A new study of over 19,000 college students measures attitudes about casual sex, or hooking up. Views continue to shift, with sizable numbers of both sexes indicating disrespect for students who engage in casual sex. Measuring attitudes as a bellwether of shifting trends in the SMP is valuable because it reflects students’ willingness to judge fellow students by withdrawing approval. This is in keeping with our knowledge about the sexual behavior of college students, which demonstrates that only a small number of students are promiscuous.
The irony, of course, is that feminists seek the eradication of the sexual double standard to create a culture where there is no standard, no judgment, no shame for either men or women who engage in casual sex. Instead, we see an increasing move to a single standard of increased judgment for both sexes. Young people are becoming less tolerant of casual sex. According to Rachel Allison, co-author of the study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Department of Sociology:
Men and women are increasingly judging each other on the same level playing field. But, gender equality and sexual liberation are not synonymous. While we’ve come a long way in terms of gender equality, it seems that a large portion of both college men and women lose respect for individuals who they believe participate in too frequent casual sexual activity.
The other co-author, sociology professor Barbara Risman agrees:
You have to remember how far the sexual revolution has come. Before, sociologists would study stigma directed toward sexually active unmarried women. Now, we are looking at whether stigma still exists toward men and women who too often engage in purely recreational sexual activity outside the confines of a dating relationship. That’s a sea change in attitudes towards sex..
The survey asked students to agree or disagree with the following statement: ”If women hook up or have sex with lots of people, I respect them less.” The same question was asked re men. Four clear groups emerged:
There were differences in attitudes among student groups:
There were also some very interesting highlights by gender:
1. 54% of women and 35% of men disrespect both sexes for hooking up.
2. 25% of men and 6% of women support a double standard holding women accountable for casual sex, but not men.
3. Male athletes and fraternity members were the most supportive of a double standard against women.
4. Sorority women judged men the most harshly for hooking up.
It’s possible that the Greek culture of judgment from men foments this gender war, the researchers suggest.
“Women who hold to this reverse double standard are invoking a kind of gender justice,” study researcher Barbara Risman, a professor of sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a statement. “They are critical of men who treat women badly, and they do not accept a ‘boys will be boys’ view of male sexuality.”
My take on these findings:
1. The finding that half the students disapprove of casual sex erodes Pluralistic Ignorance on campuses, decreasing peer pressure and a “grass is greener” mentality.
2. The traditional double standard has weakened considerably, even among men.
3. The men most likely to engage in casual sex express the strongest disrespect for their sexual partners, confirming the tendency of men to feel repulsed by their partners after casual sex:
For men who pursue a short-term mating strategy, first-time sex signals both that a goal has been achieved and that there is a possibility of becoming entangled in an unwanted long-term relationship. After first-time sex, the feelings men and women experience do indeed differ. Women more than men experience a positive affective shift toward increased feelings of commitment for their partners (Haselton & Buss, 2001), whereas, men who have had many sex partners (defined as 6+), (and therefore successfully pursue a short-term strategy) experience [an especially] negative affective shift marked by a drop-off in physical attraction to their partners (Haselton & Buss, 2001). These effects are hypothesized to prompt behaviors to secure investment (for women) or to extricate oneself from a potential romantic entanglement (for short-term oriented men).
4. Sorority women are pissed off that the men they’re having sex with won’t commit.
{ 1066 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 8 »
Question: how can a study which doesn’t appear to include any historical data credibly claim that “views continue to shift” or that “the traditional double standard has weakened considerably”? Moreover, how credible are the polls when we’re asked to believe that “sorority women judged men the most harshly for hooking up”. Are sorority women also the least likely to hook up?
If sorority women hook up the most, while claiming to judge men the most harshly for hooking up, this is evidence for the core principle of Game which recommends ignoring what a woman says and paying attention to what she does.
It’s so true VD, what people say and want are so different than what they do. The sorority chicks are just angry that Alpha bros act like Alpha bros.
@VD
In fairness to the study, both those claims were editorial on my part.
The data is from the 2011 Online College Life Survey. Unfortunately, the paper itself is embargoed until Monday, when it will be presented at the annual conference of the American Sociological Association. However, similar results were found in last year’s study:
Allison and Risman recognize that women control the supply of casual sex. By voicing disapproval of casual sex, women are standing up against hookup culture – and this is very much in keeping with the data we have on college sexual behavior, as linked in the post. A large percentage of men disapproves as well – no doubt a mix of men who are envious of top males and men who are not inclined toward casual sex, for various reasons.
Allison and Risman:
Sorority men and women comprise a majority of the students who hook up regularly – Greeks represent only 15% of American college students, but account for nearly half of all hookups. I take this to mean that sorority women would love nothing more than to lock down a frat star and hook up in an effort to do so, but have found this strategy spectacularly unsuccessful. It sounds like frat guys mostly pump and dump, and the girls feel cheated. Their harsh judgment is not about hooking up per se, which they do, it’s about hooking up that doesn’t lead to relationships. Even sluts want boyfriends, apparently.
Absolutely. Good advice for both sexes.
From Rolling Stone magazine, a quote of some interest:
That is the strategy employed by many sorority girls.
@Susan
The study is really pointing out the large disconnect between words and deeds for both sexes.
But I don’t think that’s either new nor is it news!
The data is from the 2011 Online College Life Survey. Unfortunately, the paper itself is embargoed until Monday, when it will be presented at the annual conference of the American Sociological Association. However, similar results were found in last year’s study:
That would tend to indicate that nothing is changing, would it not? My point is that I don’t think the purported disapproval is necessarily indicative that anything has changed with regards to the double-standard. Back when I was in college, there were no shortage of girls who claimed to disapprove of men who were players, but like the sorority girls in the study, didn’t hesitate to put out for them.
“Sorority women are pissed off that the men they’re having sex with won’t commit.”
Yeah, I’m with VD. They only have sex with men who won’t commit. That’s the turn on.
Alot of tertiary pluralistic ignorance will need to be cleared up before that changes.
@VD
It’s not a sea change in one year, it’s a shift in attitudes among young people compared to prior generations. I believe it does mark a decided shift to a more conservative view overall during the last decade or so. This is also reflected in the increasing percentage of both male and female virgins on college campuses.
Since only 3.5% of college men and 3% of college women have more than 6 sexual partners, it makes sense that over time Pluralistic Ignorance would decrease and those not engaging in casual sex are going to express disapproval of fellow students who are promiscuous. In short, there just aren’t that many sluts, and the non-sluts are raising their hands to be counted.
Yes, and I’m certain that has not changed. Sororities are surely where the largest group of promiscuous women may be found. They’re clearly expressing their frustration with fraternity guys – I agree that whether this leads them to stop putting out is questionable, but then again, some are bound to stop banging their bloody heads against a brick wall at some point.
I do find it amusing that the most judgmental men are the most promiscuous men. They’re spending their time with women they disrespect. This is in keeping with some of the things I’ve heard frat guys say about their supposed best girl pals and girlfriends. The level of cynicism and even nihilism is extraordinary among people so young.
With all due respect to Allison and Risman, I personally don’t believe that the increasing % of women on campus is leading to a more sexually conservative campus lifestyle as female students stand together to restrict access to casual sex and Just Say No.
I don’t know and readily admit that I could be totally off-base, but I suspect that the online survey questions contained loaded, inherently critical/pre-judgmental language (“casual sex”, “promiscuous lifestyles”, or “hook-up culture”) and that many respondents answered these questions accordingly.
It isn’t much different than asking the archetypal high-N fraternity stud/ football hero if he wants to be an “alpha asshat douchebag”. Of course he will say no. Ask him if he wants to be an “exciting, athletic man of great seductive qualities, popularity with women, and respect from his elite peers”, and he’ll say “fuck yes, that’s why I’m here. I’ll have some of that.” The problem is that, in this SMP, the two definitions are basically pointing to exactly the same individual.
If you asked the students who “disapproved” of casual sex if they felt that men and women should be able to make their own lifestyle choices and should be free from “patriarchal sexual oppression” and “intolerant, judgmental social critique” and “an environment in which women were seen as property”, they might well say that they did. They might also say that they supported the Pill, gay rights, abortion rights, and no-fault divorce.
I think this is technically called “trying to have one’s cake and eat it, too.”
I’m jaded here because some (definitely not all, but a vocal minority of) female sociologists/gender studies academics have proven themselves to be really invested in this endless, pointless war against alpha males. They want to prove that men and women have identical psycho-sexuality settings and they will never look at revealed preferences in the actual SMP, porn consumption, etc.
@Desiderius
I don’t think so. They want commitment from top [Greek] males, and those males don’t commit. If they really wanted to avoid commitment, they wouldn’t be critical of their sexual partners. It’s a chicken or egg question. In my experience, sorority girls most definitely want boyfriends – they need dates for lots of functions, they like being among fraternity “sweethearts” and they derive status for locking down a dominant male among their sorority sisters. There are some relationships among Greeks, but they tend to be glorified booty calls, more or less, a way of not having to get a new date for every event. And there’s lot of cheating as well.
@Bastiat Blogger
I believe the survey only included the one question about casual sex, which I cited in the post. If I learn otherwise after the data becomes available, I’ll update. For the record, I believe Risman and Allison are sex-positive feminists in their orientation. They’d rather see a neutral single standard, but observe that the data shows attitudes moving in a different direction.
Nor do I. The relationship is not causal. Rather, most students have a conservative view of sex. That is, their sociosexuality is restricted, and they disrespect students who sociosexuality profile is unrestricted. I don’t believe the numbers have really shifted – what’s happening is that Pluralistic Ignorance is eroding. As more data is published highlighting what the majority of students are actually doing, and students begin to realize that most people are not in fact hooking up, then not hooking up is recognized as the norm. As you may recall, I’ve mentioned that institutions are also conducting their own studies and publishing their results in an effort to get the facts out. Hookup culture is the Emperor without clothes, essentially.
I agree. In this study, they are quick to point out that 75% of students hold both sexes equally accountable for sexual behavior. They don’t like how many are negative, but they’ll take that over a double standard against women alone.
Is anyone else surprised that only 25% of males stated they disrespect women who have casual sex?
“25% of men and 6% of women support a double standard holding women accountable for casual sex, but not men.”
That ONLY reason for that disparity is the complete lack of effort required for women to engage in casual sex. The EFFORT GAP is the SOLE basis for the so-called “double standard”
“Male athletes and fraternity members were the most supportive of a double standard against women.”
No surprise. These men, future wife seekers and fathers of daughters, are stunned witnesses of shocking female sexual behavior [pornography and prostitution being close cousins] that pales in comparison to what any man is capable of.
Susan, thanks for your explanation re: the study authors. I was too quick to try to tar and feather them.
In your experience advising these young people, leading candid discussion groups, and so on, do you find that the students who have been involved in hook-up activity believed at the time of the sexual encounter that they were engaging in casual sex? Or do they determine if an event was casual or not by how it turned out later?
In other words, undergrads Nancy and Julie both have sex with the same man within the same general time frame, emotional statements, etc. Each independently meets Bob and has sex with Bob on, say, Date 3 or 4.
However, Nancy’s sexual encounter does not lead to an LTR. Julie’s relationship does. Is Nancy’s encounter considered casual sex/hook up while Julie’s encounter is considered LTR-seeking activity?
I’ll attempt something more conciliatory. What I said above was somewhat true 20 years ago, and definitely true 10 years ago and still widespread among the high-flying 30-year-olds, which is why the game blogs advise strongly against date invitations, but I’m prepared to believe that your gorgeous brunette is telling the truth. What would be unusual would be her being the same as her older peers.
