Hannah Rosin Understands Feminism, But Not Hookup Culture

Wharton’s White Party – Slutty enough for you?

“[Hookup culture] is an engine of female progress—one being harnessed and driven by women themselves.”

Hannah Rosin

 

I couldn’t agree more. Women control access to sex. A promiscuous culture or norm cannot exist without the participation of women. It is women who have driven down the price of sex since the Sexual Revolution, not men.

Hannah Rosin’s upcoming book The End of Men is excerpted in the September issue of The Atlantic, the unrivaled go-to source for all stories describing the educated female’s life trajectory and meteoric rise to financial success and emotional independence. Boys on the Side is an interesting account of contemporary gender relations to be sure, but it doesn’t really hold together as a depiction of hookup culture, which Rosin says has been the norm for about 15 years now.

Let’s take the story she opens with. She attends a business school midweek happy hour. (This is presumably Harvard or Wharton. In my Wharton Class of 1983, our Thursday night happy hours were very well attended by the most social members of my class – usually around 50 or 75 of us out of 650.) Let’s compare my experience with what Rosin observed recently:

2012: Rosin is rather shocked to see that women are not appalled by a pic of some chick blowing a snowman’s penis, which she calls porn. 

1983: We would not have been shocked by that pic, which we would have called humor. I recall a pic  of an African tribal boy performing cunnilingus on a cow that made the rounds. Someone had left it in the mail folder of a real ass kisser.

 

2012: Someone’s boyfriend suggests going to a strip club, and then gives a buddy the finger for teasing him about marriage.

1983: Someone’s boyfriend suggests going to a strip club, and then gives a buddy the finger for teasing him about marriage.

 

2012: “Many of [the women] had been molded on trading floors or in investment banks with male-female ratios as terrifying as 50-to-1, so they had learned to keep pace with the boys. Women told me stories of being hit on at work by “FDBs” (finance douche bags) who hadn’t even bothered to take off their wedding rings, or sitting through Monday-morning meetings that started with stories about who had banged whom (or what) that weekend.”

1983: Ditto. My best friend from Wharton was the first female Managing Director at Merrill Lynch, in charge of Trading. Everyone, and I mean everyone f*cked everybody else. Entitled and immoral behavior from the Masters and Mistresses of the Universe is nothing new.

 

2012: ““Here in America, the girls, they give up their mouth, their ass, their tits,” the Argentinean said to me, punctuating each with the appropriate hand motion, “before they even know the guy. It’s like, ‘Hello.’ ‘Hello.’ ‘You wanna hook up?’ ‘Sure.’”

1983: “Here in America, the girls, they give up their mouth, their ass, their tits,” the Indian guys said to me, punctuating each with the appropriate hand motion, “before they even know the guy. It’s like, ‘Hello.’ ‘Hello.’ ‘You wanna hook up?’ ‘Sure.’ So why don’t you hook up with me before I have to return to an arranged marriage?”

 

2012:  She and I stood by the bar at one point and watched a woman put her hand on a guy’s inner thigh, shortly before they disappeared together.

1983: I opened the door to the restroom at the MBA House to find a female classmate giving a BJ to a married student. They disappeared shortly afterwards.

 

Rosin describes the females she observed as having worked for a decade already, having cut their teeth on Wall St. These are tough, ambitious broads in their early 30s. They are among the most aggressive women in America, the top 1%, those who have successfully battled to the forefront of high achievers in highly competitive environments. They are extraverts, leaders, analytical thinkers, and workaholics. Some may marry, but many won’t, and it’s fair to assume there aren’t many future mommies in the group. All this was equally true in 1983.

In other words, while many things have changed, none of the things Rosin observed are new, and none of these examples relate to hookup culture specifically. 

Rosin is more effective and accurate in her portrayal of the role of feminism:

Single young women in their sexual prime—that is, their 20s and early 30s, the same age as the women at the business-­school party—are for the first time in history more success­ful, on average, than the single young men around them. They are more likely to have a college degree and, in aggregate, they make more money. What makes this remarkable development possible is not just the pill or legal abortion but the whole new landscape of sexual freedom—the ability to delay marriage and have temporary relationships that don’t derail education or career. To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture.

Indeed, women cannot outearn and outperform males if marriage and family are a priority.  While 94% of Millennial women cite motherhood as one of their most important priorities in life, it remains to be seen what choices they will make as they proceed through their 20s. 

Lisa Wade is a feminist sociologist who has studied hookup culture. While she is positive about casual sex and hooking up, she acknowledges that it doesn’t work for many women:

Many of the women in our sample, specifically, felt that they had inherited a right to express their sexuality from the women’s movement of the 60s and 70s. They saw college as an opportunity to enact their liberation. So they embraced sex …and the right to say “yes” to sex. And it was going to be glorious.

But many of our female respondents felt disempowered instead of empowered by sexual encounters. They didn’t feel like equals on the sexual playground, more like jungle gyms.

It may be that the women who actually enjoy “having sex like a man” also enjoy “having a career like a man” and have no intention of being saddled with a domestic role. 

Rosin’s next stop was Yale, where she spoke with some women protesting the “hostile sexual climate” there.

[One freshman] was high on her first taste of the hookup culture and didn’t want a boyfriend. “It was empowering, to have that kind of control,” she recalls. “Guys were texting and calling me all the time, and I was turning them down. I really enjoyed it! I had these options to hook up if I wanted them, and no one would judge me for it.” But then, sometime during sophomore year, her feelings changed. She got tired of relation­ships that just faded away, “no end, no beginning.”

This is a common tale, evidenced by the dropoff in hooking up after freshmen year, as women learn the hard way that “sex as empowerment” is a scam peddled by feminists.  When Rosin asked the girl what she would like instead, she replied, “Some guy to ask me out on a date to the frozen-­yogurt place.”

Rosin goes on to claim that in spite of their unhappiness, these women staunchly defended hookup culture, which is counter to what the recent College Life Survey of 19,000 students revealed:

Even one of the women who had initiated the Title IX complaint, Alexandra Brodsky, felt this way. “I would never come down on the hookup culture,” she said. “Plenty of women enjoy having casual sex.”

No surprise there – Brodsky is a feminist activist, hardly representative of the typical female student. As Rosin has already observed, feminism needs hookup culture. Without it, women just might refuse to prioritize their careers throughout their 20s. (Tidbit: CBS has ordered a pilot for a show based on Kate Bolick’s article last fall. It has been described as a show where being a single woman is the “destination, not the journey.” Whoo hoo.)

Where Rosin really goes awry is in conflating hooking up behavior with hookup culture, a common mistake. For example, here is how she characterizes the typical female student today:

For most women, the hookup culture is like an island they visit, mostly during their college years and even then only when they are bored or experimenting or don’t know any better. But it is not a place where they drown. The sexual culture may be more coarse these days, but young women are more than adequately equipped to handle it, because unlike the women in earlier ages, they have more-important things on their minds, such as good grades and intern­ships and job interviews and a financial future of their own.

She cites researcher Elizabeth Armstrong, who describes hooking up as a “larger romantic strategy,” part of a “sexual career.” 

Armstrong and Hamilton had come looking for sexual victims. Instead, at this university, and even more so at other, more prestigious universities they studied, they found the opposite: women who were managing their romantic lives like savvy headhunters. “The ambitious women calculate that having a relationship would be like a four-credit class, and they don’t always have time for it, so instead they opt for a lighter hookup,” Armstrong told me.

…The women wanted to study or hang out with friends or just be “100 percent selfish,” as one said. “I have the rest of my life to devote to a husband or kids or my job.” Some even purposely had what one might think of as fake boyfriends, whom they considered sub–marriage quality, and weren’t genuinely attached to. “He fits my needs now, because I don’t want to get married now,” one said. “I don’t want anyone else to influence what I do after I graduate.”

Yet Rosin also reveals hard numbers that contradict her conclusion, citing the research at Stanford of Paula England (also previously cited here). England has made the following assessment of hookup culture based on a sample of over 20,000 students:

  • 11% of  students enthusiastically enjoy hookup culture.
  • 50% hook up, but do it rather ambivalently or reluctantly, some with extremely negative experiences.
  • 38% opt out of hooking up altogether.

It turns out that students have a median number of five hookups in all of college, and that includes any hookup, not just sex. Since sexual intercourse is believed to occur in fewer than half of hookups, we can estimate that at most, the median number of sex hookups is less than three in four years, and that includes relationships. 

About 66 percent of women say they wanted their most recent hookup to turn into something more, but 58 percent of men say the same—not a vast difference, considering the cultural panic about the demise of chivalry and its consequences for women. And in fact, the broad inference that young people are having more sex—and not just coarser sex—is just wrong; teenagers today, for instance, are far less likely than their parents were to have sex or get pregnant.

Here Rosin acknowledges that hooking up frequently occurs as a means to getting into a relationship, which is the opposite of her contention that women hook up to avoid relationships. The fact is, both are true. Rosin’s error is in focusing on the 11% that is enthusiastic about hookup culture. 

There’s a stark disconnect between the feminist hookup culture script, and the actual behavior of college students. Clearly, there are women who display ravenous, voracious sexual appetites. They may be found at the Yale Women’s Center, MBA Happy Hour, and on campuses throughout the nation. They are the female leaders of tomorrow, and they deserve credit for their achievements. But they do not speak for the majority of women, and Rosin has failed to realize that. 

5 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • (R)Evoluzione

    Rosin is post-wall. Don’t expect her to understand much that isn’t directly related to her 2nd wave feminism worldview. When the facts don’t fit her worldview, she discards them.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      (R)Evoluzione

      Rosin is post-wall. Don’t expect her to understand much that isn’t directly related to her 2nd wave feminism worldview. When the facts don’t fit her worldview, she discards them.

      The least she could do is construct a logical argument. She is inconsistent and contradicts herself repeatedly in the article. She’s a respected writer and commentator – but her thinking is muddled.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Slightly OT perhaps, but I just came across an excerpt on promiscuity from an old post – a male therapist talks about promiscuity, first in women, then for both sexes:

      Gawker: Do you find that females who “experiment” are prone to self-destruction?

      Anonymous Therapist: A resounding yes. Forget about the spoon-fed knowledge that promiscuity and experimentation lead to a higher risk of sexual assault, STDs, and unplanned children. Women that experiment—both heterosexually and homosexually—have, in my experience, faced higher levels of guilt and a lack of identity as their lives begin to settle down. Understand that this is a chicken-or-egg scenario, because sexual promiscuity in women in is one of the three major symptoms of internal anger and self-hatred, along with substance abuse and self-mutilation.

      Gawker: That seems harsh. How so?

      AT: I had a female patient once. She was very attractive, had three kids and was married to a prominent figure around town. She admitted to me that as a teen, she was extremely sexually active due to some feelings of unattractiveness and abandonment. Once she had kids, she felt guilty that her kids would one day—and I’m quoting here—”realize that they were birthed from a ‘whore,’” and that there was no special physical connection between her and her husband because he was like, the 70th man she’d been with. She felt unworthy of her social prominence because no one knew who she truly was. Since she could not separate from her past and never truly dealt with the core issues of her inadequacies, she began to self-destruct with substances, a spending addiction, and oftentimes engaging in communications that would jeopardize her husband’s career.

      * Self-destruction stems from guilt or a sense of unworthiness, and if you are not punished by someone else then, in your mind, you must punish yourself.
      * Experimentation is also socially driven: It is now commendable in our society to be promiscuous.
      * For both men and women, any type of promiscuity or experimentation, what you feel at the time is not always how you will feel about it later.

      In my opinion, any type of promiscuity or “phase” is fulfilling some type of need or emptiness inside that person at that specific time. Later on, that need may be fulfilled, but the behavior has occurred and the person may not be able to intellectualize the rationale or forgive themselves for fulfilling that need in that venue.

  • Ramble

    While 94% of Millennial women cite motherhood as one of their most important priorities in life, it remains to be seen what choices they will make as they proceed through their 20s.

    I would have been so impressed if you had chosen to word that, “before their fertility starts to decline

    The reason why we have a certain kind of focus on people during their 20’s is not because it is some sort of magical number, but because it is when girls are most able to have children. Specifically, before they hit 27 (on average).

    Guys were texting and calling me all the time, and I was turning them down. I really enjoyed it!

    I wonder why some guys don’t approach more often? I mean, where is that approach anxiety coming from?

    But, god, those guys at the investment banks, what douche bags. Right?

    (Please tell me that I am not the only one that can see why we are seeing a bifurcation between milquetoast betas and “douche bags”.)

    I had these options to hook up if I wanted them, and no one would judge me for it.

    Thank god no one would judge her. I mean, could you imagine that someone might judge her for her actions? And, that, those judgements might be in line with traditional social norms? I mean, anyone that might judge a girl for hooking up is basically worse than a Nazi.

    “Some guy to ask me out on a date to the frozen-­yogurt place.”

    She could ask some guy to a frozen yogurt place. But, he might then turn her down, and really enjoy it.

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

    I need to lighten up.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ramble

      Hey, we missed you!

      I need to lighten up.

      No, I think all of your criticisms were valid.

  • Ramble

    Susan, you did a whole bit where you sorta chastised her for complaining about things in 2012 that you experienced in 1983.

    But, you know, I am actually going to defend her, a little, on this one.

    I am guessing that the girl that was complaining about the culture she experienced in finance was a culture that she was not prepared for. What I mean is this:

    I believe that most girls that become nurses have a fairly good idea of what they are in for before they start nursing school. I am thinking of long or awkward hours, ungrateful patients (whole lives you may just have saved), bureaucratic healthcare systems, bland/”dead” hospital environments (they always seem so lifeless to me), etc.

    Same for girls that become teachers: controlling children instead of teaching them, dealing with unrealistic parents, bureaucratic school systems, etc.

    Personally, I did not become aware of how douchey the financial world was until recently. As far as I know, there have not been many examples in pop culture (law offices we see all the time, but Oliver Stone’s Wall Street is one of the only movies about investing that I can think of prior to the recent “meltdown”) and teachers and guidance counselors were absolutely not telling us that finance was douche central. And, if you knew these things back in ’83, well, maybe someone could have told us.

    Still, the girl in question was much more likely to take the role of victim relative to the likes of you.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ramble

      I am guessing that the girl that was complaining about the culture she experienced in finance was a culture that she was not prepared for.

      OK, but she stayed ten years! We vote with our feet. She stuck around, presumably made bank, and now she doesn’t get to whine that men told her dirty jokes. Just my .02.

      My friend who was MD of Trading is an incredibly tough woman. She has never married, and never wished she had. I do think she’s a lot like a man in many ways, and she was very sexually aggressive back in the day. She cashed out in her 40s and moved to the country, btw.

  • Todd

    Aaaand this is why I don’t mess with certain parts of the feminist movement. This part assumes that all women are upper middle class, brilliant, well-educated with good jobs. That’s, at most, like 5% of the population. Building social policy off of any 5% of the population, rich or poor, well-educated or not, male or female, is stupid. As Susan said, this is only reflective of a specific milleu, not what the average woman on the street is dealing with.

    But the average person shops at Walmart. And drinks PBR unironically. And goes to church! Horrors!

  • Underdog

    I read that Hannah Rosin article this morning. Jesus. My face now has a permanent outline of my palm on it.

  • Mike M.

    Sad. Because it’s becoming more and more obvious that both men and women want something more than to use each other as self-propelled sex toys. And the orthodox feminists are too blinded by their hate to realize it.

  • pvw

    From the article: To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture.

    Me: Major facepalm, from a woman who went to college and graduate school with no interest in and experience in any type of hookup culture, and i was in graduate school in a period that overlapped somewhat with the time when the business school students were in college. I’m sure the Marcottians and so forth would find me a poster girl for their kind of feminist achievement (in the workplace at least)…

    As I think about me and my friends from graduate school–marriage in graduate school or shortly thereafter, some having children while in graduate school or in the first few years of their academic jobs….But otherwise, I imagine I would be a major failure, ie., church on Sunday morning (even if it is in a liberal denomination), a traditionalist-minded woman who teaches women’s history, including feminist theory, and not the sex-pozzy type! Lawd, they would hate me, especially as my research interests tend to focus more on topics of interest to married women…19th c. married women’s movements….

    And of course, they don’t think anything about the vulnerability of the traditionalist-minded young woman who wants marriage and not hooking up. Of course, in their mind, those young women would be hopeless prudes. Bah!

    And to criticize the hook up culture, would be to label themselves anti-feminists, even when it works to their detriment–they would be going too much against the grain. Celebrate the sex pozzy’s individualism to do what they want, even if that is not what you would do—to criticize would be to judge, and that is inappropriate.

    In addition, they would be putting themselves on the bad side of the girls who are the most powerful sexually, ie., who can get men to want them.

    Yet, are they really more powerful when some of them want the dates the more conservative women can get? When I was that age and in graduate school, I just stayed away from those chicks.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @PVW

      I remember when you first left a comment here, and I immediately had my guard up. I figured you for a gender bending feminist prof, and it took me a few comments to realize what you were about. In retrospect, that seems crazy!

  • J

    I just read both the Rosin and Marcotte articles, and I’m having that weird feeeling you get when you understand all the words but they don’t correspond with reality. Perhaps it’s a function of my not living in the rarified atmosphere Rosin described, but I don’t know any young women who feel empowered by all this fcuking around. Are young women putting off marriage because career considerations? Sure. Do they have some sex along the way? Sure. Is all female accomplishment dependent on the hook up culture? I think not. There’s a leap in logic there I’m just not following.

  • Sick of it All

    Now that’s some wholesome looking people in that photo. Anyone else here find that attractive? They’re faces are glowing and that all have bright, white pearly teeth. Much more attractive and pleasing to the mind than what passes for “hot” these days.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Now that’s some wholesome looking people in that photo. Anyone else here find that attractive? They’re faces are glowing and that all have bright, white pearly teeth. Much more attractive and pleasing to the mind than what passes for “hot” these days.

      That’s why I posted it. Do these look like hardened sluts to you? That pic is recent, but quite representative of the student body when I was there. The typical MBA student is not humping his or her way through school (though some are).

  • sestamibi

    Not to worry. Eventually these chicks will all die out without having spawned a next generation, and the world will be inherited by the children of far more traditional cultures: evangelical Christians, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews . . .

  • OffTheCuff

    That photo? No. I don’t say this often, but they look dorky and gay.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    The women being described as “empowered” by hooking up in these articles are of a certain type-A, go-getter, highly extroverted, sensation-seeking and competitive subgroup of women. They likely have their academic, professional and social lives all in order, and tend to seek chaos and excitement in the sexual arena. They would be your ESTJ or ESFJ types on the Myers-Briggs.

    Because these women are so accomplished, extroverted, social and visible, their voices tend to drown out the shy, meek, introverted and invisible women. These type-A “trendsetters” make it look so cool, go glamorous, and make other people believe that they, too, can play that game. Perhaps it’s similar to how naive youngsters think they can also be a movie star or pro sports player.

    It would be interesting to contrast these type-A women with the rising entrepreneurial stars in Asia. From what I can gather, the top Asian businesswomen tend to remain rather asexual and go for designer fashion, high-end luxuries, expensive vehicles and other material goods. It could be due to a culturally different marker of “success” and lack of sex-positive feminism, combined with a much stricter and less liberal sexual atmosphere in general (for both men and women).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The women being described as “empowered” by hooking up in these articles are of a certain type-A, go-getter, highly extroverted, sensation-seeking and competitive subgroup of women. They likely have their academic, professional and social lives all in order, and tend to seek chaos and excitement in the sexual arena. They would be your ESTJ or ESFJ types on the Myers-Briggs.

      Exactly, and it’s preposterous to claim they represent the norm.

  • Joe

    I just read the article by Heather Wilhelm about Rosin’s book, and I have to say, it really left me in a funk. It’s been all over the blogosphere today.

    @J

    I just read both the Rosin and Marcotte articles, and I’m having that weird feeeling you get when you understand all the words but they don’t correspond with reality.

    Me too. I hope you’re right, J., and Susan’s words bolster that hope.

    It really seems like Rosin’s writing about that same small corner of Manhattan or perhaps, K Street in DC, that just knows it’s the center of the universe. Everyone revolves around it. Them.

    No. It doesn’t, even if the TV insists it does.

  • J

    @Hope #12

    Great post. I’m sure youare correct, as always, regarding the MB types.

    @Joe

    It really seems like Rosin’s writing about that same small corner of Manhattan or perhaps, K Street in DC, that just knows it’s the center of the universe. Everyone revolves around it. Them.

    Exactly!

  • Sick of it All

    “That photo? No. I don’t say this often, but they look dorky and gay.”

    Gay as in homosexual? I don’t see it. The guy on the far left is the most attractive. I like his coloring and he has something of an exotic look.

    “The women being described as “empowered” by hooking up in these articles are of a certain type-A, go-getter, highly extroverted, sensation-seeking and competitive subgroup of women. ”

    Hope, I can see how sex can be felt as empowering if one has grown up with issues around it.

  • VJ

    Be it resolved: The Hookup culture exists because many College women like it that way, and they think it benefits them & they enjoy it. It may not benefit All College women, but just enough of the true ‘elites’ to keep it going year after year, self perpetuating all the wonderful nuances of mating & rutting on (mainly) daddy’s dime.

    The poor dears!

    “Rather than struggling to get into relationships,” Armstrong reported, women “had to work to avoid them.” (One woman lied to an interested guy, portraying herself as “extremely conservative” to avoid dating him.) Many did not want a relationship to steal time away from their friendships or studying”.

    “The women described boyfriends as “too greedy” and relation­ships as “too involved.” One woman “with no shortage of admirers” explained, “I know this sounds really pathetic and you probably think I am lying, but there are so many other things going on right now that it’s really not something high up on my list … I know that’s such a lame-ass excuse, but it’s true.” The women wanted to study or hang out with friends or just be “100 percent selfish,” as one said. “I have the rest of my life to devote to a husband or kids or my job.” Some even purposely had what one might think of as fake boyfriends, whom they considered sub–marriage quality, and weren’t genuinely attached to. “He fits my needs now, because I don’t want to get married now,” one said. “I don’t want anyone else to influence what I do after I graduate.”

    For many of the guys? They Know that time is short, and they’re ‘seriously looking’. The gals? It’s their Play time. Their ‘decade of sexual discovery’, but nothing too heavy mind you, nothing too ‘emotionally involved or taxing’. Just some reliable quiet, pliable dude with a reliable big dick perhaps, or the other version of ‘daddy, look at me now’, stepping out with the ‘rainbow parties’ of all sorts of ‘flavors’.

    So it’s a severe time mismatch time & time again. By the time these er… Ladies are Finally (somewhat more) ready for a ‘family’, & well past the age of 35, (and hearing the rapidly decline of their fertility), those guys are gone, or moved on. What you’ve got left are the re-treads, left overs, the walking wounded, the previously ‘confirmed bachelors’, the better hidden Bi’s, or the granddads looking for a new trophy wife. That once common vision of the big suburban house with the white picket fence and a secure future with that one loving man is but a distant dream, unless that man is at least a decade older now, and divorced (at least once). All those 100’s of stand up studly single dudes who you were tripping over in school? Gone with the Wind! [Cue the music]

    Tragic Fact of the day: Most thinking College gals Marry one of their College/Uni BF’s. Or at least a guy friend they knew. You’ll never likely be in contact with that many guys you’ll know on such an intimate basis and observe in many different circumstances on almost a daily basis. Internet dating can’t quite replace that either. And Census figures on the decline of marriage bears this out. I guess no one told them, and they remain wholly ignorant of the demographic facts too. Hey they only go to Yale or Wharton, who the hell expects them to read or think much!? Cheers, ‘VJ’

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VJ

      Hey, good to see you.

      Be it resolved: The Hookup culture exists because many College women like it that way, and they think it benefits them & they enjoy it. It may not benefit All College women, but just enough of the true ‘elites’ to keep it going year after year

      What’s remarkable is that only 11% is “just enough.”

      For many of the guys? They Know that time is short, and they’re ‘seriously looking’. The gals? It’s their Play time. Their ‘decade of sexual discovery’, but nothing too heavy mind you, nothing too ‘emotionally involved or taxing’. Just some reliable quiet, pliable dude with a reliable big dick perhaps, or the other version of ‘daddy, look at me now’, stepping out with the ‘rainbow parties’ of all sorts of ‘flavors’.

      It sounds like you buy Rosin’s analysis. I gather you reject my finding that 20% or fewer of both male and female college students are promiscuous and servicing each other? While the other 80% is on the beach?

      By the time these er… Ladies are Finally (somewhat more) ready for a ‘family’, & well past the age of 35, (and hearing the rapidly decline of their fertility), those guys are gone, or moved on. What you’ve got left are the re-treads, left overs, the walking wounded, the previously ‘confirmed bachelors’, the better hidden Bi’s, or the granddads looking for a new trophy wife.

      Many of these Ladies are highly educated and successful in their careers, giving them “outsized” impact on the culture. One Kate Bolick is worth a couple of dozen happily married women at 28, right?

      Tragic Fact of the day: Most thinking College gals Marry one of their College/Uni BF’s. Or at least a guy friend they knew. You’ll never likely be in contact with that many guys you’ll know on such an intimate basis and observe in many different circumstances on almost a daily basis. I

      This is a two-sided problem. Women delay marriage, making a match with a college bf unlikely to go the distance. And there are actually not that many relationships in college that might work as a foundation for marriage. Chicken or egg?

  • Sick of it All

    ” They are more likely to have a college degree and, in aggregate, they make more money. What makes this remarkable development possible is not just the pill or legal abortion but the whole new landscape of sexual freedom—the ability to delay marriage and have temporary relationships that don’t derail education or career. ”

    I don’t see why a serious would have to derail education or career. The only forseeable problem would be if it broke up and the resultant heartbreak and depression affected studies and career.

  • Sick of it All

    “1983: “Here in America, the girls, they give up their mouth, their ass, their tits,” the Indian guys said to me, punctuating each with the appropriate hand motion, “before they even know the guy. It’s like, ‘Hello.’ ‘Hello.’ ‘You wanna hook up?’ ‘Sure.’ So why don’t you hook up with me before I have to return to an arranged marriage?”

    Are you serious?! What a turn off.

    “Rosin goes on to claim that in spite of their unhappiness, these women staunchly defended hookup culture, which is counter to what the recent College Life Survey of 19,000 students revealed:

    Even one of the women who had initiated the Title IX complaint, Alexandra Brodsky, felt this way. “I would never come down on the hookup culture,” she said. “Plenty of women enjoy having casual sex.” ”

    I can understand this. While there are many things that I do not personally like for myself, I do not want to see the freedoms and liberties of fellow citizens taken away. I don’t drink alcohol but don’t think it should be made illegal. I don’t like certain religions but respect the legal rights of people to follow the religions of their choice, etc.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      While there are many things that I do not personally like for myself, I do not want to see the freedoms and liberties of fellow citizens taken away.

      This is very much the norm for your generation. Negative reinforcement, i.e. shame, is no longer an acceptable form of controlling behavior in society.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    I thought the Rosin piece was to some extent a confirmation of what I have observed in my limited interaction with college students as a part-time professor. The most sexually aggressive girls are also the ones that combine high professional and lifestyle ambitions with high SMV and high confidence; they aren’t fringe element SMP losers or sluts desperately seeking to get male attention by any means necessary (although I’m sure that element also exists).

    The exceptions, of course, are girls with high religiosity. I think that hookup culture fills the vacuum created by the lack of marriage-track relationships formed in college pitted against the desire to explore aspects of adulthood that are now available. We talk sometimes about how men are the gatekeepers to commitment and women are the gatekeepers to sex; perhaps hookup culture itself is the de facto gatekeeper to both, the bottleneck through which anyone who wants a sexual relationship in college—casual or long-term—must first pass.

    The reasons given for the alpha girls’ mating preferences would be unsurprising to anyone here: no time for a serious relationship and associated drama or emotional baggage; must concentrate on job/travel/grad school; cannot count on a man for support—must be self-sufficient first and then have a merger between equals later in life; question of why a hot guy would want to settle down in such a favorable environment; some disillusionment with at least the traditional ideal of marriage, family, and motherhood.

    It may be reaching a point where the most realistic choice for women who don’t want to go the casual route is going to be celibacy throughout the college years, but I’m not sure how well that kind of message would play out.

  • Clarence

    Ahh but then there is this:

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-promiscuity-data.html

    And this :

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/conventional-wisdom-on-the-trend-in-us-divorce-rates-may-be-about-to-change/

    I guess I figure that some percentage of women and men won’t be damaged by “promiscuity” (and when we are talking about such low numbers, I really do have to put promiscuity in quotes) but that a surprising number will be and this consistently affects women worse than men.

    I also think that the elite schools , for the most part, won’t be “elite” much longer, due to the education bubble and the changes in the larger economy.

    I predict interesting times.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      I guess I figure that some percentage of women and men won’t be damaged by “promiscuity” (and when we are talking about such low numbers, I really do have to put promiscuity in quotes) but that a surprising number will be and this consistently affects women worse than men.

      Thanks for linking to the Social Pathologist – I hadn’t realized he’d linked here. Do you have any data re this affecting women worse than men? Most of the research seems to have been done on women alone, but when men are looked at, the number of premarital sexual partners also seems to predict divorce.

  • Courtley

    @Joe

    “It really seems like Rosin’s writing about that same small corner of Manhattan or perhaps, K Street in DC, that just knows it’s the center of the universe. Everyone revolves around it. Them.

    No. It doesn’t, even if the TV insists it does.”

    Co-sign completely.

    @Susan

    Thanks for the speedy analysis!

    Do you know when Hanna Rosin’s projected publication date is? I googled but didn’t come up with anything.

  • Courtley

    @Bastiat Blogger

    Good stuff.

    “The exceptions, of course, are girls with high religiosity. I think that hookup culture fills the vacuum created by the lack of marriage-track relationships formed in college pitted against the desire to explore aspects of adulthood that are now available. ”

    Yes. This. I think part of that vacuum is due to a lack of any real mentorship by parents or school/church/community authority-figure-types on how to form these marriage-track relationships. This goes back to my point in the other thread about the helicopter parents and other, broader social circumstances that are causing young people to emotionally mature at a slower rate than in the past.

  • Rum

    No matter how hard I tried, I cannot imagine producing anything in the English language better adapted to annihilating a young mans desire/intent to settle down and marry than Roisins” Boys on the Side.”

    OK, we get it. Women instinctively feel nearly unlimited contempt for the kind of guys who might commit to them.
    Now that that is over with, let us party…

  • Joe

    Um, Rum? Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the party’s over.

  • Courtley

    “Rosin goes on to claim that in spite of their unhappiness, these women staunchly defended hookup culture, which is counter to what the recent College Life Survey of 19,000 students revealed:

    Even one of the women who had initiated the Title IX complaint, Alexandra Brodsky, felt this way. “I would never come down on the hookup culture,” she said. “Plenty of women enjoy having casual sex.”

    No surprise there – Brodsky is a feminist activist, hardly representative of the typical female student. As Rosin has already observed, feminism needs hookup culture. Without it, women just might refuse to prioritize their careers throughout their 20s.”

    There’s a disconnect between what surveys reveal college-aged women want, and what they’re willing to defend from a more political standpoint, if you will. It’s become quite taboo to do any sort of open slut-shaming among young women whatsoever, even if it’s just gossiping with your friends–and I’d guess more so at universities than outside them.

    In fact, I’d say that openly stating that your sexual preferences fall towards monogamy and emotional intimacy and that you dislike the idea of having sex with random strangers seem to practically be treated as “too judgmental” in some of these circles–or at the very least, incredibly prudish.

    The actual voices and opinions of most women on college campuses just seem to be disregarded.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Courtley

      In fact, I’d say that openly stating that your sexual preferences fall towards monogamy and emotional intimacy and that you dislike the idea of having sex with random strangers seem to practically be treated as “too judgmental” in some of these circles–or at the very least, incredibly prudish.

      Agreed. This is related to the current norm of shaming virgins as well.

  • Courtley

    @Sick of it all

    I certainly don’t want to see anyone’s personal sex life limited by the government. It would be nice, though, to be able to express a negative opinion of casual sex in, say, the classroom of a state college without being told you’re offensively slut-shaming. I’ve been out of college for four years and didn’t attend a big state school, so I’m not sure if this is actually the environment now, but it’s the impression I’m getting.

  • Sick of it All

    Courtley, you can express that without backlash as long as you pre-empt the backlash with “for me”. What people don’t like is when personal choices get projected onto others or society at large. There are 2 religions in particular that also have issues with projecting their own truth claims onto the rest of the world. Either we are free or we’re not. And that means free to act and to choose differently from our neighbors.

  • Johnycomelately

    Socialists can put a spin on anything, murder 20 million people and call it a ‘worker’s rebellion.’

    What used to be promiscuous and slutty is now empowering.

  • Courtley

    @Sick of it all

    Yes, I completely agree. But let’s have freedom with accurate information and honest discussions.

  • Desiderius

    “There’s a stark disconnect between the feminist hookup culture script, and the actual behavior of college students. Clearly, there are women who display ravenous, voracious sexual appetites. They may be found at the Yale Women’s Center, MBA Happy Hour, and on campuses throughout the nation. They are the female leaders of tomorrow, and they deserve credit for their achievements. But they do not speak for the majority of women, and Rosin has failed to realize that.”

    Damn. Damn. DAMN.

    Feeling the love for you just now, S. Walsh.

    Give ‘em hell, Susan!

  • Desiderius

    BB,

    “cannot count on a man for support—must be self-sufficient first and then have a merger between equals later in life; question of why a hot guy would want to settle down in such a favorable environment; some disillusionment with at least the traditional ideal of marriage, family, and motherhood.”

    The elephant in the room is the fact that the environment is no longer favorable in this economy. Not close. The whole hookup script is premised on the ability to become self-sufficient on your own before pairing up. Even in good economic times, this wasn’t how things played out for many women.

    Now that the economy sucks, and the changes are likely structural, not cyclical, it may be that a strong partnership among equals we be the prerequisite to establishing oneself in the first place. That turns the whole script on its head.

  • Sick of it All

    “Clearly, there are women who display ravenous, voracious sexual appetites. They may be found at the Yale Women’s Center, MBA Happy Hour, and on campuses throughout the nation. ”

    They can also be found in churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.

  • Desiderius

    Now that the feminists are advocating it, I hope that we can at least agree that the SMP the men here have described actually does exist, and that it functions as we’ve described it.

  • Courtley

    @Desiderius

    “The elephant in the room is the fact that the environment is no longer favorable in this economy. Not close. The whole hookup script is premised on the ability to become self-sufficient on your own before pairing up. Even in good economic times, this wasn’t how things played out for many women.”

    It’s interesting how Rosin’s article centers around the business world so much. These women are going to be part of a very small and elite minority of Gen Y-ers who actually become wealthy through their own efforts, at least from what I understand based on the idea that Gen Y is projected to achieve a lower standard of living and wealth than our parents did. This little group of elites may well become a world unto themselves, with their own little SMP tailored to their tastes. I think Hope’s evaluation of them as very type-A, ESTJ/ESFJ types is also highly accurate.

    This isn’t to say that every wealthy, successful young person necessarily shares the views of the women Rosin is apparently captivated with, of course, but I think the financial aspect of this is significant.

    “Now that the economy sucks, and the changes are likely structural, not cyclical, it may be that a strong partnership among equals we be the prerequisite to establishing oneself in the first place. That turns the whole script on its head.”

    That’s an interesting hypothesis. I feel like my young married/co-habiting friends are all in better financial straits than single ones, and having the option of being supported while someone goes back to school or takes that internship has to be nice. And it has to feel at least a little bit better than having your parents play that support role. :P

    The thing is, for the women Rosin seems to refer to and quote it’s not even so much a practical concern that they be financially stable before marriage, but more of a desire to live out this certain phase of being single, sleeping around a lot, traveling, and having fun on their disposable income. It’s like Phase 3 of adolescence (1 and 2 being high school and college respectively).

