove this either way. And we won’t until researchers start doing studies that differentiate N with more granularity, especially at the upper reaches.
Susan:
QED. Yes. Hope is talking about her observations.
Or if you don’t like QED, then:
Res ipsa loquitur. “It speaks for itself.”
Heh.
Escoffier, yeah that is along the lines of what I was thinking as well. I have seldom heard of a girl going above 50, but there are more anecdotes of men going above 50. At those numbers, it becomes increasing difficult to tease out the data, sort of like at 150+ IQ levels it’s hard to really quantify the “real” number.
I have often wondered how those super high N people even *keep track* after, say, 20 different people. Spreadsheets? Journals? Mix in drugs and alcohol, and I think those people must have superhuman memories or something to come up with a number at all.
Esco:
“But Susan is right that their claim is based on anecdote and experience, not data.”
Agree absolutely 100% that my claim is not based on data collected by researchers. It’s based on anecdote and experience. Agree 100% that Susan has data which at least on its face appears to support her conclusions.
I’m a pretty analytical, data-driven man myself. And I’d be inclined to agree with Susan, except for this:
The claim I advanced (that around 20% of the men are getting the majority of the sex from a majority of the women) seems to be corroborated repeatedly by many people in many different places at different times who don’t know each other except as pixels communicating on a blog. It’s even been observed at least one woman on this very thread.
It’s the same story, containing the same observations of group and individual behavior. The same events and conduct, described in exactly the same ways, over and over and over again, described by people who are unknown to each other and living in different places and experiencing it at different times.
If it weren’t for not only my experience, but also what I read just in the last day or so, I’d agree with Susan.
deti, like I said, your claim is plausible to me, I’m not disputing it. I really don’t know wither way. I had one GF who fits your narrative so I guess my experience suggests that you are right, though I had some others who didn’t fit the narrative.
But I don’t think the mere fact that anonymous people in the Internet agree is very strong evidence of truth. The Internet tends to spawn and reinforce groupthink, and the manosphere is far from immune. This may sound like a mean chick taunting “You can’t get laid,” but I get the strong sense from a great many of the most vociferous commenters in the ‘sphere that they have very little real world experience with women. They are pissed off for one reason or another, many of them quite legit, then the find the ‘sphere and they discover the cock carousel meme and they go “Hell, yeah, exactly!” But, left to their own devices, they could never have described or explained it because they haven’t seen anything like it.
Never at the same time! I had a few ONSs when I got to graduate school, before I got together with Mr. HUS.
I wasn’t suggesting at the same time. I think very, very, very, very few women are concurrently having short-term encounters along with sex with a “long-term” boyfriend type. But I think many women indulge some short-term opportunities when they are “single”.
I’ll be very frank here. First, your N is low. You married a woman who was taking you to strip clubs and was sexually adventurous. She cheated within a few months.
To quote Obsidian, I’m not sure what any of that has to do with the price of rice. I’m talking specific examples that contradict general principles you hold to be universal ESPECIALLY AS IT REGARDS FEMALE BEHAVIOR, not my behavior. The existence of one black swan disproves the notion that all swans are white. Some of the beliefs you have arrived at are of the “all swans are white” sort.
FWIW, my N=7. I’m too lazy to check the stats, but I believe this is somewhere around the average or median for American males, although that probably skews based on age with the average of younger men today higher than say the average for guys who are 50+. One thing I have noticed is that what you consider “high” or “low” seems to shift depending on what argument you are making. If you believe your own data that you constantly cite, then 10-15+ is high based simply on percentage distribution.
You then went to work as a bouncer, where you observed women who, according to your previous descriptions, may have been “hot” but were also slutty, and correct me if I’m wrong -not educated. You do not value intelligence or education in women, particularly, which is fine, and have sought women from the general population without regard for this.
Again, not sure what any of this has to do with the price of rice in terms of an example disproving some particular female characteristic or behavior. Not that it really matters, but Vox Day has said the same thing about intelligence and education that I have. Speaking frankly, I think most highly educated and highly intelligent women simply have a very, very, very difficult time coming to terms with and accepting that for many guys it simply is a non-factor of small factor in terms of mate selection either short or long-term.
You also describe yourself as struggling constantly with the desire for sex with new women
Ha. Me and the majority of guys although many won’t admit it because it isn’t PC. The truth is in terms of male sexuality, guys like Ted are the exception, not the rule.
you were clearly invested in describing this as a need rather than a want in the male sexuality thread.
No, that is false. I was not invested in describing it as a need.
You speculated that you probably have extremely high testosterone. You get a fair number of your stories from your office mate, who, last I heard had a count of 226 or so?
Again, price of rice. Funnily, he just stopped over and showed me the text message of the girl who is cheating on her boyfriend with him. He told me she told him “she loves her boyfriend, but isn’t sexually attracted to him”. He also told me that she told him that she was with her boyfriend because guys like him (my co-worker) always cheated on her. I had to laugh at the absurdity of it Score 1 point for settling for the chump meme.
The upshot is that your experience is not typical of a man with a master’s degree. I think your experience is, in fact, highly unusual. That doesn’t make you wrong, of course, but it does make generalizing your experience problematic.
I think the only general principle is that nothing can be generalized across the entire population.
Alot more comments to address in this thread, but I’ve actually got to get some work done this afternoon.
I am curious about something. I am earnest in asking this, I’m not being glib. The men here who are most invested in the question of which women are slutty are married or getting married. They are well out of the realm of young love. Why do you care? I don’t understand why you throw down the gauntlet at Hooking Up Smart to argue that sluts are hot, and that all women are sluts. If that’s what you believe, based on your experience, that’s cool. I’m not here to tell anyone their eyes are lying to them. But why is it important to you that we believe in what you have seen, even though we have not seen it? Why the proselytization?
I understand why players have a dog in the fight – they want to advertise that they are getting laid by the hottest women, and the most selective women. Some blog about it for the validation, others are looking to make money.
But why do we have 40-something guys all angsty about this? Can anyone explain?
Esco:
Really, I’m doing nothing other than reporting what I’ve seen and experienced.
Yeah, there are vociferous commenters but I disagree they have little real world experience with women. They got something to shout about. Usually their comments are the result of up close and personal real world experience with ex wives who burned them in bad divorces, or cheated on them, or otherwise maltreated them.
And I’m just going to leave it at that.
I don’t know the frequency off the top of my head but its low, really really low.
If I remember right is only 1% and I think it comes from the direct descendants of the survivors of the Black Plague. My hubby is 100% European and he still doesn’t have the immunity to it.
I think the guys are right. The high N men are sometimes dipping into the low N women, seducing them, pumping and dumping them, what have you. Every now and then high N will get into relationships with low N women as well, though that is rarer and tends to be unstable.
Yeah I happen to agree with that. I don’t know why the numbers doesn’t reflect it but the stories I heard from my American friends are similar to what is described here. There is also the part that even though doesn’t engage in casual sex they will see a man they would never attract on any other circumstances and gamble to sleep with them. Didn’t we had a study about women saying they will sleep with a celebrity if they have the chance?
What I will readily concede is the sample does not equal the population. I suspect if I were single and active out in the SMP, women like Hope, Anacoana, etc. would filter me out immediately based on some initial observations.
Heh we wouldn’t had even meet. I can count with my two hands the times I had been in clubs, and most of them times I was with girlfriends celebrating or with male friends that were very effective cockblockers. And really the moment I would had seen a woman talking to you I would had been looking for a lonely guy in the corner to talk to, is rude to interrupt people that is occupied
I agree totally Hope. I never thought I was particularly special, or at least special enough to win over a players love or affection. I do encounter women genuinely shocked by their inability to win over a player though.
In my case I never saw “the flip” as a woman’s influence but more like a man choice so the idea of trying to convince a man to flip for me was just…stupid. I’m not a mind reader how do I know he actually wants to flip or not? Aside from the fact that “the flip” is temporary 99% of the times the guy that swears that is faithful will cheat at some point. Some of them will only need beans burned to justify it some others will wait till the hot 15 year old daughter of their coworker gets him in a secluded place and bares herself naked, but most of them will fall of the wagon at some point or another, once cheat is too many IMO.
@BroHamlet
The hottest girls hold out for exclusivity. Wading into the ONSs pool with the 6s and 7s is indeed beneath them. Obsidian has addressed this, and I think other Game bloggers have as well. It’s also clearly stated in evolutionary theory.
Women with the most to offer are the least willing to settle. The women I would objectively call 9s or 10s in my acquaintance don’t want a guy who isn’t a 9 or 10, and those guys are unlikely to commit. OTOH, they are the most likely to flip a player, and they generally negotiate a better deal than their less beautiful peers. From an economics standpoint, it makes perfect sense. They price themselves as a luxury good.
I get that a lot of these guys were burned by ex-wives. But that’s not really relevant to the numbers discussion we’re having here, is it? I would bet that most frivilous divorces are initiated by women with low numbers. One or two BFs, then hubby, then one paramour. That doesn’t make it, or them, any less terrible but it’s not quite what we’re talking about.
The thing is, I would expect someone with genuine experience with women (or anything else) to see clearly how VARIED women are, just like any grouping or cohort. Everyone likes to mock the phrase NAWALT, but the truth is, not all ANYTHING are like that. There are almost no categories of things, much less of human beings, that are ALL alike.
The value of the manosphere, it seems to me, is that it challenges a false universalist narrative and drags the discussion back toward the truth, which is complex and varied. The excluded truth that the manosphere seeks to restore to the conversation is the dark or low side of female nature. This is necessary and all to the good.
But so many of these guys remind of Bacon’s remark about the dangers of “a little philosophy.” Guys learn about hypergamy, alpha chasing, the carousel and soon they see these things everywhere and can’t see anything else. These are real phenomena and guys need to know about them, but the predominant opinion in the ‘sphere, right now, is that this is all there is. AWALT. All the time.
No, sorry, not true. Anyone with actual experience would see these things but also would see other things.
Susan:
1) Because I want to understand the world.
2) Because I don’t want my daughter to grow up to be a slut.
@Escoffier
Agreed, which is why the median is more useful than the mean, though obviously still limited.
Yes. I have studied this rather exhaustively, though Wudang is no doubt also tired from his thousands of nightclub outings.
We will never have perfect data. Even so, we have learned a great deal about sexuality, both male and female, in the last 60 years, via flawed surveys and studies. Today the incentive for women to lie is lower than at any point in history. It doesn’t mean they never lie, but it does mean that the data is getting better. The NHCS data has a sample of over 30K.
WRT men whose counts are in the stratosphere, the high cutoffs probably are not justified by the numbers. If only 2% of men have more than 10 partners in college, how many have 200? We’re probably talking about one or two guys per campus – maybe a Duke basketball player and the like. Why would we even want to draw conclusions about human behavior and the SMP by focusing on those extreme outliers?
In the study I linked to earlier, women tended to report inaccurately, possibly because they hooked up while drunk, and men tended to round up. For example, a guy with 4 partners said 5, a guy with 10 said a dozen. I think a lot of the numbers are guesstimates, especially once you pass double digits.
They all hang out at the same blogs! This is massive confirmation bias.
Susan – “Does this clear things up? Do you understand that the data simply does not support the claims of men online with low N? “
Clear as mud.