A date invitation in a female dominated culture is like an uncovered head in a male-dominated one – perceived as slutty. Physically slutty in the later case, emotionally slutty in the former. Slutty means encroaching on the prerogative of the other sex – a woman physically escalating, a man emotionally.
Of course, an uncovered head is not in fact a physical escalation, but treating it as one is one way the males preserve their overweening power. Something similar likely goes on in female-dominated cultures like college campuses. Hence covered heads in muslim countries and no date invitations during college – at least from those resigned to following the existing rules.
Rules such as taking a girl out on a date before sex.
As for those women who’d like to let their freak flag fly and accept a date invitation from a man who could be convinced to commit, they’ll need to learn to screen men on the basis of MMV instead of SMV, keeping in mind that that man will probably be operating on the basis of SMV and thus will underestimate his worth.
That’s a systemic failure, not a personal one.
It would be more interesting and telling to get answers for “does hooking up lead to long term relationships?” Having a moral stance on casual sex is good, but pragmatism is also important. Of the men and women who are expecting to have an LTR before or soon after they graduate, how many of them are misguided about the practicality of hook ups?
sorority women, and many in general must be idiots for thinking that handing over sex to a guy will make him commit. have they not heard of the expression, “why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?” i know of a woman who had been living with her boyfriend for at least a year. i told her if by now he has not committed, then he won’t. .. especially if he was getting sex for free. so i told her to demand a proposal or she’s wasting her time. a few months later i saw her in ikea. i asked her about her relationship. she said she was in ikea buying stuff because she was moving out of his place–he had broken up with her.
“increasing power of young women to determine the sexual mores”
So what we have here is a “study” confirming that women are the gatekeepers of sex and of course that means women can and therefore do have higher N. The “increasing power” means that women are now admitting to themselves that they are the ones responsible and are finally taking that more seriously as women did just 50 years ago.
Susan,
“If they really wanted to avoid commitment, they wouldn’t be critical of their sexual partners.”
And if the men really wanted women of low character (at that point in their lives, both cases), by your logic they wouldn’t be critical of theirs.
But yet, by their behavior one can credibly conclude that that is exactly what they really want.
Is it your experience that this particular cohort, either sex, tends to be especially straightforward and candid? I don’t think they are even with themselves.
I do believe that these women do want commitment from a man for status (among women) purposes, but only from men who generally do not commit (I’ll avoid a discussion on base instincts here, but this is the observed behavior in any event), and without much in the way of reciprocal commitment, men being pigs.
frenchy,
“sorority women, and many in general must be idiots for thinking that handing over sex to a guy will make him commit.”
You’ve got it backwards. The hookup screen is enforced by women to eliminate men lacking experience in getting a woman to trade sex for commitment (preselection).
Again, this could (and should) all change and I wouldn’t be surprised if women were losing patience with the current system. But that is how it presently works.
“I do believe that these women do want commitment from a man for status (among women) purposes, but only from men who generally do not commit ”
and these are women who will make themselves out to be wife material in just a few years? Oh yeah, only character matters. Good luck
The problem is that most of the time people “preach morality on underpants” meaning that the bros that hate the sluts are having sex with them anyway they don’t tell them to their faces “As soon as I come I want you out of my face”, the same way the sluts that hate the bros do because they have a personal reason why and for them they feel forced and justified “But is the only way, I though he was different…”. Just say no has a long road to travel from thinking to actually doing it.
Is like when you are on a diet and someone brings pizza “I’m discipline but just a slice won’t do any harm and I will compensate later running a mile more….” similar reasoning. Opportunism is strong in our species, YMMV.
Almost time for the “insecure sheeple hypocrite caveman” Labeler
6..5..4…3….
@Desiderius
This is off topic but I’m not sure if you saw my comment thanking you for the song you shared with me on the AskMen’s Survey post, and that it was a very moving experience as I listened to it, since it seemed you went on vacation right as I posted it. If you didn’t, feel free to take a look. I shared some of my thoughts on my experiences and replied to what you wrote. Anyway, just wanted to make sure you knew that I appreciated what you shared with me.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/07/25/whatguyswant/askmens-great-male-survey-results/comment-page-5/#comment-139070
ps I also looked at the link of the book “Varieties of Religious Experience” and saw that it “posits that individual religious experiences, rather than the tenets of organized religions, form the backbone of religious life.” This is more my view of spiritual matters now….
Once again, thanks.
End off topic
It’s not a sea change in one year, it’s a shift in attitudes among young people compared to prior generations.
I understand that is the claim. I am not seeing that the evidence provided indicates that in any way. We know what the percentages are now. What were they before?
I’m not at all surprised that only 25% of male college students claimed to disapprove of women having casual sex. They have been subject to feminist propaganda since kindergarten. I certainly wouldn’t have disapproved of it when I was in college.
I do find it amusing that the most judgmental men are the most promiscuous men. They’re spending their time with women they disrespect.
This is in accordance with both Game and Groucho Marx. The relationship is causal. Such men disrespect women because of how they spend their time with them. And because so many women find contempt to be a DHV, it’s a virtuous circle that makes them more attractive and thus more easily able to attract women.
I think I posted this before, or didn’t post it because you had some articles saying the same.
“Targets were more likely to be derogated as the number of sexual partners increased, and this effect held for both male and female targets. These results suggest that, although people do evaluate others as a function of sexual activity, people do not necessarily hold men and women to different sexual standards….”
“To date, these studies show limited empirical support for the double standard (e.g., Gentry, 1998; Jacoby & Williams, 1985; Mark & Miller, 1986; Marks & Fraley, 2005a; Oliver & Sedikides, 1992; O’Sullivan, 1995; Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher, McKinney, Walsh, & Anderson, 1988). These findings are surprising considering the preponderance of anecdotal evidence for the existence of a double standard.”
http://feck-blog.blogspot.in/2011/03/slutty-studs.html
Off topic comment to Anacaona–
Did you do one of the genetic testing programs to find your ethnicity, discovering that you are 70% black?
I just did one of them too–70% as well….
The current state of things is interesting. I’d like to see how the changing trends impact the future.
Heh, the assumption that women deliberately act to eliminate lesser-experienced men from the mating pool. That’s precious. *rolls eyes*
The more accurate statement is, “the hookup screen is enforced by promiscuous women to attain higher-status men.” No supposition of “evil-doing” by women, particularly non-promiscuous women who aren’t even in the hookup scene to begin with.
These findings give me hope! Perhaps the pendulum is swinging back…
Personally, I’m curious how this survey breaks out based on campus size. At my alma mater, Rutgers, you could live in your own universe from a sexual perspective because of the sheer number of students. Since I tended to be a bit of a social butterfly, I saw everything from rampant hook-up culture to a very relationship oriented culture and everything in the middle. On a smaller campus, I suspect that culture is driven one way or the other simply because if you’re out of the mainstream, it’s a lot harder to find people to hang out with.
SW: “Heh, the assumption that women deliberately act to eliminate lesser-experienced men from the mating pool. That’s precious. *rolls eyes*”
What do you mean precious? It’s happened to me, very deliberately.
OTC, it’s “precious” in the sense that Desiderius made a blanket statement. One case (such as yours) does not account for the actions of an entire sex.
“These findings are surprising considering the preponderance of anecdotal evidence for the existence of a double standard.”
aka propaganda designed to shame men into coming around and qualifying promiscuous women as wife material
SW, not really. I read Desi’s statement as “women” as to mean those women actually participating in hookups, not all of them, and that’s true enough. Women in the scene hate seeing an inexperienced man make his way in, and, the difference in the between “high status” and not-lesser-experienced is almost nil in practice. Yeah, they’re competing for the top men, and they don’t want the dolt betas acting like land mines and getting in their way, so they trying to blow them up as soon as possible. I think you’re both violently agreeing.
“they’re competing for the top men, and they don’t want the dolt betas acting like land mines and getting in their way”
Whether the dolts get in now has no bearing on the universal fact they will not commit to these soon-to-be-desperate pummeled unworthies in just a few years
I saw a keychain that said “I do not discriminate -I hate everyone.” I won’t call anybody a ho to her/his face (unless I just plain don’t like ‘em) but this totally works for me. I also try to avoid being a hypocrite by cautioning myself against buying trampy-looking clothes and the like.
(I actually purchased the keychain that said “This is what a princess looks like.” Before you all get mad at me -when I thought of princesses, I thought of soulless protocol and miserable arranged marriages and stilted diplomacy, of which I am incapable anyhow. I’d start WWIII. Maybe I was being ironic, or thinking of Leia or somebody.)
This is clearly American. In much of Europe we are just not that hung up about who has sex and with whom, how many times, etc. We find Americans to be prudish. General French attitudes are that even infidelity in marriage is normal and something to be expected from both sexes.
Mia,
“This is clearly American. In much of Europe we are just not that hung up about who has sex and with whom, how many times, etc. We find Americans to be prudish. General French attitudes are that even infidelity in marriage is normal and something to be expected from both sexes.”
Il n’est pas d’accord
Han,
“This is off topic but I’m not sure if you saw my comment thanking you for the song you shared with me on the AskMen’s Survey post, and that it was a very moving experience as I listened to it, since it seemed you went on vacation right as I posted it.”
I was not on vacation, but was moving and without internet access so missed your comment. Your kind words are much appreciated. You are not alone in your journey.
“SW, not really. I read Desi’s statement as “women” as to mean those women actually participating in hookups, not all of them, and that’s true enough.”
Unfortunately, I also mean those women who are not hooking up but are still skeeved out by men who ask them on dates.
There is hope that as the pluralistic ignorance clears and it is more widely understood that the majority of young people are not in fact hooking up, this will subside.
Hasn’t yet.
It’s like a liberal Muslim man saying “don’t blame men for the head-covering, I love a beautiful face! It’s the women’s fault for covering themselves. I don’t know why they all do it.”
“we are just not that hung up about who has sex and with whom, how many times, etc”
Exactly the same in the US with the ONLY caveat: American men, and men on most of Earth, prefer to avoid long term commitment to promiscuous women. Its a preference that feels good and women don’t seem to mind so its all quite harmless.
The survey asked students to agree or disagree with the following statement: ”If women hook up or have sex with lots of people, I respect them less.”
The problem with that question is that is doesn’t refer to what contextual role you are judging the woman or man for sleeping around in, and the contextual role in which most people associate the sexual double standard as referring to, which is that of a long-term mate.
For instance, are you assessing the woman/man’s promiscuity within them adopting the contextual role of a human being, a friend, an employee, a co-worker, a wife or husband?
I know that if you asked me that question and if I related it to whether or not I would respect my co-workers less for sleeping around I probably would say I respect the men less than I respect the women, but if I was relating it to a context of romantic partners I would probably respect the women less than I would the men.
This latter contextual role of romantic partners hits far closer to home for contextual role in which most people associate the sexual double standard as referring to, which is that of a long-term mate.
“”I do find it amusing that the most judgmental men are the most promiscuous men. They’re spending their time with women they disrespect.”
This is in accordance with both Game and Groucho Marx. The relationship is causal. Such men disrespect women because of how they spend their time with them. And because so many women find contempt to be a DHV, it’s a virtuous circle that makes them more attractive and thus more easily able to attract women.”
Mmhmmm.
Desi: “Unfortunately, I also mean those women who are not hooking up but are still skeeved out by men who ask them on dates.”
