The Definitive Survey of College Students’ Sexual Behavior By Gender

August 6, 2012

A frequent source of debate here is the question of what percentage of students in college are participating in hookup culture, i.e. casual sex. Regular readers know that I have made the following tentative statement:

Overall, the sexes show very little difference in the number of sexual partners. This would seem to confirm the hypothesis that a small percentage of promiscuous students are engaging in casual sex with one another, while a much larger group has a few partners during college, and well over a third of students have no sex at all.

Who’s Really Having Sex in College?

In other words, there are approximately equal numbers of each sex having most of the casual sex. It is my assumption that they pretty much service one another – if promiscuous men are getting with sexually inexperienced women, then the reverse must also be true, and this seems highly unlikely. 

My claim is derived from two primary sources of data:

I.  U.S. Dept. of Justice Campus Sexual Assault Study, 2007

Distribution of Sexual Intercourse Partners*
 Female %Male %
037.242.8
1-554.149.4
6-105.75.6
11-252.00.9
26+1.11.3

 *Intercourse not defined.

N= 26,764

The subjects were distributed roughly equally across grades, with slightly higher representation among freshmen and seniors.

II. The National College Health Assessment, 2010

Distribution of Sexual Partners*

# partners

Males %

Females %

0

34

34

1

38

43

2

10

10

3

6

6

4

4

3

5

3

2

6

1

1

7

1

1

8

1

0

9+

3

1

*Includes vaginal, anal and oral sex partners.

N = 18,820 females, 10,080 males; 35% freshmen, 19% sophomores, 19% juniors, 11% seniors, 5% fifth year, 9% graduate students

My claim that the promiscuous students are somewhat insular on campus has been hotly disputed here, primarily by males who believe that most if not all women will hook up with a player or cad if given the opportunity. One enterprising young fellow even crunched his own numbers for the NCHA to determine the mean number of partners in the 9+ category in an effort to prove me wrong. (H/T: Wudang) 

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.

Indeed, his calculations are correct, but he failed to take several factors into account about the data, which together void his conclusion:

  1. The data is sourced from 39 diverse colleges and universities. Because the national college sex ratio is 60% female and 40% male, there will be 50% more slutty girls on campus than guys if 20% of each group is promiscuous.
  2. Of the respondents, 50% of females were in committed relationships, vs. 41% of males.
  3. The data includes 474 gay males, or 5% of the male respondents, who are undoubtedly heavily represented among the 263 men in the 9+ category, with a mean of 19 partners. 
  4. The data includes 671 lesbians, or 4% of the female respondents. There are only 155 females in the 9+ group. They likely have fewer sexual partners than straight women.

In an effort to gain additional insight about the sexual behavior of college students, especially the highly promiscuous, I have conducted an exhaustive search for the past week to uncover any and all pertinent data. 

First a word about real vs. perceived sexual behavior on American college campuses:

The Role of Pluralistic Ignorance in Perpetuating Hookup Culture

More college students hook up than actually date, but most prefer to date, Washington Post, 5/9/10

A new study by psychologists at James Madison University found — not surprisingly — that college students hooked up almost twice as often as they went on actual dates. The perplexing part? The majority of students from both genders said that given the choice, they preferred traditional dating.

All things being equal, 95 percent of female students said they would choose dating over hooking up, and 77.5 percent of men said the same.

So, uh, why don’t they just date?

Arnie Kahn, one of three co-authors of the study, which grew out of undergraduate student Carolyn Bradshaw’s thesis, says it comes down to something called “pluralistic ignorance.” Essentially: Everybody’s doing it, so it must be good.

One of Kahn’s previous studies on the topic found that both men and women overestimated the degree to which the opposite gender enjoyed hooking up — described in this study as “a sexual encounter, usually lasting only one night, between people who are strangers or brief acquaintances.”

Furthermore, students overestimated how much members of their own gender liked hooking up. “Because everybody else is hooking up you assume that they do it because they like it. Whereas you know that you don’t like it that much, but you do it to go along,” Kahn explains. “College students are very conformist.”

…The study, based on surveys of 220 undergrads, found that students are plenty aware of the risks of hooking up, as well. Because hookups are not always planned and often not with a well-known partner, a majority of both male and female students said they saw the contraction of a sexually transmitted disease as a major risk. Almost 40 percent of women also said the potential for pregnancy was a big downside.

Increasingly, institutions are studying their own student populations. 

Researchers at Duke University took a random sample of almost 1,500 students at their Durham, N.C. campus and found that only about one-third of students had previously had a hookup in college. Researchers surveyed 732 freshmen and 723 seniors and found that of the one-third in each grade that have had a hookup, less than half involved oral sex or vaginal intercourse. The study also found that nearly 60% of the freshmen reported that they had never had sexual intercourse.

Statistical Inaccuracies By Gender

There’s also the persistent problem that men, especially in the general population, report more sexual intercourse partners than women do. It is logically impossible for men to have a different total number of sex partners than women in a closed heterosexual population. Obviously, this discrepancy is more meaningful and problematic when discussing countrywide statistics. 
 
Several factors have been shown to influence self-reported sexual activity by gender:
 
1. National sampling typically excludes female sex workers. Adding in visits to prostitutes evens the score.
 
2. Women report more sexual partners when they are assured anonymity, reducing their fear of a sexual double standard.
 
Additional factors apply to college settings:
 
3. Nationwide the sex ratio of 60% females to 40% males.
 
4.  Changing gender norms for sexual behaviors is reducing the discrepancy between male and female reporting. The oft-cited “lie detector study” did not rise to statistical significance. According to its authors:

Several recent sexuality surveys have found no sex differences in self-reported sexual behavior (Browning, Kessler, Hatfield, & Choo, 1999), incidence of casual sexual interactions (Maticka-Tyndale, Herold, & Mewhinney, 1998; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000), number of sexual partners in the past year (Brown & Sinclair, 1999), or desired number of lifetime sexual partners (Pedersen et al., 2002). The lack of sex differences in these studies and in our analysis may reflect currently shifting gender roles and their subsequent impact on normative expectations and expressions of sexual behavior. 

5. Some studies have found that men admit to greater dishonesty than women, as they tend to round up to larger numbers when recalling the number of past sexual partners. (Their numbers tend to end in 0 or 5.) In one study, removing the men who acknowledged exaggerating eliminated all gender discrepancy in the number of reported partners.
 
According to researcher and sociology professor Lisa Wade, a recent online survey notes that 60% of older teenage men lie about their sexual activities.

Sampling Bias

It is important to keep in mind that college women hook up the most freshmen year, and participation drops sharply after that each year. In contrast, men’s frequency of hooking up does not diminish over time (Bogle, 2008). For this reason, studies with equal numbers of students in each year are the most accurate, but they are also the most difficult to come by, as studies tend to include disproportionate numbers of freshmen.

To the best of my knowledge, the following data comprises all available sources of hooking up research. Any additional links or sources would be greatly appreciated. 

A. Short-Term Prospective Study of Hooking Up Among College Students

N = 301 females, 93 males; 41% freshmen, 33% sophomores, 20% juniors, 6% seniors

In one semester, hookup up activity was as follows:

 Female %Male %
No hookup47.232.3
Non-penetrative hookup26.222.6
Penetrative hookup26.645.2

 

B. The Casualties of `Casual’ Sex: A Qualitative Exploration of the Phenomenology of College Students’ Hookups

 N= 155 females, 32 males; 4% freshmen, 44% sophomores, 27% juniors, 25% seniors 

 70% of students hooked up at least once during college.

26% of females had intercourse during a hookup.

44% of all hookups happened at Greek social events.

 

C. Hooking Up on Campus: Cognitive Dissonance and Sexual Regret Among College Students

N = 158 females, 134 males; 89% freshmen, 5% sophomores, 5% juniors, 2% seniors

 The distribution of the number of hookups vs. sexual (vaginal) intercourse varies greatly:

Number of Hookups

 Male NMale %Female NFemale %
036275233
1-542316239
6-1021162013
11-15151142.5
16-2064.553
21-254321
26-300042.5
31-3521.500
36-4021.532
41-450011
46-501100
50+53.753

Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners

 Male NMale %Female NFemale %
028215434
1-386648856
4-61612138
7-921.511
10-121111
13-151111

 

Sexual intercourse with someone once and only once:

Males  40%

Females 24%

Sexual intercourse with someone known less than 24 hours:

Males 29%

Females 10%

Received or performed oral sex with someone known less than 24 hours:

Males 34%

Females 9%

D. Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Hookups Among First-Semester Female College Students

N = 118 females, mean age of 18

In first semester of college, percentage who hooked up:

Kissing: 65%

Touching breasts: 58%

Touching genitals: 46%

Oral sex: 27%

Vaginal sex: 27%

Anal sex: 1%

Who they hooked up with:

Friends: 47%

Acquaintances: 23%

Strangers: 14%

Ex-boyfriends: 12%

44% of hookups were at least Round 2.

 

E. Hooking Up and Penetrative Hookups: Correlates that Differentiate College Men

N = 412 males, 36% freshmen, 36% sophomores, 18% juniors, 9% seniors, mean age of 19.4

A majority of studies on hooking up among college students included samples of both men and women. Although they often compare men and women, many have small samples of men. Thus, findings that make gender comparisons may largely be driven by female responses.

Further, those comparing men and women fail to address potentially important within-group variations. Such within-group variation is critical to prevention and intervention programs and this study answered the call of researchers to report specifically on the experiences of men who are hooking up. 

…Men who dropped out had significantly more hookup partners in the past 4 months(M=2.63) compared to men who completed the study (M=1.82). Given this difference, our results may be more conservative findings of hooking up and hookup behaviors among men.

69% of subjects reported hooking during one semester. 

73% of those, or 50% overall, included sexual intercourse.

Primary predictors of hooking up:

  1. Extraverted personality
  2. High alcohol consumption
  3. Previous hookup experience
23% were in stable, committed romantics relationships throughout the semester. Of these, 44% of these hooked up with other females, and 67% of these hookups, or 30% of the boyfriends cheated with intercourse.

 

F. HerCampus.com annual Ultimate College Guy Survey, 2011

N > 1000 males

 Girls Hooked Up WithGirls Had SEX With
04.6%15.0%
1-211.1%32.3%
3-411.3%20.2%
5-714.3%11.3%
8-1010.8%7.3%
10-2020.3%8.7%
20-3012.1%1.9%
30-405.4%0.6%
40-503.3%0.5%
>504.2%1.0%
>1002.5%1.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.  Hook-Up Behavior: A Biopsychosocial Perspective

 

  Note: Unintentional hookups refer to excessive alcohol or drug use.

Very few participants (6%) actually expected hook-ups to result in traditional romantic relationships, although over one-third (37%) indicated that ideally they would.

Slightly less than one-third (30%) expected hook-ups to result in nothing more between the participants, although very few (13%) indicated that this would be ideal. For both men and women, the most common expected outcome following a hook-up was further hookups (43% for men and 36% for women).

However, the ideal outcome following a hook up differed by gender, with the highest proportion of men (32%) hoping for additional hook-ups, but the largest proportion of women (43%) hoping for a traditional romantic relationship.

 

Key Findings

 1. Student misperceptions of sexual norms on campus, known as Pluralistic Ignorance, perpetrates hookup culture and affects personal behavioral decisions.

2. Both male and female college students lie about their number of sexual partners.

3. The college sex ratio influences the supply and demand curves for sex and relationships. It also means that equal proportions of promiscuous males and females will produce a larger number of promiscuous girls than guys on campus.

4. Studies consistently estimate that 26-27% of freshmen women have sexual intercourse during at least one hookup. (12% of those partners are ex-boyfriends.) 

5. Studies estimate that 45-50% of males have sexual intercourse while hooking up over the course of a semester.

6. Half of men and women who hook up are seeking a traditional romantic relationship.

7. A small minority of students has had more than 50 hookups (3.7% M, 3% F) and 6 sexual partners (3.5% M, 3% F).

 

The data clearly confirms my earlier hypothesis:

Overall, the sexes show very little difference in the number of sexual partners. This would seem to confirm the hypothesis that a small percentage of promiscuous students are engaging in casual sex with one another, while a much larger group has a few partners during college, and well over a third of students have no sex at all.

 

  • INTJ

    This confirms what I’ve always felt, which is that casual sex isn’t a major problem for me when it comes to finding a partner. While the fact that 65-70% of people have hooked up at least once is somewhat worrisome, it still leaves about 1/3rd of the population that has never participated in hooking up of any sort, let alone casual sex (since perhaps ~40% of those hookups only involved kissing).

    The problem is serial monogamy. Someone who has had 5 boyfriends has a very high probability of reaching 7 boyfriends. I don’t want to be #6. Serial monogamy to me indicates either that the girl wants temporary relationships, is too hypergamous, or has very poor planning and doesn’t realize that the relationships she chooses are unlikely to result in marriage.

    • @INTJ

      The problem is serial monogamy. Someone who has had 5 boyfriends has a very high probability of reaching 7 boyfriends. I don’t want to be #6.

      You may be interested to know that 15% of couples in romantic relationships have not had sexual intercourse. But the majority of women graduate from college without ever having had a boyfriend. The numbers are favorable.

  • JP

    The sheer amount of energy that went into this post is astounding.

    I *love* the phrase pluralistic ignorance.

    It’s my new favorite phrase.

    I’m using it to replace my previous diagnostic tool, which I call “Stupid People Syndrome”.

    Now I have a scientificy sounding phrase.

    I can not tell you how happy I am to be able to finally retire “Stupid People Syndrome.”

    Thanks!

    I knew this blog would come in handy.

    • @JP

      The sheer amount of energy that went into this post is astounding.

      Thanks for noticing. I estimate 30 hours or so.

  • tito

    wow. how convoluted and complicated. the “liberators” have really delivered the goods to the X & Y generations. and they’re still pushin’ the same lines. losers, the while lot.

  • Vicomte

    Someone needs to complete a study that factors in physical attractiveness. Data is near useless without.

    I still can’t put much stock in these things. The men will probably lie up, the women won’t lie at all and will still vastly underestimate.

    Apparently I have an uncanny ability to surround myself with one percent of the college-age female population. Strange powers, indeed.

  • Jonny

    This post is repetitive. Oh well. I just read an article about people who love to be alone. One person in that article is Kate Bolick, who is quoted. LOL!!!

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    As per usual, a heck of a presentation! I’m quickly skimming over the post now, but a few questions pop into my mind that I’m hoping you could answer:

    1. What was the point of the Roosh commenter in making/giving his numbers? I take it he was driving at a point but I’m not sure I know what it is. Do you, and what do you make of it if you do?

    2. Why aren’t colleges being much more proactive in getting couples together? After all, per an excellent article written by Heather MacDonald a few years back, colleges seem very proactive in the area of “date rape” and the like; why aren’t they being much more proactive in bringing people together in the first place? It would seem to me that this alone would achieve the goal of bringing down the putatively “high” “date rape’ rate. That assumes, of course, that said guys and gals were able of being paired off to begin with…

    3. It seems to me, at least insofar as the ladies are concerned, that the lion’s share of sexual behavior (depending on how one defines that) occurs during their freshmen year – which would make sense if you’re a guy and an upper classman; natural hypergamy taking its course on the female side, while “fresh meat” on the male side. Of course, this leaves the freshman guys in something of a difficult spot…and here this brings me back to the Roosh Guy. I don’t know what overall point he was making…

    4. The point the researcher made about college kids being “highly conformitive” was very interesting too; I feel an HBD urge coming on…

    Which brings me to:

    5. Your points about gay and lesbian folk – you do know you just said some seriously politically incorrect things about them, right? You dastardly homophobe, you! 😉

    And finally…

    6. You had mentioned that the data was based on some 39 *diverse* unis. I gotta ask – by what is meant, by the word *diverse*? Please explain? As you know, I’ve always suspected that the “hookup scene” may not be uniform depending on the school(s) in question. Do HBCUs have a higher rate of hookups than PWIs (Predominantly White Institutions)? I wish one of my own could answer this question, but as I’ve noted before, my own folk just don’t seem all that interested in obsessing over things like this. What about say, community colleges, versus big state schools, versus the Ivies! I mean, does U of Chitown or Northwestern’s hookup rate on par with say, Grambling or Morgan State? Is Penn State (don’t laugh) and UPenn the same, or wildly different, or what? Do the guys and gals at Columbia go at it at the same rate as CalTech?

    OK, that’s it.

    Holla back

    O.

    • @Obs

      What was the point of the Roosh commenter in making/giving his numbers? I take it he was driving at a point but I’m not sure I know what it is. Do you, and what do you make of it if you do?

      His interest is in proving that high N men are able to seduce chaste women. He appears to balk at the idea that promiscuous men are getting with promiscuous women. I assume this is an ego consideration, though I don’t know, as I have never heard from him directly. I was pointed to his analysis by a reader.

      Why aren’t colleges being much more proactive in getting couples together?

      Colleges are beginning to look seriously at the Pluralistic Ignorance problem. Duke spent considerable time and resources seeking input from its students. Schools have also been proactive in scheduling more events to compete with fraternities. Although only 15% of college students in the U.S. are in Greek organizations, they account for three times that many hookups.

      Of course, this leaves the freshman guys in something of a difficult spot

      Male freshmen are always at a disadvantage, both in high school and college. It evens out over time, though.

      You had mentioned that the data was based on some 39 *diverse* unis. I gotta ask — by what is meant, by the word *diverse*? Please explain?

      I referred to demographic diversity.

      http://www.achancha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_DataReport_Fall2010.pdf

      The report includes all different kinds of schools, though it does not report by school – it is an aggregate.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    Great post Susan. I can only imagine how much time and effort went into gathering research, reading it all, drawing your own conclusions, and writing this post.

    *Teary Eyed*

    You’re my hero.

    • @Sassy

      *Teary Eyed*

      You’re my hero.

      Awww, sweet girl. Hey, how’s your mom?

  • Abbot

    “most if not all women will hook up with a player or cad if given the opportunity”

    why would they not?

  • Sassy6519

    @ Abbot

    why would they not?

    Some of us would not because we have standards.

    I can’t speak for all women, but I know that I do.

  • Johnycomelately

    So does this throw out Vox’s survey on the pile and invalidate the 80/20 rule.

    Commendations on the effort, you seem to be one of the very few trying to unpack the commonly held view without pre conceived notions.

    • @Johnycomelately

      Vox has looked at data for all ages, not just college kids. He and I are on the same wavelength in terms of data last time I checked.

  • Data Source “D”..

    “In first semester of college, percentage who hooked up:

    Kissing: 65%

    Touching breasts: 58%”

    Really? They’re defining *kissing* as “hooking up”? Does anyone else use the term this way?

    I bet many grandmothers and great-grandmothers would be surprised to learn about all the guys they hooked up with in college…

    • @david foster

      Really? They’re defining *kissing* as “hooking up”? Does anyone else use the term this way?

      Most definitely! Among my focus group girls, “they hooked up” means kissed or made out at least 75% of the time.

      This is key to the blog name Hooking Up Smart. It definitely does not mean Fornicating Smart.

  • Underdog

    Awesome article. Favorited.

  • Abbot

    “I bet many grandmothers and great-grandmothers would be surprised to learn about all the guys they hooked up with in college…”

    Those fine ladies would also be as shocked and disgusted as men are today per the behaviors and attitudes possessed by their grand and great grand daughters…who for some demented reason need to “express their sexuality” in order to be fully evolved humans

  • SayWhaat

    Really? They’re defining *kissing* as “hooking up”? Does anyone else use the term this way?

    Haha, I did! At least when I first started commenting at HUS.

    I’ve since retired the term, was giving off the wrong impression to people. O_O

  • Californio

    Apparently the idea that a chaste woman is chaste right until the moment she is not is offensive to many. Being chaste is not the hallmark of the beknighted or an indicator of godliness. It merely means you recoil from certain biological functions and apparently want to feel superior in your choice. (I know I did).
    Yet is it not true that “Under the right circumstances” any healthy woman not beset by psychological problems will engage in physical affection with the (right) man? He does not have to be Mr. perfect – or even her “type” – again, context is everything. And the woman gets to ex-post-facto rationalize whatever she did: I was intoxicated, I was depressed, I just wanted to surrender to…(insert emotion here)- then the entire concept of being “chaste” seems , well, stupid and random.

    Taking the power by saying “no” is great. But it is rare rare rare for someone to be consistent: No to sex, no to fast food, no to fat, no to not exercising; no to laying around, no to being afraid of social interaction; discipline is great ( it is all that Catholic school I had….) – now try to remain disciplined …..forever. No backsliding. No vacation. No desert. No indulgences/sin/etc. Repress repress repress. and see what happens. (my prediction – that dam will break…..)

  • Abbot

    “Being chaste is not the hallmark of the beknighted or an indicator of godliness.”

    Define “chaste”

  • @SW

    I estimate 30 hours or so.

    Astonishing amount of data you’ve culled together. It’s like you’re trying really hard to prove something… :mrgreen:

    • @Megaman

      Astonishing amount of data you’ve culled together. It’s like you’re trying really hard to prove something…

      I’m happy to be proven wrong. My interest is in being accurate – my blog and my mission apply either way. Understanding the nature of Pluralistic Ignorance on campus is key to the solution – which is offering that 80% opportunities to connect. (You could have knocked me over with that data from Duke, the poster child of top-drawer party schools.)

  • Royale W. Cheese

    Great research and writing, Susan.

    Haters gonna hate. 🙂
    http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/112010/bender-hater.gif

    I’ve always thought that it was pretty obvious that the slutty behavior was insular. At my undergrad campus, everybody knew who “those girls” were. I can recall two.

  • Californio

    “Define Chaste” – like anything else, it is in the eye of the beholder. I would define it as refraining from any sexual behavior. Think about it. The posters above, the female ones, would likely define it as female who do not engage in casual sex. Oh, but “serious” sex is Ok? What about heavy petting (is this even a term used anymore?)? should the female avoid being alone with the male at all?

    I point this out to underscore how ridiculous this is. If a young woman has a steady boyfriend, then technically she is not a “slut” for having regular sex with him? (point of order: I have never, ever called a woman a slut.) What if they are “in love” and they are discreet? Does it count then? Well, it then becomes an exercise in splitting hairs. What if she has a series of very serious, very commited boyfriends? Isn’t that like being married 3,4,5 times before she is 25? Is that OK? You want to justify behavior – go ahead. Just do not preach to me about what an ass some other guy is for saying “run the right game and any woman will give it up.” Because any woman who has sex, at some point, “gives it up”. Heck, you don’t even have to lie. And the women who say “I do not want to have sex. Ever.” Ok – but that is a “tell” and it ain’t “tellin’ ” something positive (or even neutral!). (thankfully, this usually just means – “I don’t want to have sex with YOU, ever.” versus “I am psychologically scarred by [insert horror story here]” )

    So why argue with some guy who turns out to be right? Is it because you have to surrender a delusion that allows you to not confront what you are chosing to do? You have to OWN it – whatever level of sexual activity you engage in.

    Finally, children shouldn’t be having sex anyway – that is adult play. And you aren’t an adult until you can live without mommy and daddy paying your rent, food, car payment, etc. Especially in today’s economy – this stinks. But it does not make it any less true.

    • @Californio

      You are entitled to your views on sex, but unfortunately they disqualify most women from your pool of potential mates. You are looking at very long odds.

      So why argue with some guy who turns out to be right? Is it because you have to surrender a delusion that allows you to not confront what you are chosing to do? You have to OWN it — whatever level of sexual activity you engage in.

      I can’t recall a reader ever not owning it. I find that women are generally not ashamed of their choices. Even the very promiscuous women are defiant.

  • Abbot

    “Define Chaste”
    “I would define it as refraining from any sexual behavior”

    Why would a woman refrain?

  • Great work, Susan!

    Re: promiscuous sub-groups hooking up with each other. If this is the case, then it would seem that there is a natural quarantine area surrounding “hook-up culture” and that most students are emerging from college with N=0-1 (I’m assuming—as the studies apparently do—that the low-N students are consciously unwilling to participate in hook-up culture and would prefer celibacy to, say, a vile “casual” BJ from a Tri Delt).

    Does this all mean that hook-up culture should cease to be a point of agitation for “traditional family values” advocates? Is the culture essentially self-policing and limited in scope and appeal? Has the threat been overblown by the media?

    • @Bastiat Blogger

      (I’m assuming—as the studies apparently do—that the low-N students are consciously unwilling to participate in hook-up culture and would prefer celibacy to, say, a vile “casual” BJ from a Tri Delt).

      It’s clearly got to be a mix of choice and opportunity. Women are more likely to consciously choose to avoid the frat scene, though some percentage would undoubtedly be unwelcome because they’re not hot. Men are more likely to lack the opportunity to access the hookup scene, though 78% of men prefer dating in any case.

      One of the most interesting findings, in my view, is that 50% of guys have sex during a hookup at least once in a semester, and many undoubtedly have more than that. Also, a very high percentage of guys in relationships had intercourse with a different girl – 50%.

      What this suggests is that there is a minority of hardcore sluts, male and female, but the other 80+% is not in the sexual desert. Most people are hooking up occasionally, and at least half say they’re doing it to get a gf or bf.

      That doesn’t mean that if you could blindfold Johnny and deliver him to the warm wet mouth of a Tri Delt, he’d punch your lights out. But whether men secretly pine for Debbie DD is questionable, especially since she is likely brewing some bugs.

      Is the culture essentially self-policing and limited in scope and appeal? Has the threat been overblown by the media?

      The problem is that the culture prevails, regardless of the fact that few participate. This has a detrimental effect on students’ self-perception, e.g. “I’m the only one not getting any traction with the opposite sex.” Essentially, the media and feminists have created the threat, and have a vested interest in the culture continuing to mask the facts. When you put the choice before students, they wish for a return to traditional dating. That is threatening to the feminist agenda.

      The opportunity for a shift in the culture begins with making students aware of the facts. Then it will be up to them to storm the Bastille.

  • Abbot

    “women are generally not ashamed of their choices. Even the very promiscuous women are defiant.”

    Yes they defiantly want to pleasure men sexually. Who’s complaining?

  • Ramble

    Susan, why does it seem that so many of these studies have disproportionally more females than males surveyed? (Or, in the case of the other study on a different post, a huge differential between married and divorced).

    N= 155 females, 32 males

    N = 301 females, 93 males; 41% freshmen, 33% sophomores, 20% juniors, 6% seniors

    I would understand if the ratio was close to, say, 60-40. I don’ t have the time to look at the studies to see why, and, of course, I am not blaming you, these are not your surveys, but, still, I am curious.

    • @Ramble

      When researchers don’t control the sample, they get far more female respondents than male respondents. A good example is the NCHA data – 18K females vs. 12K males. That holds pretty close to the sex ratio.

      However, with smaller sample sizes, students are generally recruited from undergraduate courses, especially the large ones, like introductory psych. There may be a difference in who is enrolled, but my guess is that women are more likely to volunteer to participate, for whatever reason.

      This is why one team of researchers limited their study to males – they felt that males were generally underrepresented in the research.

  • Ramble

    Male freshmen are always at a disadvantage

    Well, it does not need to be. They should be hooking up with high school girls. And, yes, I am being serious.

    • Well, it does not need to be. They should be hooking up with high school girls. And, yes, I am being serious.

      They don’t have access. There’s little town and gown mixing. I did mention one frat I knew off that used to sneak local high school girls in for parties, but it was definitely on the DL. Obviously, they were providing alcohol to underage girls.

      Ultimately, that frat got thrown off campus, though I don’t know if the high school girls were a factor.

  • Ramble

    http://www.achancha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_DataReport_Fall2010.pdf

    The report includes all different kinds of schools, though it does not report by school – it is an aggregate.

    I read an article in MIT’s Technology Review that did a survey of some local student to see who was having sex. The people having the least sex were students at MIT majoring in STEM (some of the majors had about 40% of their seniors still virgins) while the students at a local Arts school reported a virginity rate of 0%.

    • while the students at a local Arts school reported a virginity rate of 0%.

      Ha, that would be Mass Art and Emerson College. That’s a testament to the allure of hipsters.

      hf

  • Ramble

    That is threatening to the feminist agenda.

    No, it is threatening the Leftist agenda, which the feminists are simply one part.

    They must subvert social norms, because traditional morality is oppressive.

    • @Ramble

      No, it is threatening the Leftist agenda, which the feminists are simply one part.

      They must subvert social norms, because traditional morality is oppressive.

      Can you expand on this? What other groups have an incentive to support a sex-positive ideology?

  • Ramble

    Obviously, they were providing alcohol to underage girls.

    Most of the college girls are ALSO underage.

    Also, they have all summer to pursue HS girls, and, if they really knew that, as freshman, they would be in a sexual desert (and that girls prefer older guys), they would change their culture to go hunting for hs girls.

    • Most of the college girls are ALSO underage.

      That’s true, but there’s a lot more opportunity for scandal bringing 16 and 17 year olds to a frat house. Imagine someone gets super drunk and her friend calls 911. If she’s a college student, that’s one thing. If she’s been “rounded up” from the town by predatory males, that’s something else entirely. And there’s the statutory rape issue as well.

  • Ramble

    That’s a testament to the allure of hipsters.

    And that non-stem girls tend to be a lot sluttier than stem girls. And, artsy and acting girls tend to be about as slutty as they get.

    • And that non-stem girls tend to be a lot sluttier than stem girls. And, artsy and acting girls tend to be about as slutty as they get.

      wm

  • Abbot

    “Essentially, the media and feminists have created the threat, and have a vested interest in the culture continuing to mask the facts. When you put the choice before students, they wish for a return to traditional dating. That is threatening to the feminist agenda.”

    The main underpinning of that agenda is women’s economic independence from men. If women gravitate back to their nature of bonding to a man early then the focus on a job is diluted and reverting to the dreaded caregiver role is eminent. The overarching propaganda is that equality equates to some myth that men have always fucked lots of women then women should fuck lots of men. That equality equates to some myth that women have been sexually oppressed and unshackling requires practice at de-bonding sex from emotion and since men are low hanging fruit in terms of willingness to screw then women should just go for it. That myth boldly extends to the radical “discover her boundaries” “grow as a woman” “express your sexuality” “embrace your sexuality” “explore your sexuality” and all that uniquely applies to women as men, well, are just plain ‘ol fucking. But those feminists really get their panties all in a twist when there is even the slightest mention of men resisting commitment to sluts, yes the very sluts that feminists want propagated. Wooops! looks like they did not anticipate that. But alas, here we are.

  • I think that the leftists, led by feminists, went after a particular social engineering goal on campus—increasing the rates of college attendance by women—and that hook-up culture is an unintended consequence of that movement.
    If you had a campus with 10% women, you’d have LTRs and traditional dating and courtship left and right. Men would be fighting to lock things down. Move to 60% women (I’ve read estimates that it will hit 65-70% and then stabilize—Vassar, which is 68/32 IIRC, would be the demographic template) and a very different dynamic emerges. Maybe the real fight—the underhooks, to use a term from grappling and MMA—is over the attendance numbers agenda, the spigots that put men and women into these classrooms to begin with.

    It would be great to see if Guttentag-Secord-type predictions hold true on college campuses, with casual sex frequencies scaling directly with relative male scarcity.

    • It would be great to see if Guttentag-Secord-type predictions hold true on college campuses, with casual sex frequencies scaling directly with relative male scarcity.

      There’s no question there’s a direct effect, though there may be other effects at play as well. Mark Regnerus has written about this.

      “And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren’t asking for much in return these days—the market “price” of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be.

      But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It’s not that the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it’s that there’s a growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically meet—on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large numbers of twentysomethings—women outnumber men by significant margins. (In one Manhattan ZIP code, for example, women account for 63 percent of 22-year-olds.)

      The idea that sex ratios alter sexual behavior is well-established. Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive culture. The same holds true on college campuses. In the course of researching our book Premarital Sex in America, my co-author and I assessed the effects of campus sex ratios on women’s sexual attitudes and behavior. We found that virginity is more common on those campuses where women comprise a smaller share of the student body, suggesting that they have the upper hand. By contrast, on campuses where women outnumber men, they are more negative about campus men, hold more negative views of their relationships, go on fewer dates, are less likely to have a boyfriend, and receive less commitment in exchange for sex.”

      http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_is_cheap.html

  • Joe

    Wow – I’ll join the “Great Post” choir, Susan. I guess we reaped the benefits of your unavailability for the Olympics this year.

    And how *is* your leg doing, btw? Well, I hope.

    I’m not sure I understand this key finding:

    3. The college sex ratio influences the supply and demand curves for sex and relationships. It also means that equal proportions of promiscuous males and females will produce a larger number of promiscuous girls than guys on campus.

    Does this mean that more promiscuous males than females are dropping out?

    A student population that changes over or 5 years would explain why the perception varies from the reality. I suspect every student’s local group of cohorts is stable, relative to the overall population, and that would skew the perception.

    • @Joe

      I guess we reaped the benefits of your unavailability for the Olympics this year.

      And how *is* your leg doing, btw? Well, I hope.

      Better, thanks. I managed to crack my husband up the other day by “sticking” a difficult landing. I really can be very goofy sometimes. I once broke ribs on the uneven parallel bars, but I love watching the Olympics. (Yes, I am clumsy and accident prone. Also careless.)

      The college sex ratio influences the supply and demand curves for sex and relationships. It also means that equal proportions of promiscuous males and females will produce a larger number of promiscuous girls than guys on campus.

      This is just a simple matter of arithmetic. Let’s say you have 100 students; 60 are women, 40 are men. 20% of the population is promiscuous (I’m actually convinced it’s well below that for females at this point. Anyway.) That gives us 12 promiscuous women and 8 promiscuous men. Because there’s a sex ratio imbalance on campus, there will be more of every kind of woman, including slutty.

  • Zach

    @Susan

    I think two of the major drivers of this pluralistic ignorance is the fact that students tend to associate with like-minded students in college, and that the promiscuous students are much more visible than the virgins.

    For instance, especially at my school, Greek students tend to associate with other Greek students. As you’ve noted, the Greek population is a hotbed for hookups and promiscuity. So if you’re Greek, as I was, and the vast majority of your friends are Greek, you are surrounded by the most promiscuous students on campus. Therefore, this type of behavior seems more like the norm than the exception. Greeks are also largely unaware of the rest of the student body who are not participating in the hookup scene. At Penn, 35% of the student body is Greek, but I’d say that for Greek students, 80-90% of the peers they socialize with are. There’s literally another 50-60% of the school that the Greeks barely know exist. I distinctly remember at the Senior prom, all of my friends saying “who ARE these people??”, referring to the crowds of folks who we’d never, ever laid eyes on outside of a brief passing in the halls or in a class one semester freshman year.

    For those other 65% who aren’t Greek, I believe their perceptions are formed in 2 ways. First, the Greek scene dominates campus social life. Almost every single house party is hosted by a frat, almost every single downtown club party is, and all of the campus bars are dominated by upperclassmen Greeks. So if one of these 65% ventures out to party, he’s likely to be surrounded by the Greek culture, and consider it the norm. The second factor is the limitation of social groups outside of the Greek scene. In a fraternity, you are a member of an 80-100 strong group (150-200 for a sorority), which gives you a very broad social circle from which to draw conclusions. As a GDI, your group of friends is likely much smaller, and therefore your assumptions as to what “everyone else” is doing are based on a far smaller sample of people, leading to extrapolation based on a very small sample.

    • @Zach

      I think you nailed it re the Greek scene. That is precisely my sense of it via the research, and also how each of my kids (who were both Greeks) described their own campuses. I think I need to publish that survey you sent me!

  • Zach

    @Ramble

    High school girls? Any guy at my house in college would be laughed out of the party for bringing high school girls there. The assumption would be that he couldn’t get anything with the college girls and so had to resort to hitting on 16 year-olds.

    @Susan 46

    Where’s the communications major? I honestly think half the sororities at Penn wouldn’t have existed without it.

    • @Zach

      Where’s the communications major? I honestly think half the sororities at Penn wouldn’t have existed without it.

      Good question. I was surprised to see Comp Sci and Neuroscience women on the sexually active end of the spectrum. Also, this is data from Wellesley College, all female. One would expect that even the artsy types might have trouble losing their virginity. Then again, I believe a very high percentage of the student body is lesbian, so there’s probably a lot of non P in V sex represented here.

  • Huh. Neuroscience is pretty much a hard-science field, AFAIK, but note the 20% virginity number, i contrast to the 72% biology and 83% chemistry/biochemistry.

    Can’t remember–what field was Tom Wolfe’s heroine majoring in in “Charlotte Gray”? Neuroscience was certainly important in the book.

    • Can’t remember–what field was Tom Wolfe’s heroine majoring in in “Charlotte Gray”? Neuroscience was certainly important in the book.

      I don’t recall that Charlotte Simmons had declared a major…she was a top student, though. And she did hook up and lose her virginity freshman year 🙁

      Re neuroscience, I loved the bit about the cat amygdalas.

  • Zach

    @Ramble

    Our version of “high school girls” was importing girls from schools like Temple, La Salle, etc. True or not, the perception was that those girls were both more attractive and more slutty than the Penn girls. I still remember the one time we poured $5 vodka into Grey Goose bottles at a Drexel mixer. The girls couldn’t stop talking about how “amazing” it was.

  • Doc

    Having spent a number of years as a grad-student teaching, I found that more than a few of the women were very happy to attempt to exchange sex for a change in their grade. While I never engaged in such – no piece-of-tail was worth risking my career – it was easy to see the professors who did. In checking the transcripts of the most aggressive women, I would regularly see two grades – either and A or a D/F. It wasn’t too hard to figure out which professors accepted the offers…

    I do not see that in the charts – and it was quite prevalent from my experience, with several offering sex for a change of grade every semester – about 5-10% of the class any given semester. While I’m sure they would justify it for a study such as this as “starting a relationship” or some other non-sense, I don’t know of many relationships starting with the college co-ed sitting in the front row with her legs spread giving a view, and a note on her exam saying that she would “do ANYTHING for an A or B” or my personal favorite, the short and to the point, “I swallow”…

    Made it so that I only had office hours when there were others in the office, and kept the door open at all times, since I was sure that they would resort to any means to up their grade…

    • I do not see that in the charts — and it was quite prevalent from my experience, with several offering sex for a change of grade every semester — about 5-10% of the class any given semester.

      How would that data be in the charts? To get at that number, you’d have to have faculty willing to document the offers. I recall one time in b-school, sitting next to a woman who was very, very slutty. We were getting papers back. I don’t know how good hers really was, but at the top of the page the professor (early 30s, British) had written in red marker: “98. Good doggie.”

  • Jonny

    “Live alone? You’re not alone”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57437837/live-alone-youre-not-alone/

    “I grew up very close with my family, and I’d always had long-term boyfriends, roommates,” (Kate) Bolick said. “I thought, ‘God, you know, who am I on my own when I’m not being supported by these people who love me?'”

    —-

    I suppose this is a follow-up to those who follow the hookup culture.

    BTW, is she still 39? She’s been 39 for quite a long time.

    • BTW, is she still 39? She’s been 39 for quite a long time.

      LOL! She was 39 when she came to dinner in July of 2011, and she was 39 when this article was published in May. So I guess she was born in June 🙂

  • Abbot

    “they would resort to any means to up their grade…”

    Or to dupe and secure a husband years later. What a mal-parented minefield of detritus men have to tip toe through these days, huh?

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    Awww, sweet girl. Hey, how’s your mom?

    She’s doing much better. She’s returning to her normal day-to-day lifestyle, but she’s also taking enough pills to stop a horse.

    I’m just glad that she is home and doing better.

  • Doc, I am familiar with the phenomena that you describe.

    • Doc, I am familiar with the phenomena that you describe.

      Heh. Is it perhaps reasonable to expect that the women who proposition professors with promises of heavenly BJs are the same women who may be found in the very high N group? The 5-10% estimate would work quite nicely.

  • Zach

    @Abbot

    Your comments lately have bitterness coming out the ears. I’m not sure if something happened to you (cheated on, lied to, etc), but trust me, I’ve seen some of the absolute worst women around, and for every one of them I can pull up a guy to see and raise her in despicable behavior. There are worthless people in both sexes. Get over it and find the ones who aren’t. I’ve been royally f*ed over before by girls, and I’m sure I will be again. And I’ve done some things with women I’m not too proud of either. Perhaps one of my favorite quotes on women is from Californication, from Hank Moody, the ultimate cad:

    “You ladies really are the most amazing creatures – my life’s work. But then there’s the morning after – the hangover, the realization that I’m not quite as available as I thought I was the night before. and she’s gone and I’m haunted by yet another road not taken.”

    So instead of devoting your time to bitching and grumbling, I suggest you actually go out there and try and find a better woman.

  • Bastiat Blogger, I’ve been in opposite gender ratio situations, usually 10% female to 90% male, especially in video games. It’s not as great as one might think.

    I experienced a lot of negative attention (insults, put-downs, nasty guesses about my looks) in male-dominated games. Women tend to be a lot more indirect in communication, so the direct harshness was not fun. I enjoyed the activities so I put up with it.

    Women usually know where the favorable gender ratios are. They tend not to want to go to those places, because often they aren’t all that interested, and because there is a great deal of direct hostility.

    I don’t know where people get the idea that nerds are “nice.” This is also true of STEM majors. They’re still guys, just smarter than average, so there is the same breakdown of jerks, good guys, supplicants, sociopaths, etc. I don’t idealize nerds even though they were my “target,” because I’ve been insulted by them enough to know better. 😛

  • Ramble

    Can you expand on this? What other groups have an incentive to support a sex-positive ideology?

    I could, but it would take too long. Basically, feminism is simply a subset of Leftism.

    Leftism = Cultural Marxism

    They must subvert Social Norms (even when Social Norms no longer dominate, or are almost dead, like we see in many parts of the West).

  • I guess I should clarify that I am not familiar with any strictly transactional grade-for-sex proposals (the students I am familiar with tend to have very good grades, anyway), but the aggressive sexuality and overall forwardness are there in a different way.

    Not sure of N distribution in this group, but the aggressiveness definitely is packaged with total physical confidence, high SMV, and high ambition level regarding politics, law, and/or business.