My ex-wife had a N very close to mine when we married, which is to say we were both low single digits. Two years after we separated, her N has gone up faster than mine. She is still well under the “trouble” N of 10, but not by a whole lot. So, to anyone just looking at her N, she seems like a good bet. However, those latest notches? Yeah, they were with promiscuous men, probably players/cads/alphas based on how she seems to regret them now. My current SO has a ONS in her past, and at least one FWB situation as well. Her N is still close to 10, but obviously she at least tried the carousel and decided it wasn’t for her, just as Mike C described earlier. I know at least one of my former LTR mates went on a bit of a sex “binger” after we broke up, but even her N might still be under or around 10. What I’m saying is, you CAN NOT assume a woman with a low N never had sex with a cad/player/asshat, and in many cases I would almost assume that they did. The difference is: these women learned quickly that they didn’t like it, or met “the one”, or whatever and jumped off the carousel before they got a frequent flyer card. But, those women certainly can add up for a guy that makes a habit of banging new women weekly. You simply can’t tell me this doesn’t happen, because I’m living with a woman that did EXACTLY this. I was married to a woman that hadn’t, but she gave it a whirl once she was “free” again. I can’t begin to count the number of women in my life I’ve known that were taken in at least a few times before they learned to avoid those men. And I firmly believe THAT is where alpha’s get their high numbers. For sure they probably get the most sex from the sluts, but the sluts are not a challenge. The sluts are where players get their daily fix, not where they get their next conquest. With all the talk of Dark Triad types here, are you honestly going to tell me they are using the dark arts on real sluts?!
“In an era when slut shaming is not permissible and sex as empowerment in preached in sex ed programs, this seems extremely unlikely.”
I know with all assurance that my ex-wife’s new BF has NO idea of what she was up to prior to meeting him, other than knowing she tried “online dating” for a bit. To be sure, it was an online dating site, but “dating” wasn’t the goal it seems… And do you know why? Because she is ashamed that she was taken in by cads, at least two of them within a 6 month period. Or, that is the story she tells me. I suspect she wasn’t “duped” at all, but she needs that excuse to sleep at night. I don’t care, she isn’t my problem now, but I lived with this woman for almost 13 years, and I wouldn’t have suspected she was even capable of casual sex. I think you seriously underestimate the shame women feel about this.
“So do you accept the corollary, that high N women are, on occasion, sleeping with low N men?”
I’ve seen this with my own eyes. It’s a rare thing indeed, but I had a friend in my 20’s that looking back was clearly a beta. BUT, he was a hunk. I mean he was really a cute guy (no homo! LOL) and he got lots of initial attention. Thing is, he couldn’t keep a woman around for long, mostly because he was far too needy. At any rate, this guy used get attention from sluts, mostly because they are the ones most likely to initiate, or maybe they just wanted a taste of the “pretty”. (I actually think one of them enjoyed the idea of “tainting” him, but she was a particularly dirty bird…) In fact, during the time I knew him, I’d say he probably scored about 2-3 slut lays. That still had him under 5, so certainly low N, but the quality of those partners in terms of character was VERY questionable. I don’t remember him dating anyone long enough to have sex with them, but I only knew him briefly. I’d imagine his N probably got pretty high eventually if he kept at his ways, but at the time for all intent and purpose he was and acted like a low N man.
“ I’m sorry, but none of you is anything close to objective. You’re also all around 40, and partnered, so none of you is anything close to active in the SMP today, even for your age cohort”
Well I won’t argue with you on the age issue, and perhaps what we are describing is more in line with how the women of our own age acted as we matured? I’d actually be willing to believe that, but for now I’m watching my daughter and her friends to see how THEY react. I’ve ranted on here before about at least two of them that are now going to be single mothers. The thing is, you often talk about Men and Woman in absolutes, but then back off to your “target audience” when the generalization is challenged. I understand your mission, but if you truly want to stick to ONLY UMC college age women, I would suggest you leave the generalities out. Because I am surrounded by TONS of women, and not a single one matches your “target audience” in the least. When I see you say something like “all women…”, I simply can’t sit here and NOT disagree. In terms of being objective? My goal is to be happy, and to see my children succeed. I’ve admitted that I love a good debate, and I won’t say I haven’t made provocative comments in the past simply to stir the pot. But honestly, I’m not here to shame women. I’m not here to push any agenda other than committed relationships. I mostly come here to share ideas with like minded people, and perhaps share a viewpoint that others don’t see. If you want to believe that my opinions are so tainted that I can’t be objective that is your prerogative. But it is disappointing to me. We don’t always agree, and that’s fine, but I thought you understood that I support you and your ideas here for the most part, and behind the scenes I’ve taken time to even send things your way to help. But I’m not going to lie for your mission, and I’m not going to post with rose colored glasses because your “target audience” doesn’t like my opinion. To me, the mission is pointless unless it is completely honest and truthful. I would rather come to the conclusion that we are screwed beyond belief than lie and make everyone feel better. And as much as I understand your target audience, it is a big, wide world out here. The UMC/College set can’t account for more than what, 20% of all Americans? (and I’d bet that is a VERY generous estimate). So while you might be able to claim some things are true for your audience, most of us don’t roll in those circles, and we wouldn’t have the slightest clue if you are correct. And to me it really doesn’t matter, because my children aren’t going to Harvard, and we don’t live in a UMC neighborhood.
What I don’t get is this: you have the opportunity here to reach a larger audience. To help a LOT more women than the few who attend an Ivy League school, yet when you start to branch off into other SES discussion, you tend to find yourself besieged and retreat back to the “target audience” position. I can completely understand if it is a matter of being overwhelmed, because you have several rather aggressive commenters here 9myself included of course) that practically pounce when they see something they think is BS. But if you take a moment and think about it, that isn’t a bad thing. You have a group of guys here that might very well be MRA leaning, but to me it seems like most of them are here to be helpful, not to be a distraction. Surely you get those as well, but you know beyond all doubt we aren’t all here to cause problems. I certainly don’t stick around to cause havoc, but sometimes havoc is necessary to get something done.
Enjoy the vacation. I hope you are bringing several books, because the one I suggested isn’t very entertaining. Informative yes, entertaining not so much. But these days I don’t read for entertainment often. I just don’t have that kind of time to spare. I would say trolling blogs has replaced that because I can do it in short bursts, and I don’t feel like I’m wasting too much time that could be spent better elsewhere, since I mostly blog while I’m doing IT work. I’m sitting here anyway.
Deti – “It’s something like “I just couldn’t help myself. Here was this positively beautiful man, he was so charming and sexy. I had to have him, and so I did.” MY OWN SISTER told me a similar story.”
My current SO told me her single ONS was exactly like this, but add a lot of drinking to the mix as well. My ex told me she didn’t intend to “sleep around” while she was dating online, but in both cases the guys just “knew what to say and do” to get her turned on. (can you say PUA? I knew you could…)
Obsidian – “In fact it falls a lot closer in line with what the fellas have been saying all along: theres a small cadre of guys-call em alphas if you like-literally getting all the booty, while the rest of the guys get either the leftovers, the ugly gals or nothing at all.”
It seems you are also suffering from a lack of an objective viewpoint.
But in all fairness, I’d be willing to bet that this type of behavior is not at all common in the elite segments of society. I would guess it starts somewhere in the MC and runs downhill from there. So, perhaps Susan just doesn’t see this going on. And, her point about our age is valid. But unless I’m completely wrong about what I see going on around me, I don’t think I’m simply too old to understand.
Tom – “We all want a lady in the street and a freak in the bed. In my lifes experience, and knowing and talking to a lot of my buddies, most women are not like that. If you find one, as I did(and you did?) we are lucky indeed.”
Indeed. But I had to get past a WHOLE lot of issues in my own head to be OK about it, and in a way that is pretty damn stupid. And I can’t say that it still doesn’t bother me from time to time that for her to be who she is today, she had to follow the PATH she did. And I think for the most part, the few women that CAN pull it off probably have a slightly higher N than the norm, simply because they are rather comfortable with their sexuality. And that is part of why I consider myself so off the norm. I am VERY comfortable with my own sexuality in terms of what I’m willing to do and/or try, but all of that is tightly wrapped in a shell of LTR/monogamy style sex. It is a very rare person that is sexually liberal in terms of “sex acts” but conservative in terms of casual vs. relationship sex. So if I were to concentrate on women that were sexually conservative, my chances of finding that “freak in the bed” are limited. However the pool of women most likely to be a “freak” also tend to be more promiscuous. Like I said, it was my own personal unicorn search. In the end, there are no unicorns, and I had to come to grips with it. I still don’t like it, and if I had my way casual sex as we know it now would cease to exist. But, that isn’t reality, and I try to be a realist.
Susan, re: your last point, that’s precisely what’s at issue. The assumption of the researchers who place the cut-off at 25 or whatever is that either once you get above that threshold it doesn’t matter or that hardly anyone every gets way above that.
But we really don’t know that, absent the data. And they only way to know is for them to try to find out.
Seems to me this SMP has generated a lot of people with far higher counts than was common in the past. It’s time to start asking the question if we really want to understand what’s going on.
I am curious about something. I am earnest in asking this, I’m not being glib. The men here who are most invested in the question of which women are slutty are married or getting married. They are well out of the realm of young love. Why do you care?
But why do we have 40-something guys all angsty about this? Can anyone explain?
I can only speak for myself. Probably the ISTJ in me. I believe one of the defining characteristics of an ISTJ is unwavering dedication to accuracy and getting to the “truth” of something. Your very question presupposes some motive/agenda beyond the fact that accuracy and truthful description of reality on a subject is important for its own sake. I was on a stock market blog where I argued with a guy for two years about the proper valuation of the stock market to determine whether the market was cheap or expensive. He was and continues to be wrong about his valuation model, and I continue to believe he is an educated idiot.
I probably need to work on just shutting up when I realize I think someone is completely wrong about something but absolutely is not going to change their mind regardless of the rationale or examples I provide. Unfortunately for me, my drive to correct someone “who is wrong on the Internet” is probably stronger than the sex drive for a gorgeous 20-year old 10.
I don’t understand why you throw down the gauntlet at Hooking Up Smart to argue that sluts are hot, and that all women are sluts.
Susan, I’m not trying to pick a fight here. The specific thing I said was that around 20% of the men are having the majority of the sex with the majority of women in hookup. I asserted that the alphas dip into the population of women and have sex with low N women, and that these low N women very infrequently hookup with very high N men who have no interest in them beyond f**king them. I also said there are a vast, vast majority of men getting nothing or next to nothing in the SMP.
You’ve transmogrified this into middle aged married or almost-married men going around shouting that all women are slutty. Huh?? All due respect: What are you talking about?
Who said that “sluts are hot”? Some are, some aren’t. Irrelevant.
And who said on this thread that all women are sluts? No one made such an incendiary claim. If you really want to know my view, N>5 is not a slut.
A woman with two BFs before she marries is not a slut.
A woman with 2 or 3 ONSs does not a slut make. She might not be very sexually astute. But she’s not a slut. That same woman will become a slut, though, if she doesn’t become sexually astute, and that right soon. Those women might have been considered sluts in 1950. But not now. That’s just the reality of the situation.
Do I think it’s a good idea to have premarital sex? No. Did I follow that advice? Hell no. Do I think that most hormone-laden college students will? Double hell no.
My answer to your question is this:
This is personal for me. I have children to think about. I’m sending them into an SMP that makes the one I came up in look like a game of Chutes and Ladders. I don’t want my son to go through my experiences. I don’t want him to suffer as I did. I want him to GROK this stuff. I want him to get it. The only way he’s going to grok it is if I grok it first. I don’t want my daughter to suffer the way I’ve seen high N women suffer. I don’t want her to make mistakes. I want to teach her to recognize cads and players. How is she supposed to do that unless her father shows her how?