That’s true, there are the “carousel watchers” – those who are single and refuse to hook up (or, pretend not to, or, just not frequently), but still love to openly crush and mock the legions of weak men that approach poorly. Most of those profiles I posted fall under that category.
“the contextual role in which most people associate the sexual double standard as referring to, which is that of a long-term mate.”
“most people” does not include promiscuous women or feminists as they are loath to admit such
“Sorority women are pissed off that the men they’re having sex with won’t commit.” Nowhere in this review of the study did I read that.
Did you do one of the genetic testing programs to find your ethnicity, discovering that you are 70% black?
I just did one of them too–70% as well….
Yes that was me… Neat. What was 30%? Were you surprised? You are Caribbean too right?
The irony, of course, is that feminists seek the eradication of the sexual double standard to create a culture where there is no standard, no judgment, no shame for either men or women who engage in casual sex. Instead, we see an increasing move to a single standard of increased judgment for both sexes.
Here’s a second irony. While the Jezzie-type feminists of the past few years may want to eliminate standards, the feminists of the 70s would have been happy to see single standard replace the double standard.
These men, future wife seekers and fathers of daughters, are stunned witnesses of shocking female sexual behavior…that pales in comparison to what any man is capable of.
If it pales in comparison to what any man is capable of, then with whom are they doing these horrible things?
@Ana, pvw
I read somewhere that the ostensibly black gene pool in the Americas is approxiately one-third non-black, with most of the outsider genes coming from whites. The Mediterreanean white gene pool is 2-3% sub-Saharian African.
“While the Jezzie-type feminists of the past few years may want to eliminate standards, the feminists of the 70s would have been happy to see single standard replace the double standard.”
The Jizz types may be happy with it as well so long as it does not cause women to put early marriage and family over that precious almighty “career” thingy
“If it pales in comparison to what any man is capable of, then with whom are they doing these horrible things?”
Horrible is now the new shocking?
When a man gains and more importantly carries out a new-found capability to snap his fingers thus causing any woman of his desire to strip and sit on his cock; when a man gains and more importantly carries out a new-found capability to drink and lay all relaxed and smiley for hours with a multi orgasmic solid erection as a long train of drooling lecherous women have their way with his body; when a man….well, a man is not capable of any of this therefore has far less power and ya know, there is that whole power-responsibility relationship expectation thingy going on in society and women, smart as they are, are actually starting to get it and that is not horrible at all
You miss my point, Abbott. Any of the things women can do involve a male partner(s) who is just as responsible as she is.
@J
“Here’s a second irony. While the Jezzie-type feminists of the past few years may want to eliminate standards, the feminists of the 70s would have been happy to see single standard replace the double standard.”
Yes. The rad-fems had a limited understanding of how heavily science would weigh down on the side of nature in the nature-vs-nurture debates of the 70s-80s, but in other ways they had a certain integrity that the sex-pozzies of today just seem to lack. They seemed to want fairness, when all is said and done.
Regarding the idea of more conservative sexual mores also being more egalitarian than supposedly progressive sex-positive ones, that lines up with my personal experience at an evangelical Christian university. Both men and women are expected to be virgins when they marry in that culture, and we had to sign a document saying we would not have sex unless it was with a spouse while enrolled there–that’s about as conservative as it comes in American culture, and the standards were the same regardless of gender.
In other words, the idea that more laissez-faire sexual standards equates to more egalitarian standards for the genders, while more conservative sexual mores necessarily return us to the old double standard is a miscalculation.
Well, the college women seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: Alpha has sex with them, loses respect for them (wow, I cannot believe she let me do all that to her!). Or, Girl refuses to have sex with Alpha at the outset! His response: “Later!” (meaning: goodbye)
[I use "alpha" as a catchall term for the most desirable peer males at college]
So how will this potentially play out? A return to highly stylized dating norms, more formal dress (to signal a ‘proper’ young woman), massive dialling back of sexual performance/activity expectation? Where is this to happen? Mayberry?
Try encouraging more formal “dating” culture at college. I can hear the “racist, sexist, classist, forcing ‘white bourgeoisie’-norms-upon-us” crowd (aka “the faculty”) gearing up to start screaming now. What else? If a young man wants to attract the best, proper young woman – well that wardrobe needs to be upgraded! $$$$ But why would this fine man (indeed, a socially prominent, top 1% sort of fellow) resist having sex with high quality young women…because…. uh. It would be wrong? Does the act of having sex with them turn them into whores? (I hope not) So why does the woman holding out for what she wants, in exchange for sex..not make her a prostitute? Ah – women are more high-minded that the penetration-focused dudes.
Isn’t the plea for more formal dating really about imposing “price-controls” on sex at college? Don’t free providers destroy the market? And aren’t you asking men to voluntarily pay above market prices…because they “should” even though women, on an individual basis, will penalize them for this new found “virtue?” Why is it when Men act against their interest it is lauded as virtue, but when Women act against their interest it is condemned as worse than stupid? [and the argument - "well, it is really not against their interest...blah blah" is false. Guys are getting it for free and you are suppose to pay top dollar? What, are you stupid? EVEN THE WOMEN will not respect that. It will be like you are trying to "buy" sex - which will creep them out. (but getting drunk and it just "happening" is legit? doesn't make sense to me - but I am not participating , only observing.) (and that happens outside of college as well!)
Face it - when certain "rebel" dudes decide to reject what is suggested above - the ladies will be all a-twitter over them and look with condescension upon those "good" boys lining with with corsages to date them. "You sleep with the bad boy, you don't marry him!" [straight outta the mouths of women]
And the guys are supposed to pay top dollar for a high-mileage model? Sure, right about the time the college ladies marry the humble but hardworking warehouse forklift driver. (the exception proves the rule).
Anacaona,
The problem is that most of the time people “preach morality on underpants” meaning that the bros that hate the sluts are having sex with them anyway they don’t tell them to their faces “As soon as I come I want you out of my face”, the same way the sluts that hate the bros do because they have a personal reason why and for them they feel forced and justified “But is the only way, I though he was different…”. Just say no has a long road to travel from thinking to actually doing it.
Is like when you are on a diet and someone brings pizza “I’m discipline but just a slice won’t do any harm and I will compensate later running a mile more….” similar reasoning. Opportunism is strong in our species, YMMV.
That’s a nice way of putting it lol.
This is why I always “side-eye” the whole ‘sluts=bad as wives/mothers but I’ll sleep with them anyway because they’re in THAT pile’ mindset. Nevermind the fact that noone questions the existence of these “piles” for guys. It’s fine to have preferences, but don’t complain about how they’re so many sluts in this country, and you’re sleeping with them all the while. You’re criticizing promiscuous women, yet you sleep with them….what does that say about you?
@Californio
Hum, that was lot of words for very little sense! I really don’t know where are these women EVERYBODY talks about that actually HATE men who behave appropriately or show value/virtue. Where are there? I have never seen that, EVER. I have seen some women pick men they thought were just very good looking, or treated them nice or were simply the most available. However, women din’t condescend men they are not interested in (unless the guy is volunteering gifts and time). When I’m not interested in a guy, I make sure he gets the idea and I refuse to waists his time or resources on pointless dates. I actually beat myself a bit for not being able to be attracted to a guy. However, the bottom line is you have to find someone you like physically and that is compatible as well. That lives no time for laughing at the fellows on the sidewalk, because guess what, I’m there too!
From what I gathered sex and commitment should be about the same price, com a little higher; that would be the best deal for all, if sex is as expensive as commitment, then better buy commitment, you get sex as free bonus. It’s better than having sex so cheap and commitment so expensive that you either have to buy rubbish or starve to death.
What chris said at #43 is important: If the study didn’t define in what context the lesser respect would be found, then it really breaks down.
I have a very good female friend who I respect a lot, as a friend and human being. She’s smart, relatively attractive (not quite my type), friendly and otherwise pretty great. She also has a history of hooking up. Another good friend of mine is also smart, and good looking (I had a crush on her once, and still find her attractive). She’s a friend and I trust her, enjoy hanging out with her and I respect her quite a lot. I also know that she cheated on at least two boyfriends.
I really like both of those women, and they would definitely be invited to my wedding – but never as the bride!
So, in short, unless the context was defined, I’d think that this issue invalidates your conclusion #2:
Though, of course, both my friends are in relationships right now. There are of course guys who don’t mind some/certain history (assuming they know it), but I imagine that the group which does mind is large enough that women should consider taking that into consideration.
Same goes for men too in these matters though: There are a certain amount of women who do mind a man’s history. If I should fall for someone like that, I live in the hope that my history isn’t that bad, or that I have enough other qualities to make up for it.
Women don’t really have the power to change which standard men hold them to. They can only change which standard they hold men to.
And if they continue to sell (read: give) sex for cheap…
I don’t get this part. “overwhelmingly disapprove of college men who hook up with a lot of partners.” What’s that even supposed to mean? In lack of any data to show that hookup culture is actually receding, I can see two explanations:
1. The young women in question would only have sex with those high-N guys, and never marry them.
2. The young women in question are saying one thing, and doing something completely different.
If #2, then – as has been said – game is once again proven right.
If #1, then please, please let me have a high enough N for those women not to want to marry me!
Anacaona:
Yes that was me… Neat. What was 30%? Were you surprised? You are Caribbean too right?
PVW: Yes, I’m Caribbean as well: 27% white, 3% Asian (I’m presuming Native American). What was your 30%?
I can’t say I was suprised, although I imagined the white portion would be higher; my mom is soooo light, although she is obviously black, while my dad is darker. It is funny, there are biracial people who look like me, where one parent is very dark-toned black and the other is white, they come out looking medium/cinnamon brown like me, that someone once asked me whether I was biracial. I was surprised to get that question–no one ever wondered about that before–why would anyone ever imagine it? I grew up in an all-black family! I think, though, the biracial look might show up more when I wear my hair in twists (as I tend to do nowadays) and then I take them out–my hair almost takes on a different texture.
J, @Ana, pvw
I read somewhere that the ostensibly black gene pool in the Americas is approxiately one-third non-black, with most of the outsider genes coming from whites. The Mediterreanean white gene pool is 2-3% sub-Saharian African.
PVW:
I’m not surprised, it is quite clear–look at the complexions of most people of African descent from North America, the Caribbean and Latin America–very few of us have complexions exactly like our distant cousins who come directly from Africa!
I saw that 70-27-3 percentage as the equivalent of having 3 black grandparents and one white grandparent. Then I imagined a group of say 128 people, dating back to the slave trade, when so much of the race mixing would have occurred–all these people who are my direct ancestors (going back 7 generations or so), what might a group picture of them have looked like–90 people of African descent–the oldest, most likely women (based on maternal mitochondrial dna)–with roots from South East-Central Africa (the modern day Congo, Mozambique) who knows how they got taken to the New World, 34 Europeans–most likely Scots and Irish and 4 Native Americans….
I’m not surprised that Mediterranean whites have some bit of sub-Saharan African–the regions are so near each other and the Romans did have colonies in Africa…and the old story, Hannibal invaded!
I know there is information out there that a fair number of white Americans also have some sub-Saharan African, ie., 6-12%, and that some folks, in doing their genealogical research, are shocked. But it isn’t, really, Africans, Natives and Europeans have been living here for 4 centuries! Think of those people categorized in earlier periods as octoroons or quadroons who then “passed into the white world”; those people were already 12-25% black and were most likely very light and looking like a European person…Compound it today by the increasing number of biracials who start off with a higher mix of racial heritage to start off with , ie., from a black parent who might already by 25% white.
It is all so fascinating!