  • Ramble

    That’s true, but there’s a lot more opportunity for scandal bringing 16 and 17 year olds to a frat house. Imagine someone gets super drunk and her friend calls 911. If she’s a college student, that’s one thing. If she’s been “rounded up” from the town by predatory males, that’s something else entirely. And there’s the statutory rape issue as well.

    Oh, I don’t disagree at all. I am just saying that having underage girls drinking is not the crux of the issue (assuming that we are talking about girls that are, say, 16 and older).

    ===============

    The thing about the Comp Sci and Neuroscience girls being a little sluttier, I suspect, has much more to do with how few of them there are at a place like Wellesley, or most other colleges. Small sample sizes can really screw things up.

    But, yeah, in general, the more subjective the coursework (and preceding interest) the sluttier the girl is likely to be.

  • Ramble

    Any guy at my house in college would be laughed out of the party for bringing high school girls there. The assumption would be that he couldn’t get anything with the college girls and so had to resort to hitting on 16 year-olds.

    I am not saying to bring some hs girl to a frat party. I am saying that if you are a freshman and you think that you are likely to be in the sexual desert, than definitely look at hs girls.

    For instance, you are a guy, and you are not in a frat. You go your whole freshman year without any play. Working your summer job back home, some cute hs girl starts asking you about college (she either finished her junior or senior year). I say, go for it.

    A good approach would be to make sure that she, and her friends, are around you at, say, a pool party. Let them compete a little for your attention and then pick your favorite.

    Either way, the point is, those lonely freshman should absolutely consider girls 1-2 years younger than them. And anyone that attempts to call you a loser (“Dude, you should totally go back to being lonely and sexless”), tell them to fuck off.

  • JP

    @Zach:

    “Our version of “high school girls” was importing girls from schools like Temple, La Salle, etc. True or not, the perception was that those girls were both more attractive and more slutty than the Penn girls. I still remember the one time we poured $5 vodka into Grey Goose bottles at a Drexel mixer. The girls couldn’t stop talking about how “amazing” it was.”

    Apparently, Grey Goose isn’t the most tasty vodka out there.

    The $5 vodka may have actually tasted better.

    So, this isn’t the best example…

    Do you know what’s great about Penn? People think that Penn and Penn State are the same college.

    So, when I was at Duke for law school, everyone thought that I went to “Penn” rather than “Penn State”.

    I found this quite entertaining.

  • Zach

    @JP

    You’re not at all the first one to notice this. There were shirts for sale at the Penn bookstore that read “NOT PENN STATE”.

  • J

    Either way, the point is, those lonely freshman should absolutely consider girls 1-2 years younger than them

    Isn’t an 18 yo guy running the risk of legal trouble in dating a 16 yo? I’m not necessarily against it, but I’d have concerns if it was my son. I’d want him to be very careful about not exposing the girl to sexual situations or ones where there were drugs and alcohol involved as he might be held responsible.

  • J

    I don’t know where people get the idea that nerds are “nice.” This is also true of STEM majors. They’re still guys, just smarter than average, so there is the same breakdown of jerks, good guys, supplicants, sociopaths, etc. I don’t idealize nerds even though they were my “target,” because I’ve been insulted by them enough to know better.

    Some of the nasty people around are injured nerds. It’s bad to piss off smart people; they have creative ways ot getting payback.

  • J

    @SW

    I don’t recall that Charlotte Simmons had declared a major…she was a top student, though. And she did hook up and lose her virginity freshman year.

    She didn’t declare a major.

    I read the book on vacay–mostly on your recommendation. I was extremely diasappointed as to how she lost her virginity–though I suppose it was a realistic depiction of how frat boys lay in wait for the naive and inexperienced and how those girls delude themselves. I did find Wolfe’s description of the actual act amazing; you’d think he’d had a hymen at one time.

    The end disappointed me too. I was rooting for Adam, not Jojo I’d have chosed Adam in her situation, but then again I’d have avoided the frat boys and jocks anyway.

    • @J

      Did you like the book overall?

      The sex scene is one of the most cringe inducing things I’ve ever read. And the way Hoyt spoke of her afterwards…

      The ending is a disappointment, but very plausible.

  • Ramble

    Isn’t an 18 yo guy running the risk of legal trouble in dating a 16 yo?

    Yes, to many a judge, he is a rapist.

    I’d have concerns if it was my son

    And you would be right to be concerned.

  • J

    to many a judge, he is a rapist.

    It depends more on the law itself than the judge. Some states allow an age difference; for example, sex with a 16 yo is statutory rape except when the age difference is less than two years. There may also be an exception for relationships that began before the older party turned 18. I’d want to know the local laws if my son were in that position. In fact, I’d actually seek legal advice.

  • @Ms. Walsh #14:
    “Colleges are beginning to look seriously at the Pluralistic Ignorance problem. Duke spent considerable time and resources seeking input from its students. Schools have also been proactive in scheduling more events to compete with fraternities. Although only 15% of college students in the U.S. are in Greek organizations, they account for three times that many hookups.”

    O: Thanks for the response; I’ve been giving all this a goodly bit of thought overnight, and I think I have a solution.

    All of this started with the advent of the Sexual Revolution; most selective colleges like say, Princeton, were all-male less than a half century ago. Of course, you had all-female schools, too. Bethune is one such example, as I recall.

    So, all of this stuff came along when the sexes were brought together, along with a few other “great ideas” courtesy of the White UMC Feminist arm of the Cognitive Elite.

    Here are my ideas to obliterate the hooking up problem:

    1. End all fraternizing between students of differing classes: since we know that freshmen guys get next to no love, and since we know that upperclass guys view freshmen gals as fresh meat, putting a hard stop to fraternizing in this way will knockout two birds with one stone – it will end freshmen gals getting took by cads on one side, and make sure that freshman guys get a shot at wooing their potential lifelong mates. Violators of this policy will be punished by expulsion. Once the Mr. & Mrs. HUS’ of the country find out that the unis are deadly, aggressively serious about this, they’ll get on board.

    2. Get much more serious about the matchmaking business: since colleges are defacto mating grounds for some of America’s young people anyways these days, why shouldn’t the unis do their part in seeing to it that young people get together? In step with Item #1 above, the unis can take the wealth of information they already have on their students, and match them per their shared interests, etc. SAT scores and the like can be used to pair student pairs as well. Events can be scheduled during off-classroom and study times, specifically for the purposes of the putative matched couples to meet and socialize.

    3. Bring back mandatory single sex dorms, and place them on opposite ends of the campus grounds: this will also act to cutdown on matters of importance to the Feminist Lobby, such as “date rape” and the like, as well as keeping more of a focus on academic concerns and the like. Assign existing uni/campus police and draft volunteers from the student bodies, male and female alike, to assist in policing the dorm grounds to be certain that members of the opposite sex are in the others’ dorms. Also: no booze or drugs of any kind on campus should be strictly enforced. The penalty for violation is summary expulsion.

    4. Banish all Greek organizations off campus. They have every right to organize and do their thing, but in that they have been proven per your excellent presentation of data and research to be a noted source of tension and monkey business on campus, often involving potential sexual assaults and the like, they are a noted liability to the uni system and thus must be relocated off campus. Any pledges to said organizations must sign waiver forms with the uni office releasing said uni from any liability should anything untoward happen while on said Greek property off-campus. We’ll see how long said organizations will hold up when such rules are put into place.

    All of these very simple steps not only *can* work, they have already proven themselves *to* work – the US Military, as well as professional sporting teams and Corporate America, all have rules very similiar to the ones listeed above. We could solve the hooking up problem, AND the date rape/sex assault issue, over night.

    Of course, I think you and I both know that far too many folk would howl at these impositions, even if it’s for the greater good (H/T: Mike C!) – and therein lies the problem. Perhaps of most import is the fact…

    …wait for it…

    THE WOMEN WON’T WANT IT.

    You see, it is my firm belief that a great deal of all these problems are being driven by Female Mating Choice. The problem is, that young Women being what and who they are, they don’t have the wisdom and wherewithall to handle their sexual choices. They need guidance. The fellas do too, but since we’ve had all-male schools for centuries with little to no incident, that can be easily handled. The ladies are the wildcard here.

    The above steps, can and will solve it.

    So…whaddya think?

    Holla back

    O. (The Problem Solver)

    • @Obs

      It’s obvious you don’t know much about the college environment 🙂

      since we know that freshmen guys get next to no love,

      The study of men, which was 3/4 freshmen and sophomores, revealed a mean of 2 different hookup partners per male. 69% hooked up, and 73% of those included sexual intercourse.

      There are also the college marrieds, which tend to be couples who meet early on freshman year and stay together the whole time. So it would appear that freshmen guys, are doing OK, in a 70/30 split.

      In step with Item #1 above, the unis can take the wealth of information they already have on their students, and match them per their shared interests, etc.

      In loco parentis was struck down more than 40 years ago. Colleges provide education, period.

      Bring back mandatory single sex dorms

      Great idea, some schools are doing just that.

      Banish all Greek organizations off campus. They have every right to organize and do their thing, but in that they have been proven per your excellent presentation of data and research to be a noted source of tension and monkey business on campus

      In loco parentis again.

      young Women being what and who they are, they don’t have the wisdom and wherewithall to handle their sexual choices.

      The data says otherwise.

      Your ignorance is showing, Obsidian. I suggest you sit this one out.

  • Ramble

    It depends more on the law itself than the judge.

    I was just being flippant.

    Some of my “favorite” stories in the news are what charges are brought against girls after it is discovered that they filed a false rape claim.

  • @Ms. J #73:
    “@SW

    I don’t recall that Charlotte Simmons had declared a major…she was a top student, though. And she did hook up and lose her virginity freshman year.

    She didn’t declare a major.”

    O: Per Tom Wolfe’s Wiki, Ms. Simmons did seem to have one:

    “Much of his recent work also addresses neuroscience, a subject which he admitted a fascination with in “Sorry, Your Soul Just Died,” one of the essays in Hooking Up, and which played a large role in I Am Charlotte Simmons—the title character being a student of neuroscience, and characters’ thought processes, such as fear, humiliation and lust, frequently being described in the terminology of brain chemistry.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wolfe#Novels

    I’m a big fan of Mr. Wolfe; his Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers was excellent! (Same deal with A Man in Full)

    O.

  • @Ms. J #73:
    “Some of the nasty people around are injured nerds. It’s bad to piss off smart people; they have creative ways ot getting payback.”

    O: Very interesting – and timely – insight! In light of your remarks here Ms. J, what do you say of the “Dark Knight Shooter”, Mr. James Egan Holmes? Some in the ‘sphere have argued that he is yet another example of what some have referred to as “Beta Male Rage”.

    Your thoughts?

    O.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    Wrt Regnerus:

    I find him to be something of a religious zealot and ideologue, and not terribly interested in much of what he has to say. However, since you’ve directly quoted him, let me respond to a few of his points.

    The problem with the idea of having more Men to Women, is that there will be Men left standing when the music stops. Out in flyover country, in places like Montana and even Alaska, while the ladies there might be quite happy, there are a lot of not too happy guys. Suggesting a system like this as Regnerus is doing basically shifts the unhappiness from Women to Men…not a terribly good look from my vantage point.

    Second, I deeply question and challenge Regnerus and others’ notions and ideas of what they mean by “success”; for me, the fact that I’m still alive instead of working myself to death, in a job that I hate, under a mountain of debt from school from taking a subject that I didn’t like and can’t take full advantage of due to among other things, market vagaries, bait and switch and yea I’ll say it, discrimination against Black Males, etc et al, means to me that I am quite successful, because I live life on my own terms and per my own schedule. I owe no one anything, and do the work I actually like doing. I am in good health, mentally and physically – certainly better than Black Men a half century ago. Guys like Regnerus are little better than Feminists who try to guilt trip stay at home moms into going back to work for the sake of “the cause”. I’ll pass.

    O.

    • The relevant Regnerus bit is the rather obvious observation re sexual economics wrt sex ratios.

      Regardless of how you define success, the reality is that there is and will continue to be a shortage of men for assortative mating. Female hypergamy dictates marrying a man of status higher than one’s own. In a time when women are achieving more status than men are, many men will be found wanting, i.e., unmarriageable. Whether this constitutes success or failure for them is subjective. In any case, female choice is reduced.

  • Does this all mean that hook-up culture should cease to be a point of agitation for “traditional family values” advocates? Is the culture essentially self-policing and limited in scope and appeal? Has the threat been overblown by the media?

    Like you mentioned before about having “just” 10% of more men than women a small percentage can change the end game for everyone really fast and effectively. So taking away their power is important for the good of all of us.

    And that non-stem girls tend to be a lot sluttier than stem girls. And, artsy and acting girls tend to be about as slutty as they get.

    Hey I take offense on that :p but then I was supposed to take the major on art and then do my second major on STEM, but remembering that my eggs are not going to live forever I decided to try and find a husband first then do it when the kids are on school so I might not count.

    Heh. Is it perhaps reasonable to expect that the women who proposition professors with promises of heavenly BJs are the same women who may be found in the very high N group? The 5-10% estimate would work quite nicely.

    Yeah IME you are not going to find the shy virginal girl offering a BJ for a grade. She rather you know study 😉

    I don’t idealize nerds even though they were my “target,” because I’ve been insulted by them enough to know better.

    Nerd are diverse like any other group and some of them recent the presence of women because they whether had bad experiences or assume the girls are going to paint everything pink with unicorns…
    I think another problem is that men in a all male group treat women like men and that reads nasty. I usually was the only woman on a group and most of them didn’t knew how to “switch” to female speak while others felt that if you invade a male space you have to proof yourself capable of probing that you were as though as the boys. Luckily having grown up with brothers I learned to endure my “baptism of fire” and from them on it was easier for them to treat me a bit less harshly once I found my place in the pack. You can see how that works on manosphere blogs and how the interact with he few female sympathizers they have, of course this method leads to all the issues we have witnesses to *le sigh*

  • @Ms. Hope #64:
    “I experienced a lot of negative attention (insults, put-downs, nasty guesses about my looks) in male-dominated games. Women tend to be a lot more indirect in communication, so the direct harshness was not fun. I enjoyed the activities so I put up with it.”

    O: I was listening to NPR last week when they reported a story about the online sexual harrassment of female gamers. I’m ambivalent about the issue, because I see the potential for feminizing yet another, and rapidly dwindling, all-male activity. Hmm.

    “Women usually know where the favorable gender ratios are. They tend not to want to go to those places, because often they aren’t all that interested, and because there is a great deal of direct hostility.”

    O: BOOM! Ms. Hope, if there’s one thing I absolutely LOVE about Asian culture, it’s that you guys haven’t forgotten to call things for what they are. The above explains why Women aren’t flocking to Salt Lake City and instead head to NYC, for example. I’ve always argued that Women have always known where the Betas are; they just aren’t that into them, yet.

    “I don’t know where people get the idea that nerds are “nice.” This is also true of STEM majors. They’re still guys, just smarter than average, so there is the same breakdown of jerks, good guys, supplicants, sociopaths, etc. I don’t idealize nerds even though they were my “target,” because I’ve been insulted by them enough to know better.”

    O: Please repeat this to Ms. Anacaona and others? The notion that Alpha=bad/Beta (nerd)=good is utterly downright ridiculous…

    O.

    • The above explains why Women aren’t flocking to Salt Lake City and instead head to NYC, for example.

      Huh? Now beta and alpha are geographic? NYC is full of beta men making bank, and most of them are enjoying the lopsided sex ratio there. I’m sure Utah has more than its share of dominant Mormon males.

      Let’s nip the alpha beta ridiculousness in the bud right now. It is not relevant to this post, unless you want to point out that there seem to be far fewer betas in college than some have claimed. (80% of the women have sex with 20% of the men is now officially DEAD.)

  • Ramble

    in cities that draw large numbers of twentysomethings—women outnumber men by significant margins. (In one Manhattan ZIP code, for example, women account for 63 percent of 22-year-olds.)

    I have been saying this for a long time. Girls absolutely flock to cities. Few have much interest in living in some 1960’s apartment complex and meeting guys at Applebees.

    • Few have much interest in living in some 1960′s apartment complex and meeting guys at Applebees.

      The states with the most favorable sex ratios for women include Wyoming, Idaho, and other states whose local economies rely heavily on male manual labor. There just aren’t a lot of jobs for females in those places.

      When I graduated from business school, I had four offers in NYC, and zero elsewhere, even though I had put considerable effort into looking at other locations. I believe a very large percentage of my class went to NY.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “It’s obvious you don’t know much about the college environment”

    O: I know enough to know that an entire cottage industry has grown up around the hooking up problem. 😉

    “The study of men, which was 3/4 freshmen and sophomores, revealed a mean of 2 different hookup partners per male. 69% hooked up, and 73% of those included sexual intercourse.”

    O: Fair enough; but what is wrong with instituting anti-cross classmen fraternization laws?

    There are also the college marrieds, which tend to be couples who meet early on freshman year and stay together the whole time. So it would appear that freshmen guys, are doing OK, in a 70/30 split.”

    O: So it would appear. “College marrieds”? You mean they got married in college?

    “In loco parentis was struck down more than 40 years ago. Colleges provide education, period.”

    O: If that were true, HUS wouldn’t exist…yes?

    “Great idea, some schools are doing just that.”

    O: Like Duke?

    “In loco parentis again.”

    O: It needs to be tweaked.

    “The data says otherwise.”

    O: Does this mean that you agree with what Ms. MacDonald has said?

    “Your ignorance is showing, Obsidian. I suggest you sit this one out.”

    O: I’ll take it under advisement…

    O.

  • Ramble

    Hey I take offense on that :p

    I know you were just kidding, but, let me “rephrase” that:

    And that non-stem girls tend to be a lot sluttier than stem girls. And, artsy and acting girls tend to be about as slutty as they get.

    I find it is particularly hard for the actresses to not be at least a lit bit slutty. These are girls, after all, that basically decide at 16 or 17 that they want to dedicate their lives to making out with, and getting fondled by, guys they just met because some other guy told them to.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “Huh? Now beta and alpha are geographic? NYC is full of beta men making bank, and most of them are enjoying the lopsided sex ratio there. I’m sure Utah has more than its share of dominant Mormon males.

    Let’s nip the alpha beta ridiculousness in the bud right now. It is not relevant to this post, unless you want to point out that there seem to be far fewer betas in college than some have claimed. (80% of the women have sex with 20% of the men is now officially DEAD.)”

    O: No. What I mean is that the Men deemed sexually desirable by Women. We can quibble over all of that, and to be frank I’ve never been into that debate; I know what I see around me, and that’s good enough for me and mine. Simply put, my point is that there is a reason why Women flock to places where there aren’t many Men there, instead of places where Men are in abundance. This can be easily seen in places like NYC, for both races, White and Black Women. In the case of the latter for example, there is a fact that there are fewer Men to Women, and this evens out the further South you go. Indeed, in the South, Black Men are much more marriage-minded. The question therefore comes up – why are so many Black Women up in NYC bemoaning their relationship fate, given the simple census facts in this regard? One suspects there is a bit of cognitive dissonance going on there…

    O.

    • Simply put, my point is that there is a reason why Women flock to places where there aren’t many Men there, instead of places where Men are in abundance.

      Yeah, it’s called career opportunity.

  • These are girls, after all, that basically decide at 16 or 17 that they want to dedicate their lives to making out with, and getting fondled by, guys they just met because some other guy told them to.

    And a lot of the classes teach to be comfortable with their bodies as to act in underwear, nightgowns and do nude scenes and the likes so a lot of opportunities for inhibitions to be discarded, not all of them follow suit of course but there it is….

  • @Ms. Walsh #86:
    “The relevant Regnerus bit is the rather obvious observation re sexual economics wrt sex ratios.”

    O: What’s obvious is that we are experiencing a glut of Spinsters, and not quite for all the reasons that are being touted…

    “Regardless of how you define success, the reality is that there is and will continue to be a shortage of men for assortative mating.”

    O: But how I – and by extension, Men overall – define success is key here, unless Women enmasse take on the role of proposing marriage and the like?

    “Female hypergamy dictates marrying a man of status higher than one’s own. In a time when women are achieving more status than men are, many men will be found wanting, i.e., unmarriageable.”

    O: Hmm. So, a Man who owns his own business doesn’t suffice? I’d say such a thing would be ridiculous.

    “Whether this constitutes success or failure for them is subjective.”

    O: No, it is very much objective. Like I said, healthwise I am doing far and away better than my dad did when he was my age. My quality of life is better. I am happier. I have less stress, a big part of that being, virtually no debt. I am drug, alcohol and Baby Mama free. These are quite objective measures of life indices, Ms. Walsh. That Women, some of them anyway, may not think they are not important or do not like them, is not a problem I nor any other similarly disposed Man can or should solve.

    “In any case, female choice is reduced.”

    O: They’ll live…

    O.

    • So, a Man who owns his own business doesn’t suffice? I’d say such a thing would be ridiculous.

      Again, this is subjective. If he has achieved demonstrably high status with his own business, I’m sure he will do fine. He may want to avoid women with more education than himself anyway. I will be surprised if we see many pairings between SES groups.

      That Women, some of them anyway, may not think they are not important or do not like them, is not a problem I nor any other similarly disposed Man can or should solve.

      I have never suggested that men should plan their lives according to what women want. One’s strategy should follow one’s objectives, and if men prefer to GTOW they have every right. Many women are effectively choosing not to marry. Make no mistake, Kate Bolick chose not to marry her boyfriend, and her two most recent relationships have been with men 11 years younger than herself. She’s got a big smile on her face. She’s only a cautionary tale to women who want marriage and family.

      Of course we’ll live. We’ll just reproduce less.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “Yeah, it’s called career opportunity.”

    O: LOL. Go try that on folk who don’t know any better. All the jobs ain’t in NYC, and besides, as Zach has previously noted, Women can and do flock to places like NYC because of all the…recreational activities – which I have no problem with whatsoever. I’m just sayin, though.

    O.

    • All the jobs ain’t in NYC, and besides, as Zach has previously noted, Women can and do flock to places like NYC because of all the…recreational activities — which I have no problem with whatsoever.

      Young people going off to work in the big city. Nothing new there. For college graduates, New York City is one of the easiest places to find a job in the United States, especially a good paying job.

      If you have data that shows why women move there, or proves that it’s based on chasing a SATC lifestyle, let’s have it.

  • Cooper

    @Susan, Re: Sex is Cheap

    “what many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we’d be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one.”

    Don’t you agree that this kind of relates to what i was saying in our discussion this weekend?
    If the immutable fact that women yearn to earn commitment, is going to dictate that a man of long-term-orientation is of lower value than that of a man, of similar looks/status, with little or absolute no commitment interest – then these trends are sure to continue, no?

    I really do think I’m speaking in women’s best interest when I say: the one hardest to catch isn’t necessary the one of most worth.

    (during our discussion, did you ever consider whether I’ve had similar results when dealing with women below my SMP (IMO)? And that simply being open to commitment was enough for them to adjust my value to below theirs – something that I found astonishing, as in some cases we were points apart (again, IMO).)

    • @Cooper

      If the immutable fact that women yearn to earn commitment, is going to dictate that a man of long-term-orientation is of lower value than that of a man, of similar looks/status, with little or absolute no commitment interest — then these trends are sure to continue, no?

      Don’t forget that it’s the minority of women who are promiscuous, and they’re throwing a wrench into the SMP by significantly increasing the supply of casual sex.

      There’s still a large percentage of men and women who have 0,1 or 2 hookups in their entire four years.

      I really do think I’m speaking in women’s best interest when I say: the one hardest to catch isn’t necessary the one of most worth.

      You’ll get no argument from me there. The hardest guy to catch is probably a very poor relationship prospect in any case.

      (during our discussion, did you ever consider whether I’ve had similar results when dealing with women below my SMP (IMO)? And that simply being open to commitment was enough for them to adjust my value to below theirs — something that I found astonishing, as in some cases we were points apart (again, IMO).)

      Cooper, I’m not sure how avoiding commitment and hooking up correlates, but I know that it does. Not having time for a relationship is one of the reasons that promiscuous women give for preferring hooking up to dating. If they are linked, then the data in this post demonstrates that only a small percentage of women fits this description. Even if you assume that all 26% of the freshmen who have sex during a hookup become hardcore sluts, a fairly outlandish assumption, that still leaves 74% of female students who didn’t go that route.

      The data also shows that more than half of women hook up in order to get a boyfriend.

      If you can’t find them, you’re not looking in the right place.

  • Ion

    ” At my undergrad campus, everybody knew who “those girls” were. I can recall two.”

    I believe this.

    My major was art history, on the slutty end of the chart, but I swearrrr it was because I eventually wanted to be an archaeologist or librarian, and not to carousel hop. I was popular enough, some of the slutty girls befriended me, but I never did any carouseling, even though I had a fair amount of offers.

    I did meet at least 30 slutty girls over the years. But this was art school. By art school, I mean the dance/acting/visual arts majors, coke, nonstop drama, “liberal” ideologies, feminism, lesbians for male attention, nude artwork, etc., I don’t blame anyone who is more suspicious of arts campuses, even though we were frat free.

    From what I heard, and saw, betas in my school did pretty well, some even were quite popular among the slutty girls. I assume this is because a good portion of men otherwise were gay.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “The states with the most favorable sex ratios for women include Wyoming, Idaho, and other states whose local economies rely heavily on male manual labor. There just aren’t a lot of jobs for females in those places.”

    O: No, there just aren’t any kinds of jobs for Women *that these Women want to do* – and that’s perfectly fine. Like I said, there are plenty of guys around; just not the kind of guys the ladies want. That’s too bad. Guys understand that Dimes, by definition, are and always have been in short supply, and make do.

    It’s the Ladies’ turn. That is, if they don’t want to go the Way of the Do-Do Bird…

    “When I graduated from business school, I had four offers in NYC, and zero elsewhere, even though I had put considerable effort into looking at other locations. I believe a very large percentage of my class went to NY.”

    O: That may be, but there’s Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, DC, San Fran, LA, New Orleans, Newark, Miami, Dallas, Houston…I mean, I’m just not buying the notion that the *only* place to work on the planet is NYC. What I will buy though, is the notion that for many young ladies, NYC is the “it” place to be, which I have no problem with; in that case, you have to be willing to make tradeoffs. Just like anything else in life. Such is the Way of an Adult.

    O.

    • No, there just aren’t any kinds of jobs for Women *that these Women want to do* — and that’s perfectly fine. Like I said, there are plenty of guys around; just not the kind of guys the ladies want.

      This makes no sense. You’re right, women don’t want to farm or be cowgirls, with a few exceptions. That isn’t to say they don’t find cowboys sexy. Women don’t chase men, they chase job opportunities. And then they date men with similar job opportunities. I’m not sure why this is surprising – it seems obvious. This isn’t the era of women become nurses to meet interns, or ad agency secretaries to meet Don Draper.

  • Wudang

    In the US general population the numbers for YOUNG people are:

    “While the number of sex partners increased with age, by the age of 24 more than 14% of men and 7 % of women have had 15 or more sex partners.”

    ” report uses data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. The answers are collected through in-person interviews with over 13,000 men and women. The data are collected using audio computer-assisted self interviewing, so the person being surveyed enters answers into the computer without revealing their responses to an interviewer. This method of responding hopefully eliminates (or at least limits) the need to artificially inflate or decrease the number of sex partners based on concerns over reporting real numbers to a live interviewer. The survey has a pretty high response rate: 75%.”

    http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/how-many-sex-partners-do-people-really-have/

    So in the general US population, amongst young people it IS the case that the most promiscuous males are dipping into the 80% less promiscuous females. And they don`t just dip, as they have double the number of their female promiscuous counterparts. I know your focus is the the college hookup culture, but it is important to remember when thinking about gender dynamics.

    These are the differences between the male and female numbers in the GSS data. So again general population, a mix of college and non college educated:

    0: 5.6//5.8 (97%)
    1: 17.2//33.6 (51%)
    2-3: 15.9//24.8 (64%)
    4-6: 18.9//18.8 (101%)
    7-10: 13.9//9.2 (151%)
    11-25: 16.9//6.0 (282%)
    26-99: 8.4//1.5 (560%)
    100+: 3.3//0.3 (1,100%)

    I find it extremely dubious that the discrepancy for the highest numbers can be explained solely by male lying. To get the differences we have here amongst the highest numbers the men in the second highest group would have to lie up their numbers by 600%. Guys with 10 partners would have to write 60. To get the discrepancy at the very highest level guys would have to lie up their numbers by 1100%, meaning a guy with 10 partners would have to write 110 or one with 20 write 220. I find that utterly implausible.

    The other GSS numbers you linked to in the half Sigma post also showed very large differences between the most promiscuous men and women. for the 11-20 group almost four times as many men and for the 21-100 group 6-7 times as many men as women and this is despite the male group being drawn from a smaller number than the female group.

    As for the college data you have presented there are big problems stemming from the 60/40 split. Your data show equal numbers across the board. When the females are 50% more than the males, if they only sleep with each other the males MUST have 50% higher numbers. Since they don`t the women must be sleeping with someone else. With 100 students, 60 being female and 40 male and both having equal numbers of partners the men can only account for the numbers of 40 of the 60 females. 33,3% of their partners must be from outside the college population. In reality the number would be higher because for every male who sleeps with a woman outside the college population it reduces the amount of sex partners amongst the female college population he can account for, but lets just presume for the sake of illustration that the numbers it at the absolute minimum, 33,3%. Those 33,% of the female college students sex partners must either be from the pool of older men that have already graduated from college or they must be from the pool of men without college education. Most likely it is a combination. Indeed if the college educated are all going to get married a third of them will have to marry someone without a college degree (I agree with Susan that many of them probably wills tay single instead). If indeed all the 33,3% can be accounted for by older college aged men, and women do generally go for men that are older than them, by the time the college educated men and women get around marriage age the mens numbers would now include those 50% extra partners that aren`t showing in these numbers. This is hugely problematic. If the 33,3% are to be explained not by older college educated men it must mean that they are sleeping with non college educated men which makes the claim of a separate SMP for the college educated dubious. Most likely the reality is somewhere in the middle. Regardless wether the 33,3% is explained by older college educated men or non college educated men or both, the fact that 33,3% or more of the women’s sex partners are not the male college students throws the numbers all out of whack as we don`t know how they distribute.

    A further problem with the 60/40 split is that the traits of the average male and female college student becomes different from if it where a 50/50 split. With 50% more female than male college students there will be a twist in the composition of the degree of sociosexuality amongst the genders. Adding more and more college students does not mean you get more and more people with the same traits. If you remove the third of the women that where the least likely to go to college you won`t remove an equal number of good girls and sluts, you will remove a disproportionate number of sluts. College attendance correlates with future time orientation, IQ and other factors that correlate with a less restricted sociosexuality and the numbers of the college educated are lower than amongst those without. Those that are now the least likely to have gone amongst those who are there have the least of those factors that correlate with restricted sociosexuality. Remove those and you remove a higher percentage of good girls than amongst those who stay. Likewise, if you add the men that aren`t going to college that where the most likely to go you won`t add as many dads as cads, you will add a higher percentage of cads than dads compared to the proportion that is already there. If you adjust for this the proportion of promiscuous college women becomes smaller than the proportion of male college students that are promiscuous. So the similarity in numbers is not so much a factor of being a college student, it is a factor of the gender imbalance.

    As for lesbians , they have more sex partners than straight women not less. A lot more.

    • @Wudang

      Your tenacity in arguing the point about promiscuous females is truly remarkable. You’re like the HUS Terminator. Having spent many hours analyzing the data already, I don’t have much of an appetite for delving into unrelated matters, but I’ll address some of your key points.

      1. As we have seen, the SMP in the U.S. is strongly bifurcated by SES group. For our purposes, it’s the college population that is relevant.

      2. I linked to two sources that explain that gender discrepancies in the general population disappear when prostitutes are added to the female sample.

      3. The numbers do not require any partners outside the college population. There are many, many students who have an occasional hookup, and more women than men do not hook up at all. I believe, in fact, that the percentage of highly promiscuous women is well below 20%. I am certain that college students are not venturing beyond campus for many of their sexual experiences, especially the women. It’s actually a preposterous suggestion that reveals a lack of understanding about the American college experience. As I said earlier, there are a few campuses where this might be the case, e.g. NYU, but by and large college scenes are quite self-contained and very insular, as Zach has confirmed.

      4. The gender imbalance on college campuses reflects an educational system for children that nurtures female learning and expression. It’s not a question of personality traits or native IQ, it’s a question of girls in the U.S. having been actively groomed for college while their male peers were not served equally well. The colleges don’t admit for sex, they admit for achievement. Even the finest public universities in the U.S., e.g. UNC, reflect this. So the idea that more sluts are in the college population has not been demonstrated. Indeed, it’s very clear across studies that only a tiny percentage of women (3%) have more than 6 partners in four years.

      5. As for lesbians, they have more sex partners than straight women not less. A lot more.

      That goes against my own understanding of all-female college dynamics, as well as of lesbians in coed schools, who tend to be Women’s Studies types.

      In any case, it’s a moot point. The sex ratio, gay men, and higher percentage of women in relationships in the sample more than explain the discrepancy between the male and female means.

      Also, you’re consistently committing the error of regarding college samples as closed heterosexual populations. They are not.

      I explored every one of your links and many more besides. I have not excluded a single source quantifying college sexual behavior. At this point, I find your reasoning rather tortured, to be honest, so I’ll ask you to provide data to back up your point, or cease arguing it.

  • Ion

    @ Ramble and Ana, I second your comments about acting majors (I think it applies to dance majors as well).

    Another reason these girls seem to have moral judgement issues is due to overall narcissism, being shallow and vapid, using attention to validate themselves, etc.,

  • Re: draconian on-campus policies. I for one don’t want college campuses to be run by committees of central-planning enthusiasts looking to impose their top-down social engineering experiments on young adults. We’re dealing with complex adaptive social systems—lots of things may sound like great ideas, but will end up having unintended, hideously perverse consequences when second and third-order effects are properly accounted for.

    I’d rather have some Girls Gone Wild slutfest Hook-Up Culture ^ 3 than a neo-fascist fantasy world of coercive breeding experiments. We’re talking about a cohort of “adults” who have, as a group, been unmitigated disasters when it came to managing their own affairs—divorces, family law, substance abuse, public finances, political corruption. I wouldn’t trust most of them to manage a pillow fight, let alone some kind of makeshift eugenics program. It’s helicopter parenting taken to perhaps its final, terminal state of micromanagement, where a college campus becomes a kind of white collar prison.

    If they do want to practice central planning, perhaps they should change the admissions process and make women more scarce on campus. The rest will surely follow at some point. Yes, it would set feminism back. Yes, it would make women more dependent on male breadwinners. I personally don’t think it would be a good idea to mess around with this very much at all, but it probably would kill off hook-up culture if that was truly the goal.

    Re: Guttentag-Secord and Obsidian’s remarks about men left without chairs when the music stops. The theory does predicts increased levels of territorial aggression and violence among men when women/sexual outlets become more scarce. Campuses with percentages of female students *should* be reporting less instances of violence between males, but I’m not sure if this is being realized.

  • Ion

    “The question therefore comes up – why are so many Black Women up in NYC bemoaning their relationship fate”

    Here we go again…..

  • Ramble

    Yeah, it’s called career opportunity.

    Bullshit.

    I am not saying that some girls don’t move to the city because that is where the best job opportunity came from, but, that is not what I am seeing.

    One case in point, the State of North Dakota (which consistently ranks has having one of the lowest crime rates) had to start advertising for people to move to their state. They had a low unemployment rate and more and more job opportunities.

    One of the main sticking points for them was that they could not get girls to move there.

    “Oh, Ramble, that is because it is cold.”

    Yeah, so is London, but girls flock there like crazy.

    • One case in point, the State of North Dakota (which consistently ranks has having one of the lowest crime rates) had to start advertising for people to move to their state. They had a low unemployment rate and more and more job opportunities.

      Well obviously no one wants to go to North Dakota, not just women. Having lived in NYC myself, I think it’s something every young person should experience in life.

      Personally, I have never known a graduate to move to NYC without a job, though obviously the starving artist who waits tables to make ends meet is a tried and true NYC character.

      The largest cities will always have the most opportunities.

  • JP

    This entire “hooking up” thing definitely confused me when I was in college.

    It would have helped if someone had explained what “hooking up” was and what it meant. In fact, it would have made college a much, much less traumatic experience.

    I’m still amazed by how absolutely clueless I was when I was younger.

    But then I’m generally immune to pluralistic ignorance.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “Again, this is subjective. If he has achieved demonstrably high status with his own business, I’m sure he will do fine. He may want to avoid women with more education than himself anyway. I will be surprised if we see many pairings between SES groups.”

    O: I never cease to be amazed at the utter unimaginative stuff some folk say – after events like Sep 11, no less! Ms. Walsh, I can assure you that it is not at all uncommon to come across guys who run their own businesses who are better read than graduate degreed Women. It happens a heck of a lot more than many in my community would like to admit, because then it hurts the Narrative. But I’m living proof that it does.

    Nor am I in any way alone.

    To be sure, these guys aren’t the ones burning everyone’s ears off with their laments; all of that jazz occurs on the other side of the aisle, as your appelation “Spinster Lit” clearly attests to. Being that this is the case, it would seem that they need to be the ones to do a bit of “rethink”.

    *quoting me*:That Women, some of them anyway, may not think they are not important or do not like them, is not a problem I nor any other similarly disposed Man can or should solve.

    “I have never suggested that men should plan their lives according to what women want.”

    O: You most certainly did suggest this, Ms. Walsh; and there is at least some evidence that some guys have done a bit of “rethink” themselves on this front…

    “One’s strategy should follow one’s objectives, and if men prefer to GTOW they have every right.”

    O: I’m glad you brought that up because it gives me the chance to clarify something. For me – and I only speak for myself – I am NOT anti-marriage, or anti-relationships with Women; indeed, quite the opposite.

    What I’m against is the notion that Women get to call the shots as to what world I am to operate per their whims – 19th century Victorian England on one side to pander to their Jane Austin fantasies; and 21st century egalitarianism when it suits her. Other guys are more than free to indulge such things; I’ll pass. I like the idea of people actually upholding the ideals of equality, when the lights are on and everyone’s looking – when it actually counts. If I can rise above my base instincts, she can too. In fact, I demand that she does. The standards will not be changed, they will be adhered to. Aggressively. Freedom ain’t free; somebody’s gotta pay.

    It’s the Ladies’ Turn. 🙂

    “Many women are effectively choosing not to marry. Make no mistake, Kate Bolick chose not to marry her boyfriend, and her two most recent relationships have been with men 11 years younger than herself. She’s got a big smile on her face. She’s only a cautionary tale to women who want marriage and family.”

    O: Which explains her massive ink spill in The Atlantic? Her appearance on Today? Her parlaying her bad judgments, missed opportunities and relationship lamets into potential multi-media fame and hype? If she was indeed very happy with her decision(s), why the need to go on and on about it in such a public way? Methinks the Lady doth engage in Cognitive Dissonance just a weebit much…

    Edited.
    O.

    • I can assure you that it is not at all uncommon to come across guys who run their own businesses who are better read than graduate degreed Women.

      Well then I’m sure they’ll clean up with the ladies. What’s the problem?

      “I have never suggested that men should plan their lives according to what women want.”

      O: You most certainly did suggest this, Ms. Walsh

      Where?

      : Which explains her massive ink spill in The Atlantic? Her appearance on Today? Her parlaying her bad judgments, missed opportunities and relationship lamets into potential multi-media fame and hype? If she was indeed very happy with her decision(s), why the need to go on and on about it in such a public way?

      She was not bemoaning her fate. When I met her she was very accepting of it and earnestly seeking ways to enjoy the second half of her life without husband or children. I admired her for it, no one has to pay for her choices but her.

  • Cooper

    Susan, I’m not trying to relate it to promiscuity.

  • @Ms. Walsh #109:
    “This makes no sense. You’re right, women don’t want to farm or be cowgirls, with a few exceptions.”

    O: OK then; so what were you disagreeing with? 😉

    “That isn’t to say they don’t find cowboys sexy. Women don’t chase men, they chase job opportunities.”

    O: That’s fine – and those choices lead to consequences. I don’t like trying to save folks from themselves. 🙂

    “And then they date men with similar job opportunities. I’m not sure why this is surprising – it seems obvious. This isn’t the era of women become nurses to meet interns, or ad agency secretaries to meet Don Draper.”

    O: Just because something is “obvious” doesn’t mean that it’s the only way things can be or that it’s even right. Those who can’t, or won’t, think outside of the box are gonna find themselves in a heck of a pickle in a minute. Seems quite a few will be the gals…

    O.

  • Ion

    “Young people going off to work in the big city. Nothing new there. For college graduates, New York City is one of the easiest places to find a job in the United States, especially a good paying job. ”

    Agree totally Susan. The reason why so many people moved up north to begin was to “follow the jobs” provided by industrialization.

    I am from northern NY a full 8 hours away from NYC, and many young people (of both genders) moved to NY to find jobs period, not even good paying ones. I’ve run into a few people from home who’ve moved here.

    I’ve attempted to discourage people I know from moving here, but they don’t see that because I have a job, and they don’t, or they’re part time, or working bare wage, etc., The alternative could’ve been a 28 year old who stayed in their hometown and is now 5 years behind me in terms of work experience/salary, even though we’re the same age.

    If I could do it over again (and I just might), I’d pick some place like Denver. I didn’t then because it seemed too far from home and family.

  • My question to some of the single guys is, why focus so much on the girls who aren’t really your target audience, who don’t live up to what you want, and who dislike LTR-orientation in men? It seems kind of like a waste of time.

    If you don’t want an arts major girl who slept with ten frat guys, or an overweight below average looking girl who rejects nice guys, or a Kate Bolick wanna-be who wants the SATC lifestyle, then don’t. But all the time, energy and effort you spend on thinking about these types of girls aren’t going to do you any good either.

    While you’re preoccupied over the girls you *don’t* want, what if the girl you *would* want is out there and single? And you’re not looking for her because you’re still focused on the girls you say you don’t want. Am I wrong on this?