Go back and read the comments here. Is it just negative reinforcement? Or is there something to it when the same thing is said, over and over again? Is there something to it when guys (and even HOPE!) says “yeah, the same guys got most of the girls, most of the sex, and the rest of the guys got nothing”?
You can question my motivations all you want. Anyone here can cast a gimlet eye at me all they want. I don’t care. When I read and hear the same things over and over again, cutting across all conceivable demographics, from people I don’t even know other than as bits and bytes on not just this blog, but at least a dozen others, that tells me there’s more to it than just a small group of middle aged domesticated men complaining about sluts.
I’ve seen the stats and the numbers. But I know what I’ve seen. I know what I’ve experienced. I know what others I’ve known experienced. I know what problems it’s caused. When it all gets down to it, stats don’t mean a thing next to real world experience, lived in real time by real people, living day to day to week to month to year.
Tom – “Knowing them, their hubbys were glad they went to see it.”
I’m pretty much feeling the same about his movie as I did 50 Shades. To each their own I guess.
Mike C – “Huh? I’ll point out just one example. Jesus Mahoney and his former fiancee.”
I’m sorry, I can’t help it… BOOM – headshot!
“But I think just about every woman except for a small minority either ride the train just a bit or are tempted to ride it. “
And I’ll add to that checkmate. In my experience with all but the most chaste women, all have had at least a turn on the carousel. Every. Single. One.
Ion – “I agree totally Hope. I never thought I was particularly special, or at leastspecial enough to win over a players love or affection. I do encounter women genuinely shocked by their inability to win over a player though. So I know that its either snowflaking or an extreme lack of self-reflection (and analytical thinking) are common factors”
And contrary to popular theory, it isn’t just teeanage and 20-something women that think they are going to turn a player. My ex is well past the 30 mark, and she tried and failed it seems…
Hope – “The average guy basically has to win the girl over her fantasy of the alpha in addition to selling himself.”
YES THIS! It is generally a young woman’s issue, but it would be a mistake to think some women don’t carry this well into their 30’s.
Susan – “To be honest, I was always Long-term oriented. However, the guy I wanted didn’t want me, so I said what the hell and sought validation elsewhere. “
And do you think this is rare or common? My guess, it is FAR more common than anyone wants to admit.
“It’s not that she’s so hot for the guy, she’s desperate for the feeling of being intensely desired by a male that other women find attractive. “
And THIS is my issue with the entire thing. So, as a young woman, you wanted some validation, and when you couldn’t get it in the form of a commitment, you got it with a fling. Fine. But, later in life, when you want to “settle down”, you (and in this case you is women in general, not specifically YOU Susan) expect a man to be completely OK with your choice to forgo the commitment route and instead sex up some random alpha to feel better about yourself? So, I have to come to grips with the fact that in essence, at one point in her life, my SO concluded her “worth” as a person was so low that getting P&D’ed by some random guy was an improvement?! THIS is what needs to be fixed IMO. No women should EVER feel the need for male validation SO BADLY that they’ll compromise their morals to get a quick fix. If this ONE thing was solved, much of the misery in the current SMP might be removed entirely. And I can’t for the LIFE of me understand why a woman in such a position can’t realize that eventually she will find a man that loves her. And when she does, he will not want to know she ever doubted HER WORTH to find him. I’ve always known I would find a woman to love me, and when I did, I wanted to be able to look her in the eye and say *I* never gave in. Yes, I’ve had sex with other women, but each and every one of them MEANT something to me. Can you say that? Can most people? Probably not, and to me that is truly a sad thing.
“I am curious about something. I am earnest in asking this, I’m not being glib. The men here who are most invested in the question of which women are slutty are married or getting married. They are well out of the realm of young love. Why do you care? “
I’ve said this before, but I’m happy to answer again. I have children. My SO has children. We have two boys and two girls, and my daughter is now 18 and heading out into a world that I feel is VERY screwed up. I’ve had it with a society that supports this kind of heathenry, for lack of a better term, and I want better for my kids. I don’t want my or my SO’s daughter to get P&D’ed looking for love. I don’t want my son or my SO’s son to end up screwed over by a “reformed slut”, or even worse find themselves with few other options other THAN a “reformed slut”. For all that you seem to imply that hooking up is a small subset of all people, I and other people here are telling you differently. Yes, the classic definition of “hooking up” takes place in college, blah blah blah. So, what would you call the sex had by the two young women I know that are pregnant? Um, yeah they hooked up. The difference is, they probably did it in the back seat of a car and not a dorm room or frat house. And? I bet they aren’t even counted in a single study you use here to back up your claims, because frankly the people DOING those studies don’t give a crap about the poor kids I see every day. You seem to think hooking up in college is the worst there is in the current SMP. I’m here to say: it isn’t even close. And THAT is what I mean when I say it’s hard to find sympathy and or empathy for your “target audience”. These are all mostly privileged kids you are talking about. There isn’t a single “privileged” kid to be found within a mile of my house, and probably not even in the entire school district. Just by virtue of the fact that your target audience go to college means they are LEAPS ahead of most kids I know, and that won’t change because most of the kids I know probably won’t get a college degree. The costs are too prohibitive, and most of them don’t even believe they could succeed if they tried. So while those in the UMC and up enjoy a lot of extra shelter from the worst out here by virtue of their environment, most of us have NO such buffer to help us. And at least for me, that means MY children are at a serious disadvantage compared to yours. I don’t resent you or them for it, but please don’t act like what I’m saying isn’t true simply because you and yours will never see it. My kids see this crap every day of their lives, and *I* am the one that has to find a way to keep it from becoming who they are…
@Susan,
“Why do you care?”
Well, I think Mike C. answered for us ISTJ-like types. We just love a good argument, especially at the dinner table
Though, honestly, part of my motivation, is to help younger guys (and girls). I have several younger brothers, and lots of younger cousins (both male and female). I’m sure some of them lurk (though they may not recognize their older brother/cousin) commenting, and I’d like to think what is said here makes them think. I imagine the lurkers out there are, in some sense, a online really extended family, so that would go for them as well. Had I been aware of such places like HUS when I was in high school/college, it might have reduced a lot unnecessary suffering typical to young STEM guys.
Mike C, ENY: Yeah, I confess: I like a good argument too.
Sure they hold out, until it’s been six months since they last got laid and the guy with the right stuff shows up. I’m not saying the price isn’t higher, I’m just saying that they’re not going without all the time, as you seem to be suggesting. That’s the dynamic some of the other guys are talking about- it’s not so black and white as “no hot girls hook up”. Just as you are describing in your life, they go through periods where they need validation, or just plain need sex (we all do), and they do get it when the need strikes, with hotter guys than the 6′s and 7′s are getting with. Where I will agree with you, however, is that the hotter girls are less likely to sustain that behavior.
Sluts are not hot.
Or, I would put it this way.
Obviously with a lot of women, you can tell from how they look whether they are slutty or not. Some very slutty girls may be quite attractive and dress demurely. To the extent that I don’t know about her past, I would find her hot. Once I know, the attraction drains away. I am not a player so knowing a girl is slutty holds no attraction for me, quite the opposite.
Dressing like a slut, applying make-up like a slut, or looking like a slut in any way are all major turn-offs for me. Worst of all is the porn star look. Can’t speak for everyone, but these are attraction killers.
“This again ties back to what has been said: the most “attractive” men have the highest Ns, and the females with the highest Ns are prostitutes. Both groups are walking petri dishes of sexually transmittable infections.”
Hope, exactly. It holds true about comments about the top %10-20% for sure.
On a side note about promiscuous populations, I’ve heard claims that perhaps poorer women are often prostitutes because of limited resources to marry above the poverty line, and perhaps this is true, but it doesn’t explain why 1. poor men (who have less disposable income than middle class men) visit prostitutes most often. 2. why poor men need to visit prostitutes if poor women have less standards and date poor men — these men are not starved for sex (perhaps in China due to population, but not anywhere else!)
Perhaps poor men feeling entitled to sex through prostitution, I’ve always suspected sexual/female overcompensation since they have lost in direct competition with other men. I’ve always felt that conquered/poor men are often just promiscuous gamma men who cannot compete directly with males, and therefore are NOT alpha. But that’s for another conversation.
If prostitution for example were “need based” and not a result of the cultural overcompensation of poor males, it’d be middle class nerds in developed countries spreading STDs.
@susan
“I’ve already agreed that the most promiscuous men in society have higher numbers than the most promiscuous women in society.”
Well, that’s sort of true, except I think it’s false at the extreme numbers. Even putting aside hookers, if a reasonably attractive female for whatever reason seeks constant variety, she has almost unlimited capacity to get it. Some woman (fairly attractive) wrote an article in the last year or two about how she set out to get to 1,000, and she got there in over about 1 or 2 years. I guess it was empowering, or something, to prove she could be like a man. But no male other Genghis Kahn could realistically approach that – both in the sense that he would have a hard to impossible time seducing that many women and in the sense that he would face serious consequences (a few rape charges, potential paternity even if condoms were used, etc). Admittedly, such a woman would be an outlier on the spectrum of wants and desires, but they do exist, and I’m not sure how they distort the data.
Ok, I looked it up. I guess she did in 10 years (was inspired by Samantha in Sex and the City). But I would think a determined woman of her looks could do it in 2 or 3 years if she were at all motivated.
Susan – I reread my last post, and I’d like to say that I’m sorry for appearing to be all butt hurt. The thing is, I take it personally when my motivations are questioned, specifically in this case because my primary motivation here is my children. Now I know we don’t really know each other, but we’ve communicated here and by Twitter a few times. When I find random articles online, I often find myself thinking that it would be useful to you even while I’m still reading, and I send it your way. Since you don’t really know me well, I understand that you may not think much of that. But in all honesty, there are very few people I actually concern myself over, and although I’m not saying I’d take a bullet for you, the fact that I even think to send something to you at all tells me that I have a certain level of respect and admiration for you and your mission. Obviously we don’t share the exact same mission, but our goals do overlap a lot. However, where we will constantly be tripped up is where we focus. And in some ways, I think I see you who is a reasonable and intelligent person that happens to be UMC, and I think “maybe she will get it. Maybe she will understand that what is going on out here isn’t at all what happens in the UMC bubble.” There are bigger issues than women in grad school getting tricked by a cad, and although I understand that this concept is what started HUS, I really hope that you can see the bigger picture. I’m not even suggesting that your mission should change, but simply acknowledging and understanding what goes on in other areas and SES groups WILL help your mission. And I’d further suggest that perhaps you should give some thought to your mission. Not that there is anything wrong with it. But, there is no denying the limited audience you are shooting for, and it seems to me that the majority of your most avid posters are NOT part of that audience. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but I can’t simply disregard it as a fluke.