How does that genetic testing you talk about work? They just find matches that are more predominant among certain people in Africa, Europe and Asia and then give you a probability that your DNA comes from such-and-such mix?
@VD
Sorry for the delay, I’m not able to be online much this weekend,
That’s a fair question – I have taken the researchers at their word that this represents a “sea change.” The survey is annual, but recently introduced, so I’ll have to see if I can find older research re the sexual double standard.
As you point out, the survey is about attitudes, not behavior. It’s obviously very common to have sex with someone for whom you feel no respect – in fact, in hookup culture it’s probably the norm. I see it as interesting in a “Is the country going in the right direction?” sort of way. There’s hooking up, and there’s hookup culture, and we know that there’s a huge gulf between the two in practice. Tapping into the mindset of the majority of students not having casual sex is worthwhile, IMO.
@Todd
Once the data is released, perhaps we’ll get the names of the schools. Right now I am only aware of Stanford and Univ. of Illinois – the researchers’ base. So that’s one large, one mid-size.
@Darsh
“I don’t get this part. “overwhelmingly disapprove of college men who hook up with a lot of partners.” What’s that even supposed to mean?”
It means they lack respect for manwhores as well as the female sluts. It means most of the unglamorous, under-the-radar, non-sorority women on big college campuses with apparently don’t appreciate the environment fostered by the most socially dominant men and the women who sleep with them.
“1. The young women in question would only have sex with those high-N guys, and never marry them.
2. The young women in question are saying one thing, and doing something completely different.
If #2, then – as has been said – game is once again proven right.
If #1, then please, please let me have a high enough N for those women not to want to marry me!”
You forgot the very obvious #3, which is that the young women in question don’t like these high-N assholes, judge their behavior as immoral or at least uncouth, and will neither have sex with nor marry them.
@Mia
We are prudish! American sexual mores are based on a foundation of Puritanism, and that remains true after 400 years!
“I really like both of those women, and they would definitely be invited to my wedding – but never as the bride!”
That is the universal prevailing male point of view in the West today. The US is the wife-material armpit among all nations
“There are a certain amount of women who do mind a man’s history”
To what extent does that amount need to increase such that women can mo longer hang on to that woe-is-me so-called “double standard?”
“Women don’t really have the power to change which standard men hold them to.”
But they have much more power because they can restrict the supply of sex and that would instantly change any standard men hold them to. But its hard to give up cheap effortless feel-good behavior despite the increasing awareness that its really fucking up their future commitment opportunities.
@Chris
The survey is the annual College Social Life Survey, so I believe the question is aimed at gauging attitudes about the sexual behaviors of other students.
You’re right that it does not get at the long-term mating question. A man might say he does not lose respect for women who have casual sex, even while knowing he would never wife up such a woman. He may be a “live and let live” kind of guy even though he would never accept that in his own life.
“A man might say he does not lose respect for women who have casual sex, even while knowing he would never wife up such a woman.”
That is the very attitude that infuriates promiscuous women and feminist cock-pushers to no end.
@Glasses
I wrote that under “My take on these findings:”
Can you offer a different plausible explanation for the most sexually active women on campus disrespecting men for casual sex?
I’m not sure that guys should take much interest in the views of sexually active women, any more than women should be much interested in the views of PUAs.
I would not target one nation’s women for what is a more widespread phenomenum. Women do differ in some respects around the world, but that’s a little harsh FWIW (I have no huge experience in USA vs the World)
Until you see the questionnaire in the same form as was asked and those questions were asked in neutral circumstances, I wouldn’t draw much conclusion about anything from it.
(I suspect that these points have been made already, but what the hell, it’s that kind of week)
@Courtley
“Yes. The rad-fems had a limited understanding of how heavily science would weigh down on the side of nature in the nature-vs-nurture debates of the 70s-80s, but in other ways they had a certain integrity that the sex-pozzies of today just seem to lack. They seemed to want fairness, when all is said and done.”
Man does good work -gets a promotion.
Woman does good work -gets a promotion.
Man kills somebody -gets the chair.
Woman kills somebody -gets the chair.
That was what I wanted, which is why I used to think feminism was awesome and couldn’t understand why my brother hated it. Then I started reading about all the *other* factors and visited sites full of horror stories of guys who’d just been crapped on. Now I’m more like… the word “humanist” has already been taken, should I call myself an MRA or something else?
Ironically, my brother knows nothing about any of this and when I try to tell him he turns the Xbox up louder, so I don’t know what his basis for despising feminists is.
@Just1X
I tried to pay attention to PUAs because I was horrified to read “Holy crap! These guys can go up to any woman, insult her and make her sleep with them? I need to see how the enemy thinks!”
Sometimes my family will say I am paranoid. I think they’re exaggerating, but either way I’m safe because coffee doesn’t make me feel so good so I won’t get any.
@Sai:
Humanist is probably exactly what you should call yourself. It contains all the good things from feminism, and excludes all the bad things.
I’ve later learned that while I was suffering through my involuntary celibacy, my sisters just thought that I wasn’t very interested in girls yet…
He probably has his reasons.
@Sai
welcome to the real world ‘brother’.
Keep trying with your brother, if you get through it should help him a lot to know that you realise the issues exist. But at whatever age he is, he’s been parboiled in man hate by feminism all his life, he’s not going to expect a woman to take his side.
Maybe you and he would get something out of the youtube vids of ‘girlwriteswhat’, she appears to be in the same boat as you. She’s great and she’s no woman hater.
Gender is bumming me out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBzx-SMSwGE
(also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8)
American attitudes and French attitudes…Michael Chevalier, a French engineer who visited the US circa 1833, observed that Americans were the most money-obsessed people he had ever met..but that, paradoxically, this obsession allowed them to be much more romantic than the Frenchman or Frenchwoman when it came to marriage:
“I ought to do the Americans justice on another point. I have said that with them everything was an affair of money; yet there is one thing which among us, a people of lively affections, prone to love and generous by nature, takes the mercantile character very decidedly and which among them has nothing of this character; I mean marriage. We buy a woman with our fortune or we sell ourselves to her for her dowry. The American chooses her, or rather offers himself to her, for her beauty, her intelligence, or her amiable qualities and asks no other portion. Thus, while we make a traffic of what is most sacred, these shopkeepers exhibit a delicacy and loftiness of feeling which would have done honor to the most perfect models of chivalry.”
Obviously both French and American societies have changed a great deal since 1833, surely in France today there is more class-mobility and less need to “marry well” in order to establish one’s financial future than there was when Chevalier wrote…still, I wonder to what degree traces of these attitudes are still prevalent in the clutures.
“Can you offer a different plausible explanation for the most sexually active women on campus disrespecting men for casual sex?”
Maybe because men offer no resistance thus demonstrating no discrimination between one woman or another thus leaving no one woman feeling “special” and women feel really bad when not treated as special. Add to that the awful feeling of guilt due to the self imposed reduction to just being a cookie cutter vagina. IOW they hate men who proudly don’t deliver the BFE [boyfriend experience] and feminist scripture leaves them in the cold as it offers no solace. Awwww
@Sai
“ow I’m more like… the word “humanist” has already been taken”
You know, a guy friend of mine–who is very politically liberal FWIW–said basically the same thing to me once, “The only problem I have with feminism is . . . it shouldn’t be called feminism, it should be called humanism.”
Basic fairness has appeal to almost everyone, I think. I do understand why it came to be called ‘feminism,’ obviously, but I appreciate the point.
@Sai
The first link was uploaded withe the following text
She’s got many vids, I haven’t seen a dud. If that one doesn’t work for you, try another from the RHS list. The last week saw her attacked by feminists via copyright breach claims (100% bullshit) in an attempt to shut her down, so she’s been deflected in that period. Go back before that stuff…there’s plenty to appreciate
HTH
Off the Cuff,
“That’s true, there are the “carousel watchers” – those who are single and refuse to hook up (or, pretend not to, or, just not frequently), but still love to openly crush and mock the legions of weak men that approach poorly. Most of those profiles I posted fall under that category.”
I think focusing on these women leads us into a little of our own apex (sic) fallacy. NAWALT. Many women now are not getting approached at all, so have no opportunity to reject anyone, badly or otherwise. They’re just as much victims of the bad behavior of their older peers as the young men are, and spending too much time discussing the bad behavior would understandably scare them off, and that’s bad for (Susan’s) business.
Besides, we’re about to give poor Abbott an aneurysm.
As Mirelle says:
“I actually beat myself a bit for not being able to be attracted to a guy.”
There are many perfectfully decent young women who are screening out the young men who avoid the hookup culture. It doesn’t help to get angry at these women – they’re not the ones who created the current state of affairs. Exhorting them to “woman-up” is also likely to be suboptimal.
I’m trying to offer explanations for how things got to this point. No accusation implied (other than towards those in my generation and older whose negligence allowed all this to happen).
Humanism works.
Needs defending just now.
Susan,
“Can you offer a different plausible explanation for the most sexually active women on campus disrespecting men for casual sex?”
Blaming other people is an effective way to avoid self-awareness. Voice of experience.
@OfftheCuff
““That’s true, there are the “carousel watchers” – those who are single and refuse to hook up (or, pretend not to, or, just not frequently), but still love to openly crush and mock the legions of weak men that approach poorly. Most of those profiles I posted fall under that category.””
Yes, and that is uncharitable of them and you’re right, deeply unhelpful in ways they’re too young and foolish to realize. But the point about them not getting on the carousel still stands and is important to keep in mind.
@ Sai
“Now I’m more like… the word “humanist” has already been taken, should I call myself an MRA or something else?”
You could call yourself an equity feminist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism
http://www.epjournal.net/articles/evolutionary-psychology-is-compatible-with-equity-feminism-but-not-with-gender-feminism-a-reply-to-eagly-and-wood-2011/
Or you could just call yourself a classical liberal, which is essentially what equity feminism is all about just without the baggage of adding feminism onto the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
OTC, I think you are on to something re: feral “carousel watchers” and their insipid, pointlessly hostile grrrl power online dating profiles. They just come off as sanctimonious, entitled complainers.
Darsh August 19, 2012 at 8:01 am
How does that genetic testing you talk about work? They just find matches that are more predominant among certain people in Africa, Europe and Asia and then give you a probability that your DNA comes from such-and-such mix?
My reply:
Yes, that is how it works, I was inspired by the Finding your Roots program which broadcast on PBS earlier this year: a mix of genealogical (and traditional history–yeah!) research to fill out the oral history that the participants (primarily well-known people whose names you would probably recognize) brought about their family background and dna analysis to fill out any further gaps. I think the broadcasts are still available on PBS’ website.
I read somewhere that the ostensibly black gene pool in the Americas is approxiately one-third non-black, with most of the outsider genes coming from whites. The Mediterreanean white gene pool is 2-3% sub-Saharian African.
Historically speaking blacks marrying and having kids with whites before modern times was not as rare or even forbidden,specially on Europe. So a lot of DNA mixing was already present before the black slave trade, so is natural that they are not pure.I’m sure even Africans find some other DNA in their blood.
You’re criticizing promiscuous women, yet you sleep with them….what does that say about you?
Yeah the pump and dumper reasoning is always being weak. “Well I wanted to have sex with her and buy her a house she was deemed unworthy it of commitment so I will just have sex with her” I know men can separate sex from love and I can accept that I guy might want to have sex while getting to know what kind of woman he is dealing with, but having sex with someone that you despise on a gutural level? Mmm something there is not working right and I would consider it a HUGE red flag, YMMV.