  • @Ms. Hope:
    “My question to some of the single guys is, why focus so much on the girls who aren’t really your target audience, who don’t live up to what you want, and who dislike LTR-orientation in men? It seems kind of like a waste of time.

    If you don’t want an arts major girl who slept with ten frat guys, or an overweight below average looking girl who rejects nice guys, or a Kate Bolick wanna-be who wants the SATC lifestyle, then don’t. But all the time, energy and effort you spend on thinking about these types of girls aren’t going to do you any good either.

    While you’re preoccupied over the girls you *don’t* want, what if the girl you *would* want is out there and single? And you’re not looking for her because you’re still focused on the girls you say you don’t want. Am I wrong on this?”

    O: *Raises hand* I know! I know!

    It’s because many of these guys aren’t being honest with themselves; they want the hotness, too. They just have problems with the downsides of wanting the hotness. Like the ladies and Betas deal, the fellas know where the “good girls” are – right out there in your neck of the woods. If they were really serious about it, they’d pack their stuff and make it happen, just like you have. But they won’t.

    And I just told you why.

    🙂

    O.

  • Jackie

    @Ion, Ramble, ANa
    “Ramble and Ana, I second your comments about acting majors (I think it applies to dance majors as well).”
    =========
    Co-signed.

    In my experience, there is a correlation between the physical requirements (I’ve never seen a chunky lead [non-character] actress or dancer) and sluttiness. If your body is so central to being looked at– as a *requirement*– I would think it would make you either crazy neurotic or really narcissistic.

    Also, I was thinking that there has got to be some kind of scale, where the more your body is involved, the higher the narcissistic/slutty factor. For example, singers’ bodies are more “on display” than cellists, who are still performers but the gaze is re-directed to their instruments. There is some kind of transference going on, I think.

    And, I wonder if there is some kind of correlation between the obejctivity/subjectivity or art and the sluttyness/non-sluttyness. For example, some actress who is doing a scene: How can this be quantified and measured, objectively? How do we know the performance is “good”? There is no objective standard, but a lot of varying opinions.

    For example, look at someone like Kristen Stewart from the Ana’s Twilight series. Some people LOVE her acting, others despise it. Yet they are viewing the same performance.

    I find a lot of these types, where the same performance can be “revelatory!” or “derivative,” tend to be more promiscuous.

    Contrast that with the hypothetical cellist. There are so many objectives that can measured: intonation, tempo, rhythm, dexterity, tone, etc. There can be many viewpoints on interpretation, but they will all have the same quantifiable baseline of objective standards.

    These types, in my experience, are a LOT more disciplined and a lot less slutty.

    OK, that was a pretty nerdy post! Oh well :mrgreen:

  • Tom

    Overall, the sexes show very little difference in the number of sexual partners. This would seem to confirm the hypothesis that a small percentage of promiscuous students are engaging in casual sex with one another, while a much larger group has a few partners during college, and well over a third of students have no sex at all.
    __________
    This is exactly the case in the 70`s, so things have not changed much in the last 40 years. The stats are almost identical.
    There is hope for the younger peeps…lol

  • @Bastiat:
    Wt your take on my Four Point Program:

    I’m not hearing exactly what you take issue with. Clearly there is a problem that needs addressing here. The hooking up phenomenon has proven itself to be problematic. I have proposed some simple, commonsense solutions to eliminate, or failing that greatly reduce, these poblems. Aside from ideological reasons, I am not hearing practical reasons from either you or Ms. Walsh as to why my proposals wouldn’t work. Again: these proposals have a proven track record of success; they were adapted from pre-existing policies found in pro sports, military and corporate cultures.

    Please explain? I need clarification.

    Thanks!

    O.

  • Tom

    Hope
    If you don’t want an arts major girl who slept with ten frat guys, or an overweight below average looking girl who rejects nice guys, or a Kate Bolick wanna-be who wants the SATC lifestyle, then don’t. But all the time, energy and effort you spend on thinking about these types of girls aren’t going to do you any good either.
    ___________
    Im thinking the easy target is too much to resist for a lot of men. Also I think the biggest problem with a lot of men is they are not very good with judging women when they first meet. Libidos do seem to get in the way of sound mind……lol

  • Jackie

    Re: North Dakota

    This is a really interesting discussion! Pretty recently, I relocated back to the area where my dad and brother live. Partially because the culture was so much more favorable! But another part was *definitely* the economy.

    Depending on your field, it may be detrimental to move without knowing your prospects. I want to say there was a recent BBC or profile on a woman who has relocated to one of those spots like Wyoming, ND, Montana, specifically to have a better chance of finding someone. (IIRC, it didn’t really work out for her.)

    Also: A lot of long-range thinkers may be thinking: Where do I want to raise a family? Because I want my children to have opportunities for a *great* education, not just book-wise but culturally.

    There was a point when I was young that we lived in a town so small, it didn’t even have a STOPLIGHT. I had just started school and one of the field trips was to walk to the Dairy Queen. Not a museum or a concert or a science exhibit. A DQ! They still used corporal punishment as well (spanking/paddling).

    My parents had me reading like crazy at home and we soon relocated to a metro area. Some people like to romanticize small towns, but in my short experience it was incredibly depressing and stagnant.

  • Emily

    >> “If you don’t want an arts major girl who slept with ten frat guys, or an overweight below average looking girl who rejects nice guys, or a Kate Bolick wanna-be who wants the SATC lifestyle, then don’t. But all the time, energy and effort you spend on thinking about these types of girls aren’t going to do you any good either.”

    I think that some of these guys (and one in particular) actually LOVE sluts, which is why they spend so much time obsessing over them.

  • Jackie

    I forgot to add: Also, everybody was up in everybody’s business (ie gossipping), which annoyed my mom to no end.

  • Tom

    Jackie, what you said above has a lot of truth to it.
    Another way to look at is is extrovert vs introvert.
    Actors and dancers are not shy, normally. They cant be too shy to be up infront of an audience. extrovert
    The chello player while infront of an audience, is not drawing the same attention or focus. introvert.
    Naturally one would think the extrovert would be more prone to “activity”

  • Abbot

    “Libidos do seem to get in the way of sound mind”

    Unfortunately for some women, a man’s sound mind kicks in hard when he switches to the wife-material pile

  • Tom

    However abbott, do not the facts show that @ 95% of women are infact not sluts? I would think even the most discerning man can find what he is looking for right here in the good ole US of A. That is , ofcourse, unless he has totally unrealistic expectations.

  • Hope…”If you don’t want an arts major girl who slept with ten frat guys”

    Most of the art chicks I’ve known wouldn’t be very interested in frat guys…much more likely to go for a hipster musician. Commercial art, maybe for the frat guys, but art-art, I think that would be an exception. YMMV.

  • Jackie

    @Emily
    “I think that some of these guys (and one in particular) actually LOVE sluts, which is why they spend so much time obsessing over them.”
    =======
    Hahaha! I think you hit the nail on the head, Em! 😉

    If you are thinking of our mutual friend, he wrote that men LOVE sluts. So apparently, it’s no secret.

    I almost wonder… so much of the ranting and railing (“NO RINGS FOR SLUTS!!!”) is almost to convince themselves, more than anyone?

    It must be very strange to be attracted to someone, have sex with them, and then repulsed by them for acquiescing to your request! And believe that, by sleeping with you, they have only degraded themselves more.

    And that the girls you “value” the most are the ones who will deny that same request of yours!

    I would think that would be very strange and difficult, even. Like driving by stepping on the gas and the brake at the same time trying to get to a destination. A lot of wheel-spinning, without going anywhere.

  • Ramble

    The largest cities will always have the most opportunities.

    No, they won’t. You lived through the 70’s, you should know this.

    “Last one to leave Cleveland/NYC/Milwaukee/etc. turn out the lights”.

    Almost all of the biggest companies in the 1970’s, 80s and 90 started somewhere in the burbs. Microsoft, Sun, Apple, Google, etc. I happen to know that UPS has almost all of their major offices in Suburbs…just like FedEx.

    Now, Finance, they are most definitely in the city. No argument here.

    But, in general, almost all recent examples of successful companies are in the burbs.

    But, UC and UMC types demanded that their cities improve, while bemoaning gentrification.

    Young, hip people, especially girls, really, really wanted to move to the high rent, expensive car insurance, cities.

    • But, in general, almost all recent examples of successful companies are in the burbs.

      Which are outside the big cities. Can you name some great companies in North Dakota, Idaho or Wyoming?

  • Senior Beta

    A little late to the party. But “warm wet mouth of a Tri Delt” is Roissy worthy. Good show.

  • J…re Charlotte Simmons…”I did find Wolfe’s description of the actual act amazing; you’d think he’d had a hymen at one time”

    Huh. Will have to go back and re-read. The main thing that struck me about his descriptions of sex in this book was that they were as clinical and un-erotic as can be imagined. My thought is that this was quite deliberate, that he was trying to send a message about the lameness of sex if decoupled from emotion.

    • @david foster

      The main thing that struck me about his descriptions of sex in this book was that they were as clinical and un-erotic as can be imagined.

      IIRC, when Charlotte saw Hoyt’s penis (her first), she couldn’t get over how much it resembled a ball peen hammer.

  • Jackie

    @Tom (125)
    Thanks, Tom! 😎

    I think that a lot of it boils down to the performer’s motivations. There are *awesome* actresses and narcissistic cellists, for sure.

    But the narcissistic performance is almost always shouting, “Look at MEEEE!!!” and a truly great performer will almost envelope you in their work, so much that it is a mutual experience of the music or art. You and them, together.

    There actually has to be a ton of humility and very little ego to do this well, I think.

  • Emily

    >> “Some people like to romanticize small towns, but in my short experience it was incredibly depressing and stagnant.”

    Yeah, I grew up in a rural area and I always felt the same way. At risk of reinforcing stereotypes: I LOVE big cities!

    I recently moved to the middle of nowhere, but that’s because I couldn’t find a job in the city.

    • At risk of reinforcing stereotypes: I LOVE big cities!

      Me too, I am constantly lobbying to go more urban.

  • For example, look at someone like Kristen Stewart from the Ana’s Twilight series. Some people LOVE her acting, others despise it. Yet they are viewing the same performance.

    I actually have a different theory. I think is more like meeting people in real life. Some people you fall in love with, some other people you despise, some other people are just meh. The whole idea that you click with some people and don’t with others due to a good chunk of factors not all of them obvious. I for example never saw the appeal of Leonardo Di Caprio whether young or old. I just never bought a single character he has played. But I can admit that it might be a perception problem given all the praise and awards he has had. I have a good chunk of recognized actors that I don’t buy (Julia Roberts is another one) and another that I just can’t get enough for some reason Kate Beckinsale to use an example fascinates me even though she is not very well regardless as actress so again I think this is more of a personal taste, YMMV.

  • Jackie

    @david foster (134)
    ” My thought is that this was quite deliberate, that he was trying to send a message about the lameness of sex if decoupled from emotion.”
    ========
    I thought that as well! Something Uncle Tom said once, about copulation not even rising the state of barnyard animals comes to mind.

    I was thinking about this gratuitousness in things like the show “Game of Thrones” (which is fantastic, by the way).

    The sex is GROSS and rapey, a lot of the time. I think it’s supposed to make you feel that way: Seeing that pimp, Littlefynger, and his grotesque bordello with Joffrey being mean to the prostitutes made me SICK.

    It’s not “Wow, being a medieval pimp is *awesome*!” More like, how unsexy is this sex, when people use each other and everything is a transaction? (Answer: Very)

  • Ramble

    Yeah, it’s called career opportunity.

    Bullshit.

    Sorry about that. I did not need to respond like that.

    • Sorry about that. I did not need to respond like that.

      Ramble, you are such LTR material. You’re very literal, very direct and forthright. But you’re also quite empathic and you don’t hesitate to apologize when your conscience troubles you.

      FWIW, I was not offended, but I do appreciate the comment.

  • @DF:
    “Huh. Will have to go back and re-read. The main thing that struck me about his descriptions of sex in this book was that they were as clinical and un-erotic as can be imagined. My thought is that this was quite deliberate, that he was trying to send a message about the lameness of sex if decoupled from emotion.”

    O: He did; and I think he did so for the reasons you note.

    O.

  • Some people like to romanticize small towns, but in my short experience it was incredibly depressing and stagnant.

    Cosign that I grew up in the city and small towns are great for visit not for living. Although I prefer a middle ground like the medium cities sort of mix of suburbs and shopping and job places a huge city like LA is too big for my taste and the traffic will drive me insane.

    I think that some of these guys (and one in particular) actually LOVE sluts, which is why they spend so much time obsessing over them.

    I think we mentioned that there is a blind spot for both sides of the Beta scale men and women.
    I think it would be good for Susan to actually try to write about this how do the “normal” people can meet and mate instead of looking up to the sluts and cads that are screwing up everything for everyone.

    • @Anacaona

      I think it would be good for Susan to actually try to write about this how do the “normal” people can meet and mate instead of looking up to the sluts and cads that are screwing up everything for everyone.

      I feel like we’ve finally established what the SMP looks like, or at least I have a good sense of it. The next step is the challenge of how to connect the 80% that is not participating in casual sex. This happens more easily after graduation, but it’s a real challenge for kids in school. That’s a shame, because young people want relationships and can benefit from getting practice in relationships.

      I’d love to canvass the readers for ideas – maybe that should be my first post. Just asking the readers what they think? If they have any ideas?

  • Tom

    Jackie
    It must be very strange to be attracted to someone, have sex with them, and then repulsed by them for acquiescing to your request! And believe that, by sleeping with you, they have only degraded themselves more.

    And that the girls you “value” the most are the ones who will deny that same request of yours!

    I would think that would be very strange and difficult, even. Like driving by stepping on the gas and the brake at the same time trying to get to a destination. A lot of wheel-spinning, without going anywhere.
    __________
    Hense most guys do not understand what being a hypocrite is…lol

  • Jackie

    @Hope (114)

    That’s a pretty good question, and I think that Obsidian partially answered it.

    I think, too, that those “slutty” girls are like neon signs, in some ways, instead of lighting up they are blinking “OBVIOUS” or “EASY” at some pheneromic (sp!) level.

    It’s almost like, if you are really really really hungry, you aren’t seeking out a fine restaurant. Most people will look for the golden arches of McDonald’s to get something ASAP. Also, hunger can make you kinda crazy (or in my case, I get kinda mean and “hangry”!). You don’t want to debate points or contemplate anything, you just want chow!

    It’s a poor metaphor, but I see some of these guys who aren’t into subtlety. Especially if they use/abuse a lot of porn. That is this example’s equivalent of a Hot Pocket! 🙂 Their tastebuds get acclimated to something that is not exactly healthy.

    • @Jackie

      I think, too, that those “slutty” girls are like neon signs, in some ways, instead of lighting up they are blinking “OBVIOUS” or “EASY” at some pheneromic (sp!) level.

      I’ve been researching sociosexuality, the degree to which people approve and seek casual sex, and it’s estimated to be at least 50% genetic. I wonder if promiscuous women may actually release that information in their pheromones. That all happens at the subconscious level for the male, so it’s an interesting question – Can a woman’s scent signal not only “ovulating” but also “available regardless?” Or perhaps some women smell more like ovulation all the time?

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “Well then I’m sure they’ll clean up with the ladies.”

    O: They most certainly do. 🙂

    “What’s the problem?”

    O: There was none – at least not on this end…

    O: You most certainly did suggest this, Ms. Walsh

    “Where?”

    O: Upthread with your citation and apparent cosigning of, Regnerus’ statement.

    “She was not bemoaning her fate.”

    O: That’s not how her article reads…

    “When I met her she was very accepting of it and earnestly seeking ways to enjoy the second half of her life without husband or children. I admired her for it, no one has to pay for her choices but her.”

    O: So again, why the need for the exhibitionistic display? See Ms. Walsh, being who I am and where I’m from, this is all oldhat to me.

    On the cover of the August issue of Essence magazine, we see actress Nia Long and her *two* sons – one of them an infant – with the caption “Single, Satisfied & Raising Her Boys”.

    http://www.essence.com/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nia_Long#Personal_life

    Baby Mama twice over, and her being promoted in such a fashion is NOT a good thing for Team America.

    Would you agree?

    It’s like installment 5,768 of the whole stiff upper lip routine, but she’s not fooling anybody; she’s certainly not fooling the fellas.

    Back to you… 🙂

    O.

    • @Obs

      Upthread with your citation and apparent cosigning of, Regnerus’ statement.

      In no way do I think that men owe women anything. They don’t owe us marriage, or children, and they certainly don’t owe us provisioning. Each of these things is something to be earned, we are not entitled to any of it.

      I’m on record as criticizing the treatment boys have received in schools and in the culture during the last generation. I lobbied actively against this as my own son was growing up, and I remain concerned about the way we demonize maleness in this country. It’s a nightmare created by feminists.

      So again, why the need for the exhibitionistic display?

      Kate Bolick successfully tapped into something that’s been on women’s minds in recent years. In writing about her own experience, and her search for friend families, and networks of single women, she spoke for many women, apparently. Her story resonated strongly with the many 30-something women who will not marry and seek to make the best of their circumstances. As I said, I respect it. It sure beats angry and bitter.

  • Jackie

    @Susan, David Foster
    \
    Re: I Am Charlotte Simmons

    That sex scene and the aftermath made me so sad. Did you guys almost get a Tess of the d’Ubervilles vibe? (The impoverished background, being used and cast aside, the preoccupation with status)

    At least the ending of IACS wasn’t *that* sad. But still. 🙁

  • @SW
    Kidding… your analysis is akin to standing against conventional wisdom, saying “Hold it!” Excluding non-sex kissing from the stats, college students really do look like mostly Victorians vs. a handful of hedonists. If “hooking up” is greatly exaggerated, I wonder if the prevalance of normal relationships is underreported? I think I emailed you some stuff on LDRs…

    What other groups have an incentive to support a sex-positive ideology?

    Radical individualism, mainly male-oriented and on the right. History is replete with examples of unholy and opportunistic alliances between the two extremes.

    • @Megaman

      I wonder if the prevalance of normal relationships is underreported? I think I emailed you some stuff on LDRs…

      I was on the lookout for that info as I did this analysis.

      23% of males, mostly freshmen and sophomores, were in committed relationships throughout the semester of the study on men.

      That’s more than I would have predicted. I’m going to keep my eye out for this kind of information. One thing is for sure. More than 3/4 of both sexes would rather date than hook up, and half hook up specifically to get to dating. The desire for relationships is high.

  • Jackie

    @Tom
    Re: Hypocrites

    In my experience, I have known a LOT of hypocrites (religious and not) and those people are actually suffering. Cognitive dissonance is like aural dissonance to your soul.

    Yesterday I was dealing with a client, and somehow child discipline came up. (Someone had asked my advice, even though my “kids” have 4 feets and fur. 😉 ). This person has a TON of cognitive dissonance and it shows up in many, many areas of his life.

    Anyway, this person said, “Why don’t you just whip em? Whup em? That will solve everything.” This person went on to say that he got “whupped” all the time, his parents would tell him why they were going to hit him, hit him, “then came the ‘I love yous.'”

    To justify it, he quoted the Bible. (Incorrectly, I might add.)

    The way he told the story gave me the creeps. (He also tried to squish my cat.) I don’t think this person is a bad person– they probably could be an awesome person! Laboring under cog. dissonance is going to cause a TON of pain, and pain makes people mean.

    But acknowledging “something is not right” is perceived as even MORE painful! And it probably will be, like needing to get a broken bone in a cast, before it can heal.

    So there they stay, believing they are between Scylla and Charybdis. I can’t imagine that it’s extremely pleasant. 🙁

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    On the economies of ND, WY and ID…

    North Dakota:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota#Economy

    *3% unemployment rate!!!*

    Wyoming:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming#Economy

    Admittedly not as strong an economy as ND, but the unemployment rate is still lower than the national average: about 7.6% or so.

    On the upside they have a very interesting taxation system…

    Idaho:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho#Economy

    ID’s got a very interesting economy and is home to some of America’s best known Fortune 500 corporate names. Aerospace seems to be big there too.

    So, in sum, if a lady wants to get hitched, she can make it happen in areas where the guys are plentiful; that’s not likely to happen in areas like NYC, for a number of reasons. For the Sistas, the South is the place to be.

    Have fun!

    O.

  • JP

    NYC should be on the downswing again as the financialization of the economy continues to reverse itself.

    Avoiding large cities was pretty easy for me. I got zero job offers from major metro areas back in 1999/2000. I had to pay back my nice six figure loans, so I settled for a small market sub-six-figure job.

    I avoided NYC and DC because I didn’t feel like billing 2400 hours a year, even I all the BigLaw jobs paid $125,000. Mostly because I thought it was the fast track to total burnout.

    I feel bad for lawyers today who are being larded up with even more debt and entering a horrible legal job market.

    Although with more women going to college than men, that means that the women are taking on more unpayable non-discharagable debt. Interesting.

    • @JP

      I avoided NYC and DC because I didn’t feel like billing 2400 hours a year, even I all the BigLaw jobs paid $125,000. Mostly because I thought it was the fast track to total burnout.

      Smart man. I was so burned out from management consulting that when I learned I was pregnant I was thrilled to have a legit “out.”

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    “Don’t forget that it’s the minority of women who are promiscuous, and they’re throwing a wrench into the SMP by significantly increasing the supply of casual sex.”

    I think promiscuity has very little to do with it. As you often remind us, the promiscuous are a small minority. And of that small minority, (whom usually are invovled with the likes of each other) how many are really hooking up with serious consideration – especially in terms of SMP/MMV values in the long-term? Not many I presume.

    My point was how can we expect those trends, listed in Sex is Cheap, to change if the message to young men is LTR-preference = DLV.

    “I really do think I’m speaking in women’s best interest when I say: the one hardest to catch isn’t necessary the one of most worth.

    You’ll get no argument from me there. The hardest guy to catch is probably a very poor relationship prospect in any case.”

    But, as you said this weekend, girls don’t value a guy who *isn’t* hard to catch – one that doesn’t make them earn the commitment, as much as another guy might. By sentiment, that means that poor relationship prospects have a higher precieved SMP-value.

    You must realize how this looks for a young guy, like myself, who is trying to calibrate his behavior to exhibit the highest value possible. The message is, (and I’ve had to calibrate some of these things through trail and error myself), that by demonstrating LTR-interest, or romanticizing the courtship, it is quickest way to lose attraction and demonstrating poor relationship potential, and unwillingness to commit, is indeed going to enhance your perceived value.

    This phenomena is going effect those seeking a relationship, and possibly the SMP in general, far more than that few being promiscuous with each other. (as the others don’t want them anyways – they have themselves to themselves.)

    The two traits that you said were immutable were hypergamy and ‘sexual variety,’ right?

    At least to me, it seems like everyone has unified against hypergamy; now-a-days men seek women who demonstrate low hypergamy potential, correct?
    Why is it for men: “access to sex without to many complications or commitments” still “carries the day?”

    Are only one of the immutable traits desirable?

  • Alias

    Hope:
    “I’ve been in opposite gender ratio situations, usually 10% female to 90% male, especially in video games. It’s not as great as one might think.

    I experienced a lot of negative attention (insults, put-downs, nasty guesses about my looks) in male-dominated games. ”
    ———

    Do you think this has more to do with gaming and not with the gender ratio?
    In my major, the ratio of men to women was ~3:1 and most of the guys were nice, no harassment. Perhaps because the classes were small or because there was no direct competition between us. ??
    Or have guys become more adversarial towards girls? lol

  • J

    No, Charlotte didn’t delare a major because freshmen don’t generally do that. Formal declarations of majors usually occur at the end of sophmore year. She did take a neuroscience class where she was a high achiever and was teacher’s pet for a while.

    Ridical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak-Catchers was an amaazing book. Not surprised you like it. If your present gig doesn’t pan out, you could go into mau-mauing professionally. You do a fine amateur job here. 😉

  • Abbot

    “most guys do not understand what being a hypocrite is”

    Sure they do and in the case of not committing to sluts they are quite proud about it. Women can be the same way. Their choice if they choose not to be hypocrites. Calling men hypocrites accomplishes nothing. Total failure. Is there another strategy?

  • J

    Did you like the book overall?

    Yes, it was very well written and very true to life as well. He must have borrowed your focus group. 😉

    The sex scene is one of the most cringe inducing things I’ve ever read. And the way Hoyt spoke of her afterwards…

    Horrifying. It made me happy that I don’t have a girl.

    The ending is a disappointment, but very plausible.

    I’m of two minds about that. I was sort of a Charlotte in high school (goody-goody, very attached to mom, conscientious, working class, high achieving) and I never would have tried to integrate myself into the groups Charlotte did. I’d have stuck with the Mutants or spent a lot of time alone. You have to accept that Charlotte wouldn’t have done that for all the rest to be plausible. That was a real sticking point for me. However, once I suspended my disbelief, the rest was all good. But I do think Charlotte sold herself out in settling for Jojo. He wasn’t bright enough for her, no matter how much prestige accrued to her as his gf.

  • Jackie, that’s a good point. People might hate on something, know it’s icky, but still crave it. I guess I just don’t understand all the complaining about “bad women.” When I was single I didn’t waste my energy on the “bad men,” because I was too busy getting to know new people to even read blogs.

    Alias, it could have something to do with the anonymous nature of online interactions, because when I was online in the 90s (before having Internet was commonplace), the gender ratio was also very skewed, and it was the same story.

    In college I had some classes with more guys than girls, but the students didn’t really talk or socialize amongst each other.

  • J

    @david foster

    The main thing that struck me about his descriptions of sex in this book was that they were as clinical and un-erotic as can be imagined.

    Unerotic, yes–but not clinical, cringe-inducing and repulsive. Pictures of use.

  • J

    @BB

    I guess I should clarify that I am not familiar with any strictly transactional grade-for-sex proposals (the students I am familiar with tend to have very good grades, anyway),

    Actually, I would imagine that the sort of student who would get involved sexuallybwith a teacher would be very bright anyway.

  • Sai

    #72 -J
    Darn straight! One of the 83% here 😉

    Hmm… I had nothing to do with Greek anything anyhow, and I really liked living in an all-girl dorm because I didn’t feel as vulnerable in/walking to the bathroom…
    That said, I’d be pretty sad if I were forbidden to speak with anyone who wasn’t in my class. Soon it would turn into “you lot AGAIN? I’m just going to play Minesweeper” and I’d end up preferring to speak to no one at all.
    I think the matchmaking thing could be helpful as long as it wasn’t mandatory. My high school tried it one year just for fun (I couldn’t finish the questionnaire because my would-be answers didn’t match anything there) and people seemed to have a good time with it. Some slightly older students would probably be willing to use it as a way to meet people.

  • Alias

    Susan:
    “In a time when women are achieving more status than men are, many men will be found wanting, i.e., unmarriageable. Whether this constitutes success or failure for them is subjective. In any case, female choice is reduced.”
    ————
    > Here’s what comes to mind whenever you cite the gender disparity among college grads.
    If you look at the stats for certain UMC communities (citydata is one that breaks it down by professions), yes- the proportion of college grads/+ is higher than the national average, but… not everyone there holds a degree. Education being only one vehicle to the UMC, not the only vehicle.
    There are people in sales, management, business owners, etc. who don’t have degrees.
    Some of the markers (according to wiki) for social class (which I agree isn’t about snootiness but compatibility), specifically the UMC are; work autonomy, income, education, and values.
    If you’re not going to actively find a partner while in college, then why not expand one’s target group beyond college- looking for guys with these markers?

  • Sai

    Oh, almost forgot! I DESPISE whores who trade sex for grades. If they can’t do the work they don’t deserve to be in the class!
    /nerdy righteous rage

  • SayWhaat

    From what I heard, and saw, betas in my school did pretty well, some even were quite popular among the slutty girls. I assume this is because a good portion of men otherwise were gay.

    No joke. Like I’ve said here before, even the omegas were cleaning up at NYU.

  • SayWhaat

    In my experience, there is a correlation between the physical requirements (I’ve never seen a chunky lead [non-character] actress or dancer) and sluttiness. If your body is so central to being looked at– as a *requirement*– I would think it would make you either crazy neurotic or really narcissistic.

    You’re onto something, Jackie! There was a formula published in the NYTimes that can predict the probability that a celebrity relationship will endure. Among the variables: “wife’s tabloid fame, spouses’ combined age (younger couples divorce sooner), length of the courtship (quicker to wed, quicker to split), and the sex-symbol factor (defined formally as the number of Google hits showing the wife “in clothing designed to elicit libidinous intent”).”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/science/a-refined-formula-to-predict-doom-in-celebrity-marriages.html?pagewanted=all

  • SayWhaat

    Almost all of the biggest companies in the 1970′s, 80s and 90 started somewhere in the burbs. Microsoft, Sun, Apple, Google, etc. I happen to know that UPS has almost all of their major offices in Suburbs…just like FedEx.

    Microsoft, Sun, Apple, etc. didn’t choose to have their offices in the suburbs, that’s just the area that Silicon Valley happened to develop. And they’re still fleeing to the cities.

    The only reason FedEx and UPS have their major offices in suburbs is because those were the best available “midpoint” locations. Makes sense to establish headquarters in the heart of the U.S. when you’re shipping to all points of the country, no?

    So…your point about people and companies actively choosing to HQ in the suburbs…? 🙂

  • SayWhaat

    If you’re not going to actively find a partner while in college, then why not expand one’s target group beyond college- looking for guys with these markers?

    This is precisely what my girlfriends started doing in droves starting our junior year. Even my gay friends refused to date NYU students at that point!

  • SayWhaat

    @ JP:

    I feel bad for lawyers today who are being larded up with even more debt and entering a horrible legal job market.

    Yep. I work at a Big Law firm and I’ve seen that they are hiring lawyers with JDs from good law schools (NYU, Columbia) but they are temp employees, working off their law school debt. Meanwhile, Harvard and Yale JDs are the only ones who are actually considered a part of the firm.

    The WSJ ran a report showing that law grads in 2011 faced a 50-50 chance of being employed in a job that used their JD (grads from the top 14 law schools were comparatively much better off).

    Not to mention that some people at Stodgy, Venerable & Sons are just straight-up arses.

    Taking all that into account, I concluded long ago that law school is not in the cards for me. It just doesn’t make sense to sign up for that huge amount of debt and face a 50% chance of employment.

  • SayWhaat

    (He also tried to squish my cat.)

    Kill him.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Hope:

    “I’ve been in opposite gender ratio situations, usually 10% female to 90% male, especially in video games. It’s not as great as one might think.

    I experienced a lot of negative attention (insults, put-downs, nasty guesses about my looks) in male-dominated games.

    Ahem.

    Brogramming: The disturbing rise of frat culture in Silicon Valley

  • SayWhaat, I also code, so yeah I know that side of it a little bit.

    But I think it’s more limited to start-ups, because established corporations have higher sandards. At one of those Microsoft tech conferences, I didn’t see much of that attitude. The people there were much older and more business-oriented than the new tech people.

    Besides, Digg got sold for way below the height of its glory days. All that partying didn’t do them any good. GG, as gamers like to say.

  • @ Susan Walsh

    Bring back mandatory single sex dorms

    Great idea, some schools are doing just that.

    Many schools are actually moving to mixed-sex dorm rooms, not just mixed-sex dorms.

  • SayWhaat

    Hope,

    I’m interested in learning to code. I want to buff my skills in more technical areas, but I learn best when I’m given a problem to solve and guided through solving it. Would you happen to know any good resources for self-teaching programming? I’ve already dabbled a bit with CodeAcademy…

    (Sorry for the off-topic!)

  • INTJ

    Whoops post 166 was by me…

  • SayWhaat

    Many schools are actually moving to mixed-sex dorm rooms, not just mixed-sex dorms

    I can confirm that NYU does this. My gay friend and his buddy moved in with two of his (girl)friends. At the end of the year he resolved to never live with one of them ever again, she was too messy and had a horrible personality! XD

  • Ramble

    Which are outside the big cities. Can you name some great companies in North Dakota, Idaho or Wyoming?

    Oh, large metro areas are large. I am not arguing that.

    But the idea that there are more opportunities in San Fran than out in the burbs is ridiculous…but the girls move to SF and then have articles written about how hard it is to meet a good man. (BTW, I am making grand generalizations here)

    Look, I am not blaming them. I live in the city and I love it.

    But it is so much more expensive to live in cities and young people will likely move multiple times within the first 5 years of entering that city, making it even more expensive.

    ====================

    I just did a quick perusing of the Fortune 500 and almost every company that is not in Finance is either in the burbs or in a fairly suburban “city” (i.e. Houston, Dallas, etc.)

  • INTJ

    @ Ramble

    I just did a quick perusing of the Fortune 500 and almost every company that is not in Finance is either in the burbs or in a fairly suburban “city” (i.e. Houston, Dallas, etc.)

    Yes but women want to work in positions such as finance. They don’t want to work in industries that actually create things.

  • Im still not seeing what the problem with my four point plan is; the only problem i can see is that it doesnt jibe with the ideological aims and goals of college culture and the people who support it. But it offers simple, commonsense solutions towards solving many of the attendant problems that arise from hookup culture. And i think this tendency toward putting ideology before pragmatism and time honored wisdom is whats keeping us from taking on and actually solving problems in a sensible manner that everyone can get behind. So in loco parentis was struck down-who says it cant be brought back? We know assortative dating takes place in college-why not be more proactive in making that happen? How much are we spending on “rape” related programs and the like on the campuses nationwide? How much of my tax dollars is paying for this stuff? Wouldnt some commonsense solutions do away with or at the very least greatly reduce all the “rape” stuff the feminist ideologues go on and on about?

    How many people here are 100% with their kids being in the college system as it currently exists? Im not-i aint sending my kids to school for that kind of money for all that.

    The four point plan just makes good commonsense and it has a proven track record of success elsewhere in american society. Again aside from purely ideological reasons-which is going to be the death of us if we’re not careful-its hard to see how it doesnt work.

    No, i dont think one has to have graduated magna cum laude to solve problems with a bit of commonsense.

    William f buckley certainly didnt think so.

    😉

    O.

  • Ramble

    Microsoft, Sun, Apple, etc. didn’t choose to have their offices in the suburbs, that’s just the area that Silicon Valley happened to develop.

    SayWhat, that is like saying that Boeing did not choose to move to Chicago, that is just where they ended up.

    (Also, Microsoft did not start, nor end up in, Silicon Valley…they are in a whole different state.)

    All of those companies could have chosen to start in SF, or Oakland, or LA, or anywhere. But, they chose the burbs. That puts them in, or near, major resources and with cheaper rents.

    UPS could have had there headquarters in Chicago, or St. Louis, instead they chose a bunch of suburban places (they have major offices all over America…almost all of them in fairly suburban places).

    The point is this: there are definitely jobs to be had in cities…especially in things like law and finance. But so, so many industries are (usually) in the burbs or outskirts. But, in my experience, girls will work overtime to make sure that they are living in the city…even though auto theft is much worse, auto insurance is much, much worse, rent is significantly higher, fewer accessible markets for getting groceries, etc.

    And, again, I don’t blame them.

    But it is a real factor in the modern SMP.

  • SayWhaat, I mostly learned 7-10 years ago by looking at various websites that are probably defunct by now. The one I know that is still around is http://www.w3schools.com. They have both front-end and server-side scripting tutorials.

  • Ramble

    Ramble, you are such LTR material.

    Almost all of my experience has been LTR. My parents had a beautiful marriage.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Tom

    “However abbott, do not the facts show that @ 95% of women are infact not sluts? I would think even the most discerning man can find what he is looking for right here in the good ole US of A. That is , ofcourse, unless he has totally unrealistic expectations.”

    Low N does not alone dictate slutiness and not all men can access the college graduate segment. Like you said before, HOW the numbers got added into also matters.

    I know a N=0 that has only recently “graduated’ into actual penis contact, but has been making out with everything that moves for her entire college career. Would not commit to that in a heartbeat. Would much rather commit to a N=10 who has gone celibate the last 2 years.

  • Just a thought

    See, I have read/read Susan hypothesize about the 20% of collegiates having 80% of the sex. She’s right. But as a college student, you don’t see that. There’s this whole unfortunate mythology about college, which is like this: party every weekend,get blackout drunk, hook up with lots of cool people, dance on the dance floor. If you’re not at a party on the weekends, you feel you should be. If you’re not drinking, you feel uncool. If you don’t have crazy hookup stories to tell, you feel weird. Never mind that, perhaps only one girl and one boy have crazy hookup stories. That one girl is the one everyone knows for being able to have a good time, and we all want to be cool enough to have a good time. It’s not so much the #’s of hooking up, it’s the mythology around college. I have gone to parties I hated just because I wanted to go to a party and feel like I was “doing the things cool kids do”. It’s weird because these parties are often not actually that fun, unless you are inebriated and your sense of judgement is dodgy. I don’t know why we are all in this grip of college a la “I love college” . But we are. I’m not even sure feminism is the culprint.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYx7YG0RsFY

    • @Just a thought

      Thanks for describing the college experience up close. Your story is a great illustration of Pluralistic Ignorance in action. There’s no question that American kids show up as freshmen heady with the idea of newfound freedom and no chaperones. It’s not surprising they should expect college life to be crazy, and though it doesn’t unfold that way for most people, there are parties, there are people misbehaving at parties, etc. There are always examples to show that “everyone else” is having the college life that you’re not.

  • Joe

    @Just A Thought

    If you’re not at a party on the weekends, you feel you should be. If you’re not drinking, you feel uncool. If you don’t have crazy hookup stories to tell, you feel weird.

    Wow. Really? I believe you, but it’s so different than it was back in the day.

    I’m not even sure feminism is the culprint.

    I blame George W. Bush MTV and all those darn reality shows, myself.

    Seriously!

  • Silicon Valley is where it is because when William Shockley (one of the inventors of the transistor) left Bell Labs to start his own company, he wanted it to be near his mother’s house…which was in Palo Alto. Then some of *Shockley’s* employees got kind of pissed with *him*, and started Fairchild Semiconductor….and soon the place was at a critical mass of people.

    I’m sure the climate didn’t hurt, either.

  • @Obsidian
    How many people here are 100% with their kids being in the college system as it currently exists? Im not-i aint sending my kids to school for that kind of money for all that.

    I can relate. I think too many young people are going to college just because they feel they need to, when they really don’t.

    A friend of mine recently shared an anecdote about Woodrow Wilson. Someone once asked him how many students were at Princeton when he was president there, and he answered: “Ten percent.” 🙂

    • A friend of mine recently shared an anecdote about Woodrow Wilson. Someone once asked him how many students were at Princeton when he was president there, and he answered: “Ten percent.”

      That’s brilliant.

  • Jackie

    @Bellita
    (OT)
    Hi Bellita!
    Just wanted to say I was thinking about you, esp. the comments you made on the last thread. I think we agree on just about everything and *you are not alone*. 🙂

    There is a 52-Day Marriage Novena that I want to post for you, but can’t seem to find right now. There were all these testimonials about it– either people met their spouses on the 53rd day or they received a definitive sign associated with the Blessed Mother that brought them overwhelming peace.

    Anyway, thinking about you and hope that the new job is going well! 🙂

  • Jackie

    @Alias, Hope
    “I experienced a lot of negative attention (insults, put-downs, nasty guesses about my looks) in male-dominated games. ”
    ———

    Do you think this has more to do with gaming and not with the gender ratio?”
    ============
    Is it possible that some of it had to do with the on-line-ness of it? People are really different behind a screen (literal and figurative), especially with the guise of anonymity.

    I would love to see a paper or study on on-line-ness and narcissism. It’s the perfect tool for the brilliant persona of the “false self” vs. the broken authentic self who hides behind it. Kind of like a Walter Mitty story.

    Roissy would be an excellent candidate — the posturing sangfroid of the supposed “dark lord” vs the reality of a mid-level paper pusher in a bureaucracy– if he wasn’t so incredibly repellent. Can’t be on that sight for more than 5 minutes without feeling sick to my stomach. 🙁

  • Jackie

    @Susan
    “The sheer amount of energy that went into this post is astounding.

    Thanks for noticing. I estimate 30 hours or so.”
    ========
    Wow, Susan– incredibly impressive! I think this kind of work ethic and devotion to seeking knowledge and authenticity really sets you apart.

    You rock!!! :mrgreen:

    “I recall one time in b-school, sitting next to a woman who was very, very slutty. We were getting papers back. I don’t know how good hers really was, but at the top of the page the professor (early 30s, British) had written in red marker: “98. Good doggie.””
    ======
    😯
    Sister S. would have her writing PAGES of essays. We’re talking _Remembrance of Things Past_ kind of page numbers!

    This might be a dumb question, but how do you *know for sure* she was slutty?

    (Sometimes I wonder, do people think I am slutty? Tonight I went to the mall and was so happy– I found a pinup flower for my hair that I’m wearing right now and got a TON of free samples of eyeshadow! Yay! :mrgreen:

    But 3 different times I was walking and some guy would start walking next to me, and say things in a way that made me feel, ‘If I looked more wholesome, they would leave me alone.’ 🙁

    SayWhaat will appreciate this next part: I bought a pair of hipster eyeglasses like the ones on her pink elephant, as player kryptonite! Ha ha ha!)

    • This might be a dumb question, but how do you *know for sure* she was slutty?

      Every Thursday we had MBA Happy Hour at the MBA house (long since torn down at Penn). There were no classes on Friday, so students enjoyed ending the week with a beer and sleeping in Friday before buckling down to weekend study. As you might imagine, many shenanigans got started at Happy Hour. There was one time when a woman opened the door to the bathroom to find this woman and a married student going at it. There were other incidents as well, and not surprisingly, frequent drunken revels. I feel compelled to point out that I was no angel myself, and had a few hookups come out of Happy Hour. But she was a poster child for promiscuity, and I was not surprised that she was hooking up with a professor (who, by the way, used to come to Happy Hour himself).

  • J

    But 3 different times I was walking and some guy would start walking next to me, and say things in a way that made me feel, ‘If I looked more wholesome, they would leave me alone.’