You set out to help your daughter and her friends navigate a SMP that you didn’t understand, and I’d say from all appearances you’ve succeeded there. I sincerely hope so, because I don’t want to see anyone’s child taken advantage of and/or treated badly. But have you stepped back and looked at the big picture lately? I don’t know that there is any way for you to gauge who your readers are, but you CAN gauge who your posters are. So, who are they? Are they mostly college kids going to ivy league schools? If so, then perhaps I really am full of shit and I’ll do my best to bugger off. (I threw that one in for you M3. I LOVE that phrase!) But my guess is that HUS did NOT become this popular because all the freshman at Yale started reading. The truth is, even though you try to target those young women, much of what you write and we discuss has mass appeal. And in fact, I’d wager (and I’ve said I don’t like gambling, so I won’t wager more than a dollar!) that much of it has MORE appeal to the young women close to my SES than yours. Why? Well, as much as your average college campus may have several frats full of PUA alphas, I see a TON of wanna be alpha thugs around me, and as I’ve said before, I’m not nearly in the worst area of my Metro. A lot of the backlash I send your way stems from this fact: what you report here about your experiences are probably very true, for your environment. But there is a lot more to the world than UMC land, and as much as your advice can help a young Harvard women find a good guy to marry without running up her N, it might just keep one less young women in my neighborhood from getting pregnant. Obviously you can’t send them all laptops and get them internet, but I often get the impression that you regularly write them all off simply because you don’t see them. And I have to say, it is more than disappointing and discouraging. I’m sure you don’t feel that way, and I’m pretty sure if you knew how to help them, you’d be on it today. But simply discussing their situation IS helping, because it gets the information out there.
I’m rambling and you are going on vacation. I really just wanted to acknowledge that I didn’t intend to make you feel bad, or give you the impression that I was angry or hurt. In the end, I often expect a lot from people unfairly, and you certainly don’t owe me anything at all. When it all comes down to the wire, we are on the same team. Perhaps we don’t agree on strategy or minor details, but I sincerely hope that you do not think I’m here to detract from your purpose. If anything, in my own odd way, I’m trying to expand it.
@Ted
Or a frequent RIDER card!
Susan
To be honest, I was always Long-term oriented. However, the guy I wanted didn’t want me, so I said what the hell and sought validation elsewhere. This is, I believe, the most common female reason for engaging in a ONS. It’s not that she’s so hot for the guy, she’s desperate for the feeling of being intensely desired by a male that other women find attractive. This is also what female college students say about their hookup experiences. It gets at self-esteem stuff much more than sex drive.
____________
+100%
It is BY FAR the reason why women have short term sex.
@Susan
Overall, I agree with most of the concepts of this site. But I have to respectfully disagree with two concepts you’ve been getting at here and in this thread. If I misinterpreted any of your views above, please feel free to correct me.
1) The hottest girls don’t slut around because they don’t have to.
Some in this sphere might disagree, but my experience has been that female promiscuity isn’t concentrated at any specific attractiveness level. From what I’ve seen, the percentage of 9s and 10s that are promiscuous is about equal with the percentage of 6s, 7s, and 8s that are promiscuous.
You might argue that the 9s and 10s aren’t as promiscuous because they don’t have to be, but I don’t see many girls sleeping around because they have to… like BroHamlet said, I see girls finding something they want and aggressively going for it, because they’re used to getting what they want. I don’t blame them at all for it, either.
2) Girls are neatly packaged into groups that are always non-promiscuous (80%) or always promiscuous (20%)
Like BroHamlet, Mike C, and others have pointed out…. there are tons of girls out there (IMO, the biggest group when you slice the pie) that go back and forth between short-term and long-term, “changing lanes” as you said, depending on what they want at the time and how the environment fits. That discredits the notion that “she’s only one of the small 20% who act like that.”
And FWIW,
Between undergrad, grad school, and work in between, I’ve been living in, traveling to, and socializing in college towns for a good 7+ years. I haven’t been a part of any subcultures, scene, or movements, and think my college experience has been pretty typical. From what you’ve written about your readership and focus groups, it sounds a lot like the people I’ve known and socialized with since high school. I’d venture to say I’m right in the wheelhouse of your target market.
And to be perfectly honest, the stuff Deti, Mike C, BroHamlet, and others have written in this thread align a lot more with the things I’ve experienced myself and seen with my own eyes than the data you present.
You’re probably already on vacation but i’ll just leave this here anyways.
Can you maybe take this experience and try to understand why a man who has gone years/decades of incel, without so much as a touch, feel like killing himself?
Why men who are brushed off and told they are losers and they are not entitled to pussy or sex, cannot stand the fact that the ones who spew this stuff the most (you know, feminists) are the ones who can go out and get the pleasure of the opposite sex, feel entitled to the cock of their choice, without much effort at all due to our inherent ‘gender differences’ and ‘social constructs’.
Maybe cads are just desperately looking for validation to fill the void in their narcissistic souls, and are desperate for the feeling of being intensely desired by women who are intensely desired by other men, and seek out that validation by pumping those women in ONS’s ?
What about the guy who goes and bangs strippers because he’s looking for a self esteem shot when regular run of the mill women are avoiding him? Is his need for validation and need to be desired any less? But now because he’s been with strippers he’s ‘ewww’ not date worthy. But a random hookup with some dude in a bar you just met.. well dat’s no problum mahn.
Remember, the girls most beta guys want don’t give them the time of day.. so obviously by whatever means a man needs to go out and procure ‘validation’ and ‘self esteem’ sex is on the table. Which makes Dark Game P&D’s viable and allowable for use under that mitigating circumstance yes?
Yeah. I’m reliving my adolescence.. couldjatell?
I just want to put something out there, for the record.
I think it is a big mistake on the part of ms walsh or anyu other lady reading this to dismiss the life observations of myself, mikec, ted, deti and wudang. We are as diverse a group of guys as youre ever likely to get. Some of us are divorced; others married; and still others never married but otherwise mated (me). True, we trend a bit older than the target demo of this forum, but we come from many divergent points of view on manuy questions.
And yet, on so many things, our life experiences converge. That ms hope puts such a nice bow on the things all of us guys have seen in our very different lives only sums it all up for me. That we all see and experience, firsthand, all of these things in the smp, is something not to be taken lightly if the goal of the ladies here is to navigate the smp with an eye toward getting a mate. That doesnt mean that the excellent researches presented by ms walsh should be discarded or disregarded; far from it. But its my view that what she presents should be wedded with our “dispatches from the edge” to give you ladies a much richer portrait of just what the 21st century smp landscape actually looks like, from all points of view, not just the admittedly narrow one that is the focus of this venue. Why is that important?
Because as been discussed and demonstrated again and again, we are all in this together-the world is not just getting smaller, but its flattening out as well. What happens on the westside of baltimore today could very well happen in brookline tomorrow-just think of how much inner city culture has already seeped into the lingua franca of umc life already: “tap that”, “hookup”, “pimp”, “player”, “ho”, “whats up with that?” and much much more, are inner city creations that are now part and parcel of the way the umc conveys ideas. This is the way the social classes of america indeed the world, exchanges ideas and concepts and that extends to how we come together matingwise.
The idea that i have some kind of agenda that is mra/manosphere informed, is not only patently false but is ridiculous on its face. What i present here or anywhere else, is based on what i see and wish to convey to other realms. I have nothing to gain by attempting to foist a manospheric agenda on anyone here, let alone the fact that ive gone on record numerous times taking elements of the sphere to task for various positions theyve taken that ive vociferously disagreed with.
So too have i taken issue with some of the positions many of my compatriots have taken as well. For example the whole “n”/”slut” thing has little realworld practicality to me because if im that concerned about a womans #, i simply nix her from my list and keep it moving. Moreover, the simple fact of the matter is that there are no virgins or angels in this world and we all done did some stuff that stinks. Im not gonna hold it against a woman for making a boneheaded move or two in her past. So it would be a mistake to assume that we all are that in lockstep with each other.
The big upside of our presence here at hus is that we are providing needed context to the data presented. In that one of the major reasons why women have male friends is so they have manformation consultants, our presence alone is highly valuable to any woman who wants to up her chances of landing a mate.
More later…
O.
Overall, I agree with most of the concepts of this site.
FWIW, me too up to an extent, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the NORMATIVE concepts offered to women. In terms of these discussions here, you’ve got the normative which is how things should be and what you SHOULD do, and the descriptive which is the actual reality of what is taking place out there in the real world.
The most important part of the discussion are the normative concepts Susan offers to women, and I’m with her the vast majority of the time here. Things like be feminine, screen men based on X, Y, Z if you are relationship oriented. Almost always very good advice IMO, and ultimately THAT PART IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. I think we tend to disagree more strongly when it comes to normative concepts as applied to men, especially as it relates to men trying to improve sexual success, and even some long-term relationship management success. And lastly, we probably disagree more and more on the descriptive. The primary change there that I see is there was a time when male input and descriptions about “on the ground” reality was listened to and taken quite seriously. That has been replaced by studies and books that capture some aspects of reality but are also just theories as well although with people with fancy letter suffixes. If 20 guys in the field all describe the same thing to a tee and Joe Blow PhD wrote a study that says women actually do A instead of B, then by default Joe Blow PhD must be correct and the 20 guys describing the same thing don’t know what they are talking about. This actually happens in many areas of study where you get the conflict between real world practitioners and ivory tower studiers describing the same environment in very different ways.
Some in this sphere might disagree, but my experience has been that female promiscuity isn’t concentrated at any specific attractiveness level. From what I’ve seen, the percentage of 9s and 10s that are promiscuous is about equal with the percentage of 6s, 7s, and 8s that are promiscuous.
FWIW, I”m going to disagree a bit here, and this is based just on my time bouncing. Part of the time I was bouncing I was already in my exclusive relationship. I got more then a few offers from DTF girls to basically just go fuck after my shift ended. I had a couple of 5s offer me a threesome at the hotel across the street from the bar. Of the number of girls who basically just said at closing time here is the pussy if you want it, they were all pretty much 5-6s, maybe 7 to stretch it, but I never got an offer like that from an 8-9. Not one single time. Maybe that has changed somewhat or is a bit different in the college scene. Maybe the difference would be the 8-9s would make you work for it a lot more and least make you chase a bit rather then just throw it on the table for the taking.
Lastly, for me discussion is discussion and debate is debate. I try very hard to not take strenuous disagreement on something personally. And I can like someone, support their overall objective, yet argue vociferously that they are in fact very wrong on some particular point or view.
@mike c
“Of the number of girls who basically just said at closing time here is the pussy if you want it, they were all pretty much 5-6s, maybe 7 to stretch it, but I never got an offer like that from an 8-9. Not one single time. ”
Well, all that really proves is that the 8-9s don’t have to ask anyone because they are already being asked by high SMV guys.
But I think I still agree with your ultimate conclusion.
@MikeC
I do agree that less attractive girls are more likely to make bold propositions like that. You definitely got it with this:
Bingo. The hottest girls are having the same amount of casual sex as their less attractive counterparts. They just do it in more discreet ways (FWBs, off & on hookups, etc.) with a smaller, more elite, group of guys.
Again, I’m not saying all girls are sluts. Or even most. I’m just saying that assuming the hottest girls only do LTRs and never have casual sex doesn’t reflect reality.
@Mike C
OK, I don’t really find anything to argue with here. Your suggestion that women have two piles of men and draw from each at will sounded like concurrent dual mating strategies, which some male bloggers do claim is typical. It is not. I’ve never claimed that “many women” don’t have casual sex, they clearly do. Around 20% of the population, I’d say, at any given time.
Your backstory is highly relevant because it informs your views of women, your motivation for learning Game and discussing it online, and your investment in holding those views.
I’ve never known your N, you’ve said in the past that it’s low because you went off the market as you reached your peak. I was just taking your word for it.
As I stated in this thread, Vox Day believes lifetime count of 15 makes a man alpha. I don’t find it useful to use N as a proxy for alpha or beta. I’ve known alphas with an N of 1-5, and I currently know at least a dozen betas who are already over 15. It doesn’t really matter whether you think a number is low or high – the only relevant question is how does the population skew, for both males and females.