I can’t say I was suprised, although I imagined the white portion would be higher;
For some reason we do look different than AA. I was told that all the time, maybe there is some features that get buried on DNA and don’t get expressed. Do you have any Asian DNA in the left overs? I’m 5% Asian that I suspect is Taino based since we don’t have any other Asian connection. I also found out that I’m Askenazi Jewish…some weird shenanigans happened I Spain and everyone kept shut, because that one as a shocking surprise too. Now I wish I can do my family tree and see if I can find how the hell that happened?
How does that genetic testing you talk about work? They just find matches that are more predominant among certain people in Africa, Europe and Asia and then give you a probability that your DNA comes from such-and-such mix?
I used 23andme, they have a family tracking feature to know where do you come from and is also nice to see what diseases and mutations you have, I know now what to take care better and have many explanations for my quirkiness and hubby’s also the kids will get a better education about what to do with his body. Check it out! https://www.23andme.com/
I’ve later learned that while I was suffering through my involuntary celibacy, my sisters just thought that I wasn’t very interested in girls yet…
That is very American thinking. I actually always make a note of single people and try to see if I can find them someone. Hubby thinks I’m meddling but really how many people want to be alone? Not very many chances are they need help. And I rather meddle and risk a “back off I’m not interested/ready” than seeing someone withering away in loneliness. I hate loneliness, no one should be alone if they really don’t want to, YMMV.
@Ana:
Heh. That 23andme seems interesting, and I think I’ve heard of it before as well. However, I doubt I will use it. I already have my paternal line down for 19 generations, and I have my full ancestry at least 5 generations back. There’s not room for a lot of surprises.
That’s actually quite nice of you, if you find a way to do it that doesn’t cause too much trouble if it’s unwanted.
And about American thinking… You might want to expand that definition a bit. My sisters and I certainly aren’t Americans.
Desi: “I think focusing on these women leads us into a little of our own apex (sic) fallacy. NAWALT. Many women now are not getting approached at all, so have no opportunity to reject anyone, badly or otherwise.”
I agree here, and I never meant to lump in the honest women with the cruel ones, like SW thinks you are doing.
However, I will defect a tiny bit – even the ones who don’t get approached “at all” are usually just not being approached in the way the want, or by the people they want. If you complain about being approached or being hit on, then you don’t get to say “nobody approaches me”.
I really have never met a woman who hasn’t been hit on. If they claim to be, further questioniong always result in the admission that there are approaches, usually lots, just by unsuitable men. Then the goalposts immediately switch from “nobody approaches me” to “you don’t think I deserve a man who has hair? Teeth? No gut? Job? A car? A nice car? A sense of style? A BMW? six pack abs? A jet?”
Oh Mia is PJ.
And about American thinking… You might want to expand that definition a bit. My sisters and I certainly aren’t Americans.
Sorry I usually use first world thinking, we third worldlers are more into “Are you single? What kind of person are you looking for?” At least we Latinos do, is kind of annoying at the begining but after you reach certain time alone having someone caring enough to think that you are not so awful that you should find someone and they are willing to give you some help, is kind of comforting, YMMV.
However, I doubt I will use it. I already have my paternal line down for 19 generations, and I have my full ancestry at least 5 generations back. There’s not room for a lot of surprises.
I wouldn’t be so sure hubby found out he had a high risk of diabetes with this even though no one on his family had it. We are guessing that the lifestyle they left kept the diabetes at bay, also he found out he should never do drugs, he never did thankfully, something I happily welcome as a warning for our kids “You know drugs are bad in general but from your father side you will end up in a dumpster eating your own shit on no time….here is the report” which is always useful having a concrete reason for something. I also be on the look out for bitter vegetables since the kid is very likely to inherit my “supertaster”genes and I suffered a lot as a kid having to eat things I despised because my mother didn’t knew about this. So yeah don’t be sure sure about what can you learn about it, surprises abound, YMMV.
Anacaona:
For some reason we do look different than AA. I was told that all the time, maybe there is some features that get buried on DNA and don’t get expressed. Do you have any Asian DNA in the left overs? I’m 5% Asian that I suspect is Taino based since we don’t have any other Asian connection. I also found out that I’m Askenazi Jewish…some weird shenanigans happened I Spain and everyone kept shut, because that one as a shocking surprise too. Now I wish I can do my family tree and see if I can find how the hell that happened?
My reply:
I did get that on occasion, that someone could “tell” by my features, but putting aside the whole “acting /talking white” garbage that a fair number of Af-Ams hear, I have also heard that my accent sounds slightly different, even “English,” ie, British English, including the way I might pronounce certain words. The husband noticed it when we first met, that in his view, I had a slight accent. I didn’t imagine I did; I was raised here!
Yes, the Asian leftovers are 3%; that is most likely from a few Carib Indians/Arawaks, according to memories I heard from my maternal grandmother–we’re not South Asian/Chinese (or even Lebanese/Syrian) Caribbean–unless there is a connection so remote that no one knows about it!
Now that is interesting about the Ashkenazi Jewish link–not a more recent (ie., 19th-20th c.) connection to the D.R.? I saw an interesting article about Sephardic conversos from Spain, someone just wrote an essay about discovering that in her family history: Doreen Carvajal, On the Trail of Inherited Memories, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/science/in-andalusia-searching-for-inherited-memories.html?_r=1&hpw.
I did get that on occasion, that someone could “tell” by my features, but putting aside the whole “acting /talking white” garbage that a fair number of Af-Ams hear, I have also heard that my accent sounds slightly different, even “English,” ie, British English, including the way I might pronounce certain words. The husband noticed it when we first met, that in his view, I had a slight accent. I didn’t imagine I did; I was raised here!
My sister was born with an accent people and aside form the curly hair she could past as white, people used to ask her if she was from Holland or some other European country or “Why she speaks like that?” She was really annoyed by that question a lot.
Yes, the Asian leftovers are 3%; that is most likely from a few Carib Indians/Arawaks, according to memories I heard from my maternal grandmother–we’re not South Asian/Chinese (or even Lebanese/Syrian) Caribbean–unless there is a connection so remote that no one knows about it!
We don’t have records but we know there is not any other reason we might have the 5% percent unless is from the natives. My mother’s family come from one of the last settlement of the Tainos before they were listed as “extinct” so it just made sense. I wasn’t sure funny enough I do have a lot of asian markers like the almond shape eyes and the legs, so little genes can do a lot of change a body it seems like.
Now that is interesting about the Ashkenazi Jewish link–not a more recent (ie., 19th-20th c.) connection to the D.R.?
The Jewish community in my country is really tiny and hermetic so I really doubt and barring cuckoldry I don’t remember anyone with some link to a jewish specially askenazi wich is even more closed up than regular jewish people and I don’t think there is any back at DR, at least so far…
I’ll die of heart problems at some point, unless my mother’s genes beat the crap out of my dad’s genes in that particular area.
But you’re right though, I suppose there are things I could learn. You do of course know that our genes are all about potential and probabilities, right? While the entire human genome has been mapped, how the different pieces interact with each other is still not fully understood.
But you’re right though, I suppose there are things I could learn. You do of course know that our genes are all about potential and probabilities, right? While the entire human genome has been mapped, how the different pieces interact with each other is still not fully understood.
I know, that is another reason I did the test they keep sending you new findings I’m also reading a lot about Epigenetics it seems that the pregnancy conditions are part of the mechanics that affect what genes get switched in and on and it can affect for generations. So I’m drawing from most sources to find out how can I benefit myself and my family (I personally would had been a geneticist under different circumstances I might still be when the kids are in school I can have another major like my mom did) and even though I might not reach some personal goals I might be able to make my kids to do so with new info.
@OffTheCuff
“However, I will defect a tiny bit – even the ones who don’t get approached “at all” are usually just not being approached in the way the want, or by the people they want. If you complain about being approached or being hit on, then you don’t get to say “nobody approaches me”.”
Good point, but isn’t that just a given? It’s obvious to me that when a person (male or female) is not having luck in romance, it’s with the people they *want*. Does that mean that the person deserves no empathy? The only person who can judge a picky person is the one who has zero standards.
It sounds like you are implying that the ones who “do not get approached” are bringing their fate upon themselves. I was recently accused of this, myself. I asked my accuser (a married male friend) “so do you know any guys you woud set me up with?” Crickets. Then I suggested a few guys that we both knew of, and who had approached me. He responded, “okay now you’re being silly. Those dudes are riff-raff. I’m sure you’ve been approached by guys who actually count.”
Technically, I don’t believe that there is anyone in the SMP who has had absolutely zero “hits”…including both men and women. Everyone can think of someone they rejected, and threw into the “he/she doesn’t count” pile. To throw a person’s reject pile back in their face is just being hypocritical and confrontational, especially when the outside accuser wouldn’t even consider hanging out or having a beer with anyone in that reject pile.
I’m enjoying the genetics discussion. My focus area is epigenetics and chromatin (DNA packaged wih proteins). Anacaona is referring to “maternal load”…there is so much RNA and protein material delivered from the mother to the the fetus early in development, it seems to me that the fetus is functioning like one of the mother’s own tissues up until the time the fetal cells start expressing their own genes.
There’s also parental imprinting (maternal and paternal), which complicates purely statistical Mendelian genetics.
In agreement with Darsh, in brief, the answer is “it’s complicated.” Genetic markers do carry some predictive power, but penetrance may vary. Bayes’ rule is a good way to take into account the accuracy and specificity of some scientific test (detecting the genetic marker) plus the frequency of the associated trait/ disease in the human population.
Here’s an example from a college textbook I taught from a few years ago:
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/macampbell/111/Bayes_Rule.pdf
Heh. I knew a Pakistani doctor who also worked on epigenetics. He claimed to have worked at two of the places with the fattest patients in the world: The names escape me now, but it was apparently a hospital in Texas and another one in Saudi Arabia. I remember he was concerned that because of all the increased body mass, peoples’ DNA might change so that even if their children would start and try to live healthily again society would still be stuck with overweight people for a few generations after. Or something like that. My memory escapes me a bit.
I haven’t looked into it much myself, but from what he told me of the current research it sounds quite fascinating. Also very unbelievable when I first heard of it.
RWC you are pretty damn honest and sweet, so you mystify me.
To be truthful, I find it equally annoying if men say “no women will go out with me”. I’d definitely ask them if they have had any dates, perhaps failed ones, and try to draw out that they DO have some successes to build off of. And even if the amount of dates in recent memory actually was zero, I’d bust their ass on how many women they have asked.
The point really is to get them to stop whining, assess themselves more accurately, and get out and do something.
I’m 19 and I don’t think I’ve ever been approached. The only time I might possibly have been approached is when I met up with my SMV9 friend to McDonalds and the friend of the guy who was hitting on her graciously noticed my discomfort and told me he” liked my style”.
It is incredibly possible that if you live in an place, like where I do , where the male to female ratio is closer to 70/30 than 60/40 and you’re low on the SMV ladder, you might be completely overlooked.
Unfortunately, the only advice low SMV women are given is lose weight , wear makeup, don’t look too scary. I wonder if Susan has done/is willing to do advice targeted to low SMV women & men.
@OffTheCuff
“The point really is to get them to stop whining, assess themselves more accurately, and get out and do something.”
I see where you’re coming from. And thanks for the props. You made me smile.
@Just a thought
“Unfortunately, the only advice low SMV women are given is lose weight , wear makeup, don’t look too scary. I wonder if Susan has done/is willing to do advice targeted to low SMV women & men.”