  • Sick of it All

    “These women are going to be part of a very small and elite minority of Gen Y-ers who actually become wealthy through their own efforts, at least from what I understand based on the idea that Gen Y is projected to achieve a lower standard of living and wealth than our parents did. ”

    Yeah and I don’t get what the big deal about that is. My parents own their own home, 2 cars, and a bunch of ugly furniture. Its a burden more than a pleasure. I prefer to go light on my feet and the earth. We really don’t need so much stuff.

  • SciGuy

    “There are 2 religions in particular that also have issues with projecting their own truth claims onto the rest of the world.”

    Three religions, actually. You forgot Leftism.

    “Either we are free or we’re not. And that means free to act and to choose differently from our neighbors.”

    False dichotomy. As in most things, there are degrees of freedom (I made a math joke!). Also, people ARE free to be promiscuous. But freedom to act does not mean that you are free from criticism of your actions or opinions that make you uncomfortable. You see, the ability to express one’s opinion is also a freedom, and a far more important one than the freedom to debase oneself.

  • SciGuy

    “Its a burden more than a pleasure. I prefer to go light on my feet and the earth. We really don’t need so much stuff.”

    Speaking of projecting one’s truth claims onto others…

  • Sick of it All

    “Three religions, actually. You forgot Leftism.”

    Liberalism is not a religion. One can be liberal and atheist. Liberalism is an ideology, not religion.

    “Speaking of projecting one’s truth claims onto others…”

    We don’t *need* so much stuff. What we need is oxygen, water, sunlight, food, basic shelter and some clothes if we don’t live in a hot climate. But we don’t *need* “stuff”.

  • Todd

    @12,22,39

    You’ve nailed my feelings on these women. These are a very specific elite, and they’ll have options not available to a typical woman. In a weird way, this is a form of gender equity. Men have always had to deal with the fact that elite men can do things sexually that the average Joe on the street couldn’t dream of pulling off.

    Personally, I would like Ms. Rosin to do this reporting in a middle-class suburban neighborhood or some third-tier state school. Methinks the dynamic would dramatic change.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Sick…”Liberalism is not a religion. One can be liberal and atheist. Liberalism is an ideology, not religion.”

    Depends what you mean by a religion. If a religion is an all-encompassing explanation of life and the world, taken largely on faith, then certainly the Marxist form of leftism, as adopted by true believers, could be considered a religion. See Koestler on Closed Systems:

    http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_archive.html#108638662359305703

    Today’s dominant flavor of leftism (“progressivism”) certainly has some of those same attributes.

  • Abbot

    ” Is all female accomplishment dependent on the hook up culture?”

    Since men are almost always seen as a benchmark for female economic accomplishment and so-called “sexual equality” then what slut defenders are saying is –

    To be equal to men economically, embrace all manner of penis
    To be sexually equal, express yourself with numerous penis
    To be a fully developed human, you will blossom through beholding a variety of penis
    To break the centuries old male power hold, avail yourself with a full spectrum of penis
    To be a more confident wife, prepare yourself with a minimum five year legacy of packing penis

    The slogans –

    MULTIPENIS!* Without it, you’re a woman going nowhere.

    Feeling down, low self esteem? PENIS!*

    Hating on men today? Its simple! You know what to do ladies…

    *bellowed with a deep voice, like those guys on the radio advertising autos

    Penis penis, get your penis here! Always willing, always ready, never a rejection! Come and get em, penis penis, get your penis here!

  • Abbot

    “desire to live out this certain phase of being single, sleeping around a lot, traveling, and having fun on their disposable income”

    all good stuff. Why is it that these authors/promoters never bring up the harsh reality that most men shun or at least do not have an appreciation for such a phase when seeking a wife? Oh right, that won’t sell books.

  • Ted D

    Abbot @ 47 – Thanks man! I needed that first thing on this particular Friday morning.

  • Courtley

    @SW #52

    Well, there’s a difference between social shame and legal restrictions, which is what I thought ‘Sick of It’ was referring to. I don’t think that Western/European cultures have historically tended to actually legally restrict extrmarital sex, did they? I know the Puritans did, and there are probably more examples, but for the most part I don’t think anyone had to pay a fine or go to jail if they stepped outside of the socially-accepted moral code. They just lost their reputations and the respect of their communities, and that was enough to make most people think about the consequences of their sexual choices. Social approval/disapproval is powerful.

  • Courtley

    @ SW

    “Many of these Ladies are highly educated and successful in their careers, giving them “outsized” impact on the culture. One Kate Bolick is worth a couple of dozen happily married women at 28, right?”

    That does seem to be the crux of Rosin’s view, doesn’t it? And she seems rather unaware of it, too.

  • Ted D

    Courtley – “That does seem to be the crux of Rosin’s view, doesn’t it? And she seems rather unaware of it, too.”

    Don’t be so sure she is ignorant of what she is saying. Women of her cohort are fairly certain they are the cream of the crop. After all, they did exactly what the feminist agenda said they should. All those SAHM are selling out. You didn’t get the memo? It came with your “Proud to be a Modern Woman” club information packet.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “This is very much the norm for your generation. Negative reinforcement, i.e. shame, is no longer an acceptable form of controlling behavior in society.”

    This touches upon William Penn’s point that you can either be ruled by God or tyranny.

    You can either regulate yourself, or someone else is going to regulate you at gunpoint.

    Freedom without limits, which is where we are now, is not where we will be two generations from now.

    People will either self-regulate or they will be regulated. They don’t actually get to vote for a third option.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Re: stifling of the debate. I teach macroecon and strategy-type classes, so I don’t have the mandate to get into this topic as much as, say, a gender studies prof would. However, I use the question of marriage as one of the standard templates for decision tree/game tree type work, and this allows for discussion of the students’ subjective perceptions of the payoffs, costs, risks, etc. of settling down. I try to make sure that everyone feels very comfortable with voicing personal opinions, but there are some people who are just more outspoken and aggressive than others and they will always tend to speak out.

    The only “slut-shaming” I have personally seen has come from a few guys who are extremely frustrated with the SMP and who make this a recurring complaint. There was an outburst in one class—a Russian female student blurted out that she wanted to do an independent study with me this fall. She worded it in an unfortunate way—“I’d really like to be under you for a few months.” The group of Rosin-favored alpha female students in the class all giggled and a few started adding their own versions of what independent study should entail. One of the guys who had been most critical of campus dating life and prone to outbursts became visibly upset and turned around and said, “God, all of you girls are so weak for alpha penis!” The whole class laughed for several minutes.

    Other than a rare, semi-humorous complaint by one of the males who feels left in the cold, the alpha females are essentially controlling the narrative. The core debate is not usually about casual sex IME; it is about delayed marriage and the required personal development projects and benchmarks that should be achieved before sincere husband-hunting can begin. Once this date is put out far enough in the future because of academic, travel, and job goals, hook up culture just clicks into place unless there is a religious belief system in that individual that says that pre-marital sex is just plain wrong.

    I personally came to HUS because I realized that I’m probably contributing to this situation in some ways and that I have a personal investment in this SMP that may cloud my judgment where the lives of others are concerned: if I have a female student who wants to become a hedge fund or private equity manager, I’m going to give her the best advice that I can about career development, grad schools, jobs,travel experience, etc.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Do you have any data re this affecting women worse than men? Most of the research seems to have been done on women alone, but when men are looked at, the number of premarital sexual partners also seems to predict divorce.”

    It is the Patriarchy holding women down!

    Seriously though, I’ve noticed this same thing and it boggles the mind. It’s almost as if we’ve all secretly decided that only women’s sexuality matters when it comes to figuring this stuff out. Like I said in the other thread, I will entertain the idea that female promiscuity may be the larger concern, but men can’t be promiscuous if women aren’t having sex with them. So I don’t get why all the effort put into figuring out the female side of the equation without even adding up the male side.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    My buddy todd properly frames the discussion here. Let me take it a step further…

    To be frank, im having a very hard time seeing whats the big deal about rosins piece and ms walshs response; in the end, they-rosin and walsh-are far and away more alike than different. Neither will be bothered all that much to deal with the true wider implications of female choice coupled with what roissy has called the four sirens, other than pander to their respective constituencies.

    Last month, one of if not thee most commented posts ever in the history of hus, happened to deal with a woman that neither ms walsh nor ms rosin deals with all that often: one ms jessica shairer. See, what neither walsh nor rosin will deal with honestly, is the simple fact that, for every kate bolick there will be at least one-if not several-jessica shairers: white women who while also attending college and coming from nominally middle class backgrounds, will simply not have the wherewithall to navigate the hookup scene and will become casualties of the true war on women, which has been waged by their white, umc sisters. Neither will deal with this in any appreciable way, because lets face it, neither walsh nor rosin has to live next door to the jessica shariers of the world-a none too bright gal with a black baby daddy, and all that flows therefrom. So, color me a weebit cynical about the whole exercise; and i beg our hostess’ forgiveness for my candor.

    That said, another very powerful question that i dont see either side-walsh or rosin-deal with, is that there are powerful tradeoffs that must be made in order to make “a womans nation” possible; what cannot be denied, is that women-from the kate bolicks to the shaniqua jenkins and beyond-want choice; choice and freedom to define on their own terms, what it means to be a woman. And it would be downright foolish for anyone to deny, that women do not have that right in our time.

    The big question-actually two-is, one, what are the prices that must be paid for these freedoms-who will pay?-and second, of course, is whether men will be afforded the same freedom to openly question their role(s) in society, too. On that note, i think its fair to say, that to ask the question is to answer it-i mean, does anyone here honestly think it would be possible to see a “kevin bolick”/fortress astoria coverstory feature in the atlantic? A major network making such a story into a tv show? Appearances on the today show? Etc et al?

    Come on.

    As the body counts of the jessicas and shaniquas mount on one side, and the kates and hannahs do same on the other, the rest of us will be faced, if for nothing else but sheer preservation and survival, with grappling with the question:

    What price, “freedom”?

    O.

  • Ted D

    Obsidian – I don’t begrudge Susan or Rosin or anyone for being in the UMC, and I do my best to see things from that perspective. But, I can’t help feeling like the vast majority of folks living in the UMC don’t or perhaps can’t see things from MY perspective. And, as far as things go, my perspective is by no means the worst our society has to offer, yet I often find myself growing concerned that things are getting worse, and can’t help but wonder how things are looking further down the tree. I’m guessing it is pretty covered in bird crap by now from all the shit that keeps dropping on down.

  • JP

    Freedom isn’t the end goal, it’s just a necessary element that permits the goals to be achieved.

    Also, who wants to be in the UMC at all? Isn’t the goal to rise into the LUC , ultimately having your family, several generations hence, pass through the MUC to the UUC?

  • Ted D

    JP – I’d be happy with simply seeing my children do better than I managed. I have hope that they will, but it would be a lie if I said I expect it at this point. With the economy as it is, and globalization still bleeding jobs from the U.S. I simply don’t have much faith that there will be good jobs for them post college.

    So, sure the ultimate goal is to make it all the way to Bill Gates status, but my realistic goal is for my children to have financial independence on a much smaller scale, but financial independence all the same.

    The thing is, sexuality and the SMP plays a vital role in this outcome because at this point, the most likely way for my children to succeed is to partner up with an equally successful mate and tag-team life. The less likely it is for them to find that mate, the less likely they are to succeed.

  • Clarence

    Susan:
    Ask and ye shall receive:
    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html
    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/several-commentators-have-raised.html
    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut-more-data.html

    Note that promiscuity increases risk of marital dissolution for both sexes, but that men’s risk seems lowered in comparison to womens. I think whatever the explanation for this explains the most – if not all- of the one infamous double standard that feminists love to rail against. And in fairness to our “sluts” some of them do seem to do well enough to maintain a marriage or ltr, so if we could only figure out why – there might be a lot more happiness in this world.

    As for the Dalrock link (in light of past events) in case you were scared to click on it, it basically says that many states (including the biggest one in terms of population, California and a few others as well) haven’t reported on divorces or divorce rates for 20 years and this has skewed the dissolution statistics of marriage to the extent that there might have been no decline whatsoever over the past 2 or 3 decades in terms of incidence of divorce. Like him or hate him, Dalrock knows his marriage stats, and he has been in contact with the people who do the National Marriage Project and this new data (if it pans out) might be in their next report.
    So, while I’m sorry for the link, I did think it was important enough that you’d want to be aware of it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      No problem re the link. I don’t ever want to stifle productive debate or learning, believe it or not.

      A couple of things. I found this quote at SP. It’s about infidelity rather than divorce, but interesting:

      Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%. Very roughly speaking each addition partner negates the benefit of a year of education with regard to infidelity risk.

      http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/10/infidelity-part-2.html

      Since my readership is highly educated, this is a very important finding, assuming that female infidelity is correlated to divorce.

      Also, I left a comment at SP on his new post re the only study I have found re male promiscuity. Unfortunately, the link is dead, but here’s an excerpt of the findings:

      THE EFFECTS OF PREMARITAL SEXUAL PROMISCUITY ON SUBSEQUENT MARITAL SEXUAL SATISFACTION

      (Christen, 2004, BYU)

      She found something very interesting, IMO:

      Gender Regression Differences. The male model explained much more of the variation of marital sexual satisfaction than did the female model…

      Further, the male model had significant variables including premarital sexual promiscuity, while the female model did not have any significant variables.
      The coefficient for premarital sexual promiscuity in the male model was -.053 and was significant at the .006 level. This indicates that for every additional premarital sexual partner a man has, the likelihood that he will categorize himself as being extremely satisfied with his first marital sexual relationship as compared to only being moderately satisfied decreases by 5.3%.

      The coefficient for premarital sexual promiscuity in the female model was -.046 and approaches significance but does not reach significance. The standard error for this variable was .029, .01 higher than the male model and .016 higher than the complete model. No other variables in the model were significant.

      The results of this study support the first hypothesis, indicating that premarital sexual promiscuity may be a significant predictor of subsequent marital sexual satisfaction.

      The second hypothesis, that there would be gender differences, was correct but in the opposite direction hypothesized. There were significant gender differences between men and women but the significant effects were much stronger for males, not females. The gender variable in the full model was not significant but in running different models for males and females, the male model was significant while female model only approached significance. Therefore, while males’ marital sexual satisfaction is affected by premarital sexual promiscuity, these results indicate that the relationship is not significant among females.

      While men report a lower age at first intercourse, higher number of sexual partners, a higher frequency of intercourse, and tend to report more permissive sexual attitudes (Oliver & Hyde, 1993), it appears that their marital sexual satisfaction is still affected more by premarital sexual partners than females’ marital sexual satisfaction. This may be due to the evolutionary biological theory that males tend to be more invested in or notice more the physical aspects of the sexual relationship, while women tend to be more invested in or notice more the emotional aspects of the sexual relationship (Buunk, Angleitner, & Buss, 1996).

      Due to this difference, premarital sexual promiscuity may not influence females as much because the past emotional connections are no longer salient and the focus is on meeting the needs of the current relationship. Further, women tend to be aroused more and are more likely than men to report attraction increasing in long-term relationships, indicating that having previous sexual experiences may in fact lower the overall comparison levels and comparison level for alternatives for women in a marital sexual relationship (Knoth, Boyd, & Singer, 1988).

  • JP

    The problem for the upper classes is hearing the sound of distant tumbrels and missing the point of what is happening.

    “A tumbrel (alternatively tumbril), is a two-wheeled cart or wagon typically designed to be hauled by a single horse or ox. Their original use was for agricultural work; in particular they were associated with carrying manure. Their most notable use was taking prisoners to the guillotine during the French Revolution.”

  • Cooper

    @Ramble
    “I wonder why some guys don’t approach more often? I mean, where is that approach anxiety coming from?
    But, god, those guys at the investment banks, what douche bags. Right?
    (Please tell me that I am not the only one that can see why we are seeing a bifurcation between milquetoast betas and “douche bags”.)”

    I said I had experienced something similar under the past post. Cause I’ve been casted as both before.

    “Guys were texting and calling me all the time, and I was turning them down. I really enjoyed it!”

    I’m gonna be honest, when I get a wiff of this kind of attitude, I stubbornly want to refuse them that enjoyment – by not even giving them the rejection opportunity. For some that is enough validation on it’s own to send them happily on their way – or for them to keep you orbiting. I pass.

  • JP

    @Ted D:

    You might be amused by the Archduird Report.

    Here’s a link to a fun example of when the UMC collides with The Greyhound Bus:

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/07/distant-sound-of-tumbrils.html

    “Once, though, his years as a foreign correspondent in some of the world’s rough places broke through, and he climbed aboard a Greyhound bus for a trip through the American Southwest to see the country and the people first hand.

    The scene is really one of the best examples of unintentional comedy in modern letters. Kaplan briefly succeeded in extracting himself from the bubble in which tame intellectuals of his caliber normally live, and the world outside the bubble shocked him right down to the soles of his Bruno Magli shoes. His fellow passengers were, like, fat, and even the thin ones didn’t seem to be trying to fit any definition of pretty and stylish he’d ever encountered; they wore cheap ill-fitting clothes in garish colors, and some of them had their belongings in plastic garbage bags rather than, say, Gucci suitcases. You could practically hear the “Ewww, icky!” escape his lips.”

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Just to extend and revise my remarks a bit from the previous post…

    …my point, one of them anyway, is that it would be a mistake to suggest, as ms rosin does, that women have freedoms today based on such narrow factors as she does in her piece; sure, money can and often does play a role, but its bigger than that, since as edin and kafalas have shown in their work “promises i can keep” that even poor women want “choice” too-and they take those choices. It goes much deeper than that; what rosin doesnt explicitly spell out is the degree to which our very way of life has been profoundly reordered-to such an extent that both the umc white woman, and the poor woman of color, can do a kind of ala carte approach toward womanhood.

    This is why its so very crucial to look at these things through a door instead of through a keyhole, and here i turn to ms walsh: because whether we like it or not, all of these things are not only interconnected but as scholars like hacker, tiger, hymowitz, murray and others have clearly shown and proven, they impact each other. To think that what kate bolick proposes, implicitly, intentionally or otherwise, wont have any bearing on what jessica shairer or shaniqua jenkins does, goes beyond naivete, and veers into the field of the diengenuous.

    I keep bringing this point up not because of any “doomsday” notion, but simply because the stakes are high-and the burden of paying for them are in no way even. Again, neither ms walsh nor ms rosin have to live next door to a jessica or a shaniqua-but quite a few of us do. We have to deal with the downsides of these arid academic debates over how many feminists can dance on the head of a pin. And while freedom and choice can be great things, the ugly truth is that everybody cannot handle these things as much as we would like to admit.

    And this is why im cynical about these discussions-because i see them as little more than quibbles over trifles that in the end wont have the kinds of game changing, earth shattering implications for many of these folk, that it can and will have for others.

    O.

  • Ramble

    The least she could do is construct a logical argument. She is inconsistent and contradicts herself repeatedly in the article.

    A while back I read through the backgrounds of all of the contributors at Feministing and a few other feminist and leftist blogs/sites. Of all of the contributors at all of the sites, not one had a background in math or a hard science. Not One!

    Leftists often like to claim the truly intelligent as part of their cabal, but the truth is that most doctors and scientists, even if they lean left (and many do, a sorta conservative center-left), they rarely are able to align themselves with actual leftism. It is simply too illogical.

    OK, but she stayed ten years! We vote with our feet. She stuck around, presumably made bank, and now she doesn’t get to whine that men told her dirty jokes. Just my .02.

    You will get no argument from me. Again, it was a mild defense.

    Think of my light defense as a reference to a scene in “Knocked Up”. That movie, as far as I can remember, was the talk of the town for a while for all sorts of reasons (Heigl claimed that Apatow hated women, Seth Rogen obviously would never have gotten a girl that pretty to spread her legs, or if she did she would have definitely aborted any resulting baby, etc.), but I thought the most interesting scene was when a 22 year old young man asked, point blank, of his father for real, genuine, specific advice on what to do and his father said, “I don’t know”.

    This is something that I am seeing. The older generation basically bailing on giving real, specific advice (other than say, “go to college”) that would be relevant to how young people are living today. That is, other than our host.

  • Ramble

    In fact, I’d say that openly stating that your sexual preferences fall towards monogamy and emotional intimacy and that you dislike the idea of having sex with random strangers seem to practically be treated as “too judgmental” in some of these circles–or at the very least, incredibly prudish.

    Many people, in their heart of hearts, know who their enemies are, not by there stated political beliefs, but by their basic actions and directions in life.

    There is a reason why things like food and “culture” are a bastion of the left and things like sports and hunting are a bastion of the right.

    If you see that some guy is concerned that his son is not improving fast enough at linebacker, and you voted for Obama, you can basically assume that you hate that father.

    Could you imagine caring about something so basic and primal as succeeding at a stupid and violent sport as football. Now, where is my smoked pimentón?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Now, where is my smoked pimentón?

      Ramble makes a joke!

  • Ramble

    @Ramble

    Hey, we missed you!

    You’re really sweet.

    I won’t be commenting as much. I have other things I need to attend to. But I will drop in every now and then.

    I was actually thinking of having one of those dramatic exits. You know, where the person claims that they are never coming back, but then they sorta sheepishly slink back in a few days later to make their inane comments.

    Anyway, I missed you too.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “This may be due to the evolutionary biological theory that males tend to be more invested in or notice more the physical aspects of the sexual relationship, while women tend to be more invested in or notice more the emotional aspects of the sexual relationship (Buunk, Angleitner, & Buss, 1996).”

    This resonates with me a great deal, and I think I’ve demonstrated this exact thinking just yesterday. I discussed how the “emotional” part of a LTR isn’t as important in my mind because I see it as a default OF the relationship, and in fact I place FAR more importance on the physical aspects.

    I guess it’s a good think I didn’t screw may way around the world after all!

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @ted, jp:
    As murray points out in his “coming apart”, if there is “begruding” going on, its coming *from* the umc down-not the other way around. Murray demonstrates just how segregated, isolated and utterly out of touch the white umc are, to/from the rest of the country-yet they are also in the position to set public policy and social norms for the rest of us.

    We see this right here in this forum; when pressed, ms walsh will not hesitate to retreat into a “this is for thus and so market” shell, much like a turtle. Yet we know-again i cite one ms jessica shairer as exhibit a-that quite literally millions of women will try their hand at the hooking up game and lose…badly. No one wants to tell them to stay in their lane, because we have so thoroughly quaffed the idea that we’re all baby einsteins and just “figure it out”. Not only was that ever the case, but in the not too distant past we had what ms hymowitz called a lifescript. Weve done away with that because we thought that it was oppressive and “racist” and “unfair” and “sexist” and so forth-only to find that it actually had some utility…some purpose. But you cant say this openly in society anymore without someone accusing you of being a “hater” of one kind or another…and quite possibly paying a huge price for it.

    So, we all windup doing the wink and nod-those of us who can afford to get away from the chaos that invariably ensues when the doors are blown off hardheaded, hardfought wisdom of the ages, do so; and the rest of us who cant, or more or less forced to grin and bear it, faking the funk all the way.

    The assumptions undergirding so many of these discussions, both here at hus and beyond, are quite fascinating when you sit down and think about it-but from an “alien” pov like mine, such assumptions are at best, a bit hopeful, if not wildly and just plain wrong.

    Let me be emphatically clear. I do not begrudge anyone for being part of the white umc simply for being, well, white and umc. Nor am i angling for women to be herded back into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

    But what i am saying, is that there are heavy prices to be paid for all this. And whats worse is that to even suggest that there might be profound side effects and unintended consequences to female choice writ large and accepted as the sine qua non of our time, is to court being banished from polite society. Meanwhile, the jessica shairers of the world dont get cover stories on the atlantic; they wont be feted by matt lauer. At best theyll get multipage treatments in the nyt, and gawked at in the guise of “cautionary tales” elsehwere on the internet, as if they were carny oddities.

    At what point will some simple, commonsense, straight talk about all of this, ensue? What will it take? How much more of this can our republic stand?

    O.

  • Desiderius

    “This is very much the norm for your generation. Negative reinforcement, i.e. shame, is no longer an acceptable form of controlling behavior in society.”

    Just because you’re not using it, doesn’t mean that someone else isn’t.

    “the alpha females are essentially controlling the narrative.”

    Always have, always will in this sphere. The good ones have convinced themselves that controlling narratives and behaviors (via shame) is bad. Others have filled that gap to promote, and in some cases enforce, other narratives and behaviors.

    Control and shame are in fact not ideal, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Its a good thing that the best strive for something better, but abandoning imperfect traditions before that better is widely achieved is allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

    There is a difference between bad and imperfect.

  • Desiderius

    “I was actually thinking of having one of those dramatic exits. You know, where the person claims that they are never coming back, but then they sorta sheepishly slink back in a few days later to make their inane comments.”

    Yeah, I hate that. I usually save my inane comments for later.

  • Desiderius

    “This is something that I am seeing. The older generation basically bailing on giving real, specific advice (other than say, “go to college”) that would be relevant to how young people are living today. That is, other than our host.”

    Agreed, she’s showing the way.

    I think we just assumed we’d always have the Greatest Generation around for that stuff and our job was to criticize them and keep them from overdoing it. Now that they’re gone we’re a little lost.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    “Negative reinforcement, i.e. shame, is no longer an acceptable form of controlling behavior in society”…maybe this is true for SEX, it’s not true for consumption behaviors. If you buy non-“green” produce, or shop at Wal-Mart, or wear unfashionable clothes, or have unfashionable entertainment or political tastes, those same SWPLs that would never criticize sexual behavior will be first in line at the stone-casting.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Susan, re:

    “Due to this difference, premarital sexual promiscuity may not influence females as much because the past emotional connections are no longer salient and the focus is on meeting the needs of the current relationship. Further, women tend to be aroused more and are more likely than men to report attraction increasing in long-term relationships, indicating that having previous sexual experiences may in fact lower the overall comparison levels and comparison level for alternatives for women in a marital sexual relationship (Knoth, Boyd, & Singer, 1988).”

    That’s certainly a possibility, but another would be that there is a well-documented decline in sexual frequency/quality as marriage progresses, children come on the scene, etc. and that women are more inclined to accept this than men are.

    High-N men might be the least likely to want to accept this change and may consider regular, satisfying sex to be a central component of successful marriage (where a low N man may have lower expectations and thus easily fulfilled sexual appetites). This would make a low-N man a particularly attractive LTR bet for a woman who was not planning on making world-class sex a defining feature of her relationship. She could relax with a low-N partner in a way that she probably never could with a high-N (on the other hand, this could also be seen as an anti-competition, pro-complacency, anti-price system discipline argument).

    At the same time, some percentage of high-N women would have pursued promiscuous strategies as part of a (possibly ill-conceived) attempt to gain male attention and access to an LTR, which would make for a different motivational element than you would find in women who pursued promiscuous strategies because they just enjoyed having sex with many different men. We men tend to assume that high-N women fully enjoyed what they were doing (and this appears to be a correct assumption today), but the explanations could be much more complicated.

  • Brian

    I hate to see people conflate Rosin and Marcotte. Rosin is a sharp thinker who does indeed grapple with contradictions and such. Marcotte has a pre-existing bias and will do whatever it takes to get from A to B – reminds me of reading some pious theologian who can take counter-evidence and turn it into evidence. Her views are structurally unfalsifiable int he same way religion is. My only exposure to Rosin on this issue was through Marcotte’s Slate distillation and I intend to withhold judgement on Rosin until I read the book and confirm what I suspect, that Marcotte saw what she wanted to see.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Biggups to desiderious; he cited one of my favorite quotes ever.

    Going back to the topic: one of the really big things to strike me, and todd has alluded to this earlier, is the degree to which just how much the more modest “sisters” to the ms rosins of the world, dont even rate. They simply do not exist. While there has been much made in the manosphere about the apex fallacy, in truth this notion is much stronger amongst women themselves than going across the gender aisle.

    From time to time im asked, why i focus so many of my remarks on certain cohorts of society; my response is simple: because theyre not the ones making the most noise in the public square. It isnt jessica shairer or her black/hispanic counterpart (or lower on the ses scale) whose making the most noise; its the rosins and marcottes and to some extent even the ms walshes of the world who are.

    Still, its hard to deny that the lives, if one wishes to call it that, of the former cohort are quite hard and thats putting it mildly; and one cannot help but wonder to what extent do these “freedoms” play a role in all of that. And because again, we cant discuss these openly on the national stage without being tarred and feathered, we cant get a handle on what all of this will mean, nor what the likely endgame will be.

    Deep.

    O.

  • Courtley

    @Brian

    I think Rosin seems like a better thinker than Marcotte, yes.

    I also want to read Rosin’s book. I’m a bit confused, to be honest–initially when I read about it, it was in this context of “Oh look, this smart female feminist writer has woken up to some of the problems facing men,” and I didn’t think she was celebrating the end of men so much as analyzing or just announcing it, as a researcher. I’m not very impressed with her focus group for the “Boys on the Side” article, though, because it’s such a narrow slice of women in an article that seems to want to deal with a bigger picture of “women,” but I could be reading her as being more approving of her subject matter than she actually is.

  • Tom

    Susan This was also in those links. Didn`t know if you missed it.

    Due to this difference, premarital sexual promiscuity may not influence females as much because the past emotional connections are no longer salient and the focus is on meeting the needs of the current relationship. Further, women tend to be aroused more and are more likely than men to report attraction increasing in long-term relationships, indicating that having previous sexual experiences may in fact lower the overall comparison levels and comparison level for alternatives for women in a marital sexual relationship (Knoth, Boyd, & Singer, 1988).

    Interesting…

  • Tom

    David Foster

    Sick…”Liberalism is not a religion. One can be liberal and atheist. Liberalism is an ideology, not religion.”

    Depends what you mean by a religion. If a religion is an all-encompassing explanation of life and the world, taken largely on faith, then certainly the Marxist form of leftism, as adopted by true believers, could be considered a religion. See Koestler on Closed Systems:

    http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_archive.html#108638662359305703

    Today’s dominant flavor of leftism (“progressivism”) certainly has some of those same attributes.
    ________
    liberalism is pretty scary, but only if your eyes are wide open.

    The difference between Modern liberalism and conservatism
    Modern Liberalism is the belief that government is owner AND distributor of freedom and rights while conservatism is the belief that government protects the rights and freedom man is born with.
    These two ideal can not co-exsist..One must be defeated and subdued by the other.
    its simple, chose being protected or owned.
    In some countries Leftist Marxism is indeed a type of religion. we could be headed that way too.,

    I like this one also…

    Ineptocracy
    A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminshing number of producers.

  • Tom

    Clarence,
    And in fairness to our “sluts” some of them do seem to do well enough to maintain a marriage or ltr, so if we could only figure out why – there might be a lot more happiness in this world.
    _____________
    Its because there are different reasons women become promiscuous. Not all sluts are created equally. Cant lump them all in the same pile.
    Most are damaged before they become promiscuous, some become damaged by being promiscuous and some come out of it unscathed. It is the unscathed ones that go on to have successful relationships. Probably not a lot of help for the ones who were already damaged before hand, and little hope for the ones who became damaged.

  • J

    @SW #45

    Compulsive promiscuity is common among girls who have been sexually abused and fatherless girls. There is significant overlap between those two groups as abuse by mom’s bf is common. When I meet promiscuous women, including sex workers, I immediately wonder if they were abused.

  • J

    @Abbott #47

    Penis…it does a body good.

    All kidding aside, I have to admit that it always improves my mood when I’m having a bad day.

  • GudEnuf

    This is my male privilege showing, but…

    How the fuck does a Wall Street woman have trouble finding a husband/boyfriend? Do they just not want a relationship? Or is every single Wall Street man unfit for a relationship?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @GudEnuf

      How the fuck does a Wall Street woman have trouble finding a husband/boyfriend? Do they just not want a relationship? Or is every single Wall Street man unfit for a relationship?

      Seriously, with 50 to 1 odds? The answer has to be that they don’t want one, just as Ms. Rosin claimed. Also, they have to be so aggressive at work – no place for female charms there.

  • J

    @Ted#49

    Ted, you are truly a god on earth because you have a penis. I wish your wife a penis-filled weekend.

    As Martha Stewart migh say if she posted here, “Penis…it’s a good thing.”

    Now don’t forget to share that penis.

  • Ted D

    J – “Now don’t forget to share that penis.”

    But… I don’t think my wife would like it if I shared. Wait… If I succumb to her desire to restrict my penis only to her, am I falling for the female narrative?! Oh NO! QUICK! SOMEONE HAVE SEX WITH ME, I’M BECOMING A MANGINA!

    ya know, I’ve come to the conclusion that I am much more annoying to others when I’m in a good mood.

    “Fuck’em if they can’t take a joke” ;-)

  • J

    Neither will be bothered all that much to deal with the true wider implications of female choice coupled with what roissy has called the four sirens, other than pander to their respective constituencies.

    Obs, I really don’t want to spend the rest of my day discussing this, but I’m always puzzled by your attempts to make Susan take on this and related subjects. It’s not her bailiwick. She comes from a middle class family and became UMC. Not to criticize Susan, but what does she have to say of value regarding the poor or the working class? I come from the working class, but I don’t feel comfortable pontificating about it because things have changed since I made the jump and I know I have little of value to say any more. If Susan pretended to know something she didn’t about working class life, I’d be offended. If I were black and poor, I think I’d wonder just who the hell “Lady Bountiful” thought she was to condescend to deal with my problems. And I have in fact gotten that reaction as a helping professional.

  • J

    @Ted

    Then share it with your wife, but SHARE. A penis is a terrible thing to waste.

  • SciGuy

    @Sick of it All

    “Liberalism is not a religion. One can be liberal and atheist. Liberalism is an ideology, not religion.”

    See david foster’s comment at #46. I couldn’t have said it better.

    “We don’t *need* so much stuff. What we need is oxygen, water, sunlight, food, basic shelter and some clothes if we don’t live in a hot climate. But we don’t *need* “stuff”.”

    In a strict sense – that of “what we need to not die” – you’re right. But in a larger sense, human beings in fact need much more than that in order to lead worthwhile lives. And let’s not forget that there’s a word for people who lack “stuff”: poor.

    The issue at hand was that of forcing one’s own truth claims onto others, and when you claim to know what other people “need” then you’re doing exactly that. I actually have no problem with claiming what other people need – to a point – but in my experience those people who cry the loudest about not being told what they should do spend a great deal of time telling others what to do themselves.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sick: “We don’t *need* so much stuff. What we need is oxygen, water, sunlight, food, basic shelter and some clothes if we don’t live in a hot climate. But we don’t *need* “stuff”.”

    Perhaps your parents got that stuff to raise and educate you. Can’t pay the bills with sunlight and water, after all.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    J: “A penis is a terrible thing to waste.”

    Susan, you may have competition for the Line of the Week Award.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    GudEnuf: those women have hypergamy-driven ransom-demand checklists a mile long and A) many of the traits on those lists are virtually incompatible with one another and shift according to a woman’s moods/hormonal cycle; and B) the exceedingly few men who do in fact have all of the desired traits tend to have their own, quite different checklists for the women that they would conceivably marry (assuming that they even want to get married).

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    What’s remarkable is that only 11% is “just enough.”

    But is the best 11%…that is all that matters ;)

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com/ Bellita

    @Obsidian
    See, what neither walsh nor rosin will deal with honestly, is the simple fact that, for every kate bolick there will be at least one-if not several-jessica shairers: white women who while also attending college and coming from nominally middle class backgrounds, will simply not have the wherewithall to navigate the hookup scene and will become casualties of the true war on women, which has been waged by their white, umc sisters.

    I’m not white and I’m not upper middle class, but I see what you mean. A few months ago, I was speaking enthusiastically to a friend about one “tiny” change that employers could make that would be mutually beneficial to them and their employees, would make the world a better place, would make us all burst into sunshine and rainbows, blah, blah, blah . . . :P

    My friend, who is actually an employer, pinned me with one look and countered: “Bellita, do you think everyone in the country is like you?” She then went on to explain that if all her employees were like me, then she would be glad to make that change. But the fact is that they weren’t, and that the terms she set for them were not only very fair, but also pretty generous.