    They probably wouldn’t.

    Monday, I was driving to my husband’s office so that we could go to a funeral together. I was dressed in a manner appropriate for a funeral– conservative blouse, skirt below the knee, light-weight summer jacket, hair in a French twist. A guy pulled up next to my car when I was stopped at a light and started eyeing me up. As he was about to roll down his window to say something to me, the light change and I gunned it.

    So if men approach me, a woman old enought to be your mother, on my way to a funeral, I’d say their leaving you alone is unlikely.

  • J

    My parents had a beautiful marriage.

    It’s such a benefit to have good role models. You’re lucky, Ramble.

  • J

    Bring back mandatory single sex dorms…Great idea, some schools are doing just that…Many schools are actually moving to mixed-sex dorm rooms, not just mixed-sex dorms.

    WTF? That’s got to be a violation of religious rights.

  • Jackie

    @J
    “As he was about to roll down his window to say something to me, the light change and I gunned it.

    So if men approach me, a woman old enought to be your mother, on my way to a funeral, I’d say their leaving you alone is unlikely.”
    ===
    Maybe you’re just super hot, J! 🙂

    (Seriously, I have wondered if I am somehow a “Manchurean Slutitdate” since I wore a sundress to an event (casual) where the littlest, eensiest bit of my bra strap showed across the back. It was just the cut of the dress, I think.

    Anyway, I was trying to adjust it after leaving the main room, and went to the ladies room with a flock of women. An older woman who saw me adjusting earlier came up behind me, and yanked it up, rather hard and without being asked, with an *extremely* dirty look at me.

    I try to walk the line between “cute sundress” without veering into “sacklike garb from Yearning For Zion cult” or “secret slut” territory. But the line is mighty thin sometimes!

  • J

    Maybe you’re just super hot, J!

    So I tell my husband….

    Anyway, I was trying to adjust it after leaving the main room, and went to the ladies room with a flock of women. An older woman who saw me adjusting earlier came up behind me, and yanked it up, rather hard and without being asked, with an *extremely* dirty look at me.

    Wow, that was really inappropriate on her part! Even if you were revealing more than you realized, I’m not a big fan of people putting their hands on others unasked for.

    I try to walk the line between “cute sundress” without veering into “sacklike garb from Yearning For Zion cult” or “secret slut” territory. But the line is mighty thin sometimes!

    Based on your attitudes, it’s hard to imagine you dressing sluttily. Sundresses are not so unusual in our culture that wearing one should be seen as provocative. After all, it’s not like a burka is the norm, and the sundress is new and daring. One of my favorite pix of my mom is one from the 50s of her in a sundress on a summer day.

  • ExNewYorker

    “But the idea that there are more opportunities in San Fran than out in the burbs is ridiculous…but the girls move to SF and then have articles written about how hard it is to meet a good man. (BTW, I am making grand generalizations here)”

    Ramble, I’ve been living in Silicon Valley since the dot-com boom when I got there out of college, and I agree with what you wrote. San Francisco has some tech stuff, but finance and tourism are a more visible part of the economy up there, and as you can imagine, it attracts more of the womenfolk. Down in the Valley itself, it’s the opposite case. When I was single, I wound up going to SF regularly since that’s where the women were, though they preferred the finance guys over us STEM guys, so dialing up the asshole game was often a requirement. And yes, they complained about the lack of “good” men, even with a horde of STEM men less then 45 minutes south. Same as they complained during my NYC days (I am an ExNewYorker, after all), but at least in NYC, there was no STEM Valley nearby…

  • I’d love to canvass the readers for ideas – maybe that should be my first post. Just asking the readers what they think? If they have any ideas?

    That sounds great. My idea would be to paint the Hook Up Culture as the oppressive Status Quo on college imposed by the greek scene and create some sort of antihookup culture. It seems that Americans cannot do anything unless there is some sort of hate/rebel streak involved so that should be a good bait, IMO, YMMV.

    Almost all of my experience has been LTR. My parents had a beautiful marriage.

    It shows. You surely do know when yo cross the line and try to regain middle ground. Not to give yours or take others but middle ground that is a good skill for people that want to make it last. Is not about winning individually but winning as a couple.

    People are really different behind a screen (literal and figurative), especially with the guise of anonymity.

    Oh boy so true. The level of insults, trolls and haters is growing everyday. Its like being behind a computer give you license to be an asshole or something like it.

    So if men approach me, a woman old enought to be your mother, on my way to a funeral, I’d say their leaving you alone is unlikely.

    A man yelled something at me from a car when I was wearing my androgynous and boring work uniform, that includes a cap and my hair tied up…maybe he was gay and though I was a guy? dunno.
    The thing is that we have no idea why men approach. I remember wearing my best and sexiest clothes when I as single and getting no attention whatsoever and some other day wearing jeans and a simple T-shirt with no make up and getting constant attention.
    I’m blaming pheromones they just decide to release some days more than others and the clothes don’t really matter, sneaky pheromones.

  • Doug

    A. As a college student at a big university I’ve never seen any study like this so the info is suspect to me , especially when you hear all the horror stores from a place like Duke.
    B. What’s more interesting is the gap years between college and marriage. I wonder how many partners are accumulated in this time.

  • Ramble

    Same as they complained during my NYC days (I am an ExNewYorker, after all), but at least in NYC, there was no STEM Valley nearby…

    That’s interesting, isn’t it. I used to work in New York, and there are a lot of Software Development jobs in the NYC area, but they do not have a “corridor” for it. Which, is not a bad thing. But, relative to places like SF, Boston, Philly, and a few other places, it is somewhat interesting.

  • Ramble

    It shows. You surely do know when yo cross the line and try to regain middle ground.

    Well, like Hope said upthread, it is really easy to be a complete asshole online. And being an asshole comes easily to me. But, in Susan’s backyard, I try to be moderately civil.

    And, I want to take this opportunity once again to say:

    If some person on this board is using circular logic, constantly changing your words or making personal attacks, you are allowed to ignore them. You do not need to engage them or reply to them, even if they are addressing you. And, Susan, this goes for you as well.

    I don’t think anyone will think less of you for ignoring certain commenters.

    • If some person on this board is using circular logic, constantly changing your words or making personal attacks, you are allowed to ignore them. You do not need to engage them or reply to them, even if they are addressing you. And, Susan, this goes for you as well.

      I don’t think anyone will think less of you for ignoring certain commenters.

      This is really hard for me, but I know you are right. I feel compelled to respond, especially if I’m addressed by name, and other times I feel that I must set the record straight. Obviously, none of this is true – when I’ve been away from the blog for days things move along quite nicely.

      I wish I didn’t have to police comments so much, but that’s another problem.

  • Tom

    most guys do not understand what being a hypocrite is”

    Sure they do and in the case of not committing to sluts they are quite proud about it. Women can be the same way. Their choice if they choose not to be hypocrites. Calling men hypocrites accomplishes nothing. Total failure. Is there another strategy?
    ____________
    LOL I rest my case. The do as I say, not as I do is about as hypocritical as it gets. Goes for both genders. The, “its ok for me to be a slut, but its not ok for you to be a slut” attitude is pretty fucked up. Not much worse than being a hypocrite.

  • Ramble

    The thing is that we have no idea why men approach. I remember wearing my best and sexiest clothes when I as single and getting no attention whatsoever and some other day wearing jeans and a simple T-shirt with no make up and getting constant attention.

    These things can often be complicated, but this one sounds easy: intimidation.

    In some ways, when a girl dolls herself up, she is signaling that she has high standards. This is where embracing your inner douche bag can really help. “I should approach her because my shit don’t stink”.

  • Ramble

    I was not surprised that she was hooking up with a professor (who, by the way, used to come to Happy Hour himself).

    Was he married?

    • Was he married?

      No, thankfully. BTW, the very slutty woman got together with and married a guy in our class. I recall some of the guys shaking their heads over his choice.

      Also, there was one woman who had a year-long affair with the chair of a department, and he was married. He was very open about it, though, everyone knew. After one of our last finals, she and I walked out together and she told me it was over. I assumed it was because we were graduating, but she said, no, she would be working in Philadelphia (For Goldman, ugh). She then told me they had never been able to have sex, not one time, because of ED. I guess if a guy is high status enough, even the sex doesn’t matter.

  • Ramble

    I feel compelled to respond, especially if I’m addressed by name

    It will be especially hard for you because this is your blog. But, you always respond to newcomers and you always seem to engage people in the early stages, regardless of the type of argument that they are making.

    And that is all great.

    But, your cred is set. You are allowed to:
    1. Decide someone is not worth banning
    2. Decide that their comment is not worth deleting
    3. Decide that you are not going to respond.

    It is the combo of 2 and 3 that make it hard. If you feel the need to delete a comment, then, that is that. But, if it is more annoying than offensive, then, it is more like ignoring some brat.

    Anyway, my previous comment (the one you responded to) was also definitely aimed at 2 or 3 girls here who get “targeted” quite often. If I am allowed to play Grand Overlord of HUS for one day, I would tell them that they are allowed to ignore whomever they want.

  • Tom

    @ definate beta guy
    I know a N=0 that has only recently “graduated’ into actual penis contact, but has been making out with everything that moves for her entire college career. Would not commit to that in a heartbeat. Would much rather commit to a N=10 who has gone celibate the last 2 years.
    ____________
    I accept your choice. To me it matters most who a person is now, within my limits.
    Still the point is, all this todo about widespread rampant sluttines is a tad over blown. At least 90% of women are not sluts. There are plenty of very low number women to go around, if that is indeed a big factor in ones mate choice. To say otherwise is just being butthurt.

  • Ramble

    Was he married?

    No, thankfully.

    You know, I am perfectly ok with this. To me, this is basically a type of assortative mating. Now, had he been trolling the local Christian Youth Fellowship and all of it’s virgins, that would be different.

    She then told me they had never been able to have sex, not one time, because of ED.

    Does he take the cake for most interesting way to “cheat” on your wife?

    It’s like cheating on your taxes by not submitting any forms to the IRS and then dumping a shitload of cash on the front steps of the Treasury.

    • It’s like cheating on your taxes by not submitting any forms to the IRS and then dumping a shitload of cash on the front steps of the Treasury.

      Haha! He was a finance guy, I’m sure he would have appreciated the metaphor.

  • Abbot

    ““its ok for me to be a slut, but its not ok for you to be a slut” attitude is pretty fucked up”

    That would be fucked up if it were actually being stated that “its not ok” for anyone to “express” use of there gonads any way they wish. If a slut ever encounters [or likes] someone who decides it is not ok, then said slut should merely turn and walk away. You see, there is no problem. RIght?

  • Just a thought

    I’m going to steer this conversation in a bit of a new direction, hopefully people don’t mind too much.
    One of the questions many people have asked is : Why don’t college students form long-term relationships that lead to marriage?
    Now, I’m only speaking for harder universities, but, in my university we don’t because it is expressly understood that college’s purpose is not to ” form long-term relationships” but to study and gain skills for a degree in future. We don’t get gfs and bfs because they are a lot of drama (often) , less fun and we are too busy concentrating on our studies to look at “mating”. I mean, if you are studying all night for one of your finals, or you study on Saturday from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., you aren’t going to a party thinking of how to seduce a gf/bf. You are thinking of sex, alcohol, time to unwind and a good time.
    In state schools, like Penn state, according to some of my friends there, girls don’t really think all that much. apparently girls go out at night in short, short skirts and come back drunk and easy. There’s isn’t as much studying unless you are in the Stem majors.
    In CC, people are commuting and have their own lives so they are not really hooking up. Different colleges have different hooking up rates.
    Now, to weigh in on the reason a lot of stem majors don’t sleep around as much is simple. They are so busy. At my school, stem majors are constantly in the library, trying to boost their grades, acclimate to new teachers, finish problem sets and beat curves. My last room mate wanted to be an archaeologist, needless to say, she was out all night, drinking, partying and having fun. I quickly learned in my first year of college that I did not have much time to party. Female engineers are even more stressed.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Abbot

    who wince at the prospect of eventually needing to remake themselves and dupe extremely very low number men.

    This makes absolutely no sense. You now claim that even low partner count women are planning on duping low count men?

    Why would they need to do that if they have low counts themselves? Why would they need to dupe men at all? Methinks the man doth protest too much.

    If there are lots of low count women in America, including a good chunk of the women on this board, why are you still complaining?

    Is there really a difference between a man with 1-2 partners and a woman with 2-4 partners? Are we really going to start arguing the merits between “low parnter count” women and “extremely low partner count” men, as you described it?

    I’m sorry, but if a man is going to complain about a woman potentially having 1 or 2 more partners than him, despite them both having low numbers overall, then that man seems a little too preoccupied with the topic.

  • Ramble

    I’m sorry, but if a man is going to complain about a woman potentially having 1 or 2 more partners than him, despite them both having low numbers overall, then that man seems a little too preoccupied with the topic.

    “Two? TWO?! I guess that’s how you was raised”

    http://youtu.be/zywIR_ZFLts?t=2m53s

  • Tom

    Well said Sassy. Some people are of the belief that most american women are sluts and have to lie about their number to land a “quality” man. Ofcourse they know more than ALL the polls out there. They also believe that ALL men want a low count number woman even though the latest huge poll taken of men from all walks states that almost half of men do not think that way “anymore”
    If a mans preference is low count, more power to him, no one cares but him, the way it should be.

  • Ion

    @ Jackie.

    “If your body is so central to being looked at– as a *requirement*– I would think it would make you either crazy neurotic or really narcissistic.”

    Yup. The neurosis level of dancers and actresses is about equal. There’s a few actresses I’ve met who are average at best, in talent and looks, but if you ask them why they want to act, they “just always knew they were specialll” and therefore that they were destined to be famous, so, a superfluous sense of self-worth, and narcissism comes with that belief, right? I mean, it must, since you’ve basically said you’d do “whatever it takes” to be the center of attention, just because it’s destiny. Wouldn’t that also include making the necessary “tough decisions” about your future through so-called ‘networking’ with older rich men, etc.,?

    Interestingly enough, the models I have known, or were friends with were probably more normal than the dancers/actresses, but I’ve only known 2 models, and 1 is a close friend. I sadly had 5 housemates over the years who were dancers/actresses, and met plenty of their friends. Almost all were on some form of caffeine pills or stimulants for example…in addition to just being crazy in general.

    Musicians seem to be more humble than most people on average! I don’t put them in the category with actresses/dancers at all.

  • Cooper

    @Ramble
    I can’t view that particular YouTube clip on my phone.

    Was that the Clerks bit?

  • Sassy6519

    @ Tom

    Well said Sassy. Some people are of the belief that most american women are sluts and have to lie about their number to land a “quality” man. Ofcourse they know more than ALL the polls out there. They also believe that ALL men want a low count number woman even though the latest huge poll taken of men from all walks states that almost half of men do not think that way “anymore”
    If a mans preference is low count, more power to him, no one cares but him, the way it should be.

    I just don’t understand why we should even start arguing the difference between “low count women” and “extremely low count men”. It’s as if a woman having a low count isn’t even good enough. Now low count women are seen as devious and corrupt, so much so that they are believed to dupe extremely low count men. It’s preposterous.

    My ex-boyfriend was a voluntary virgin, when I met him, and he did ask me what my number was. I was honest by telling him that I had 3 sexual partners before him. Did he bat an eyelash? No.

    The idea that low partner count women are going to have to lie to “extremely low partner count men” is absurd.

    If a man wants a virgin, that is his prerogative. Shaming chaste women because they aren’t chaste enough for him, however, seems a bit much.

    @ Ramble

    Haha! That’s an appropriate link to post. I wonder how universal that sentiment is. Are men bothered by any woman’s sexual history, no matter how small it may be? Do men believe that all women lie about their numbers? Would men prefer it if women reverted back to saving their virginity for marriage? Do all men want virgins?

  • Abbot

    “low” and “few” have been tossed around here before. Relative to what?

    So if low equates to few, then this must be accurate

    few   [fyoo] few·er, few·est, noun, pronoun
    adjective
    1. not many but more than one

    Per Joel:

    “the majority of the average and below average women from the Western world are definitively, massively more sexual active than most of the men in their league”

    So then, what does that new “low,” that new bar, that new stab at change-mens-minds propaganda really look like?

    • Per Joel:

      “the majority of the average and below average women from the Western world are definitively, massively more sexual active than most of the men in their league”

      Is Joel President of the SMP?

  • Obsidian, re: your 4-point strategy for eliminating casual sex on campus. Perhaps I misunderstood you—my response was based on the idea that Congress—unable to pass a balanced budget amendment, unable to curtail special interest group legislation and pork, unable to prevent impending fiscal collapse, etc.—would draft some kind of complex legislation *forcing* campuses (at legal gunpoint) to declare a “War on Casual Fucks” national emergency and then begin the process of excommunicating the evil fornicators of the Greek system, going into bonded indebtedness in order to tear down buildings so that single-sex dorms could be constructed as far away from each other as possible, perhaps creating a secret police of informants (“Slutty Lisa gave a football player an unauthorized BJ six weeks ago—she should be expelled”), and so on.

    I would have any number of problems with this approach, but for the sake of argument let’s take it a logical step further and have the government simply make 50% of colleges all-male and 50% dedicated all-female, and enforces curfews and so on by simultaneously imposing military academy-type discipline structures. So every college would be like a circa-1985 Citadel or VMI or a female equivalent. By law, there would not be any co-ed college campus in the United States.

    As an aside, I have many stories about hook-up culture in the U.S. military—I was an officer in the Navy and can talk about “love boats”, prostitution rings, and all kinds of wild stuff.

    Anyway…the problem as I see it is that none of these are market-based solutions that attempt to actually position a product to serve a particular customer segment. A private college could easily market itself as “anti-hook-up/pro-LTR” (a big state school might have more difficulty simply because of all the stakeholders) to the max and impose the kinds of measures that you discuss, as well as additional ones like mandatory Bible study, non-sexy androgynous school uniforms, and the like. It could do this in response to a projection of genuine customer demand, rather than as a response to blind top-down legislation. Capitalism is meant to be a system of profit AND loss—if few enrolled at this campus, of course, then it might have to close down or change to a more libertine posture.

    I have not done a search, but I would think that there must be some college options that include something like your plan, and those campuses probably do have a lower incidence of casual sex hook-ups. They might have other problems, though…

    So parents who are indeed obsessed with the oral sex or hand job habits of unsupervised 19-year-olds are free to send young Tommy or Lisa off to such encampments for their 4 years of higher education/mandatory anti-casual sex indoctrination.

    I personally think that hook-up culture is a symptom, not the far more complex disease itself, and that people need to directly feel the pain of hard trade-offs and sacrifices in order to be able to accurately weigh various lifestyle options and set priorities.

    • I personally think that hook-up culture is a symptom, not the far more complex disease itself, and that people need to directly feel the pain of hard trade-offs and sacrifices in order to be able to accurately weigh various lifestyle options and set priorities.

      +1 for market-based solutions.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Abbot

    If you are going to focus on and quote what Joel wrote, despite the numerous links and data that Susan spent so much time gathering, then I know you are biased and have an agenda. From the stats she provided, most women do not have lots of sexual partners or considerably more partners than men. The data is right there.

    Most women do not have more sexual experience than their male counterparts. If you want to focus on the “promiscuous 20%”, don’t be surprised when we tell you that you can’t extrapolate their doings to the rest of the female population.

    If you only want virgins, that is your prerogative. You have to know that not every man feels or thinks the same way you do.

    I have a sexual count of 4. Do you honestly think that I have to lie to some man about that? Do you honestly believe that I’m going to have to “dupe” a man with 0-3 sexual partners into a relationship with me?

  • Ramble

    Was that the Clerks bit?

    No, Chris Rock.

  • Sassy6519

    Granted, I know the studies provided only look at college students, but I think the data is very telling. If most women keep their partner counts low during college, a time that is often celebrated as the time to have fun and explore, then women are choosing to limit their sexual encounters. If the opportunity to engage in lots of casual sex is present during college, but most women choose not to engage in it, I can only make the assumption that those same women won’t be quick to engage in a lot of casual sex once they are out of college.

    If getting sexual partners is as easy for women, as is often touted, then the non-promiscuous women must have chosen not to engage in casual sex. They are chaste by choice, not by circumstance, which says a lot about the sexual mindset of the majority of women.

    • If getting sexual partners is as easy for women, as is often touted, then the non-promiscuous women must have chosen not to engage in casual sex. They are chaste by choice, not by circumstance, which says a lot about the sexual mindset of the majority of women.

      Precisely. The fact is that people who like casual sex tend to mate with one another. I’m baffled by the resistance to this very obvious truth.

      Those who hook up to get a relationship presumably either succeed or get burned and opt out. They wind up in the 0-3 partner count category. Most women choose not to have casual sex, and most men either choose not to, or lack the opportunity.

  • Ramble

    Are men bothered by any woman’s sexual history, no matter how small it may be? Do men believe that all women lie about their numbers? Would men prefer it if women reverted back to saving their virginity for marriage? Do all men want virgins?

    I’ll try to answer each (and, remember, I am only speaking from my understanding and I am employing massive generalizations):

    Are men bothered by any woman’s sexual history, no matter how small it may be?

    Depends on the guy, obviously. You can have a man that is religious and a number like 1 might really get to him. A reformed player on the other end maybe pretty understanding of a somewhat slutty past.

    For most guys, I think, it is the intent and results that matter. A girl at, say, 25 who has an N=4, all with serious boyfriends is unlikely to bother most guys, while another girl, again at 25, who has an N=3, with 2 of those guys being alpha asshats is likely to have her man obsess over it.

    Just so we all understand, Susan may actually hate this subject is coming up again, so soon after it was hashed out only a few weeks ago, because the thread can go on for ever on the subject.

    Do men believe that all women lie about their numbers?
    All women? Of course not. But many guys are much more hip to how deceptive, indirect and convenient her information might be.

    Would men prefer it if women reverted back to saving their virginity for marriage?

    Depends on the guy, but, in general, I think that the answer is “no”. Nice low number (which may be 0), good adult relationships…I think most guys are looking for girls that have that kind of background/personality.

    Do all men want virgins?

    No, see above.

    For the record, I would have no problem dating and marrying a girl who is/was a virgin.

  • Abbot

    “Most women do not have more sexual experience than their male counterparts.”

    Because they’re turning down the continual and persistent offers from men?

  • Cooper

    @Sassy
    “I have a sexual count of 4. Do you honestly think that I have to lie to some man about that?”

    No. At least I don’t think so. To be completely honest, I would’ve expected a higher N. (not to say low isn’t preferred) Your strong preference for alpha-men gave me the impression that you’d had more than a few that ‘weren’t alpha enough.’

  • Escoffier

    Re: Charlotte Simmons, a couple of things.

    1) She DID NOT try to break into a fratty/snobby group. Hoyt picked her out at a party that she was basically dragged to by two other friends (who were pretty low on the social hierarchy at Dupont) and he figured he could bang her that same night. She indignantly stormed off. Though, of course, she had been attracted to. The next time she sees him, it’s when she’s being attacked by a drunk lacrosse player and Hoyt leaps to her defense. He gets beat up in the process. Charlotte goes to say “thanks” and he is relatively nice to her and drives her back to his dorm. That’s when their “relationship” starts. You can say that she was an idiot for not seeing through him but she certainly did not seek out the frat crowd and in fact the book never depicts her going to Greek parties, except the Saint Ray formal, where Wolfe makes clear that she feels totally uncomfortable around the other Greeks until she gets totally drunk.

    2) The ending is perfect. It is a tragedy but a lesser tragedy than the worst that might have been. Charlotte could have been much more badly affected by her depression but she snaps out of it. She also could have become like Beverley, a hook-up slut, but she doesn’t. However, she has squandered her great potential for the pleasures of being a high-status campus superstar–a status she has not earned but derives totally from JoJo. If she were a little older (i.e., ready to get married) and not brilliant, this would be a happy ending. But the possibility that this relationship, for which she has essentially thrown away her academic potential, will last is not great. So she will get by at Dupont with OK grades, the disaster of her first semester will not be repeated. But neither will the triumph of her first midterms nor the way she impressed Victor Starling.

    I have, *ahem*, authoritative confirmation of this interpretation.

    • @Escoffier

      Thanks for sharing the insight into Charlotte Simmons. I was certainly not clear on the meaning of the ending of the book – I figured she would date JoJo and continue to be a brainiac. Her selling out like that is depressing. What a waste. I don’t think I ever felt she was genuinely attracted to JoJo, so dating him seemed suboptimal.

  • Escoffier

    I may be a sucker, but I believed every N a woman told me. I still do. It helps never to have dated flakes or liars. Well, one, but I know she was telling the truth.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Abbot

    Because they’re turning down the continual and persistent offers from men?

    Yes, in certain instances. Some women who do get hit on a lot, or who receive a lot of sexual advances, do turn down continual and persistent offers from men. Jackie comes to mind. I come to mind. If I were to have accepted every sexual invitation ever given to me, I can’t even begin to imagine what my number would be. Jackie and I both filter men like crazy. We say no to men far more often than we say yes. It’s not that hard to turn down sex.

    @ Cooper

    No. At least I don’t think so. To be completely honest, I would’ve expected a higher N. (not to say low isn’t preferred) Your strong preference for alpha-men gave me the impression that you’d had more than a few that ‘weren’t alpha enough.’

    I do prefer alpha men, but I’m very picky. I can’t even count how many dates I’ve been on. Some resulted in relationships (hence the sexual partner count of 4), but most dates lead nowhere. Either the guy isn’t feeling it, or I’m not feeling it. Some men also showed major red flags, and some other men were a little too “beta” for me. Dating really is a numbers game, in a sense.

    I’d be a fool to hop in the sack with any man that has shown me some attention. I really try to wait it out for awhile. Some men do leave because I won’t sleep with them quickly, but I’d rather take my time. I’ve found out some pretty interesting things about some of the men I’ve dated, especially during the time period that I don’t sleep with them. One man was married. Another man had a drug problem. Another man had children and a girlfriend. I consider those men to be bullets I dodged.

  • J

    The thing is that we have no idea why men approach. I remember wearing my best and sexiest clothes when I as single and getting no attention whatsoever and some other day wearing jeans and a simple T-shirt with no make up and getting constant attention.

    They’re a mystery, Ana. You never know what will appeal to one. Pregnant with your hair tied up? Obviously, that’s hot for some guy. My DH was sort of freaked by my belly, but I had male coworkers who actually shared with me their nostaglia for PG sex with their wives and assumed that DH was having the time of his life. I was hearing froom them that no one is more beautiful than a pregnant woman and going home to someone who seemed sort of grossed out/scared by the whole thing. Then, after I gave birth, I hated my mommy body, and he was raring to go.

    I swear to God I have no idea why I still appeal to men (not that I’m unhappy about it), but I thought that would be over by now. Yet ten years ago, I felt I was invisible to men other than DH. It’s bizarre.

  • Cooper

    “I consider those men to be bullets I dodged.”

    Indeed.

    Just for curiosity, how long do you mean when you say: “I really try to wait it out for a while?”

    I’m curious because having dealt with being friend-zoned my entire life, I really have “DON’T WAIT” drilled into me. It seems like even being open to, or willing, to wait is a signal to women that they can LJBF you – and if I’ve learned anything, if they can they will.

    Do you express that you expect any guy you may want to date to potentially wait, however long that may be?
    I’d have no problem waiting if it was discussed, but no way if it wasn’t.

    It took me the longest while to learn that women enjoy having platonic relationship with the opposite sex, and that they don’t LJBF just to add insult to injury.
    Now I realize that like everything else, an attempt to friendzone a guy is quite often a shit test.

  • J

    Great analysis, Esco, especially this:

    “However, she has squandered her great potential for the pleasures of being a high-status campus superstar–a status she has not earned but derives totally from JoJo. If she were a little older (i.e., ready to get married) and not brilliant, this would be a happy ending. But the possibility that this relationship, for which she has essentially thrown away her academic potential, will last is not great.”

    WTF? If a woman is going to sell herself out, she should at least sell to the highest bidder. Why Jojo? Yes, there’s some short term status involved, but she could have been Mrs. Gellin and had lunch at the White House while Adam was involved in a DC think tank or maybe even FLOTUS when Adam became the first Jewish president. I suspect that Jojo ends up coaching a high school team eventually because that’s what most often happens IRL. And sadly, I think there’s no going back to Adam after Jojo. Once guys like that get a sense of their own worth, they are immovable.

  • Escoffier

    Charlotte is not attracted to Adam. She cannot muster a “tingle” for him to save her life. In one of her many inner monologues that Wolfe gives us, he makes this perfectly clear. She even tells herself that she OUGHT to be attracted to Adam, he really is perfect for her but … she just can’t manage to talk herself into it.

  • J

    I assumed it was because we were graduating, but she said, no, she would be working in Philadelphia (For Goldman, ugh). She then told me they had never been able to have sex, not one time, because of ED. I guess if a guy is high status enough, even the sex doesn’t matter.

    Any connection between him and Goldman? A limp dick has no bearing on the ability to write a letter of recommendation or call a few friends.

    • @J

      Any connection between him and Goldman? A limp dick has no bearing on the ability to write a letter of recommendation or call a few friends.

      Wow. I swear I never even thought of that. Very possible indeed. Especially since she was not a business type before – she was a would-be opera singer in her 30s. So the Goldman offer was a shock.

      I’m not devious enough.

  • Abbot

    “Some women …do turn down continual and persistent offers from men. ”

    That is the first wife-material filter to get past, universally, for nearly all men, and screams volumes about her character and the ease of falling in lover with her.

  • J

    Right, but she should be. Even throwing any “brilliant future” stuff aside, he’s the best guy out of the three. He’s smart, cute, witty and good to her. Yeah, he has a panicked moment or two that she is turned off by, but he pulls his shit together and lands on his feet like a cat. That’s pretty damn hot as far as I’m concerned.

  • J

    I personally think that hook-up culture is a symptom, not the far more complex disease itself, and that people need to directly feel the pain of hard trade-offs and sacrifices in order to be able to accurately weigh various lifestyle options and set priorities.

    Sad but true, BB. The hardest part of parenting is allowing them to feel the pain.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Cooper

    Just for curiosity, how long do you mean when you say: “I really try to wait it out for a while?”

    I’m curious because having dealt with being friend-zoned my entire life, I really have “DON’T WAIT” drilled into me. It seems like even being open to, or willing, to wait is a signal to women that they can LJBF you – and if I’ve learned anything, if they can they will.

    Do you express that you expect any guy you may want to date to potentially wait, however long that may be?
    I’d have no problem waiting if it was discussed, but no way if it wasn’t.

    It took me the longest while to learn that women enjoy having platonic relationship with the opposite sex, and that they don’t LJBF just to add insult to injury.
    Now I realize that like everything else, an attempt to friendzone a guy is quite often a shit test.

    I generally wait between 1-2 months before sleeping with a guy. With that being said, I don’t mind kissing/PG-rated making out with a guy during the first 1-2 dates. I think that kissing can tell you a lot about another person.

    During the time that I wait to have sex, I focus on “sensual” activities instead of “sexual” ones. I’d suggest that you try out some of the following recommendations. It’s a way to physically escalate with a woman (cementing your intentions to not be in the friendzone), without going too far or pressuring her. You may have a better shot at opening a woman up sexually over time by appealing to her sensuous nature instead. If she decides to sleep with you, it will then be up to you to determine whether or not you want a relationship with her.

    1. Kissing

    2. Holding hands (Tip: try the even more sensual variation of this by slowly stroking her palm with your fingertips occasionally. The sensation is amazing. Whenever a man has done this to me, it’s been highly erotic. It’s playful and will probably send chills up and down her spine).

    3. Put your hand on her lower back or your arm around her waist. That action alone will make you appear more dominant.

    4. On a whim, pick her up in your arms and carry her. (Note: I cannot begin to tell you how attractive that is to women. For the most part, women love to be picked up by men. We feel so dainty and feminine in your strong arms. Think of Noah’s character in The Notebook, or Rhett Butler’s character in Gone With The Wind. Even though Scarlett ‘O’ Hara seemed to put up a fight, she loved it. A man who can pick up his woman is a major turn on).

    5. Share food, preferably chocolate, strawberries, or anything else that is savory and bite sized. It’s another highly erotic activity.

    6. Whisper in her ear, and let your lips gently brush her ear. It’s another spine tingling activity.

    7. Rub/stroke her shoulders, neck, and arms. Those are all highly sensitive areas for women.

    8. Give her intense and smoldering eye contact. Give her the “I want you” look without actually jumping on her at that point in time.

    This is a good way for you to pique a woman’s interest and maintain a sense of mystery at the same time. If you do the above things, but don’t hound her to sleep with you, her mind will begin to race at the speed of light. She’ll be very curious as to how you are in bed, and she’ll have a pretty positive idea nonetheless. She’ll imagine that you are a sex god because you have proven your ability to handle and excite her body in ways that don’t directly pertain to sex. Foreplay is your friend, when it comes to sexually awakening women, and this will be extended foreplay. I’m getting a little warm just thinking about my past experiences with men who have been able to excite my body and mind in a sexual way before we even had sex. It was fantastic.

  • Cooper

    @Sassy
    I think you just described Kino wonderfully. Thanks.

  • @O-man

    It’s because many of these guys aren’t being honest with themselves; they want the hotness, too. They just have problems with the downsides of wanting the hotness. Like the ladies and Betas deal, the fellas know where the “good girls” are – right out there in your neck of the woods. If they were really serious about it, they’d pack their stuff and make it happen, just like you have. But they won’t.

    Given my fat chick cred (I married one and my current GF is a 14 or a 16) I’m clearly happy without the hottie.

    Although, I’d like to have a woman who found me desirable (thought I did, but learning I haven’t) and sluts become the big question mark.

    If sluts don’t find you desirable how much of a loser must you be. If the women with no standards won’t fuck you why expect women who do have standards will.

  • Some of the nasty people around are injured nerds. It’s bad to piss off smart people; they have creative ways ot getting payback.

    Most of us just seeth in anger and do nothing.

  • OffTheCuff

    Don’t wait 1 to 2 months, that’s ridiculous for anyone over 17. Also, it is more about time shared together, than time elapsed since meeting.

  • Escoffier

    RE: Adam being the best guy, not so fast. Adam is a careerist resume whore and insufferably convinced of his own superiority simply based on his smarts. He is somewhat accomplished, but he is also the classic egomaniac with an inferiority complex. Witness, for instance, the scene where he delivers pizza to the basketball dorm. He’s also willing to be a party to cheating (for the money), and perfectly happy to go along with a cover up (including lying) to save his own ass. He “confesses” to Quat not out of any genuine remorse but because he feels the noose tightening and thinks Quat will sympathize and help him weasel out of the situation. (Which of course backfires badly). Also, he wakes from his depression only when he learns that Quat is going to let him off the hook after all, and for corrupt reasons: Quat is happy that Adam has destroyed a politician whom Quat doesn’t like. As a reward for that service, he too will join the conspiracy of silence. And when Adam learns of his triumph, he immediately starts acting like a diva, even blowing off Charlotte who has just (not eagerly, to be sure) nursed him through his crisis.

    JoJo, on the other hand, is not such a bad guy. His worst faults are academic cheating and (if we want to be moral about it) overindulging with co-ed groupies. However, he recognizes that both are problems and he tries to overcome them without any external push. He realizes that he is missing out on an education and he vows to get it, through real work. He knows the groupies are bad for him and so he swears off them–though with that one lapse when he screws that groupie on the road game. But compared to the other players he is slowly getting his life under control and exerting real discipline. And it never happens again. Indeed, in the epilogue to the book, in one Charlotte’s interior monologues, she hints that they haven’t had sex yet despite dating for months.

    It’s highly possible, maybe even probable, that Adam will be conventionally more successful down the road, that JoJo will never make it to the NBA and that even if he does, he will go nowhere. But certainly by the end of the book and even at the beginning, JoJo has better character than Adam.

  • Sassy6519

    @ OffTheCuff

    Is that sentiment directed towards me? I really don’t mind waiting a month, two months tops, before sleeping with a guy.

    Why is it ridiculous?

  • @O

    “In any case, female choice is reduced.”

    O: They’ll live…

    Yeah, this isn’t a cause many men are going to enlist in…

  • Escoffier

    Sassy, I think he’s saying it’s ridiculous for the guy, i.e., if she makes you wait that long, bail.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Escoffier

    Sassy, I think he’s saying it’s ridiculous for the guy, i.e., if she makes you wait that long, bail.

    Hmmmmm. Interesting.

    I have my own thoughts about that, but I’ll hold my peace for now.

  • Cooper

    “I have my own thoughts about that, but I’ll hold my peace for now.”

    No, please share.

  • Emily

    >> “Don’t wait 1 to 2 months, that’s ridiculous for anyone over 17”

    I think every female poster here would get dumped by OTC.

  • Emily

    Btw, I strongly cosign Sassy’s post at 244.

    LJBF/”friendzone” is most likely to happen in situations where there has been zero physical escalation. Kino is good. While she might not be ready for sex, even the chastest girls will want to be touched by a guy that she’s attracted to.

  • Escoffier

    I must be quaintly old fashioned because 1-2 months seems like a perfectly reasonable wait to me.

  • Jackie

    @J
    “Wow, that was really inappropriate on her part! Even if you were revealing more than you realized, I’m not a big fan of people putting their hands on others unasked for.”
    ====
    Me either! I think that it was so shocking that it stays with me even to this day.
    Especially when you see so much more than a tiny glimpse of bra band nowadays! She’d have a full time job being a busybody in a lot of places. 😉

    You just don’t know what’s going on with some people, though. If she was having a bad enough day to yank some stranger’s dress-back up, that has got to be PRETTY BAD.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Cooper

    No, please share.

    Okay, here goes.

    From a LTR point of view, and strictly a LTR point of view, between 1 and 2 months seems like the right amount of time to me to wait before having sex with a potential someone.

    If there are roughly 4 weeks in a month, and most people go on about 1 date per week with a specific person, that would allow only 4 days to get to know someone before hopping into bed with them. That’s hardly enough time to really learn about a person. Dating more than a month, but less than two, gives people a little more time to suss the other person out.

    As stated before, I generally wait between 1-2 months, but the longest I’ve ever dated someone without sex was 3 months. I ended up never sleeping with that guy, and thank heavens, because he admitted to being married while under the influence of alcohol during the 3rd month. I thought I knew him at that point, but clearly even 3 months wasn’t enough time to get a truly clear idea of who he was.

    I just think people need to spend more time figuring each other out. Doing otherwise just seems like a haphazard way of dating. Women shouldn’t be so quick to allow any man into their lives, and men should be just as cautious. Both groups stand to lose considerable time, effort, money, and tears if they don’t filter and select wisely.

    The other option would be to increase the number of dates that people go on with each other initially. Instead of going on 1 date per week with a person, a newly dating couple could go on 2-3 dates a week instead. I’m not sure how accomodating everyone’s schedules are for that type of dating intensity, and I also worry about the potential for romantic burnout. As the saying goes, “The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long”.

  • Emily, lol very true! My husband and I waited for over a month. I don’t think dumping me was on his mind during that month. We also talked for over 100 hours in that month. He also told his parents about me… we ran up a big texting bill on his stepdad’s cell phone plan.

    Sassy, love the post on sensual touch! Also I personally love a man who knows how to talk sexily. It shows imagination and creativity, and builds anticipation/fantasies for later activities. They say the brain is the biggest sex organ, and when two people are both smart the brain is even more important!

  • Jackie

    @Susan (205, etc)

    Wow, that’s quite a story!

    I always wonder about those women who are, essentially, prostituting themselves for a grade, paper, etc. It seems to me these women are “selling themselves” at an extremely cheap rate. (Was this the girl who got the 98 the same one who got the job at Goldman? Would she more like the GFE [girlfriend experience] level of prostitution? Hard to keep up with this thread!)

    Anyway, don’t actual non-meth, young, beautiful prostitutes cost quite a bit of money? As in hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour? It seems to me that, if she was going to sell sex anyway, she’d do a lot better as an escort than by sleeping with a teacher. *With the caveat that if she was too unintelligent to succeed in school otherwise, she’d have to do a cost/benefit analysis.

    Okay, I just feel completely gross discussing this. I just meant: I wonder if these girls ever considered that if their instructor had to go to a “professional” it would cost him much, much more. And, likely, the prostitute would have more dignity.

    • Was this the girl who got the 98 the same one who got the job at Goldman?

      No, two different people. But you’re right, they both may have prostituted themselves for personal gain. Blech.

  • Jackie

    @Sassy
    “I just think people need to spend more time figuring each other out. Doing otherwise just seems like a haphazard way of dating. Women shouldn’t be so quick to allow any man into their lives, and men should be just as cautious. Both groups stand to lose considerable time, effort, money, and tears if they don’t filter and select wisely.”
    ===========
    Co-signed, 110%

    I think you can make the most of getting to know someone by asking questions and being upfront. And it doesn’t have to be bald and completely
    “in your face.” More like, discerning.

    For example, observe how the guy likes to have fun. If lotsa alcohol is involved, I know, Hey we’re not on the same wavelength, cut it off. A guy who was interested in me recently made some really unkind remarks that (to me) were really big character tells. Again, not on the same wavelength.

    I think people should write down their “must haves” and “can’t stands” before they start dating. Because sometimes I think people will change, alter and mold their standards (like clay) so they can “fit” the person they’re dating. Instead of having the spine to say, You know, this person’s not a fit for me.

    My 0.02, anyway!

    PS: Sassy, you have been aces on this thread!! Well played, lady! 🙂

  • J

    It’s true that Adam is a weasel at the beginning of the book and has some amazingly good luck with Quat. OTOH, Adam is a guy who also starts out with a lot of disadvantages–working class, no father involved in his life, not conventionally masculine. He uses what he has to get where he wants to go. To me, that’s admirable. I’d far prefer to put my fate in his hands than Jojo’s, even though Jojo is the “nicer” guy.