A discussion on how to generate outstanding attractiveness by being comfortable in one’s own skin would be great. After you’ve lost the weight, put on the make-up, and mastered your friendly smile, and still find yourself rating a 6, character is the only thing you have left. It’s been pretty well established how character works for men, but what about the ladies? Part of the answer is to exude sexiness, and I have seen this work in SMP settings, but what about the aftermath? How does a lady exude sexiness without inviting a pump-and-dump?
OTC,
“The point really is to get them to stop whining, assess themselves more accurately, and get out and do something.”
Easier said than done. I’m making myself do it, but I often feel like Captain America in the Avengers movie. I see glimmers of the strong, good women who raised me, but something is off.
My NAWALT is now in the least interest zone – I thought it would be safe to take the physical escalation slow, but I was mistaken. This is where I would typically bail, but tips on rescuing things would be appreciated.
I feel compelled to note that RWC rocks. I admire the way that she carries her education so gracefully and doesn’t just maul people with it, although she surely could if she wanted to.
“Wear your learning like your watch, in a private pocket; and do not pull it out and strike it merely to show that you have one… Do not pull it out to count the hours, but give the time when you are asked.”
-Lord Chesterfield
Why the slut goal eludes nearly all men – its the “double standard” of effort required
“Our bodies don’t have the same effect women have on us, hence it puts us at a disadvantage which we have to overcome.”
“We can’t throw on a pair of tight pants, flash goo-goo eyes and have it in the basket.”
“Our sluttiness is based ironically on our social skills/level of seduction.”
” the above skills set us apart from and above other men. It’s almost plus to be slutty, it means we have sexual prowess.”
Less effort or easy = cheap and therefore disrespect. More effort or difficult = skill and therefore awe. This has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with how we are raised to think and function in society. Why are we then expected to drop those mores just to give a free pass to women’s slut behavior? Not going to happen.
http://jezebel.com/5935818/now-men-can-get-slut+shamed-too
.
@Desiderius
“My NAWALT is now in the least interest zone – I thought it would be safe to take the physical escalation slow, but I was mistaken. This is where I would typically bail, but tips on rescuing things would be appreciated.”
What do you mean by “least interest zone”?
@Bastiat
Thanks
@Darsh
I’m curious. Did the Pakistani scientist mention inherited cell metabolism?
Bastiat quoting Lord Chesterfield: ““Wear your learning like your watch, in a private pocket; and do not pull it out and strike it merely to show that you have one… Do not pull it out to count the hours, but give the time when you are asked.”
Which is 180 degrees opposite from the way a lot of people treat their educational credentials these days.
Well, maybe sorority girls have caught up with the “Red Pill Movement”, and don’t give it up without some commitment from a guy. Is it a default assumption that sorority girls are sluts? Maybe things are changing. Or maybe they look and act like sluts, but don’t really do it. Who knows for sure? I recall from my own youth that I stayed in one boy’s place “after hours”, we didn’t do much, but he made sure though that we took a walk in front of his friends when I was going home. Did those guys think I was “easy” and a slut? Probably. Did I have sex with him? No. Again, who knows for sure what’s going on.
@ Desi
Holy shit! That is amazing! I’ve been a big fan of Zubrin’s Mars activism, but glad to see him taking up this cause!
The rad-fems had a limited understanding of how heavily science would weigh down on the side of nature in the nature-vs-nurture debates of the 70s-80s
Everyone did. I was in college during the 70s; most social science profs came down heavily on the side of nurture.
but in other ways they had a certain integrity that the sex-pozzies of today just seem to lack. They seemed to want fairness, when all is said and done.
Again, to date myself, this was the feminism of my era. I’m mystified by the sex-pozzies. The perception of feminists back in my college days was sort of asexual.
In other words, the idea that more laissez-faire sexual standards equates to more egalitarian standards for the genders, while more conservative sexual mores necessarily return us to the old double standard is a miscalculation.
Like you, I don’t see that egalitarianism has to necessarily lead to laissez-faire sexual standards. I think some good, old fashions piggery got mixed in as the intellectual roots of femininsm were diluted for mass consumption. College feminists of my era wanted equal job opportunities, not the opportunity to have a lot of sex. I think there was some anger about a double standard existing, but not necessarily the desire to slut it up.
I’m 5% Asian that I suspect is Taino based since we don’t have any other Asian connection.
I’m certain that being 5% Asian is an artifact of the Tains being decended from Asians. The test isn’t sophisticated enough to distinguish between Asian-Asian and Amerind-Asian.
I also found out that I’m Askenazi Jewish…some weird shenanigans happened I Spain and everyone kept shut, because that one as a shocking surprise too. Now I wish I can do my family tree and see if I can find how the hell that happened.
This truly surprises me. Spanish Jews were Sephardic, not Ashkenazi. Again, I think the test isn’t sensitive enough. Ashkenazi Jews are basically Sephardic Jews mixed with Middle and Eastern European non-Jews. The Jewish markers would be the same, though Ashkenazis would have additional non-Jewish markers.
It would not surprise me at all if you had some Sephardic heritage, either through Conversos (those who converted to avoid the Inquisition) and intermarried with Christians) or Marranos (those who pretended to convert in order to avoid persecution). Both Conversos and Marranos, as well as other Jewish refugees, were fairly common everywhere in the Hispanic New World. As I said before, my sons’ Afro-Caribbean friend claims some Jewish heritage.
@Desi
My NAWALT is now in the least interest zone – I thought it would be safe to take the physical escalation slow, but I was mistaken. This is where I would typically bail, but tips on rescuing things would be appreciated.
You mean that you met a woman who “wasn’t like that,” and she lost interest in you, ostensibly because you didn’t escalate quickly enough?
I cosign BB’s praise of RwC.
@JustAThought
Yeah, I was going to add a smile to that list too. But I see it’s been suggested already.
Okay, more to the point, look at – and take seriously – Susan’s list in her last post. I know you’ve seen it; I’m here to tell you that there’s a lot of wisdom in that list.
But contrary to Royale Cheese’s half joking suggestion to “exude sexiness”, I’d say, rather, exude friendliness. You’re 19, for Pete’s sake.
Don’t answer. With a 70-30 sex ratio on your campus, I know the reason is fear. I’m guessing that you’re not after sex anyway so much as you’re after attention.
And that’s alright. That’s normal, because nobody (but nobody!) likes to be ignored.
Now, I’m not a low SMV woman. But at 5 foot nothin’ inches, I was about as low an SMV male as you can get. I survived my college years, and although at times I really didn’t feel like I wanted to, I survived my 20s as a single too. Life happens, you grow up, get a career, meet people “just doing things” and – surprise – I got married (and btw, she was NOT a low SMV woman). Details are unimportant, because your details will be different. I’m just saying, it most often works out.
And hey, it sometimes takes a couple of class reunions to find this out, but someday you may just discover that someone was actually not ignoring you – today. It just wasn’t right for any number of reasons. Tomorrow? Who knows?
The only thing wrong thing to do about it at 19 is to panic and beat yourself up over it.
@Desiderius,
That woman was probably not interested enough; I don’t think there is anything you could have done if it was a question of escalation. I believe the same thing happened to Zach (?!), no? From my little experience, all I can say is that when a guy comes on strong at first and then i sense a reduction in the intensity or a reluctance to continue/take it to the next level, I might want to get out early before I get dumped. One thing I look for is consistency from the get-go. Hesitation or reluctance means the guy is not into it or trying to gauge his interest compared to another woman or hanging with his friends. In any case, it can be seen as a lost cause. It’s at this point that some women just stop engaging emotionally or ,in a last ditch effort to salvage the fling, choose to escalate sexually (Zach’s booty call) and downgrade themselves to casual.
RWC:
I’m enjoying the genetics discussion. My focus area is epigenetics and chromatin (DNA packaged wih proteins). Anacaona is referring to “maternal load”…there is so much RNA and protein material delivered from the mother to the the fetus early in development, it seems to me that the fetus is functioning like one of the mother’s own tissues up until the time the fetal cells start expressing their own genes.
There’s also parental imprinting (maternal and paternal), which complicates purely statistical Mendelian genetics.
Me: This is so interesting! Thanks for offering this. That is something I find myself wondering about, the complexity of genetics, especially in light of doing the genetics thing. I wonder, though, how my dad’s genetics fits in with the whole thing–complicated, as you mention. I don’t have a y chromosome, so that type of mapping could not be offered. But I wonder how his X chromosome contributed to my mom’s X in my genetics. I’m urging him to participate as well, to learn what the mapping might offer….
J:
This truly surprises me. Spanish Jews were Sephardic, not Ashkenazi. Again, I think the test isn’t sensitive enough. Ashkenazi Jews are basically Sephardic Jews mixed with Middle and Eastern European non-Jews. The Jewish markers would be the same, though Ashkenazis would have additional non-Jewish markers.
It would not surprise me at all if you had some Sephardic heritage, either through Conversos (those who converted to avoid the Inquisition) and intermarried with Christians) or Marranos (those who pretended to convert in order to avoid persecution).
Me: That is why I mentioned the story about conversos, it seemed odd that Ana would mention Ashkenazi heritage when there has long been knowledge of Sephardic Jews’ history in Spain…thanks for offering a suggestion on understanding how the markers might have worked together….
Thank you Joe, that was really, really sweet.
@pvw
I saw your response to Ana after I posted my own, but I see great minds think a like.
I am interested in taking one of those tests myself, but I don’t think they are as sensitive as they might be. When I did a little google research, I saw an article on Larry David’s results. He came up with a small percentage of Native American heritage and is, to his own knowledge, 100% Ashkenazi. I would guess that his “Native American” genes are actually Asian, given Asian and Eurasian incursions into Eastern Europe.
Interstingly, there is a canine equivalent of 23 and Me that has some of the same problems. It misidentifies some specific breeds with the original genetic stock that the breed developed from or with similar breeds.
Ana: My sister was born with an accent people and aside form the curly hair she could past as white, people used to ask her if she was from Holland or some other European country or “Why she speaks like that?” She was really annoyed by that question a lot.
My reply: I can’t say I hear that at all; my accent is slight, I sound too close to American! But it did happen once that someone just heard me say a word (I forget which, but I pronounced it in a way not typical of most Americans) and she knew right away!
There is a great website to look at–International Dialects of English Archive–it might be fun to participate, as you are a native Spanish speaker from the D.R. now living in the US.
http://web.ku.edu/~idea/index.htm
Accents are fun; I like looking at youtube videos of comedians from the Caribbean; it reminds me of being a youngster and listening to the older relatives talk trash:
Paul Keens-Douglas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ1vjdwHvDU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5IfmzWVEpQ
Donna Hadad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiWw4XQfKzk
(she’s very ribald)
J:
I am interested in taking one of those tests myself, but I don’t think they are as sensitive as they might be.
My reply:
My mom is not interested for that very reason…way too general for her liking!
Courtley,
“What do you mean by “least interest zone”?”
The game blogs teach that a man who shows less interest in a woman than she is showing in him is instinctively attractive to her (it implies higher status). Many women who have experienced that feeling will attempt to use this strategy to attract men, by downplaying their own interest.
It is often unclear to the man whether she is doing this or is just not interested, so I usually bail when this happens as neither possibility is particularly appealing.
Here’s an example from a college textbook I taught from a few years ago:
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/macampbell/111/Bayes_Rule.pdf
Wow thank you so much. This is really interesting. Good to know about the probability thing that explain why hubby didn’t knew about his diabetic risk. His family should had been doing something that kept it at bay. My own family mostly died of stroke till a few generations ago because we were really thin we are the types that after gaining 30 pounds, sans pregnancy, will get the diabetes five seconds later.