  • J

    (Heigl claimed that Apatow hated women, Seth Rogen obviously would never have gotten a girl that pretty to spread her legs, or if she did she would have definitely aborted any resulting baby, etc.),

    I find Seth Rogen adorable and did even when he was fat.

    I find Apatow’s attitude toward women to be just weird. The classic Apatow plot involves a dorky Jewish guy (Rogen, Jonah Hill, the BIL in “Knocked Up,” all as proxies for Apatow himself) finding a blonde goddess (Heigel, any of Leslie Mann’s characters, Leslie Mann IRL as Apatow’s wife) who loves him despite his not being worthy of her.

    I once saw Mann and Apatow interviewed. He went on and on about how lucky he was to have her, and she basically agreed. Despite the fact that I’m probably perceived as one of the least feminine or submissive women here, but even I wanted to puke. I find it doubtful that Mann would have a career without her husband; at least, I’ve never seen her in a non-Apatow production. He is a prolific producer. She lives what is no doubt an extremely priviledged life style because of that. Every day should be “Steak and BJ Day” for him. He’s a man of accomplishment.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @J

      Don’t forget that Apatow is the producer of Girls! I give him a ton of credit for sponsoring Lena Dunham, but I thought the episode he wrote (about her trip back to Michigan) was weak.

      Tell me the cowalingus pic was photoshopped.

      No, it was from National Geographic. It was a practice among the young men of the tribe to stimulate the cows this way in order to increase milk production, as I recall.

      As I said, it was left in the mail folder of a guy who was a shameless brown noser in every class. As in, “That’s a lovely dress you have on, Mrs. Cleaver.” Reportedly, he cried when he found it.

  • J

    @SW

    Tell me the cowalingus pic was photoshopped.

  • Tom

    Tell me the cowalingus pic was photoshopped.

    _______
    LMMFAOOOOO

  • Bobley

    Bit of a tangent, but I vaguely recall reading that the tribal boy/cow pic had something to do with how that tribe ate placentas and/or cow blood because they didn’t have much food. Granted, that could be total BS.

  • evilalpha

    I certainly don’t want to see anyone’s personal sex life limited by the government. It would be nice, though, to be able to express a negative opinion of casual sex in, say, the classroom of a state college without being told you’re offensively slut-shaming. I’ve been out of college for four years and didn’t attend a big state school, so I’m not sure if this is actually the environment now, but it’s the impression I’m getting.

    State schools are a lot less PC than more prestigious schools, but all of them have the women’s studies contingent especially in psych/soc departments.

  • evilalpha

    I find Apatow’s attitude toward women to be just weird.

    As you say Apatow is a man of accomplishment. He’s done way more than just “Knocked up”. It was 1 movie. Get over it.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @ms j:
    Your questions directed to me are as curious as my comments were in prompting you, lol.

    I mean, what is this discussion really all about-lets takeout my commentary (which, i might add, did have as much to do with race as you assumed-i specifically referenced jessican shairer)-ok, so whats the debate again? It seems pretty clear to me that women, writ large, want “choice”-in this, rosin is right. Now to be sure, not all or even most women may not want to be the prototypical party girl with all that connotation means. Still, the point is made: women want the freedom to explore life outside the lines, to whatever degree they may feel comfortable with. Even when they personally wouldnt do thus and so, they want other women to have the right to do so (for example, abortion). Choice and freedom is really at the root of what im saying, and what it can and has meant for the country at large. Jessica shairer is one such example of what that means-an example that to be frank rarely gets any shine, especially in the way im coming at it.

    I read a tremendous number of such discussions like the one we’re chomping online ms j, and im always coming away scratching my head. At the end of the day, when the dust clears, the putative “combatants” are going to be just fine; even ms bolick, manless though she may be, will still be able to retreat to her retreat on cape cod. Meanwhile the rest of us will have to grin and bear the side of “freedom and choice” that never make it onto the floor where these discussions take place.

    I reminds of of how democrats and republicans argue over something like tax policy-they sound two sides of the same coin. Theyre more alike than different, truly. And any real discussion has to be had among “third position” candidates that are known more for their oddness than anything else.

    So, yea, i get it. Both ladies that form the basis of this post are indeed drawing distinctions over the question of hookup culture. But they are so razor thin when compared to the larger framework, and again im not even bringing in the “race” thing-again, jessica shairers example is a clear case in point. She got caught up in a big way, and no one wants to seriously question why because “freedom” and “choice” are seen as sacrosant and to even fix ones mouth to do so is akin to blasphemy.

    I mean, all of these “atlantic” discussions, i dont know about anyone else here, seem so distant and remote to me-and this is coming from one who is considered fairly widely read. I just come away from it all scratching my head and thinking that murray, if not a genius, will do until the real thing shows up (lets all hold our breath waiting for his argument to appear as a overstory at the atlantic lol).

    Finally: your point about the deepseated anger many of the “left behind” is something that i do not think gets anywhere near enough attention and this again is a manifestation of what murray was talking about. You and i know, especially in light of the “helicopter parent” discussion the other day, how some people can and will put as much distance between themselves and this; they know good and well it exists and is very real. Just yesterday i saw no less than three incidents of very angry women, shouting and cursing out at the top of their voices, at men. One of them took place about a block away from where i get my haircut in kensington, another in north philly, and still another around the corner while getting some vittles for dinner. One of those incidents involved a white woman. I predict that we will see more of this in the days and weeks ahead, a kind of spreading of feminine anger and rage, as they come to grips with the downsides of “choice” and “freedom”.

    And i predict that this wont make the cover of the atlantic.

    O.

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @ms hope:
    I think there is a very strong hbd component at work here wrt the hookup scene both in and out of college as well; those women with very high amounts of testosterone and extravertedness most definitely benefit and promote it all while the more retiring and shy gals lay in the cut.

    Heres the thing though: i dont think the shy gals really have that much of a problem with “choice” and “freedom” writ large-and thats key. Again it seems like we’re making very razor thin distinctions in the overall scheme of things at the end of the day. To me, the real question is whether we are willing to tolerate the tradeoffs and downsides of “choice” and “freedom”; it appears as though women are attempting to have it both ways.

    Thats the impression one gets from my vantage point. It is entirely possible that i could be wrong.

    O.

  • J

    EA, shhhushhhhh. The group’s consensus is that you are lowering the level of discourse. Put your head on your desk, close your eyes and relax.

    Here’s a virtual graham cracker.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Here’s a virtual graham cracker.

      J, you are hilarious.

  • St JustYX

    Nice to have a post that tells anybody who wonders in; Why HUS exists and why it is needed.

    “No, you’re not mad, you’ve just been lied to about how people are and what they want. The truth is here”

  • Esau

    St JustYX: Why HUS exists and why it is needed.

    “No, you’re not mad, you’ve just been lied to about how people are and what they want. The truth is here”

    Shorter, if harsher, version: “Where pretty lies perish”. (Now, where did I read that?)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Esau

      Shorter, if harsher, version: “Where pretty lies perish”. (Now, where did I read that?)

      In a weird way, I think Roissy and I have a certain ying and yang complementarity.

  • Courtley

    @J

    “I once saw Mann and Apatow interviewed. He went on and on about how lucky he was to have her, and she basically agreed.”

    Hahaha. He made his own bed there as far as I’m concerned. Consider this tidbit:

    “Apatow semi-famously stole one of those moments from his own life, last night recalling the time he was forced to deal with his wife Mann throwing him out of their car on the way to a gynecological appointment.
    ‘I don’t remember what the fight was about,’ he said. ‘She kicked me out, which is a very difficult moment because you don’t know what to do.'”

    There’s always something weird about marriages with a high SMV-imbalance IMHO. I do get an off-putting vibe from him, but I did finally watch the first seven episodes of “Girls” and once I got over how much the characters annoyed me, I was impressed with Lena’s clever writing and she’s had only glowing things to say about him as a boss and as a person.

    @Obsidian

    You’re right, even shyer women don’t want to live in a culture where their education and work opportunities are severely limited and their only option for any kind of financial security in life revolve around marriage. Before you try to advocate for it, spend some time living in a country and culture that does operate that way, and then get back to us.

  • St JustYX

    @Esau, nice one, appropriate

  • Mireille

    @Gudenuf

    Those wall st women even with such a great ratio in their favor have basically the same pb as the very attractive women. If the milieu is so promiscuous, people will therefore look outside for life partners; after you’ve heard of who is sleeping with whom, where and how, you might not want to dip in that pool, you know too much of their sexual history already. Then you also have the fact that from what I gathered, these Wall Streeters work crazy hours which in itself is incompatible with family life and even moreso for women. If were a woman in that environment, I’d actually marry some one equally achieved but with more regular hours (like an univ prof, or even a doctor) so he can take a bigger part in childcare. I remember an episode of Sex and the city where Miranda was telling her boss at the law firm that she wanted to reduce her hours to 50hrs a week because of her baby (?!?!?) I wondered how many hours she was working at that firm.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mireille

      I remember an episode of Sex and the city where Miranda was telling her boss at the law firm that she wanted to reduce her hours to 50hrs a week because of her baby (?!?!?) I wondered how many hours she was working at that firm.

      When I was a mgmt. consultant, I worked over 100 hours a week, including travel time (I obvs did not bill nearly that much). I did that, in fact, right up to delivering my first child – under pressure from my firm I lied to the airlines about how far along I was so that I could keep flying for a big project. After I had my son, there was no way to reduce my hours materially, so I went freelance and worked as a subcontractor 3 days/week. Even that amounted to about 40 hours.

      BTW, nearly all the professional women, and all of the partners, were childless, and most were unmarried. It’s a serious life choice.

  • Darsh

    @Susan:

    In a weird way, I think Roissy and I have a certain ying and yang complementarity.

    Yin and yang, yes.

    And you do!

    I wouldn’t go as far as to say Roissy saved my life when I found that blog, but it did save my sanity, and helped me go from a hopeless White Knight to a vengeful Dark Knight. Though I’ve sunk a bit too deep into the dark than what I think is good for me, so I read HUS as well, hoping to find a good balance.

    As far as I’m concerned, your two blogs really do complement each other quite nicely. Both deliver the truth, but from two different sides.

  • JustYX

    @Susan

    Lucky that by running this blog you’ve discovered the easy, low hour, low emotional investment lifestyle then

    *runs for the hills*

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @JustYX

      Lucky that by running this blog you’ve discovered the easy, low hour, low emotional investment lifestyle then

      *runs for the hills*

      Haha, yes! At only a fraction of my previous pay!

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Haha, yes! At only a fraction of my previous pay!

    You work less and you get paid less? Color me surprised :D

    Maybe this would be a good post for the future and for young women reading this thinking on getting that kind of jobs. The pros and cons coming from someone that had been on both sides might be a good “This is your future” kind of insight. Just a though.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anacaona

      Maybe this would be a good post for the future and for young women reading this thinking on getting that kind of jobs. The pros and cons coming from someone that had been on both sides might be a good “This is your future” kind of insight. Just a though.

      I was thinking about that when I wrote this post. I was like those women in business school. My first year I would have said that I was not focused on marriage and might never have kids. I was all about my career. Even if I didn’t totally believe that, I would have said it. It’s only by chance that I took a different path in life. Many of my fellow female classmates have had great careers but no family. Quite a few have also done what I did – prioritize family over career at some point.

  • Sai

    @Hope
    “It would be interesting to contrast these type-A women with the rising entrepreneurial stars in Asia. From what I can gather, the top Asian businesswomen tend to remain rather asexual and go for designer fashion, high-end luxuries, expensive vehicles and other material goods.”

    That’s how I am/would be, except I’m black and not Asian. I’d also rather make my own clothes because I don’t like what they have in the shops.

    @Abbot
    I wish I had a witty response to your radio commercial, but I have none. It’s just too funny.

    @JP
    “The problem for the upper classes is hearing the sound of distant tumbrels and missing the point of what is happening.”
    I’m an okay knitter. SEE WHAT I DID THAR~

    @Ramble
    “There is a reason why things like food and “culture” are a bastion of the left and things like sports and hunting are a bastion of the right.”

    Ok, but what  if you like both?

    @Courtley
    “You’re right, even shyer women don’t want to live in a culture where their education and work opportunities are severely limited and their only option for any kind of financial security in life revolve around marriage.”

    And HOW.

  • Mike C

    BTW, nearly all the professional women, and all of the partners, were childless, and most were unmarried. It’s a serious life choice.

    I guess you can’t have it all :) Seems to me this is the biggest lie perpetrated on women that they can simultaneously have a family and be good mothers and also achieve the highest levels of career and professional success.

    The truth though is everyone faces similar choices. Men face choices as well about what they want to prioritize. I’ll never reach the levels of upper management, but that is because I’ve decided certain lifestyle issues are more important to my personal contentment. I’ve found many people spend their lives chasing something they were told they should chase without ever really thinking about what they would feel like once they actually got it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      I guess you can’t have it all Seems to me this is the biggest lie perpetrated on women that they can simultaneously have a family and be good mothers and also achieve the highest levels of career and professional success.

      I agree, and it’s reflected in how much less happy my generation of women is compared to previous generations. (Men, on the other hand, have stayed about the same.) You know, it wasn’t only a carrot – you can have it all! It was also a stick – you’d better achieve a lot, you’re being given opportunities your mother never had, etc. These college women who are so achievement oriented have been raised with these priorities. I have always felt sheepish and guilty for stepping off the fast track.

      The truth though is everyone faces similar choices. Men face choices as well about what they want to prioritize.

      True enough. My husband left a job when the company moved an hour away. He didn’t want to add that commuting time to his workday, which would have meant he didn’t see the kids much on weeknights.

  • Mike C

    I wouldn’t go as far as to say Roissy saved my life when I found that blog, but it did save my sanity, and helped me go from a hopeless White Knight to a vengeful Dark Knight. Though I’ve sunk a bit too deep into the dark than what I think is good for me, so I read HUS as well, hoping to find a good balance.

    Yup. One of the things that many women just can’t seem to grok is that many of the “male advocacy” blogs they find highly objectionable have in fact “saved” many men. At the risk of hyperbole, in some cases I think it literally means their lives if you are talking about someone who was suicidal. I know this because I read the comments.

    I think finding a good balance is key, and even within that balance I think reasonable people can disagree about particulars.

  • ஆம்

    You can’t have it all goes for both men and women and we see this time and again with husbands in high stress careers like surgeons who miss out on seeing their kids grow up and who are at a high risk for divorce or getting cheated on because of all the time they spend away from home and family. There are trade offs everywhere in life. If spending a lot of quality time with your family is a priority for a man then he needs to choose a corresponding career track.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    @ஆம்
    Plain Jane, Really?

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    I’ve found many people spend their lives chasing something they were told they should chase without ever really thinking about what they would feel like once they actually got it [or whether THEY themselves really want it].

    I think that’s huge, or as Jim Cramer would say, UUUUGE! lol I added that last part, whether THEY themselves really want it or are just listening to those voices, imaginary or real, telling them what they need to be to be successful or good enough.

    I worked in a top consulting firm for a while and most of the people seemed so stressed and miserable, though of course putting on the happy face when anyone who would be evaluating them was looking.

    I’m a strong believer in figuring out what you really want and going for that. Now if that is to be really ambitious and achieve high levels of success at the expense of other things then more power to you but if it’s just to satisfy the echo of ego in your head then no.

    ps Typing blockquote makes me think of quote blocks and cock blocks.

  • Mike C

    I just read this moments ago, and I just had to post this right away….this is for you Courtley and Susan and I wanted to post this really given the trajectory and direction of many recent discussions…

    http://marriedmansexlife.com/2012/08/i-see-alpha-beta-everywhere/

    I See Alpha / Beta Everywhere

    After reading your blog I could see every mistake I’ve made in our relationship, and why being nicer to her didn’t make her respond the way I thought it would. Why giving her flowers when she was cranky with me only made her crankier (too much Beta). Why helping more around the house didn’t lead to her feeling more amorous (although she did appreciate it). With just some slight nudges using game (adding more Alpha) our relationship is getting better. Within the first 24 hours my wife had asked me to sit on the sofa next to her to cuddle, sought me out for a kiss, and told me she loves me: things that she almost never does. Every time I think I’m wasting my time following the advice on MMSL, she turns around and responds in a way that you’ve predicted.

    I’ve been reading everything I could about game and have even begun (secretly) to read my wife’s romance novels. Do yourself a favor: If your wife reads romance novels then read some of them yourself. They’re textbook examples of what women want (it seems so obvious now). If she reads very many, it’s likely you’ll be able to discern the type of man that turns her on.

    It might just be confirmation bias, but now that I see the whole Alpha/Beta theory written out, I see it everywhere.

    The latest example that I’ve run across of the Alpha/Beta theory was when my teenage daughter had a slumber party recently, and my wife (who is unaware of Game concepts) overheard the girls talking about the boys in their school. What struck me about the conversation that she relayed to me was that the girls were categorizing the boys into two groups: “Hot & Mean” and “Not-hot & Nice.” There couldn’t be a better example of the Alpha/Beta theory, as interpreted by 13 year old girls. My eyes are open.

    Athol: Thanks. I think it’s interesting to see how the 13-year-old girls react to what attracts them. At 13 they simply have no awareness of what would make a good long term partner, so they don’t consider Beta Traits in a boy at all. All they react to is the pure Alpha display of the boys.

    OK. 3 points

    1. For the most part, most men are still too beta and need to “alpha” up. Concerns about legions of alpha asshat douchebags are like worrying about the bogeyman in your closet.

    2. Stuff like this is just one more example that trying to sell women on beta men isn’t really going to work. Try telling those 13-year olds to go for the “Not-not and nice”. For most women, a guy is going to have to bring at least some amount of “alpha” although I would agree that for many women that amount might be minimal

    3. I think it is important for men who regularly read here to understand that many of the female commenters especially the most active really are anomalies. There is nothing negative about that, but they represent a minority. For guys who need to alpha up just a bit and maybe hit the gym, it makes more sense to do that then hope to find one of the anomalies in real life.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      For the most part, most men are still too beta and need to “alpha” up. Concerns about legions of alpha asshat douchebags are like worrying about the bogeyman in your closet.

      Agreed. And most will not become alpha asshat douchebags. However, some will abandon all character and become full-blown cads. They probably always had the potential, and Game was just the key that opened the lock. But I will continue to shame their behavior and warn women about wasting their time with bad men.

      Stuff like this is just one more example that trying to sell women on beta men isn’t really going to work. Try telling those 13-year olds to go for the “Not-not and nice”. For most women, a guy is going to have to bring at least some amount of “alpha” although I would agree that for many women that amount might be minimal

      Interesting, I’d be curious to know what the daughter of this man thought of her parents’ marriage. It sounds like she is definitely going to be in the 20%. In any case, this revelation is nothing new – in every teen drama, there is a very bad boy who does well with women, e.g. Chuck Bass in Gossip Girl. 13 year olds chatting at a slumber party are gossiping, fantasizing, and impressing one another. It doesn’t mean they will seek a “hot and mean” husband in 15 years. As for the Dad, that’s hardly surprising either. He thought doing housework would make his wife horny for him? Oy. To be honest, a lot of the men who write in to Athol seem to have no sense of what constitutes sexually attractive behavior. My guess is they never did – the fact that they were able to attract a wife at all is surprising. The fact that she’s a regular reader of romance novels makes it clear – this woman was starving for masculine behavior.

      I think it is important for men who regularly read here to understand that many of the female commenters especially the most active really are anomalies. There is nothing negative about that, but they represent a minority. For guys who need to alpha up just a bit and maybe hit the gym, it makes more sense to do that then hope to find one of the anomalies in real life.

      If you are correct, shouldn’t we see more women having sex with asshats in college?

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Mike C…”I’ve found many people spend their lives chasing something they were told they should chase without ever really thinking about what they would feel like once they actually got it [or whether THEY themselves really want it].”

    C S Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters, had his senior devil say that one of his greatest satisfactions occurs when a human, on his arrival into Hell, says “I now see that I spent my life doing NEITHER what I wanted nor what I should.” (approximate quote)

  • Mike C

    imaginary or real, telling them what they need to be to be successful or good enough.

    Often, that voice is the voice of their parents and parents expectations. Susan recently remarked at the in her thirties (I think) she was worried about disappointing her Dad by telling him she was going to be a stay at home Mom.

    I worked in a top consulting firm for a while and most of the people seemed so stressed and miserable, though of course putting on the happy face when anyone who would be evaluating them was looking.

    +1,000,000. I was a super high achiever all of my young life from grade school through getting my MBA. My Mom emphasized this greatly, and honestly I wouldn’t change it. Overall, the stress she put on academic achievement was a good thing.

    But then I hit a rough path…a perfect storm of negative circumstances so to speak, and at the age of 31, I found myself unemployed, living with my parents, and then I started a job as a bouncer. And you know what, that year I spent bouncing I was happy as a pig in shit. I went to a job where I made $10 a hour, hung out with cool guys, talked to girls, got to work out 6 days a week, was the healthiest I ever was. It wasn’t sustainable as a permanent lifestyle but God damn I was happy. It caused me to reevaluate everything I thought about my “life purpose”. Was my purpose simply to keep “achieving”? I realized that was bullshit. It was what someone else wanted…to be able to point to me as a source of pride and say “I produced that”. It was great to unshackle those expectations and throw them in the trash.

  • ஆம்

    ” I went to a job where I made $10 a hour, hung out with cool guys, talked to girls, got to work out 6 days a week, was the healthiest I ever was. It wasn’t sustainable as a permanent lifestyle but God damn I was happy. ”

    What wasn’t sustainable about it?

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    I kind of had a similar path of high academic achievement and didn’t take as much time as I now wish I had to enjoy life along the way.

    Over the last while I’ve been travelling a lot, learning Portuguese, reading, doing some serious astronomy, hiking and really enjoying life. lol Even though I like to bitch about the long hours of my former job it was a cool job and did allow me the savings to do what I’m doing now. But, yeah, not yet a sustainable lifestyle for me. My sabbatical is about coming to an end.

    It raises some interesting points about narratives and life choices. I find it interesting that I have little desire to go back to a high-hours kind of job as a single man but ironically if I were married with kids (something I want someday) that I would do that sacrifice willingly if that made the most sense in that situation because there would be someone to do it for, although I would prefer a lower-hours job to have time with them. I think most decent men do respond to being needed and that the decrease of feeling needed (getting married later, in part due to women delaying it, and the message that women don’t need men) greatly contributes to the “aimless” young men syndrome. This new narrative is affecting young men. It’s also affecting women in the many ways discussed here of convincing them to postpone marriage and children until their 30’s because they have to work, travel, experience different men. And then some realize that wasn’t what they really wanted. A shame that some of the pretty lies perish too late.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    Miss Walsh.

    I enjoyed reading this article.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I have always felt sheepish and guilty for stepping off the fast track.

    2 Things:

    1) Thanks for your blog, both the posts themselves and the great environment to discuss highly meaningful topics and get a wide variety of perspectives.

    2) No need to feel sheepish or guilty. I think you made the right choice and that you wouldn’t trade your kids or husband for whatever career achievements you might have had. I think that at heart you feel this way so be proud of your decision and don’t let the naysayers, both real and those in your head, get to you. Sending a cyber-hug your way (not sure if you want one–lol–but at least know that it’s sent with the best of intentions).

    Highly related to this and Mike C’s comments, this article about the five regrets of the dying is highly relevant to what are priorities perhaps should be.

    http://beyondtheopposites.com/2011/11/22/top-five-regrets-of-the-dying/

    1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me
    This was the most common regret of all. When people realize that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people have had not honored even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made.

    It is very important to try and honor at least some of your dreams along the way.

    From the moment that you lose your health, it is too late. Health brings a freedom very few realize, until they no longer have it.

    2. I wish I didn’t work so hard
    This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship.

    Women also spoke of this regret. But as most were from an older generation, many of the female patients had not been breadwinners. All of the men I nursed deeply regretted spending so much of their lives on the treadmill of a work existence.
    By simplifying your lifestyle and making conscious choices along the way, it is possible to not need the income that you think you do. And by creating more space in your life, you become happier and more open to new opportunities, ones more suited to your new lifestyle.

    3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings
    Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a result.

    As a result, they settled for a mediocre existence and never became who they were truly capable of becoming.

    We cannot control the reactions of others. However, although people may initially react when you change the way you are by speaking honestly, in the end it raises the relationship to a whole new and healthier level. Either that or it releases the unhealthy relationship from your life. Either way, you win.

    4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends
    Often they would not truly realize the full benefits of old friends until their dying weeks and it was not always possible to track them down. Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved. Everyone misses their friends when they are dying.

    It is common for anyone in a busy lifestyle to let friendships slip. But when you are faced with your approaching death, the physical details of life fall away. People do want to get their financial affairs in order if possible. But it is not money or status that holds the true importance for them. They want to get things in order more for the benefit of those they love. Usually though, they are too ill and weary to ever manage this task. It is all comes down to love and relationships in the end. That is all that remains in the final weeks, love and relationships.

    5. I wish that I had let myself be happier
    This is a surprisingly common one.

    Many did not realize until the end that happiness is a choice.

    They had stayed stuck in old patterns and habits. The so-called ‘comfort’ of familiarity overflowed into their emotions, as well as their physical lives. Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content. When deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again.
    When you are on your deathbed, what others think of you is a long way from your mind. How wonderful to be able to let go and smile again, long before you are dying.

    Life is a choice. It is YOUR life. Choose consciously, choose wisely, choose honestly. Choose happiness.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    At some point your blog will grow to the point where you can write a book or do other things. It is not implausible (especially if you really get ambitious about getting your message out) that you’ll end up having a much more positive effect on society than if you had stayed on the fast track.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HanSolo

      Thank you so much for the kind words and vote of confidence!

  • Sai

    @Susan
    You did what you felt was best, you regret nothing and are happy. If anybody wants to hate on you, to heck with them.

  • Mike C

    Over the last while I’ve been travelling a lot, learning Portuguese, reading, doing some serious astronomy, hiking and really enjoying life. lol Even though I like to bitch about the long hours of my former job it was a cool job and did allow me the savings to do what I’m doing now. But, yeah, not yet a sustainable lifestyle for me. My sabbatical is about coming to an end.

    What you are describing above is one of the main reasons one of my major life goals is to achieve financial independence at a young age. I want to spend my time doing the sorts of vocational things you describe instead of slaving away in a cubicle until I can start collecting Social Security at 67. You might find this book interesting:

    http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0140286780

    It raises some interesting points about narratives and life choices. I find it interesting ***that I have little desire to go back to a high-hours kind of job as a single man**** but ironically if I were married with kids (something I want someday) that I would do that sacrifice willingly if that made the most sense in that situation because there would be someone to do it for, although I would prefer a lower-hours job to have time with them.

    For me, what you are describing here was the key variable in deciding not to have children. I wrestled with this deeply since it is arguably the most important decision I don’t get a second chance at. I would ask myself how will I feel about this at 70. Will I deeply regret it? Ultimately, I decided I had to live my life based on what I know I want now rather then the hypothetical 70-year old, and even now I recognize I might regret it. But make no mistake, having children brings a set of responsibilities and risks that a man without children doesn’t have to worry about. I want to be clear I am not advocating for any particular choice, just describing my own circumstances. I have to admit I find it surprising when some people talk about their kids leaving and “getting their life back”.

    Either way, I think it is key to not buy into the materialistic expectations that you have to have a certain house in a certain neighborhood to be considered a “success”.

    I think most decent men do respond to being needed and that the decrease of feeling needed (getting married later, in part due to women delaying it, and the message that women don’t need men) greatly contributes to the “aimless” young men syndrome. This new narrative is affecting young men. It’s also affecting women in the many ways discussed here of convincing them to postpone marriage and children until their 30′s because they have to work, travel, experience different men. And then some realize that wasn’t what they really wanted. A shame that some of the pretty lies perish too late.

    Perfectly said.

  • Mike C

    Han,

    That is a ***PHENONEMAL*** list. I need to do better with staying in touch with old friends.

    I want to highlight this one:

    2.***I wish I didn’t work so hard***
    This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship.

    The U.S. was founded on the “Protestant hard work ethic”. I think this one is the biggest crock of shit there is. Now mind you, that doesn’t mean being a lazy sloth. But here in the U.S. this is elevated to such a crazy degree. Who is first in the office in the morning, who is last to leave, who works the most hours. It is just nuts.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    Thanks for the book recommendation. It looks like a great blend of putting a value on your time and desired pursuits, upping your income and cutting out unneeded expenses, all in the pursuit of achieving what you really want.

    I agree that the excessive materialism and the gilded-cage jobs required to maintain that are messed up. I mean, who the fuck cares about keeping up with the Joneses? Just keep up with your own dreams.

    As for the kids thing, I’m just such a nurturer and have a lot of love that I totally want kids. To the point of seeing cute babies and thinking I want one! lol As to the effort and expense, I’m more on the free-range side and think helicopter parents are insane–my sister’s a bit too much of a hoverer to be honest. Part of it’s that I’m the youngest of 6 and so by the time I came along my parents were so worn down and knew that most things won’t kill you so they said, “Do whatever you want. Just don’t do something stupid or dangerous.” I remember my friends when I was 5 and 6 weren’t allowed to cross the street w/o an adult while I was riding my bike around town, visiting far-off, exotic candy stores, buying sweet cereal and 2% milk at the grocery store and generally having a grand old time (we had skim powdered milk and not-sweet cereal). The notion of having to pay for kids’ college is foreign to me too since my parents didn’t pay for mine. I was lucky though with scholarships and worked to support myself. I plan on passing on my genes, independence-at-18 and somewhat frugal outlook to my children.

    As to your decision not to have kids, it kind of sounds like you’re torn but it’s true you usually can’t have your cake and eat it too so if you’re at peace with not having any then great. Not my place to tell you what to do but since it seems like there still is a nagging regret in what you say I would just say to really think it through before permanently deciding against it.

    And I enjoy your comments on here.

  • Sai

    #142 -Mike C.
    I agree with you. To heck with the cube farm, I want to see things and have adventures.
    Plus there are things kids need that I don’t have and therefore can’t give them.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    The U.S. was founded on the “Protestant hard work ethic”. I think this one is the biggest crock of shit there is. Now mind you, that doesn’t mean being a lazy sloth. But here in the U.S. this is elevated to such a crazy degree. Who is first in the office in the morning, who is last to leave, who works the most hours. It is just nuts.

    I think balance is key and too many jobs, especially the high-flyer type, are way out of balance. Having lived in Mexico, Brazil and elsewhere really showed me that our expectations in wealthier countries are kind of whacked. A kind of hypergamy of materialism where we want more, more, more. In Brazil, due to taxes, cars are at least 2x more than in the US. Combined with lower incomes most people drive small economy cars. It’s almost like any new mid-sized car here would be much nicer than what’s typical there.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C And I know you’ve given a lot of thought to the issue of having kids so I wasn’t trying to imply you hadn’t.

  • Lexie

    After high school I worked on a Caribbean cruise ship, saved up some money while seeing part of the world and after 2 years of that took off for a long hike through the Amazon. Returned to the States, signed up to work on a Mediterranean liner, and cruised around the Croatian Isles, Greece and Malta. After that I stayed on in Croatia working in a cafe and from there traveled across Europe and made my way into Central and East Asia. I learned more during those 6 years than I ever would have in any American University.

    Along the way I met my would be spouse and settled down in a charming village and lived a slow and content life for a while until both of us got the itch to globe trot again.

  • J

    No, it was from National Geographic. It was a practice among the young men of the tribe to stimulate the cows this way in order to increase milk production, as I recall.

    Huh? That’s interesting. I made a similar argument to DH when I was breastfeeding. Think I should tell him I weaned the boys?

    J, you are hilarious.

    Thanks. I blame Ted and his contagious good mood.

  • J

    “Apatow semi-famously stole one of those moments from his own life, last night recalling the time he was forced to deal with his wife Mann throwing him out of their car on the way to a gynecological appointment.
    ‘I don’t remember what the fight was about,’ he said. ‘She kicked me out, which is a very difficult moment because you don’t know what to do.’”

    LMAO> That came from his real life? OMG!! What a bitch.

    There’s always something weird about marriages with a high SMV-imbalance IMHO.

    Yes. He has a low SMV in terms of sexiness, but a high MMV in terms of wealth, power and accomplishment. That tends to be a typical trade off and one that some researchers hold to be a recipe for happiness. In the words of an old song, marriages are supposed to be happiest when daddy’s rich and momma’s good looking. What I don’t get is when the guy doesn’t realize what he brought to the table and thinks he’s lucky to have some woman who sees his value in terms of his wealth, power and accomplishment.

  • Sai

    “Yes.  He has a low SMV in terms of sexiness, but a high MMV in terms of wealth, power and accomplishment.  That tends to be a typical trade off and one that some researchers hold to be a recipe for happiness.  In the words of an old song, marriages are supposed to be happiest when daddy’s rich and momma’s good looking.  What I don’t get is when the guy doesn’t realize what he brought to the table and thinks he’s lucky to have some woman who sees his value in terms of his wealth, power and accomplishment.”

    At least ugly guys get to have points added for their accomplishments.

  • J

    The problem for the upper classes is hearing the sound of distant tumbrels and missing the point of what is happening.”…. I’m an okay knitter. SEE WHAT I DID THAR

    And you said you weren’t witty, Sai!

  • Sai

    @J
    “And you said you weren’t witty, Sai!”

    I feel better under-estimating myself than writing a check I can’t cash.

  • Mike C

    And I enjoy your comments on here.

    Thanks. Likewise. Somewhere on here (don’t remember what thread) there was a discussion about guys commenting and guys trying to give up HUS and being drawn back. The fact of the matter is this site draws some people with serious intellectual horsepower (Bastiat is just one example) and from time to time there are deep thoughtful discussions of important issues related to both the SMP and a variety of life issues.

    Thanks for the book recommendation. It looks like a great blend of putting a value on your time and desired pursuits, upping your income and cutting out unneeded expenses, all in the pursuit of achieving what you really want.

    Yes, reading that book really changed my philosophy on a lot of things. I think the key takeaway is really understanding and appreciating the value of YOUR TIME, and realizing once spent you can NEVER get it back. Most people don’t think about pursuing money and material things in terms of their life energy/time they are sacrificing.

    I agree that the excessive materialism and the gilded-cage jobs required to maintain that are messed up.

    And the thing with those gilded-cage jobs is once you are on that hamster wheel it can be tough to get off. For many of those jobs “status” is important and you are expected to dress a certain way, drive a certain car, own a McMansion in a high-brow suburb, and then once you take on those fixed financial obligations you are trapped.

    As for the kids thing, I’m just such a nurturer and have a lot of love that I totally want kids.

    That’s cool, and you really sound like you would make a great committed Dad.

    I’m more on the free-range side and think helicopter parents are insane–my sister’s a bit too much of a hoverer to be honest. Part of it’s that I’m the youngest of 6 and so by the time I came along my parents were so worn down and knew that most things won’t kill you so they said, “Do whatever you want. Just don’t do something stupid or dangerous.” I remember my friends when I was 5 and 6 weren’t allowed to cross the street w/o an adult while I was riding my bike around town, visiting far-off, exotic candy stores, buying sweet cereal and 2% milk at the grocery store and generally having a grand old time (we had skim powdered milk and not-sweet cereal).

    Very interesting. How old are you? Maybe the helicopter parenting thing is starting to reverse course? Your childhood sounds much more like how mine was in terms of parental involvement in day to day activity.

    As to your decision not to have kids, it kind of sounds like you’re torn but it’s true you usually can’t have your cake and eat it too so if you’re at peace with not having any then great. Not my place to tell you what to do but since it seems like there still is a nagging regret in what you say I would just say to really think it through before permanently deciding against it.