    As to his morality in the cheating incident, I saw him as sort of caught in between. He’s working his way through school as a tutor; it seems to be part of the work-study deal that enabled him to go to DuPont in the first place. The tacit agreement, which he probably didn’t realize when he first signed-up for it, is that the fine line between helping and doing the work is going to be crossed by all the tutors and that if complaints are made, the school administration will subtly side with the athelete because athletics is what keeps the alums coming back and making donations. The scene where Quat complains to the college president makes it painfully clear that preserving the “honor” of the athletic program is more important than acedemic integrity. Adam is bright enough to see the writing on the wall, react to it and save himself. I’m good with that.

    Does he blow off Charlotte? Not as badly as he could have. He put a lot of effort into her recovery and then saw that she was repulsed by him during his crisis. He moved on when it made sense for him to do so, after giving up on the relationship. It’s not as though he dumped her and she was pining for him.

    Jojo, OTOH, is sort of golden boy who never really has to overcome adversity. Is he a nice guy once you get past his taking advantage of his position early in the book? Sure, but why shouldn’t he be? People have been loving him up and giving him breaks since he was young. It’s commendable that he straightens up a bit, but it’s not as though he’s overcome more than peer pressure.

  • Ian

    @Cooper

    The message is, (and I’ve had to calibrate some of these things through trail and error myself), that by demonstrating LTR-interest, or romanticizing the courtship, it is quickest way to lose attraction – demonstrating poor relationship potential, and unwillingness to commit, is indeed going to enhance your perceived value.

    Yep. It’s a bit uncomfortable that there’s a paint-by-numbers aspect to female attraction, and that those with genuine developmental deficiencies can mimic high-value or high-testosterone traits.

    My Paint by Numbers, roughly:

    Win a good opinion from her crowd. Cultivate the attractions of her lower-SMV friends. Intimidate, insult, or stress her, occasionally. Wait for her interest to perk. Initiate touching. Have other options. Escalate touching. Coolly end the courtship after a particularly bad shit test. Give reliable orgasms. Drop the guard when the attraction phase cools.

    Extroverts, authority figures, low relationship preference, low time preference, unempathetic, rude, low-EQ, unusual, angry people have advantages, completely unrelated to genetic or LTR relationship worth. The crowd itself creates problems when it holds randomly useful things in esteem.

    That said, I’m pretty sure it’s immutable, though not universal. It’s a better trip driving roads where they are, not where they should be.

  • In some ways, when a girl dolls herself up, she is signaling that she has high standards. This is where embracing your inner douche bag can really help. “I should approach her because my shit don’t stink”.

    True, but I also had the opposite getting dolled up and having guys hitting on me. Probably timing has to do with it. The day I cross path with a guy that thinks that “his shit doesn’t stink” and I dolled up I was getting hit on, and the other way around so in the end I guess is better to find a style that is flattering and comfortable and go out as much as possible to see what you attract.
    I do wonder… if the shy guy that saw you dolled up one day and sees you in simple clothes the next will try to hit on you when you look less intimidating or men do get ONE reading and that is it?

    Does he take the cake for most interesting way to “cheat” on your wife?

    Must resist Dominican men tales of cheating…but no he doesn’t on my book.

    Interestingly enough, the models I have known, or were friends with were probably more normal than the dancers/actresses, but I’ve only known 2 models, and 1 is a close friend. I sadly had 5 housemates over the years who were dancers/actresses, and met plenty of their friends. Almost all were on some form of caffeine pills or stimulants for example…in addition to just being crazy in general.

    I already mentioned as a former model, that models get a dose of red pill really early on. First given that 80% of the men on the business are gay, sleeping or using your sex appeal to advance is moot point. They will call you all names on the book and you can go from being the “muse” of one season to be the “bitch who are you?” the next. Is brutal competition and models understand that they can stand out among the “normal” girls but in a room full of 200 other women with similar body and face types they can easily become chopped liver. Hence they are a bit more realistic about SMP and how they need something more than their beauty to win at love and commitment.

    Pregnant with your hair tied up?

    Oh since I carry my baby like a basketball and I was sitting down with my purse in my legs (safest place to avoid getting your purse snatched, not that it ever happens here, bad habits die hard) he didn’t notice so I don’t he has the fetish, in fact when I was riding the bus in the same position some guy was chatting me up I was shocked till I remembered that he couldn’t see my “bump of fidelity” I moved my purse and the poor guy’s eyes almost left his skull and he pretty much stood up and left for another seat ASAP, at least the bump is doing its job. 😀

    Yet ten years ago, I felt I was invisible to men other than DH. It’s bizarre.

    I was single for 10 years before I meet my hubby. I was used to spent Valentine’s day watching a romantic movie alone at home or having “friendship” dates with my girlfriends. I was not invisible but the only men that seem to find me attractive were cads, idiots and married older men…I would had preferred to be completely invisible to be honest.

  • Tom

    I can totally understand the reasoning behind some women who make a man a month or more for sex. Especially if she had been burned before by a player/cad who swore his intentions were honorable. It is one way of filtering the men from the boys.
    Some will argue that an alpha wont wait for sex. Oh yes he will if this is the woman he really wants for a LTR.
    Some will say the guy is a chump if she didnt make the player wait, but he is making you wait. It is her filtering style “now.” what she did before didnt work, so plan B is now in effect. Totally understandable.

  • J

    @Herb

    Most of us just seeth in anger and do nothing.

    Heh, heh. Not me. At least not in the last decade. Payback is a bitch, and so am I.

    @Jackie

    That really is bizarre. I don’t know what motivated her–bad day or bad life, but she was surely out of line. I think it’s hard to say something to an older person when you are younger, but at this point in my life, I’d have asked her just why she though it was OK to put her hands on me. And then she’d have foldedl ike a card table because that’s what people like do. I wish I had known that at your age, BTW.

    And to weigh in on how long to wait before sex. … I knew DH for six months, though we were friends, not dating, at the beginning. The decision to wait was mutual. Neither of us wanted to complicate things with sex until we knew where the rest of the relationship was going. Marriage was already on the table.

  • Jackie

    @Emily
    “>> “Don’t wait 1 to 2 months, that’s ridiculous for anyone over 17″

    I think every female poster here would get dumped by OTC.”
    ========
    Seeing as he is a married man, it’s proof positive of a good filtering strategy! 😉

  • Jackie

    ““the majority of the average and below average women from the Western world are definitively, massively more sexual active than most of the men in their league”

    Is Joel President of the SMP?”
    ========
    I think he’s got some contention from Abbot, among others.

    CAGE FIGHT!!!

  • Jackie

    I would also accept “dance off” as an appropriate form of competition. 😉

  • Darsh

    One girl I approached, only intending to have a fling with, turned out to ooze high quality in every way.

    I guess it took 6 weeks before we did much more than kissing, and by then I had completely fallen for her.

    Waiting 1-2 months is probably very smart, from a girl’s point-of-view.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jackie

    PS: Sassy, you have been aces on this thread!! Well played, lady! 🙂

    Thank you!

    I feel really comfortable commenting today. It’s nice when the thread conversation is on topic, relevant, inoffensive, and relatively peaceful. 😉

  • Tom

    the majority of the average and below average women from the Western world are definitively, massively more sexual active than most of the men in their league”
    _________
    This is probably a very true fact, although “massively” may be somewhat of an exageration.
    It is a lot easier for plain Jane to get laid than it is plain Jim. I think this fact alone infurious all the Jims out there.

  • Jackie

    Re: I Am Charlotte Simmons

    Esco & J, I am really loving your viewpoints on this book. Thank you!

    Something that I think is at the root of the characters– and, indeed, the hookup culture– is this role of status. Lack of status makes Adam a “mean nerd” as J put it earlier; undeserved status makes Hoyt a selfish exploitative nimrod; grasping at status is what triggers Charlotte’s downfall– and what keeps her there.

    When status is divorced from any kind of classical virtue or morality, it’s like putting a contaminant in the water supply. Everything gets poisoned.

  • Tom

    infuriates ..I meant to say…

  • Ramble

    I do wonder… if the shy guy that saw you dolled up one day and sees you in simple clothes the next will try to hit on you when you look less intimidating or men do get ONE reading and that is it?

    I dunno. When I see a girl get herself all dolled up, I love it. Assuming that she is dressing herself up in the way that she wants to, and is not trying to meet someone elses criteria.

    But I do believe that many guys do get intimidated.

  • Jackie

    @Herb
    “Some of the nasty people around are injured nerds. It’s bad to piss off smart people; they have creative ways ot getting payback.

    Most of us just seeth in anger and do nothing.”
    =========
    Aw, no, Herb! 🙁

    In the words of my beloved sister: Don’t stew, DO. The anger over some guy being a jerk can be *awesome* fuel for running and working out. Let it be channeled in a direction that benefits you.** Don’t let them steal your joy!

    **If it’s safe for your heart. Take care of yourself, H!

  • Jackie

    @J

    Who knows?! Some of the worstest misogynists I have ever known have been women. Especially those who have gotten older and the “rules” that they have lived by have kind of expired, you know? There is a a certain type– and it’s best to be far away from them!

    I will try to do what you said– confrontation is HARD for me. I will have to write a script, (“Why gives you the right to do that?” ) and practice.

    Also: WOW to the Beauty and Beast interpretation! They never told us that in film class! I just remember seeing this in the campus theater and being transfixed — like you could take any frame out of the movie and it would be an Albrecht Durer print. Like it was a moving portrait that had somehow come alive.

    J, look at this scene, starting around 5:45 or so. You are proven right! The Freud is strong in this clip, btw:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q20FvyJquQ&feature=relmfu

    (Also, at the 4 min mark, Beauty is literally transformed through jump-cut filming, as the Beast carries her over the threshhold to her bedroom. On one side of the door, she is in common clothes of a maid; once he has brought her over to the other side, she is literally covered in glory with a ton of jewels.

    She cries later on, and her teardrops turn into diamonds. For 1941, that is some AWESOME special effects!)

  • Jackie

    @Susan
    “What a waste. I don’t think I ever felt she was genuinely attracted to JoJo,”
    ===
    At the end of the book, I thought she was in love with status; specifically in love with her *role* as “Jojo’s girlfriend” Jojo himself was inconsequential, he is the cardboard cutout. Or rather, the blank screen for her to project her ascendancy upon, I think.

    (In some ways, it makes it easier for her that he’s not that bright. He’s not smart enough to see what’s really going on.)

  • @O

    So, all of this stuff came along when the sexes were brought together, along with a few other “great ideas” courtesy of the White UMC Feminist arm of the Cognitive Elite.

    Here are my ideas to obliterate the hooking up problem:

    For individual women I have an easier solution: Wyoming Catholic College: 62% men and in the middle of no where.

    If the ratio drives the market, this should be gold for women wanting a LTR.

  • Sai

    217 -Just a thought
    “Now, I’m only speaking for harder universities, but, in my university we don’t because it is expressly understood that college’s purpose is not to ” form long-term relationships” but to study and gain skills for a degree in future.”

    Hear, hear! If you don’t pay attention, Prof. Zhang will screw you harder than a houseful of Gammas ever could.

    #243 -Sassy
    “4. On a whim, pick her up in your arms and carry her. (Note: I cannot begin to tell you how attractive that is to women. For the most part, women love to be picked up by men. We feel so dainty and feminine in your strong arms. Think of Noah’s character in The Notebook, or Rhett Butler’s character in Gone With The Wind. Even though Scarlett ‘O’ Hara seemed to put up a fight, she loved it. A man who can pick up his woman is a major turn on).”

    Errol Flynn’s Robin Hood did that too. <3
    So THIS is how the kino works. I dunno though… it sounds as if it would be hot if used between the right people, but would it freak out some other girls?

    #263 -Ian
    Woah, is that really what it takes to get girls? I know, I know, why is a girl asking a guy about girls' brains… But anyone who tried to intimidate, insult, or randomly give me stress I avoided and saw as an enemy. Then again, when I chose to hang around people, we usually talked about games/comics and why physics was evil. Are there personality types that are more likely to be affected by your  system? (I am INTJ -not THAT INTJ -and just won't use my time and energy on something like that. I will walk away and go read about dead Presidents.)

    Wait, there's a cage fight now? TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES~

  • @Jackie

    Anyway, don’t actual non-meth, young, beautiful prostitutes cost quite a bit of money? As in hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour? It seems to me that, if she was going to sell sex anyway, she’d do a lot better as an escort than by sleeping with a teacher. *With the caveat that if she was too unintelligent to succeed in school otherwise, she’d have to do a cost/benefit analysis.

    Not to mention such prostitutes generally are more honest, both with the world and themselves. The woman who prostitutes themselves for four years to professors for good grades is advertising to the world a completely different set of knowledge, skills, and competencies than the ones she actually used to get the credentials. If we are to believe Proverbs (specifically 28:1) her own conscience will also gnaw at her.

    For reasons that have about zip to do with the ‘sphere I wonder how many women would do the work necessary to be one if a courtesan (not generic prostitute, but very specifically courtesan) was a legal and acceptable career/life choice in the US today. It is honest and hard work to fulfill that role yet a significant number of women are apparently opting to be much less and the complaining about it 10+ years later.

  • @Ms. Walsh #182:
    “In no way do I think that men owe women anything. They don’t owe us marriage, or children, and they certainly don’t owe us provisioning. Each of these things is something to be earned, we are not entitled to any of it.”

    O: Oh, I don’t know about that Ms. Walsh, though I most certainly do appreciate the good faith sentiment. Clearly, you and an overwhelming majority of Women think that Men owe them in terms of paying for dates…and that’s just for starters. Lots of Women simply cannot and/or will not own up to the fact that they really DO want it both ways – all the bennies of a 21st century life when it suits them, and all the bennies of a real life Jane Austen novel again, when it suits them. For my part, you know what, I could almost live with that, if they just were honest about it. The fact that they can’t or won’t even do that, is part of what fuels the MGTOW thing. Not all of it by any means; but it DOES play a role.

    “I’m on record as criticizing the treatment boys have received in schools and in the culture during the last generation. I lobbied actively against this as my own son was growing up, and I remain concerned about the way we demonize maleness in this country. It’s a nightmare created by feminists.”

    O: Well again, you are to be commended, there has to be something said for self-interest. Please forgive me if I come across as a bit cynical; as I am sure you may know, such things are in no way new to me:

    http://newsone.com/1024835/tjms-only-12-of-black-boys-are-on-grade-level-dr-jawanza-kunjufu-details-how-to-change-this/

    In any event, I do not see what this has to do with the topic at hand; even if boys were treated well in school, it would not change the vital points being made here. Could you explain a bit more what you mean by bringing it up?

    “Kate Bolick successfully tapped into something that’s been on women’s minds in recent years. In writing about her own experience, and her search for friend families, and networks of single women, she spoke for many women, apparently. Her story resonated strongly with the many 30-something women who will not marry and seek to make the best of their circumstances. As I said, I respect it. It sure beats angry and bitter.”

    O: Hmm. I think the jury is pretty much in on Ms. Bolick; but way of comparison, let’s see which piece sounds on-point and which does not:

    Ladies first…

    All The Single Ladies
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/

    And now, it’s the fellas’ turn:

    A Confederacy of Bachelors
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/nyregion/four-men-sharing-rent-and-friendship-for-18-years.html?_r=2&hpw&pagewanted=all

    I don’t know about you Ms. Walsh, but the latter sounds a heck of a lot more, shall we say, happier, than the latter. Perhaps your readers will agree.

    O.

  • @Ms. J #153:
    “No, Charlotte didn’t delare a major because freshmen don’t generally do that. Formal declarations of majors usually occur at the end of sophmore year. She did take a neuroscience class where she was a high achiever and was teacher’s pet for a while.”

    O: OK, gotcha. My bad and thanks for the correction. Much appreciated!

    “Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak-Catchers was an amazing book. Not surprised you like it. If your present gig doesn’t pan out, you could go into mau-mauing professionally. You do a fine amateur job here. ;)”

    O: LOL, touche! From my Twitter page:
    “Urban dandy, autodidact, innercity pundit, rabble rouser, raconteur, stargazer, amatuer social scientist, budding photog and *semi-professional pest.*

    😉

    Tom Wolfe has a really good eye/feel for what’s going on in the country – and not surprisingly, he’s been quite vilified throughout his career. A Man after my own heart, because experience has shown me that if you’re not p*ssing somebody off, you’re not saying anything worthwhile. Did you hear about his “Three Stooges” incident?

    O.

  • sphere I wonder how many women would do the work necessary to be one if a courtesan (not generic prostitute, but very specifically courtesan) was a legal and acceptable career/life choice in the US today.

    Courtesans were the occidental version of Geishas freaking lot of work, education, grace and skills there I can’t imagine many modern women signing up for that, opening your legs and thinking on a 98/LTR/status is a lot easier and requires no skill.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sassy, no, to Cooper. It’s perfectly fine for you. You take a long as you need!

    But as a *male* strategy it is terrible, most women will give up and think something wrong is with him, not to mention the opportunity cost. It might work as a male LTR strategy if he was seeing other women in the meantime, and picked from the best. Otherwise, for a man to wait that long, especially as a virgin, is a bad idea.

  • JP

    @Escoffier:

    Just read Tom Wolf’s “Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/sorry-but-your-soul-just-died-1276509.html

    Nice article. Talks about neuroscience.

    So, did you just go up to Tom Wolfe and ask “hey, what exactly did the ending mean?”

    F. Scott Fitzgerald and Tom Wolfe write similar zeitgeist-based novels.

    Compare and contrast Bonfire of the Vanities with The Great Gatsby.

  • Darsh

    Oh, oh course. The man should always press on and try to sexually escalate, but for the woman it is probably smart to hold out and emotionally escalate in the meantime.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sass: “If there are roughly 4 weeks in a month, and most people go on about 1 date per week with a specific person, that would allow only 4 days to get to know someone before hopping into bed with them.”

    That makes sense, like I said, it’s more about shared time together, than time elapsed. When I saw “2 months” I got the picture of going on more like 24 dates with nothing, why even bother?

    Though, I wonder why you’d go a week with no contact. If there was attraction, wouldn’t you keep in touch over calls and text and video, and log lots of time that way?

  • Sassy6519

    @ OffTheCuff

    That makes sense, like I said, it’s more about shared time together, than time elapsed. When I saw “2 months” I got the picture of going on more like 24 dates with nothing, why even bother?

    Though, I wonder why you’d go a week with no contact. If there was attraction, wouldn’t you keep in touch over calls and text and video, and log lots of time that way?

    If I’m dating a man, we do typically communicate throughout the week over the phone. I just really prefer face-to-face interactions. So much of communication is transmitted through body language. I’m better able to tell if a man is being sincere, or if he is truly attracted to me, by looking at his face and body. I don’t mind using the phone, but I’ve found such communication to be severely wanting.

  • @O

    Clearly, you and an overwhelming majority of Women think that Men owe them in terms of paying for dates…and that’s just for starters. Lots of Women simply cannot and/or will not own up to the fact that they really DO want it both ways – all the bennies of a 21st century life when it suits them, and all the bennies of a real life Jane Austen novel again, when it suits them. For my part, you know what, I could almost live with that, if they just were honest about it. The fact that they can’t or won’t even do that, is part of what fuels the MGTOW thing. Not all of it by any means; but it DOES play a role.

    My name is Herb and I endorse this message, especially the highlighted part.

    @Ana

    Courtesans were the occidental version of Geishas freaking lot of work, education, grace and skills there I can’t imagine many modern women signing up for that, opening your legs and thinking on a 98/LTR/status is a lot easier and requires no skill.

    I’m well aware of what they were. So, you think some woman would rather lie about being an accountant having passed all their accounting classes by being a sex doll than get paid for being a high quality companion?

  • @Herb:
    “Given my fat chick cred (I married one and my current GF is a 14 or a 16) I’m clearly happy without the hottie.”

    O: Dress size in and of itself has no bearing on whether a Woman is a hottie or not. The following determines it:

    – (Relative) Youth
    – Pretty Face
    – Hourglass Figure (read: no to little gut in relation to her hips/bustline)

    There are many, many plus-sized Women who meet this criteria, and as you can attest to, they have zero problem getting STRs or LTRs. Many people – and this definitely includes Women themselves – keep getting these things twisted – thick does not mean fat. No, all Women will not have natural hourglass figures – just like most Men won’t look like Brad Pitt or Idris Elba. Them’s the breaks.

    “Although, I’d like to have a woman who found me desirable (thought I did, but learning I haven’t) and sluts become the big question mark.”

    O: In order to be successful with the Women of your choice, you have to ask this fundamental question:

    Why?

    Why should this Woman be interested in you, amongst the sausage multitude? Hmm? What is it about you that separates you from the pack?

    “If sluts don’t find you desirable how much of a loser must you be. If the women with no standards won’t fuck you why expect women who do have standards will.”

    O: This is erroneous. Sluts absolutely do have standards; you just don’t meet them. Whores screw for pay; it’s a job and even they won’t do errbody. Sluts do it for other reasons, and if you don’t fit what they want, you’re just SOL.

    One of the dirty little secrets that a lot of Game experts don’t like to discuss is the fact that there’s a high washout rate. The reason why, is because most guys simply do not want to put in the work and make the changes necessary in order to make things happen with the kinds of Women they actually want. This explains what Ms. Hope was talking about. And this explains why, if you hit up Roissy and Roosh’s blogs, that while they definitely discuss Game teachings, most of the conversation has very little to do about that and much more to do with how Women ain’t sh*t. I mean hey, it’s a free country, and these days it’s much better than any one of them going postal and shooting up the joint; but yea, that’s what’s going on. Most guys in that situation simply do not want to admit to themselves that the reason they are where they are is because they don’t want to do what is necessary to make it happen.

    O.

  • @O

    A Confederacy of Bachelors
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/nyregion/four-men-sharing-rent-and-friendship-for-18-years.html?_r=2&hpw&pagewanted=all

    I don’t know about you Ms. Walsh, but the latter sounds a heck of a lot more, shall we say, happier, than the latter. Perhaps your readers will agree.

    Almost immediately I thought these guys have the life.

    Then they pointed out Luke Crane in the article is The Luke Crane as in Burning Fucking Wheel Luke Crane.

    Know I know they have the life. I mean, you have a built in RPG group that includes that Luke Crane? Sure, James Raggi IV or Vincent Baker or some of the other OSR guys might be more my taste and if he could even out his moods John Wick would be assume, but still, living with Luke Crane and having your RPG group in your house.

    That is the life.

  • Escoffier

    J, I think this is wrong almost from beginning to end

    Adam is a bigger weasel at the END of the book than at the beginning. He is not working class, he is middle class but saw his standard of living decline after his parents’ divorce. He did not pull himself up from his bootstraps or anything. Yes, he has to work to get through school but he chooses to participate in a corrupt system. He never feels any remorse for that at all. JoJo does. JoJo reforms based on internal pressure alone. Adam in a sense has it much easier than Jojo because Adam is smart and Dupont and the whole meritocratic elite is all about brains. Adam can win that game just by showing up.

    I don’t agree that Adam saw any writing on the wall re: the university’s response. Wolfe makes clear though Adam’s interior monologues that his concern throughout is only to save his own skin. And there is no “fine line” between helping and doing the work. Writing the paper is doing the work, pure and simple.

    I think his blow off of Charlotte is quite low, not that she cares that much, but it shows what a douche he is. He was, so he thought, desperately in love with her but as soon as he gets a taste of fame, he can no longer care less. He wants to bathe in his fame. He probably also assumes that it won’t be so hard to find another girl. And, she was never repulsed by him, she was just attracted to him and wanted him to snap out of it, the same thing he did for her. She was actually quite dutiful in tending to him and did not show her (mild) irritation, we only know about it because Wolfe tells us.

    Jojo on the other hand absolutely did have to overcome a much more difficult youth than Adam and has had to work very hard to be where he is, he’s just had to work at sports rather than academics. I don’t dispute that he’s been pampered for a while but getting to that point required a lot of pain. Remember the stuff about how his father dropped him off at inner city basketball courts to fend for himself?

    Susan, I think Charlotte was not attracted to Jojo at first because she thought him dumb and she was an intellectual snob. However, you can see the attraction grow as they continue to meet and she realizes that he is genuinely curious (if still not so smart). Plus, he is a super masculine type, which we know she likes …

  • OffTheCuff

    Em: “I think every female poster here would get dumped by OTC.”

    Oh, not hardly. I’m an LTR guy, I’m not communicating clearly. I am not advocating the 3 date rule for women. (Then again, the active female posters here are noticeably more conservative than real life. Really.)

    What you are misisng is that women will penalize a man for escalating too slowly, FAR more than escalating too fast. Dumpsville.

    If we define a “date” is 4-6 hours doing some shared activity with just one other person (whether real or virtual) then something like 4-10 “dates” seems about right, *if* there is steady escalation the whole time.

    Whether 6 dates are in one week, or spread over two months, is irrelevant.

    I think it is silly to go on 10-40 dates and do nothing but kiss… unless you are kid, super conservative, or religious. That is what I meant.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    I want to go back to this notion that “dudes” these days are “losing”; that many Women will find them “wanting”. I want to know if you and the rest of the ladies think the following Man is a suboptimal mate choice:

    You ready?

    Todd Palin.

    Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about him:

    “He is an American oil field production operator, commercial fisherman and champion snowmobile racer, winning the Tesoro Iron Dog race four times.”

    “In 1982, Palin graduated from Wasilla High School, which is the same alma mater of his wife and their eldest two children, son Track and daughter Bristol. He has taken some college courses but does not have a degree.”

    “Palin was a union member and belonged to the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers).[11]
    For eighteen years, he worked for BP in the North Slope oil fields of Alaska. In 2007, in order to avoid a conflict of interest that related to his wife’s position as governor, he took a leave[12] from his job as production supervisor, when his employer became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with his wife’s administration.[5] Seven months later, because the family needed more income, Todd returned to BP. In order to avoid potential conflict of interest, this time, he accepted a non-management position as a production operator.[2][12] He resigned from his job on September 18, 2009, with the stated reason as a desire to spend more time with his family.[13]
    He is also a commercial salmon fisherman at Bristol Bay on the Nushugak River.[5]”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin

    Now, I don’t know exactly what Palin makes working with BP and as a fisherman, but I have a few friends up in Alaska and they absolutely love it. In fact, I’ve considered going up there, because I’m a big fan of Wyatt Earp and Jack London, and from what I’ve heard, you can live very well for relatively little. Plus, I love to hunt (bowhunter), you work seasonally (like Palin does, I understand), etc et al.

    And on top of that, I don’t think your lady readers would disgaree with the fact that by all accounts, Mr. Palin is a good looking Man…right?

    As a Union card holder myself, one who’s made a nice penny in his day at that, I have to say that I’ve often outearned my buds (and some ladies) who are degreed, again, with none of the debt. And for those who did earn more than me, their raises and the like were markedly less on a proportionate basis than me. For example, I was able to negotiate a 20% raise after one of the newly hired suits laid me off and brought in non-union Mexicans to do my job for pennies on the dollar, so to speak; when they wrecked the very expensive equipment in the shop, cost the company tens of thousands of dollars in lost time etc and the new suit guy came this close to losing his job behind all that, he came onto the shop floor, interrupted me in the middle of my work and begged me like a dog to come back; hired me back on the spot after shaking on the raise deal. Ms. Brown Sugah, who is a graduate of a top ten private uni (undergrad and grad), got ONE raise at just over 1% on a job she worked at for five years up in NYC (where we met). During that same time, I got easily ten raises and bonuses based on production (part of a team that was the fastest/most accurate in the entire plant), including the big one mentioned above; in one year alone, I got something like five raises. How many people that are degreed get that, Ms. Walsh? Because of all the people I know, none of them have gotten that – and I’m talking about people, Men and Women both, who attended Temple, UPenn, Penn State (don’t laugh), Villanova, Bryn Mawr, Yale, Princeton, Morgan State, Lincoln, Cheyney State, Columbia, Syracuse and Brown.

    So, given the above example of Palin, put together with my own life experiences – and honestly, I have more in common with him than the current President, to tell you the truth – I’m just not seeing how he, I, or any other similarly placed guy is a “loser” or somehow “wanting”…

    Please explain?

    O.

  • @OTC

    I think it is silly to go on 10-40 dates and do nothing but kiss… unless you are kid, super conservative, or religious. That is what I meant.

    Yep, it’s silly…even if you’ve already had sex it’s silly to do that.

  • Abbot

    “It is a lot easier for plain Jane to get laid than it is plain Jim”

    After a decade or so of that, the plain Janes and plain Jims evolve with two distinct and very different standards of sexual behavior and sexual points of view that somehow got labeled as the “double standard”

    “this fact alone infurious all the Jims out there.”

    Its ONLY when the plain Janes reluctantly gravitate back to their league do the plain Jims express gut wrenching disgust and disappointment. Why can’t they just marry their agents of expression and leave the poor plain Jims alone?

  • @Ms. Belitta #190:
    “I can relate. I think too many young people are going to college just because they feel they need to, when they really don’t.”

    O: Yup. Tru dat – but people keep going for the okey doke, even with the handwriting on the wall. I tell ya, people gotta use their heads for something more than a hatrack…

    “A friend of mine recently shared an anecdote about Woodrow Wilson. Someone once asked him how many students were at Princeton when he was president there, and he answered: “Ten percent.””

    O: LOL. You know Wilson was the POTUS who gave us a new word: “normalcy” – right?

    BTW – I haven’t heard anyone really answer my question: if indeed “college is clearly giving education to kids” these days as Ms. Walsh asserts, how many of the good folk here are willing to ante up some serious hard currency for the privilege? I mean, let’s take Duke – the proud institution that has given us the Duke LAX Scandal, Tucker Max and of course, Ms. Karen “Duke F-List” Owen. You good with sending your kid(s) – and money – there?

    Really?

    Now, Ms. Walsh is right – nobody’s gonna accuse me of being a college administration officer or anything like that. But, do you *really* have to be one, in order to see the serious, massive problems with the Academy these days – of which, the hooking up problem, only plays a insiginificant part?

    O.

  • Sai

    #288 -Herb
    “For reasons that have about zip to do with the ‘sphere I wonder how many women would do the work necessary to be one if a courtesan (not generic prostitute, but very specifically courtesan) was a legal and acceptable career/life choice in the US today. It is honest and hard work to fulfill that role yet a significant number of women are apparently opting to be much less and the complaining about it 10+ years later.”

    I have read little about courtesans, but when I read that little I had to admit to myself it sounded like an interesting job. If I had the ‘infinite-other-selves-in-infinite-other-universes’ thing going for me (us?) I (we? she?) might try it. I’d (she’d) want to be the look-but-don’t-touch sort, like a geisha.
    *flee*

  • @OTC #301:
    “Oh, not hardly. I’m an LTR guy, I’m not communicating clearly. I am not advocating the 3 date rule for women. (Then again, the active female posters here are noticeably more conservative than real life. Really.)

    What you are misisng is that women will penalize a man for escalating too slowly, FAR more than escalating too fast. Dumpsville.

    If we define a “date” is 4-6 hours doing some shared activity with just one other person (whether real or virtual) then something like 4-10 “dates” seems about right, *if* there is steady escalation the whole time.

    Whether 6 dates are in one week, or spread over two months, is irrelevant.

    I think it is silly to go on 10-40 dates and do nothing but kiss… unless you are kid, super conservative, or religious. That is what I meant.”

    O: 100%. At the risk of saying yet something else highly controversial, it is a very early and common rule of the community not to give any attention to any advice given by Women. While harsh, it reflects the simple truth that what Women say and what they actually do in real time, can be and often are very two different things.

    I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating: Mystery says, that the Game is in the field. Not online. Not in busting it up on the horn with your homies. Not on chat boards. In. The. Field.

    It behooves one, if they’re really interested in seeing how it all goes down, to actually spend some time in-field, just for the purposes of people watching. Doing this in clubs and the like will give one a very clear sense of what Women actually do in real time. Of course, this isn’t the only place to observe Women, but for a newbie, its a very good start until they’ve learned how to calibrate.

    The Seven Hour Rule, is very, very real. I’ve done it quite a few times before I even knew what it was, and after I knew what it was had employed it with a very high degree of effectiveness. I’ve been on blind dates with Women who, after spending the average time needed, were indeed ready to go there with me – and they were the ones who were leading in the Kino, etc.

    Now, I’m personally not a fan of moving things that quickly, for security reasons and so forth – a guy can never be too careful in my book – but the fact remains that you really don’t need to do the “90 Days” thing that Steve Harvey talks about. I mean, I get his (and others, ahem) point, but that’s only true for the gals who are trying to screw up the attraction for you in the first place. In fact, usually, the guys who have “wine and dine” a gal? Their the ones who didn’t have the attraction in the first place, and while they can, in theory, build it up, I’d say it’s a 50/50 shot at best. That means, that your washout rate there is going to be fairly high.

    An oldhead mentor told me, many, many Moons ago, that a you will know if a Woman’s into you within about 60 seconds or so of meeting you; everything after that is about not screwing it up. This was eons before I knew anything about Game as we know it today, and I’ve found what he said to be gold. It also comports perfect with Game teachings in our time.

    Coop, get thee unto the field, young Man! Much to learn, you have.

    O.

  • J

    I have read little about courtesans, but when I read that little I had to admit to myself it sounded like an interesting job. If I had the ‘infinite-other-selves-in-infinite-other-universes’ thing going for me (us?) I (we? she?) might try it. I’d (she’d) want to be the look-but-don’t-touch sort, like a geisha.

    LOL Cosigned. I always thought that as long as you didn;t have to have sex with anyone you didn’t want, coutesan would be a great job. You get to dress up, alk about interesting stuff and hang out with cool guys. It doesn’t get better than that. 😉

  • @Herb
    You are forgetting the “slut shield” a woman that makes a “mistake” once or twice can find many ways to rationalize it, while getting a job specifically for sleeping with strangers/patrons is something hard to justify. Except for the classic “I was young and I needed the money”, YMMV.

  • J

    @Jackie

    Something that I think is at the root of the characters– and, indeed, the hookup culture– is this role of status. Lack of status makes Adam a “mean nerd” as J put it earlier; undeserved status makes Hoyt a selfish exploitative nimrod; grasping at status is what triggers Charlotte’s downfall– and what keeps her there….When status is divorced from any kind of classical virtue or morality, it’s like putting a contaminant in the water supply. Everything gets poisoned.

    Great observations!

    I will try to do what you said– confrontation is HARD for me. I will have to write a script, (“Why gives you the right to do that?” ) and practice

    If it makes you feel any better, I wasn’t good at confrontation as a young woman. I’m much better now, the combination of declining estrogen levels and being too old to give a damn, no doubt.

  • I’m much better now, the combination of declining estrogen levels and being too old to give a damn, no doubt.

    Heh I will say that getting older has helped me to be more secure too, I’m also more comfortable about being myself. Youth is wasted on the young indeed.

  • J

    @Esco

    He is not working class, he is middle class but saw his standard of living decline after his parents’ divorce.

    On a practical level, what’s the big difference? He still needs the academic schlarship which he worked hard for and the work-study job as well as the pizza delivery job. And despite it all he lives in hole in the wall.

    He did not pull himself up from his bootstraps or anything.

    He workd harder than any other kid in the book.

    Yes, he has to work to get through school but he chooses to participate in a corrupt system.

    Because when he took the job they told him straight out he’d be writing papers for jocks?

    He never feels any remorse for that at all. JoJo does. JoJo reforms based on internal pressure alone.

    OK. I’ll agree there for the most part. Although I do think Charlotte’s reaction to him plays a part.

    Adam in a sense has it much easier than Jojo because Adam is smart and Dupont and the whole meritocratic elite is all about brains. Adam can win that game just by showing up.

    Jojo wins a free ride, a nice place to live, access to a fancy car, satus, etc because he is big, blond and athletic. Professors give him automatic passing grades whether he shows up or not.

    And there is no “fine line” between helping and doing the work. Writing the paper is doing the work, pure and simple.

    The tutors’ manual says he’s supposed to do whatever he has to “to help” the student athelete (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). The coach and college president doubletalk that point to him. Clearly, he was expected to write that paper even if they were going to throw him under the bus for it later.

    I think his blow off of Charlotte is quite low, not that she cares that much, but it shows what a douche he is. He was, so he thought, desperately in love with her but as soon as he gets a taste of fame, he can no longer care less.

    I think he knows that she doesn’t want him by this point and that he has made himself look beat by allowing her to see his weakness. He is correct on that point as well. He’s blown what little chance he ever had, and he knows it. He doesn’t stick around for LJBF, even though he would have willing swallowed the loss of virginity to Hoyt had she returned his affections.

    Jojo on the other hand absolutely did have to overcome a much more difficult youth than Adam

    I don’t recall a hardship back story for Jojo (though not recalling things is becoming more frequent for me lately.)

    and has had to work very hard to be where he is, he’s just had to work at sports rather than academics. I don’t dispute that he’s been pampered for a while but getting to that point required a lot of pain.

    By practicing hard? I can’t sympathize with that. Anyone who wants to acheive has to practice.

    Remember the stuff about how his father dropped him off at inner city basketball courts to fend for himself?

    No, but at least he had a father who was involved.

    Maybe our difference of opinion is less about the book and more about where our sympathies lie IRL. I can’t see a pampered athlete who probably doesn’t really belong at an Ivy but gets a free ride there as having to overcome adversity. If I taught at DuPont, I’d be Quat. Catering to the jocks would drive me insane. And, as a formerly working class, smart kid who fought her way out and then married a smart guy who grew up on welfare, I can’t fault Adam for being a bit of weasel to survive. But that’s just me, I guess.

  • J

    LOL. Glad we’e back on the same page. 😉

    Did you hear about his “Three Stooges” incident?

    No, tell me.

  • J

    @Ana

    Aging has its perks. Especially if you’re healthy.

  • Ian

    Woah, is that really what it takes to get girls? I know, I know, why is a girl asking a guy about girls’ brains… But anyone who tried to intimidate, insult, or randomly give me stress I avoided and saw as an enemy…Are there personality types that are more likely to be affected by your system? (I am INTJ -not THAT INTJ -and just won’t use my time and energy on something like that. I will walk away and go read about dead Presidents.)

    NFP’s are more susceptible to intimidation, SFJ’s more to social cues.

    Working theory: Women respond to stress with oxytocin, estrogen makes oxytocin more effective; high-estrogen (pretty) and easily stressed (Jungian N) women are more affected by that kind of negative stress. There’s also something about birth control reducing its effectiveness; I’ve read some chatter that progesterone disrupts oxytocin systems a bit.

    Stressing, awe, verbal/sexual dominance, aggressiveness, dangerous men; methinks tingles thisway come, and I’m inclined to skip the protector rationalization, since the same mechanism is used for other vertebrates.

    That said, I have close INTP and INFJ friends that are semi-immune to it, while TJ women and I have always clashed, and not in a high-chemistry way.

  • @SW

    That’s a shame, because young people want relationships and can benefit from getting practice in relationships.

    Careful…
    http://www.sdrg.org/ResearchBrief_Jan2011.pdf
    The person doing the dumping probably sees a failed relationship as a positive experience. My sense is that mutual breakups are far less common today than they were when you boomers were young.

    You’ve mentioned bifurcation before, I believe. It doesn’t just refer to N, but spans all aspects of dating and relationship experience IMO. There’s a stark comparison between very monogamous people with limited experience who settle down for good vs. those who just never settle down period. I think the CDC/Census and all the data you’ve cited here bear this out.

    • @Megaman

      It’s clear that breakups are incredibly stressful for young people. I wonder if that was always true, or if they are more stressful now. And if the latter, why is that?

      You may have noticed the high percentage of men who cheated during the hooking up study that was all males. I assume the female cheating levels are similar. I think we have to consider what “relationship” means today. Many times it’s a sexual relationship that leads to an ultimatum, i.e. “We’re in one, or we’re done.” It’s not a great basis for emotional intimacy, and often one partner is reluctant.

      I’ve seen young people feeling very cynical and jaded about relationships by the age of 21. Ultimately, I think we need to ask what kind of relationship foundation hooking up creates – putting the physical intimacy before the emotional intimacy may not work so well…

  • Jackie

    @Sai
    “Wait, there’s a cage fight now? TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES~”

    I would pay good money to see this! And I bet I’m not the only one. 😉

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Waiting for sex seems like a fine idea, just keep your emotional distance and keep your backup options handy. She’s not investing and considering your wants, why the hell should you invest and place hers on a pedestal? You have your own crap to do, and by all means dump her in a second if you feel you are waiting too long, investing too much, or have better options somewhere else.

    Especially if she has a habit of having flings. Nuh-uh. You don’t commit to that unless you have DAMN good reason.

    Also, Coop, it’s your responsibility to physically escalate. Hell, I won’t even say push for sex, I say just get into the mindset where you think it is okay to PUSH FOR WHAT YOU WANT.

  • Jackie

    @J, Herb, Ana

    “LOL Cosigned. I always thought that as long as you didn;t have to have sex with anyone you didn’t want, coutesan would be a great job. You get to dress up, alk about interesting stuff and hang out with cool guys. It doesn’t get better than that. ”
    ====
    Me too! If there wasn’t all the sex stuff involved, I would love to be some kind of courtesan or geisha! Have you guys ever read the book _Memoirs of a Geisha_? I remember how much intricate training was involved in so many things– the tea ceremony, dance, performing on musical instruments, quick wit and being able to be flirtatious without even a hint of sluttitude.

    I was thinking about my mom’s cotillion training and charm school stuff. There were all these kind of awesome things you had to learn: social dance, how to deflect an untoward pass smoothly, the correct etiquette for the lemon slice in your drink… The whole purpose was to able to perform social rituals with polish and charm.

    I’m not saying I would be good at it 😉 but I have had a couple different guys invite me to be their escort (not THAT kind of escort!) for work-related dinners.

    The implicit social contract was that I would be able to make them look good to their bosses, while getting to go to a nice place with good company. The guys who invited me were cool about taking care of plane ticket (if necessary) and my own hotel room (expense account).

    Obviously, you can’t make a career out of it, but I really had a good time with my experiences!