“Wear your learning like your watch, in a private pocket; and do not pull it out and strike it merely to show that you have one… Do not pull it out to count the hours, but give the time when you are asked.”
-Lord Chesterfield
Never heard this quote before totally fits Royale and I think it could be expand to other goods: beauty, money, fame…is like no one does anything for the love of it and must rub it on someone’s face 24/7
I’m certain that being 5% Asian is an artifact of the Tains being decended from Asians. The test isn’t sophisticated enough to distinguish between Asian-Asian and Amerind-Asian.
I mostly mentioned the Tainos to clarify, but I did imagined they cannot tell us apart, also the map shows a lot of Polynesian markers wich is the part were Tainos came from. I used to be called “china prieta” (black chinese girl) at home growing up so I’m shocked that that tiny bit of DNA was so obvious on me and my mother.
This truly surprises me. Spanish Jews were Sephardic, not Ashkenazi. Again, I think the test isn’t sensitive enough. Ashkenazi Jews are basically Sephardic Jews mixed with Middle and Eastern European non-Jews. The Jewish markers would be the same, though Ashkenazis would have additional non-Jewish markers.
I don’t know you would be surprised of how many things end up in DR for no reason at all hubby was surprised to find out an ancient viking artifact that was confused for an Spanish axe in one of my country museum. Maybe some Ashkenazi love child ended up in my island at some point and entered my gene pool or something like it.
J,
“You mean that you met a woman who “wasn’t like that,” and she lost interest in you, ostensibly because you didn’t escalate quickly enough?”
The NAWALT thing was kind of a joke. The manosphere complains about something women are doing, and the women tend to answer with NAWALT.
In calling this woman (she’s 34) NAWALT, I mean of a character similar to Susan’s/ the women (mom, aunts, grandmothers) who raised me/many of the women in my social circle who are just outstanding people but all over 45. I’ve recently gotten involved in some younger social circles, but people 25-45 tend to prejudge me pretty harshly (compared to people under 25 or over 45 who almost invariably get along very well with me, and vice versa – I’m much less controversial in RL), so its taken some patience.
It is unclear whether she has actually lost interest – she acted pretty consistently interested (she was excited about a date for the following weekend to go see a Shakespeare production that I had suggested) up until the point I left a group including her and a good friend of her’s and his girlfriend* at 11pm without making a move.
She smiled at me through the window as I walked by outside the bar. I called a couple days later and left a VM message, texted 3 hours later “What’s up?” She texted back 5 hours later “Not much, you?” I immediately texted back a link to the Shakespeare show I had in the meantime researched, with day and time at the website.
Since then, silence. I texted today asking if she’d gotten my (phone) message. So far 12 hours of silence.
* – they both seemed to think highly of me both times we hung out. In fact she called me out of the blue last week and said that her (male) friend was asking about me and suggested she call me.
@pvw
Thanks I will check that out.
@J
If you are interested on genetics and personal testing I think 23andme are good enough to start they are not that general me thinks given all the info I had gotten and it opens your eyes to many things and is also fun, IMO.
Mireille,
Thanks for the feedback.
“From my little experience, all I can say is that when a guy comes on strong at first and then i sense a reduction in the intensity or a reluctance to continue/take it to the next level, I might want to get out early before I get dumped. One thing I look for is consistency from the get-go. Hesitation or reluctance means the guy is not into it or trying to gauge his interest compared to another woman or hanging with his friends. In any case, it can be seen as a lost cause.”
Well, the way I was raised, you take it (the physical) slow to show honorable intentions.
This kind of thing is what makes me feel like Captain America in The Avengers. Everything is all backwards. She was raised the same way, but I think she feels that is all somehow old-fashioned, so maybe she’s afraid I have old-fashioned expectations of how a relationship should go too? I was raised a feminist and my parents have a pretty equal, cooperative, happy marriage. That is in fact what I’m looking for.
I wasn’t hesitant at all in general, gotten a lot better at that, in fact her friends joked about how smooth I was – another hint I thought to take things slow so I wouldn’t come off as a player.
The genetic testing conversation is fascinating… it’s almost the positive analog of a train wreck, I can’t not look but it’s because of something good.
@Darsh, Courtley, Desiderius, chris
I’ll remember those, thanks.
@Just1X
“Maybe you and he would get something out of the youtube vids of ‘girlwriteswhat’, she appears to be in the same boat as you. She’s great and she’s no woman hater.”
Ok, thanks!
This is one of those studies that it depends very much on who was doing the questioning, or if it was a double-blind study. If they had women at the booth, or handing out the questions, or if the guy was with a group of women (especially attractive women) the guys will say what they think the women want to hear to have a shot with them…
It’s like that “South Park” episode about Tiger Woods, and how it’s in a man’s nature to be monogamous when there is free tail to be had… (If you believe that I have a bridge to sell…) So I’ll mark this one up to “the aliens” are causing it…
Desiderius – “Well, the way I was raised, you take it (the physical) slow to show honorable intentions.
This kind of thing is what makes me feel like Captain America in The Avengers.”
I completely understand how you feel. I was raised to open doors for women regardless of who they are and if I know them. I was raised to always say please and thank you, regardless of whether the person I’m thanking is my boss or my waitress. I was raised to always use “sir” and “Ma’am” when addressing my elders or anyone in authority. (More than one police officer has looked at me funny when I answer their questions with “sir/Ma’am” every time)
Along with all of that, I was raised to think of and interact with women in a way that no longer applies to 95% of the female populace in so much that they don’t expect it, don’t understand it, and don’t appreciate it when it happens. But don’t lose hope, and don’t change simply because most women don’t know what they are missing. My wife loves that I open the car door for her. She told me a few weeks into dating that she found it very endearing, and it made her stop and really look at how I treated her. She said that once she realized it was about respect and not deference, she found it completely charming.
And I’ll tell you something else: when other women see and understand that, they want it too. I can’t tell you how many times we’ve been out in public and some random women upon seeing me open my wife’s car door says something like: “where do I find a man that will do that for me?” My answer is usually: “at home wondering where all the good women are.”
I love to set those hamsters running.
Susan,
This is EXACTLY what I talked about in my piece for The Good Men Project several months ago (the Twitter debate with Marcotte): http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/when-feminism-flames-a-twitter-conversation-gone-wrong/
Neely
Desi, that Zubrin book is deeply disturbing (particularly the observations about deaths caused by the long-time, poorly-conceived DDT ban). Some of those command-and-control socioeconomic planning/eugenics/Malthusian econ enthusiasts should be listed among history’s worst mass murderers.
As the real Bastiat said, “The plans differ; the planners are all alike.”
also the map shows a lot of Polynesian markers wich is the part were Tainos came from.
WOw! That’s cool.
I used to be called “china prieta” (black chinese girl) at home growing up so I’m shocked that that tiny bit of DNA was so obvious on me and my mother.
Interesting! I’ve also seen the Asian-like on local Mexicans and also on little Jewish kids, whose eyes tend to widen as they get older.
Maybe some Ashkenazi love child ended up in my island at some point and entered my gene pool or something like it.
Certainly possible, but it would probably be more recent and harder to discover from where. Do you have any forebearers who you think of as generic white. Perhaps they had unknown Jewish ancestry.
What does holding a sexual double standard say about a person’s attitude about the other sex?
At first, it seems as though we’re only assigning blame. But what about the other side of blame like praise and responsibility? Isn’t assigning responsibility in this matter the same as assigning moral agency? That the other sex has more power and control in these decisions implies that your own sex is a slave to their passions, more like animals than humans.
Therefore, doesn’t having a double standard towards the other sex require having a lower opinion of your own sex?
I do think than men who believe that women are the more selective and rational sex (empowerment) are apt to blame women more than men. Whereas men who see women as helpless (chivalry) are more apt to blame men. Lol. Maybe claiming power in a relationship isn’t as desirable as it seems, especially in a time of crisis where you can expect more blame and fewer privileges.
someINTP – “Therefore, doesn’t having a double standard towards the other sex require having a lower opinion of your own sex?”
BOOM head shot! This has always been my primary gripe with the ‘sphere crowd from day 1. I don’t have a double-standard, I have one standard for both men AND women. And that standard is: don’t be a whore or a slut. I will never understand how any man with a conscience can bed a different women every weekend and then berate women for being slutty.
Don’t get me wrong, I would never try to shame a man for wanting a GF/Wife with a low N, or whatever it is he wants. But, I simply can’t stand by and watch men of less than questionable character point fingers at women for the same behavior. Which is precisely why I’ve always avoided casual sex. I KNOW I want a woman that views sexuality as something more than a “good time” on a Saturday night. Therefor, I made the choice to always approach sex from that mindset. This is usually referred to as “taking the moral high ground” and I am a firm believer in it.
That being said, I also understand that some people do have real and true “change of heart” moments. A person that spent time on the carousel CAN reform, just as a sinner CAN repent. The thing is, it isn’t enough to just be sorry for the sin, you have to STOP SINNING and never sin that way again. So, for someone to truly reform from casual sex, they need to stop having casual sex, and put effort into reprogramming their thought processes to view sexuality in a different light. I’m not attempting to start up some “sluts can’t be saved” rant, but I do think this is important for this reason: If a man truly wants a low N/less promiscuous woman, and he himself has a checkered past, then he needs to take the advice given here and elsewhere to women: stop having sex for awhile and get your own house in order. Come back once that is done, ask for what you want, and stick to your guns. Don’t hide your past, but explain how it got you where you are today, and why it is important to you going forward. And, accept that people WILL judge you, and women may very well pass on you because of it. I don’t think that would happen most often however. As is pointed out, women tend to be less judgmental about a man’s past, and if she truly senses a genuine change of heart (which is why the suggestion to go sexless for awhile is key) she may very well look past it and be happy to find someone with some sense of morality. After all, look around at what we live in today. ANY show of integrity and morality is pure gold for people trying to find it.
In the end this goes to the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. Men using PUA tactics to P & D women, and women using men for free meals are NOT living by the golden rule. They would likely complain the second someone took advantage of them, yet think nothing of taking advantage of others. It seems so simple to me, but somehow we have almost completely lost this concept.
My grandfather used to say “Common sense isn’t.” I didn’t understand that for a long time, but I meet people every day that prove his point.
Ted D:
” I will never understand how any man with a conscience can bed a different women every weekend and then berate women for being slutty. ”
——-
> People who see sex as a game where one party wins and the other loses view it this way.
Others who view sex as a mutually satisfying activity don’t see why a person who uses sex to get into a relationship would feel used.
BTW, congrats, Ted!
“one standard for both men AND women. And that standard is: don’t be a whore or a slut”
Feminists and their promiscuous female subjects would be good for one standard provided that it was a promiscuous one. How much more obvious does this fact need to be? Armed with bc pills and job earnings, why would these multi-gonad-addicted females want to give up the career-building while banging fantasy they are currently living? They do not want to step off the throne no more then men would if the roles were reversed. They LIKE the harem. When it and their delay-marriage tactics came under threat recently, they fired back with stuff like “sex positive” and even called Ms Walsh a “pearl clutching blogger.” The ONLY problem they have with the “double standard” is that it gives men agency [aghast!] to reduce mate choices for women who decide their careers are built enough and its time to leave the harem and “settle down” and that is when the fantasy they are living evolves into tragedy.
“I will never understand how any man with a conscience can bed a different women every weekend and then berate women for being slutty. ”
Well, they’d just be a hypocrite.