    I appreciate the thought. Perhaps just a bit, but I think I’ve made peace with it. I’m 38 now and I had a particular set of life circumstances unfold to get me where I am today. I’m really not where I expected to be in terms of accumulated wealth by this age as what the plan was when I was 21. And not so I can drive a Corvette, but so that can I learn Portuguese and study astronomy :) I think I can get where I need to by 50-55 but it will take a combination of very aggressive saving and cooperation from the capital markets :) I’ve got an awesome woman who I am looking forward to being my teammate on this journey through the rest of our lives but she is 38. But I’m happy to see people enthusiastic as well. Someone has to pay my Social Security (just kidding….half kidding)

  • Mike C

    Having lived in Mexico, Brazil and elsewhere really showed me that our expectations in wealthier countries are kind of whacked. A kind of hypergamy of materialism where we want more, more, more.

    Oh yeah. If you stop and think about it, it really is insane, but 70% of the U.S. economy is built on consumer spending. It is imperative to essentially brainwash people that they need more, more, more, that they need 50 pairs of shoes, 25 purses, a McMansion, a car they lease and trade in every 2 years for something new.

    In Brazil, due to taxes, cars are at least 2x more than in the US. Combined with lower incomes most people drive small economy cars. It’s almost like any new mid-sized car here would be much nicer than what’s typical there.

    When my fiancee and I moved into our apartment 2 years ago we were having a conversation with the woman who was the property manager. I don’t know how it came up, but she told us she only leased cars and only drove them 2-3 years before getting another car because she got “bored”. As soon as we got outside, I told me fiancee the woman was a moron as she was voluntarily locking herself into an eternal car payment when cars now are built to last 10 years easily. I recently bought a car, a 2-year old used Nissan Maxima fully loaded, it was on the pricey end, but I should have the car paid off by early 2013. I expect it to be my car for the next 15 years. It is only my second car as I drove my first car from college graduation in 1995 to this past summer when it died at 165,000. People in the U.S. are just wasteful and always looking for more or to upgrade. I think you are right to characterize it as “hypergamy of materialism”. That perfectly captures it. Really, to me it is a disease. But again, there are many vested interests in convincing people that they need to BUY, BUY, BUY (Cramer reference :) )

  • JustYX

    @J#150 – good stuff, you are clearly competition – respect.
    (saw your comment on the other thread about names etc, left a reply)

    have fun all, the sun is out in the UK, or the bit I live in
    m’out

  • Sai

    @Mike C
    Ironically, many rich people don’t spend like mad on shoes, cars, etc. One lady wears old clothes and eats peanut butter… Okay, she’s a character from a book whose title I can’t remember, but I think the tactic is more common than the media lets on.
    Then again, there’s nothing wrong with buying yourself something nice or traveling on occasion if you can afford to (credit cards scare me, there I said it). I guess it’s about balance between being saving enough money, and enjoying it responsibly -because YOU want to, not because the TV said to.

  • Abbot

    “To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture”

    –Hanna Rosin

    Read: as always, feminists and women DEPEND on men to follow through and accommodate them. But this one is the lowest hanging fruit ever since its a given as men are ALWAYS willing to massage a vagina

    “women benefit greatly from living in a world where they can have sexual adventure without commitment or all that much shame, and where they can enter into temporary relation­ships that don’t get in the way of future success.”

    In other words, throw your bodies at the very men who don’t give a ratsass about those precious almighty careers whatsoever anyway and any interest in marrying an acquired numbed sexuality that effectively renders you matrimonially unworthy

    “”I want to get secure in a city and in a job … I’m not in any hurry at all. As long as I’m married by 30, I’m good.”

    Only men get to decide if you’re wife material or “good”

    http://jezebel.com/5937362/finally-someone-says-it-hookup-culture-is-good-for-women

    .

  • Abbot

    “Rosin’s argument is necessary because it’s still so easy for even the most empowered, confident women to feel guilty about their sexual decisions thanks to the pervasive theory that “hookup culture” will get us in the end. As if one day all of us who’ve slept around will wake up, barren and alone, and think to ourselves, “I never should’ve had a one-night stand with that bartender! That’s where everything went wrong!”

    This the CLOSEST any of these writers have ever gotten to the MAIN CORE CENTRAL PARAMOUNT “issue.” But as usual, it stops short of mentioning the sole wildcard – men.

    Why are they all so afraid to discuss how men think at that crucial moment when a woman leaps from that bartender, or tattoo artist, or biker gang leader to the choiceless agencyless chump whenever it suits her to do so?

  • Ted D

    J.- so now I’m contagious too?!

  • Sai

    @HeartIsteRules
    I always hated bad boys and cads. I am a virgin (NOT FROM A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY) and have never even kissed anyone. If women must have these limits on them for the good of society, what about men who want to sleep with the so-called sluts? The women can’t fornicate alone. I don’t support female progress at the expense of men, but I will do all I can against a society where women are restrained while men get to sleep with whoever they please in the name of biology. (Ted D had a much better way of saying this.)

    I read an article on the blog you’re schilling for. It’s bad for women to sleep around, it’s bad for them to chase rich men, but apparently it’s also bad for the less attractive ones to seek careers. What’s the Heartiste-approved choice, starve to death?

    Some women ARE filthy greedy whores. But some men are lower than dirt. And some people are neither.
    Enjoy sleeping with lots of random women, catch syphilis, get blind, crazy, sick, and die.

    Then again, when the TOTALITARIAN CLASS -WOMAN dies out, you’ll have nothing left to screw.

    Who died in your cornflakes?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Who died in your cornflakes?

      Sorry for the visit from HeartisteRules. I always wonder what these damaged men hope to accomplish with those kinds of rants. If they really were all that, they obviously wouldn’t be spending their weekends composing vitriol for a middle aged woman. A sociopathic sonnet – I’m touched in a way.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    I’m touched in a way.

    I told you before: Men can’t quit you, Susan. You are the Manosphere’s heartbreaker. ;)

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Shouldn’t you be reading twilight or working in one of your useless and porn-flick alike books? Go do something useful with your life, like reading Hugo Gernsback seminal short story ”Ralph 124C 41+”

    *yawn* 2 out of 10. I will take a nap, while you can think on something better.

  • Joe

    Anacaona, be gentle. It’s very difficult to be a Rossie wannabe when lacking opposable thumbs. Makes the space-bar hard to find.

    Oh – the lack of eloquence doesn’t help him either.

  • Carmen

    @ HeartiseFan
    Why are you so bitter? Did you just recently take the Red Pill, are you still processing what you’ve learned?

    I’m always a little surprised when I read comments written by men like you. You blame women that they only want to be with a handful of guys. Yet men are EXACTLY the same, they only go for a handful of women: the physically most attractive women.

    If women AND MEN only go for the top 10% of the opposite gender, why are you so harsh on just the women?

    Do you read Athol’s blog? Ah well, I suppose not, as you believe women are” incapable of love, loyalty and self-sacrifice” anyway…Do you not think giving birth to a baby is quite a self-sacrificing act?

  • Abbot
  • Cooper

    “you’ll only achieve the big bucks, the type of attention and glamour your buried slut craves by attacking the mainstream feminists.
    Do you heart-fully believe that Cooper’s are found by the dime?”

    I knew my ears felt something.

  • Cooper

    “If they really were all that, they obviously wouldn’t be spending their weekends composing vitriol for a middle aged woman.”

    … And to think I’m on HUS from a hospital bed awaiting surgery, to fix my hand from a work injury that happened Friday. They just gotta fix a few nerves and a tendon – no biggy.
    I’ll be back typing two-handed in no time. (or 2weeks more specifically)
    If all of ya can tell how friendly I can be with strangers (online) – imagine me with hospital staff while on morphine! We have a good time, hahaha.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Cooper

      Oh no! Surgery is always a biggy, I’m so sorry you have to go through that!

      To increase the odds of a cute nurse hanging around more than is necessary, keep that shirt off. Although I’ve been in hospitals a lot recently, and I’ve been struck and dismayed to see that at least 75% of all the nurses are obese. Such a disturbing thing to see in a health care setting. Maybe this isn’t true in Canada, I hope not!

      We’ll miss you, and be thinking of you. By the way, Heartiste had a post you must read:

      http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/comment-of-the-week-precision-analogies-edition/

  • Cooper

    And thanks for any thoughts, in advance.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    @Joe
    I was being gentle ;)

    @Cooper
    Morphine! You are getting the good stuff! Good luck with the surgery. Hoping a cute nurse falls your charms too…; )

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Cooper
    What Ana said! ;) And get well soon!

  • Mireille

    @Heartistefan,
    I thought about a lot of stuff to write and save your soul but I decided against it. I’m going to just assume that you either have no talent, no looks or no means to attract women. And probably a small penis as well. So you’re forgiven. You can retire from the SMP/MMP, making it easier for women to focus on worthy men and creating less competition for the other guys. You sound so bitchy and whiny, I don’t even tolerate women who act that way, let alone men. You just dismissed yourself.

    Rest in Peace!

  • J

    @Ted

    You’re contagious in the best way possible.

    @Cooper

    Feel better.

  • J

    J#150 – good stuff, you are clearly competition – respect

    Right back atcha!

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Sai, totally agree with you about credit card debt. We don’t ever go a month without putting things away in savings. Too bad inflation makes cash savings less valuable.

    Cooper, hospitals are not fun places, but at least you seem to be in good spirits. Get well soon, and flirt away with the cute nurses!

  • JustYX

    @HeartiseFan

    you write like an inverted radfem-man-hater-cnut

    I couldn’t put it more strongly than that, could I?

    I read stuff at Chateau Roissy / Heartiste often, he’s interesting and witty. You’re not, you’re a prat.

    Take it somewhere where they care what you think. I’d ban you from here without a second thought, because you come to add nothing but hate. Usually it’s feminists that do that, take a minute to reflect on that (if you can)

    (m’out for the day)

  • Sai

    @Cooper
    Enjoy the morphine~

    @HeartiseFan
    So out of billions on this planet, alive now or previously, not one woman can display or has displayed love, loyalty or self-sacrifice. Not one.

    You’re lucky the Web allows any clown to say any garbage he wishes.
    Feminazis say things that completely disregard biology and physiology, and you are just like them. Go to a laboratory and learn something.

    “It will usher a wasteland of relationships, no marriage to be had in sight, and all of the beta males and white knights will either become Alpha males, cads, PUA’s or they will help us even more by going hardcore celibate, avoiding and ignoring women, making it even easier for REAL MEN to pump and dump.”

    …I’ve been watching reruns of the 80s GI Joe cartoon, and when I read this kind of thing I can hear Serpentor talking/ranting. I don’t even like Serpentor.

    Here’s an idea: There are a significant amount of men in the Middle East who like women about as much as you do. Go hang out with them, and maybe the next drone strike will get you.

  • JustYX

    Best of luck Cooper

  • http://www.attachmentparenting.org Co Sleeper

    A huge factor in why people are not coupling up at the rates we’d like to see them do so is something called personality quirks. There are many people who look good on paper but in real life the human factor is huge so lets take that into account.
    My neighbor is an example; handsome, good natured, charming, fun, friendly and gainfully employed yet perpetual single. No one can figure out why. The fact is he’s got a hyperactive type A personality that is a huge turn off for a lot of us, including his neighbors, like me. He’s someone I can only be around for about an hour at a time without wanting to pull my hair out, yet considering all this other traits, people who don’t know him so well consider him a “catch”. Even he can’t figure out why he’s unable to keep a woman interested. So far I haven’t had the heart to tell him but I think it might be about time.

  • Mike C

    @Mike C
    Ironically, many rich people don’t spend like mad on shoes, cars, etc.

    Yup.

    http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206

    In The Millionaire Next Door, read by Cotter Smith, Stanley (Marketing to the Affluent) and Danko (marketing, SUNY at Albany) summarize findings from their research into the key characteristics that explain how the elite club of millionaires have become “wealthy.” Focusing on those with a net worth of at least $1 million, their surprising results reveal fundamental qualities of this group that are diametrically opposed to today’s earn-and-consume culture, including living below their means, allocating funds efficiently in ways that build wealth, ignoring conspicuous consumption, being proficient in targeting marketing opportunities, and choosing the “right” occupation. It’s evident that anyone can accumulate wealth, if they are disciplined enough, determined to persevere, and have the merest of luck.

  • Abbot

    “To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture”

    –Hanna Rosin.

    THEN

    “To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on men”

    — the crude harsh truth

  • Mike C

    “To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture”

    –Hanna Rosin.

    THEN

    “To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on men”

    — the crude harsh truth

    Ya know, there is something almost surreally absurdly ironic about a feminist woman (Rosin) saying that feminist progress depends on penis providers who most likely view most of their female “hook-up ” participants purely as sexual gratification objects.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Ya know, there is something almost surreally absurdly ironic about a feminist woman (Rosin) saying that feminist progress depends on penis providers who most likely view most of their female “hook-up ” participants purely as sexual gratification objects.

    When I was still reading Jezebel we had the scandal of the college kids rating their women as they would rate a piece of meat. The were livid and offended that guys were just using women and couldn’t care less about their…humanity. I was like “??? Why a stranger would owe you any respect after you have sex with him without even finding out anything about him beyond that he is attractive and has a functional penis?”
    One of them said “Ugh looks like our mother’s were right about giving it up to strangers” and they didn’t took that well either… There is not worst blind person that that one that doesn’t want to see.

  • Mike C

    We’ll miss you, and be thinking of you. By the way, Heartiste had a post you must read:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/comment-of-the-week-precision-analogies-edition/

    Props to you for linking this. And hope you heal well Cooper.

  • Abbot

    “Ya know, there is something almost surreally absurdly ironic about a feminist woman (Rosin) saying that feminist progress depends on penis providers who most likely view most of their female “hook-up ” participants purely as sexual gratification objects.”

    Note how feminists walk on glass over this razor-in-their-asses “issue”. The most twisted aspect is their abhorrence to mention men as participants or bring men into the discussion and they are not even mentioned as objects although that is how they are viewed – these unidentified actors always there; ephemeral; always ready to walk out of the mist, supply and apply the boyfriend experience and fade away before the Monday morning staff meeting. They are the romance novel penises who seduce prickly masculine career women. Its as if they are this “other” that enables the hook up to happen and are never brutish, never rapists, could be in relationships, could have a highly contagious flu with symptoms suppressed by medicine and have last names that are never uttered.

  • Sai

    Where are the gals like the ones the post and the comments discuss? I mostly keep to myself anyway, so I can’t say I don’t know anybody like that, but still… is that really how they think of women? All women?

  • Dick (Richard)

    “Ya know, there is something almost surreally absurdly ironic about a feminist woman (Rosin) saying that feminist progress depends on penis providers who most likely view most of their female “hook-up ” participants purely as sexual gratification objects.”

    As a penis provider I can say I offer the woman I have casual respect with the same general respect I was raised to offer all human beings. The fact that neither of us want to move on to a serious relationship makes no difference.

  • Abbot

    Consider the recent host of pro penis indoctrination articles in light of this post from a few years ago –

    ————————————–
    A few weeks ago a woman named Joy Brondite left a comment at Feministing mentioning that she had discovered Hooking Up Smart. Though she found it verbose and overly analytical , and didn’t enjoy the lively discussion, I was more interested in this statement:

    “There is this notion of slut shaming in the media and it happens on a more personal level among people who shame one another. There is also something that is discussed on other websites but never in the wider media – something called slut rejection. The latter is what heterosexual men who seek a life partner supposedly engage in. I have personal experience with this. My ex did not try to shame me but upon knowing more about me, he just sort of faded away. Its so wrong that women may have to lie or not say anything and either strategy is prone to backfire. I believe that if men had less alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.”

    That’s quite a remarkable statement, don’t you think? The feminist solution to slut shaming is to recruit so many women to sluthood that the supply of sexually inexperienced women will disappear. Men will have their fun in college, and when it comes time to marry, their only choice will be from among “fruitful” women. It’s interesting because it’s an acknowledgement that men can’t be rehabbed into the feminist way of thinking. The Women’s Movement tore down many walls, but the male brain is the last frontier, and the feminist siege cannot succeed in eradicating this last double standard.
    ——————————————-

    So then, are the feminists ramping up this effort?

    .

  • Esau

    Susan at 137: “To be honest, a lot of the men who write in to Athol seem to have no sense of what constitutes sexually attractive behavior. My guess is they never did…”

    What a profound remark. This really deserves deeper consideration.

    And, just to start: since you’re in a guessing mood, what would you guess is the reason for this? How did it happen, and what was the mechanism, that so many men — I’m sure Athol’s correspondents represent a very wide population — could reach that age with such a mistaken idea of very basic and important knowledge? I’m sure we can agree to blame feminism, by some means; but I don’t think that will entirely cover it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Esau

      And, just to start: since you’re in a guessing mood, what would you guess is the reason for this? How did it happen, and what was the mechanism, that so many men — I’m sure Athol’s correspondents represent a very wide population — could reach that age with such a mistaken idea of very basic and important knowledge? I’m sure we can agree to blame feminism, by some means; but I don’t think that will entirely cover it.

      As far as I can tell, my generation was raised in a gender bent fashion – as a female I was masculinized, and my brothers were feminized. Now my generation has produced another, and to the gender confusion we’ve added the cynicism and resentment we developed as a result of this terrible experiment. The resulting stew is the SMP as we know it, where neither sex is comfortable fulfilling its natural biological imperative.

      In any case, I was not blaming men who write to Athol, simply making an observation that many of his readers appear to present as very confused, e.g. “I mopped the kitchen floor but she still didn’t want sex.” The HUS equivalent is the many female readers who have openly admitted they have no clue how to be feminine.

      The purpose of my comment was to suggest that it’s probably not valid to extrapolate conclusions about female sexuality from an overheard remark from the 13 year old daughter of the floor mopper.

  • Dick (Richard)

    “Men will have their fun in college, and when it comes time to marry, their only choice will be from among “fruitful” women. ”

    Water seeks its own level. Birds of a feather, etc.

  • Abbot

    “Birds of a feather”

    That works if the female and male birds are approximately equal in number

  • Esau

    Sai:

    At 152: “At least ugly guys get to have points added for their accomplishments.”

    Meaning, presumably, that this is less so for ugly women? True enough, FBOFW.

    At 154: “I feel better under-estimating myself than writing a check I can’t cash.”

    You didn’t point it out, but this is another behavior — writing checks that one can’t cash — for which men can get added points too.

    At 162:“Who died in your cornflakes?”

    I don’t really know what this means, but it’s a great line anyway.

  • Dick (Richard)

    “Men will have their fun in college, and when it comes time to marry, their only choice will be from among “fruitful” women. ”

    I don’t think women are too concerned about keeping their numbers down
    for all us men who had our fun in college.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    Haha. I in fact had already read that, after hearing some roissy talk yesterday.
    Someone had said you two are like ying and yang. (so, I had to see for myself)

    After for nurses, there is definitely some cute ones. But probably the most notable difference in Canada, is I don’t have a medical bill for any of this.

    I’m curious as to your thoughts on Heartiste’s “Sixteen commandments of poon”
    Cause it all seems very, very true. But I can’t imagine how a woman could support it. It’s all withhold, withhold, withhold. And never relinquish your abundance mentality.

    Do you really agree that the best frame for a man to hold is to always keep women in contempt?

    Hey, I’m back from the hospital – and I haven’t changed a bit!!! Even on meds, I still have red pill popping out my mouth? LMOA

    @everyone
    Thanks for your thoughts.

  • JQ

    @ Susan, in re the BYU thesis referenced in 70:

    The following statement from the BYU thesis is actually in error (referring to the regression coefficient for premarital sex partners): “This indicates that for every additional premarital sexual partner a man has, the likelihood that he will categorize himself as being extremely satisfied with his first marital sexual relationship as compared to only being moderately satisfied decreases by 5.3%. [1]”

    The author of the thesis performed logistic regression and -0.053 isn’t the change in probability, it’s the marginal change in the log odds. I didn’t find an intercept value for log odds in Table 3 (of the dissertation in question [2]), so I can’t quite say what the baseline value is. However, what it does mean is that the odds of being categorized as extremely happy has the form B(0.949^P) where B is the baseline (zero partners and any other demographic values set appropriately) and P is the number of partners.

    What this means is that no matter what the baseline value for a man’s set of demographics, their odds of being extremely satisfied with their first marital sex partner are 12% of the baseline if they have 40 premarital sex partners per the model. And that is pretty significant. As women have a slightly higher odds ratio (0.955, also from Table 3) they retain almost 16% of the odds of the baseline odds of being extremely satisfied with their first marital sex partner. Dropping the partner count to ten yields 59% and 63% of the baseline odds of being extremely satisfied with the first marital sex partner for men and women respectively. For the mere five partners which seems to be the high end of normal: 77% and 79% for men and women respectively.

    [1] Page 39
    [2] Page 73

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @JQ

      What this means is that no matter what the baseline value for a man’s set of demographics, their odds of being extremely satisfied with their first marital sex partner are 12% of the baseline if they have 40 premarital sex partners per the model. And that is pretty significant. As women have a slightly higher odds ratio (0.955, also from Table 3) they retain almost 16% of the odds of the baseline odds of being extremely satisfied with their first marital sex partner. Dropping the partner count to ten yields 59% and 63% of the baseline odds of being extremely satisfied with the first marital sex partner for men and women respectively. For the mere five partners which seems to be the high end of normal: 77% and 79% for men and women respectively.

      Forgive me, I’m lost. Can you break this down into non-stat speak? I am very interested in understanding your point here. I’m confused about what the baseline is – can you provide the simple equation?

  • SayWhaat

    Good luck Cooper! Best wishes for a speedy recovery!

  • JustYX

    @Abbot #191
    an interesting point. I note that she didn’t consider being judged for what she’d done appropriate, just skipped to lying about it as the way out in future. What a wonderful mindset to have, so much easier than morality.

  • JustYX

    @Sai
    Clearly we don’t know each other, so all the following should be filed under FWIW.

    You are in a STEMmy field, I gather. Good news! this is a good natural hunting ground for a woman (I’m STEM too, no sarcasm is intended, no slight on STEM guys).

    You say that your SMV/MMV value is not what you’d wish it to be (iirc). I can’t judge as I’ve never met you, so all I can do is go from what you’ve said (fwiw remember?).

    Guys notice personality too(!) Yes, it is true that we are primarily visual in character, but we do notice other things. Sweet personality – it’s GOOD. Happy attitude – Good, who wants to spend time with a grump?. Feminine garb – if you want to change male attitudes to you, it could even be as easy as wearing feminine clothes and a smile. I realise that a skirt is not +3 smp points (if that even means anything), but it will be noticed, trust me.

    You sound a little angry, and that will NOT work, trust me again. The fact that you’re here on HUS is a great sign of hope. If I hated teh ebul wimminz, I would never have come here (who cares what t.e.w. think?), I came here to talk and understand the other sex. I like it here. If you like it here, then at some level you want it to work.

    Susan’s list and her general thrust on this site are worth taking for an extended test drive. Make an effort for a few months, skirt, smile and positive outlook. It could well work, but at the very least you’ll be left in a better, happier place.

    I’m sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention at all. All I know about you is from a few posts on teh interwebz – I could be wrong (a man wrong? who’d a thought it possible?). Once again FWIW

    Best of luck

  • Thrasymachus

    Slightly off-topic, but has anyone seen this latest gem from The New York Times?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?src=me&ref=general

    Greg Hampikian seems to be auditioning for the role of Hugo Schwyzer’s successor.

    Articles like his illustrate how necessary the manosphere is despite its faults. Does anyone believe that the Times would print an Op-ed contribution entitled “Women, Who Needs Them?”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Thras

      That article sent a chill up my spine. I do not exaggerate when I say that I fear that feminists would welcome a world without men. A dystopian vision indeed – what will they do with the male infants? Or will they figure out a way to remove Y from the genome altogether?

  • Courtley

    @Abbot

    (quoting Joy Brondite from a Feministing discussion):

    “I believe that if men had less alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.””

    Yeah, that is a extremely revealing, I must say. It explains a lot of the prude-shaming of women among female sex-positive types (more so in in real life than online, and by “sex-positive types” I mean slutty women who loosely adhere to some watered-down version of sex-positive feminism as opposed to the writers and bloggers who do, I think, take a more nuanced and thought-out approach).

    I suppose women at HUS have the opposite view, essentially, which is that if more women stopped giving out sex at such a low price and demanded real monogamy first, we’d end up with a more assortive and balanced SMP where there really was “someone for everyone.”

  • JustYX

    @Thras

    after two paragraphs I feel like puking. He’s a natural successor to that turd schwyzer all right. I wouldn’t piss on either of them if they were on fire.

  • Sai

    @JustYX
    As long as you’re being honest and not plotting to cleanse the earth of anybody I won’t be offended.

    A lady in an examination room once told me that I was like a transportation project -most of the funds went to brainpower, learning and culture, and God help the rest. It’s not just you, I do try to be polite but it only goes so far before you get to the stereotypical awkward/uncomfortable scientist. Good-looking people scare me to an extent, and I want to hit myself (not them, they didn’t cause this) for it.

    My STEM job is currently in R&D, so the only time I can dress girly is when I’m not reporting to a place full of sticky and/or potentially harmful things. I have started experimenting with making my own clothes, though (non-trampy, honest) so we’ll see what happens when I go somewhere with neither tanks nor thugs.

    Thanks again for being honest. I’ll try to be less cold in the future.

    Re: tramps who lie
    This goes against everything I believe in.

    Re: “wipe out the blacks/Jews/men”
    “just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass.”
    But that was enough! Everybody here took biology and/or sex ed, right?

    “It’s also true that men have, on average, a bit more muscle mass than women. But in the age of ubiquitous weapons, the one with the better firepower (and knowledge of the law) triumphs.”
    But you still have to be strong enough to pull the trigger. And not sucking at hand-to-hand combat helps too. /shame

    “Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense.”
    Sometimes I hear this, but I wonder if that’s because of strident demands for women’s health getting more attention than men’s. I should probably ask some men about this.

    Guys do have some nice advantages due to being born male. I’ve wondered whether some group somewhere is developing new technology to make all but a handful of women redundant (somebody must cook).

    THIS IS SCARY.

  • JustYX

    @Sai

    @JustYX
    As long as you’re being honest and not plotting to cleanse the earth of anybody I won’t be offended.

    nah, you’re thinking of the other Justyx…you can trust me

    A sense of self-deprecating humour can be a marvellous thing. I know this, ask around. Everybody laughed at my comment about Susan’s picture of the the fat guy with the grapes, being me…they just didn’t comment on line, so it just seems like it went tumbleweeds – I just keep saying this to myself.

    BUT, you can over do it if you start believing it yourself. Maybe take a break from putting yourself down? I can make such jokes because I’m pretty happy lately and don’t really much care if people laugh along (they tend to IRL FWIW).

    When one is down? Give it a rest, it doesn’t help, it hurts. Keep it positive

  • http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @everyone:
    I see the discussions going full steam. Good! Lets keep er rolling.

    I think it would be a huge mistake to pile on mr heartisterules; sure he may be considered a “troll” et al, but in the end hes the low hanging fruit; its very easy to go after one guy in the overall scheme of things, especially in that personal sort of way that seems part and parcel with the way that women in general tend to do things. For me, the question isnt whether there are guys like him running about the countryside; the question is: do women fully understand the situation they find themselves in?

    By all accounts, id say nay.

    If we’re going to discuss roissys writings, i would like to kindly suggest we begin with his “four sirens of the apocalypse”, which are:
    1. Abortion on demand and the pill
    2. Divorce made easier to obtain
    3. Expanded access to education
    4. Increased entry into the professional/high level work force

    These four factors-which no doubt to a large degree intersect with feminism-have been the major drivers of all we see in our world over roughly the last half century. The guys like mr heartisterules have always been around, albeit in our time they now have a bullhorn. The real wildcard here is the “four sirens”-and therein lay the gamechanger.

    Thats because these four factors mean that quite a few ladies will be left standing when the music stops. Be it directly or indirectly, the very forces as per roissys list above that has “freed” women, will be the same forces that will “chain” them as well. To her credit ms walsh has indeed gone on record about all this as well, but her style is a bit light for me personally; i dont think the ladies here or elsewhere truly get whats going down here in our time and in the very short time(s) to come.

    A bit of perspective is in order. In his books “two nations” and “mismatch”, andrew hacker writes about a “racial convergence”-that is to say, that the realities of one race-in this case black-have been documented to have become, over time, the realities of the other, in this case white. It would used to be the sole preserve of the educated professional black woman to bemoan her paltry marital/relationship prospects; now her white sisters can relate in a very personal way. Indeed this isnt something that is the preserve of the bougies and yuppies alone; it occurs in the lower classes too. This is what murray was talking about in his book “coming apart”, and which edin and kafalas finds in their work “promises i can keep”.

    As ms walsh rightly observes, the goals and aims of the second wave not only have been achieved, theyve been achieved quite awhile ago; the big question for the ladies isnt whether theres some seemingly disgruntled guys online, but “now what?”. Which, i posit, means: are the ladies overall, willing to make-and accept-the inherent tradeoffs the “four sirens” means? Or will those tradeoffs be imposed on them?

    One of the very big tradeoffs these “sirens” entails, is making lots of women so independent that they, coin a very popular phrase among the ladies i know, “dont need no man”. And in many ways, theyd be right-todays woman, black or white, rich or poor, dont need a man in order to survive or live a meaningful existence.

    But how does that play, in real time? Perhaps an even better question is: what happens when guys figure it out and/or take the ladies declaration at their word?

    This is what has happened in my community. Many of its men heard loud and clear what the ladies were saying, and happily stepped off. Another reason why i say to the ladies here that it would be a big mistake to go piling on the mr heartisterules’ of the world is because in truth there are so relatively few of them-if you want to be concerned about what the guys are or arent doing, you need to be very concerned about the guys you never hear from. To quote nixon, the silent majority of guys who simply go their own way-much like the “fortress astoria” guys the nyt profiled earlier this month. Thats what the ladies should be concerned about, not the wildeyed rants of some dude online. Because the fortress astoria guys? They wouldnt be possible without the four sirens. And by all accounts they sound quite happy. I mean, just compare and contrast that piece to ms kate bolicks multipage spread in the atlantic (talk about “lowering the discourse”-winking at ms j). Focus on the tone. Those guys are in the same age cohort as ms bolick. Who honestly sounds happier to you? And do you honestly think there are more heartistetules guys running around, than them? Like i said, the manosphere, at least as many of you define it, is a grapefruit pitch. The real challenge is getting those fortress astoria guys to sign up.

    Good luck with that ladies.

    Give your regards to the four sirens.

    O.

  • OffTheCuff

    Dick is Plain Jane, get some new catchphrases already.

  • Ted D

    Cooper – As such a young, strapping man, I expect to see you fully recovered and back at it in no time. ;-)

    You wouldn’t want me here typing to myself, would you?…

  • Pingback: Five things for the week of August 27. « @kmosher()

  • Ted D

    If anyone ever wonders what a sexpos feminist can say to immediately piss me off, well here you go:

    “I believe that if men had less alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.”

    Who the hell does this women think she is? Men don’t want to marry sluts, so lets just turn all women into sluts so they don’t have a choice. Never mind that some of those women’s parents just *might* have tried to teach her a little more restraint. Never mind that if the woman is religious, or comes from a religious background what she suggest may go directly against her beliefs. Never mind all the data that indicates promiscuous people tend to be less happy in marriage.

    No, all that matters is HER agenda.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “what will they do with the male infants? Or will they figure out a way to remove Y from the genome altogether?”

    The same thing many Chinese do with infant females I’d imagine. Although ideally, if they completely eliminate men, pregnancy would be artificial, and perhaps they could just make sure no males are created.

    The thought gives me warm, fuzzy feelings inside… /Sarcasm off

  • Abbot

    “women are too concerned about keeping their numbers down”

    The SMP~MMP feedback loop is a real phenomenon. Younger women are becoming increasingly aware that a slut phase is a precursor for lying-about-the-slut phase and disjointed intimacy. They hear the bemoaning of regret from decade older women and despite the worthy-women shaming rants from Marcotte, Rosin, & Friedman, they are going to manage their sexuality for a positive male outcome as much as they manage their so-called “careers.”

  • Abbot

    “Men don’t want to marry sluts, so lets just turn all women into sluts so they don’t have a choice.”

    Then not being a slut is an indicator of strength and discipline and willpower. All positive admirable character traits. Then it follows that being a slut as solely determined by men is a woman of questionable character. The slut-character continuum is very real, the wretch notwithstanding.

  • J

    they are going to manage their sexuality for a positive male outcome as much as they manage their so-called “careers.”

    That would be nice, but I find it far more likely that young women will stop this behavior because they find that it’s not empowering and is in fact painful/harmful to them. I think pluralistic denial is a major part of the problem here. When girls stop talking about hookups as conquests and begin admitting their regrets to one another, there will be a huge decrease in the hook up scene.

    BTW, I do see this beginnning to happen. Search “walk of shame” at Youtube. There is so much humor now about how uncomfortable/ unhappy/gross the morning after is that I can’t help but think that the word is getting around.

  • Ted D

    J – “BTW, I do see this beginnning to happen. Search “walk of shame” at Youtube. There is so much humor now about how uncomfortable/ unhappy/gross the morning after is that I can’t help but think that the word is getting around.”

    All I can say is: it is about damn time!

    I seriously can’t wrap my mind around why anyone in this day and age would think that rutting like wild animals somehow makes them “more empowered”, “more evolved”, or somehow “more enlightened”. I mean, following a biological base drive is about as UNevolved as a living creature can get.

    Perhaps we should all get a trophy for using the restroom instead of just pissing on the floor?

  • J

    We don’t ever go a month without putting things away in savings. Too bad inflation makes cash savings less valuable.

    Saving is good and a lost art. As your savings and income increase, you should also consider some conservative invests and paying extra principle on your mortgage if you have one. The latter depends, of course, on your mortgage interest rate. If you can find investments that pay out more than the mortgage interst rate, then invest.

  • J

    I seriously can’t wrap my mind around why anyone in this day and age would think that rutting like wild animals somehow makes them “more empowered”, “more evolved”, or somehow “more enlightened”. I mean, following a biological base drive is about as UNevolved as a living creature can get.

    I think the prevailing social dynamic for the last century has been one that pushes toward increasing freedom, self-expression, and self-actualization. Many people, because they saw so much damge done by repression, felt that destroying social conventions was the answer to that problem. Now I think people are starting to become aware that social conventions protected people. The attempts of many campus feminists to apply rules to hook-ups is really an attempt to maintain “freedom” while building a set of protective social conventions. The anger felt by many ‘spherians about that is a reflection of the desire to see women punished for breaking conventions and an insistence that women deal with the consequences of breaking social conventions. I’m hopeful that at some point, the pendulum will stopping swinging and we’ll come a balance that is safe, sane, and fair.

    Perhaps we should all get a trophy for using the restroom instead of just pissing on the floor?

    LOL.

    See this is why we have rules.

  • Abbot

    “I can’t help but think that the word is getting around”

    Those who care enough to spread the Word will be met with denigration and attack. Slut-in-chief Jaclyn Friedman called Susan Wash a “pearl-clutching blogger” and she amusingly bellows here –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMicqYFVL5A&feature=player_embedded

    Penis Promoter Marcotte has vomited similar vitriol.

    That is how you know the nerves have been struck, the faces are fuming red, the knuckles are cracking and the pencils are snapping. The feminists stew over this unlike any topic EVER! They hang on every word, every whiff of dissent; they pour over blogs and articles and speeches every day looking for any hole to drive a truck through. They are on the warpath to ensure they control the message, the meaning and the dialogue. Its a war over the female body and mind and the escalation has begun as evidenced by all the recent rantings over hook-ups. It couldn’t be any more obvious.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    Haha. I in fact had already read that, after hearing some roissy talk yesterday.
    Someone had said you two are like ying and yang. (so, I had to see for myself)

    After for nurses, there is definitely some cute ones. But probably the most notable difference in Canada, is I don’t have a medical bill for any of this.

    I’m curious as to your thoughts on Heartiste’s “Sixteen commandments of poon”
    Cause it all seems very, very true. But I can’t imagine how a woman could support it. It’s all withhold, withhold, withhold. And never relinquish your abundance mentality. (isn’t his whole MO that women like certain men, not in spite of how they treat them (poorly), but because of?)