I’m not interested in whether men find smart women attractive. The fact is that both intelligence and education are both inversely correlated to promiscuity. To the extent that you observe women without those characteristics, you are likely to witness a more promiscuous group of women, which is not representative of women in general.
I think that proves my point. Your coworker is banging girls who are cheating on their unattractive bfs because otherwise they get cheated on. Slutty slut sluts. Your coworker has probably never once been with a girl who is marriage material.
Like I said, sluts get with sluts. Nothing I am hearing here indicates otherwise.
@Escoffier
I really appreciate your answering my question, but to be honest I wasn’t asking about you. There are lots of dads here, and I totally get that they feel just as you do. I was referring, rather, to middle aged men who never mention either of those things, but seem to be competing to sell their view of women here. It feels like a campaign, and I don’t understand it.
Regardless of what men here think about women, it makes absolutely no difference to this blog. Of all the emails I’ve received as a blogger from women – hundreds – 90% have been from women who are not promiscuous and are trying to either get with a beta or make sure the guy they like isn’t a player who is going to pump and dump them. I can recall one single email from a girl who found out she was in a harem and wanted to know how to get rid of the other girls.
I’m not writing for sluts, and they’re not writing to me. They’re irrelevant to HUS, and discussing them is a huge timesuck.
@Ted D
First, I get 10,000 readers every day, and they didn’t all attend Ivies. Most are in college, though, or have graduated. I post many articles here that are not brainy, yet pregnant teens don’t find there way here. Why? Because educated people read blogs, and uneducated people don’t. That is a well known fact. So I disagree that I am underserving my audience. I have a voice, it’s unique and born of my own life experience, and that voice has resonated with a lot of people. I would not even dream of changing the mission of the blog. All are welcome, but I have no expertise or inclination to start taking on issues of single motherhood and mating in the AA community or anything else I know zip about.
I agree, and I value the commentary of all of you. However, it is not unusual for men to show up here ready for a fight. I’ve been lambasted for daring to suggest that marriage is a valuable institution. I welcome anyone who is indeed trying to be helpful, and could do without the wingnuts.
OK, but if only 2% of males go over 25, then what breakouts would be informative. 0.33% at 100? Clearly, researchers feel that since 25+ is already a very small group, further stratification is not needed.
Why do we need to know about that handful of guys when their numbers are insignificant?
OK, I don’t really find anything to argue with here. Your suggestion that women have two piles of men and draw from each at will sounded like concurrent dual mating strategies, which some male bloggers do claim is typical. It is not. I’ve never claimed that “many women” don’t have casual sex, they clearly do. Around 20% of the population, I’d say, at any given time.
No, I wasn’t saying anything about concurrent strategies. I was just saying that when a woman is “single” the short-term casual sex she has is going to tend to be more with guys with some combination of good looks or more alpha qualities. The long-term boyfriend sex will include guys with more beta qualities. The pertinent point is that to the extent a woman does engage in any short-term casual sex it most likely will include little to no beta men. I actually think this is one thing different from the late 70s/early to mid 80s to recently. I suspect that back when you were in your 20s the casual sex market was much more assortative. I suspect women think more now that if they are going to have some casual short-term uncommitted sex then the guy HAS TO BE “HAWT”.
Your backstory is highly relevant because it informs your views of women, your motivation for learning Game and discussing it online, and your investment in holding those views.
True enough, and this is a good point. Of course, we all have a backstory. I think it would quite accurate to say your views on men, cads, motivation for writing the blog, and investment in those views are highly informed through seeing the world through your daughter’s eyes. Nothing wrong with that….we all bring a certain perspective.
I’ve never known your N, you’ve said in the past that it’s low because you went off the market as you reached your peak. I was just taking your word for it.
I thought I mentioned it before…maybe not..but yeah it is 7. 2 committed long-term relationships, 1 on and off fuckbuddy, and 4 short-term flings all of which happened for the first time by day 2. I’m not counting anything that wasn’t P in V.
I don’t find it useful to use N as a proxy for alpha or beta.
Neither do I as some sort of cutoff metric. I think it would be nuts to say OK at 14 you are beta and 15 you become alpha. Loosely speaking, I think sexual success is highly correlated with “alpha” attributes but there is complexity and context arount that.
I’ve known alphas with an N of 1-5, and I currently know at least a dozen betas who are already over 15.
I can see the former in the case of say a religious guy, or a guy who takes himself off the market really young. The latter is harder to see unless you are maybe talking about a guy who is extremely good looking but has a lot of beta personality traits. That guy can probably get numbers from very sexually aggressive women.
The fact is that both intelligence and education are both inversely correlated to promiscuity. To the extent that you observe women without those characteristics, you are likely to witness a more promiscuous group of women, which is not representative of women in general.
This is a good point, and I wanted to acknowledge that.
But you know that I disagree with your view. I believe my analysis is far more accurate than your anecdotal evidence, and I have tried at all times to be truthful. As I have already said, if I get this wrong, I lose big time. I have every incentive to determine the reality, it’s just that my conclusions do not match what you’ve observed anecdotally. For me to dismiss the data and go with Game field reports would be pure insanity.
@deti
I respect and admire this. I think you run the risk of sending some very damaging messages to both of your children, but that is none of my business. I am curious if your wife is familiar with your online persona and manifestos, and whether she agrees you should be teaching your children these things. I hope so, because that is a very important parenting decision.
@Ted
I had no expectations that a man would be OK with my choices. And frankly, I have never been asked my number by a single man. I rolled the dice and it worked out. I would have respected the right of any man to disqualify me for any reason. No one owed me anything. And I think most women operate that way. For starters, most don’t know this is important to many guys, and secondly, it’s not important to all guys. Why I try to communicate here is that women should be aware that some men care, and promiscuous behavior will shrink their pool of potential partners.
I’m not saying that what you are seeing isn’t true. I’m simply stating the limits of my knowledge and of the product I offer here.
Thanks to the men for answering my question about participating here. These are good and noble reasons! There’s no doubt that sometimes I feel like I wandered into the wrong locker room, and the dialogue really does get a bit intense for me sometimes. But I do value and appreciate it.
@BroHamlet
I’ve never said hot girls do not hook up. I think the issue is how promiscuity works for women. The truth is, women just don’t plain need sex – at least not most women. And they certainly don’t need it with a stranger.
There are so many books, studies, and so much data at this point looking at what kinds of people are most likely to have NSA sex. What the risk factors are for promiscuity. It’s a complicated web, and no generalization about hot women or fat women or church women is going to be valid. There are hot women whose parents divorced badly who will hook up. There are women who inherited dopamine-chasing tendencies from alpha dad. There are women who drink a great deal, and that’s a big predictor of sexual behavior. There are women who are disagreeable and narcissistic, and they are more likely to use people in general, including for sex. There are an infinite number of permutations.
But you know that I disagree with your view. I believe my analysis is far more accurate than your anecdotal evidence,
And vice versa
I was just answering your question you posed 
As I have already said, if I get this wrong, I lose big time.
Not necessarily…I covered this in my comment about normative versus descriptive. You could be 100% spot on right on your normative advice yet be very off on the descriptive. You don’t necessarily have to be correct on the descriptive part of what many/most women are in fact doing in order to give really good advice to women on what they ought to do. And like I said, for the most part, I think you give really good advice except when you tell women they should go cut their hair like that Harry Potter chick to look sexy (just playing).
For me to dismiss the data and go with Game field reports would be pure insanity.
It doesn’t have to be either/or. Are you familiar with mosaic theory? Very often, when I am analyzing a stock I realize no one source might paint the entire picture and you have to draw bits and pieces of various sources. I’m not saying the academic studies and tomes should be thrown in trash, but I am saying they are not the final last Biblical word, and I think the more and more you completely disregard direct reports from guys out there, you decrease accuracy, not increase it. But ultimately that is your call.
BTW, wishing you a speedy recovery and enjoyable vacation.
I thought that you were off for a holiday? Go on…hop it! (sorry about that, it’s all in the best possible taste)
Have a nice time, hope you’re better soon, take care
p.s. Don’t forget to give Tom a thought tomorrow, I know that I will
Susan, the reason it’s worth knowing is that, even if the numbers of super-high count men and women are small, it’s possible and even likely that they are having a disproportionate–and highly significant–impact on the SMP. I don’t, at this point, we know whether or not that’s true and if it is, what that impact really is. This is the heart of the disagreement between you and the other guys here. The only way to sort it out would be for someone to do the research. Personally, I think the researchers are behind the times, they don’t realize these people are out there or what impact they might have so they don’t study it.
I disagree that it doesn’t matter what the men here think about women. Because this is the Internet and everyone is anonymous, women are going to encounter more real opinions and unvarnished truth here than they will in real life. Understanding how men really think will help them.
Just reading through the comments peaking for myself as a girl that has been somewhat promiscuous in the past, and one of probably the majority of girls who as has also been said kind of sits in the middle/ goes either way with ltr or str, Mike C at 549 kind of hit the nail on the head for me, you know very good looking, nice, one thing led to another that sort of thing, you’re still discriminate but like he said just not requiring any demonstration of commitment. As for the term manwhore I think it’s used differently than whore, I think maybe it’s more of a just a reference than an insult a lot of the time, or you might even say to your friend “oh your such a manwhore” half in jest/ affectionately and he’d take it very differently to if he’d called you a whore, for example.
I think think the thing with guys that have been around a lot that puts girls off a lot of the time is if they’ve been with somebody(s) you know, that kind of tacky sharing thought rather than the number itself, I think Susan called it a petri-dish, it might put a guy you’d otherwise be very attracted to as a ‘just no’ on principle.
@Passer By
Yes, I recall that article – it was in one of the British tabloids. It was definitely a “shaking my head” moment for me.
Well, they inflate the mean for sure. The effect on the median is much less significant.
I don’t think we can learn much from the Daily Mail article about the woman who got to 1,000. I read it and remember thinking she came off as obviously insane.
@Ted D
We’re good. I was not the least bit offended. You’ve given me a lot to think about. I’ll be honest – you are a rare man with your exceedingly high standards for character and I totally respect that. I KNOW your kids are going to turn out great. I appreciate your always thoughtful commentary, and your great (and self-deprecating) sense of humor. Also, few things give me as much pleasure and learning that I made you laugh loudly enough to alarm your coworkers.
@Jimmy
Let me clarify again. What I argued was the idea that women have a pair of piles of men that they draw from at will, concurrently. Obviously, as one of my recent posts highlighted questions about whether males are even more promiscuous than females, I recognize that women do employ short-term mating strategies. A full range of strategies is available to both sexes.
For the record, I don’t think 20% is a small number. The fact that 20% of women at any given time are acting slutty is huge. That’s up from about 2% in 1970.
The reason that it is very, very important to get these numbers right is that it’s critical to understand how pervasive hooking up is, as opposed to hookup culture, which is thoroughly pervasive. It is my belief (backed up by studies!) that there is a large Pluralistic Ignorance effect. That creates a very different strategic opportunity than the finding that 80% of women are having sex with 20% of men. To my knowledge, I’m still the only blogger that has run those numbers, and it just isn’t the case.
@Obs
Does that mean men are willing to be platonic romance advisors after all? Sweet!