  • Jackie

    @J
    “Something that I think is at the root of the characters– and, indeed, the hookup culture– is this role of status. Lack of status makes Adam a “mean nerd” as J put it earlier; undeserved status makes Hoyt a selfish exploitative nimrod; grasping at status is what triggers Charlotte’s downfall– and what keeps her there….When status is divorced from any kind of classical virtue or morality, it’s like putting a contaminant in the water supply. Everything gets poisoned.

    Great observations!”

    😳
    Thanks, J!!!
    :mrgreen:

  • Me too! If there wasn’t all the sex stuff involved, I would love to be some kind of courtesan or geisha!

    Heh sorry gals I would had never try to be a courtesan. There is a saying I like “Better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven”.
    A courtesan that fell in disgrace had a lot of problems and little places to go but prostitution and some of them were killed in many ways, not all was glamor and education it was a gamble and I’m not fond of gambling myself, YMMV.

    Have you guys ever read the book _Memoirs of a Geisha_? I remember how much intricate training was involved in so many things– the tea ceremony, dance, performing on musical instruments, quick wit and being able to be flirtatious without even a hint of sluttitude.

    That book has issues, probably the descriptions are right though:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_a_geisha#Controversy

  • Jackie

    @Ana
    “A courtesan that fell in disgrace had a lot of problems and little places to go but prostitution and some of them were killed in many ways, not all was glamor and education it was a gamble and I’m not fond of gambling myself, YMMV.”

    You have a point!

    Ana, have you ever seen the space opera “Firefly” tv show? It takes place in the future, and there is a courtesan who has a higher social ranking than anyone else. Even if you disagree, the series is really good!

    PS: Did you get the pics I sent you of my cats? 😉

  • Ana, have you ever seen the space opera “Firefly” tv show? It takes place in the future, and there is a courtesan who has a higher social ranking than anyone else. Even if you disagree, the series is really good!

    Oh they cancelled Dark Angel (Sci- Fi TV series with mutants and Jessica Alba acting the best she ever did playing one of the few “Triracial” characters on TV that I could identify with, no to mention a wonderful couple Max and Logan) to give Firefly a chance. I could never give it a chance after that. *nerdrage*
    Also Joss Whedon keeps killing my ships/lovable characters just because he doesn’t believe in love happiness or some crap like that…. there is a point when is not funny anymore and kind of repetitive I do know about the courtesan and some of the crew members profiles, but I’m familiar with the concept in Star Trek there were a lot of episodes that involved prostitutes and courtesans and many times the female leads posed as one to do their job so it can work as a literary device but some things are better to be left in fantasyland.

    PS: Did you get the pics I sent you of my cats?

    Yes I have I wanted to sent you pics of my cat with the response to the email, but I need to pick a really cute one from almost a hundred. Being a cat lady is hard work 😉

  • Emily

    >> “Waiting for sex seems like a fine idea, just keep your emotional distance and keep your backup options handy. ”

    This seems fair. I don’t mind advice telling guys to physically escalate. IMO most girls expect some sort of escalation anyways. But I don’t like any advice that tells guys to dump girls for not putting out right away, especially when there are so many complaints that girls these days aren’t chaste enough. (As the guys like to say: Incentives drive behaviour!)

    As long as it’s consistent with her overall history (as in, she’s made every guy wait), it’s entirely possible that a girl who’s delaying sex is still very interested. In a situation like this, you can still test her interest and make her more comfortable by using the “kino” suggestion” that Sassy mentioned earlier.

  • Abbot

    “there are so many complaints that girls these days aren’t chaste enough”

    Why do men who want to deeply bond with a girl feel unhappy about that?

    “As long as it’s consistent with her overall history (as in, she’s made every guy wait), it’s entirely possible that a girl who’s delaying sex is still very interested.”

    Her “wait history” is much more of an indicator of her being worth the wait than whether she is interested/attracted.

  • Zach

    @Emily

    Key point being it has to be ENTIRELY consistent with her overall history. As in EVERY guy must have been made to wait. If the guy she’s making wait finds out she had even one previous ONS, and he’s been on 4 dates with her and has nothing, it’s done (unless he’s a total loser).

    On a side note, every girl’s favorite line “I’ve never done this before!” or “I can’t believe you got me to do that!” are completely, totally not credible or believable. You’re only fooling yourself with that one.

  • Abbot

    “EVERY guy must have been made to wait”

    When Remakers discover just how universal this standard is among men the reaction is denial, followed by anger, bargaining, depression and yes, its coming – acceptance.

    ““I’ve never done this before!” or “I can’t believe you got me to do that!” are completely, totally not credible or believable.”

    Use of such terms is now rampant and an admission that women know exactly how men think of sluts, their willingness to dupe a man to get him to think otherwise and a testament to the massive shortage of men wiling to look the other way.

  • Just a thought

    Zach, but what if you have never done that before. 🙂
    Obsidian, some people in college perhaps shouldn’t go. For example, IHMO, if you are studying writing/literature you probably should not go to college unless you have a full-ride. But if you want to go into a profession, lawyer, doctors, business, you often really need to go to college. I don’t think we should scrap higher education.
    1. Imo, the best fix for the hook up culture would be a re-imagining of college. College should be marketed as mostly an academic place without many/if any parties. Those who go to college, should not be encouraged to ” have fun, find yourself” and other nonsense. Find yourself in your own time, when you have a job.
    2. Colleges should get into the matchmaking business. There should be mixing events like ” find your true love/partner) Meet someone you care about at this mixer! We already know that monogamous relationships offer emotional protection, so why shouldn’t colleges promote them
    3. To solve the problems of student loans… Colleges should take bets on college students. The government should get out of the business of funding education. Colleges should accept students for free, educate them and then take a percentage of their earnings for a certain number of years as profit. this would force costs to become cheaper, eliminate debts and push colleges to stop sending graduates out into the world with few real skills. It would also save young people from being trapped in endless student debt.

  • Just a thought

    Also, I just saw a strange statistic.
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763219.html
    apparently, more men have never been married than women, an exact reversal of previous trends. Do those numbers represents depressed omegas, you think? Or perhaps betas opting out?

  • Abbot

    “more men have never been married than women”

    cow…milk…free

    and wisdom

  • Ramble

    Just a Thought, those stats might be problematic since they only show 1970 (and then much later years). There were a lot of dead young men in 1970 because of Viet Nam.

  • Zach, what if the “I’ve never done this before” comes from the guy? More believable then?

    Anacaona, I agree with you about courtesans and geishas. To me, it’s not that different from say, “exotic dancing” or even “phone sex hotline” work. I don’t care if it’s high status or low status. It just feels wrong somehow. I’m not able to charm or flirt with other people once my heart is “taken.” I want the genuine love between me and my beloved, not pretend in exchange for resources.

  • Interesting set of studies, purporting to show the influence of male/female mix in a population on the propensity of men to spend or save money:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-number-of-women-around-affects-what-men-will-spend-on-a-date-2012-8

    …unlike many stories of this type, there is actually a link to the underlying research paper, which looks to be better-written than the typical academic piece.

  • Just a Thought…”To solve the problems of student loans… Colleges should take bets on college students. The government should get out of the business of funding education. Colleges should accept students for free, educate them and then take a percentage of their earnings for a certain number of years as profit.”

    I don’t think it’s necessary to go this far…student loan programs should simply require the college to have a significant portion of the loan…20%, say…at risk. Having “skin in the game” would act as a very sobering influence on these institutions.

    More than 40 years ago, the great thinker Peter Drucker wrote that universities…and educators generally…had become very powerful entities within our society, but had not developed any corresponding sense of responsibility. It’s even truer now than when he wrote it.

    When a company files an S-1 to go public, or a 10-K for its annual report, it must include a disclosure of risks to investors…these sections are usually several pages long. The typical family will invest considerably more money in college education than in any particular stock, but there is no corresponding attempt at disclosing risks for specific universities or degree types.

  • Ramble

    … the great thinker Peter Drucker wrote …

    Drucker was absolutely brilliant.

    My understanding is that he could have set up some major consulting company called Drucker Inc (or whatever) and had made many millions, but he chose not to.

    He always cared about the truth, regardless of where it lead. My kind of guy.

  • J

    A courtesan that fell in disgrace had a lot of problems and little places to go but prostitution and some of them were killed in many ways, not all was glamor and education it was a gamble and I’m not fond of gambling myself, YMMV.

    That would be a problem.

    I never gamble without really hedging my bets. When I was in my 20s, my dad and his buddies took me to a horserace. After they explained the process, it occured to me that if I bet the three top rated horses to show (come in third or better), I really couldn’t lose. I came out of each race even or with a small profit. My dad’s friends found the cautiousness of my bets hysterically funny–until the end of the day when I had money in my pockets and they didn’t.

    I wasn’t sure exactly what a courtesan was, so I googled. Apparently the term describes a wide variety of roles ranging from fancier prostitute to an intellectual or artistic woman who provides intellectual stimulation and entertainment but is sexually involved with only one man, her patron, who might provide for her into old age. Some ended up on the streets, others as the wives or wealthy or noble men. Actresses were often courtesans and some courtesans wielded political influence at royal courts (hence the origin of the term).

    I strikes me that at the high end, it was both high risk and high reward. I find that interesting in the light of an earlier convo on this thread about actresses, dancers and promiscuity. Some years ago, some Israeli geneticists found that many dancers carry a gene for risktaking. It’s no great leap to hypothesize that female risktakers might enjoy a sexual gamble.

    An intersting sidenote: Israel is home to the last Jewish woman trained as a ballerina in Nazi Germany. She left school and ran for her life. She is currently in her 90s and the grandmother of a man most famous for running naked through the streets, wrestling fat men and staging cage fights for rednecks while pretending to be gay. I would assume she carries a gene for risktaking.

  • example, IHMO, if you are studying writing/literature you probably should not go to college unless you have a full-ride.

    Yeah I always though that spending a lot of money on “theoretical” degree makes no sense you can learn plenty of medieval literature reading the right books and authors. There is college great courses that sell very well with some modification and just paying a fee for test and license the kids interested on this type of degrees could get them without spending too much money and then try to gain employment with practical courses or other type of degrees. I mean I can see why medicine is expensive but most of the majors are just smoke and mirrors, IMO, YMMV.

    Anacaona, I agree with you about courtesans and geishas. To me, it’s not that different from say, “exotic dancing” or even “phone sex hotline” work.

    I already mentioned that I would be okay with exotic dancing but again we had the culture of vedettes in which dancing sexually and half naked/barely dressed wasn’t even connected to sex in fact most of the famous vedettes we had growing up had a reputation of good girls, virgins and married young. Phone sex? Talking dirty to a man that is not my husband is not appealing at all to me either.

    The typical family will invest considerably more money in college education than in any particular stock, but there is no corresponding attempt at disclosing risks for specific universities or degree types.

    THIS oh so much.
    This seems to be a blind spot everyone here assumes that the jobs will be there as soon as their kids graduate, not how it works at all.

  • szopen

    Seems to me that Mrs Welsh has put enough evidence to put a stake through the heart of the “20% males get 80% females”. For those, for whom this is hard to accept, remember that you may be simply suffering from the confirmation bias:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    Actually everyone are influenced confirmation bias, even those, who are aware of this and try consciously to avoid it. I was biased too and that’s why I searched holes in Mrs. Welsh data and reasoning, but seems to me there a none and she’s right.

    @all who write “not all males like low count girls”
    Sure. But some do and it does not seem to me that they will change.

    • @szopen

      Seems to me that Mrs Welsh has put enough evidence to put a stake through the heart of the “20% males get 80% females”. For those, for whom this is hard to accept, remember that you may be simply suffering from the confirmation bias…I was biased too and that’s why I searched holes in Mrs. Welsh data and reasoning, but seems to me there a none and she’s right.

      Thanks for this. I did the work to satisfy my own curiosity. As I said here recently, if I get something this major wrong I will fail as a blogger. More importantly, I will be of no use to young people, whose strategies must reflect the actual environment. Analyzing the market is always the most important part of formulating strategy.

      I understand that the data makes many men uncomfortable, and I didn’t really expect too many white flags to be raised. The finding that half the freshmen and sophomore males in a study got laid in one semester directly contradicts the “20% of guys” part, and the consistency of the data re the number of sexual partners for both sexes demonstrates that few women or men are promiscuous. It really is more like “4% of the guys are having regular hookup sex with 4% of the girls.” This directly contradicts claims about dominance, female hypergamy, the alleged repulsion women feel for betas, and the mostly riderless alpha cock carousel.

  • Ramble…Drucker…A guy who worked for me mentioned over dinner one night that he’d taken a course from Drucker in college. Not a business course, though: Oriental Art. Drucker was amazingly broad in his interests and knowledge.

    He wrote a great semi-autobiography, called Adventures of a Bystander, focusing on interesting people he’d known, from his 4th grade teachers in Austria to Henry Luce of Time Inc to the Dutch banker with seven wives. Highly recommended.

  • Anacaona, but those dancers quit once they get married, right? Maybe I’m just old-fashioned about this. I don’t know any guy without a cuckold fetish who’d want other men to see his wife half-naked or in very skimpy clothing.

  • Abbot

    ““not all males like low count girls”

    Depends on the goal, of course.

  • INTJ

    @ Just a thought

    Also, I just saw a strange statistic.
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763219.html
    apparently, more men have never been married than women, an exact reversal of previous trends. Do those numbers represents depressed omegas, you think? Or perhaps betas opting out?

    Interesting. My first reaction was that it simply showed the age difference – young women are more likely to have been married than their male counterparts because the men wait longer (either by choice or force) to get married. But the difference persists to higher ages too. I’d venture that this is due to preselection. Basically let’s say there are two men and two women in a particular society. One of the men and one of the women get married to each other. They then get divorced and the man marries the other woman (due to preselection). Only one man has ever been married, but both women have.

  • I think it may be more accurate to state that “20% of the men get 80% of the available sex in the system”. Let’s say that there are 100 men in a sample and 100 “N”—independent sexual encounters*—available to that 100 men. You throw the men and the N opportunities into the machine and see what comes out.

    If it was a completely fair system (from a numbers point of view), then you would find that each man emerged with N=1. All of the available sex was used up and spread equally around—everyone pair-bonded once and that was it.

    In a completely unfair, elephant seal-type setting with a vicious dominance hierarchy in place and heavily favoring the alpha bull, you might see two guys with N=50 and the rest with N=0, or even one hypersexual guy with N=100 and the rest with N=0.

    I’m making the incredible simplifying assumption here that this is a zero-sum game: one woman sleeps with a man and then she has to leave the pool. In reality, of course, she doesn’t have to leave the pool. That available 100 N units figure could be the result of many different female behavioral combinations. One promiscuous woman could sleep with all 100 men, and then each man could report N=1. Or it could be a wild orgy in which 100 promiscuous women could each sleep with every man, so that each man reported N=100 (and each woman had N=100, too). This could be a very complicated thing to model in the real world.

    The reality surrounding male sexual access appears to be a type of power law distribution resembling those that show up in many other social phenomena, including income. Maybe it is best depicted by a hyperbolic “Lotka Curve” of the type that Charles Murray found when he was researching human achievement in the arts and sciences.

    • @BB

      I think it may be more accurate to state that “20% of the men get 80% of the available sex in the system”

      Here’s the first post I wrote investigating that exact claim:

      It’s generally accepted in the manosphere that 20% of the men get 80% of the women. When I first heard this statistic, I thought it was so intuitively obvious that I wrote a post endorsing it. Since then, I’ve come across the idea repeatedly, though the application of the 80/20 rule varies. Sometimes it’s stated that 20% of the men get 80% of the sex, which is actually a very different claim. Regular reader Hollenhund espoused this view:

      I think an accurate definition of the 80/20 rule is in order. As far as I know it means that 20% of all men ‘get’ 80% of all (i.e. pre-marital and marital) heterosexual intercourse. For example: if a man has sex with his young hot wife 3 times everyday, he belongs to that 20%.

      Judging by all the stats it seems to me that a small minority of men (the alphas) are essentially ‘passing around’ between themselves a somewhat equally small % of all women (the sluts). The big difference is that alphas are willing to have casual sex with women below their own sexual market value but pretty girls aren’t having sex with men below their own sexual market value. That is, in my opinion, the main cause of the imbalance.

      Using the proxy of total unmarried acts of intercourse compared to married acts of intercourse, we find that 35% of sex in the U.S. each year is had by unmarried men, and 65% by married men.* This does not precisely measure the distribution of sex according to alpha or beta traits, obviously, but is the closest approximation we may make given the available data. His theory that a relatively small number of promiscuous men is having sex with a relatively small number of promiscuous women is also supported by the data.

      The demonstrated applications of the Pareto Principle to the sexual marketplace suggest that marriage is the most effective way of getting regular access to frequent sex. It also confirms that the vast majority of American women and men are conservative in their sexual habits.

      https://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/

  • Emily

    >> “Alright, girls. Define it, and be specific. And saying things like, “don’t be feminine”, or “be assertive, but not TOO assertive” are not helpful.”

    Haha that would be nice. Unfortunately nothing in this world is ever that simple… 😉

    My completely unhelpful (but true!) answer is that it depends on the girl. *Very* few girls are attracted to wimps, but the amount of machismo that they prefer will vary.

  • Emily

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I totally posted this in the wrong comment thread. #fail

  • Abbot

    “20% of the men get 80% of the available sex in the system”

    There is no motivation for women who are active in the system to want it any other way…therefore, that is how it is.

  • Anacaona, but those dancers quit once they get married, right? Maybe I’m just old-fashioned about this. I don’t know any guy without a cuckold fetish who’d want other men to see his wife half-naked or in very skimpy clothing.

    Actually no. Many are still active and married and have children, many of them married their agents though so it might be a small cohort of men that are okay with this. For us is just a job and I don’t think see it as cuckold the dancers are not to be touched just seen, ballerinas get more touched than vedettes if you think about it and if they make good money and enjoy it why would they oppose? As long as they don’t go out with the clients. I know at least 3 that are married and my husband’s had a college friend that was a preacher’s daughter who paid her way to college stripping so yeah, YMMV.

  • Some years ago, some Israeli geneticists found that many dancers carry a gene for risktaking. It’s no great leap to hypothesize that female risktakers might enjoy a sexual gamble.

    Yeah one of the things I’m doing is taking note of the “sluts” behaviours in comparison with the “non sluts” Hope and I for example don’t spent a lot of money on clothes (God knows I bought only the necessary for my maternity hubby makes so much fun of me for that) and so far I haven’t found a cheap slut just yet, they just loooove to indulge themselves on material things regardless if they can afford it or not or even if they ended up not using it…is crazy. Cads also have a different set of likings from nice guys as much as men here say that all men are the same “good guys” have different attraction triggers and I do think they might not be as “mesmerized” by sluts as other men are.
    Of course I don’t have a lot of experience with good guys so is data I need to gather but I do think sexual behaviour is just a last manifestation of a series of personality markers. It would be interesting because if we manage to identify certain red flags, that might help some people (hopefully our kids) to pick mates that will be long lasting and successful, YMMV.

  • @Ramble

    Just a Thought, those stats might be problematic since they only show 1970 (and then much later years). There were a lot of dead young men in 1970 because of Viet Nam.

    US casualties were under 60k in ‘nam and many were already married (and some were women). Although historically was has caused excess spinsters, Vietnam was not one of them.

  • Ramble

    [Even though it is the wrong thread, I will also respond here]

    My completely unhelpful (but true!) answer is that it depends on the girl.

    Right, but generalizations help.

    For instance, think of how often girls say they like confidence. That is a grand generalization, and different girls appreciate different amounts of confidence, but it is helpful. If only as a starting point.

    Same thing with pointing out that girls, in general, prefer taller guys. Blah blah blah spectrum, but it helps. Well, not really, a guy can’t learn to be taller, but you see where I am going.

    In short, using generalizations to create specific advice is a helpful, though not perfect, start.

  • Ramble

    US casualties were under 60k in ‘nam and many were already married (and some were women).

    Right. But regardless of the number of young men that were killed, many were also seriously injured and maimed, and, mayeb most importantly, they were half way around the world, likely preventing young women from marrying them.

    The point is: stats from, say, 1968-1973 (at the heart of the war) are possibly quite different from, say, stats from the late 70’s, regardless of any cultural changes. Cross referencing with Canada might help in this case.

  • Ramble, here’s a starting template of “masculine” that should have wide appeal.

    Man, 6′ or a little taller, in-shape, muscular and toned. Doesn’t smell like flowers or perfume. No significant belly fat, no man boobs, no makeup.

    Speaks in a slow, deliberate manner, voice is manly, not high or squeaky, and sounds self-assured. Sometimes throws out a joke or wisecrack, but not constantly. Maintains eye contact without crazy glare. Courteous, not overeager or too try hard. When speaking to an attractive woman, does not treat her as any more special than anyone else.

    Moves confidently, doesn’t try to shrink himself down by slouching, holds himself steady, and walks with long strides instead of shuffling. Has a firm and strong handshake. Appears aware of his surroundings, relaxed but also alert. Leans back and leaves personal space.

    Able to perform decently in at least one sport, such as baseball, basketball, biking, rock climbing, golfing or shooting. Knows his way around a hardware store and a toolbox. Remains calm and collected in emergency situations, not frozen or panicked, and takes deliberate action.

    What do you think? Individual women might have different tastes about cultural/class indicators, or want more negging or swagger, but I think most would agree that this is a masculine man.

    • @Hope

      I haven’t been involved in the conversation till now, but I personally do not equate masculinity with height. In fact, Peter Dinklage in GOT is one of the most masculine actors I can think of.

  • Ramble

    Hope, that was great.

    I especially liked the “no makeup” bit.

    Maintains eye contact without crazy glare.

    I will reveal something about myself. I had to learn this. I could maintain eye contact during conversations, but, if some girl started eyeing me from across the way, I either averted my eyes like a little bitch, or I stared.

    This is one of the few important things I learned from “Game”.

  • J

    one of the things I’m doing is taking note of the “sluts” behaviours in comparison with the “non sluts” Hope and I for example don’t spent a lot of money on clothes

    Me neither, though I love sales.

  • Ramble

    I haven’t been involved in the conversation till now, but I personally do not equate masculinity with height. In fact, Peter Dinklage in GOT is one of the most masculine actors I can think of.

    Fine, but, if I can speak for Hope, she was attempting to use generalizations while being specific.

    So, more than a few shorter guys are seen as masculine, but, we can generalize and say that women are, in general, attracted to taller men.

  • J

    @Ramble

    I’ll weigh in on Hope’s list.

    Hope, thanks for starting the ball rolling. You are good at observing and describing this stuff.

    Man, 6′ or a little taller–meh, I don’t care about height as long as a guy is half a head taller than me.

    in-shape, muscular and toned–nice, less necssary as we age

    Doesn’t smell like flowers or perfume.–I like Old Spice; call me old-fashioned.

    No significant belly fat, no man boobs, no makeup.–Agreed.

    Speaks in a slow, deliberate manner, voice is manly, not high or squeaky, and sounds self-assured. Sometimes throws out a joke or wisecrack, but not constantly. Maintains eye contact without crazy glare. Courteous, not overeager or too try hard. –Strongly agree.

    When speaking to an attractive woman, does not treat her as any more special than anyone else.–Is this speaking to any attractive woman or to me? I like to feel special to a man. In fact, I think most women who don’t get that from a husband at least once in a while have significant problems with it. Roissy is big on a man giving back 2/3 of what a woman gives, but frankly I’d give up on a guy like that after a while.

    Moves confidently, doesn’t try to shrink himself down by slouching, holds himself steady, and walks with long strides instead of shuffling. Has a firm and strong handshake. Appears aware of his surroundings, relaxed but also alert. Leans back and leaves personal space.–Strongly agree.

    Able to perform decently in at least one sport, such as baseball, basketball, biking, rock climbing, golfing or shooting.–Meh. I prefer artsy guys and musicians to athletes.

    Knows his way around a hardware store and a toolbox.–That’s nice but not a requirement. I’d go more general and say needs to show competence at something of value. I’m mean, if you’re married to a surgeon or a pianist, who cares if he can fix a lamp?

    Remains calm and collected in emergency situations, not frozen or panicked, and takes deliberate action.–Oh yes–and no anger or complaining either. Just solve the problem; the ability to do so without emoting shows self-confidence and inspires trust.

    Hey Hope–I sometimes have trouble accessing your blog, but I did eventually read your post about the desert adventure. That was cool.

  • @SW

    I think we have to consider what “relationship” means today.

    Agreed. And I don’t see an overabundance of men offering honest commitment. Women who penalize guys who are candid about wanting an actual serious relationship do so at their own peril. The greatest incentive produced in the current SMP is probably the desire to get out of it and settle down with someone compatible, sooner rather than later…

    As for frequency of sex:
    http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#frequency
    Married guys appear to have the lion’s share, both quantity and probably quality as well. The 80/20 theory is interesting, but maybe only descriptive of NSA behavior. Perhaps some kind of similar X/Y measure of happiness and sexual satisfaction could me done for the monogamous population?

  • Thanks Ramble and J. I was trying to be more generic, so the musician/artist angle was not explored. FWIW my husband plays the guitar and loves music and art, but it’s not automatically a masculine display.

    A girl can have different attraction triggers but still acknowledge masculinity in certain generic male “types.” Likewise with height, muscles, etc.

  • J

    I wasn’t denying the validity of your list, just adding some grace notes/variations.

    I think it’s interesting that the things we agreed on were core masculine traits and the things we disagreed on were basically tastes.

    I think it would be great if Susan developed this into a post like she did with our girl game lists. It would provide a group opportunity for all the women to weigh in. Then we could pull out some core traits that might be both enough and general enough to help Ramble and others.

    • I think it would be great if Susan developed this into a post like she did with our girl game lists. It would provide a group opportunity for all the women to weigh in. Then we could pull out some core traits that might be both enough and general enough to help Ramble and others.

      Noted!

  • @Ms. Walsh #106:
    “Young people going off to work in the big city. Nothing new there. For college graduates, New York City is one of the easiest places to find a job in the United States, especially a good paying job.”

    O: Like I said, it ain’t like NYC is the *only place on planet Earth* to get work, even halfway decent paying work.

    “If you have data that shows why women move there, or proves that it’s based on chasing a SATC lifestyle, let’s have it.”

    O: Listen, it ain’t even that deep, Ms. Walsh. It really, truly isn’t. Women go to NYC for a number of reasons, that’s all I’m saying. I’m good with it, but let’s call things for what they are.

    O.

  • @Bastiat #104:
    “Re: draconian on-campus policies.”

    O: Whoa, partner. Who said anything about “draconian policies”? None of what I said or suggested is “draconian”; it’s just good commonsense, and everyone here knows it.

    “I for one don’t want college campuses to be run by committees of central-planning enthusiasts looking to impose their top-down social engineering experiments on young adults.”

    O: No, you’re just good with the nearly half a century of intensive and aggressive social engineering that, as Ms. Walsh’s data clearly shows, and which fully comports with the findings of Ms. Heather MacDonald, the vast majority of today’s college students don’t want. Hmm.

    “We’re dealing with complex adaptive social systems—lots of things may sound like great ideas, but will end up having unintended, hideously perverse consequences when second and third-order effects are properly accounted for.”

    O: OK – B, what “second and third order effects and unintended consequences” could possibly arise out of looking to find more proactive ways for young people to get together? What “unintended consequences” could accrue by bringing back single sex on-campus dorms? Please explain?

    “I’d rather have some Girls Gone Wild slutfest Hook-Up Culture ^ 3 than a neo-fascist fantasy world of coercive breeding experiments.”

    O: Why? When we know that for every “Girl Gone Wild” who finally straightens out and flies right, we have easily one Jessica Shairer – if not several? Are you cool with that kind of tradeoff?

    “We’re talking about a cohort of “adults” who have, as a group, been unmitigated disasters when it came to managing their own affairs—divorces, family law, substance abuse, public finances, political corruption.”

    O: OK – so how many parents of kids are paragons of virtue? Does that mean that they shouldn’t even try to help their kids stay on the straight and narrow? I’m seeing a lot of naked self-interest and blind ideology coming out here, but very little in the way of actually solving problems.

    “I wouldn’t trust most of them to manage a pillow fight, let alone some kind of makeshift eugenics program.”

    O: Nobody is suggesting a “eugenics program”, unless you think existing frat parties are eugenics programs, LOL. Relax. 🙂

    “It’s helicopter parenting taken to perhaps its final, terminal state of micromanagement, where a college campus becomes a kind of white collar prison.”

    O: Oh, come on. That’s rubbish and you know it, what’s been going on at the college campus is a heck of a lot closer to all that, and we all know it.

    “If they do want to practice central planning, perhaps they should change the admissions process and make women more scarce on campus. The rest will surely follow at some point.”

    O: The rest of who will surely follow? I’m not following your statement here.

    “Yes, it would set feminism back. Yes, it would make women more dependent on male breadwinners. I personally don’t think it would be a good idea to mess around with this very much at all, but it probably would kill off hook-up culture if that was truly the goal.”

    O: I think you’re arguing for something that’s even more “draconian” than I have suggested, oddly enough.

    “Re: Guttentag-Secord and Obsidian’s remarks about men left without chairs when the music stops. The theory does predicts increased levels of territorial aggression and violence among men when women/sexual outlets become more scarce. Campuses with percentages of female students *should* be reporting less instances of violence between males, but I’m not sure if this is being realized.”

    O: Perhaps Ms. Walsh can give us a bit of insight on this. All’s I know is, that down through human evolutionary history, more guys than gals were left holding the bag when the music stopped. In my view, that’s not a good thing for any society…

    O.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Agreed x 1000 on the guy game list. Actually, why bother, here it is:
    http://www.bakadesuyo.com/10-ways-science-explains-why-james-bond-is-so

    The basics of game, IE not shooting yourself in the fucking foot, is enough to boost you 2-3 points in SMV.

    After that learn to open and physically escalate and see what happens.

    @ Susan

    “I understand that the data makes many men uncomfortable, and I didn’t really expect too many white flags to be raised. ”

    Don’t rag on yourself too much, it takes a lot to change viewpoints. I’m more or less to agreeing with you on this after looking at the evidence, considering the mechanics, and considering my own life.

    I know a lot of girls with some real low Ns that just…suck with guys for whatever reason. No girl game, just like guys have no guy game. Low SMV=only hookup prospects are other low SMV and quite frankly that’s a pathetic option.

    But people with higher SMV have better options and do hook up from time to time with other SMV people.

    Maybe guys really are engaging in confirmation bias. Especially guys in the manosphere. These are guys who have dedicated themselves to increasing their SMV, and therefore are jumping into a tier with more promiscuous girls. And a lot of them are STR-oriented, which is going to tune them automatically towards more promiscuous girls, too.

    But what do I know, I am still guessing.

    Me? I am just going to work out. I think I boosted my SMV a full 3 points since learning game. Life stress and not exercising added on a good 10 pounds this year, time to work that back down. Add in some muscle and some better style, throw in some good game, I think I can be a solid 7.5-8. Not that I am looking to go back on the market, but it’s always nice to be sexy.

    • @ADBG

      . I think I boosted my SMV a full 3 points since learning game.

      That’s awesome!

      Not that I am looking to go back on the market, but it’s always nice to be sexy.

      Indeed, and it will pay dividends in a LTR as well. We focus more on women letting themselves go, but anyone who lets their appearance change a lot from the early attraction phase is asking for trouble.

  • @Bastiat #225:

    “Obsidian, re: your 4-point strategy for eliminating casual sex on campus. Perhaps I misunderstood you—my response was based on the idea that Congress—unable to pass a balanced budget amendment, unable to curtail special interest group legislation and pork, unable to prevent impending fiscal collapse, etc.—would draft some kind of complex legislation *forcing* campuses (at legal gunpoint) to declare a “War on Casual Fucks” national emergency and then begin the process of excommunicating the evil fornicators of the Greek system, going into bonded indebtedness in order to tear down buildings so that single-sex dorms could be constructed as far away from each other as possible, perhaps creating a secret police of informants (“Slutty Lisa gave a football player an unauthorized BJ six weeks ago—she should be expelled”), and so on.”

    O: LOL. No need to worry. We can do this with already existing infrastructure, and with a heck of a lot less pain and suffering, than in comparison to the Feminist Lobby, which has ram-rodded their ideological hobby horses down all our throats. My Four Point Plan is harmless, painless, and just makes good commonsense. Already have some evidence, right here in this very forum, that it could work, because a number of people, including Ms. Walsh I might add, agree with at least one of the items on my list of reforms.

    “I would have any number of problems with this approach, but for the sake of argument let’s take it a logical step further and have the government simply make 50% of colleges all-male and 50% dedicated all-female, and enforces curfews and so on by simultaneously imposing military academy-type discipline structures. So every college would be like a circa-1985 Citadel or VMI or a female equivalent. By law, there would not be any co-ed college campus in the United States.”

    O: No. I would not be in favor of a kind of Male Affirmative Action program, even in the face of lopsided sex ratios. If the Women students are applying to the colleges and they have the chops to get in, and the fellas don’t, the former deserves to be there. My Four Point Plan calls for reforming the college campus in a way to greatly reduce pre-existing hookup culture, which per Ms. Walsh’s researches has clearly been shown to be something the vast majority of the student body, Male and Female alike, do not want.

    Curfews on the other hand, I think is a good idea, as it would also curtail the incidence of knuckleheaded behavior and the like. And for those who moan at this, face it – if you have a job etc, you have a curfew, right? Sports teams have it; if you work for a big outfit and the like, if you want to keep working there, you have to adhere to some kind of curfew; what is wrong with that? Why is that bad?

    “As an aside, I have many stories about hook-up culture in the U.S. military—I was an officer in the Navy and can talk about “love boats”, prostitution rings, and all kinds of wild stuff.

    O: Yea, I bet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal

    That was NOT a good thing, not for the armed forces, and not for the country, B. And you know it.

    So, you’re a Swabbie, huh? I should’ve known better. I grew up in a Marine household, and from an early age, the following saying was drilled into my head:

    “Every Marine, a Rifleman.”

    It meant, in terms of my dad and grand dad, that EVERYONE in the home had a certain baseline set of skills and information, with which to navigate the world. In terms of this hookin up problem we’re dealing with and in the context of my Four Point Plan, I am proposing that we reform the existing college system in a way that gives EVERY student the tools and skills they need so they don’t get caught up, like Ms. Jessica Shairer did. What I’m discovering in this discussion, is that the assumption is that every young lady here and out on the college campuses of America is a Charlotte Simmons – when we know for a fact that this isn’t the case at all.

    “Anyway…the problem as I see it is that none of these are market-based solutions that attempt to actually position a product to serve a particular customer segment. A private college could easily market itself as “anti-hook-up/pro-LTR” (a big state school might have more difficulty simply because of all the stakeholders)”

    O: Actually, and I speak as a stakeholder, because my tax dollars is going to support these state schools, trust me, I/we wouldn’t have any problem in the least with what I am prposing per the Four Point Plan. The ONLY people who would oppose it are Ideologues – and they ain’t the only ones you might think.

    As for any private school, like say a Duke, or a Hillsdale, that’s paying its own freight, I’m all for whatever they want to do. But if they’re on my dime, then not only do I have some say in how it all goes down, but I think I have every right to try to offer some commonsensical solutions to a longstanding problem that has. Not. Been. Solved.

    “to the max and impose the kinds of measures that you discuss, as well as additional ones like mandatory Bible study, non-sexy androgynous school uniforms, and the like.”

    O: LOL, a bit less florrid huh, B?

    “It could do this in response to a projection of genuine customer demand, rather than as a response to blind top-down legislation.”

    O: Ain’t nothin’ “blind” about the hooking up problem and the casualties it leaves in its wake, in a myriad of ways. What I’m proposing addresses all of that very simply.

    “Capitalism is meant to be a system of profit AND loss—if few enrolled at this campus, of course, then it might have to close down or change to a more libertine posture.”

    O: Capitalism was supposed to mean a number of things, but all that went out the window four years ago, remember, B? I sure did, and so did a whole lot of Americans. If anything is blind and top-down, its the notion that Capitalism Unbounded could do the job just fine. It failed. Badly.

    “I have not done a search, but I would think that there must be some college options that include something like your plan, and those campuses probably do have a lower incidence of casual sex hook-ups. They might have other problems, though…”

    O: Not likely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsdale_College

    And let’s be clear on something: in no way am I arguing that young people can’t have relationships, get close, makeout, even have sex; what I am saying, is that the way things have been going over the past four decades simply haven’t worked out too well, and that we need a resolution, to quote the late great Aaliyah. And I think it can be done.

    “So parents who are indeed obsessed with the oral sex or hand job habits of unsupervised 19-year-olds are free to send young Tommy or Lisa off to such encampments for their 4 years of higher education/mandatory anti-casual sex indoctrination.”

    O: LOL. It ain’t like that at all, B. See above.

    “I personally think that hook-up culture is a symptom, not the far more complex disease itself, and that people need to directly feel the pain of hard trade-offs and sacrifices in order to be able to accurately weigh various lifestyle options and set priorities.”

    O: That sounds great until we have to contend with the Jessica Shairers of the world – or do “we”? I mean, do YOU have to contend with such ladies, B? It’s pretty clear that Ms. Walsh doesn’t, and she’s not alone. So, the rest of us are saddled with the failures of Montesorri College living. Not only is that fair, it’s not a good thing for the country, because at the end of the day, quiet as its kept, there’s a heck of a lot more Jessica Shairers, than there are Charlotte Simmons’.

    The Four Point Plan addresses all that.

    O.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    Following up on ADBG’s comments…

    What struck me about your presentation – a yeoman’s job by any estimation – is the realization that the Roosh Guy, and guys like him, aren’t likely to be swayed by it. Now, you could say that you don’t care to convince him and I can certainly dig that; but here’s the problem:

    I think what’s eating him and certain other guys in the ‘sphere, goes beyond a matter of data.

    I learned this earlier this Summer, while reading a book called A History of Rape by Thornhill and Palmer, along with another book by Steve Pinker called The Angels of Our Better Nature. Putting them together with the latest in FBI crime data and the like, tells me very clearly that rape and the like, have not only reached all-time lows in this country since the crime has been recorded and tracked, but that, per Pinker’s researches, has reached a *worldwide all-time low*.

    But, you see, not only will Feminists accept this – neither will Women in general. No matter how much data I or anyone else can bring to bear on the matter, rape will always be a concern to Women, fullstop.

    And I think the same can be said with regard to the Roosh Guy. Simply put, he has concerns that a small cabal of guys are getting laid like gangbusters, while all the other guys are getting in where they fit in.

    In both cases, I think they speak to evolutionary hardwiring. And which may not be able to be changed.

    At least not with even impressive presentations of data.

    O.

    • @Obsidian

      the Roosh Guy, and guys like him, aren’t likely to be swayed by it…he has concerns that a small cabal of guys are getting laid like gangbusters, while all the other guys are getting in where they fit in.

      That may be part of it, the fear of being a “have not” in the SMP. That would explain why these same men want to define a “winner” as someone with a high number of sexual partners – that’s the ultimate proof of abundance.

      I think there’s more to it, though. My hypothesis is that these guys are actually not that well suited to short-term mating. Part of the reason for that is that they are repulsed by promiscuous women, even as they rack up their numbers. The idea that they’ve learned Game and put in all this effort, only to wind up banging sluts is deeply disturbing. Although they’ve become mansluts themselves, they want to know they’ve successfully Gamed “good girls” who don’t put out for just anyone. They want to plant the flag where other guys have failed to go.

      Learning that most women do not in fact drop panties for players, even in the free for all college environment, rocks the foundation of their red pill understanding.

  • @INTJ:
    “Interesting. My first reaction was that it simply showed the age difference – young women are more likely to have been married than their male counterparts because the men wait longer (either by choice or force) to get married. But the difference persists to higher ages too. I’d venture that this is due to preselection. Basically let’s say there are two men and two women in a particular society. One of the men and one of the women get married to each other. They then get divorced and the man marries the other woman (due to preselection). Only one man has ever been married, but both women have.”

    O: BOOM! In Nature, Males are screwed.

    O.

  • @Ms. JAT:
    “Zach, but what if you have never done that before.”

    O: I’m sorry, but I have never heard any guy talking like that, I haven’t done it, was and is an alien concept to me, and I suspect that’s the case with guys. Yet another case of feminine projection, methinks.

    “Obsidian, some people in college perhaps shouldn’t go. For example, IHMO, if you are studying writing/literature you probably should not go to college unless you have a full-ride. But if you want to go into a profession, lawyer, doctors, business, you often really need to go to college. I don’t think we should scrap higher education.”

    O: In no way am I for “scrapping higher education”; what I’m for, is a wide ranging series of deep reforms of the American college system, based on simple, commonsense solutions that get the biggest bang for the buck for the country at large. My Four Point Plan is a step in that direction, and by no means is it a comprehensive proposal. But its most definitely a start.

    To your point about not everyone going to college, of course I agree with this. The problem however, is one of ideology, the notion that not only does everyone have to go to college to live a decent and dignified life, but that if you don’t you’re doomed. It’s simplistic and silly, but there are serious interests to protect in all this. Which is why it persists. Most colleges and unis these days are degree mills who know good and well that the majority of those who go will most likely wind up dropping out, and those who do graduate do so with mountains of debt on them, and in most cases unable to pay it off. Remember, Murray has discussed all this in his book Real Education, and many of his ideas I agree with.

    “1. Imo, the best fix for the hook up culture would be a re-imagining of college. College should be marketed as mostly an academic place without many/if any parties. Those who go to college, should not be encouraged to ” have fun, find yourself” and other nonsense. Find yourself in your own time, when you have a job.”

    O: LOL, a bit more extreme than what I have proposed, but to be honest I can’t blame you.