    Do you really agree that the best frame for a man to hold is to always keep women in contempt?
    Should a man really have never say sorry to avoid losing respect of his SO?
    (kinda sounds like a never ending risk of being emasculated)
    Is this really as close to ying-yang we get? Men to accept women have a “inscrutable nature.”

    Hey, I’m home from the hospital and I haven’t changed! I’m on meds, and I still have red pills popping out my mouth!! LMAO

    @everyone
    Thanks for your thoughts.

    @Ted
    “You wouldn’t want me here typing to myself, would you?…”
    LOL

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Cooper

      I fully support 11 of the 16 commandments. Rather than list them, I’ll list the ones I object to:

      2. Make her jealous.
      5. Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you.
      6. Keep her guessing; Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably.
      7. Always keep two in the kitty.
      8. Don’t apologize: “If you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did.”

      The first four are the “dread” commandments, which are undoubtedly effective for STRs, and extremely damaging to LTRs.

      The last one is just plain bad character. A real man apologizes for his wrongs to the injured party. “I’m sorry you got mad” is a red flag, and men who use that trick should be kicked to the curb.

  • J

    @Thras,

    That’s just another of these whack off, attention-seeking articles that people write so the have something to say. While it’s true that for most mammals the primary family bond is with the mother, a big part of what makes us human is that our fathers stick around to protect and provide after they ejaculate. The girl quoted at the end of the article was just being “cocky-funny” and the author was “clever” in quoting her. I can assure you the IRL the vast majority of women, with the exception of those who are suffering from sour grapes, love, want and even need men–as more than just providers.

  • Abbot

    “The attempts of many campus feminists to apply rules to hook-ups is really an attempt to maintain “freedom” while building a set of protective social conventions. ”

    They are manipulating and managing sexual devaluation simultaneous with natural male aggression in order to modify the male point of view such that sex becomes inconsequential to how a man evaluates a woman

  • J

    Those who care enough to spread the Word will be met with denigration and attack. Slut-in-chief Jaclyn Friedman called Susan Wash a “pearl-clutching blogger” and she amusingly bellows here

    That’s meaningless except to a small minority of other crackpots. JF, Marcotte, et al have a much higher profile in the ‘sphere than they have even name recognition to the average woman.

  • Abbot

    “JF, Marcotte, et al have a much higher profile in the ‘sphere than they have even name recognition to the average woman.”

    Marcotte of late has been reaching for the mainstream media as she is a prolific writer who knows that sex sells, especially actual sex.

  • Mireille

    @ J

    Agreed, just like Susan observed that the slutty 20% hook up amongst themselves, that brand of misled sex-positive “feminists” are only known in the PUA circle. Slutty hangs with slutty; slutty fights slutty. Regular middle of the road people need to make choices that will work out for them in the long run and not fall into patterns that will damage their bodies, minds and trust on the human race.

  • Abbot

    “the slutty 20% hook up amongst themselves”

    Harem mixers notwithstanding

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Cooper

    Oops. I made “Heartiste Rules” a moderated name and you got caught. I’ve deleted that, it won’t happen again.

  • J

    Marcotte of late has been reaching for the mainstream media as she is a prolific writer who knows that sex sells, especially actual sex.

    Reaching ain’t getting. And even if she were to attract as much attention as someone like Andrea Dworkin, so what? Most healthy people, men and women, have a huge biological drive that pulls us toward the formation of healthy families. In the end, Marcotte and JF will up staring blankly across some day room at the nursing home at Roosh and Roissy with no child or grandchild there to insist that their Depends be changed and evolution will play out as it’s supposed to. Because eventually the promiscuous 20% eventually settles down, leaving only the hardcore nutjobs to revel in the bread, circuses and Alinsky tactics that characterize all this jumping around and yelling “LOOK AT ME!!!!”

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    Haha. I in fact had already read that, after hearing some roissy talk yesterday.
    Someone had said you two are like ying and yang. (so, I had to see for myself)

    After for nurses, there is definitely some cute ones. But probably the most notable difference in Canada, is I don’t have a medical bill for any of this.

    I’m curious as to your thoughts on Heartiste’s “Sixteen commandments of poon”
    Cause it all seems very, very true. But I can’t imagine how a woman could support it. It’s all withhold, withhold, withhold. And never relinquish your abundance mentality. (isn’t his whole MO that women like certain men, not in spite of how they treat them (poorly), but because of?)

    Do you really agree that the best frame for a man to hold is to always keep women in contempt?
    Should a man really have never say sorry to avoid losing respect of his SO?
    (kinda sounds like a never ending risk of being emasculated)
    Is this really as close to ying-yang we get? Men to accept women have a “inscrutable nature.”

    Hey, I’m home from the hospital and I haven’t changed!! I’m on meds, and I still have red pills popping out my mouth!! LMAO

    @everyone
    Thanks for your thoughts.

    @Ted
    “You wouldn’t want me here typing to myself, would you?…”
    LOL

  • J

    Regular middle of the road people need to make choices that will work out for them in the long run and not fall into patterns that will damage their bodies, minds and trust on the human race.

    Exactly.

  • J

    Hi, Cooper. That was quick. I assume that if yuou’re on the net, you’re feeling fairly well, all things considered. Continues wishes for a speedy recovery.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    My STEM job is currently in R&D, so the only time I can dress girly is when I’m not reporting to a place full of sticky and/or potentially harmful things. I have started experimenting with making my own clothes, though (non-trampy, honest) so we’ll see what happens when I go somewhere with neither tanks nor thugs.

    You can try with adding feminine touches. Some hair clips, some feminine blouses, shoes and pants. Also the way you carry yourself helps, you can practice walking a bit more conscious of your hips and natural body and smiling and slight touching (in a friendly way) can also set you apart. Having your own style that helps you peacock a bit can make wonders. If you are one of the few women on the lab and you add an extra touch that shows “Hey I have non-detachable boobs!” that can open a few interesting possibilities, YMMV.

    The purpose of my comment was to suggest that it’s probably not valid to extrapolate conclusions about female sexuality from an overheard remark from the 13 year old daughter of the floor mopper.

    Another pattern that I had noticed if any woman/girl reaffirms the manosphere believes (Chicks digs jerks for example) she is considered as of course a truth bearer but any woman that shows any variation is to not be believed at first and later on labeled an outlier…just remarking this difference.

    That article sent a chill up my spine. I do not exaggerate when I say that I fear that feminists would welcome a world without men. A dystopian vision indeed – what will they do with the male infants? Or will they figure out a way to remove Y from the genome altogether?

    I had a friend that spent great amounts of time bashing USA and saying that the communist system is THE BEST THING EVAH! specially Cuba and later on China in the days I didn’t felt like putting up with his crap I used to tell him “Why don’t you go and live on Cuba then?” that used to shut him up for a few days. IMO they are just bullshiting themselves. Ted you need to remember that women bond by talking crap, whether the new lipstick, the shoes, the hot guys on TV or all men should die 95% of the things we say are for bonding purposes and feelings evocation not for actions. You have the right to be offended and call them on that but don’t be scared. This is one of the times that manosphere maxim pay attention to what women do and no say is actually really accurate, YMMV.

    Who the hell does this women think she is? Men don’t want to marry sluts, so lets just turn all women into sluts so they don’t have a choice. Never mind that some of those women’s parents just *might* have tried to teach her a little more restraint. Never mind that if the woman is religious, or comes from a religious background what she suggest may go directly against her beliefs. Never mind all the data that indicates promiscuous people tend to be less happy in marriage.

    I will add that women that are not wired to give it up and just make them miserable shouldn’t be sacrificed at the altar of sluthood either, YMMV.

    That’s meaningless except to a small minority of other crackpots. JF, Marcotte, et al have a much higher profile in the ‘sphere than they have even name recognition to the average woman.

    Well if you think about it Marcotte is pretty mediocre herself if she tried to gain notoriety by any other means she wouldn’t had achieved any. She can’t write really well, she is not pretty/tall/exotic enough to be an actress or a model, she doesn’t invent or create anything she is only known, followed and remembered because she spits feminist crap once in a while and organizes vapid events like “slutwalks” She is the Kim Kardashian of the gender wars, YMMV.

  • J

    @SW
    Can Ana and OTC review all posts by new posters? They seem to expert at identifying PJ, while I’m always fooled at first and get sucked in.

  • Cooper

    @J
    Yeah, I’m feeling quite fine.

    @Susan
    You don’t have to respond to #233, I’m just doing my regular circles -clearly I’m still having issues.
    I’m slowly internalizing the similarities of sexual-promiscuity and emotional-promiscuity.
    One comment I found interesting, under that post, was mentioning that although men filter for promiscuous women, they still desire a sexually-adventurous. Isn’t Hearstiste saying that men should never let up on their emotional intimacy, as it will always be a sign of lower value?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Cooper

      Isn’t Hearstiste saying that men should never let up on their emotional intimacy, as it will always be a sign of lower value?

      I think he does say that, but it’s important to consider the source here. He is mid-40s, never married. His MO is almost entirely pick-up and STRs. He has been in love before, according to other readers, but let’s just say his emotional repertoire is not varied or vast.

      If you want exactly what he has, you should do what he says. That’s really the bottom line.

      I have been told by someone who knows him that he understands how over the top he is, but that the betas who find him need to be hit over the head with a club to have any hope of implementing any of it. IOW, he is deliberately hyperbolic because he believes he is addressing men who are literally in the sexual desert.

      My position on Roissy is a neutral one – I believe that his motive is to help men, and he does this for no (or little) pay. Many men have claimed that he has made a positive difference in their lives, and on that basis I respect him. I also think he’s a brilliant writer, and I enjoy reading him. I have similar feelings about Roosh. Needless to say, I wouldn’t want either of them near a woman I cared about.

      In contrast, some other male bloggers have what appear to me to be questionable motives, are ego driven rather than insightful, and are either deliberately obtuse or not very intelligent, hard to say which.

  • Ted D

    Cooper – “I’m curious as to your thoughts on Heartiste’s “Sixteen commandments of poon”
    Cause it all seems very, very true. But I can’t imagine how a woman could support it. It’s all withhold, withhold, withhold. And never relinquish your abundance mentality. (isn’t his whole MO that women like certain men, not in spite of how they treat them (poorly), but because of?)”

    It all seems very, very true because to an extent it is. However, just like many things you will read on the ‘net, it uses “some” kernel of truth to disguise some deeper stuff. In this case, mistrust and perhaps contempt for women?

    “Do you really agree that the best frame for a man to hold is to always keep women in contempt?”

    I certainly don’t, and this was one of the things that made my Red Pill journey so DAMN difficult. I did it WHILE in a relationship with a woman I actually loved and cared about. I decided there is NO WAY I can have a healthy relationship with her if I hold her in contempt. Period.

    “Should a man really have never say sorry to avoid losing respect of his SO?”

    If you were wrong, you should apologize. The key here I think is NOT to apologize for things you aren’t responsible for. And perhaps, don’t make a habit of doing dumb shit you should apologize for…

    “Is this really as close to ying-yang we get? Men to accept women have a “inscrutable nature.””

    I hope not man, because if so I just set myself up for another major disappointment getting married again. Can the “accept female nature and enjoy it” model work? Yeah, I imagine for folks that aren’t very intellectually deep it might work just fine. I tend to be very focused on what is on the inside of a person though, so using the “acceptance” model doesn’t cut it for me. Instead, I’m trying out the “help each other grow into better people” method. Instead of accepting and wallowing in our animal nature, I want our relationship to take us further past all that. Are we animals? Surely. But, humans have the ability to be MORE than their biology, and I want the type of relationship that fosters this type of personal growth. I want to help my SO become a better person, and in turn she will help me to be a better person. I’m not expecting it to be easy, but I’ll be damned if I will settle for less than what I want in a relationship again. And, what I want is something far above and beyond getting my basic needs met with the least amount of work.

    Glad you are home and feeling good. I knew you’d be back sooner than later. ;-)

  • Mike C

    The purpose of my comment was to suggest that it’s probably not valid to extrapolate conclusions about female sexuality from an overheard remark from the 13 year old daughter of the floor mopper.

    Susan, did you actually click over and read the entire thing? It wasn’t ONE SINGLE 13-year old but a large group of 13-year olds at a slumber party.

    I think the easy/rhetorical move here is simply to say “what do a bunch of 13-year olds know” and that has a sort of superficial ring about it that will get heads nodding in agreement. But I actually think what 13-year olds instinctually prefer is VERY TELLING. Why? Because they are at the onset of puberty and developing sexuality. Their sexual preferences/attraction triggers are raw, primal, probably the closest to the base biological desires unfiltered or adjusted by any intellectual maturation or reflection.

    Another pattern that I had noticed if any woman/girl reaffirms the manosphere believes (Chicks digs jerks for example) she is considered as of course a truth bearer but any woman that shows any variation is to not be believed at first and later on labeled an outlier…just remarking this difference.

    Ana, clearly this comment is at least somewhat directed to me referencing that comment. To be clear, I like you, and think you are cool, thoughtful woman, but you are an outlier (not trying to offend you). Would you really dispute that? You’ve given plenty of information yourself to directly indicate you are an outlier. One thing I’ve found about all these discussions is that for the most part men live in the world of general truths and probabilities while recognizing exceptions exist while women live in the world of exceptions and small pool of counterexamples. For a man trying to “figure it out” it is highly counterproductive to live in the world of counterexamples and exceptions. I would directly ask you if a man gets two contradictory assertions from two different women, how would you tell him to go about sussing out which one speaks for more of the overall female population? This is further complicated by the fact that for many women what they say and what they respond to materially differ.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      But I actually think what 13-year olds instinctually prefer is VERY TELLING. Why? Because they are at the onset of puberty and developing sexuality. Their sexual preferences/attraction triggers are raw, primal, probably the closest to the base biological desires unfiltered or adjusted by any intellectual maturation or reflection.

      It’s very telling about 13 year olds. It may accurately describe the kinds of thoughts women have as they enter puberty. I don’t know. Perhaps these women are future practitioners of an unrestricted sexuality. Perhaps dad’s supplicating behavior has given his daughter a taste for “real masculinity.”

      In any case, I agree with your point – mature women make better choices in mating because they engage a fully developed cerebral cortex, including a wide range of information sources, e.g. personal experience, family values, education.

      The 13 year old brain, which is still 8 years away from maturity, is more susceptible to risky and impulsive behavior. I imagine the “dangerous” adolescent male has been luring teenage girls since we stood on two legs. Part of the maturing process includes learning how to delay gratification in order to reach one’s objectives.

      For your point to be true, women would have to stop maturing at 13 – physically, emotionally, and cognitively.

  • OffTheCuff

    Fair enough, but you could interpet those through moderation:

    2. Be high value enough that other women find you attractive, and she is aware of it. Don’t hide out at home and avoid all interactions with women, to prove you are faithful. If she becomes a bit jealous, let her stew in it a bit. Complacency can kill attraction.

    3. Don’t emotionally invest more than her. Since this nonmeasurable, sure you leave some room for error.

    6. Don’t become too predictable, in your personal activities, lovemaking, gift giving, etc.

    7. Have at least two options that you are aware of, even if you choose not to exercise them. If nobody’s flirting with you, you are in danger of being are low enough value that your wife will lose attraction to you.

    8. Don’t apologize unless it is a major transgression, and only then, say it once and be done with it. Groveling or asking for forgiveness repeatedly makes you look weak.

    Like Dogsquat said, this stuff is powerful medicine, with a low threshold that can kill you. But without it, you are dead anyway.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

      I mostly agree with your modifications.

      Have at least two options that you are aware of, even if you choose not to exercise them. If nobody’s flirting with you, you are in danger of being are low enough value that your wife will lose attraction to you.

      I don’t think it’s helpful for a married man to have at least two options that he is aware of. If he is fully committed in marriage, and married well, this should be completely unnecessary and that kind of “outside the marriage” thinking can only be harmful. I believe this is true for women, too, needless to say. If someone asked me who my two options were, I’d be flummoxed. Even having names in mind would indicate I had one foot out the door emotionally.

      Don’t apologize unless it is a major transgression, and only then, say it once and be done with it. Groveling or asking for forgiveness repeatedly makes you look weak.

      Groveling or apologizing repeatedly is never required. What is required is an apology when you hurt your partner, even unintentionally. For example, I have in the past had a tendency to interrupt my husband. I did it unthinkingly, mostly when I was carried away with enthusiasm about some topic. He finds this extremely annoying, and when I’ve done it, he has pointed it out and I have apologized. That is appropriate, and that’s an end to it.

      Minor transgressions call for minor apologies, major transgressions call for major apologies. And in some cases, e.g. infidelity, an apology may not suffice to redress the wrong.

  • Benton

    Rosin is committing the classic “apex fallacy.” She looks at the 11% of highly successful women who engage in emotional free hookups, and the assumes that all women are acting that way.

    It is also obvious that women like the Yale student are causing some men to turn to game. As long as those women blow off guys who show them attention, they condition the nice guys to avoid them. Only the real players have the game to get their action, so guys either choose to be celibate or learn how to manipulate women.

    It is amazing how “feminists” are so focused on the alpha guys (aka the “FDB”) that they are oblivious to how hookup culture affects other men and women.

  • HanSolo

    Like Dogsquat said, this stuff is powerful medicine, with a low threshold that can kill you. But without it, you are dead anyway.

    I miss Dogsquat. I love that he’s being quoted, as if he were some ancient prophet who has gone on a long journey but his wisdom lives on and his return is hoped for.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HanSolo

      Dogsquat is reportedly returning with a post soon, after a summer break.

  • OffTheCuff

    FWIW, it is obvious Roissy doesn’t have the know-how for (or, more likely, the interest in) keeping a marriage going so that your kids have a decent chance, or even a monogamy where the shared goal is “never break up”.

    But, if you take him from the frame of a serial monogamist with an attitude of abundance – as a way to get a monogamy and then, if it sours, well, no big deal, just go get another one… it is actually quite workable. Self-centered, for sure, but there are plenty of people who do exactly this.

    (I think I’m going to stop using the world LTR and just call it monogamy. That’s all it is, really.)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

      An LTR with “two in the kitty” is not monogamous.

  • JQ

    Susan in re 210:

    Forgive me for being overly obtuse. The odds of an event is P/(1-P) where P is the probability of something happening. Suppose P is 66%, then the odds are 2:1 (or just 2) with the intuitive understanding that for every two times something does happen, there is one time (on average) when it does not.

    Take the example at hand. Suppose for some group of people, the odds of being extremely sexually satisfied by their first marital sex partner is 9:1. This corresponds to a 90% probability. That would be our “baseline” for this example. I want to be clear–I didn’t get 9:1 out of the thesis, I just made it up. According to the model in the thesis, after 40 premarital sex partners, if this is a man, then the odds of being extremely sexually satisfied with their first marital sex partner are (0.12)(9) = 1.08 (1.08:1 “for” in better’s parlance) or a probability of about 52%.

    So to summarize, if B is the probability that a virgin spouse of some background is extremely sexually satisfied with their first marital sex partner, then B/(1-B) is the odds and

    B e^{aN}/(1-B) = (O^N)B/(1-B)

    is the odds of the same after N premarital sex partners where “a” is the reported regression coefficient or “O” is the odds ratio (reported under the “Odds” column of Table 3 of the thesis).

    If I recall correctly you have some background in finance, so hopefully you will forgive the following analogy: continuously compounding interest. The baseline odds B/(1-B) acts like the principal, “a” (the regression coefficient) acts like the interest rate, and N acts like the number of periods. Not a perfect analogy because the interest rate in this case is negative, but I would be surprised if there were not some simple depreciation model which looks and acts very much the same. In this application it is common to take the e^a part and call it the odds where in finance it would be the percentage of the principle after one compounding period.

    I hope that helps.

  • J

    My position on Roissy is a neutral one – I believe that his motive is to help men, and he does this for no (or little) pay.

    Except the adulation of many.

    That’s what motivates Roissy. The blog is a balm for some sort of narcissistic wound he suffered as a kid, I’d bet. That’s why he looks like a “little boy lost” in pictures and why you respond to him. He looks wounded.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Ana, clearly this comment is at least somewhat directed to me referencing that comment.

    Heh actually I was thinking about Sassy’s comments she is probably the only Alpha lover on the whole blog and everything she mentions it she gets praised, not only from you but from the guys for her honesty while “Hope, me, J…get yeah whatever you are outliers” so no I was not thinking about YOU specifically more a pattern I noticed with her then adding the 13 year olds just completed the picture.

    To be clear, I like you, and think you are cool, thoughtful woman, but you are an outlier (not trying to offend you). Would you really dispute that? You’ve given plenty of information yourself to directly indicate you are an outlier.

    Actually I will say that I belong to a niche market in many aspects (nerdy beta lover) but I don’t think I’m much of an outlier in general terms. You need to remember that I hang out with plenty of good girls (from here too, BTW) and I agree with study about a huge majority of them that are just seating on the sidelines, not desiring Alpha’s but no knowing what to do with the ones they like, is like being on school all over again.

    One thing I’ve found about all these discussions is that for the most part men live in the world of general truths and probabilities while recognizing exceptions exist while women live in the world of exceptions and small pool of counterexamples. For a man trying to “figure it out” it is highly counterproductive to live in the world of counterexamples and exceptions.

    Men can be wrong about that view of the world: How many men here come and remember many chances they had and they didn’t noticed? That is the heart of the 100 approach challenge. So it doesn’t mean that if he approaches 10 women and gets shot down all women will, part of game is making men used to rejecting till the numbers play on their favor so this idea is also flawed you can suffer from “living in a swamp syndrome” and think there is only frogs when all you need is to keep trying and move on. You see how many women here come not knowing what to do, too?

    I would directly ask you if a man gets two contradictory assertions from two different women, how would you tell him to go about sussing out which one speaks for more of the overall female population? This is further complicated by the fact that for many women what they say and what they respond to materially differ.

    The study shows that the majority of women are not Alpha chasing so the majority of women are closer to outlier territory than alpha carouselers so what gives? If is the majority according to men’s experiences or the majority according to actual raw data? I mean I’m sure you use studies to make choices too like I learned on Advertising would you tell a client no to invest on a company with 80% of chances of profit if you personally don’t see why?

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    It’s very telling about 13 year olds. It may accurately describe the kinds of thoughts women have as they enter puberty. I don’t know.

    I used to lie a lot when I was in a group of normal girls at that age, everyone was crushing on certain guys and I couldn’t see the attractiveness but I though there was something wrong with me, no to mention if the girls know a serious crush they would so tell, too embarrassing for words. This doesn’t mean that all of them are mean chasers but that the herd impose the mean chasing as bonding activity and you better agree or be called a lesbian or weird. Not many girls want to feel left out specially if High School is as brutal as I had seen in my country it was not that hard and I still lied a lot to not be seen even weirder. Again girls talk a lot of shit, what else is new? YMMV.

  • Mike C

    I used to lie a lot when I was in a group of normal girls at that age, ***everyone was crushing on certain guys and I couldn’t see the attractiveness***

    Given the exchange we just had about outliers, I found this interesting. No further comment necessary.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      No further comment necessary.

      Yes, it is, because you missed Ana’s point.

      Not many girls want to feel left out specially if High School is as brutal as I had seen in my country it was not that hard and I still lied a lot to not be seen even weirder. Again girls talk a lot of shit, what else is new?

      What Ana is saying is that once the Queen Bee decides who is hot, and who is not, every girl who wants to be popular falls into line. No matter who Queen Bee likes, her bf will be voted the hottest, coolest, etc.

      Meanwhile, if a girl is crushing on Tom Hadley who has a small part in the class play (as I was), she will be embarrassed to admit this (as I was). Drama Club? Ew! That is so laaaammme.

      Ana is an outlier here in the sense that she refused to buy in.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Given the exchange we just had about outliers, I found this interesting. No further comment necessary.

    Except that many of this girls grew up to like sweet guys too or marry foreigners…So how many of us were lying? ;)

  • Ramble

    Susan, have you ever addressed *why* 13 year old girls so often go for the worst of kinds of guys?

    It’s not like they are going for idiot nice guys before they mature and then going for intelligent nice guys when they are.

    I knew plenty of girls at that age that did not aim straight for the douchiest of guys. But I also knew plenty who did. And, in general, the ones that aimed their sites on the douche bags were considerably prettier than the ones that did not.

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

    A real man apologizes for his wrongs to the injured party. “I’m sorry you got mad” is a red flag, and men who use that trick should be kicked to the curb.

    BTW, I never heard a guy say something like “I’m sorry you got mad” until I was in college. Before then, it was all girls that were smart enough to simply acknowledge the others persons feelings without addressing whether or not they were objectively wrong (or right).

    Guys, at that age, were dead set on figuring out who was right and who was wrong. Unless they were in a band, then they were simply too busy getting blowjobs.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ramble

      Susan, have you ever addressed *why* 13 year old girls so often go for the worst of kinds of guys?

      At 13, it is mostly the males who lean toward sociopathy who have a very strong frame and indifference to outcomes. The truth is, the “golden boy” does very well with young girls too. The athlete who is a good kid, for example. IOW, very few males at 13 trip sexual attraction triggers, and that’s a good thing. Romance between 13 year olds should not be sexual. Any discussion of who is hot should be purely slumber party speculation, not leading to hookups.

      Guys, at that age, were dead set on figuring out who was right and who was wrong. Unless they were in a band, then they were simply too busy getting blowjobs.

      LOL. fm

  • J

    I don’t think it’s helpful for a married man to have at least two options that he is aware of. If he is fully committed in marriage, and married well, this should be completely unnecessary and that kind of “outside the marriage” thinking can only be harmful. I believe this is true for women, too, needless to say. If someone asked me who my two options were, I’d be flummoxed. Even having names in mind would indicate I had one foot out the door emotionally.

    I understand your point, but there’s a big difference between knowing you have options and acting on them. I could name two men who’d have me if there were no DH; I’m sure that he could name them to. The converse is also true for him. We both have an awareness that this is the case.

    I wouldn’t say that either of us live in a state of dread because we each know the other has options. We also both know that our partner also values the marriage too much to act on that. Neither of us promotes ourselves to third parties or tries to use a third party to create jealousy and dread, but we’d both have to be blind or stupid to believe that the other couldn’t attract another mate. And being cognizant of that does increase our SMP/MMP for each other to a certain, small degree. It’s when all a couple has holding together that they have issues.

    I’m not going to end YMMV because I’d bet this is somewhat typical. Most people do have some other option than their spouse, but intentionally refrain from pursuing it.

    And doesn’t it make sense that if we have some traits that attracted our spouse, those traits will continue to be attractive to others as well? This is one Roissyism to which there is a bit of truth.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @J

      I’d like to think that I could date if I found myself single, but I honestly don’t know any men already that I would be interested in. :P

  • HanSolo

    @Thrasymachus and others re. the nytimes article

    Since the first promethean discovery of fire, since the first desperate grabbing of a stone to club some ravenous beast who was about to go for the jugular and since the first use of a stick to club or impale some poor creature for food, the human invented the tool…and the tool reinvented the human.

    Fast forward to today and these tools have made men’s providing and protecting abilities much less important and, in principle, superfluous. Historically, humanity would obviously not be here without the female (and the male sperm to impregnate). But neither would it be here without the male strength and aggression to fend of saber-tooth tigers and massive wolves.

    The rise of technology and science, for most of history consisting of only occasional bursts of innovation followed by long periods of fine tuning, went along a slow but gradually increasing arc. In the last several hundred years it has grown exponentially with many revolutionary discoveries.

    The female supremacists may take pleasure in the momentary male superfluousness and female necessity for human propagation but miss the point that the same forces that are obviating males will obviate females as well, just slightly later.

    The tools that have largely been exterior may at some point become internalized (of course we will be able to decide whether we want to or not) whether it be genetic engineering, implanted computers, etc. Whether this is 50, 100 or 1000 years away is irrelevant from the big picture.

    It’s rather disturbing. Not just males but humanity as we know it will become superfluous. We will only remain human in it’s full biological meaning if we choose to and aren’t dominated by those that choose not to.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Ana is an outlier here in the sense that she refused to buy in.

    Eventually yes. But that was after I realized that I had a leverage (I was the best student and I always understood the classes if they needed help with their homework they needed to be nice ;) and even then I was shy about my crushes because well I though they wouldn’t find me attractive. I was skinny (Olive Oil and stick insect were my nicknames) I was the youngest one (being the last one to grow boobs and have their period is not funny) and I wasn’t relaxing my hair (for a long time you waited till you were a quinceanera to do so…thank you dad!) so what was the point to crush on the smartest boy on the class? He probably won’t like me anyway. So just paying lip service to asshole number 2 in front of the girls was a lot more effective. It was not like he will ever notice or approach so it was a good way to save face and cry myself alone at home like a good girl does…teenagers are so stupid.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    What Ana is saying is that once the Queen Bee decides who is hot, and who is not, every girl who wants to be popular falls into line. No matter who Queen Bee likes, her bf will be voted the hottest, coolest, etc.

    I wanted to add that this works for artists/celebrities too. My long time crush on Luis Miguel was a secret till I was in college because he was not “cool” in school, they preferred Ricky Martin (ha!) and Chayanne. Funny enough Luis Miguel always sells out when he is singing on DR, ALWAYS and some of his fans are crazier than the Believers or Jesus Pattinson’s fans. Chayanne and Ricky are/were popular but not that extent again stupid, stupid, stupid. If I ever have a daughter I will tell her that the Queen Bee usually has the worst taste don’t pay attention to her, in reality the other girls are probably just lying too.

  • J

    she gets praised…for her honesty while “Hope, me, J…get yeah whatever you are outliers”

    I’ve noticed this as well. We may not fit in to the Roissyian “hot girl” niche (that dimension of circular logic in which stupid behavior is “hot girl” behavior and having a little sense makes a woman “not hot”), but statistically I don’t think we are any more outliers than say STEM guys are. We may not be the majority, but there are still plenty of us. We are the B clique girls, so we’re invisible to a lot of men.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    I’m not going to end YMMV because I’d bet this is somewhat typical. Most people do have some other option than their spouse, but intentionally refrain from pursuing it.

    I don’t know I think in the case of hubby and I we both hated dating with a fire of two thousand suns so we don’t think about what we will do if something happening because we likely become monks (I personally would become a nun and take care of orphans my second option is Jesus Christ :p) , it might not be exciting but I think it helps us to keep the marriage interesting because really no matter how bad (and I mean in normal stuff no abuse or cheating) dating was 1000 times worst.

  • J

    I’d like to think that I could date if I found myself single,

    You would.

    but I honestly don’t know any men already that I would be interested in

    But I’d bet there are some who’d be interested in you.

  • Abbot

    “feminists” are so focused on the alpha guys”

    As were their plain jane sex-minions who now are begrudgingly accepting their lot with all the other men who are in their league [if these men will have them]

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    We are the B clique girls, so we’re invisible to a lot of men.We are the B clique girls, so we’re invisible to a lot of men.

    We are invisible even writing on a blog :D. ..that tells you something about the power of hotness! No wonder so many girls imitate the true hotties, with terrible consequences, what else can they do if they are the ones men notice and listen to?

  • Ted D

    J – “I’m not going to end YMMV because I’d bet this is somewhat typical. Most people do have some other option than their spouse, but intentionally refrain from pursuing it.”

    I can’t put my finger on it exactly, but this statement and the entire conversation does not sit well with me. Do I have options? Well sure. I could walk out the door today and start over. Do I have an idea of what women I would run to tomorrow if my wife pissed me off? Not at all. In fact, at this moment I can’t think of a single woman I know that has given me any solid indication that she’d be interested in a relationship with me given the chance. Have some women flirted with me? Yep. Have a few flirted with me repeatedly? Yep. But, I don’t make any assumptions that this means they would be down for a little bump and grind should I decide to pursue. And as far as it goes, the second I found myself even entertaining such an idea is the moment I would know something was wrong with my relationship.

    I get the idea that no woman (or man) wants to be with a person no one else finds attractive. And I also get the “abundance mentality” preached about all over the ‘sphere. But seriously? Keeping people in mind “just in case” is IMO bordering on one foot out the door. And ya know what? I’m not going to bother, because I know beyond all doubt that if I had to, I could find another woman to be happy with if it came to it. No need to keep someone in mind. To be honest, even if I found myself single again, I’d probably skip any of the women that flirted with me while married anyway. Seems to me they might be a little light on integrity.

  • J

    @Ana

    Oh, I don’t think DH or I would enjoy dating again. We probably wouldn’t as neither of us did the first time around. I just feel sure that we’d be asked.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    I just feel sure that we’d be asked.

    Okay I actually never though about it, but I don’t think anyone that would ask any of us at this point. Hubby has not a lot of female friends that are not the wives or girlfriends of their friends and I don’t have male friends that are not in similar condition and frankly if things fell apart I would be back in my country with my family and there is no chance in hell I will date in DR even if asked so yeah this is my one way ticket to happyland and I’m happy that it is, it keeps me sharp and in the look out for any woman that wakes up and realizes what a catch hubby is, so second option whoever you are be warned, :p

  • J

    Have some women flirted with me? Yep. Have a few flirted with me repeatedly? Yep. But, I don’t make any assumptions that this means they would be down for a little bump and grind should I decide to pursue.

    They would necessarily have to be DTF, the idea that you are still attractive is enough when you are off the market.

    And as far as it goes, the second I found myself even entertaining such an idea is the moment I would know something was wrong with my relationship.

    I think there’s a HUGE difference between knowing you’ve still got it and contemplating an affair.

    To be honest, even if I found myself single again, I’d probably skip any of the women that flirted with me while married anyway. Seems to me they might be a little light on integrity.

    Depends on what you mean by flirting. I would reject a guy who was DTF me because I wouldn’t want to be with a guy who didn’t respect my marriage while it existed. I wouldn’t reject a guy who had complimented me or expressed an interest in me as person though. In fact, if I were to lose my husband, I imagine that I would end up with a widowed or divorced guy who is part of my current social circle and already knows me and finds me attractive and would prefer that to the horror of online dating.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C 155 & 156

    Remembering the value of our time is crucial. Spend it on what’s really most valuable. I think some temporary slaving away can be appropriate in order to achieve some greater goal but doing that you’re whole life, if you have the choice, seems foolish. Yes, getting in debt for the trappings or at least requiring the high income is another aspect of the gilded cage and the gilded hamster wheel.

    Not sure about the helicopter parents thing ending. My parents had me when they were pretty old but they’re from slightly before the helicopter era but my friends’ (younger) parents were helicopter pilots.

    Good luck reaching financial independence. For me, taking this sabbatical wasn’t the best thing purely financially speaking but I figured I’d rather enjoy some time now while I’m still young. I’ll soon be working again so enjoying the last bit of my time off. In addition to earning, saving and investing, I think another key to both financial independence and happiness is realizing what truly makes you happy and that you don’t need all the things everyone else says you do (I’m aware you realize this). And the people/relationship/less-stress side of things is a huge component to happiness. Balance is key. OTOH, the talented slacker may realize he wishes he had done something career or creativity wise whereas the excessive overachiever (except for maybe a few geniuses and others who truly do what they love for their work) will wish he’d spent more time with family and pursuing other interests.

    As to the 70% built on consumption, I wish even just a fraction more of that were devoted to wise capital investments that created more long-term wealth and value.

    Anyway, off to Glacier Park today. If you’ve never been there they are definitely some of the most spectacular mountains in the US.

    Here’s one hike I did recently.

    http://enjoyyourparks.com/GlacierParkGrinnellGlacier.html

  • Doc

    Yes, and I have two words to women for it… THANK YOU….

    “… for the first time in history more success­ful, on average, than the single young men around them.”