I do appreciate the context of men here, and I believe that it is helpful for women to get the male perspective on many mating issues. What I think is less productive is the back and forth regarding the “true nature” of women. You spent a whole thread attempting to convince everyone that all women are liars. To what end? Who cares? What does that have to do with my mission? Nothing.
Some of the debates that arise here are simply not germane to my mission. Some discussions would be better and more productive among males in another online location.
It’s no secret that the angry and belligerent (not to mention misogynistic) tone of some male commenters in the past has literally driven women readers away in droves. I’ve watched traffic drop 40% for a whole week during contentious debates. That is not helpful, most notably to the women who come to HUS seeking solutions to problems. Imagine their surprise when the comment thread is all about what liars women are. NOT HELPFUL!
I do my best to let people air their views and debate them. I’m willing to lose some readership due to the active style of debate. This is not a girls-only blog. But make no mistake – I am always aware of what a new reader is experiencing here – and if I perceive the conversation is going to cause a 20 yo college girl to slam her laptop shut in horror, I’m going to stop it.
I have not increased my use of studies and/or books in 3+ years. They were always key.
If Joe Blow conducted a study with 1,000 undergrads using the the scientific method, it trumps 20 FRs. It just does, in my view. Part of the problem is that as I’ve stated, I don’t believe the FRs are objective. I see a lot of evidence of bias, both in the FRs and in the ensuing discussion. Deti’s claiming that he knows he is right because half a dozen men from different cities confirm his view is the perfect illustration – when we know that these six men interact on blogs where the blogger has a strong (even extreme) POV.
In my own defense, I don’t give a lot of credence to FRs from my focus groups either. I don’t believe I have ever written a post claiming an understanding of the SMP based on their stories. I view their perspective as interesting and supplemental, but far from objective. It’s not data I could defend confidently, that’s for sure.
That’s just my view of FRs, I’m an equal opportunity skeptic.
@Susan
“if I perceive the conversation is going to cause a 20 yo college girl to slam her laptop shut in horror, I’m going to stop it.”
It’s not clear to me whether this is a hobby, mission or business to you, or a mixture. But in any case, what you say is fair enough. Keeping HUS on track and interesting is a tricky goal, but worthwhile. Keep it up, that’s my vote (FWIW)
Have a nice holiday.
@Just1X
Thanks, I’ve been thinking about him so much. I feel such a sense of loss – I keep wanting to find a new quirky comment from him. Not having met Munson IRL makes it all the more odd. It’s as if I dreamed him or something. I’m quite amazed by how deeply someone can touch us through the written word alone. His energy was incredible – he made ideas jump right off the page.
My last comment probably would have made more sense about a page ago but anyway, yeah I kind of agree with esco and others that even though the guys comments feelings on here may be coloured by their own experiences, it’s still good to know just how strongly a lot of men feel about these things, I think if I’d have found hus earlier it would have really made me stop and think. There’s just such a culture that it’s all ok now and even though I think all women have heard the way some men talk badly about sluts I think women just generally assume it takes a lot more to get lumped into that box than it does/ those men are just backwards dickheads rather than the norm, and really don’t have any idea about the feelings, whether rational or not, and thoughts it provokes in men.
The knowledge has helped quite a lot anyway. So has HUS
@Escoffier
Only if those views are representative, and that is my big concern. I think most male views here are representative – I love it when men talk about what they find attractive, how to win them over, what they seek in a mate, etc.
How is it helpful for a woman to come away from HUS thinking that women are liars and sluts deep in their hearts? That men believe that women are constantly looking for an opportunity to dump their mates like they’re some old clunker and trade up to a newer model? It’s warped, it really is, and I don’t want to subject women to the extreme idealogues who find their way here. (I am not talking about regulars – I am talking about weirdos who show up here with a major chip on their shoulder.)
That’s the big flaw of what one might call the right flank of the manosphere. They mistake a part for the whole.
I think 80/20 illustrates the general idea of what’s happening, but I agree that those numbers are extreme.
I don’t think you can really give credence to any single field report (nor any single “expert” whether they’re a PhD, blogger, or whatever else) … but if say 10-20 different girls who all go to different schools are essentially reporting the same thing, I’d start to at least question data that reports something vastly different.
I really don’t think science can be very precise when it relies on somebody’s independent reporting, thoughts, feelings, or perceptions. And I’m saying that as someone who’s currently collecting data through surveys on a regular basis for my Master’s thesis. Half the time I don’t even believe the data I collect on some topics. College students don’t tend to take them seriously (I know I don’t, even in my current position). Usually it’s just an easy way to get credit for class or score some beer money.
Susan:
Thanks. I think my son needs to know what he’s up against. I’m particularly pained by your own focus group’s descriptions:
“trashdick”.
“Boyfriends are ugly”. (Seriously? This is what it’s come to? I’m not being snarky here. I thought women were all about long term boyfriends. I thought HUS was all about getting boyfriends and stable relationships for your readers. But there are at least some women out there who disdain BFs. So, if “boyfriends are ugly”, why should any man be a girl’s boyfriend? Why sign up for that?)
And Sassy’s view of betas: that she pities them and feels sorry for them; but sure doesn’t want to date them.
What right thinking man would want women thinking all these derogatory, insulting things about his son? Should I not teach him how NOT to be these things?
My daughter needs to know too. I don’t want her getting pumped and dumped by some cad.
“Deti’s claiming that he knows he is right because half a dozen men from different cities confirm his view is the perfect illustration – when we know that these six men interact on blogs where the blogger has a strong (even extreme) POV”
No. I drew the conclusion from men (and one woman — Hope, one of this blog’s most loyal and good-natured regulars) who interact on THIS blog: Mike C, Obsidian, Wudang, Ted D, BroHamlet.
@ Deti
I don’t pity betas, and I never said that I did. I specifically said that I want to help betas, but I don’t have the desire to date them.
I’m sure that betas would do perfectly well with women who like betas. That’s just not me though. It’s a personal preference.
Susan, from 711 and 716:
That is not helpful, most notably to the women who come to HUS seeking solutions to problems. Imagine their surprise when the comment thread is all about what liars women are. NOT HELPFUL!
I don’t agree that this is necessarily unhelpful. If a good and convincing factual case can be made that women are, in fact, generally liars, then wouldn’t any young woman who learns that here be well advised to stop and think, “Am I one of those liars? Let me think honestly about myself and what I’ve done.” Maybe that would be good for her to do. Anything that could push the young female reader into greater introspection might potentially be quite helpful, to her life specifically and to the world at large.
Also, it might help shake her mind loose from the (feminist/Team Woman) idea that women never do anything bad and anything wrong with the world is always the fault of men. If she can break free of this mindset, then she’ll have a much better chance of realistically appreciating the world and solving her problems. So any convincing case that women are not, in fact, a group of angels on earth could be beneficial for them to hear.
Similarly
How is it helpful for a woman to come away from HUS thinking…That men believe that women are constantly looking for an opportunity to dump their mates like they’re some old clunker and trade up to a newer model?
It can very easily be helpful. If she appreciates that this is how men think, even erroneously, then she can take action to make herself more attractive and appealing by manifestly demonstrating that she’s loyal and not hypergamous, ie that she’s different from, and better than, all those typical girls. Information points the way to opportunity.
Really, this is just ordinary marketing strategy. If you learn that customers are generally dissatisfied with some particular product or service category, for some identifiable reason, then your firm can get a leg up by advertising, convincingly, that your brand of products/services is free from the specific drawback that customers broadly dislike. Information about what it is that the customers don’t like is certainly valuable! and it can be very helpful to find that out (even in cases where the customers are factually mistaken in their idea).
My personal underlying philosophy is that, if it’s true information then it’s potentially valuable, no matter how unpalatable the truth may seem, or how rudely presented. Young women (or anyone else) who are so fragile that they can’t read past an unpleasant tone to get at the useful facts, are only handicapping themselves and should try to get over that drawback.
“I’m sure that betas would do perfectly well with women who like betas”
Where are these women?
Here’s your entire comment. It’s where I drew the “feel sorry for betas” conclusion, based on your analogy to how you believe men view obese women:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/03/29/politics-and-feminism/is-the-end-of-hypergamy-near/comment-page-3/#comment-113620
“It’s true. It’s probably akin to some men’s reactions to obese women. They feel sad for them, and try to empathize with the pain they are going through, but they still wouldn’t date them when all is said and done. It wouldn’t be wise to. Their instinctive sexual desires lead them away from obese women, and I understand it completely.
It’s my same reaction to beta males. I want to help them, but I don’t want to date them. It’s sad, and fairly superficial, but it’s true.”
@deti wrt ms sassy:
Your exchange only goes to highlight my point (again!) about the very real modern day smp and how it actually works on the ground. Ive specifically mentioned her and ms hope to illustrate how it all goes down:
Ms hope is asian. This alone gives her a leg up in the smp because rightly or wrongly she has high mate value for a segment of american men. But thats only part of the story as to why shes successful:
The other piece of the puzzle/formula is that asian women also tend to focus on a virtually untapped market: nerdy white beta males. I say genetics are at least in part why this is, and anyone who has eyes can regularly see cute asian chicks on the arm of quirky/nerdy white guys. I live in one of the most college scene friendly cities on the planet: temple, la salle, usp, drexel, villanova, upenn, penn state, et al and i defy anyone here to actually deny what ive said in this regard.
Sistas like ms sassy, simply dont get down like that-they simply do not select for straightahead brain power in that way. Intelligence matters no doubt about it; but like i said, the eye candy factor matters at least as much, and id say a sight more than the iq. Add to that the fact that he must have game, be it natural (which is what women really prefer truth be told) or otherwise, and it all adds up to why asian women overall have such a high marital (success) rate compare to other women, especially the ms sassys of the world (black women to white men marital rate among the lowest on the interracial marriage mkt for several decades running-easily documented). It is because at least in part, due to their respective target markets. One focuses on an area of the male market that is virtually untapped; the other focuses on a market that is heavily saturated. And we all can see the results.
I say the differences between the ms hopes and ms sassys of the world are at least in part genetically informed. And while yes “nuture” plays a role, given what ms hope has said herself not just about herself personally but about asian ways overall, it really does make sense when you think about it.
This is why i said that its not really a good idea for a ms hope to try to advise a ms sassy because their needs and desires are in fact quite different. Add to that the fact that one group of women already come to the table with a decided market edge and again we can see why things are as they are today.
And before howling starts, im consistent. Ive said at least three times before, that a lot of game marketers arent being honest with men. There are really good looking and successful guys out there taking these dudes for bad by telling them variations of “just be yourself” when in truth, being yourself means that as a 4 guy youre never going to score that hot to death dime chick. and those guys keep trying, keep spending loot, etc. god bless em, but they are seriously on a fools errand. the truth is, that they MUST manage their expectations; if youre a 4 guy the best you can hope for is a 6 woman, end of. Some guys will be pleased as punch at this but any guy whos spent just a modicum of time in the seduction community knows there are guys out there who think if they just learned this or that line or routine, they too will get the dime. Just. Not. Gonna. Happen.
There are two reasons why i say sistas like ms sassy are likely to fail:
1. Because people with options almost always exercise them (zach et al)
2. Because ms sassy faces extraordinarily stiff competition for her target mkt which is for all intents, white alphas: white women, asian women, certain types of latinas, east indian and certain middle eastern women and finally, other “swirling” sistas such as herself. Why in the world would ANY guy with those kinds of options want to put all of that to the side and choose a ms sassy? If i were a betting man she hasnt even asked such a question of herself. AND add to the fact that shes made it known, right from the rip, that aint no nookie jumping off till he done put a ring on it-or darn near it? Yea, good luck with that.