That being said, guys aren’t the gatekeepers to sex – so I find it hard to blame a man for take what, essentially, is being offered.
Sure, he has had to escalate his way into the bedroom, but women being the sexual gatekeepers dicates that she has allowed the progression to reach sexual-access. No?
I’m 100% behind shaming both men and women for slutty behavior – so don’t be mistaken about that.
But as a guy who can be hestitant to escalate, I’ve had to learn that men are supposed to, and are often expected to. And probably even more important, imo, is NOT doing is just as bad, if not worse.
Like, I’m not sure I’d ever not push for a makeout, cause it seems women expect it, and lose respect when the effort isn’t present.
I’ve avoided casual hookups (like yourself) and it hasn’t really gotten me anywhere. (and I don’t see women valuing it either)
Like, I don’t see how telling guys to “hold off” is going to fix the smp. Aren’t we, in fact, telling guys to sow their oats, whenever possible? (surely that’s what game followers would say is numero#1 – always be closing)
I’m not entirely sure, though. lol
This just sounds like blue-bill advice, no?
” A “slut” is someone who has had sex with two more people than the person calling the target a slut.”
- Good ol Amanda Marcotte
Does she ever define or identify who these people are – the ones calling out the slut targets? And by what method do they “call” – is it shouted out to the target or written in an article aimed at the target?
@ Cooper
As always, 100% cosign.
Cooper:
“I’ve avoided casual hookups (like yourself) and it hasn’t really gotten me anywhere. (and I don’t see women valuing it either)”
and
“Aren’t we, in fact, telling guys to sow their oats, whenever possible? ”
———
Sorry for interjecting, Coop, but this isn’t exactly accurate- you’re conflating 2 different goals.
Yes, you’ve avoided casual (FWBs, ONSs, etc), but… you’ve also avoided escalating when you’ve had a genuine interest in someone.
Few people are going to blame you for the latter because that’s what’s expected.
“Aren’t we, in fact, telling guys to sow their oats, whenever possible?”
Sure. But when that approach was created many years ago there many more active sowers and a smaller field of dirt. Now there are far fewer sowers and much more dirt to be sown.
@ Alias
Having genuine interest in someone and being ready for LTR sex are not the same thing. Sure, when I ask a girl out, I have interest in her. But I’d rather not sleep with her immediately – I’d consider that casual sex.
“Sure. But when that approach was created many years ago there many more active sowers and a smaller field of dirt. Now there are far fewer sowers and much more dirt to be sown”
What’s your point?
Glasses,
Based on my own anecdotal experience of sorority girls from multiple universities (Big 10, SEC and Ivy), I would say they are most promiscuous women on campus. But hey, that’s just me.
INTJ:
“But I’d rather not sleep with her immediately – I’d consider that casual sex.”
——–
Have you been rejected *equally* for not trying to jump right into sex and for being flirtatious/going in for a kiss or hug after noticing IOIs/kino?
Desiderius,
You know better than to send a “whats up?” text or a text to see if she got your message from before. No, those aren’t things that will blow you out, but they aren’t helping.
If she is dangling the carrot this long in getting back to you, then it’s pretty much over. Only chance would be to somehow get her out with you and go super alpha on her, but then again why would you want to hang with a chick that is already playing games and shit testing you? A woman who is really interested in you and dying for a second date would move heaven and earth to get back to you. Seems P&D worthy at best.
My NAWALT is now in the least interest
zone – I thought it would be safe to take the
physical escalation slow, but I was mistaken.
This is where I would typically bail, but tips
on rescuing things would be appreciated.
Desi,
Hard to say. Mireille *might* be right that she isn’t interested enough or lost interest, but she also might be playing games. If she is really playing “the least interest game” do you really want to rescue things. One blogger recently had a good post basically on the subject of NEXTing women. It is always a tricky call when to try and fix a situation or try and salvage it versus NEXTing, but I think in the current SMP a guy has to err on the side of NEXTing at initial signs of bad behavior. Maybe you throw the ball in her court with some texts and see what you get back but be prepared to move on. I think for guys who are actually genuinely interested in serious quality LTRs it makes no sense to spin your wheels with any woman who shows any indication of playing games.
I just want to note that there’s a good chance that, had this study been done when I was in college (late 90s) I would have been identified as a man who “does not disrespect people for casual hookups” and “does not hold a sexual double standard.”
But this judgment was based entirely on a romantic, idealized view of the world. I was a virgin with virtually no experience with real female sexuality. And even to the extent that I did hold a subconscious double standard, I would never have admitted it because I believed myself open-minded. If I could go give advice to my 19-year old self, odds are pretty good he’d wind up answering those questions differently.
@ INTJ
Did you miss *Sassy’s sensual list* @ #243?
What do you think of it?
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/06/hookinguprealities/the-definitive-survey-of-college-students-sexual-behavior-by-gender/comment-page-2/#comments
The so-called “double standard” has no negative affect on a slut until she finds out how difficult in can be to talk a man into marrying her…
Bastiat,
“Some of those command-and-control socioeconomic planning/eugenics/Malthusian econ enthusiasts should be listed among history’s worst mass murderers.”
History is written by the winners, and as long as many (most?) of our best and brightest, especially the women, are playing for the other team, we’re not winning anything.
I’m not talking about the liberal team either – I’m a liberal, no need for the “classic” label. I was raised by a feminist in the liberal tradition in a liberal church in which I’m still very active. I taught a class last year on this book by a liberal ex-nun. I voted for Clinton both times and for Obama.
On the other hand, I got my piece of the Berlin Wall. I was in Eastern Europe for the Velvet Revolution and Hungary’s first free elections. When I was at Princeton, I saw the smart progressive set using the word “liberal”, sometimes with a neo- on the front, as their favorite epithet. Frankly, they reminded me of the old-guard nomenklatura in Eastern Europe, with the smug sense of entitlement and arrogant ignorance of alternative points of view.
They ain’t liberal, but they are in charge of our institutions. I’m on the other team.
Cooper – “That being said, guys aren’t the gatekeepers to sex – so I find it hard to blame a man for take what, essentially, is being offered.
Sure, he has had to escalate his way into the bedroom, but women being the sexual gatekeepers dicates that she has allowed the progression to reach sexual-access. No?”
All true. And, I’ve said many times I do not blame men for taking what is freely given. However, that does NOT excuse men from their behavior anymore than hypergamy excuses women for being promiscuous in the first place. I’m not in any way interested in laying blame at this point. I’m much MORE interested in solutions, and the first thing we have to do is STOP blaming each other for this mess before we can move on.
“I’m 100% behind shaming both men and women for slutty behavior – so don’t be mistaken about that.
But as a guy who can be hestitant to escalate, I’ve had to learn that men are supposed to, and are often expected to. And probably even more important, imo, is NOT doing is just as bad, if not worse.”
I’m sure you realize that you are preaching to the choir here, right? I mean it when I say that you remind me of myself at your age. (sorry for sounding like a “dad”, I suppose it comes with the job. LOL) I completely understand where you are coming from, but keep this in mind: There are many, many ways to “escalate” within a new or forming relationship. Escalation does not equal sex in all cases, but it DOES mean that it is the man’s task to move the relationship along at whatever pace HE is comfortable with. If a woman dumps you because you didn’t try to get in her pants on the first date, she isn’t right for you anyway and she did you a huge favor.
“Like, I’m not sure I’d ever not push for a makeout, cause it seems women expect it, and lose respect when the effort isn’t present.”
As I said above, don’t put so much importance on how any particular women reacts to you. If you want to play tongue hockey, go for the kiss. If you aren’t comfortable with that, then don’t push for it.
“I’ve avoided casual hookups (like yourself) and it hasn’t really gotten me anywhere. (and I don’t see women valuing it either)”
It hasn’t been so long that I don’t remember exactly how bitter this realization was. Yes, it is true that most women do NOT appreciate your sacrifice in terms of avoiding casual sex. I can’t even describe to you how hurt and angry I was when I discovered the truth about this point. But, looking back I’ve realized something. I didn’t abstain from casual sex for anyone other than myself. Now I not only have the high ground to say what I do, I am also proud that despite being surrounded with temptation I stuck to my morals and made my way anyhow. Was it hard? Hell yeah. Did it give me any credit? Not at all.
Also, in terms of women not appreciating a sexually conservative man goes: it isn’t entirely true. There certainly are women that greatly desire such a man. Furthermore, my wife has told me that despite the fact that she was not as selective in her youth as I was, she respects me a great deal for remaining true to myself. So in the end, my “lack” of sexual experience didn’t keep her from being attracted to me, and my “lack” of experience earned a little respect from her as well. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m more than happy with the results of my conservative approach. Besides, it isn’t like I was never having sex. I simply had a higher standard than most everyone else. For the most part, having higher standards isn’t a bad thing.
“Like, I don’t see how telling guys to “hold off” is going to fix the smp. Aren’t we, in fact, telling guys to sow their oats, whenever possible? (surely that’s what game followers would say is numero#1 – always be closing)”
Telling guys to hold off and/or PUA their way into women’s pants won’t do anything to fix the SMP as it stands now. I’m not truly sure what WILL fix it, but I’m pretty sure that guys using dark game to score big N’s won’t help in the least, and probably contribute to the problem. I’ve NEVER ONCE told men to “sow their oats” or any such thing. I, like Susan, am a supporter of LTR and marriage, and my advice to young men is still what I’ve always said: find yourself a quality women and make life with her as happy as possible. The difference between blue pill and red pill in that advice is all about the details of “making life happy” with her. In my blue pill days, I thought making life happy meant making HER happy. That is impossible though and doomed to failure, as has been proven time and again. The red pill version still starts the same, but “making life happy” post red pill means doing things to make myself happy first and foremost, because if I don’t take care of myself, no one else will either. It means having a purpose that is NOT planted firmly on her existence, so my world does not revolve around her. It means taking total responsibility for my own shit. And I’m finding that much like hard labor, it is very rewarding. I never look forward to a day of hard yard work for instance, but every time I put in the effort, I greatly enjoy standing back at the end of the day to admire my handy work. Well my friend, my relationship with my wife is no different. Some days I simply have to put my head down and put in some effort, but at the end of the day I’m nothing less than proud of what I accomplished, even when the only thing I have to show for it is a happy woman sleeping beside me. Because you see, it IS important that she be happy with me. However, I cannot make that happen. When she is happy, it means I’m doing my job, because I don’t make any effort at all to put her in that frame of mind. All I do is provide an environment where she can be happy with herself, what she does with that is on her.
I meant it when I said I’m excited for you and guys like you Cooper. Realize your worth, strengthen your confidence and frame, and always keep moving forward. I won’t try to candy coat things or tell you it is easy. I’ve spent the last year + agonizing over a lot of this stuff myself. But, I’m here to tell you, you DO NOT need to change who you are to be successful* with women. I’m exactly the same person I was prior to my divorce. The difference is: I know more than I did back then, and I won’t be making those same stupid mistakes. If you like who and what you are, don’t change for anyone. Ever. The only reason to change is for yourself and your own happiness. Changing into someone you dislike certainly won’t make you happy. In fact, it is likely to make you bitter and jaded. Brings to mind some popular ‘sphere bloggers…
*(in the interests of full disclosure: my definition of “successful with women” mostly means finding a great woman to LTR with. So no, I’ve not started collecting notches. Instead, I married the women I’m spending the rest of my life with. THAT is my success, and I’m more than pleased with it.)
Alias – Thanks!
1 2 3 … 8 »