    Very true, and it is for that reason that those men who are successful and still single are so popular with the ladies. The bait is yourself, and the fish are jumping into your boat to be caught… Of course, all of those men who aren’t as successful – the other 80% – are ignored. For that 20% who are in demand there is zero incentive to do anything other than hook-up. So, again… Thank you… :)

  • Abbot

    Spiteful stab at HUS for sure-

    http://feministing.com/files/2012/08/hookupCollege.jpeg

    and ho hum, here we go again —

    http://feministing.com/2012/08/27/hook-up-culture-many-young-women-prefer-it-and-thats-not-a-bad-thing/

    More of the same “Use my body…I’ll show you!!!” and “We’re going to ensure men have nothing but the sexually numb for mothers of their children, our played vaginas be damned!!! Aaarrggg!!!!

  • Ted D

    J – “Depends on what you mean by flirting.”

    Of course. There are many different degrees of flirting, and I certainly wouldn’t question a woman’s integrity simply because she was chatty with me. But, as far as it goes, I can’t think of a single woman I know that would be quickly DTF that I would be in the least bit interested in. And, other than at work, I really do not associate with single women. I know a fair share by name, but I don’t really KNOW them at all. All the woman I interact with face to face are attached to male friends of mine. Think what you will of it, but I am of the opinion that opposite sex friendships are a bad idea, and I intentionally do not promote such friendships with women other than those paired off with my male friends because of that opinion.

    If it works for you, so be it. But honestly, this is almost as bad as the discussion we had awhile back about how some couples keep a list of famous people they are supposedly allowed to bang IF the opportunity presents itself. Sorry, but if you are wearing a wedding ring I gave you, there is NO opportunity to have sex with another man. Period. Or, more to the point, the opportunity certainly exists, but the marriage will not after its all said and done.

  • J

    Okay I actually never though about it, but I don’t think anyone that would ask any of us at this point.

    Athough I’m sure you believe that, I doubt it’s true. You’re a former model. I’ve seen your avatar pic. It’s unbelievable that no one would ask you out.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Athough I’m sure you believe that, I doubt it’s true. You’re a former model. I’ve seen your avatar pic. It’s unbelievable that no one would ask you out.

    You are too kind but I really don’t think I’m that attractive in the “I want that one more than air…” sense even though I think I’m aesthetically interesting? Not sure how to explain it. You look at Michelangelo’s David and find him proportionate, attractive and a work of art but you don’t want to have marry him it do you?

  • J

    I can’t think of a single woman I know that would be quickly DTF that I would be in the least bit interested in.

    Well, of course not.

    And, other than at work, I really do not associate with single women.

    What do you mean by associate with? I would assume that you are not meeting other women for lunch or a movie, but I think most of us know people of the opposite sex through work, church, community or social activities who find us attractive and shelve that feeling because because they either honor our commiments to our spouses or to their own spouses if they are married. That’s what I’m talking about.

    Think what you will of it, but I am of the opinion that opposite sex friendships are a bad idea, and I intentionally do not promote such friendships with women other than those paired off with my male friends because of that opinion.

    Actually, I would agree with you that friendships with unattached people are problematic. Friendships where both people are firmly attached to a spouse are easier, but even then one person may catch feelings for the other without anyone really intending that to happen.

    If it works for you, so be it. But honestly, this is almost as bad as the discussion we had awhile back about how some couples keep a list of famous people they are supposedly allowed to bang IF the opportunity presents itself.

    I think that fantasizing about celebs is a really silly place to put energy that could go into working on your relationship. OTOH I accept that it’s pretty common for people to fantasize about attractive people.

    Sorry, but if you are wearing a wedding ring I gave you, there is NO opportunity to have sex with another man. Period. Or, more to the point, the opportunity certainly exists, but the marriage will not after its all said and done.

    IME, and I am really beginning to believe that I’m an outlier in this, there’s a big difference between thought and action. I’m pretty good at stopping myself from acting on errant impulses, so I just let them wash over me and pass…and they always do.

  • J

    I’m not a guy, Ana, but I imagine a lot of men would appreciate you on more than an aesthetic level. That you find it unthinkable to act on it is one thing and of course commendable. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

  • J

    No wonder so many girls imitate the true hotties, with terrible consequences, what else can they do if they are the ones men notice and listen to?

    Well, yeah…though I do think that if you ae patient enough you can find a NAMALT. Of course, you don’t know that when you’re young…

  • Ted D

    J – “IME, and I am really beginning to believe that I’m an outlier in this, there’s a big difference between thought and action.”

    Most surely there is. But, I’m of the mind that the best way to prevent less than satisfactory actions is to stop them from ever becoming a thought. I don’t have to exercise much in terms of physical controls on my behavior because I exercise a lot of control in my thought processes. Or, put simpler, I don’t worry about behaving badly because I don’t even entertain the thought.

    Would I be more upset if my wife actually cheated with some celebrity over just fantasizing about it? Well of course! However, I’m still not thrilled with the idea that she might fantasize about it at all. I can’t stop her if she does, so I try not to dwell on it. But, as far as it goes, I don’t allow myself such thoughts precisely because of how I feel on the subject. I used to berate myself harshly anytime thoughts like this popped into my head. Now, I might allow a thought to pop into existence as long as it drifts right on past. The second I dwell though, I go right back to berating. I simply will not tolerate thought processes that lead me down those dark pathways.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Well, yeah…though I do think that if you ae patient enough you can find a NAMALT. Of course, you don’t know that when you’re young…

    I don’t think the problem is meeting them but recognizing them.
    I mean if the guys are assuming that all girls are putting out with Alpha’s at 5 second notice (or wishing they would) and the hotties they want to bed are probing them right then for them to think that this girl is not putting out right away because she is different is harder as expressed by Mike numbers don’t matter to men in general terms but what they see and they don’t see outliers, and then you have people like Cooper and Desi that had been labeled players for reason’s beyond their comprehension thus they also probably lost chances of meeting the NAMALT’s as well, without even noticing.
    So yeah is not that there are not enough is that we are dealing with Plato’s cave territory, the shadows are the reality but no one believes it, YMMV.

  • Joe

    I think I just found the difference between a woman’s outlook and a man’s.
    @Susan

    I’d like to think that I could date if I found myself single, but I honestly don’t know any men already that I would be interested in. :P

    @Ted D

    In fact, at this moment I can’t think of a single woman I know that has given me any solid indication that she’d be interested in a relationship with me given the chance.

    This has something to do with the Pareto principle, but not the way we’d like to think.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Joe

      I was mostly kidding around there – hence, the stuck out tongue. I know lots of good and attractive men, but they’re all married to women I care about, and I’ve never thought of any of them “that way.”

      The truth is, Ted’s RMV is much, much higher than mine right now – he’s younger and he’s male. I would probably become a spunky old single lady, which would also be fun.

  • Ian

    The reasons given for the alpha girls’ mating preferences would be unsurprising to anyone here: no time…must concentrate on job/travel/grad school; cannot count on a man for support—must be self-sufficient first and then have a merger between equals later in life…some disillusionment with at least the traditional ideal of marriage, family, and motherhood.

    I’ve been kicking around the theory that female early-life career focus is another misindentification of attractors across genders.

    A blue-pill man’s instinct is to make himself attractive to the opposite sex by improving his appearance, acting courteous, pledging devotion, because those are the attractors he knows in himself. A blue-pill woman, based on her attractors, might seek to improve her social and economic standing through education, while demonstrating her sexual attractiveness to peers and hard-to-tie-down reputation. Her sexual history has little bearing on her MMV, which will increase with time, as she gains economic standing, like Clooney.

    We can’t be inside anyone else’s head, all communication is translation, and the gender equality message is probably communicated louder than other sexual messages. If we’re roughly equal, so must our attractors be, is the idea. People can torpedo their MV, while believing they’re increasing it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ian

      People can torpedo their MV, while believing they’re increasing it.

      I think we have an epidemic of this, frankly.

  • Abbot

    ” a merger between equals later in life”

    Where does this notion come from? Is it a wishful hope or do they believe it to be the reality? Unless proven otherwise, convincing women today that this is how it goes is the feminists number one priority otherwise women will reject feminism.

    “there’s a tendency not to talk publicly about the disparity that many women are experiencing between their entirely reasonable expectations of an egalitarian relationship and what’s actually available. There’s a fear that if we tell women about this problem, they’ll reject feminism, even though it’s not like lowering your expectations makes you any happier with guys who expect that women put more into relationships than we get out of them. But privately, I hear it and see it all the time, both women who are holding out for equality and feeling like they’re not really getting anywhere, and women who decide that the chance of getting that egalitarian relationship in this lifetime isn’t possible”

    — Amanda Marcotte

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/14/pandagon-why-empowering-girls-isnt-working/

    Oh god, for the sake of their well being, please keep this awful bitch away from all daughters
    .

  • Escoffier

    What a terrible article.

    Rosin, not you Susan.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      Yesterday Rosin reviewed Sex and God at Yale in the Times, and that was equally bad. I’ve concluded she is a lightweight and a nitwit.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. J #248:
    *Quoting Ms. Walsh*: My position on Roissy is a neutral one – I believe that his motive is to help men, and he does this for no (or little) pay.

    “Except the adulation of many.

    That’s what motivates Roissy. The blog is a balm for some sort of narcissistic wound he suffered as a kid, I’d bet. That’s why he looks like a “little boy lost” in pictures and why you respond to him. He looks wounded.”

    O: With all due respect Ms. J – and the risk of re-freezing our “detente” – I think your statements above, is what I find bothersome. Perhaps it might have something to do with your work profile (I did note that you said you worked in the “helping professions”), perhaps its just yet another instance of the way Women “do” things – but I find it deeply bothersome, because from my POV, it seeks to discredit the ideas by discrediting the Man; a classic Ad Hominem if there ever was one.

    I say this because I have yet to see you actually take on WHAT Roissy says, NOT how he says it or what his personal motivations may or may not be; I mean, let’s start with his “Four Sirens” argument. Do you agree or disagree with this, and why?

    Attempting to discredit Roissy, just like the earlier reactionary commentary regarding Mr. HR, will NOT address the larger issues at hand; and to be frank, having been a target of this line of argument, it only reveals blindspots in those who foist such “views” as woefully under-powered intellectually.

    There’s a heck of a lot that I take personal issue with Roissy on, and since you know my cred in regards to his blog, I don’t need to tell you how long I hung out there; but on the issues that matter, such as the Four Sirens? Yea, Roissy on that. In the end, what I or anyone else may or may not think about him is utterly irrelevant; what is important is the attention he draws to some real ish in our time – and I don’t see much discussion aboout that, to be frank.

    The Four Sirens, Ms. J – true or false – and what will that mean, moving foward, for ALL of us?

    Your comments?

    O.

    P.S.: It has been said that the very act of blogging (and for that matter, being a frequent commenter on a blog, etc.), is a “narcisstic” act. If that’s true, then I think it’s fair to say that quite a few of us would be guilty as charged. Still, I don’t see what that apparent fact would have to do with the price of rice…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It has been said that the very act of blogging (and for that matter, being a frequent commenter on a blog, etc.), is a “narcisstic” act. If that’s true, then I think it’s fair to say that quite a few of us would be guilty as charged.

      I am 100% open about this. I have adored being in the spotlight since I was 2, there are many family stories to prove it. The rewards of blogging are mainly in the area of ego stroking. If it’s possible, I’d say I’m a narcissist with high empathy. :)

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Courtley #116:
    “@Obsidian

    You’re right, even shyer women don’t want to live in a culture where their education and work opportunities are severely limited and their only option for any kind of financial security in life revolve around marriage.”

    O: If it makes them feel any better, the same can be said for/about Men; single guys face all manner of “discrimination” in terms of job and career advancement, for being, well, single. This is especially true in the corporate world, where single guys aren’t taken anywhere near as seriously as single guys. So…cry me a river?

    My point is that, there are tradeoffs to everything in this world; one of the things I went to stress is the fact that there are real tradeoffs for the “freedoms” and “choices” Women in our time today have available to them. For some, the tradeoff will be that they won’t find a mate. It’s a good trade.

    “Before you try to advocate for it, spend some time living in a country and culture that does operate that way, and then get back to us.”

    O: I have a better idea: how about we trade places – you come here to Philly, and I’ll head on over there to Portland or wherever you are on the Pacific Northwest; you get a taste of how quite different Women exercise their “freedom” and “choice” for say, a good month or so, and then you and I trade notes.

    You game? ;)

    O.

  • J

    Most surely there is. But, I’m of the mind that the best way to prevent less than satisfactory actions is to stop them from ever becoming a thought. I don’t have to exercise much in terms of physical controls on my behavior because I exercise a lot of control in my thought processes. Or, put simpler, I don’t worry about behaving badly because I don’t even entertain the thought.

    I’m just the opposite. I don’t feel like I have control over the stuff that crosses my mind but 99.999% over what I do.

    However, I’m still not thrilled with the idea that she might fantasize about it at all.

    I have absolutely no interest in what DH fantasizes about, who he thinks is hot, or any of that. Zero. I never ask if he thinks someone is pretty or even prettier than me. But if he cheats, I’ll kill him. ;-)

    I used to berate myself harshly anytime thoughts like this popped into my head. Now, I might allow a thought to pop into existence as long as it drifts right on past. The second I dwell though, I go right back to berating. I simply will not tolerate thought processes that lead me down those dark pathways.

    That sounds intense. If I think something troublesome, I just shrug my shoulders and move on.

  • J

    I don’t think the problem is meeting them but recognizing them.

    Yes, that too.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    I’m having some problems with this “MMV” acronym; I take it means “marriage market value”? If so, I find the terms to be quite problematic, in much the same way that I find the (fallacious) notion that “Girl Game” to be problematic.

    Sexual Market Value, or SMV, is a kind of catchall terminology that encompasses both one’s short and longterm mate value, based on a number of metrics. It covers all of that. Many out on the market can be of either the short or longtem pairbonding variety. The idea of “MMV” is at the least redundant, and at worst superfluous.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Sexual Market Value, or SMV, is a kind of catchall terminology that encompasses both one’s short and longterm mate value, based on a number of metrics.

      So what is the SMV of a female 10 who has had 150 sexual partners? And how can that be discerned if all you have to go on are looks?

      Since men use different criteria for screening women depending on whether they are considering for STRs or LTRs, there must be a way of distinguishing between sexy women who are worthy of commitment and those who are not.

  • Joe

    @Susan

    @Joe

    I was mostly kidding around there – hence, the stuck out tongue

    Oh, I know you were. But that’s a common way of mitigating a truth, right?

    I didn’t realize until after I hit the “submit” button that it’s also right on topic. Rosin’s merely taken the same idea to the next level, it seems.

  • JustYX

    @Susan

    A friendly warning, ‘spunky’ doesn’t travel to the UK very well…just sayin’

    Same as I was warned for using ‘nailed it’ to mean absolutely precisely defined. Which is okay here, you guys assign it sexual connotations (more than we do).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @JustYX

      A friendly warning, ‘spunky’ doesn’t travel to the UK very well…just sayin’

      Ew, I think I know what that refers to! How about feisty? Did you see Titanic? Do you remember Rose as an old woman with painted toenails and dangly earrings? That’s who I want to be at 100.

  • Tasmin

    @Ian
    “…gender equality message is probably communicated louder than other sexual messages. If we’re roughly equal, so must our attractors be, is the idea. People can torpedo their MV, while believing they’re increasing it.”

    I agree. Though I think that for many men, it isn’t so much a belief that we are increasing our MV, as it is the belief that we have never been desirable to begin with and that we need to continue to work harder to become what women want. And men are not only lied to about what women want, but that it is their duty as a man to become those things – however those things may shift and morph. While women are lied to just the same, they are more often told that it is the system or men’s failings that are preventing them from achieving their happiness.

    I’ve discussed this with several single women who are in their late 20’s to early 40’s and almost all of them are surprised to hear that their professional accomplishments, M.A., and world travels are of little bearing in their overall attractiveness. The message of what men really value – what really attracts for the long-term is just not getting out in any meaningful way and a growing number of women are basically experiencing the bata-male equivalent of years 15 through 30, compacted into whatever window of time they have designated as LTR/Marriage pursuit time.

    Perhaps because men pursue-approach-initiate they are more often faced with the effects of their supplicating, devotional, pedestal behaviors from an early age, while women often do not have the same feedback until they are looking to cash in on those accomplishments later on in life. Men may go many years in wonderment as they experience the disconnect between what they have been told and what actually ‘works’, all while getting very little support from the media and other cultural outlets. They are rarely told to expect anything or that they are entitled to anything or that whatever they lack is due to some external cause.

    So it may take a while or even a deep loss to begin to understand the red pill ways, but we have had the sense that something isn’t working for a long time. But more importantly, we have been told repeatedly that the failings are our fault, that it is our responsibility to decode and adapt. What we hold onto – often what keeps us in the game at all is that it ultimately it is our responsibility, an obligation as a man to provide for our future families – this obligation also happens to be a considerable measure of our attractiveness to women. So we put our heads down and work with no delusion that a shortfall or setback or conscious choice to limit our professional-economic-status trajectory will directly and substantially impact our ability to attract and maintain a relationship.

    With women beginning to take the lead in education, professional tracks, and earning power one of the last remaining anchors for men in this sea of conflicting messages, the provider, is becoming fungible along with the rest of the gender roles and values. This isn’t the problem per se, the problem is that for men there is nothing supported as an “equitable” replacement for the provider role in the eyes of society – and more importantly, in the eyes of the very woman who have elevated themselves to *optional* breadwinners. Accordingly, men who have grown up experiencing the disconnect and accumulated a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the system’s failings along the way, are opting-out. Why go out to sea at all?

    For women the value of those accomplishments from a man’s perspective, the masculine orientation in terms of its impact on attraction and relationship potential, and the reality of opportunity costs are truths that are not just blurred or ignored but are actively contorted and manipulated to further the cause of ‘equality’. And the theme continues: it is men who need to fix this, to become attracted to these things, to “man-up”.

    So just as men can be surprised and disenchanted at the thought of their gentlemanly goodness being little more than gravy – or worse: attraction killers, I suspect women come to this conclusion in a much more costly point in their lives. All within a culture that continues to tell them to ignore reality in favor of a variety of self-serving theories about all of these new and improved ways that men are letting/holding women down. The sad part is that the only decline of men, if we dare call it that, that we ever see are the men who opt-out (losers anyhow) and the men who are riding the wave (players, love-em when they pick you, hate-em when they don’t). While opposite ends of the curve, both are doing nothing more than what women are being encouraged to do every day: go out and get yours.

    And all the while the middle 80% try to navigate the whole mess while hearing a sucking sound from one end and a siren song from the other and a tattered cover of the ‘Mystery Method’ mocking them from their nightstand.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Tasmin

      Incredible, awesome commentary as always. I mean that literally – I am in awe of you.

      I suspect women come to this conclusion in a much more costly point in their lives. All within a culture that continues to tell them to ignore reality in favor of a variety of self-serving theories about all of these new and improved ways that men are letting/holding women down

      This is what I’m trying to fight and boy, does it feel like pissing in the wind sometimes. So many women are beyond saving – they are already too hardened and cynical about men. Part of the reason I like focusing on college students is that they’re horrified but haven’t given up yet, nor have they been thoroughly indoctrinated.

      And all the while the middle 80% try to navigate the whole mess while hearing a sucking sound from one end and a siren song from the other and a tattered cover of the ‘Mystery Method’ mocking them from their nightstand.

      This is a brilliant piece of prose, it gave me goosebumps. Tasmin, IIRC you were in finance or consulting. You should seriously consider a professional writing career.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    From the “Men, Who Needs Them” column: “With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis.”

    The idea that the world would be better off without some category of people has a long and disreputable history. The Inquisition thought the world would be better off without heretics, and burned quite a few of them–though the quantities were small compared with the “achievements” of later eliminationists. The revolutionary Soviet government thought their country would be better off without Kulaks, and hundreds of thousands were killed for crimes such as having an extra pig or two. The policies of the National Socialists of Germany are too well-known to need repeating. The Cambodian Marxist government of Pol Pot thought things would be better off without “intellectuals,” and killed educated people–sometimes even people who just *looked* like they might be educated–by the hundreds of thousands.

    I don’t think there is any serious likelihood that today’s anti-male activists are going to get males eliminated; I *do* think there is a serious likelihood that they will further poison the relationship between the genders and continue to corrode the whole society.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @david foster

      I don’t think there is any serious likelihood that today’s anti-male activists are going to get males eliminated; I *do* think there is a serious likelihood that they will further poison the relationship between the genders and continue to corrode the whole society.

      I concur. I feel like there is an overwhelming campaign of disinformation and propaganda being conducted by feminists. Ugh. I’ll keep writing and hope that when people google Hannah Rosin my critique will show up in the results not too far in.

  • Mike C

    I concur. I feel like there is an overwhelming campaign of disinformation and propaganda being conducted by feminists. Ugh. I’ll keep writing and hope that when people google Hannah Rosin my critique will show up in the results not too far in.

    Susan,

    I think this is a good spot to say that regardless of whatever disagreements we have on particulars, I believe you are fighting the good fight.

    There is something truly bizarre about all these feminist women writing in enthusiastic support of hook-up culture. For guys who are very oriented towards player/cad behavior, they should send these women gifts. I read the Marcotte piece that was linked somewhere, and it strikes me as sort of a petulant child eager to cut off her nose to spite her face.

  • Abbot

    “there is an overwhelming campaign of disinformation and propaganda being conducted by feminists”

    vs

    “JF, Marcotte, et al have a much higher profile in the ‘sphere than they have even name recognition to the average woman”

    verdict?

    They are selling sex and motivating women to self-pimp with the idea that cocking up select men today will not be on the minds of all the other men enthusiastically wifing them up later

  • Desiderius

    Su,

    I have a friend (ex-special forces) who I think could benefit from meeting Bastiat Blogger, and vice versa. If you could pass on my contact info, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

  • Abbot

    “I read the Marcotte piece that was linked somewhere, and it strikes me as sort of a petulant child eager to cut off her nose to spite her face.”

    Well, those are not her daughters she is so willing to throw into the harem pit in the name of overwhelming the system to the point of breaking it. Never let a good crisis [non nurturing parents] go to waste. Cloward Piven. Marcott HATES, really really hates that men separate women into slut and wife piles and that is ONLY because women don’t do that to men generally. She is a sociopathic androgynist and is on the warpath, fangs and claws out. Her minions are no better and they are taking pot shots at HUS”

    This just today–

    “Unlike many of her pearl clutching contemporaries, anxious about the changing nature of female sexual expression, Rosin looks at the evidence and concludes that women are not just surviving in a culture of hooking up, they are leading it.”

    And just look at the photo on top

    http://feministing.com/2012/08/27/hook-up-culture-many-young-women-prefer-it-and-thats-not-a-bad-thing/#more-52365

    AND ONCE AGAIN – WHAT THE HELL IS FEMALE SEXUAL EXPRESSION!!!????? How does it differ from fucking??

    .

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    I don’t think there is any serious likelihood that today’s anti-male activists are going to get males eliminated; I *do* think there is a serious likelihood that they will further poison the relationship between the genders and continue to corrode the whole society.

    1000% agreement. My comment was not to say that this things are not important to fight. More likely feminists will continue trying to make sure the new generations won’t wake up than actually doing any real steps. But is a terrible thing to support anyway.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan

    “This is what I’m trying to fight and boy, does it feel like pissing in the wind sometimes.”

    Right now I am reading a book about wealth disparities between countries and how they are the result of massive differences in how society is arranged. And how these changes are small at first, but build up over time, and can only really be changed by major “shake-ups” that enable new arrangements.

    Example, serfdom was everywhere in Europe, but once the Black Death rolled around, and a ton of serfs died, there was a lot more competition for labor, which gradually resulted in serfs winning more freedom. This slowly resulted in a whole bunch of revolutions in England, which resulted in more freedom, which resulted in better economic arrangements, which resulted in the industrial revolution…etc.

    The thing is, those same “shocks” can result in just tightening things up. In Eastern Europe, serfdom got stronger because the elites were just strong enough to maintain their hold on power. And they got richer by trading with the very rich west, which made them more powerful, which just made everything more oppressive.

    You take this to the US today, and the big shock is the recession, which seems to have affected men worse, delay adulthood even more and make students more indebeted, and makes that whole “Coming Apart” disparity even worse.

    Which makes me think that these huge trends are extremely permanent and have a lot further to go before they get wiped out. And the “correction” may be extreme: Russian inequality doesn’t really change till that whole communism thing, which was verrryyyyyyyyyy bad.

    So, in the grand scheme of things, yeah, you’re sort of pissing in the wind.

    But, honestly, who cares? We’re not trying to change the whole world, we’re trying to help out a few people. Right? You helped out me. You helped out Cooper. You can’t help out everyone, but you still accomplished something useful, right.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ADBG

      But, honestly, who cares? We’re not trying to change the whole world, we’re trying to help out a few people. Right? You helped out me. You helped out Cooper. You can’t help out everyone, but you still accomplished something useful, right.

      Thank you, this made my day. This is the only way to stay sane. One person at a time.

  • Sai

    @JustYX, Anacaona 
    Thanks, I’ll do my best.

    @Susan Walsh
    “A dystopian vision indeed – what will they do with the male infants?”

    !!!
    The whole article is disturbing but there was something extra-creepy that I couldn’t put my finger on until I saw that sentence.
    I just watched “The Prince of Egypt” last night. Pardon me while I freak out.
    Please, I’m no political expert but somebody who is, tell me that tea partiers or immigrants or Ross Perot or Batman or SOMEBODY will keep this from happening! What happened to fairness -yeah, people will often go on about how ‘life’s not fair’ only this time half the population won’t even be around for life to be unfair to them!
    Ok, I’m done.

    @Tom
    “Yes you are correct, but to be fair, a man who is nagged to no end, whos paycheck, no matter how big, isnt good enough, a man who never gets to do his hobbys, a man who never gets to have control because his wife insists on making all the decisions is just a likely to cheat as the sexually dissatisfied man.”
    It’s true, women on Springer would be asking “why?” and some genuinely unhappy men gave reasons like those. Sometimes they’d say the wives were insane too. Maybe they were.
    (I was curious and wanted to watch some fights, that’s why I turned.)

    @Abbot
    “Spiteful stab at HUS for sure-

    http://feministing.com/files/2012/08/hookupCollege.jpeg

    Wow. That was mean.
    Not you, them.

    One last dumb two-part question:
    1. Abortion on demand and the pill
    2. Divorce made easier to obtain
    3. Expanded access to education
    4. Increased entry into the professional/high level work force

    I understand how these four things led to women becoming more independent (good or bad) and men leaving them alone…

    A. It’s hinted that there are other consequences too. What are they?
    B. What alternatives are there?

    Sometimes I think of how it might be if Jaclyn Friedman and Thomas Friedman were related. I know they’re not, but I think it would be funny.

  • Christina Hardford

    “I’ve discussed this with several single women who are in their late 20′s to early 40′s and almost all of them are surprised to hear that their professional accomplishments, M.A., and world travels are of little bearing in their overall attractiveness. ”

    Try to understand that we use these as markers for our character and values. In tallying up our experiences, accomplishments or lack thereof, you will gain a general understanding about what we value in life, and values are indeed of great bearing in overall compatibility and hence long term attractiveness.

  • Courtley

    @O

    “O: I have a better idea: how about we trade places – you come here to Philly, and I’ll head on over there to Portland or wherever you are on the Pacific Northwest; you get a taste of how quite different Women exercise their “freedom” and “choice” for say, a good month or so, and then you and I trade notes.

    You game?

    O.”

    Yeah man, I think that would be fascinating, actually. I am living in Asia right now–so I’m not just throwing that out there without any real experience behind it–but it has definitely made me want to travel within the United States and explore my own culture and country more. I don’t want to overplay the “regionalism” thing but it is an interesting feature of the bigger picture here.

  • Abbot

    “Try to understand that we use these as markers for our character and values.”

    Understood. But its the man who determines what markers or “tells” guide his character evaluation of you. Likewise, your evaluation of him.

    “In tallying up our experiences, accomplishments or lack thereof, you will gain a general understanding about what we value in life”

    If that tally includes spring break tent hopping romps and buying into anything Rosin or Marcotte recommends, well that is going to mask all those other incidentals.

    “values are indeed of great bearing in overall compatibility and hence long term attractiveness.”

    Attractiveness causes attraction. However, if those values hit on the four or five check boxes men have, well you’re good to go

  • Esau

    Susan at 208: “As far as I can tell, my generation was raised in a gender bent fashion – as a female I was masculinized, and my brothers were feminized. Now my generation has produced another, and to the gender confusion we’ve added the cynicism and resentment we developed as a result of this terrible experiment. “

    Step back a moment and think. A lot of that gender bending was devoted to a very definite purpose, to ending manifest gender inequality. And since you yourself owe so much to that effort — your opportunity for advanced education and a professional career — I think it’s profoundly ungrateful for you, of all people, to refer to gender bending as just a “terrible experiment.”

    Here’s a story, which I can’t prove is true but is one way to understand that time. With the realization that society couldn’t go on reserving basic citizenship — education, property ownership, public office — just to men, folks might have sat down for an extended Talmudic debate to shape the new paradigm: should women be able to get an education but not own property, or the other way around? and so on, and so on, and lord only knows how long any real change would have taken, or any real momentum gathered.

    But, with good reason, feminist-minded people (men included) were in a bit more of a hurry, and wanted to establish basic equality of citizenship within one generation and not five. So they hit upon the fast fix: suspend recognition of all gender differences, whenever and to whatever extent possible; then there would be no rational basis for denying any aspect of citizenship to women and basic equality would be the only imaginable option, like a multiple-choice question with just one answer. The central pillar holding up the patriarchy — the conception that men are real people, and women less so — would be kicked out, and the whole thing would come down at once.

    And it worked! at least to a very large extent. The blunt instrument of banishing recognition of gender differences — what we might call “gender identicallity” — did its job, and the door was opened for you, and your daughter, to pursue your potential as you chose. It was an historic leap. But as you’ve been exploring here on HUS, gender identicallity has had a lot of unforeseen side-effects, many of them important and many unfortunate.

    So now we (and by “we” I mean “you”, since I’m too lazy to do any real work) are in the interesting position of trying to decide which parts of gender identicallity to dial back on. Instead of adjusting each piece up, bit by bit, to some ideal setting, we first pushed _all_ the sliders to one extreme — remember the days when stereos had equalizers? — and any adjustments/improvements are now relative to that starting point.

    You have the very clear idea that life under pure gender identicallity, all sliders to extreme, is decidedly sub-optimal for women’s lives. Prominently self-described feminists will be of no help in changing anything here: they are utterly conditioned to seeing any recognition of gender differences as a tool of oppression, period, and so will defend absolute gender identicallity at all costs — you’ve seen this, you understand it, so let’s forget them and move on. And so it falls to you to recommend the future, but it’s not an easy task.

    To pick just one example, you’ve often mentioned the fact that men are a distinct minority of college students in the US — is it 40/60 M/F overall by now? — as a sign that men are somehow in trouble, or disadvantaged, or not thriving. So let me ask you: would you have the mirror parallel reaction if the numbers were reversed? If in some imagined alternate future when your grandchildren are applying to college, would it cause you to worry that women were in trouble if the gender ratio in college were 60/40 or even 70/30 M/F? Is 50/50, or close to it, the only ratio that wouldn’t make you worry? It’s not at all obvious: once you let go of gender identicallity, maybe the “natural,” (now-politically-incorrect) condition is that fewer women will want a higher education, exactly the way the old, die-hard sexist crackers used to claim. Once you head down the non-identicallist road — let’s call it the newer, gentler, benevolent sexism — this is the sort of thing you have to entertain seriously.

    So, that’s my description of the task you’ve undertaken: it’s thoughtful, benevolent sexism, to dial back from extreme gender identicallity, selectively and judiciously, working toward a new optimum for society. As I’ve written here before I can’t see any new solution myself, but don’t let that stop you in your quest; best of luck.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Esau

      A lot of that gender bending was devoted to a very definite purpose, to ending manifest gender inequality. And since you yourself owe so much to that effort — your opportunity for advanced education and a professional career — I think it’s profoundly ungrateful for you, of all people, to refer to gender bending as just a “terrible experiment.”

      I do not see why it was necessary to deny real biological sex differences in order to attain gender equity. In a meritocracy, opportunities are provided across the board, and may the best performer win. I would have succeeded under that paradigm, there was no need for shaming my female characteristics.

      Instead, we offered women all sorts of special inducements – why was that necessary? I am especially ungrateful for this having been done largely on the backs of males. Boys were shushed in class so that girls might speak, they were told to put their hands down to give someone else a chance. We shamed boys even as we encouraged girls to act more like them. Why was this essential for gender equity? What is wrong with “different but equal?”

      The denial of sex differences is a sham and feminists know this now. Women are certainly capable of achieving as women. Why do we have to bust balls to do it? And why should we feel pressured to stick out the corporate grind and hire nannies to raise our children, even if we want to stay at home and can afford it? Why should women in their 20s be shamed for wanting to marry and have a family?

      It was a terrible experiment, because it did not produce gender equity, it produced female supremacy. Perhaps the feminists should have measured twice and cut once before they rushed reforms through by denying gender differences.

      So, that’s my description of the task you’ve undertaken: it’s thoughtful, benevolent sexism, to dial back from extreme gender identicallity, selectively and judiciously, working toward a new optimum for society

      Sexism is the prejudice or discrimination on the basis of sex. I would support a meritocracy, as mentioned earlier. Italy is an example I’m familiar with because my brother lives there. In Italy, anyone may enroll in college, in any subject. You want to be a doctor? Go ahead, sign up for med school! Be forewarned that the curriculum is very difficult, and you won’t be coddled. All those who cannot meet the standard will be weeded out. This is true for all areas of study. Gender does not matter at all. Family connections do not matter. All are welcome at the table, but you have to earn your seat, and if you can’t, you must leave and free up that chair for someone else.

      Such a scheme is not practical for the U.S., but surely we can move closer to some system where people can decide what they want to do and the fittest survive (or thrive).

  • Ian

    I’m having some problems with this “MMV” acronym; I take it means “marriage market value”? If so, I find the terms to be quite problematic…Sexual Market Value, or SMV, is a kind of catchall terminology that encompasses both one’s short and longterm mate value, based on a number of metrics. It covers all of that. Many out on the market can be of either the short or longtem pairbonding variety. The idea of “MMV” is at the least redundant, and at worst superfluous.

    Eh? You’re advocating that suitibilities for all types of sexual relationships be averaged into a single value, based on personal preference.

    Wife, Girlfriend, Fling, Affair, Lawyer, and Dentist are different personal relationships. On the professional end, you’re more likely to form relationships with competent Lawyers by evaluating specifically for Lawyer Market Value, rather than a generalized Professional Market.

    Same on the sexual side, no reason to abandon language made to describe that specification.

  • Ian

    David Foster

    I don’t think there is any serious likelihood that today’s anti-male activists are going to get males eliminated; I *do* think there is a serious likelihood that they will further poison the relationship between the genders and continue to corrode the whole society.

    I used to like going for long walks as a kid – after a few hours of walking, you end up in a different world. People mistake the present moment and their immediate community for all-there-is. Our little cluckings in our little corner of the world will not threaten the world, and they’re no more biologically important than any other person’s cluckings.

    Civilizations have an objective math to them, and, if its inhabitants don’t do that clockwork, they get replaced, their customs with them. It’s as true across communities as within communities. Based on demographics alone, the future just does not belong to college-educated, secular, unmarried women.

    The old society could not survive mass communication, urbanization, and the Pill. Something else will, but almost certainly not secular feminism.

  • Courtley

    @Esau

    A lot of important questions and points here, and I am interested to see how Susan/others respond.

    I think what a lot of us on HUS are focusing on specifically is hook-up culture and some of the impediments to healthy and successful LTRs and marriages in our current society. I think it’s entirely possible and in fact, recognizably beneficial to keep civil equal rights for women while also aspiring to more soulful and meaningful expressions of sexuality than drunken fumbles with strangers. Susan has readers that do want the clock to turn back in terms of women in the workforce specifically, but the broader goal of HUS doesn’t necessitate that. If anything, there’s evidence that women with higher education actually are marrying more now than their less-educated peers, so it’s not the possession of a college degree or having a job in and of itself that seems to create these problems.