Murray et al, was right folks. Im just sayin.
O.
Just gotta weigh in with what mikec and others have noted wrt ms walsh’s past.
I too noticed when ms walsh said she had a fling or two way back when, and while it didnt bother me one bit i couldnt help but notice how much she blatantly contradicted herself. Shes living proof of the fact that women can indeed employ BOTH ltr AND str mating strategies, *depending on the context of the particular situation at hand*. Sure i get “why” ms walsh did thus and so back in the day-just like i get “why” women lie to get rid of unwanted suitors. In the end though-and this is crucial if you want to understand the male mind-you did it. “why” is irrelevant. Women are capable of both. It is what it is.
And ms walsh was right to quote me when it comes to pretty girls-generally theyre in a position to get their price so to speak. Problem is and ms walsh has rightly noted this, these days a pretty gal cant drive a hard bargain like that because if she do she will find herself rotting away on the shelf. Guys and that includes the hotties, can and will mate down. Way down. Just like the pretty gals will, if necessary, hookup on the down low, hot guys most definitely will bust a nut on a mud duck on the down low too.
Yes, pretty gals hookup too-just not as often as their second tier sisters, and unless youre a psychic or in their inner circle, youre likely not to know about it. These days, pretty gals face extremely stiff competition from their lessers, who can and will put out if for no other reason than to spite the prettier gals-mate poaching is real, folks-and so the pretty gals have to do something in order to meaningfully compete. Thing is, that being pretty gals, they still command some control in the process, so they can determine at least to some extent how and who they hookup with. With the lesser sisters, they kinda more or less have to go with the flow-so long as the guy in question is objectively above them in smv, she has little choice but to go along with it or decline outright.
So in this sense, the pretty gals are really up against it. The combined effects of feminism, the pill, abortion on demand and education/careers for (not hot) women overall, have conspired to make what was once a very favorable market position for the dime a really bearish place to be today. If she dont put out shes a virtual spinster. Simple as.
O.
Ms. Ion has directed a number of comments to me that i want to respond to in a more pointed fashion later today; but for now id just like to riff a bit on something that she touched on coupled with recent discussions about the great jane austen.
While im very familiar with austen i in no way consider myself expert in her writings, and so greatly enjoyed the discussions concerning her work among various hus commenters. While i have nothing to add there, i DO have something to say about…
Mr tyler perry.
For those who dont know, tyler perry is a very successful playwright and movie maker, whos films and plays center on the innermost desires and lives of black women. All told his productions have made half a billion dollars, and per forbes magazine perry is the highest paid man of any color in hollywood, having made upwards of $150 usd last year. In that he made his fortune off a core market of black women, id say that if theres a brotha who knows the black female mind, it is most definitely tyler perry, and brothas or anyone else who is interested in understanding black women better would do well to study his works.
In his book is marriage for white people, ralph richard banks devotes the better part of a chapter to perry and in particular the “blue collar brotha” meme. Banks takes a less than flattering view of perry in this regard, but that meme got me to thinking-WHY is that so very ubiquitous in so much of not only perrys work but other black authors and the like (recall terry mcmillans “waiting to exhale” and the late gregory hines character opposite loretta divine)? Well, to answer that, we have to examine another very popular trope: what i call the michael beach guy.
Michael beach is a black character actor who, with the exception of “er” and “third watch” tv shows, tends to epitomize the a**hole white collar brotha thats become a fixture in perry and other black chick lit films and books. Hes good looking, smooth, accomplished, wealthy…and hes also cruel, amoral, a knucklehead in extremis. This trope is so very powerful for so many black women because so many black women encounter it or know a sista who has-for many sistas, success can change a man-and not for the better. Waiting to exhale both the book and the film upon which its based, deals precisely with this theme in the opening scene, when beach tells his wife played by angela bassett, that he is divorcing her as they are getting ready for a new years eve black tie affair, and leaving her for his white secretary. Sure, its ham fisted-what form of black arts and entertainment isnt-but the point remains-that a lot of black women have dealt with brothas who, for whatever reason, really change for the worse when they become successful. As a result, these women have it all-and in the end have nothing.
Enter the blue collar brotha. They dont possess the outer trappings of worldy success as their better heeled brothas do. But they have moxy, heart and most of all, a strong moral center. Sounds corny i know, but heres the thing: as a lifelong blue collar brotha, ive heard quite a few sistas speak on all of this. Theyve seen firsthand what the michael beaches can and will do to a sista, and either they got out of it or they want no part of it. The blue collar meme is so strong in perrys productions, because its a direct reaction on the part of so many sistas to the michael beaches of the world.
There are those who take issue with perry for what they perceive as his “chitlin circuit”, lowbrow minstrel sensibilities and presentation of black life as charicatures to be mocked instead of taken seriously, but what i notice most is that his harshest critics all tend to be black males who are a lot more like micael beach than not. And i think theyre making a huge mistake to dismiss perry. Because he has proven that he understands their hopes fears failures and desires in a way that even oprah does not-and it shows.
In dollars and cents.
Ive know more highly educated black women than a little bit; sistas whove attended and graduated from the best unis on planet earth. Ive discussed jane austen more than they have.
But ALL of them have discussed tyler perry. Because he speaks to them and their lives in a way that austen simply does not.
Hmm.
O.
” asian women also tend to focus on a virtually untapped market: nerdy white beta males. I say genetics are at least in part why this is, and anyone who has eyes can regularly see cute asian chicks on the arm of quirky/nerdy white guys.
Sistas like ms sassy, simply dont get down like that-they simply do not select for straightahead brain power in that way.”
Your comment on Tyler Perry is ridiculous…I’ll just strut on past it, for the most part.
I will say that as an atheist when it comes to christianity (perhaps more agnostic is how I identify), I know black women who love his movies based on the super christian connection. You’re grasping at straws. But that’s your evidence? Tyler Perry and Sassy? lol.
Here are some things I’ve seen here, and my own experiences:
Iggles is black, I believe she has expressed that her boyfriend is beta, and that she prefers betas. Royal Cheese (?) I believe has declared the same. Anaconda (is black? really not sure/don’t remember). If so, black female beta-chasers outnumber Sassy on this blog 4/3 to 1. There are also more black women on THIS blog devoted to betas, than there are asian women.
Doesn’t surprise me, as asian women have no problem attracting betas because of their SMV, and stereotypes. Any asian woman who wants a beta can probably get one. Sadly stereotypes of black women make us “scary” to betas, and in need of Susan, and similar blogger’s advice.
There are more black men who’ve slept with tons of people than there are betas. I will NOT settle on this, any man who has been with upwards of 15+ women makes me want to vomit. I have never dated a player or thug, nor will I “give men a chance” who have gone to prison. When I say I like betas, I mean your badly dressed, glasses wearing betas (like my dad). I know you will say I should compromise on this, since you love reminding black women that no one wants us.
By background– I am Bajan and African American to be exact. Found this blog because I want to attract, and like betas. My father is from Barbados and a nerd, my mother is African American. I didn’t realize this belief that black women didnt want betas existed when I was growing up, because enough betas around me were married to beta black women. My parents were married when I was born and although they divorced, my stepmother of 20 years is AA, and my stepfather is a beta jewish man.
Just as an FYI it’s is not rare to find bajan and other Caribbean beta nerds who come to the U.S: I am middle class because my dad was a kind of engineer. My beta-nerd father even majored in math in college.
Many black women are married in Barbados, because there is not as much of a black male obsession with “light skin” among black males there that disqualifies most black women from being considered attractive enough like in the U.S. My brothers are betas, and married to black women who are attracted to betas, all of us are the color of milk-to dark chocolate. Growing up, my mom looked more like Claire Huxtable than like Beyonce. And all my beta female relatives in Barbados of various shades are married to other betas. But sadly, the AA side of my family (which is southern), has deteriorated over the last few generations. Last time I saw this side of the family, I saw 35 yr old cousins with pants sagging at their knees, this side of the family isn’t marrying nearly as often and playing the field (when they are not in prison). Sadly.
I’ve already commented on this issue about the current current alleged “masculine” stereotypes turned beta black males into alphas by definition, and in this SMP turned beta black males into players, leaving single middle class black women without betas to chose from. I have already covered this here http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/07/09/hookinguprealities/is-sexual-selection-theory-up-for-grabs/comment-page-4/#comment-134503.
“Why do we need to know about that handful of guys when their numbers are insignificant?”
Because although they are few guys their number of hookups are so huge they impact the data a lot when analyzing things such as if medium number girls get with very high number guys. My 150+ friends are each the equivalents of 6 25 guys so their relevance to the numbers is in fact big. I´ve seen at least one Norwegian study that included people with insane numbers. There was one guy in it with 800 women. He would be the equivalent of 32!!! 25 guys or 53!!! of Vox`s minimum alpha guys of 15. A peculiar thing about the college numbers is also that the participants are very young. People who have 40 at 30 rarely have Jasons game as he got there at 23 or something. The 150 friends of mine probably were not too far ahead of Jason at the time. There is also the factor of younger women having more sex with older men than younger men with older women which should impact the numbers some.
I`ll get around to replying to all the other posts later. I don`t have a any non pdf links to the study about female attractiveness and sociosexuality unfortunately but it might be possible to find one, I´m not sure.
IF you do a study of 300 men and two percent of those men are above 25 that means six guys. If amongst those 300 hundred there is one guy at 150 that guy will account for an equal number of hookups as those top guys. So without him the picture might look like there are as many very promiscuous because there are also 6 25 women but with him the picture changes to most promiscuous 2% of men having twice as many sex partners as the most promiscuous women. Leaving out the super alphas numbers might go a long way to explain why some studies find a gender parity in promiscuity that is greater than that observed in real life.
“she’s desperate for the feeling of being intensely desired by a male that other women find attractive.”
Grandma probably had that feeling too. But grandma was well-parented and knew that it was not necessary to capture that feeling on the ascent of multiple cocks; she knew that only a man in love would have equal desire for her and the absence of mutually equal desire would leave an emotional damaging mark on her for life. It was grandma’s character that made her “who she was” and found no reason to make whiney asinine claims about the need to “express her sexuality” or discover herself via one penis after another solely because they were cheap easily acquired sources of pleasure. Grandma’s character came from within, not from outside shoving things in. Grandpa committed to a self-aware woman of depth worthy of his love, not a cock-riddled facsimile of one.
“It gets at self-esteem stuff much more than sex drive.”
All sorts of people have self-esteem stuff to deal with. They may wish to talk about it with a close friend or seek counseling. But propaganda like this:
“It is BY FAR the reason why women have short term sex.”
Will in no way get men to see it from another angle and just say to themselves “oh, well, she just needed a cock crutch to get her through a rough patch, no bigee”
“That’s up from about 2% in 1970. ”
What happened to the sexual revolution? Was it just the most extreme case of apex fallacy ever? I`ve read so many claims about there being a period int he early 70s with lots more promiscuity that then calmed down, especially after people became aware of Aids in the 80s. Are there any traces of this in the data? Or is there just a slowly increasing promiscuity?
“it’s still good to know just how strongly a lot of men feel about these things, I think if I’d have found hus earlier it would have really made me stop and think.”