    “2. Colleges should get into the matchmaking business. There should be mixing events like ” find your true love/partner) Meet someone you care about at this mixer! We already know that monogamous relationships offer emotional protection, so why shouldn’t colleges promote them”

    O: Amin, sister; Amin! Not only that, but how about this…

    STEM GUY NITE
    That’s right ladies! Come on out and meet the future Science, Technology, Engineering and Math leaders and captains of American industry tomorrow, tonight! It all goes down at 8PM-Midnight at the Westinghouse Hall at Dupont U (keeping in line with Wolfe’s fictional college in I Am Charlotte Simmons)

    Something like that. It could be arranged for minimal cost, provide a real competitive option to the frat parties, foster young people who may be a bit shy, etc et al. In fact, ladies will most likely volunteer to do the legwork of setting it all up – Women LOVE doing stuff like that – and all the guys have to do is show up. The STEM Guys will finally get some shine instead of toiling and roiling in obscurity, while the Jocks, Artsy Hipsters, and BigLaw/MBA Guys get all the action. Think about it!

    “3. To solve the problems of student loans… Colleges should take bets on college students. The government should get out of the business of funding education. Colleges should accept students for free, educate them and then take a percentage of their earnings for a certain number of years as profit. this would force costs to become cheaper, eliminate debts and push colleges to stop sending graduates out into the world with few real skills. It would also save young people from being trapped in endless student debt.”

    O: Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ about! We’re cookin’ with gas now! 🙂

    “Also, I just saw a strange statistic.
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763219.html
    apparently, more men have never been married than women, an exact reversal of previous trends. Do those numbers represents depressed omegas, you think? Or perhaps betas opting out?”

    O: Not quite, and as Ramble talked about earlier, you have to factor in Vietnam and the losses that occured there. There’s more that I want to get into on that note but it’ll have to wait till later…

    O.

  • Anacaona

    Hope’s list

    I will say that I agree to a certain extent with height but 6 foot is too ‘fixed’ hubby is 3 inches taller than me more than enough I like to be able to see him directly to his eyes while in heels.
    I never meet any man with man boobs so I never though it was such a problem but I probably I wouldn’t like them.
    Sports not necessary either.
    I like a masculine voice too and I dislike perfume both for me and for him so this one not sure if has to do with masculinity.
    Remain calm and collected is something I think everyone should do again not sure if I consider it masculine more like “this idiot is going to get us all killed!”
    I like my men funny I think is when they don’t know when to stop and talk seriously that can become a problem.
    The shape thing well if I had to pick between a He man and a skinny or a fatty guy I can go for the fatty skinny big muscles are a turn off so that one is take it or leave it.
    The handyman is really cool and I like it but is not a dealbreaker, but then how many single guys can display this? I will say this is the one to keep surprising her after you are in “the zone”

    My personal additions to masculinity and brace yourself because I’m sure many of them are not popular

    Manly hands it might be a fetish but a guy with tiny hands or feminine hands is a turn off for me. He can have a “pretty” face but his hands are the ones touching me I don’t want to be touched by a woman thank you very much ,also not long nails for similar reasons.
    Not woman’s hair unless you are dressing on period not long hair please totally panty dryer.
    Having word, not flakey or playing games, it reads as not taking people seriously.
    Monogamous yeah I know unpopular opinion but lack of control in all areas is not masculine it seems infantile, IMO
    Not taking your gender too seriously really any time I hear a man saying Real men don’t do X I cringe, not attractive at all, YMMV as usual.

  • Anacaona

    @Hope
    I wanted to show you a video of one of our most famous vedette’s and my favorite, for illustrative purposes. Of course a vedette aside from wearing skimpy clothes had to sing and dance really well not sure if there is an american equivalent but I’m sure there is not a chinese one. Also this women acted on TV (primetime), movies and organized concerts not likely to act in a bar. In fact the Stripper business killed the tradition of vedettes/rumberas in my culture, once you could pay a fraction of the prize and it became a common thing there was little love left for them.
    Iris Chacon 30 years of marriage with the same guy she married him at the begining of her career:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6TZL-CO81s&feature=related

  • Sai

    I have a question about the “four-point plan” (and once more I will say I have always liked not having to worry about dudes in my building)… Would friendship/bro/platonic interactions between students of different classes be allowed? I can just see two people meeting and joking about something non-sexy, and then ten minutes later, “Wait, you’re a grad student? Oh crap.”

  • J, about the competence thing, I would disagree that a pianist or surgeon doesn’t need knowledge about tools. I think if a man doesn’t know how to use a wrench or screwdriver, that’s a bit strange. It relates to functional intelligence or real world smarts.

    Personally, I subscribe to the Renaissance Man or polymath idea, with multiple areas that a man demonstrates competence in, including physical, mental, and social aspects.

    For example, being an accomplished athlete was considered integral and not separate from education and learning of the highest order. Leon Battista Alberti, who was a Roman Catholic priest, architect, painter, poet, scientist, mathematician, inventor, and sculptor, was in addition a skilled horseman and archer.

  • Anacaona, I’m personally a fan of tall men, and I think usually a woman wouldn’t actively seeks a man who is shorter than herself, so that’s why I put a height in there of 6′ which is considered “tall.”

    I would agree with your additions.

  • I’m personally a fan of tall men, and I think usually a woman wouldn’t actively seeks a man who is shorter than herself, so that’s why I put a height in there of 6′ which is considered “tall.”

    Yeah but the average woman in USA is 5’5′ at the tallest, so 6 is too much for a guy to be considered “desirable”, IMO. Any guy can find a woman that is some inches shorter and probably that would be enough for her, women on average don’t grow taller than men anyway.

  • Mike C

    Anacaona, I’m personally a fan of tall men, and I think usually a woman wouldn’t actively seeks a man who is shorter than herself, so that’s why I put a height in there of 6′ which is considered “tall.”

    I’m personally a fan of tall men, and I think usually a woman wouldn’t actively seeks a man who is shorter than herself, so that’s why I put a height in there of 6′ which is considered “tall.”

    Yeah but the average woman in USA is 5’5′ at the tallest, so 6 is too much for a guy to be considered “desirable”, IMO. Any guy can find a woman that is some inches shorter and probably that would be enough for her, women on average don’t grow taller than men anyway

    Interesting stuff there Hope, Ana, and J. Truthfully, I’d say about the only definitive conclusion one could draw is *preferences vary*.

    I was curious, and some opportunities came up in conversation in the past several weeks with my fiancee where I was able to kind of nail down what are some of my attributes she is most attracted to/values the most. To be clear not direct questions, but more indirect sussing out as a result of playful interaction. I’m 6’3″ and probably in the top .1% of muscle mass (my fiancee used to get asked if I was on steroids, I”m not), and I can say unequivocally that for her those two factors alone are huge.

    On the flipside, I truly am a complete mechanical idiot which is ironic because my Dad is incredible with tools and fixing stuff. I think I probably could tell the difference between a Philips screwdriver and flat screwdriver 🙂 but I’m pretty close to utterly incapable of doing handy work around the house. Her Dad or my Dad have done the handy work around the place, and then I take them out for dinner. As far as I can tell, my inability to hammer a nail isn’t something she cares one lick about, and not being able to do it doesn’t diminish me or my “masculinity” in her eyes.

    I”m speculating but I’m pretty sure I’m right 🙂 but I suspect Hope’s list is closest to where most women reside. IOW, the muscular athlete is probably perceived by *most* women as more masculine than the skinny artist. I suspect she is also right that for most women being able to “fix stuff” and “take care of business” around the house is also perceived as more masculine because I think it strikes back to rougher surroundings. In the middle of nowhere with just your hands, and tools who is going to be able to build something out of nothing. The surgeon or financier’s skill set will be useless.

    Bottom line though, a guy should build his own value/develop himself based on what he prioritizes and then match that to the women who are actually interested in that rather than build value based on some consensus of 5-10 commenters here. A guy should define masculinity for himself, not chase someone else’s definition. FWIW, if I put my head to it and studied, I’m actually quite sure I could learn tools and get kind of handy, but….ehhh…I”d rather spend the time hitting the gym 4 times a week doing heavy lifting.

  • Mike C

    And FWIW Susan, I commend you on the effort on this post and the time you spent on the analysis. In many ways, it reminds me of reading a 25 page sell-side analyst report on a company with a fair value on the stock price.

    First thing I would do is reread the report several times making sure I clearly understood the arguments and logical and supporting quantitative analysis. I would then try to reproduce the quantitative analysis to make sure I tie out to the analysis (in my current job it is routine practice to duplicate the quantitative analysis of another analyst as we file with state regulatory bodies). I would also want to be aware of any assumptions in the analysis such as trends in gross margins, working capital requirements, revenue growth rates, etc. If I were a buy-side analyst I would formulate questions to ask the sell-side analyst on their analysis.

    Hopefully, at some point, I can devote more time to studying this post, the analysis, and all the supporting links.

    • @Mike C

      Your buy side metaphor is perfect. In fact, I began by using the same process, starting with all of the links provided by Wudang especially, and all of the arguments laid out by you, him, Escoffier and others. One of the reasons it took me a long time to write the post is that I had to play devil’s advocate constantly to anticipate response, think of alternative explanations, calculations, etc. I spent several hours on the Roosh forum post alone, making sure I had checked everything.

      Most people would not enjoy this kind of analytical task, but I do – it’s the same exact process I used as an analyst and then consultant.

      Anyway, I look forward to any further thoughts you have on the subject.

  • Emily

    Re: Male Height

    If you’re short, get thee to a gym!!!!!

    I’ve been attracted to guys who are shorter than me, but they’ve pretty much always been a bit on the “buff” side.

    The main reason why girls aren’t attracted to shorter guys is because they don’t want to feel physically “bigger” than the guy they’re with. Some added bulk can help to counteract the shortness.

  • Blue Velvet

    I read that article and this is so sad: “Women do a much better job when they’re living alone,” said Klinenberg. “They tend to make and maintain relationships much better than men throughout the life course, whereas for men it’s much more likely that they will wind up feeling lonely or unhappy or isolated.”

    Case in point: Forty-year-old New Yorker Jeff Ragsdale. He describes waking up alone as “hell.”

    “It’s very sad,” he told Spencer. “Or going to bed, you know, alone constantly by yourself, eating alone. And also there’s nothing worse than being sick by yourself. You’re lying in bed watching the world go by and wondering, ‘How did I get so alone?'”

    Ragsdale didn’t seek solitude; his girlfriend broke up with him. Desperate for human contact, he did the only logical thing: He posted flyers all over Manhattan inviting people to call. He signed them: “Jeff, One Lonely Guy.”

    “My guard was down, I was completely stripped. I’m basically posting this flyer that says I’m a loser, you know?” he laughed. “It wasn’t a fun thing to put those up. But I needed to talk to people. So I go, ‘I’m just going to rip my skin off, and I’m going to do it and let the cards fall.'”

    🙁

  • @ms walsh:
    Youre still not hearing me: this isnt a matter of “data & research” no matter how accurate; this is a matter that strikes right at the heart of our primal past, ie, a matter that only evopsych may be able to address. This is why i brought up rape and the groundbreaking researches of thornhill & palmer and steven pinker along w/the fbi crime data over the past 20-plus years, to prove the fact that no matter what the facts on the ground may say, women in general and ideological feminists in particular (who are the ones driving public policy) will NEVER accept the premise/fact that rape is a literal shadow of its former self. This is why the goalpost has shifted from forcible rape to “date rape” because the numbers on the former cannot be rationally disputed; and on the former, they cannot be independently verified either. Simply put, this is something that can only be properly understood through the lens of evopsych-rape is a huge concern because it robs women of personal agency in mate choice. The female mind has evolved to adapt hardwiring to specifically deal with such situations and in very strong ways. The same is true with the roosh guys of the world-they are simply not buying what youre selling, regardless as to how many studies and grids and graphs you throw against the wall. This is because for men, sex is very hard to get and it only makes sense per the logic of evopsych to evolve adaptations to that reality in the male mind.

    This is why my four point plan becomes so important-because it puts the findings of your data/studies et al to the acid test: if indeed most college undergrad women dont want to hookup with cads but instead want to meet nice boys, “stem guy nite” is the perfect opportunity for them to do so. The guys will be able to see, in the form of the girls voting with their feet, that they want to be where the nice boys are. Until something like that happens, the girls will either continue to sit it out altogether, or go to where the only game on campus actually is, which are the frat parties.

    Either way, with all due respect all you studies/researches are just pissing in the wind until or unless somehow you and others who think like you do can find a way to physically dispel the notions the roosh guys of the world have in their heads-and since i know what youre gonna say lemme say this:

    The very fact that not a day can go by without either you and/or your (female!) commenters mentioning roissy, roosh or the “sphere” in general, says that this is more than a mere matter of a few disaffected losers banging away on their keyboards. I dont think its a stretch at all to say that either roosh or roissy easily rivals your site hits and commenter counts-for example roissy was getting 2k-plus comments four years ago-so merely putting out “the truth” isnt gonna cut it. The ONLY way to utterly kill this thing is to actually provide realtime examples that the nice guys are indeed actually wanted by the gals. And the only way to do that is to actually provide real life, real time alternatives to the frat house parties.

    Good luck with that…

    O.

    • @Obs

      This is why my four point plan becomes so important-because it puts the findings of your data/studies et al to the acid test: if indeed most college undergrad women dont want to hookup with cads but instead want to meet nice boys, “stem guy nite” is the perfect opportunity for them to do so.

      Let’s end this charade. The four point plan is akin to a gulag camp.

      Either way, with all due respect all you studies/researches are just pissing in the wind until or unless somehow you and others who think like you do can find a way to physically dispel the notions the roosh guys of the world have in their heads-and since i know what youre gonna say lemme say this:

      The Roosh guys of the world are a deer tick next to New York City. Barely detectable.

      The ONLY way to utterly kill this thing is to actually provide realtime examples that the nice guys are indeed actually wanted by the gals

      Have you read Charles Murray’s Coming Apart? 🙂

      Nice guys are the ones marrying, having children and staying married.

  • SayWhaat

    386 comments later, and Jimmy Hendricks is nowhere to be found. 😛

  • deti

    @ Susan:

    interesting post, but quite fact-packed on the statistics and analysis.

    I have no doubt the statistics are what they are. I presume for purposes of this question the data support the enumerated conclusions you listed.

    What I don’t understand and what is not clear to me is how the collected data supports a conclusion that the most promiscuous 20% of men and women are having sex with each other almost to the exclusion of everyone else. You believe the data is more or less conclusive, essentially reading last rites over the notion of “20% of the men are sexing more than 20% of the women”.

    Can you explain it one more time, more slowly this time, for my benefit? No snark here; just wanting to understand how you got there from the data you cited.

    • @deti

      nteresting post, but quite fact-packed on the statistics and analysis.

      I knew that nothing less would suffice, and even this would fail to convince some. Having done a thorough analysis, though, I do feel that I have answered the question with a high degree of confidence, and need not debate the point anymore.

      I presume for purposes of this question the data support the enumerated conclusions you listed.

      It certainly did. I have provided links to all data and claims made in the post, so anyone is free to conduct their own analysis. At least a couple of male readers did so and agreed with my conclusions.

      What I don’t understand and what is not clear to me is how the collected data supports a conclusion that the most promiscuous 20% of men and women are having sex with each other almost to the exclusion of everyone else.

      The numbers of men and women by partner count are quite close. If we believe there is crossover between groups, then it must balance on both sides. For example, if the most promiscuous men are having sex with not very promiscuous women, then the most promiscuous women must be having sex with not very promiscuous men. This is possible, but unlikely, due to hypergamy as well as social stratification on college campuses.

      Although only 15% of college students are Greek, they account for nearly half the hookups, most of which occur at Greek functions like parties.

      Other interesting facts:

      1. Fewer than half of hookups include oral or vaginal sex.

      2. 26-27% of freshmen women have sex during a hookup, compared to 46-50% of freshman men. Half the women and a third of the men have zero hookups – not even a kiss. Of the quarter of freshmen women who have sex their first semester (12% with ex-boyfriends from home), we may reasonably conclude that nowhere near a majority will enter the realm of hardcore sluttitude. The small number of women with high partner counts confirms this.

      Men are having more sex than people thought – it is not true that 80% “get nothing.”

      Women are having less sex than people thought, and only 3% are having sex with high count men. (A tiny minority of both sexes – 3-4% – has more than 6 partners in college.)

      3. Women hook up less over time, while men continue to seek hookups over time.

      4. There are equal numbers of men and women in the 50+ hookup bracket.

      Overall, the picture is one where three quarters of students hook up at some point, with the majority of hookups excluding intercourse. At least half of those hookups have the goal of a LTR.

      A sizable number of students never hook up at all.

      A small, highly promiscuous group of students have considerably more sex than everyone else.

      I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly, I hope this helps.

  • Ted D

    Cool, I guess this means that many men, myself included, are totally full of shit. To be honest, I’d be perfectly OK with that if I truly believed this is the entire story. The focus on college bound young adults only just doesn’t ring true for me. I know far more kids NOT in college than are, and I still feel like they just aren’t being counted in most of these studies.

    But hey! It may mean that what I see around me is indeed the minority, and most of the U.S. isn’t in such bad shape. Again, I’d love to believe that, but what I hear from other guys in other cities doesn’t really give me much hope.

    And perhaps this is a VERY generational topic, meaning my old ass simply can’t see the forest for the trees, because back in MY day the trees where the main focus.

    I dunno, but trying to re-engage my brain after a week in Vegas is almost painful.

  • @Ted
    Love the new pic! It would be better without the “gangsta glasses” but me loves a man on a tuxedo. 😀

  • Lol. I love those sunglasses. Took me three months to find a pair I liked, I’m that picky…

    More pics from Vegas yet to be seen. My avatar may change a few times before imsettlemon one.

  • deti

    Susan:

    You pointed out this data only analyzes college students. So if that’s the case, the 20%/20% conclusion really only applies to a small segment of the population. We can’t really extrapolate this to the population at large.

    • OK, I copied comments as best I could before the migration. I will restore them here but they will be under my name. However, I will try to make clear who the author is.

      First, an earlier comment by me:

      @Ted D
      Welcome back! It’s great to see you, I love the tux.
      To be clear, these studies only include kids in college. I realize that’s far from the whole picture in the U.S., but because hookup culture is a college-related phenomenon, that’s where it gets studied.

    • ORIGINAL COMMENT BY DETI:

      “To be clear, these studies only include kids in college. I realize that’s far from the whole picture in the U.S., but because hookup culture is a college-related phenomenon, that’s where it gets studied.”

      Then the conclusion that “20% of the most promiscuous men are sexing only 20% of the most promiscuous women” applies to a relatively small segment of the adult population, agreed? I’m willing to accept the conclusion as statistically valid for college enrollees. We really cannot extrapolate the 20%/20% conclusion to the population at large if there are no studies on it — or at least they aren’t analyzed here.

      • COMMENT BY OLIVE:

        Susan,
        A quick note about Greek life. I’ve actually said this before in these parts, but that was months ago, and I think it applies better here.

        I went to one of the top 20 Greek life schools. Students say 60% of the eligible student body is Greek (the official statistic is 35%, but it’s rumored the school includes staff/faculty and freshmen, who can’t rush, in order to make the number smaller). My guess is that well over 50% of the hookups occur or are a result of Greek functions, which also account for the vast majority of on-campus parties.

        Basically any girl can get into any party, but only two of the nine frats (there are no sorority houses) are known to let in guys who aren’t brothers. The truth is that the vast majority of the girls who attend frat parties will not hook up (it’s mathematically impossible, thanks to the male-female ratios), but you can see where the 20-80 myth comes from when you think about those ratios. I have an inkling that this is what entices freshmen guys to consider joining frats, though no one ever actually said so.

        • @Olive

          Basically any girl can get into any party, but only two of the nine frats (there are no sorority houses) are known to let in guys who aren’t brothers. The truth is that the vast majority of the girls who attend frat parties will not hook up (it’s mathematically impossible, thanks to the male-female ratios), but you can see where the 20-80 myth comes from when you think about those ratios. I have an inkling that this is what entices freshmen guys to consider joining frats, though no one ever actually said so.

          I’m sure you’re right. Zach sent me some stats from Penn, and Greeks have even more sex than varsity athletes.

      • COMMENT BY TED:

        Susan — Thanks for the warm welcome!

        “but because hookup culture is a college-related phenomenon, that’s where it gets studied.”

        Perhaps “official” hookup culture is primarily a college phenomenon, but I think many of the behaviors behind hookup culture are deeply ingrained in other areas of life, and would even say that those behaviors didn’t start in college, but were adopted by college students that found themselves away from home and parental supervision for the first time in their young adult lives. Or put another way, I believe the roots of hookup culture started with the poor/minority communities and spread to colleges across the nation while also spreading into the LMC. At this point I’d say it is firmly in place (in one form or another) in just about all poor communities, and on it’s way to the MC by way of the college hookup scene.

        The way out isn’t to stop college kids from hooking up. It is to find the roots of hookup culture, and figure out how to counteract it. Even if we could eliminate all hookups from every college in America, there is still plenty of “hookup like” behavior happening out in the streets. In fact, in terms of real societal damage, I’d say college hookups are probably near the bottom of the destruction list. What is going on in the poor and LMC communities have much farther reaching implications, just in sheer numbers alone.

        • I’ve restored comments as best I can. Many apologies if your comment got zapped. The hosting company had assured me they would do this in the early a.m. hours…

      • @deti

        Then the conclusion that “20% of the most promiscuous men are sexing only 20% of the most promiscuous women” applies to a relatively small segment of the adult population, agreed?

        I would say it applies to the college educated population over the last 10 years, which is 2/3 of the population in that age range. The studies all fall within that time frame, and are very consistent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 68.3% of 2011 American high school graduates enrolled in college (64.6% M, 72.3% F).

        We know that statistics re OOW births, single parenthood, cohabitation, marriage and divorce are all dramatically different between those with and without college educations. I certainly wouldn’t surprise me to see different behavior in a different SES group, but it may well be that there is simply a larger but still comparable percentage of promiscuous males and females in that population.

        Re the population at large, as described by CDC and census data, the finding that adding prostitutes back in brings the male and female means into line proves that the “women lie about their number” claim is invalid. We don’t have a distribution by partner count, though. It is certainly feasible that low N men are having sex with high N women in that case. We can’t know without looking at that data.

        In any case, we may assume sexual mores for college students remain similar post-graduation, reflecting the static mating orientation of those individuals. (Scientists believe sociosexuality is static, that’s another post I’m working on. There’s little evidence for the “changing lanes” theory after all.)

        I’m willing to accept the conclusion as statistically valid for college enrollees.

        That is hilarious! Talk about moving the goalposts! We have never debated anything but the behavior of college enrollees here at HUS, something I have reminded you of many times.

        At least we can now agree that among college students, there is no alpha cock carousel, or at least few riders. Hypergamy has been grossly exaggerated. Only a quarter of men are celibate, not 80%, and the majority of college students want relationships instead of casual sex, including the students who are doing the hooking up.

  • Jackie

    @Olive (396)
    OLIVE!!!
    :mrgreen:

    How are you? It is so nice to “see” you! I hope your health is better– please let us know, if you feel up to it! 🙂

  • @Ms. Walsh #386:
    “Let’s end this charade. The four point plan is akin to a gulag camp.”

    O: Which explains why even YOU cosigned – that’s the exact word you used – one of the items on said Four Point Plan (You supported my notion of separate sex dorms) – right? 😉

    “The Roosh guys of the world are a deer tick next to New York City. Barely detectable.”

    O: Are you sure?
    http://glpiggy.net/2012/08/09/what-wall-street-women-want/

    Just follow the yellow-brick links. 🙂

    Money quote:
    ““I like my current boyfriend but I am not attracted to him. I have been seeing a few other men on the side whom I find pretty attractive and excited to be with.” I knew a couple of banker chicks in NYC, who are doing exactly this. They feel that their current boyfriends are beta-males (good providers) while they look for fun with alpha-males.”

    And, I quote again from my previous comment: “The very fact that not a day can go by without either you and/or your (female!) commenters mentioning roissy, roosh or the “sphere” in general, says that this is more than a mere matter of a few disaffected losers banging away on their keyboards. I dont think its a stretch at all to say that either roosh or roissy easily rivals your site hits and commenter counts-for example roissy was getting 2k-plus comments four years ago-so merely putting out “the truth” isnt gonna cut it.”

    Like I said, good luck with that…

    “Have you read Charles Murray’s Coming Apart?”

    O: Have you? Does this mean that you’re a bit more “comfortable” with some inconvenient truths, Ms. Walsh? If so, I must say that I am truly impressed with your sudden and rapid progress!

    “Nice guys are the ones marrying, having children and staying married.”

    O: *At present* – and by all accounts, those numbers are steadily falling, on all counts. Moreover, you changed the goalposts – we’re talking about *college life*, right? Today, the White UMC gets married upwards of 30 – easily a decade or more from one’s freshman year at Whatever U.

    Stick to Bridge, Ms. Walsh; Three Card Monte doesn’t suit you. 😉

    O.

    • Which explains why even YOU cosigned — that’s the exact word you used — one of the items on said Four Point Plan (You supported my notion of separate sex dorms) — right?

      That’s not Obsidian’s plan, that’s already happening in some quarters. It’s only reasonable, since binge drinking and hookup culture sprang up directly as a result of coed dorms.

      *At present* — and by all accounts, those numbers are steadily falling, on all counts. Moreover, you changed the goalposts — we’re talking about *college life*, right? Today, the White UMC gets married upwards of 30 — easily a decade or more from one’s freshman year at Whatever U.

      No I did not – college kids graduate into the MC/UMC, and most of them will marry and have families. I often discuss trends by SES group here. This particular post addresses the sexual behavior of college students because that’s what has been debated here many times. As I said above to Deti, those students are headed into the same SES group that the students of ten years ago inhabit.

      Also, the numbers are rising when Millennials are asked what’s important to them. They may well make very different choices than Gen X’ers did. We will see.

      The Wall St. woman’s article was a hoax, by the way. Probably written by a trader. 🙂

  • @Ms. Walsh #400:
    “At least we can now agree that among college students, there is no alpha cock carousel, or at least few riders. Hypergamy has been grossly exaggerated. Only a quarter of men are celibate, not 80%, and the majority of college students want relationships instead of casual sex, including the students who are doing the hooking up.”

    O: I reiterate my point made earlier in this discussion (and to which Ms. Walsh has not addressed – hmm…):

    “Youre still not hearing me: this isnt a matter of “data & research” no matter how accurate; this is a matter that strikes right at the heart of our primal past, ie, a matter that only evopsych may be able to address. This is why i brought up rape and the groundbreaking researches of thornhill & palmer and steven pinker along w/the fbi crime data over the past 20-plus years, to prove the fact that no matter what the facts on the ground may say, women in general and ideological feminists in particular (who are the ones driving public policy) will NEVER accept the premise/fact that rape is a literal shadow of its former self. This is why the goalpost has shifted from forcible rape to “date rape” because the numbers on the former cannot be rationally disputed; and on the former, they cannot be independently verified either. Simply put, this is something that can only be properly understood through the lens of evopsych-rape is a huge concern because it robs women of personal agency in mate choice. The female mind has evolved to adapt hardwiring to specifically deal with such situations and in very strong ways. The same is true with the roosh guys of the world-they are simply not buying what youre selling, regardless as to how many studies and grids and graphs you throw against the wall. This is because for men, sex is very hard to get and it only makes sense per the logic of evopsych to evolve adaptations to that reality in the male mind.”

    You response to the key, crucial points being made above, madam?

    O.

    • @Obs

      If I didn’t respond to your comment the first time, why do you think repeating yourself will produce a different result?

      The question of rape is a red herring.

      This is because for men, sex is very hard to get and it only makes sense per the logic of evopsych to evolve adaptations to that reality in the male mind.”

      50% of first-semester male freshmen get laid during a hookup. Not as hard to get as you would have us believe. You are very invested in the idea that there is a great majority of men who are getting no sex. Not so. In addition, very, very few men, alpha or otherwise are getting a lot of sex in college. There’s not much variance in college between your “alphas” and your “betas.”

      The alpha cock carousel is a myth, at least among college kids, my market.

  • Hi Jackie,
    My health is quite better, and I’m headed back to school in a couple weeks. Thanks for the inquiry!

  • @Ted #397:
    “Perhaps “official” hookup culture is primarily a college phenomenon, but I think many of the behaviors behind hookup culture are deeply ingrained in other areas of life, and would even say that those behaviors didn’t start in college, but were adopted by college students that found themselves away from home and parental supervision for the first time in their young adult lives. Or put another way, I believe the roots of hookup culture started with the poor/minority communities and spread to colleges across the nation while also spreading into the LMC. At this point I’d say it is firmly in place (in one form or another) in just about all poor communities, and on it’s way to the MC by way of the college hookup scene.”

    O: Ted, since you’ve missed a goodly part of the action, let me hip you to my position:

    Much of what we see in society today, has been the result of a multi-decades long campaign on the part of those whom Chales Murray refers to as the Cognitive Elite (read his The Bell Curve, Real Education and Coming Apart). These ideas, of which hooking up is a major part, comes directly from the White UMC Feminist Lobby arm of the Cognitive Elite, and is easily documented and tracked. The Black American sectors got wind of this in the midst of the Civil Rights Era in the wake of LBJ’s “Great Society”, et al.

    “The way out isn’t to stop college kids from hooking up.”

    O: No one is arguing for that; what we are arguing for is real college reform, of which the hookup problem is but a part…

    “It is to find the roots of hookup culture, and figure out how to counteract it.”

    O: The roots of it have already been identified; it is the White UMC Feminist Lobby, and their allies among the Cognitive Elite.

    “Even if we could eliminate all hookups from every college in America, there is still plenty of “hookup like” behavior happening out in the streets. In fact, in terms of real societal damage, I’d say college hookups are probably near the bottom of the destruction list. What is going on in the poor and LMC communities have much farther reaching implications, just in sheer numbers alone.”

    O: Two words: Jerry Sandusky. How much “real societal damage” has he – one Man – wrought? Indeed, the permissiveness that is rampant on the college campus brought us the Syracuse Scandal shortly after Sandusky’s stuff was brought to light. We know that the late JoePa was quite dismissive of hookup stuff on the part of several of his players. This thing goes a heck of a lot deeper than is being let on here in this discussion, which in itself is deep because those who claim to love Tom Wolfe would have saw this in his book “I am Charlotte Simmons”…

    …SMH…

    O.

    • No one is arguing for that; what we are arguing for is real college reform, of which the hookup problem is but a part…

      You are the only one arguing for college reform. If I’m not mistaken you had no takers here.

      This thing goes a heck of a lot deeper than is being let on here in this discussion, which in itself is deep because those who claim to love Tom Wolfe would have saw this in his book “I am Charlotte Simmons”…

      Tom Wolfe described the frat and varsity athletics scenes at a college. His book inspired this blog and is compatible with everything I’ve ever written on the subject. Tom Wolfe nailed it.

      I think you may be confusing the incidence of hooking up with hookup culture. Wolfe wrote about the latter.

  • @Ms. Walsh #394:
    “Welcome back! It’s great to see you, I love the tux.
    To be clear, these studies only include kids in college. I realize that’s far from the whole picture in the U.S., but because hookup culture is a college-related phenomenon, that’s where it gets studied.”

    O: Not true; the “college” part of it is arbitrary, for self-interested reasons.

    In truth, the hookup phenomenon IS indeed scholarly studied; an excellent example of this is Edin & Kafalas’ “Promises I Can Keep”. It just isn’t referred to as “hooking up”.

    O.

  • @Ms. Just A Thought:
    “I do not support PUA’s. I mean, do these men think feminism exists in a vacuum?”

    O: This is a most interesting and odd statement, given the fact that the vast majority of PUAs are, if anything, highly supportive of Feminism; it’s the goose that laid the golden egg, afterall. 🙂 In any event, for all the handwringing in this forum and others similiar to it, in truth PUAs are incredibly easy to avoid if you don’t want to be bothered with them; they’re known to frequent certain places, and do not hide who they are or what they’re about. One gets the distinct impression that those who rail on and on against such folk have deeper concerns than they let on…

    “Obsidian pointed out that many ugly girls are feminists and why wouldn’t they be? as Heartiste said, ” never lie to yourself that being PUA is somehow moral/ helping society, it’s not”. Many militant feminists are formed by women who have being duped and dumped by PUA’s /cads and then hate all men. PUA’s deserve feminists and help create them.”

    O: This is downright ridiculous. For one thing, PUAs have only been on the scene for what, a decade, 15 years, tops? (Ugly) Feminists, on the other hand, have been doing their thing since at least the mid-60s. Your premise doesn’t make any sense at all.

    “2. I do not support men getting “equal” reproductive rights.”

    O: Thank you for sharing and for affirming the ladies’ view of denying me and every other Man his reproductive rights.

    “Look. men, if you do not want a child, use a condom.”

    O: Roe v Wade was not predicated on birth control or other contraceptives.

    “Don’t trust women who “say” they are on birth control pills.”

    O: “Trusting” anyone, including Women, has nothing to do with my reproductive rights.

    “20 minutes of less than ideal pleasure is not worth a lifetime of child support payments. If you don’t use condom, then consequences suck.”

    O: The exact same thing can and should then be applied to Women. Do you agree, and if not, why?

    “I also don’t buy the notion that women even have all the reproductive rights. Say we could mandate women to carry babies to term because the father has a reproductive right to the child, that’s unfair.. why?”

    O: No Roe For Men advocate has made such an argument. You are tilting at strawmen.

    “Because a check doesn’t make you a good father. Government never mandates men to be fathers, it just forces them to part with some income as if that was equivalent to fatherhood.”

    O: But Women now are quite self-supporting, in increasing numbers, moreso than are Men. Indeed, the fact that single Women can and do opt for test tube babies via the turkey baster only buttresses the point.

    “Since we can’t force men to protect the women they had children with, hug their biological children, teach them about life, impart values on their children, teach them perseverance and so on. We force men to give up money each month. Since government can’t mandate men to be fathers, they can’t force women into motherhood either. And because men don’t have as much reproductive responsibilities, they can’t have reproductive rights. Government is funny having limits like that.”

    O: What’s even funnier is the fact that more and more Men are simply voting with their feet. Just like we learned, that nothing good can come from forcing Women to birth babies they really do not want (Casey Anthony, anyone?), the lesson will at some point finally sink in that nothing good can or will come from forcing Men to be parents to kids they simply did not want. No law on the planet will be able to do this.

    Roe For Men is the right thing to do. We all know it.

    O.

  • @Ms. Walsh #397:
    “That’s not Obsidian’s plan, that’s already happening in some quarters. It’s only reasonable, since binge drinking and hookup culture sprang up directly as a result of coed dorms.”

    O: What that means is that I am only speaking some commonsense to power. 🙂 YOU called it “akin to a gulag”. Hmm.

    “No I did not”

    O: Yes, you did. 🙂

    “– college kids graduate into the MC/UMC, and most of them will marry and have families.”

    O: Again – *at present*. Marital rates, even for the White UMC, are falling, and have been for quite some time now. True, it’s been falling at a slower rate than for the rest of the country – and we can include the rate of breakup and divorce as well – but nevertheless, the point is made: marriage is on the decline, for ALL groups in American life. Indeed, marital rates are at or near all-time lows for the past century, as I recall. And the trend line doesn’t point to an upward trend. Even you’ve noted the fact that we will see more, not less, Spinsters in the coming decade – although we have differing views and reasons as to how and why that will come about…

    “I often discuss trends by SES group here. This particular post addresses the sexual behavior of college students because that’s what has been debated here many times.”

    O: Yes, as I recall, your post starts out as an answer/retort to one of Roosh’s commenters. Yet you dismiss Roosh/Roissy et al. This is curious – if they’re inconsequential in the overall scheme of things, why spend some 30 hours of your time attempting to debunk them? Please explain? I need clarification.

    My argument is that these guys are quite influential, even if on the margins; keep in mind Ms. Walsh – it only took less than 20 Men to knock down the Towers…

    “As I said above to Deti, those students are headed into the same SES group that the students of ten years ago inhabit.”

    O: Are they? Again, you have noted the fact that we’ll see a larger percentage of Spinsters in the coming decade. Many of them will be comprised of the current college cohort.

    “Also, the numbers are rising when Millennials are asked what’s important to them. They may well make very different choices than Gen X’ers did. We will see.”

    O: Cue Ms. Jessica Shairer…

    “The Wall St. woman’s article was a hoax, by the way. Probably written by a trader.”

    O: Assuming that’s true, how then do you explain one of your favorite pastimes this year – “Girls”? According to you, its creator, Lena Dunham, most likely got wind of Game, Roissy Variant – nor are you the first blogger to suggest this (Steve Sailer observed the same thing).

    Either way you wanna slice it, Ms. Walsh, Roosh and Roissy et al have reach of literal international scope, to say nothing of nationwide coverage. That this very post was written in large part in an effort to blunt some of the ideas coming from said ‘sphere, along with the fact that these guys’ names are mentioned here by either you or your female readers, far and away more than your name being mentioned in either of these guys forums, really says it all as to just how seriously you and yours, takes these guys.

    You have every reason to be just a bit worried…

    O.

    • Yes, as I recall, your post starts out as an answer/retort to one of Roosh’s commenters.

      That’s only because Wudang, a reader here, offered that argument as proof positive that I was mistaken about the numbers. In fact, Wudang offered many arguments and links, and the post was one I promised to write after carefully considering all of his arguments and sources, which I did.

      The fact that the argument was made on Roosh’s forum is immaterial.

      My argument is that these guys are quite influential, even if on the margins; keep in mind Ms. Walsh — it only took less than 20 Men to knock down the Towers…

      Roosh as Al Qaeda, I love it.

      “Girls”? According to you, its creator, Lena Dunham, most likely got wind of Game, Roissy Variant — nor are you the first blogger to suggest this (Steve Sailer observed the same thing).

      Wait, what are you debating? Game parlance is totally mainstream! I’ve never said otherwise, and as you say have pointed that out myself. Girls is just one example. The rise of “pretend assholes” (Amber Madison, 2011) is another.

      Whether very many men have tight Game is another question.

      That this very post was written in large part in an effort to blunt some of the ideas coming from said ‘sphere, along with the fact that these guys’ names are mentioned here by either you or your female readers, far and away more than your name being mentioned in either of these guys forums, really says it all as to just how seriously you and yours, takes these guys.

      You have every reason to be just a bit worried…

      I didn’t blunt the idea, I nuked it.

      I’ve actually been mentioned quite a lot at Roosh’s forum. 🙂

      It’s hardly surprising that readers here would be aware of Game blogs. I’m not sure how young guys find me, as we don’t share links on the Blogroll, but they do somehow. Shrugs. I have no problem with it.

  • @Ms. Walsh #410:
    “You are the only one arguing for college reform. If I’m not mistaken you had no takers here.”

    O: You are; please see upthread, where at least a handful of your regular lady readers spoke favorably to it. 🙂

    “Tom Wolfe described the frat and varsity athletics scenes at a college.”

    O: Of which the hookup scene is a part, yes…

    “His book inspired this blog and is compatible with everything I’ve ever written on the subject. Tom Wolfe nailed it.”

    O: Indeed.

    “I think you may be confusing the incidence of hooking up with hookup culture. Wolfe wrote about the latter.”

    O: a distinction without much of a difference – Wolfe’s book, to say nothing of the many, many writings about hookup culture as it relates to the modern day American college campus – speaks to this fact…

    O.

    • a distinction without much of a difference — Wolfe’s book, to say nothing of the many, many writings about hookup culture as it relates to the modern day American college campus — speaks to this fact…

      This is incorrect, there is a vast difference. All of the research on hookup culture points to Pluralistic Ignorance – college students regularly estimate that 75% or more of their peers are hooking up regularly, when the actual number is closer to 10%. It’s not colleges that need reforming, or even that hooking up needs to stop. What we need is to communicate to students that not many of them are actually doing it.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “If I didn’t respond to your comment the first time, why do you think repeating yourself will produce a different result?”

    O: Perhaps because you didn’t *see it* the first time?

    “The question of rape is a red herring.”

    O: No, the question of rape is one you simply refuse to answer, because you know that I’m right – Thornhill & Palmer, along with Steven Pinker and a mountain of crime data over more than two decades, easily makes the point. Simply put, the notion that Women are being raped and pillaged enmasse is a canard – and yet, the Feminist Lobby and their allies (which include the Conservatives) continue to gin-up hysteria around such things. They do because, I posit, it strikes powerful chords in terms of EvoPsych. I am arguing the same is true with the current topic vis-a-vie you struggle with certain elements of the Manosphere.

    This is because for men, sex is very hard to get and it only makes sense per the logic of evopsych to evolve adaptations to that reality in the male mind.”

    “50% of first-semester male freshmen get laid during a hookup. Not as hard to get as you would have us believe. You are very invested in the idea that there is a great majority of men who are getting no sex.”

    O: Actually, I personally couldn’t care less. I am merely reporting what I see on the ground everyday over the course of many, many years. I also know not to put much faith in self-reports, and any competent researcher knows this as well. Lastly I can assure you that I move through and in quite a much more varigated social landscape than you do.

    “Not so. In addition, very, very few men, alpha or otherwise are getting a lot of sex in college. There’s not much variance in college between your “alphas” and your “betas.””

    O: Which explains why the frats and the like are, what they are…right?

    “The alpha cock carousel is a myth, at least among college kids, my market.”

    O: Myths persist for a reason. You wanna kill it? Put up “STEM Guy Night”. Put the “myth” to the acide test. Let the ladies vote with their feet – and then, we’ll see the left and the right of things.

    Anything else, is just yammering back and forth…

    O.

    • Simply put, the notion that Women are being raped and pillaged enmasse is a canard — and yet, the Feminist Lobby and their allies (which include the Conservatives) continue to gin-up hysteria around such things.

      That is completely off topic, and we will not debate that in this thread.

      I am merely reporting what I see on the ground everyday over the course of many, many years. I also know not to put much faith in self-reports, and any competent researcher knows this as well. Lastly I can assure you that I move through and in quite a much more varigated social landscape than you do.

      I am not focusing on a variegated social landscape. I am focusing on one very specific landscape and the self-reporting is remarkably consistent across studies, campuses, and over time. It sure beats anecdotal evidence from a single source, or even a dozen single sources. There are tens of thousands of subjects represented here, and you can’t come close to that.

      Which explains why the frats and the like are, what they are…right?