  • J

    The old society could not survive mass communication, urbanization, and the Pill. Something else will, but almost certainly not secular feminism.

    Very good observation. This is why Marcotte, Friedman, et al don’t bother me much. I expect that male/female relationships will continue to evolve to fit conditions on the ground, but a future in which the brightest women remain childless is untenable.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @OTC
    Have at least two options that you are aware of, even if you choose not to exercise them. If nobody’s flirting with you, you are in danger of being are low enough value that your wife will lose attraction to you.

    I used to think this was completely ridiculous . . . Then my best friend all but affirmed it. I’m still kind of amazed.

    @Susan
    I don’t think it’s helpful for a married man to have at least two options that he is aware of. If he is fully committed in marriage, and married well, this should be completely unnecessary and that kind of “outside the marriage” thinking can only be harmful.

    While I totally agree with what you’re saying about commitment, Susan, I think that you’re missing the mark ever so slightly. What’s helpful is that married men have “at least two options” that their wives are aware of. Granted, if they need to manipulate their wives that way, they are not married well, but I’d see why they might want to be extra cautious. I’m sure my aforementioned best friend will be fully committed in her own marriage . . . but unless something changes in her character between now and the time a future marriage may be put to the test, that so-called commitment will be a function of her husband’s ability to appear “high value” in some very superficial ways.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Bellita

      that so-called commitment will be a function of her husband’s ability to appear “high value” in some very superficial ways.

      That says it all, really. Just say no to fake attraction.

  • Tasmin

    @Christina
    “Try to understand that we use these as markers for our character and values. In tallying up our experiences, accomplishments or lack thereof, you will gain a general understanding about what we value in life, and values are indeed of great bearing in overall compatibility and hence long term attractiveness.”

    To me this treads very near my point that men are continually told what we need to understand, value, find attractive, etc. But I understand where you are coming from. My comment was not aimed at devaluing accomplishments or education or other experiences of those women, or suggesting that men don’t consider these things at all, but rather my belief that many women project what they find attractive in men onto their own SMV/MMV, which along with other masculine manifestations like aggression, dominance or “confidence” fall somewhere between neutral and deal killers for many men. Yet a shocking number of women I meet have no idea. I’ve got plenty of stories where these accomplished and otherwise attractive women have turned my stomach in all the wrong ways by emphasizing the wrong things, playing up the masculine, using the wrong language, demonstrating the wrong behaviors, all while expecting the right result.

    Some men – perhaps even many, find those things to be of high value and high character, but on the whole, women value those things much more from both the standpoint of short-term attraction and long-term potential than do men.

    Personally, as I have said here before, intelligence, education and other such accomplishments are generally attractive to me and I prioritize accordingly, however other threads have gone into great depths detailing what is attractive or valued by most men and in the end most of those things tend to fall pretty far down the scale relative to other things.

    The point is that people’s experiences and accomplishments can indeed be markers of character or values but the expectation that those markers will/should carry anywhere near the same weight for women in terms of SMV/MMV impact as they do for men with the same markers is just not the case, and pursuing those things under this false belief is proving to be detrimental.

    I admit that these things are part of what I look at in terms of value and character in a woman, but they are only part of the story and some of these indicate sharply diminishing returns as often as they indicate the kind of character I find to be attractive for the long term. E.g. it is quite an accomplishment to make partner at Debevoise and I can respect the hell out of her for doing that, but that goes into the red flag territory for me in terms of attraction. I seriously doubt that most women would put me in red flag territory for being a baller at a white-shoe firm. I speak to that point out of experience.

    The other challenge to these markers is that people want to cherry pick those things from the past that should represent their character and values without regard for context or the other choices they have made and behaviors they exhibit. I.e. don’t go looking into my past relationships or those four years on my back known as college, or when I worked retail for six years between extended trips to exotic locales while you were busting your ass to save for a house, family, retirement, those are off limits. But did I mention where I went to law school?

    I look at the whole package, for context, for progression, for patterns. That is where the values emerge, and many times I am indeed impressed AND attracted. But if a woman thinks that her M.A is going to trump sleeping around or a history of picking DBags or an outsized sense of entitlement then she’s drunk on feminist spiked jungle juice.

    And to be fair, I’m not in a bubble, I’m on the receiving end of women’s judgement too. I’ve been dismissed both preemptively and down-the-line for my ambiguous earning power, my lack of stature (under 6′), my age, my lack of social aggression, my lack of self-promotion, my shitty car, my lack of car, my lack of pop-cultural savvy, because I won’t/don’t “hook up”, because they think that I hook-up, because I use strange language, which doesn’t even begin to include: because I didn’t approach, because I didn’t close, because I didn’t escalate on her pace, because I called too soon, too late, too often, didn’t text, don’t facebook, and have shitty cell coverage at home and no TV. But hey, I’ve got time to garden, a mediocre but growing portfolio of artwork, a substantial library, an unreasonably good sense of color, and I’m “nice”. I am the male equivalent of a fat chick with a good personality as far as many women are concerned. Thats just the truth. The crazy thing would be to expect women to put those things ahead of my resume, my advanced degree, my stock portfolio, or my demonstrated history of diligence, responsibility, and dedication to my family. I know this because I have lived both sides of this spectrum more than once and have seen how my SMV changes accordingly.

    My other point was that there are reasons why men see, feel, experience these truths early and often while most women seem to hit a wall of reality at some point and wonder what went wrong. HUS is hopefully preventing a few women from living this lie but seems to pretty good at helping a few men understand their role in all of this as well.

  • JustYX

    Okay, I’ve let it slide for a few days. I’ve had other things going on that put me in a mood too good to spoil, but…

    I’d just like to make a point about ‘MRAs wanting ebul wimminz back in the kitchen making sammiches and banned from education and ‘real’ careers’.

    Thing is, I believe that I have spent much more time than most here in the manosphere, and no ‘we’/’they’ don’t want that.

    Now you may be thinking of socons and tradcons (I’m English, so my terminology might be screwy) who may have religious values in mind – I don’t know what they think, I’m an atheist. My best ever shouty, rant arguments have been with tardcons et al. I’m actually pretty good at them, I just find them tedious in the extreme, they do NOT listen. That’s why I’m here instead.

    Why do MRAs not get on very well with the *cons? because *cons are the ones that want to force men back to traditional roles of flogging themselves to an early grave to support a wife and kids, some kind of pack-mule for society. “Hey get married and risk getting screwed over in divorce, FRA to grease the divorce wheels, lose all contact with the kids, get jailed for failure to pay impossible child support demands, it’s all good guys. Plenty of room under bus. It’s your duty.”. They abso-effing-lutely refuse to address problems with the legal system, they just strut around saying man-up and marry…I don’t get on well with anyone who is reality divergent in ways that hurt other people. I have much the same issues with radfems. Nobody gets to throw others under bus.

    The vast majority of MRAs that I have ever come across do not want a return to the 50s either (though I’m sure some exist, the manosphere is a very wide church, with no official line – the opposite of the femtards). They are fine with women getting educated, they are fine with women getting whatever damn job they’re qualified for and want. What pisses them/us off is quotas that only ever exist to favour women over men**. Standards dropped on jobs, even when public safety is compromised by it. Feminised media, where men stoopid and primitive, women sophisticated and selective. Women as the inherently moral sex, men as base creatures devoid of grace without a woman. Lies told about women earning 77cents on the dollar, which was debunked decades ago. Domestic violence stats showing that it’s a 50/50 male/female problem. Child abuse being committed more by women than men. Women couldn’t do medicine and science before feminism, pure bullshit that has been debunked multiple times, but is still pumped out by femtards who LIE.

    MRAs are pissed the hell off by the endless lies of feminism and the bigotted family law system and legal travesties like primary-aggressor laws. FRAs that destroy men’s lives, but when uncovered the woman walks away (in the UK they tend to get a little gaol time, in the USA no, not so much).

    If society (returned) to giving everybody a fair shake regardless of sex or colour or belief, I believe that MRA-dom would die tomorrow. I’d put money on it.

    If you want stats etc, look ‘em up they’re out there, just not in the media. But, for starters:

    facts page of AVFM (which has been mellowing for the last year or so IMHO)
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mission-and-values/about/

    Community Of The Wrongly Accused (Successor to False Rape Society)
    http://www.cotwa.info/

    This is GirlWritesWhat’s site. ‘one woman’s quest for gender equality
    ‘. She kicks arse, she also kicks arse on Youtube and she posts a lot on AVFM as a writer, she is not the only woman who does that.
    http://owningyourshit.blogspot.co.uk/

    I have never seen a feminist win an argument based on facts in the manosphere. They don’t often visit because their lies and false stats get ripped apart with ease. Without an ability to lie, they fail in quick time. I can’t claim that AVFM is friendly to anyone who turns up, but it has been mellowing and going more mainstream.

    MRAs just get flat out banned from femtard sites, who to be fair, crush and ban dissension from anyone (not just MRAs).

    ** Esau asked what would happen if it was 60/40 M/F in college? Well it did happen, in the 70s IIRC. The feminists pissed and moaned at this tragic inequity, it was fixed. I haven’t heard anything about the current 40/60 ratio being addressed…have you? All they’re pissing and moaning about now is STEM being male ‘dominated’, it doesn’t seem to occur to them that maybe more males like STEM than females (or they don’t care). But, whatever, you let them apply Title IX to STEM and bye bye America. Your economy will be screwed, only an idiot (or bigot) would want that, but they’re pushing for it…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @JustYX

      you let them apply Title IX to STEM and bye bye America.

      It won’t work, they won’t get the applications from women. It’s a funny thing about aptitude. We tend to like what we’re good at, and we’re good at what we like. Most women don’t like STEM, and most aren’t good at it. STEM will never be 50/50. And then there’s the different distribution of IQ by sex – more men in both long tails.

  • Sai

    @ADBG
    One reason I’ve started favoring libertarianism  is that there are implications women only belong in the kitchen, and implications men only exist for women’s pleasure, but there has to be a middle way… right?

    @Courtley
    ” If anything, there’s evidence that women with higher education actually are marrying more now than their less-educated peers, so it’s not the possession of a college degree or having a job in and of itself that seems to create these problems.”

    Really? Phew.

  • Abbot

    “Try to understand that we use these as markers for our character and values.”

    Understood. But its the man who determines what markers or “tells” guide his character evaluation of you. Likewise, your evaluation of him.

    “In tallying up our experiences, accomplishments or lack thereof, you will gain a general understanding about what we value in life”

    If that tally includes spring break tent hopping romps and buying into anything Rosin or Marcotte recommends, well that is going to mask all those other incidentals.

    “values are indeed of great bearing in overall compatibility and hence long term attractiveness.”

    Attractiveness causes attraction. However, if those values hit on the four or five check boxes men have, well you’re good to go

  • JustYX

    @Susan

    from your reaction, I suspect that you do know what it means.

    Feisty is safe, let’s go with feisty… :)

    At that age (the character), ‘Game Old Bird’ could work. You need decades before you qualify

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    JustYX….”But, whatever, you let them apply Title IX to STEM and bye bye America. Your economy will be screwed, only an idiot (or bigot) would want that, but they’re pushing for it…”

    If there is a second Obama term, there will be a very strong push for this, and if there is not also Dem control of Congress, then an attempt will be made to do it purely by administrative fiat.

  • JustYX

    @Susan

    thanks for releasing #322, it’s my first irritated post in a while…did you miss me?

    I think that it was caught up for either too many links, or maybe the name of GirlWritesWhat’s blog; Owning your shirt, or some such

    Cheers

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @JustYX

      It was the links that put you in mod. I think it’s a good comment.

  • Abbot

    ” people want to cherry pick those things from the past that should represent their character and values without regard for context or the other choices they have made and behaviors they exhibit. I.e. don’t go looking into my past relationships or those four years on my back known as college”

    The woman is attempting to construct a character FOR YOU, is pandering to you and is, well, apologizing for her past and hopes you’ll accept aka not looking into her past. Why? Because she knows full well its a HUGE LTR BLOCK for men and she is even more acutely aware that men who do not care are virtually non existent, even in the US. This four-on-the-back crowd is the main feminist constituency base and is driving all the angst, diatribes, rants, bellyaches, moans, whines. The immense frustration has now driven these feminists to loose their minds and say things like “pull out your penis, I’ll show you who’s in charge bucko!!” It all sort of teeters between the hilarious and the pathetic.

  • JustYX

    @David
    contrary to what you guys might hear, not everybody hates your country :)

    It seems that femtards would rather wreck the economy (and thus all their state funded programs) than just let people do STEM on merit alone.

    I did a STEM degree, we’d have killed to have more women on the courses. The same thing at all the UK companies that I’ve worked at, the guys are more than happy when women engineers turn up on merit.

    Sad to say, not enough women seem to be interested in the first place. The amusing bit is that all the squarking about quotas in STEM seems to come from women doing wimminz studies… The women who want to do it, just get on with it – which is cool

  • Abbot

    “How is confidence a “masculine manifestation”?”

    It isn’t unless one mimics men ie swagger, no fear of rejection, etc

    It is obvious that men are held as the benchmark, the pinnacle to get to…and that ranges from jobs [um, that almighty “career” thingy] to fucking [oops, expressing sexuality]

  • Abbot

    “And since when are men not afraid of rejection?”

    Since prior to about 1970. Rejection was much less common prior to the fuck culture, when highly fertile non-jaded women compelled men to enter into relationships. Few “men” remain today. Women lament and bemoan what they have created – a middle-ground human with a penis and facial hair who ducks for cover at the slightest berating.

  • J

    People behave according to their personality types and culture. Appalachian women behave in ways that would be considered “masculine” by most here, as do women from other demographics, and they are not playing up but this is how they really are.

    I don’t know much about the Appalachian sub-culture, but I do agree that femininity is often defined narrowly in terms of class and culture. When I was growing up, Grace Kelly and Audry Hepburn were the ultimate in femininity. They were “ladies.” They were upper class, cool, sylph-like and WASPy, and they had a lot of imitators like Eva St. Marie and Tippi Hedron, as well as any heroine in a Hitchcock movie. Lower class women were seen as fishwives. Black women and Jewish women were stereotyped as domineering. Immigrant women were regarded as loud, pushy and volatile.

    To be feminine traditionally is to be a “lady.” We forget that a Lady however was the wife of a Lord, a noblewoman who had no real concerns past giving orders to the servants, weaving or lacemaking as a hobby and perhaps playing the harp. Women who had actual survival skills were rough peasants, not ladies.

  • Escoffier

    I would not be so quick to dismiss the virtues of upper class ladies. They are not all shallow partiers. And, some of the parties are for important purposes.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      It’s good to see you back – I hope you had a great vacation!

  • Abbot

    “To be feminine ….”

    Is solely defined by men and has changed little. Probably because it feels right and there is no compelling reason to change

  • Abbot

    “Rejection was much less common…”

    prior to 1970

    therefore

    men had LESS fear of being subject to it

  • Abbot

    “Fundamentally, what’s wrong with hook up culture is the antagonistic, competitive, malevolent attitude towards one’s sexual partners.”

    Yeah, thats gonna produce a real bondable wifey. Be afraid.

    Be. Very. Afraid.

    http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/08/27/a-response-to-rosins-ode-to-hook-up-culture/

    .

  • Abbot

    Well, at least all that wonderful teddy bears and balloons embracing of her sexuality will break her in with the expectation of quickies from you for the rest of her life…

    The Hooker-Up Hardened have arrived

    http://static.thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/08/121.jpg

    .

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com/ Bellita

    My troll senses are tingling! :P

  • Escoffier

    Rosin’s article is nothing more than a post-hoc rationalization.

    Like a lot of feminists, she knows or at least intuits that feminism is responsible for this disaster. She also knows that hook-up culture is not an ancillary effect but a direct and inevitable result of feminism. But she understands that to criticize hook-up culture would be tantamount to criticizing feminism, and we can’t have that now can we? Denial is no longer a good strategy. That was the intellectuals’ tactic of choice over I Am Charlotte Simmons back in 2004 and it only half-worked then but eight years later it has become preposterous as everybody knows what’s going on by now. And silence is not longer viable as hook-up culture increasingly comes up for attack here and elsewhere. Note how she begins her piece by ripping on anti-hookup research. So the only alternative left is an affirmative defense, no matter how incoherent or half-hearted. Feminism is at stake here folks and whatever must be done and said for the cause must be done.

    She reminds me of the “anti-fascist” intellectuals who, in 1939, suddenly found that they had to defend the Hitler-Stalin pact.

    I mean, she interprents Girls as a positive, celebratory portrayal of hookup nation. What more sign does anyone need that she is full of crap?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      I mean, she interprents Girls as a positive, celebratory portrayal of hookup nation. What more sign does anyone need that she is full of crap?

      When Girls first came on, everyone talked about how it told the truth about how miserable young people are having casual sex. Then the media paused and did an about face. Suddenly there were articles talking about the sexual liberation of Gen Y as portrayed by the show. It didn’t help that Lena Dunham capitulated to feminists who were critical – she was eager to placate the media. That’s not surprising, and she’s very young. I don’t really blame her. My biggest worry is that it will change her writing, which would be a tragedy.

  • Ted D

    CH – “Do people who hook up feel malevolent toward each other? I’ve known of a few neutral types, but malevolent? Who’s feeling that?”

    Have you been to any ‘sphere blogs lately? Read any of the comments? There are plenty of professed PUAs that hold women in contempt at best, and are down right rude and malicious in how they describe the women they sleep with. I’ve seen so many comments like “women are only good for a pump and dump” or “women are not capable of real love” from these guys while they are regularly having sex with women. I personally knew a PUA type that always made it a point to tell other guys how horrible women were, and to prove it he would pick one up while we were out together, take her home, bang her, and kick her to the curb. And somehow, in his mind this proved women are not worthy of anything more than a load of his semen.

    I seriously hope you are trolling here, otherwise you should spend a little time at a few of the less civil ‘sphere sites to get bigger picture of the ugliness involved in hooking up.

  • Abbot

    “Feminism is at stake here”

    The supreme and enjoyable irony is that its based on something, and just about the only thing, that feminists cannot influence with legislation – men’s minds. Second to that is getting men to work less at their jobs and contribute more at home. So what is their approach? Ask men to change? No, because they are clouded with anger and mammoth egos. So they resort to claiming that, as of right now, they are in charge of hook ups and they can state that because they know damn well that they are the gatekeepers. As they always have been. But now they are going to own it and use it to access the only man who is guaranteed to never reject them – Mr. Penis.

  • Ted D

    CH – “Take it with a kilo of salt. This is the internet, anyone can claim anything. The people I know for a fact are having casual sex in real life are not contemptuous of each other. And the real players amongst them are not spending any time keyjockying on blogs.”

    Good for you and your circle. Like I said, I literally watched a professed PUA pickup women with the intent and purpose of proving to himself and any other man that would listen that women were trash. I have no idea what mental issues he had, because I didn’t like him and didn’t make any effort to “get to know him” well enough to figure it out. Truth be told, watching him in action literally made me sick. But, he had the attention of several other men in my circle at the time, so it was hard to avoid him. (Yes, we were all in our early 20’s, and at the time Andrew Dice Clay was at the height of his career. I knew many guys that wanted to BE him in fact.)

    And I will also say that if I would have gone the casual route, I’m pretty sure I would have ended up jaded and bitter, and probably resentful of women in general. As it stands I spent a good part of the last year trying to figure out how NOT to be resentful in general and specifically towards women I love and care about.

    But, I answered your question as far is it goes. Feel free to disregard anything I or any other person here says as long as it doesn’t fit YOUR narrative of the hookup/casual sex scene. Obviously we don’t have a clue…

  • Abbot

    “women now dodging relationship in favor of hookups, just like men!”

    Yes, that is the calculated propaganda being spewed. It is not about sex per se and mainly about those precious so-called “careers” that must not be interrupted or compromised by anything but especially by meeting sexual needs with a caring man who does not know the first thing about delivering a feminist-prescribed and therefore unnatural so-called “egalitarian” relationship

    Sung to Mighty Mouse jingle

    MR PENIS! Here I am to save the day!

    Fist in air, cape flowing in the wind

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Sung to Mighty Mouse jingle

      MR PENIS! Here I am to save the day!

      Fist in air, cape flowing in the wind

      LMAO!

  • evilalpha

    The people I know for a fact are having casual sex in real life are not contemptuous of each other. And the real players amongst them are not spending any time keyjockying on blogs.

    Lol. You are so naive and illogical.

  • Escoffier

    I realize you are almost certainly a troll, therefore I am committing a no-no, but I have to point out, you claim to be an expert on PUAs and you have to ask “what is an alpha male”????

  • evilalpha

    What is an Alpha Male?

    Please compare humans to other primates rather than lions… and especially to lions from Disney cartoons.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @evilalpha

      Is it time for afternoon snack? :)

      Please compare humans to other primates rather than lions… and especially to lions from Disney cartoons.

      The alpha male term comes from a wolf scientist, so while we’re at it can we also ban canines?

  • Ted D

    Ch – “Ted, the granddaddies of the PUA movement, the ones who formulated theories and techniques, wrote books and made bank on it do not anywhere profess contempt for women.”

    My bad. Of course a man that sees women only as a breathing sex toy wouldn’t become jaded and bitter about the lack of humanity they see from the females they use. I must have been drinking to think that using others for your own personal gain tended to make people jaded and bitter.

    If you like being used as an autonomous sex toy, knock yourself out. Just be sure to tally up correctly so you can properly hide your number later on down the road…

    And I’m checking out. I’ve tossed far too much food into the troll cage for one day.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    that so-called commitment will be a function of her husband’s ability to appear “high value” in some very superficial ways.

    I know you love your friend Bellita but she is not a “good girl” there should be something beyond “I will be with him as soon as he turns me on” to be considered a real commitment and love and marriage, YMMV.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “That says it all, really. Just say no to fake attraction.”

    Sadly, I’ve known people that don’t know what any other type of attraction feels like.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com/ Bellita

    @Ana
    I know you love your friend Bellita but she is not a “good girl”

    Do you know what the worst part is? When she told me that she has been trying to lure committed men away from their girlfriends, she chuckled as she said, “I feel like a Bad Girl!” And yet, five minutes later, she said that she didn’t think that what she has been doing is wrong. *facepalm*

  • ExNewYorker

    “Try to understand that we use these as markers for our character and values. In tallying up our experiences, accomplishments or lack thereof, you will gain a general understanding about what we value in life, and values are indeed of great bearing in overall compatibility and hence long term attractiveness.”

    Yeah, they do indicate overall compatibility and hence long term attractiveness:
    1) “accomplished career (and can’t shut up about it)”: This is a good indication there’s no room for anything beyond that.
    2) “extensive travel experience”: Addicted to dopamine and probably has a hook up list too high even for Hannah Rosin.
    3) “lots and lots of wonderful friends who I can’t imagine life without”: Basically still has the same hangout habits from college frat parties.

    :-)

    On a note about Rosin’s article, there’s an interesting parallel with STEM women. While I was at MIT, most of the women really were on the overachieving path, and there were a substantial number who didn’t want any relationship (it would be a time sink). Now, they didn’t often head to “hookup-land” as an alternative, but they did have that type of “I don’t want anyone else to influence what I do after I graduate.” So much autonomy that it became hard to actually “need” someone else in their life…

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    JustYX …”you let them apply Title IX to STEM and bye bye America”…Susan…”It won’t work, they won’t get the applications from women. It’s a funny thing about aptitude. We tend to like what we’re good at, and we’re good at what we like.”

    If I were a devious and wicked college administrator, eager to keep the money flowing, you bet I could figure out a way to define some courses that would count as STEM (according to government guidelines) and would also appeal to sufficient numbers of women to meet my quotas/”targets,” especially if I didn’t care anything about the actual employability of graduates (and evidence suggests this isn’t really something that college administrators lose a lot of sleep over.)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If I were a devious and wicked college administrator, eager to keep the money flowing, you bet I could figure out a way to define some courses that would count as STEM (according to government guidelines) and would also appeal to sufficient numbers of women to meet my quotas/”targets,

      The Physics of Austen
      Public Relations in Silicon Valley
      A Sociological Study of Nerd Behavior
      Organic Chemistry as Experienced in Bars
      The Biological Imperative of Sexual Variety for Males
      Vampire Engineering

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Lots of very high-quality posts here; Tasmin has some particularly eloquent observations.

    I personally don’t think Christina Hardford is a troll; I think her questions are legit and that this is a confusing, very frustrating subject.

    As for the quote by that Stevens guy about Mustafa and Scar and lioness queens —as if the real-life male lion running a pride is monogamous and kind as portrayed in the Disney cartoon and associated Broadway spectacle (!)—that posits that an alpha male is someone who heals/co-actualizes women and helps his enemies come into fullness…that certainly is an unusual interpretation. I think that “what alpha males do” is epitomized by what the Navy’s special mission unit operators did to Osama bin Laden.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB

      I think that “what alpha males do” is epitomized by what the Navy’s special mission unit operators did to Osama bin Laden.

      Ever since you introduced this badass concept to define alpha, (it’s amazing you’re the first to do it in the ‘sphere, AFAIK), I have a real heightened awareness of this. I mentioned watching Olympic athletes – all alpha. I’m hooked on Breaking Bad, and Walter White goes from beta to baddest badass alpha ever (and loses his wife’s attraction, interestingly). In real life, these men are very rare.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Christina Hardford

    An excerpt from feminist sociologist Lisa Wade’s piece:

    The problem with hook up culture is not casual sex, nor is it the fact that some women are choosing it, it’s the sexism that encourages men to treat women like pawns and requires women to be just as cunning and manipulative if they want to be in the game; it’s the relentless pressure to be hot that makes some women feel like shit all the time and the rest feel like shit some of the time; it’s the heterosexism that marginalizes and excludes true experimentation with same-sex desire; and it’s the intolerance towards people who would rather be in relationships or practice abstinence (considered boring, pathetic, or weird by many advocates of hook up culture including, perhaps, Rosin).

    Fundamentally, what’s wrong with hook up culture is the antagonistic, competitive, malevolent attitude towards one’s sexual partners. College students largely aren’t experimenting with sexuality nicely. Hook ups aren’t, on the whole, mutually satisfying, strongly consensual, experimental affairs during which both partners express concern for the others’ pleasure. They’re repetitive, awkward, and confusing sexual encounters in which men have orgasms more than twice as often as women.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    The people I know for a fact are having casual sex in real life are not contemptuous of each other.

    If you run in sex-positive feminist circles, that may be true. For most people, however, it’s very much a contemptuous relationship. Both men and women express disapproval and disrespect of people of both sexes who hook up, and the most promiscuous women are harshest re the most promiscuous men.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/18/hookinguprealities/the-continued-emergence-of-a-sexual-single-standard

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Courtley

    In fact, I’d say that openly stating that your sexual preferences fall towards monogamy and emotional intimacy and that you dislike the idea of having sex with random strangers seem to practically be treated as “too judgmental” in some of these circles–or at the very least, incredibly prudish.

    That is incredibly sad.

    This past weekend I was at a leather conference. Lots of nudity and hooking up (both long planned and spontaneous) from kissing, to just S&M, to sex. Yet, I was talking to woman I know casually from various events. Her partner is a male identified woman. She’s also a leather title holder. That’s probably about as far out of the mainstream as you can get sexually.

    We were flirting a little and I said I’d come back later flagging silver lamé, which is what is called “star fucking”. It’s basically indicating your into having sex with celebrities (and in the leather world title holders are). She laughed about that because she’s so monogamous that people did seriously come up to her offering the silver lamé and she was just totally uninterested.

    Even the most “hard core sexual outlaws” can see the value in (and prefer) monogamy (in fact, I could have easily hooked up and my gf even gave me permission with the person in question but…if I was single I’d love to hook up with her but I’d rather hook up with my gf :) ). Yet, that’s too outside the realm of college acceptability.

    Perhaps my acquaintance is truly a sexual outlaw these days, just not for the reasons you might think.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    PS. I don’t think anyone in the community would think less of her or anyone else expressing a personal preference for monogamy. Mostly you’d hear, “Damn, that’s too bad,” as they realized they weren’t going to hook up.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    I love that we’re investigating girls’ ability to operate from an equal sexual platform, but I’d prefer to step back from the prevailing sentiment that “men only want quick, no-strings-attached sex, never long-term commitment.”

    Felt like a slightly sexist assumption upon which the entire article was based. That left me a little flat.”

    The trend is very much toward a single standard, but rather than approving casual sex for women as well as men, there’s a backlash against casual sex in general, by either sex, and men are being held accountable as well as women.

    Personally, I am gratified by this trend. I believe that it is a reflection of the many women who have given the hookup scene a try and come out worse for wear. Like the young woman in the article who won’t hook up anymore, but would love to be asked out for frozen yogurt.

    We already know that only 10% of students regularly hook up. Hookup culture is waning, no matter how much feminists like Rosin try to square the circle.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Susan

    @JustYX

    you let them apply Title IX to STEM and bye bye America.

    It won’t work, they won’t get the applications from women.

    They’ll do it the same way they did with athletes.

    Susan, if you haven’t research what happened to male wrestling, swimming, gymnastics, and other sports in the wake of Title IX. Count how many programs just disappeared when they couldn’t get enough women to meet ratios and didn’t want to give up football as it makes money.

    Physics, geology, chemistry, and engineering will simply shrinking until the STEM fields women do go into (mostly in the biological sciences) are so much larger than the rest that the ratios work. We’ve already seen a university cut Computer Science to save money but leave Women’s Studies alone. Expect as Title IX gets applied to all STEM fields except Vet School (where the ratio is too many women so that’s okay) for many schools to just give up physics and mathematics as separate degree programs. The departments will be small, adjunct taught groups to support biology.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Christina

    I deleted the Jump off piece, because I have no interest in providing a platform for PUA and it wasn’t your original commentary, which I welcome.

  • Escoffier

    I was so sad to leave this time, it was like a little mini-depression. Great trip, though.

    So, I got to see a few episodes of Girls on the plane. There was no question in my mind that, as funny as it was, it was meant as a lament, or really a howl.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So, I got to see a few episodes of Girls on the plane. There was no question in my mind that, as funny as it was, it was meant as a lament, or really a howl.

      Yes, this is exactly how I see it.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    I think that a hook-up culture, female college attendance dominance, delayed marriage, priority of job and travel in the immediate term over family considerations, and so on could be said to result in a more “masculinized” woman, although that’s a loaded term and I use it reluctantly.

    For such a woman to get the lovey-dovey, romantic dopamine jolt of excitement and infatuation from a male partner that she expects (in other words, to feel traditionally feminine when with this man and have those associated buttons pushed), the male in question may now have to offer exaggerated, perhaps even hyper-exaggerated masculine traits. If her hypothetical masculinity index was a “3” in the past and it is now a “5”, she may have needed a “5” man in the past but now requires a “7” to get the same effect. Of course, there will be fewer male 7s available than there were 5s, and so the 7s will respond in ways that are appropriate to their own rational self-interests.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB

      For such a woman to get the lovey-dovey, romantic dopamine jolt of excitement and infatuation from a male partner that she expects (in other words, to feel traditionally feminine when with this man and have those associated buttons pushed), the male in question may now have to offer exaggerated, perhaps even hyper-exaggerated masculine traits.

      Absolutely, I think you’ve hit on something really important here. I’ve talked before about how we’ve desensitized ourselves by showing more body parts and leaving less to the male imagination. (Porn obviously also plays a role.) We’ve upped the ante to a ridiculous degree for sexual attraction from men.

      Perhaps this is the female equivalent. We’re so manly (even hot girls are androgynous), we need increasing dominance from men to feel something. We’re desensitized to masculinity because we’ve crossed a large part of the natural gap between men and women.

      This is what I was trying to say about the 13 year olds who talked about “mean, hot guys.” The one hosting the slumber party is the daughter of a pantywaist father and devourer of romance porn mother. Perhaps even at 13 she is appalled by the joyless, sexless relationship her parents model.

  • Tasmin

    @Christina

    “You’re forgetting that when people first meet we talk about things like where we went to school, what we did there, our jobs, travel, etc.”

    I rarely forget things. But in any case, small talk is just that, but repeatedly pressing in to that territory with the expectation that it turns-on, attracts, or greatly interests most men is off target. Particularly when those things acquire a boastful tone or take up valuable conversational real estate that could be utilized to move the conversation to much richer territory. I used “confidence” as opposed to confidence to illustrate the many ways in which women will mimic what they are accustom to responding positively to when coming from a man, but on average, tends to turn men off. And before you get all lathered up about ‘mimic’, there are exhaustive examples of how the culture has evolved to encourage more masculine – and thus biologically incongruent behaviors in women, so yeah, they mimic male behaviors.

    “Playing, using, demonstrating? People behave according to their personality types and culture. Appalachian women behave in ways that would be considered “masculine” by most here, as do women from other demographics, and they are not playing up but this is how they really are.”

    I’m going to let you off the hook and just ignore your silly reference to Appalachia. Our culture has been instructing women and men to behave in ways that are counter to our natural inclinations and drives and it is in this displacement where we find the failing SMP and MMP as well as a whole host of other issues that are discussed throughout HUS. Personality types are relevant as well and are similarly discussed at length here. The entire premise of HUS is constructed on the very real situation that our culture, which has been heavily influenced by feminist ideology, is creating generations of people who are taught to believe and subsequently behave in false, counterproductive, and often self-destructive ways. The decline of dating, stable and healthy relationships within college populations, and even marriage in favor of self-indulgence, immediate gratification and entitlement – aka “hook-up” culture is not where it ends. The fact that there are significant portions of the male and female population who feel deeply disconnected with this culture and are left feeling isolated, lonely, dissatisfied, and unable to connect intimately suggests that whatever culture and personality drivers are at work are perhaps not aligned with our innate, biological, and/or spiritual needs and desires. However you define “it”, it is not working.

    And while I appreciate that you came out from under your bridge to share your cocktail of two parts oversimplification, one part obtuse, & one part misdirection, with a twist of convolution, and three shakes of regurgitation, I just can’t past all the hair to finish it. And FYI, it smells like a bar mat at last call.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Tasmin

      The entire premise of HUS is constructed on the very real situation that our culture, which has been heavily influenced by feminist ideology, is creating generations of people who are taught to believe and subsequently behave in false, counterproductive, and often self-destructive ways.

      Yes! Well put. I’ve gone so far as to say this eventually destroys the family, which is the bedrock of society. If people can’t muster any empathy for all their fellow disaffected citizens, perhaps they can relate to shrinking capital markets.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Herb: yeah, man, Title IX virtually destroyed college wrestling programs in this country. This kind of thing has effects on scholarships awarded, which has downstream effects on class composition, and so on.

  • J

    @SW #377

    I do believe that you have summoned the Kraken

  • J

    I do believe that you have summoned the Kraken. Count down until Obs or EA explains that alphahood is defined by the number of women a man can attract.

  • Tom

    Title IX did some damage to some mens programs not doubt, but it proved to be a world of difference to many womens programs. I really can not believe there are actually men (and some women) who do not believe that women athletes deserve the same oppertunities to compete as men. Too bad it took the lawmakes to pass a law in order to get the good ole boys club to comply.
    It was disgraceful the conditions the girls had to play in, “IF” they got to play at all.
    My daughter benefited to be sure.
    It was a shame that some boys programs were cut or cut back on, in order to apply some sense of equality to the girls programs, but sh*t happens when things get so lopsided, as they were.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Christina

    “Sorry Sis can’t make it for lunch today, I’m hooking up with this this guy from my STEM class for a yogurt later”

    No, this is incorrect. A hookup is always a physical encounter, and the physical intimacy must precede emotional intimacy. The minimum is kissing. Once emotional intimacy has been established, as when a couple decides to be exclusive or date, they are no longer hooking up, they are “together.”

    May I ask your age and direct experience with hookup culture?

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #388:
    “I do not see why it was necessary to deny real biological sex differences in order to attain gender equity. In a meritocracy, opportunities are provided across the board, and may the best performer win. I would have succeeded under that paradigm, there was no need for shaming my female characteristics.”