As more men speak up, the result will be many many more “stop and think” women
One thing I´ve been wondering about is the lifetime numbers. THe lifetime numbers for people born in the 50s or 60s is going to be much lower than for those born in the 80s and 90s considering that the promiscuous bunch has gone from 2% to 20%. But when studies are made of lifetime numbers the averages are quite low and I guess that is because they include people from all ages and so include both older people that where never in a promiscuous generation and young people so young they haven`t had time to rack up their numbers. So are there any studies that make projections of where those in college now will eventually land or of people who are 30 or 35 now (that would be be an age that would include the majority of the numbers people end up with I think as so many have settled down by then)?
Obsidian:
Sassy’s personal dating preferences are of no concern to me. My point was not about her personally. My point with mentioning Sassy was as an example. She doesn’t want to date betas. I think her viewpoint on betas is much more commonplace than most women will admit.
She says betas do well with women who like betas. But I think there are very, very few women who like betas.
My entire point is this: It’s hard out here for a beta. This is particularly so because I constantly hear women say they want men to be alpha. Be the man. Lead. Make decisions and stick by them. Bring the DOMINANCE right now, buddy, or I’m outta here. The minute he starts showing beta comfort, the minute he starts investing, the thrill is gone, and so is she.
It’s funny. I keep hearing women like Sassy say there are women who want betas (Roissy betas, not Vox’ Betas, who are Roissy’s lesser alphas). I ask again: WHERE? If this were true, and there were a surplus of women just aching for betas, there would be no manosphere and no HUS.
Dammit. I’ve said this so many times here I can’t even count it.
I honestly don’t know why I keep banging my head against this wall. The things we do for our children…..
@Jimmy Hendricks
But that’s the thing – my two dozen focus group members do contradict what the guys say here! That too is complicated, because they read my blog, speak with me, etc. and I’ve probably influenced their thinking, the way Game blogs have influenced male thinking. It is very, very difficult to tease out all the factors, but I do believe that no one is objective, including me. It’s just not possible.
Fair enough. There is no thoroughly reliable data source. I do think you’re much more likely to get good information when you ask specific questions about individual behavior, i.e. “How many people did you have sex with in the last year?” than general questions, i.e. “What percentage of women on campus hook up?” In fact, studies have been done doing both those things and comparing. The results were remarkable – students estimated that 80% of the student body hooks up regularly, when the real number is closer to 10%. (Duke University study). That’s why the Pluralistic Ignorance factor is so important. BTW, the exact same thing happens when they study the incidence of binge drinking. Exposing the erroneous assumptions has reduced binge drinking substantially on campuses that have adopted this approach.
@ms ion:
You would be doing me and the entire forum a great service if you kept “strutting on by” my remarks; responding to your poor excuse of what passes for logic or reason is beginning to make my head hurt.
Your personal history however, does make for somewhat interesting reading-especially the part about your description and what african american men find most desirable in black women. I think its fair to say that you are not it.
Hmm.
O.
“are there any studies that make projections of where those in college now will eventually land”
Like the lurkers on this site they are seeing the crack in the foundation as more and more men reject sluts for marriage and they will look to themselves to “be who they are” and not the cheap useless unacceptable cock-up approach
What I find very suspicious about the college numbers is that it is entriely contradicted by numbers such as this that I found on the Kinsey institutes page:
3% of men have had zero sexual partners since the age of 18, 20% have had 1 partner, 21% have had 2-4 partners, 23% have had 5-10 partners, 16% have had 11-20 partners, and 17% have had 21 or more partners (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, Michaels, 1994).
3% of women have had zero sexual partners since the age of 18, 31% have had 1 partner, 36% have had 2-4 partners, 20% have had 5-10 partners, 6% have had 11-20 partners, and 3% have had 21 or more partners (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, Michaels, 1994).
I suspect some of the reason for this must be that there are so many more women than men in college. Since college students are less promiscuous than the rest of the population and women make up 60% of college students and men only 40% the numbers will be off compared to the rest of the population. If you include the rest of the population the male numbers go up a lot more than the female numbers and then the gender parity disappears and the numbers become more like the Kinsey numbers and other studies that find men report far more partners.
Considering that men tend to up their numbers and women tend to downplay them, the college numbers should really be lower for men and higher for women which would give college women more sex partners than college men. Even with gender parity in the college numbers since women make up a so much higher percentage of those in college a very large numbers of their hookups must be with men not in college. This all makes the college numbers extremely unreliable and impossible to draw any conclusion about whether the promiscuous groups of the genders are similar in sixe. To make any conclusions about that one must look at studies of the general population.
Since the numbers from the Kinsey study, like in most studies, show incompatible differences in male and female numbers something is obviously wrong here as well. However, I think it does give strong indications supporting the view of more men than women with very high numbers. There are only 3% women but 17%!!! men claiming more than 21 partners. Obviously both genders fudge their numbers but the difference between 3% and 17% is enormous. It would take an extreme amount of self deception/very big lies for the genders to go from gender parity at that promiscuity level to almost six times as many men claiming those numbers as women. My impression from other studies is that the average numbers of sex partners for the genders tend to be reported to be about 50-100% higher for men, not anywhere near 600% which we find when looking at the really high numbers. It seems far more likely that at that level there are in fact many more males (although less than they self report) and that there are more women further down in the promiscuity hierarchies where the initial claims of the genders aren`t that far apart. It just seems extremely implausible that 17% of men multiply their real numbers by 600% or the women divide them 600% or the men multiply by 300% and the women divide by 300%. It makes more sense that the lies of the genders if corrected for would still leave the numbers with bigger differences where the differences are already the highest.
All in all, although the college numbers are interesting for certain purposes, they are the LEAST reliable data to look at to determine whether there is a group of highly promiscuous males that have more partners than the promiscuous females and so must be having sex with less promiscuous females as well.
“I am Bajan and African American to be exact.” Bajan means from barbados?
@deti
Seriously, this is mild. We get together, we eat, drink and tell stories and it gets very interesting. But let me comment on these two phrases.
Trashdick is just a word for male promiscuity, and it specifically refers to the petri dish aspect – a penis that has been in many vaginas is most likely dirty, i.e., infected with HPV, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea or all of the above. Women have every reason to reject such men, as they threaten both their health and their fertility. One toss in the sack with a trashdick, and your MMV can plummet, maybe even to zero.
Re “boyfriends are ugly,” this is just a rather irreverent observation that in this SMP, a man’s willingness to offer commitment is a huge advantage for LTR-minded women. If he’s got that, he doesn’t need as much other stuff, basically. A look around at any college graduation will highlight that the couples are generally represented by better looking women than men. The women I’ve heard talk about this were in relationships, and they were indeed with men a couple of points lower, but they also loved those men.
I know that men also use some very irreverent language to describe women when they’re not present.
@deti:
Noted-and to some extent we agree more than disagree on that front.
@wudang:
A few pages back you asked me about my remarks re: black male educational attitudes. Id like to clarify my position on that score if i may.
My position is that there are two major causal factors that account for relative lack of educational interest and performance:
1. Because the outlay in time and monies are NOT commiserate with employment opportunities and (high) earnings, in aggregate
And
2. Because black women overall, do NOT select for straightahead brainpower they way asian or jewish women have been repeatedly observed to do.
Of course, both of these “dangerous thoughts” are highly counterintuitive insofar as blue pill society are concerned although for various reasons:
1. Education, the idea, is a sacred cow in the collective mind of african americans, given our history in this country and how we prevented from getting one. That said it still does not address the points i raised above and this is because the small cadre of middle/umc blacks-the majority of whom work in some capacity in the public sector-knows that what im saying is true and worse they have no meaningful way to address it
And
2. The usual gynocentric reasonings that you and other readers here are already familiar with. Men respond to whatever women make clear they want and desire in mates. If black women made it clear tomorrow that they desired urkel thered be a run on highwater pants and huge hornrimmed glasses. The reason why the thug archetype persists is because this is what a plurality of black women desire. Here we must include gradations of thugs; many more educated sistas dont tend to go for “unrefined” thugs like say, a lil wayne; instead they prefer a more “educated” thug a la stringer bell from the wire. But the thug archetype has powerful cultural force in black american life and this is so because this what sistas have made utterly clear to brothas that this is what they want. And they brothas have responded with a resounding “message received”.
Again it cant be stated enough-if it comes down to a black reed richards vs a stringer bell, bell wins hands down almost every single time. That you will find atomized incidences of sistas in this forum or any other swearing that theyd choose he reverse only strengthens my point by just showing how exceptional in that regard they truly are when put against the aggregate.
Black men, like all men, respond to incentives. Reduced employment/promotional opportunities for black men, coupled with the desires of black women overall has not proven the notion that “education pays” literally or sexually for black men overall.
It is, what it is.
O.
And all of them except Hope may be found on other manosphere blogs with extreme points of view. Don’t you see that you’re all passing ideas around in a circle? Nothing wrong with that, but at least recognize this does not represent diversity of views in any way.
As for the perception of higher value men having sex with both promiscuous women and women who only have some sex outside of relationships it most certainly is not just a perception in an echo chamber on the net. All men I ever talked to about this IRL see the world the same way and the same basically goes for the women I´ve talked to about it. HUS is actually the only place I`ve encountered much of any people seeing the world differently.
@deti
Perhaps you are already aware of this, but Sassy is the only HUSsie who does not prefer to date betas. Every other woman here, including all past and present regular, has dated or married betas, and happily so. That doesn’t make Sassy irrelevant, but she is in a minority of 5% or less.
On forums not realted to the manosphere the same view of differences between the genders in terms of upper echelon promiscuity is also prevalent. This perception can not, in any way, be subscribed to the manosphere alone, to a minority alone or even to men alone. It is just highly common.
@ms walsh:
With all due respect ms hopes words wouldnt hold muich water here either since she too was a prominent voice in the manosphere most notably roissys blog some years back. I dont think trying to discredit anyone by playing a crude game of guilt by association does your or anyones argument any credit.
The bottomline here is that it gets hard to just rule out of hand the realworld insights observations and experiences of such a wide assortment of men to say nothing of one of the most successful women in this very forum. Thats not to say your researches you present are utterly wrong but just might be a tad incomplete.
Im just sayin. Fifty thousand frenchmen cant be wrong…
O.
Susan 740:
Appreciate the clarification. The point is that women are brutally honest about what they REALLY think of men in your focus groups.
“boyfriends are ugly” just sounds like “I wanna sleep with hot alpha studs until I’m ready to settle for an icky boring beta.” I’m not snarking here. I’m totally serious.
@ Susan Walsh
If it wouldn’t trouble you, could you delete Obsidian’s comment at # 724. I don’t know why he continues to talk to me or about me, especially when it comes to that topic.
@ Obsidian
All I have to say is this.
When I do happen to marry a white guy, which is highly likely to happen, I’m going to have myself a big laugh.
wait wait wait.
so “trashdick” and “boyfriends are ugly” are the MILDER epithets and pejoratives directed at men in the HUS focus groups?
Lord. One shudders to think of the more colorful descriptions and discussions taking place in that famed suburban Boston dining room…..
“what african american men find most desirable in black women. I think its fair to say that you are not it.”
That ol’ “no man wants you anyway!” line huh?
Now, if only these alleged men who do not find me desirable would stop their soul-crushing street harassment in places like NYC on a daily basis…..like I said… it proves nothing to get attention from promiscuous men.
“You would be doing me and the entire forum a great service if you kept “strutting on by” my remarks; ”
So after months of dragging people into your trolling diatribes about “black America” directed towards people that can’t/won’t/are too drained to dispute you, you select my comments to ignore?
I take that as a win.
« 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 »
{ 3 trackbacks }