      Only 3.5% of males have more than 6 sexual partners in college. Less than 1% have more than 15. Frat guys do better than other guys, but their sexual prowess has been greatly exaggerated, apparently, aside from a very few top males.

      Let the ladies vote with their feet — and then, we’ll see the left and the right of things.

      That’s exactly what this data shows. The ladies have voted, and they’re not putting out in great numbers for anyone, including alphas.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “Nope. Hooking up is a distinct set of behaviors and expectations that is unique to college. It is not synonymous with casual sex. I recommend you read Kathleen Bogle’s Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus .

    Another excellent source is Lisa Wade.”

    O:Actually this isn’t true; hooking up has been observed in primary education, in the public schools at the gradeschool levels. In fact one of the area schools in this regard had an entire “system” of hooking up – quite efficient at that. Made quite a big splash here locally.

    Nevertheless, thanks for the sources. I’m familiar with Bogle; I’ll look into Wade’s work…

    O.

  • Susan,

    I’m sure you’re right. Zach sent me some stats from Penn, and Greeks have even more sex than varsity athletes.

    That’s probably true, but it wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I’ve been following your blog a lot recently, and you seem very invested in this notion that only the most promiscuous 20% of guys and girls are going for each other. While the data might lend itself to the notion that they’re actually getting with each other, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that less promiscuous women are still trying to make themselves available to promiscuous men, even if they are unsuccessful. The only reason I bring this up is because I’m certain that a great deal of non-Greek women attend Greek events at my school.

    I realize that my alma mater is only one very limited example, and I’d be open to what others have to say because I’m genuinely curious about what is happening with the “80%” at other schools.

    • @Olive

      you seem very invested in this notion that only the most promiscuous 20% of guys and girls are going for each other.

      I’m invested in discovering the true nature of the SMP. The more research I do, the more consistent the findings, the more convincing the data. Every single study represented here is consistent with the others. Drawing any other conclusion would be intellectually dishonest hamsterwheeling. Remember, I did not start out believing this. Originally, I accepted the notion that 80% of the women were sexing up 20% of the males, as promoted widely by practitioners of Game. Over time, this notion became more and more untenable and is now dead. As I said in the post, I remain open to other sources of information. I truly scoured the research for any and all hookup related data, and it’s all here.

      While the data might lend itself to the notion that they’re actually getting with each other, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that less promiscuous women are still trying to make themselves available to promiscuous men, even if they are unsuccessful.

      That’s an interesting idea, that more women want to be sluts than are. Are these women so hypergamous that they will only have sex with the top guy? Do they choose between having sex with fratties and remaining virgins? Is it really that difficult for women – even average looking women – to get sex from a frat guy? I’ve known many physically unattractive frat guys who were not all that picky, truth be told. The data shows that while 15% of college men are in frats, only 1% get to 13 partners in college.

      Duke found in its study that only a third of seniors had hooked up, and only 1/6 had sex during a hookup. It’s certainly possible that more women want to have sex than are, but I’ve never come across that in the academic literature or research.

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “That’s only because Wudang, a reader here, offered that argument as proof positive that I was mistaken about the numbers. In fact, Wudang offered many arguments and links, and the post was one I promised to write after carefully considering all of his arguments and sources, which I did.

    The fact that the argument was made on Roosh’s forum is immaterial.”

    O: The fact that the argument came to you by way of one of your – and many of your readers – “nemesis” – strikes at the very heart of the matter, Ms. Walsh. Again: so long as this remains in the realm of bandwith and abstract numbers, many, many guys are gonna believe what they see on the weekends on the campuses across Americaand beyond. Kill the myth by offering real alternatives. Simple as.

    “Roosh as Al Qaeda, I love it.”

    O: Yup; and OBL had a near three decade run doing some serious damage to American interests – at home and abroad. Good luck with that. 🙂

    “Wait, what are you debating? Game parlance is totally mainstream! I’ve never said otherwise, and as you say have pointed that out myself. Girls is just one example. The rise of “pretend assholes” (Amber Madison, 2011) is another.”

    O: You suggested that Roosh/Roissy etc had barely a presence in NYC. I am saying to you, that such a notion is deeply erroneous. “Girls” is proof of this. Among other things…

    “Whether very many men have tight Game is another question.”

    O: I don’t disagree; but as we both know, a little Game not only goes a long way…but can be a very dangerous thing…

    “I didn’t blunt the idea, I nuked it.”

    O: In your own mind…

    “I’ve actually been mentioned quite a lot at Roosh’s forum.”

    O: Shall we do a bit of datamining to determine who’s been mentioned more where?

    “It’s hardly surprising that readers here would be aware of Game blogs. I’m not sure how young guys find me, as we don’t share links on the Blogroll, but they do somehow. Shrugs. I have no problem with it.”

    O: It’s not the guys I’m talking about, and you know it. It’s the girls who constantly mention these guys, and I think we both know why that is. I am saying to you, it’s because these guys, what they’re saying and in many cases doing, IS of massive, huge concern to the ladies, both here and elsewhere (Clarisse Thorn’s “crusade” against Game comes to mind, among others…)

    O.

    • You suggested that Roosh/Roissy etc had barely a presence in NYC. I am saying to you, that such a notion is deeply erroneous. “Girls” is proof of this. Among other things…

      No, that is not what I meant at all. I suggested that Roosh, the self-described “sexual jackal,” is a rare creature. There just aren’t very many men around who “achieve” what Roosh has, or who even want to. Even Roosh doesn’t want to.

      I am saying to you, it’s because these guys, what they’re saying and in many cases doing, IS of massive, huge concern to the ladies, both here and elsewhere (Clarisse Thorn’s “crusade” against Game comes to mind, among others…)

      I would describe nearly all the women at HUS as pro-Game. Where you’ll find controversy is in the “dark” or “dread” tactics. Thorn focuses on PUAs, many of whom do choose to use Game in a dark way, without regard for the feelings of others. IOW, they are cads. We don’t much like cads around here, and nearly all references to the Dark Lord have to do with what we perceive are unethical recommendations.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @SayWhaat

    386 comments later, and Jimmy Hendricks is nowhere to be found.

    Ha… guilty as charged. Whirlwind week at work and grad school. Fall session can’t get here soon enough.

    My initial impression:

    Susan obviously put boatload of time and effort into this one and it shows. I agree with some of the findings, but not all of them (surprise surprise!)…

    I’ll give my thoughts on some of the specific points in a bit…

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    1. Student misperceptions of sexual norms on campus, known as Pluralistic Ignorance, perpetrates hookup culture and affects personal behavioral decisions.

    Agreed

    2. Both male and female college students lie about their number of sexual partners.

    Agreed

    3. The college sex ratio influences the supply and demand curves for sex and relationships.

    On paper I agree with this. It makes logical sense. But to be honest, I haven’t seen it play out this way in real life. My undergrad was highly skewed close to 60/40, and my current grad school is pretty close to 50/50, and I really don’t see any notable difference.

    It also means that equal proportions of promiscuous males and females will produce a larger number of promiscuous girls than guys on campus.

    Agreed. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s significant grey area between a “promiscuous person” and “a person who has engaged in promiscuous behavior.”

    4. Studies consistently estimate that 26-27% of freshmen women have sexual intercourse during at least one hookup. (12% of those partners are ex-boyfriends.)

    The problem here is that “hookup” is such a vague term… do FWBs count as hookups? Booty calls? Ex’s? I think you’d get a wide variety of answers.

    5. Studies estimate that 45-50% of males have sexual intercourse while hooking up over the course of a semester.

    Definitely not my experience. Maybe it’s the crowds I associate with, but I definitely don’t see half of the guys out there getting ONSs every semester.

    6. Half of men and women who hook up are seeking a traditional romantic relationship.

    How was this determined? By what they say, or their actions? And are they seeking the relationship with the person they’re hooking up with or is the “seeking a relationship” just a general thought in their minds? Again, reasons why I dislike hypothetical surveys 😉

    7. A small minority of students has had more than 50 hookups (3.7% M, 3% F) and 6 sexual partners (3.5% M, 3% F).

    Agreed. In fact, I’ve always agreed with you that the groups of highly promiscuous people in both sexes is a relatively low percentage.

    My contention has always been that many women who are not in the “highly promiscuous” group still engage in promiscuous behavior from time to time (i.e. “lane changing”), generally with promiscuous males.

    I don’t really see how this data disproves that.

    • @Jimmy Hendricks

      The problem here is that “hookup” is such a vague term… do FWBs count as hookups? Booty calls? Ex’s? I think you’d get a wide variety of answers.

      They all count. The hookup is specifically is defined as an encounter without obligation of any kind for further contact.

      How was this determined? By what they say, or their actions? And are they seeking the relationship with the person they’re hooking up with or is the “seeking a relationship” just a general thought in their minds? Again, reasons why I dislike hypothetical surveys

      In that study, they surveyed people post-hookup to ask their motivation for hooking up. So it wasn’t a “what would you do?” but a “why did you do it?”

      My contention has always been that many women who are not in the “highly promiscuous” group still engage in promiscuous behavior from time to time (i.e. “lane changing”), generally with promiscuous males.

      Because the numbers are so close for promiscuous males and females, then this could only be true if promiscuous women also changed lanes to get with betas from time to time. That is certainly possible, but I suspect most men here would say no way.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    (Scientists believe sociosexuality is static, that’s another post I’m working on. There’s little evidence for the “changing lanes” theory after all.)

    I’ll be interested to read that… with a healthy dose of skepticism, of course 😉

  • Susan,

    All of the research on hookup culture points to Pluralistic Ignorance – college students regularly estimate that 75% or more of their peers are hooking up regularly, when the actual number is closer to 10%. It’s not colleges that need reforming, or even that hooking up needs to stop. What we need is to communicate to students that not many of them are actually doing it.

    I’ve seen you say this several times now, and I don’t think the stats you’ve provided point to such a low number. For example, in study A, 26% of women and 45% of men have had penetrative hookups… hardly close to 10%. But the main reason I wanted to address this point about Pluralistic Ignorance is because it seems like you’ve changed the meaning of it. From your post:

    Arnie Kahn, one of three co-authors of the study, which grew out of undergraduate student Carolyn Bradshaw’s thesis, says it comes down to something called “pluralistic ignorance.” Essentially: Everybody’s doing it, so it must be good.

    One of Kahn’s previous studies on the topic found that both men and women overestimated the degree to which the opposite gender enjoyed hooking up — described in this study as “a sexual encounter, usually lasting only one night, between people who are strangers or brief acquaintances.”

    Furthermore, students overestimated how much members of their own gender liked hooking up. “Because everybody else is hooking up you assume that they do it because they like it. Whereas you know that you don’t like it that much, but you do it to go along,” Kahn explains. “College students are very conformist.”

    So it’s not that students are ignorant about how many people are hooking up. It’s that they’re ignorant about how many people enjoy hooking up. That’s very different.

    • @Olive

      in study A, 26% of women and 45% of men have had penetrative hookups… hardly close to 10%.

      10% is the number of promiscuous students. Many students who have a sexual hookup freshman year do not go on to rack up high N.

      But the main reason I wanted to address this point about Pluralistic Ignorance is because it seems like you’ve changed the meaning of it. …So it’s not that students are ignorant about how many people are hooking up. It’s that they’re ignorant about how many people enjoy hooking up. That’s very different.

      You’re right, that is different. PI generally refers to comfort levels rather than enjoyment, but it does describe the act of behaving, or feeling pressured to behave, in a way that one perceives as conforming to the norm:

      “Pluralistic ignorance (PI) has been demonstrated to play a role in hook-up behavior.
      PI is characterized by individuals behaving in accordance with (generally false) beliefs
      attributed to the group, regardless of their own beliefs (Fields and Schuman, 1976; Miller
      and McFarland, 1987). Lambert, Kahn, and Apple (2003) found that young adults routinely
      believe that others are more comfortable with various sexual behaviors than they,
      themselves, are.

      This leads them to behave as if they were more comfortable than they
      actually are, and engage in behaviors with which they are not actually comfortable. Note
      that if everyone is affected by this fallacy, no one will be behaving in accordance with their
      own beliefs and comfort levels. As a result, research on hook-ups has focused on personal
      consequences (Hayes, 2002; Paul, McManus, and Hayes, 2000), including the convoluted issue of consent
      and its ramifications (particularly for women), and the role of alcohol and/or drugs in hookup behavior on campuses.”

      This suggests that even while hooking up regularly is practiced by only a minority of students, some of those may be assumed to be uncomfortable with the idea and doing it anyway. This is important, because if you could put everyone in a room and get them to tell the truth, very few students would actually be psyched about the hookup script. Most would be relieved to learn that others shared their reservations. Programs in colleges exposing PI around binge drinking have been very successful in curbing that behavior.

      I have also read that students grossly overestimate hookup activity on campus – that’s certainly been true here. I’ll try and find a link.

    • @Olive

      More on PI:

      In pluralistic ignorance, there is a discrepancy between the actual norm and the

      perceived norm. A study by Prentice and Miller (2003) about pluralistic ignorance and

      alcohol use by college students provides a good example. Students in the study believed

      that their peers were drinking significantly more than they themselves were. However

      after comparing the actual norm as documented in participants’ self-reports to the

      perceived norm found in participant reports about others, they found that there was an

      inconsistency. A difference existed between perceived and actual norm despite the fact

      that in reality the two should match up. Thus, pluralistic ignorance was documented.

      Cohen and Shortland (1996) also studied pluralistic ignorance and they found that

      both men and women believed that the average person of their sex had more liberal

      sexual expectations than they set for themselves. Both sexes believed that the person of

      their same sex would expect sexual intercourse much sooner in a relationship than they

      themselves would expect. This study provides another example of pluralistic ignorance

      being documented about sexual behaviors.

      https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3hrpzH53dLsJ:vault.hanover.edu/~altermattw/social/assets/w07papers/Maurer,Scott,Turner.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESincoBWm6dBIS1L5LMe4yt89cy8L_d_csurYQkIHNy27qjB7hIGiFMW34-IMl4bpPLTlr10GMhBJJmCmmDzK6DbfuU0jUDpINx791qWjcuxVu4iYBjRF-1wksWbME8Jz2k4PhDa&sig=AHIEtbTCiNGrPrlomFgOUDtf-BBZjfD2cg

  • Susan,

    Remember, I did not start out believing this. Originally, I accepted the notion that 80% of the women were sexing up 20% of the males, as promoted widely by practitioners of Game. Over time, this notion became more and more untenable and is now dead.

    Yes, I did read over the data, and it certainly doesn’t point to the 80-20 myth. I think you’ve dispelled that theory, at least for the college community.

    That’s an interesting idea, that more women want to be sluts than are.

    Well that’s not quite what I meant. It’s more like more women want to get with the top guys than are.

    Is it really that difficult for women – even average looking women – to get sex from a frat guy? I’ve known many physically unattractive frat guys who were not all that picky, truth be told.

    Well think about my school, and those ratios. Frat guys purposely don’t let other guys into frat parties so they can have their pick of the girls. And like I said, most of those girls won’t hook up because there aren’t nearly enough guys for each girl.

    Duke found in its study that only a third of seniors had hooked up, and only 1/6 had sex during a hookup.

    But that doesn’t mean students weren’t hoping to hook up and going home empty-handed on the weekends.

    It’s certainly possible that more women want to have sex than are, but I’ve never come across that in the academic literature or research.

    Seems like it’d be sort of difficult to research. “Hi, I’m doing a research project. You haven’t hooked up, eh? Have you ever wanted to and been unsuccessful?”

    • Seems like it’d be sort of difficult to research. “Hi, I’m doing a research project. You haven’t hooked up, eh? Have you ever wanted to and been unsuccessful?”

      But you’d expect to see it in the number of women who have positive views of hooking up. Even if they pretended to be successful rather than admit their failures – they should show up as being pro hookup.

      The promiscuous women in my focus groups did not hold out for the top guys – in fact, they were not selective – that’s what made them promiscuous. I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea of a woman who is DTF but is not promiscuous because she is so selective that she won’t settle for anyone but the top man. After some period of failure, I would imagine a woman with such a short-term orientation would recalibrate and find more amenable males. But I don’t know – you’re the first person to suggest otherwise.

  • @SW

    Nice guys are the ones marrying, having children and staying married.

    Really? In PC parlance, they don’t really exist. Or if they do, nothing can be learned from them, because they’re all desperate, unattractive losers with no options, constantly in fear of being divorced. :mrgreen:

  • But you’d expect to see it in the number of women who have positive views of hooking up. Even if they pretended to be successful rather than admit their failures – they should show up as being pro hookup.

    Perhaps. I only speak for myself here, but I had very mixed feelings about hooking up during my sophomore year, when most of my hookups took place. I knew I really wanted a boyfriend, but I didn’t know how to get one without hooking up (and as you know, that’s how I got with my BF). I guess what I’m saying is I wouldn’t necessarily consider myself “pro hookup” even when I was hooking up. YMMV.

    I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea of a woman who is DTF but is not promiscuous because she is so selective that she won’t settle for anyone but the top man. After some period of failure, I would imagine a woman with such a short-term orientation would recalibrate and find more amenable males.

    Well I don’t think that’s exactly how it works. It’s more like a girl goes to a frat party because she knows that’s where most of the hooking up is occurring, and she hopes she’ll meet a guy that way. She doesn’t have to be DTF (maybe just interested in making out or dancing or whatever), and she doesn’t have to even be looking for the top guy. She could just be looking for male attention, knowing that a frat party would be the place to get it.

    • Perhaps. I only speak for myself here, but I had very mixed feelings about hooking up during my sophomore year, when most of my hookups took place. I knew I really wanted a boyfriend, but I didn’t know how to get one without hooking up (and as you know, that’s how I got with my BF)

      I think this is very common – in fact, the most common scenario – and I do think it’s reflected in the data.

      It’s more like a girl goes to a frat party because she knows that’s where most of the hooking up is occurring, and she hopes she’ll meet a guy that way. She doesn’t have to be DTF (maybe just interested in making out or dancing or whatever), and she doesn’t have to even be looking for the top guy. She could just be looking for male attention, knowing that a frat party would be the place to get it.

      That is common too, but I thought you were talking about women who would have sex during a hookup if they could get it, and you were claiming they couldn’t.

      Based on the studies in the post on freshmen, the males are doing pretty well, presumably with fellow freshmen. Whether those girls are settling or not aiming for frat stars in the first place is hard to say.

  • but I thought you were talking about women who would have sex during a hookup if they could get it, and you were claiming they couldn’t.

    Nah, I was talking about girls attending frat parties looking to hook up (or even just dance with a guy) and not having the opportunity because of the skewed ratios.

    • Nah, I was talking about girls attending frat parties looking to hook up (or even just dance with a guy) and not having the opportunity because of the skewed ratios.

      Right, I understand. Not enough guys to go around. The purpose of this post, though, is to determine the number of people who have oral, vaginal or anal sex during hookups. It’s hard to imagine that many young women go to frat parties with that intent in mind – and if they did, it wouldn’t be very difficult for them to find a taker. As you said, it’s more about getting access to the top males to date them.

  • @Ted
    Heh of course you like the glasses I hate, the story of my life… Oh well as long as your wife likes them too is not my business

    @Olive
    I’m glad you are back and your health is getting better. Keep improving girl and don’t get lost 😀

  • deti

    deti “I’m willing to accept the conclusion as statistically valid for college enrollees.”

    SW: “That is hilarious! Talk about moving the goalposts! We have never debated anything but the behavior of college enrollees here at HUS, something I have reminded you of many times.”

    I’m just pointing out the conclusion can’t extend beyond the data. No goalpost-moving going on here.

    “At least we can now agree that among college students, there is no alpha cock carousel, or at least few riders. Hypergamy has been grossly exaggerated.”

    That conclusion extends way beyond the data. Hypergamy doesn’t disappear or cease to operate just because the data for college students doesn’t support 20%/n>20%.

    • Hypergamy doesn’t disappear or cease to operate just because the data for college students doesn’t support 20%/n>20%.

      I didn’t say it disappeared, I said it has been grossly exaggerated. What the data shows is that a small number of high N women have sex with high N guys. They probably are quite hypergamous, but it’s only a small minority of the population.

      A third of women don’t hook up at all, so there is no evidence of any hypergamy among them.

      Around half of women have an occasional hookup, and many do so to secure a boyfriend. Their partners are clearly beta males, who share their desire for an LTR.

      Therefore, evidence of hypergamy among college women is restricted to the 3% who have more than 6 partners in college, or 1.5 sexual partners per year. Even that is hardly carousel riding behavior.

      I also see no evidence that there is “carousel watching” occurring on college campuses, if by watching you mean considering jumping on at some point.

  • deti

    SW: “Student misperceptions of sexual norms on campus, known as Pluralistic Ignorance, perpetrates hookup culture and affects personal behavioral decisions.”

    Do you mean “perpetuates” instead of “perpetrates”?

    I don’t understand the sentence’s meaning with the word “perpetrates”.

    • Do you mean “perpetuates” instead of “perpetrates”?

      I don’t understand the sentence’s meaning with the word “perpetrates”.

      Main Entry: perpetrate  [pur-pi-treyt]
      Part of Speech: verb
      Definition: be responsible for

      “Student misperceptions of sexual norms on campus, known as Pluralistic Ignorance, are responsible for hookup culture and affect personal behavioral decisions.”

      I probably could have worded that better, but this was my intention.

  • Ted D

    “Scientists believe sociosexuality is static, that’s another post I’m working on. There’s little evidence for the “changing lanes” theory after all.)”

    I am looking forward to this post as well, since I know of at LEAST three women in my life that have certainly done some major “lane changing” since their late teens/early 20’s. Perhaps it is a generational thing and current college women aren’t switching gears as much, but in my circles it is pretty common to find the “former party girl turned soccer mom” just about everywhere. In some cases their husbands played the same game, and in at least a few cases the husband has no idea what his wife was up to prior to their meeting. I’ve known these particular women since high school, and as a former beta orbiter I can tell you WAY too much about their former exploits.

    Unless we are going to excuse promiscuous behavior from young women as a “learning experience” that we can simply disregard, I would be very surprised to see that “changing lanes” isn’t a wide spread phenomenon. Maybe I just know a lot of douches…

    Anna – No worries. I don’t wear the sunglasses all the time of course. (And now I have “Sunglasses at Night” from Cory Hart stuck in my head…)

    • @Ted D

      in my circles it is pretty common to find the “former party girl turned soccer mom” just about everywhere

      In this case, I was referring to claims that non-promiscuous women occasionally seek a ONS with an alpha, then sneak back into their “good girl” lifestyle.

      In the cases you mention, those women may be soccer moms, but their mating orientation is still likely to be what it always was. That is what I meant by static – it’s at least half genetic. That leaves two possibilities:

      They were party girls and slutty because they prefer STRs, and now they’re attempting long-term monogamy.

      They were always LTR-oriented, but had a lot of casual sex along the way for any number of reasons, and now are happy to be done with that time in their lives when they were almost certainly unhappy.

  • The purpose of this post, though, is to determine the number of people who have oral, vaginal or anal sex during hookups.

    Okay, that’s cool. I was actually under the impression that it was about who hooks up with who, but I’m sorry if I was mistaken.

    It’s hard to imagine that many young women go to frat parties with that intent in mind – and if they did, it wouldn’t be very difficult for them to find a taker.

    Except that I just got done explaining why, at least at my school, there aren’t enough guys to go around. So I disagree, I do think it’d be difficult to find a taker, especially for the lower SMV ladies.

    As you said, it’s more about getting access to the top males to date them.

    Yes, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that these girls want to hook up with them to secure them for relationships. I’m sure you’re well aware that most girls don’t understand that having sexual contact with a guy doesn’t imply some sort of emotional connection.

    A third of women don’t hook up at all, so there is no evidence of any hypergamy among them.

    It doesn’t show up in the data, but we can’t be sure that these ladies aren’t pining away for the lacrosse players. Haven’t you seen the corny chick flick movies where the shy awkward nerd girl gets the star quarterback? Ever seen Princess Diaries? 😉

    Around half of women have an occasional hookup, and many do so to secure a boyfriend. Their partners are clearly beta males, who share their desire for an LTR.

    Hm, I don’t think the data points to this, necessarily. I get the feeling that if this were true, there’d be more relationships.

    Therefore, evidence of hypergamy among college women is restricted to the 3% who have more than 6 partners in college, or 1.5 sexual partners per year. Even that is hardly carousel riding behavior.

    I just want to say that I don’t think a girl needs to be promiscuous in order to be hypergamous. I’m somewhat hypergamous, as I’m sure you recall, and my N is 1.

    I also see no evidence that there is “carousel watching” occurring on college campuses, if by watching you mean considering jumping on at some point.

    Maybe there’s not statistical evidence, but I did just get done explaining the frat party thing. I always took “carousel watcher” to mean “girl who wants to hook up but doesn’t have the opportunity.” Lots of those going to frat parties at my school.

    • Hm, I don’t think the data points to this, necessarily. I get the feeling that if this were true, there’d be more relationships.

      You raise a good point here. One of the things that surprised me in a couple of these studies were how many people were in relationships – around a third to half, I think. I’m trying to do some research to get at some more numbers.

      I may have fallen victim myself to erroneous assumptions – because there are few relationships among the promiscuous, I assumed there were few relationships in college. This is still a question – I do not yet have an answer.

  • Mike C

    In the cases you mention, those women may be soccer moms, but their mating orientation is still likely to be what it always was. That is what I meant by static – it’s at least half genetic. That leaves two possibilities:

    They were party girls and slutty because they prefer STRs, and now they’re attempting long-term monogamy.

    They were always LTR-oriented, but had a lot of casual sex along the way for any number of reasons, and now are happy to be done with that time in their lives when they were almost certainly unhappy.

    Susan,

    With this statement, I am confused as to whether your position relates more to innate predilection or actual behavior.

    I apologize if this is too personal, but I am curious. Your own personal experience would fit the “changing lanes” category as you had a LTRs prior to marriage and by your own admission a number of casual flings and ONS’s.

    about your position is you are essentially saying the vast majority are absolutely UNLIKE you and your sexual experience. I am curious why you think it is unrealistic that some larger amount of women would essentially have the exact same historical sexual experience that you yourself lived. And if you are genetically wired for LT mating and was always LTR oriented, why did you engage in the amount of casual sex you did?

    • @Mike C

      With this statement, I am confused as to whether your position relates more to innate predilection or actual behavior.

      Sociosexuality relates more to innate predilection. The inventory measures attitudes and beliefs about sex, on a spectrum of restricted (LTR or marriage, monogamy) or unrestricted (ONS, threesomes, etc.). Researchers say that this measure is fairly static. Beliefs re sex tend not to change over time.

      Actual behavior may vary, which would be incongruence with beliefs. We know that in hookup culture, this is quite common, for both women and men. They may feel pressured to do what they think everyone else feels comfortable doing, or they may see the hookup as a necessary means to an end – a LTR.

      Your own personal experience would fit the “changing lanes” category as you had a LTRs prior to marriage and by your own admission a number of casual flings and ONS’s.

      I definitely fall on the restricted side of the sociosexuality spectrum. Prior to the age of 25, I did not engage in any NSA sex. During one period I did have a few ONSs, although I know they were not congruent with my attitudes about sex, and they were not fulfilling, probably because of that incongruence.

      Obviously, many people experience both relationship sex and casual sex in their lifetimes. The 26% of freshmen women who had sex in a hookup would be included. That doesn’t mean they’re slutty (IMO) – some of them probably got into relationships as a result. That’s the trickiest part today – it’s like a quest where you have to travel through dangerous territory to get to your destination.

  • Mike C

    Part of my comment got cut off. the copy and paste on this updated gmail Android app is messed up

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Sociosexuality relates more to innate predilection. The inventory measures attitudes and beliefs about sex, on a spectrum of restricted (LTR or marriage, monogamy) or unrestricted (ONS, threesomes, etc.). Researchers say that this measure is fairly static. Beliefs re sex tend not to change over time.

    Actual behavior may vary, which would be incongruence with beliefs. We know that in hookup culture, this is quite common, for both women and men. They may feel pressured to do what they think everyone else feels comfortable doing, or they may see the hookup as a necessary means to an end – a LTR.

    Ah ok, that’s really a completely different argument than I was expecting… can’t say I really disagree.

    But when it comes to guys who will hold potential gf’s past hookups against them, I doubt they care whether they were enjoying it or not… all they care about is whether the actions took place or not.

    • But when it comes to guys who will hold potential gf’s past hookups against them, I doubt they care whether they were enjoying it or not… all they care about is whether the actions took place or not.

      Exactly! Which is why I encourage women to act in accordance with their true beliefs. It’s one thing to be an STR person and stick with STRs, but to be an LTR person and find your disqualified for that because of STR behaviors – that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

  • Ted D

    JH – “But when it comes to guys who will hold potential gf’s past hookups against them, I doubt they care whether they were enjoying it or not… all they care about is whether the actions took place or not.”

    Precisely. Although I will say this: I’d have LESS problems with a woman that had a few flings and didn’t enjoy it versus a woman that had several flings and loved the hell out of them. But as far as counts go, both would be strikes against her all the same.

    But I’m also with you that this was not the argument I was expecting. I can fully believe that there are plenty of higher N women that truly are LTR at heart and simply spent far too much time having sex over looking for quality men. In the end it is the N that counts, although at least to me intent is a part of that equation.

  • Mike C

    Sociosexuality relates more to innate predilection. The inventory measures attitudes and beliefs about sex, on a spectrum of restricted (LTR or marriage, monogamy) or unrestricted (ONS, threesomes, etc.). Researchers say that this measure is fairly static. Beliefs re sex tend not to change over time.

    Got it. I think this makes sense. I suspect this also is on a spectrum in terms of preference. Trying to self-assess, I think I’d be somewhat middle of the road. I can honestly say thinking back over some of my casual encounters I enjoyed them.

    Actual behavior may vary, which would be incongruence with beliefs. We know that in hookup culture, this is quite common, for both women and men. They may feel pressured to do what they think everyone else feels comfortable doing, or they may see the hookup as a necessary means to an end – a LTR.

    FWIW, I know with myself and I suspect Jimmy and just about every other guy when we talk about the “changing lanes” effect we are specifically referring to actual behavior that took place, not someone changing their beliefs back and forth.

    I definitely fall on the restricted side of the sociosexuality spectrum. Prior to the age of 25, I did not engage in any NSA sex. During one period I did have a few ONSs, although I know they were not congruent with my attitudes about sex, and they were not fulfilling, probably because of that incongruence.

    Given that, why did you have more than one? I’m trying to understand why you would willingly engage in behavior repeatedly that goes against your innate beliefs about sociosexuality and that you did NOT find fulfilling. Peer pressure? Did you believe that it made you “empowered”?

    The 26% of freshmen women who had sex in a hookup would be included. That doesn’t mean they’re slutty (IMO) – some of them probably got into relationships as a result. That’s the trickiest part today – it’s like a quest where you have to travel through dangerous territory to get to your destination.

    Well, I’d say and think you basically agree that having sex as a way to get a relationship probably isn’t the best way. Posts like this one are instrumental to guiding women (for those who will listen) to alternative paths to the relationship.l8

    • @Mike C

      Given that, why did you have more than one? I’m trying to understand why you would willingly engage in behavior repeatedly that goes against your innate beliefs about sociosexuality and that you did NOT find fulfilling. Peer pressure? Did you believe that it made you “empowered”?

      It was a combination of things. Part of it probably came from feeling like a kid in a candy store. I had had a couple of years of no dating at all, and getting to b-school in 1981 made me feel like a prom queen. I got a lot of attention, and at 25 thought, “Why not?” To be honest, I was very career focused at the time, not really planning to have a family, and not even certain I would marry. Which just goes to show you how things can change. I had never really been in love before.

      Anyway, you may recall that I fell for Mr. HUS pretty hard early on when we were in the same friend group, but my crush was not requited. He was all over the undergrads 😛

      So there was a bit of a misguided attempt to FTOM, but more like a couple, not ten. Anyway, Mr. HUS was one of those ONSs, though I did harbor those secret feelings, though he was unaware. Those ONSs I had had did come back to bite me, as Mr. HUS had been well aware of them and put me in the STR box initially.

      Do as I say, not as I do.

  • @SW

    Re: the population at large, as described by CDC and census data…

    Doesn’t the CDC/Census data on N, taken at face value, cast some doubt on the idea that a majority of women, college graduates or not, “change lanes” at some point?

    • @Megaman

      Doesn’t the CDC/Census data on N, taken at face value, cast some doubt on the idea that a majority of women, college graduates or not, “change lanes” at some point?

      The greatest number of sexual partners is one IIRC – by far. And casual sex is nothing new, as I can attest. It’s hard to know what percentage of women have ever had a ONS. That’s a bit misleading though – I have been talking about 20% of women being promiscuous, not about only 20% of women having ever had a casual sexual experience. Obviously, that number is much higher, especially since that is the perceived route to a relationship in college. I still don’t believe women hop between two ladders depending on their mood or “phase” as a rule – though they may hook up strategically. I think it is worth looking at intent – is a woman having sex earlier than she would like with a beta guy to make him her bf? Or is she hooking up with some douche knowing he’s going to hit and quit it?

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan
    I agree 100%.

  • Shadow Over Santa Suzana

    ” Beliefs re sex tend not to change over time.”

    That all flies out the window under extenuating circumstances, such as post adult decades long virginity/celibacy, we’re talking years here, and the resultant pent up lust that it culminates in. After the kinks are worked out such people do tend to return to sexual conservativism, but not to the previous extent.

  • Abbot

    “to be an LTR person and find your disqualified for that because of STR behaviors – that’s what I’m trying to prevent.”

    Feminists and promiscuous women are trying to prevent that solely with desperate kneejerk fuming diatribes crafted to change how men think and behave. Since it is abundantly clear that is not working, what are some other approaches women can use to achieve happiness with men as they are?

  • @SW

    Obviously, that number is much higher, especially since that is the perceived route to a relationship in college.

    Yeah, simple surveys that ask “have you ever had casual sex” are problematic, but I’ve never seen one where a majority of women admit to it. It’s presumptuous to assume every one of them made it with only the highest N men. I’ve heard of situations where the guy sees the relationship as casual while the girl sees it as serious. There’s a clear problem right there of defining what “it” is. If it’s exclusive and monogamous, call it a duck already.

    I have noticed a need to believe that most all women are promiscuous, were promiscuous, or did at least one promiscuous thing in their lives, however all that’s defined. Call it the Scarlet Letter “S”. Not sure why, but it’s impossible to prove. At the same time, CDC/Census reports:

    Women 20-24, ~ 65% have had 0-4 partners
    Women 25-29, ~ 50% have had 0-4 partners
    Women w/college degree (22-44), 59% have had 0-4 partners
    Women currently married (18-44), 62% have had 0-4 partners

    I think it’s reasonable to assume that women with low counts tend to be more discriminating in which guys they go to bed with. If this is your target demographic, it’s both fairly conservative and pretty sizable…

    • @Megaman

      I’ve heard of situations where the guy sees the relationship as casual while the girl sees it as serious. There’s a clear problem right there of defining what “it” is. If it’s exclusive and monogamous, call it a duck already.

      Oh yes, those “situations” account for most of the action happening on college campuses. Earlier this year, a survey of Harvard seniors revealed that 24% of them didn’t know whether they were in a relationship or not.

      Women 20-24, ~ 65% have had 0-4 partners
      Women 25-29, ~ 50% have had 0-4 partners
      Women w/college degree (22-44), 59% have had 0-4 partners
      Women currently married (18-44), 62% have had 0-4 partners

      Given the low number of partners women have in college, that is not surprising. Though I suspect the CDC numbers do mask one thing: the shift among the non-college educated toward more promiscuity. Or perhaps there are many women like Jessica Shairer, who has three children by one absent man, and a deadbeat ex. Her number may be 2, and yet she is square in the middle of the single motherhood epidemic. A women with three different baby daddies may have an N of three.

      The stats for the whole population are very difficult to tease apart.

  • I have noticed a need to believe that most all women are promiscuous, were promiscuous, or did at least one promiscuous thing in their lives, however all that’s defined.

    Don’t forget that even the ones that were never promiscuous secretly wished they were and are waiting for the slightest chance to do so or are so hipergamy that not even the most Alpha males will do, they are holding out for Jesus Superman millionaire. Come on you need to keep track of the narrative better. 😉

    • Don’t forget that even the ones that were never promiscuous secretly wished they were and are waiting for the slightest chance to do so

      Yes, they are now known as “carousel watchers.” Just waiting for the carousel to slow down enough for them to hop on. Apparently, 97% of college women are in this group, according to deti, who coined the term.

  • @SW

    24% of them didn’t know whether they were in a relationship or not.

    Heh… a non-commital attitude like this, from either party, ought to be grounds from immediate dumping :mrgreen:
    Funny, this kind of thing is a primary characteristic of the hookup scene. I’ve read of a similar phenomenon that develops before college, at the HS level, where dating really starts to dry up, and kids avoid relationships. And there’s no apparent “political” motivation for it (alcohol is present, but so are parents, and there are no co-ed dorms)…

    The stats for the whole population are very difficult to tease apart.

    That’s certainly true, they don’t give a picture of qualitative experience, like irresponsible choices as you’ve described. I’m just wondering how common that is with the lower N crowd? One last stat from the CDC/Census that really jumped out:

    Women never married, not cohabiting (15-44) ~ 70% have had 0-4 partners

    I’m sure some of them have made questionable life decisions, but it’s probably true that some large % of women (N > 4) have practiced serial monogamy and used birth control, particularly in their late 20s and 30s. The GSS website allows anybody to cross-reference these kinds of variables (age, gender, marital status, partner count, number of kids). I may give it a try and see what the correlation looks like.

  • Mike C

    I have noticed a need to believe that most all women are promiscuous, were promiscuous, or did at least one promiscuous thing in their lives, however all that’s defined. Call it the Scarlet Letter “S”. Not sure why, but it’s impossible to prove.

    Ehhhhh….its not a “need to believe” and it isn’t “all” either (“most all” seems kind of fuzzy, is that 51% or 88%). At this point, I couldn’t really give a flying f*ck. Like religion and politics, I suspect people stubbornly (perhaps even myself) hold onto whatever SMP views they have. I will say this. Susan has got me rethinking/reconsidering exactly what percentage of women basically engage in very little to basically no casual/promiscuous sex. I’m willing to believe it is higher than I formerly thought probably because most of the girls who fit that bill never got on my observable radar. I think for a variety of reasons we always mutually screened each other out.

    That said, I’ll come back to the point that all of this to me always has a ring of “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes”. I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. My N=7…that is penetrative P in V sex. Of that 7, ONLY 2 were monogamous LTRs. The other 5 were ALL casual of which 4 took place on the 2nd meeting. And I’m not even counting various girls that I either got back to their place, or they came back to mine and I either got a handjob or fingered their p*ssy but things stopped short of full on P in V sex. And then I’ve always think back to girl A who I was literally seconds away from having sex with on a first day meeting and I stopped it from happening. Girl A fit the “good girl” who doesn’t have sex with a guy she just met MO to a tee.

    The ONLY way……and I mean the ONLY way for me to make any sense whatsoever of my OWN PERSONAL experience is to assume basically all the women I’ve approached, interacted with, escalated with over the last 16 years is pretty much drawn exclusively from the 20% of “promiscuous slutty” girls. I guess that is possible as Susan is correct that the 20% is still a very big number. Of my 7, there are a few who I’m sure no doubt were quite promiscuous. One I know for sure was highly promiscuous. But there were some anomalies. There were some who really seemed genuine that they weren’t “the type” to normally engage in rapid, casual sex. Perhaps I am wrong on that, and they had me fooled.

    Ultimately, my belief is in my mind a quite moderate one which really is just to say that more women than not basically have the experience of Susan…some mix of monogamous LTR activity with some short-term casual activity (the number of ONSs she had). I asked her about the motivation and thought process on this, and she gave some perspective but not really much and I could tell was hesitant to get to deeply into this. To me the million dollar question is why would a woman who has a long-term sociosexual orientation engage in some non-trivial amount of short-term casual activity. This is a MASSIVE INTERNAL CONTRADICTION. It suggests many things. Either sociosexual orientation isn’t that strong and people can bounce back and forth, OR some women don’t really know themselves and what they are capable of in certain situations. They can swear up and down they are long-term oriented, but for some reason have a some ONSs and flings if the conditions are right.

    I suspect Susan is correct that some amount of short-term mating occurs as a motivation to “get a relationship out of it”. The casual sex is a means to an end. Susan and her husband would be an example of that. I think there are other factors at work that determine when a woman with a long-term sociosexual orientation would engage in short-term casual sex, but I’ll leave this comment here

  • deti

    “Yes, they are now known as “carousel watchers.” Just waiting for the carousel to slow down enough for them to hop on. Apparently, 97% of college women are in this group, according to deti, who coined the term.”

    Ha. Nice slam. Susan, you give me too much notoriety. An infrequent commenter at kcorlad’s coined the “carousel watchers” term. Carousel watchers are women who stand around watching the carousel either with curiosity, interest, envy or secret desire.

    It’s not women who wait around for it to slow down so they can hop on. I’d bet that any woman who wants on the carousel can get on anytime she wants — and can alight from the carousel anytime she wants as well.

    I don’t think it’s 97% either. I would guess it’s a sizable number but it’s not that.

    • @deti

      Carousel watchers are women who stand around watching the carousel either with curiosity, interest, envy or secret desire.

      Hmmm, that’s an odd assortment of motives for watching the carousel. By this definition carousel watchers might include Michelle Bachmann, for example. Or a lesbian tenured Women’s Studies professor. I think it’s fair to say that *most* women *and* men watch the hookup scene with curiosity and interest, and often some repugnance as well.

      I’d bet that any woman who wants on the carousel can get on anytime she wants — and can alight from the carousel anytime she wants as well.

      Then why would anyone watch with envy or secret desire? Their wishes could be fulfilled immediately.

  • Tim

    Susan

    The guys in college who are having of the casual sex are all good looking.

    The girls in who are having most of the casual sex come in all shapes and sizes.

    Perhaps some day, there will be data on this. Promiscous men are almost always good looking.