    O: Yes, you very well might have; but the problem wasn’t “equality of opportunity” but equality of results. This is at the heart of Affirmative Action, when you really get down to it – which Women have most definitely have benefitted from (Black Women doubly so; they are literally, a “twofer” to corporations, gov’t agencies, organizations and the like).

    “Instead, we offered women all sorts of special inducements – why was that necessary? I am especially ungrateful for this having been done largely on the backs of males. Boys were shushed in class so that girls might speak, they were told to put their hands down to give someone else a chance. We shamed boys even as we encouraged girls to act more like them. Why was this essential for gender equity? What is wrong with “different but equal?””

    O: Several points. For one thing, the answer to your question above was because of the “separate but equal” notion that prevailed in the country prior to Brown v. Board of Education – I am sure you do not need me to illustrate how early and often feminists try to link their “struggle” to that of the Civil Rights (read: Black folk) era. The same can be said of Gay folk, too by the way.

    But another reason was because of ideology – and this is something I’ve been driving at of late; I am sure you have noticed. History shows us that Ideology, at the very least too much of it and left to its own devices, is most surely a bad thing. Pragmatism ain’t sexy and it doesn’t toss red meat to the party faithful, but it gets the job done.

    “The denial of sex differences is a sham and feminists know this now. Women are certainly capable of achieving as women. Why do we have to bust balls to do it? And why should we feel pressured to stick out the corporate grind and hire nannies to raise our children, even if we want to stay at home and can afford it? Why should women in their 20s be shamed for wanting to marry and have a family?”

    O: Because the loudest voices in the Feminist Lobby tend to look like Amanda Marcotte and Rachel Kramer Bussell and Jaclyn Friedman. That’s why. Women who have the option of being a SAHM more often than not, do not look like these ladies. Hot chicks as a rule don’t moan on and on and on about stuff like “street harassment” or “rape” in whatever-the-flavor-this-week’s permutation it happens to be, and so forth. Feminism is very much an attempt by Women lower down the SMV totem pole, to “balance” the market – by way of governmental means. A lot of “Manlike” stuff was pushed, because the shrillest voices in the “movement” were like…wait for it…Men…

    “It was a terrible experiment, because it did not produce gender equity, it produced female supremacy. Perhaps the feminists should have measured twice and cut once before they rushed reforms through by denying gender differences.”

    O: Do you honestly think these gals think they made a mistake? Per Marcotte, what the world needs now is more Feminism – not less…

    “Sexism is the prejudice or discrimination on the basis of sex. I would support a meritocracy, as mentioned earlier. Italy is an example I’m familiar with because my brother lives there. In Italy, anyone may enroll in college, in any subject. You want to be a doctor? Go ahead, sign up for med school! Be forewarned that the curriculum is very difficult, and you won’t be coddled. All those who cannot meet the standard will be weeded out. This is true for all areas of study. Gender does not matter at all. Family connections do not matter. All are welcome at the table, but you have to earn your seat, and if you can’t, you must leave and free up that chair for someone else.”

    O: I can see where you’re coming from, but I am not at all sure I’d really want to use Italy as an example; aside from their historic ah, *criminal problem*, these days they’re right in the crosshairs of the same sort of stuff that’s going down in Greece right now. It is the “I” in “PIGS” after all…

    “Such a scheme is not practical for the U.S., but surely we can move closer to some system where people can decide what they want to do and the fittest survive (or thrive).”

    O: What do you think would indeed be more “practical”?

    Do tell?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      the problem wasn’t “equality of opportunity” but equality of results.

      I’m saying that we should have guaranteed opportunity rather than results.

      In my view, different but equal is not the same as separate but equal. The goal of the Civil Rights movement was a different, i.e. diverse, but equal society.

      Women who have the option of being a SAHM more often than not, do not look like these ladies.

      I disagree. I know they don’t ring any bells for you, but none of them is uglier than your average elementary school mom, IMO. I do think, however, that many feminists are born when girls reach middle school and discover that boys find them unattractive.

      Of course the feminists wouldn’t say, or even admit to themselves, that they made a mistake. All the snarky attitude is a defense against the very idea that they may have screwed some things up along the way. The only recourse now is to encourage and sponsor debate about the effects of their movement. It’s not all that difficult – fewer and fewer women identify with them. They’re radicalized and getting moreso.

      By the way, Jessica Valenti has written a book about motherhood following the birth of her first child. It got trashed in the weekend reviews.

      What do you think would indeed be more “practical”?

      Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t have the answers to society’s big problems. You think I’m a turtle retracting into its shell, but the truth is, what motivates me to get up each morning and write is helping young women and men get together in relationships. The women like those Rosin wrote about – manly and ambitious, wanting only casual sex? I frankly don’t care about them – I’m more focused on helping younger women not turn into them. It’s a narrowly defined mission to be sure, but I’ve never pretended to be anything but a niche player.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Tom

    Title IX did some damage to some mens programs not doubt, but it proved to be a world of difference to many womens programs. I really can not believe there are actually men (and some women) who do not believe that women athletes deserve the same oppertunities to compete as men. Too bad it took the lawmakes to pass a law in order to get the good ole boys club to comply.
    It was disgraceful the conditions the girls had to play in, “IF” they got to play at all.
    My daughter benefited to be sure.
    It was a shame that some boys programs were cut or cut back on, in order to apply some sense of equality to the girls programs, but sh*t happens when things get so lopsided, as they were.

    A few boys programs were cut back on?

    Okay Tom, let’s do some math (you can do math right).

    The current interpretation of Title IX with respect to sports is universities must give a proportional number of scholarships for sports as their student body make up and provide proportional number of sports team slots to women.

    The universities first attempted to do what you seem to think was so important: add new women’s slots and scholarships. However, they found out when they added enough to get to 60% of such slots being for women they had spots routinely going empty.

    But that’s no acceptable. Merely offering the scholarship isn’t enough. If no one takes it a proportional amount of male scholarships (or positions) must be removed.

    So, the question is not are women interested in sports being denied the chances men got but are women as interested in sports participation as men? If they are not then we have decided we must limit male participation to the level of female interest.

    Show me anywhere where limiting female participation to the level of male interest would be considered equality.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #377:
    “Ever since you introduced this badass concept to define alpha, (it’s amazing you’re the first to do it in the ‘sphere, AFAIK),”

    O: He’s not. It’s fairly oldhat. I recall hearing guys trying to “redefine” the term back in ’08 or so.

    “I have a real heightened awareness of this. I mentioned watching Olympic athletes – all alpha. I’m hooked on Breaking Bad, and Walter White goes from beta to baddest badass alpha ever (and loses his wife’s attraction, interestingly). In real life, these men are very rare.”

    O: The whole “debate” surrounding this stuff is weirdly fascinating to me, watching all of you arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It seems like many of you are really trying to conjure up another meaning so that you can fit into it.

    Hmm.

    O.

  • Sai

    @JustYX
    “contrary to what you guys might hear, not everybody hates your country :)”
    I’m glad for that. When I think about traveling overseas I alternate between excitement and worry. I’ve heard that some people pretend to be Canadian…

    @Susan Walsh
    “It’s a funny thing about aptitude. We tend to like what we’re good at, and we’re good at what we like. Most women don’t like STEM, and most aren’t good at it.”

    I HATE MATH. ESPECIALLY CALCULUS.
    Physics is close behind.
    But organic chemistry honestly isn’t that bad. NO CALCULATORS NEEDED :)
    I put up with the rest because I wanted some real $$$ (yes, for traveling among other things), and because my mother is the black analog of one of those stereotypical Asian parents from TV.
    There seemed to be plenty of girls in my science classes ’til the last year, but on campus there was a huge joke about ratios…

    “The Physics of Austen
    Public Relations in Silicon Valley
    A Sociological Study of Nerd Behavior
    Organic Chemistry as Experienced in Bars
    The Biological Imperative of Sexual Variety for Males
    Vampire Engineering”

    I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. Especially at the last one.

    “Such a scheme is not practical for the U.S.”
    It’s not? I thought med school here, there and everywhere was hard no matter your gender. I thought it was SUPPOSED to be hard! Who’s in our hospitals?

    @Herb
    “Even the most “hard core sexual outlaws” can see the value in (and prefer) monogamy”
    I would never do anything ‘hardcore’ unless it was with somebody I really loved and trusted. 
    (I don’t actually do anything hardcore. I was just curious and read some books and articles, and I really got the impression trust is important here.)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sai

      “Such a scheme is not practical for the U.S.”
      It’s not? I thought med school here, there and everywhere was hard no matter your gender. I thought it was SUPPOSED to be hard! Who’s in our hospitals?

      No, I meant that it wouldn’t be practical to have open enrollment at medical schools here. Many are private and would never consider it. In Italy all education is public and free.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    CH, like I said in the last thread, just because hook-up culture works for you, does not mean it works for everyone. And there must be a zeitgeist, and the zeitgeist should not be YOUR values: they make everyone else miserable.

    @everyone in regards to watering down course content
    Gah…”business” calculus…what a ridiculous concept. That’s my experience with it.

  • Abbot

    “But even the purely one-n-done sexual hook ups, I don’t find them sexist.”

    Well, there you have it. Rape is not sexist.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Also @ Sai

    “One reason I’ve started favoring libertarianism is that there are implications women only belong in the kitchen, and implications men only exist for women’s pleasure, but there has to be a middle way… right?”

    This is a set of social constructs that don’t have much to do with economic policy, though. It seems to me that most of the manosphere-esque posters are simply EXTREME contrarians (how else do you resist the all-encompassing feminist culture?) and because of that they are naturally inclined towards libertarian beliefs, too.

    I started out libertarian myself, but over time lost that label. Too many market failures for my tastes, too many interventions I think a government should be doing.

    Just wondering why everyone else I see is a libertarian, though.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Sai #310:
    “One last dumb two-part question:
    1. Abortion on demand and the pill
    2. Divorce made easier to obtain
    3. Expanded access to education
    4. Increased entry into the professional/high level work force

    I understand how these four things led to women becoming more independent (good or bad) and men leaving them alone…”

    O: Correct…

    “A. It’s hinted that there are other consequences too. What are they?”

    O: I’ve been discussing them at some length in this forum. You can catch some of my commentary in this regard on this thread. Start with page one, please.

    “B. What alternatives are there?”

    O: We may have reached a kind of tipping point from which they may not be any return or alternative – at least not one one that’ll scale up to cover the nation at large, anyway. What I think will happen is that Women overall will leave things as are, because for all the moaning they do as a group, the gettin’s too good for them to give any of that up…and to be frank with you, guys like me aren’t really interested in trying to help the ladies square that circle. If they want “freedom” and “choice” then they must be prepared to pay the price of it – which for many Women, can and will most likely to mean, that they’ll spend a goodly portion of their lives alone…but not entirely for the reasons that many would like to believe.

    I mean sure, the whole deal about guys not “Manning Up” and so forth gets a lot of press (and we’ll hear a lot more in the coming years), but when you really think about it, that’s nothing new; down through Human history, most guys for whatever reason, didn’t make the cut. So a cohort of guys washing out, that’s nothing new at all.

    What IS new, is the fact that Women do not “need” Men anymore – and that creates a whole host of new problems that Women are only now beginning to see for themselves. Sure, the whole “there ain’t no good Men left” line assuages egos, but the truth of the matter is that quite a few ladies will have priced themselves out of the market one way or another. The aforementioned factors above lays out how.

    My sense is that, the current cohort of young ladies – say, around Ms. Walsh’s daughter’s age and SES background, ie, White, UMC, around 25 or so? They’ll be OK – somewhere between now and the next five years or so, they’ll pair off, get married and pretty much follow in Ms. Walsh’s footsteps. The window will be closing, but they’ll make it through, for the most part.

    The same deal can be said for their younger “sisters” – those lady college freshmen just going to school as we speak. They may marry right around 30 or so, but again, they should be cool, although by the time they get around to gettin er done, the signs of collapse (more on this in a moment) will be much more apparent – and urgent – than it is right now. We’re looking circa 2022 or so.

    But for the “little sisters” of both these cohorts – and by that I mean, those young ladies entering highschool right now as freshmen? Now, it starts to get really dicey. Four years to finish highschool, another four to go through undergrad, and at least another five years to get through grad school/start a career and experience a bit of “freedom” and “choice” – now we’re talking about somewhere around 2025-2030? Not good, in large part because this is when the White American demographic bomb is due to go off; around mid-century the White American population starts to really drop like a rock, with the vast majority of Boomers dead, followed by a goodly number of GenXers. Put that together with what we’re talking about here, and its pretty much a wrap. They’ll be outliers here and there, who knows, Ms. Walsh may have a hand in that; but for the most part put a fork in it. It’s done.

    So, consider yourself very lucky. You’ll be among the last to be able to follow the Charles Murray “Coming Apart” script.

    Oh, and what I meant by “signs of collapse”?

    What I meant was – and here I agree with Ms. Walsh – I think once we hit the rough mid-century mark, America will enter a period of steady, protracted decline in just about all ways. We could actually begin to look much like Brazil or certain other Latin American countries do today – with the favelas brimming over with Black and Brown folks on the bottom (for the most part), Whites who for whatever reason couldn’t get on trying to get in where they fit in, and a very small elite of White folks who barricade themselves in gated communities…complete with armed guards and the like. They’ll be a few outbursts here and there, but for the most part because the decline happens so gradually, everybody will simply get used to the new normal and accept it. Exactly how this goes down, I’m not quite sure, though I’m keeping an eye on the situation; but in the broadest possible strokes? Yea, we on that.

    O.

  • Mike C

    Gah…”business” calculus…what a ridiculous concept. That’s my experience with it.

    Haha. When I was in undergrad (electrical engineering) we had a elective choice that I think was called “Technical Elective”. Somehow, the “Business Statistics” course in the College of Business qualified so all the engineering students would take it for an easy A. The course would usually be half engineers and half business students. The engineering students obliterated the curve.

  • Abbot

    ” “hooking up” is mainstream slang now ”

    Luckily for certain types of women as it acts to euphemistically numb the reality of the sexually devaluing visceral vagina-booze-penis continuum

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #378:
    “I deleted the Jump off piece, because I have no interest in providing a platform for PUA and it wasn’t your original commentary, which I welcome.”

    O: The problem with this is, that the term “Jumpoff” isn’t one that originated with the PUAs:

    “a female who is avaialable anytime & anyplace for anytype of sexual encounter”

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jump-off

    Another definition for the term is “mistress” or “the other Woman”, etc. Not promoting or endorsing any of this, just wanted to toss this factoid into the pot.

    O.

  • Mike C

    O: The whole “debate” surrounding this stuff is weirdly fascinating to me, watching all of you arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It seems like many of you are really trying to conjure up another meaning so that you can fit into it

    Amen. God, I just wish I could find a way to monetize and collect royalties off the “what is alpha” debates. Others have covered this in exhaustive detail, for many men the desire is to reshape the definition so they can say “I am alpha”. For women, the desire is often about wanting to cast the “good man” as alpha, perhaps a husband, father, etc.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #390:
    “This is what I was trying to say about the 13 year olds who talked about “mean, hot guys.” The one hosting the slumber party is the daughter of a pantywaist father and devourer of romance porn mother. Perhaps even at 13 she is appalled by the joyless, sexless relationship her parents model.”

    O: The problem with this though Ms. Walsh, is like Mike C, I too not only have observed such teenaged girls acting like this (who came from by all accounts middle class, well adjusted, two parent homes; when you have three sisters like me, you get to see quite a lot of stuff up close and personal), but I can tell you without fear of rebuke or reprisal that I know easily several dozen Women right off the top of my head who are twice, thrice, four times as old as those teenage gals and they have the very same attraction triggers. I get tha you have your “mission”; but there comes a time when your ideology has to take a backseat to what you see out on the bricks.

    And again, this simple fact raises some very interesting questions for you: if what Mike and I see are the exact same thing(s), despite the fact that we do NOT share much if anything in common – what does that mean for your studies and grids and graphs and data?

    Hmm?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      And again, this simple fact raises some very interesting questions for you: if what Mike and I see are the exact same thing(s), despite the fact that we do NOT share much if anything in common — what does that mean for your studies and grids and graphs and data?

      Mike did not see it – it was reported by an omega dad at Athol’s site. Sounds like teenage rebellion to me!

      You and Mike are three times the age of the girls gossiping at a sleepover. As I’ve said, the dangerous, brooding loner is nothing new – he’s an archetype. I too have known women to find those guys hot – I have found those guys hot. That’s not the same as having sex with them.

      It’s like flourless dark chocolate cake. A taste, just a sliver, is divine. Eat 10 of them in one sitting and you’ll puke your guts out and never touch the stuff again. That’s kind of how it is with mean guys.

      There’s nothing new here, move along now.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Christina

    There’s a lot of young men hooking up and its extremely sexist to assume they’re sexist pigs, like Wade does.

    I agree with you, but she is a feminist after all.

    The truth is that two people who hook up without strings are essentially masturbating. Furthermore, women are the gatekeepers of sex and have full agency. It’s misandrist to blame men for calling the shots. Women could go Lysistrata and end hookup culture tomorrow.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ian 316:
    “Eh? You’re advocating that suitibilities for all types of sexual relationships be averaged into a single value, based on personal preference.”

    O: Yes, I am – which is how all of us do it. Without sexual attraction, NOTHING HAPPENS. Once that is established, other factors come into play – especially for guys.

    “Wife, Girlfriend, Fling, Affair, Lawyer, and Dentist are different personal relationships.”

    O: Of course they are. But again – if there’s no initial sexual attraction, NOTHING HAPPENS.

    “On the professional end, you’re more likely to form relationships with competent Lawyers by evaluating specifically for Lawyer Market Value, rather than a generalized Professional Market.”

    O: Ian, you’re making this way to Ectomorph/STEM/”INFJ” (or whatever they call it) complicated for your own good. Chill, bruh. It ain’t that deep.

    “Same on the sexual side, no reason to abandon language made to describe that specification.”

    O: See above.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #407:
    “The truth is that two people who hook up without strings are essentially masturbating. Furthermore, women are the gatekeepers of sex and have full agency. It’s misandrist to blame men for calling the shots. Women could go Lysistrata and end hookup culture tomorrow.”

    O: Here, here! – but – we simply must ask:

    Why don’t the ladies do this, Ms. Walsh? Given all that we know about the issue – which at this point, is at least several decades running? Occam’s Razor would suggest, because Women, overall now (I mean per your college market) are indeed getting something out of it that makes the whole thing worthwhile. Otherwise, it wouldn’t exist.

    Yes?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      Why don’t the ladies do this, Ms. Walsh? Given all that we know about the issue — which at this point, is at least several decades running? Occam’s Razor would suggest, because Women, overall now (I mean per your college market) are indeed getting something out of it that makes the whole thing worthwhile. Otherwise, it wouldn’t exist.

      First, hookup culture dates back about 15 years.

      Second, it is on the decline. Both men and women are doing something about it, as only 10% of students like hooking up and do so regularly. It will take a while to unwind, but it’s already happening. The single sexual standard, rising rates of virginity and rising age at first intercourse – all reflect a shift in the supply and demand curves for casual sex among college students.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Do you know what the worst part is? When she told me that she has been trying to lure committed men away from their girlfriends, she chuckled as she said, “I feel like a Bad Girl!” And yet, five minutes later, she said that she didn’t think that what she has been doing is wrong. *facepalm*

    http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110318120943/spore/images/d/d1/Jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-.jpg

    My biggest worry is that it will change her writing, which would be a tragedy.

    I don’t watch the show but if Adam becomes “a good man with the love of Lena’s character” I’m sending angry letters.

    Expect as Title IX gets applied to all STEM fields except Vet School (where the ratio is too many women so that’s okay) for many schools to just give up physics and mathematics as separate degree programs. /i>

    This might sound cruel but I hope this happens sooner than later. Most of my nerdy friends are still in the dark about how the Title X works given that they are not sort fans, if STEM’s start to suffer the same fate they might say “Wait…this is not how is supposed to work” and then you might have more men willing to hear the MRA’s, because I’m sure as hell they won’t listen to anything as off now, they are logical men so they need proof that males are actually left behind for real in an unfair way, YMMV.

    I do believe that you have summoned the Kraken

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Tasmin #327:
    “And to be fair, I’m not in a bubble, I’m on the receiving end of women’s judgement too. I’ve been dismissed both preemptively and down-the-line for my ambiguous earning power, my lack of stature (under 6′), my age, my lack of social aggression, my lack of self-promotion, my shitty car, my lack of car, my lack of pop-cultural savvy, because I won’t/don’t “hook up”, because they think that I hook-up, because I use strange language, which doesn’t even begin to include: because I didn’t approach, because I didn’t close, because I didn’t escalate on her pace, because I called too soon, too late, too often, didn’t text, don’t facebook, and have shitty cell coverage at home and no TV. But hey, I’ve got time to garden, a mediocre but growing portfolio of artwork, a substantial library, an unreasonably good sense of color, and I’m “nice”. I am the male equivalent of a fat chick with a good personality as far as many women are concerned. Thats just the truth.”

    O: Church! My good sir, I do believe you just hit the Quote of the Week…

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #368:
    “When Girls first came on, everyone talked about how it told the truth about how miserable young people are having casual sex. Then the media paused and did an about face. Suddenly there were articles talking about the sexual liberation of Gen Y as portrayed by the show. It didn’t help that Lena Dunham capitulated to feminists who were critical – she was eager to placate the media. That’s not surprising, and she’s very young. I don’t really blame her. My biggest worry is that it will change her writing, which would be a tragedy.”

    O: Yes, that *was* quite interesting how all that went down, ain’t it?

    I remember right after her show get off the ground, Dunham coming under fire for a snarky Twitter response of hers re: the lack of “diversity” on her show; she retorted that she didn’t have a bird over the fact that “Precious” – an Oscar winning film also set in NYC (in this case, 1980s era Harlem) didn’t have White folks bursting at the seams in its cast either.

    Fair enough, I said to myself – this gal’s got moxy, I’ll give her that.

    And then, to see her drop trou, bend over and assume the position for the Feminist Lobby?

    Now THAT’S power.

    And that’s why those guys in the ‘sphere be hopping mad – because these gals, they got pull like that. In the media, in the academia, what we see on tv, hear on radio, read in books, papers, periodicals, you name it – like I said to you a little while back, they don’t call it the Good Mangina Project for nothin’. Matlack’s own forum is fixed to where you can’t get anything on there if it don’t pass by the Feminist Lobby Commisars – trust me, I’ve tried.

    My guess is that the show is pretty much done; if Dunham doesn’t toe the party line the show’s toast; if she does, the show is toast. Either way, put a fork in it.

    It was fun while it lasted…

    O.

  • Abbot

    “Women could go Lysistrata and end hookup culture tomorrow.”

    OMG! [panting, using hand to fan chest, nearly fainting]

    “Here in America, this would be a completely anti-feminist reinforcement of the misogynist view of women as desire-less sexual gatekeepers, who men should interact with solely by giving them something they want as a market transaction in exchange for sex.”

    –Typical razor-up-ass feminist

    Um, cause somehow they know what men are thinking when they interact sexually with women

    http://feministing.com/2012/08/28/quick-hit-sex-strike-as-a-political-weapon/#comments

    .

  • J

    don’t watch the show but if Adam becomes “a good man with the love of Lena’s character” I’m sending angry letters

    Adam is already a good guy in his own ‘spergy way. It’s Hannah who’s sort of narcissitic.

  • J

    @Ana

    I loved that movie down to the mechanical owl. It was Ray Harryhausen’s last film and the end of the era of stop motion animation for the most part.

  • Sai

    @ADBG
    Oops, you’re right… What I should’ve said is I don’t want the government influenced in such a way as would cause it to legislate just plain mistreatment of either gender (take the Title IX discussion, I honestly didn’t know it was that bad). Like others have stated, quotas in the wrong areas mess with prices and quality.

    @Abbot
    That made me laugh more than I think it was supposed to.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    I loved that movie down to the mechanical owl. It was Ray Harryhausen’s last film and the end of the era of stop motion animation for the most part.

    I own that movie. Is on my list of movies to watch during “breastfeeding days” I didn’t even bothered watching the new version is like how can you do better than this? No way!

    Funny anecdote Clash of Titans was on the batch of “Holy Week” movies back in my country (they didn’t had any normal programing since Palm Sunday till Resurrection Sunday and the TV had the same 20 biblical movies in all stations…every single year :( ) along with movies about Jesus and The Tenth Commandments (Another rewatch for the breastfeeding and I want hubby to watch it he never has 220 minutes of movie for the win!) I guess the criteria for holy week movies was “ancient people and no sex”, another one was A woman named Moses…I’m sure they say “Well it has Moses on the title surely is biblical based” growing in a third world country is so weird and funny…weirnny?

  • Escoffier

    “television full of rapes, objectification and prejudice toward women.”

    Which country was this?

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Christina Hardford is Plain Jane.

  • J

    as only 10% of students like hooking up and do so regularly.

    I wonder how that compares to our college days. I’d bet about the same.

  • http://www.greatart.co.uk/ Homeward Bound

    “We could actually begin to look much like Brazil or certain other Latin American countries do today – with the favelas brimming over with Black and Brown folks on the bottom (for the most part), Whites who for whatever reason couldn’t get on trying to get in where they fit in, and a very small elite of White folks who barricade themselves in gated communities…complete with armed guards and the like. They’ll be a few outbursts here and there, but for the most part because the decline happens so gradually, everybody will simply get used to the new normal and accept it. ”

    Doesn’t sound bad. Basically you’re saying we’ll no longer be a nation of fat over consumers and they’ll be a lot of cute mixed babies running around.

  • Sai

    @Susan Walsh
    “No, I meant that it wouldn’t be practical to have open enrollment at medical schools here. Many are private and would never consider it. In Italy all education is public and free.”

    Now I get it. For a second I thought we’d added on to the ‘hospital-accidents-increase-when-new-interns-come-in’ issue.

    @Obsidian
    Oh… Well, I’ll not stick around for a dismal future like that, so thanks for the explanation and warning.

  • Abbot

    “It’s misandrist to blame men for calling the shots. Women could go Lysistrata and end hookup culture tomorrow.”

    “Why don’t the ladies do this, Ms. Walsh? ”

    “Because we don’t want to. If ever we do, we will.”

    — Amanda Marcotte minion

    Because we can’t do without men
    Because we are dependent
    Because we discovered its sooo easy and cheap and effortless to get them*
    Because we can learn to lie about it later…and do
    Because we can’t grow as women without multi penis
    Because we cannot fill our souls without multi penis
    Because we can’t be the best wives later without multi penis today
    Because we cannot express embrace explore empower without multi penis
    Because we don’t want to be the stewards of sexual responsibility for all society despite the fact we are

    *its hard to give up cheap effortless feel-good behavior despite the increasing awareness that its really fucking up their future commitment opportunities.

    Feminists and their promiscuous female subjects would be good for one sexual 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-penis-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 being passed around in 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.

  • Abbot

    ” they’ll be a lot of cute mixed babies running around.”

    Then there will be many happy fathers who will gaze adoringly at their very highly worthy little spring-break-and-ONS-naive brown wives complete with cute accents

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    re: badass concept/alpha. I heard it put this way once, by an evo psych luminary from UT Austin:

    “Imagine that some of your deepest loved ones went on vacation in Mexico or some other foreign country and were kidnapped. You cannot go after them yourself—you can send one representative to act on your behalf. However, you have a magic wand and can create this individual to your specifications. The man who results from this exercise is your idealized conception of an alpha male.”

    I would assume that the man who would result from this would be very attractive to women, but this feature would be a side benefit rather than the result of specific, “let’s do a Cosmo poll and ask women what the want” design. Importantly, I would feel comfortable that he *deserved* to be attractive to women, because he is also the clutch-player type who could get called on to fucking take care of business when the rest of us cannot or will not.

    There are PUA gurus out there who apparently adopt “chatty homosexual” affectations in order to approach women from behind a cover of safety and deceptive harmlessness (I believe this is specifically called “Gay Game”). I’m thinking of two in particular. They may be highly effective at running up N and legitimately skilled social tacticians, but I personally just can’t imagine seeing some kind of stylized Bangkok ladyboy show going on in front of me and then calling those guys “alpha.”

    As Obs and Mike C noted, it probably is becoming a tired discussion, but the term is thrown around so widely in the Manosphere that it has become a sort of universal, stand-alone expression of male excellence, of someone to aspire to. Thus, it may be important for those who do want to see “alpha” at least partially decoupled from “asshat” to try to have some input into the narrative.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB

      I would assume that the man who would result from this would be very attractive to women, but this feature would be a side benefit rather than the result of specific, “let’s do a Cosmo poll and ask women what the want” design.

      Agree, female attraction is a side benefit that comes from his being the top male among males. Female attraction rewards intrasexual competition – which makes a great deal of sense when you consider the ancestral environment. As you’ve noted previously, that guy may or may not make a good companion for a woman. The key point is that he is at the top of the male hierarchy, which proves the superiority of his genes above his competitors.

      UT Austin is probably the strongest evo psych department in the country, btw. Home of Buss and his protoges.

      Anyway, this strikes me as common sense, I don’t really understand the debate. Mystery came along and set out some guidelines for mimicking this badass guy in nightspot environments to trip those attraction triggers in women. Getting laid is the proof you succeeded. So by definition the nightclub alpha is the man who communicated badass alpha signals at first meeting, giving the impression of past intrasexual victory.

      Thus, it may be important for those who do want to see “alpha” at least partially decoupled from “asshat” to try to have some input into the narrative.

      Indeed. I don’t really care how people want to define alpha, but when we include a 23 year old layabout punk who’s always wasted and gets laid by walking around bars yelling insults at girls – well that’s troubling. (I acknowledge that the girls who find this arousing are also troubling, and troubled.)

      I’m going to turn this into a post.

  • Ramble

    I do not see why it was necessary to deny real biological sex differences in order to attain gender equity.

    Simple: STEM.

    Girls were never going to be as good at the objective and logical fields as men, in general.

    If you simply say, “Let the best man/person win”, men, in general, will always win in the fields that matter most, STEM.

    To this day, with more girls graduating from HS, more going to college, more graduating from college and more going to and getting masters degrees, men still make up the lion’s share of STEM positions.

    And, from my experience, a large percentage of girls who do enter STEM fields are so often in management or support positions.

    The people who bang the equalist drum the hardest, deep down, are aware of this.

    This is why denying biological differences is important.

    Now, it should be said that most on the left do NOT deny basic biological differences. But, the most ardent leftists either do deny them or listen to those that do.

  • Ramble

    “Imagine that some of your deepest loved ones went on vacation in Mexico or some other foreign country and were kidnapped. You cannot go after them yourself—you can send one representative to act on your behalf. However, you have a magic wand and can create this individual to your specifications. The man who results from this exercise is your idealized conception of an alpha male.”

    Bastiat, I got a different one for you:

    Imagine that you love in a village and that it is possible, likely even, that some bad people from two towns over might attempt to storm the gates to rape your loved ones and pillage your town, what five neighbors would you choose/create (remember, these neighbors need to have children as well so that your would-be kidnapped daughter has someone to marry)?

    This is your idealized beta.

  • Mike C

    “Imagine that some of your deepest loved ones went on vacation in Mexico or some other foreign country and were kidnapped. You cannot go after them yourself—you can send one representative to act on your behalf. However, you have a magic wand and can create this individual to your specifications. The man who results from this exercise is your idealized conception of an alpha male.”

    Yes, I definitely get this. I think of someone like say Liam Neeson in Taken or Denzel Washington in Man on Fire.

    Importantly, I would feel comfortable that he *deserved* to be attractive to women, because he is also the clutch-player type who could get called on to fucking take care of business when the rest of us cannot or will not.

    Bastiat, I’ll admit I’m uncomfortable with this notion because it essentially sets up a dynamic where pussy/getting laid becomes a “reward” for being a “certain type of guy”. In previous discussions of your HEB-M archetype versus perhaps a guy running more tactical Game, I picked up subtext from other commenters judging the “morality” of their promiscuous lifestyles differently. I’ll admit I find that very distateful. Actions/behavior should be evaluated on their own, not in the context that one guys “deserves” something more.

    There are PUA gurus out there who apparently adopt “chatty homosexual” affectations in order to approach women from behind a cover of safety and deceptive harmlessness (I believe this is specifically called “Gay Game”).

    Yes, I can’t think of the term at the moment but this archetype of a man who is successful with women has been around for hundreds of years.

    but I personally just can’t imagine seeing some kind of stylized Bangkok ladyboy show going on in front of me and then calling those guys “alpha.”

    Agreed. It isn’t relevant to the blog mission here which is decidedly relationship-centric, but it is critically important to realize that just as many women find their way here because “Why can’t I get a boyfriend”, many men find their way to various online destinations because “Why can’t I get laid” especially when they see guys A, B, and C who all get laid without much effort. For better or worse, the term “alpha” got connected with guys who get laid easily because what many guys are trying to deconstruct is what those guys bring to the table that they are lacking. Whether that is “alpha” just becomes a game of linguistic semantics.

    Thus, it may be important for those who do want to see “alpha” at least partially decoupled from “asshat” to try to have some input into the narrative.

    Well…from my vantage point many women have been more interested in pushing the narrative of alpha = asshat douchebag when it fits the narrative that they are bad men who should be avoided at all costs.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      In previous discussions of your HEB-M archetype versus perhaps a guy running more tactical Game, I picked up subtext from other commenters judging the “morality” of their promiscuous lifestyles differently.

      If you are referring to me, I’d like to clarify and say that is not my opinion at all. I don’t evaluate the morality of promiscuity in either case (though I do judge the immorality of any form of deceit to get sex). I have said very clearly that I don’t think anyone deserves sex or any other rewards of attraction from the opposite sex. I am 100% free market in that respect.

      I do feel strongly that men with high N are risky bets for LTRs, especially marriage, and BB knows I hold that view regardless of how the sex was obtained.

      Well…from my vantage point many women have been more interested in pushing the narrative of alpha = asshat douchebag when it fits the narrative that they are bad men who should be avoided at all costs.

      I have definitely done this as a response to the manosphere definition of an alpha male as somewhat who gets laid, period. If that’s your definition, then I’m going to point out that this groups includes a lot of idiots and asshats, all of whom should be avoided by women. I think you said yesterday that women would rather define alpha as a good husband or dad. I think the opposite is true – most women here define betas as the good husbands and dads.

      If you want to define alpha the way BB does, then we can stop arguing right now because getting laid isn’t the criterion, overall masculine achievement is. In BB’s world, an alpha male may be a virgin or monogamous, though he would likely have options for sex. In BB’s definition, working hard to create jealousy in a mate would never be necessary, and in fact would be unworthy of an alpha.

      I’m cool with any definition – if you call a young player running asshole Game an alpha I’m going to say alphas suck. If you call a man who has earned the respect of other men an alpha, I’m going to say fair enough. Of course, the problem with BB’s definition is that very few men get to be alphas.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Well…from my vantage point many women have been more interested in pushing the narrative of alpha = asshat douchebag when it fits the narrative that they are bad men who should be avoided at all costs.

    Hey! At least I’m consistent :D

  • Ian

    O: Ian, you’re making this way to Ectomorph/STEM/”INFJ” (or whatever they call it) complicated for your own good. Chill, bruh. It ain’t that deep.

    Lose the “chill bruh”, I’m not the flailing beta you think is your audience to be preached to. I generally find your posts interesting for the density of thought, but hyperbolic to the point that my take is that you’re masking something else, and trying to prove something to yourself, through others, through a performance. I don’t ask for your advice.

    As to the subject, that sexual relationships begin with sexual attraction doesn’t blur the distinction between sexual market value and marriage market value. The two, again, have different factors that contribute to their value. Sexual attraction is a common denominator, but additional factors make a person better and worsely suitible for marriage. A more sexually attractive person can have lower value as a spouse than someone less attractive.

    This is stretching itself out, but if you care to carry it any further, kindly argue against something in the second paragraph.

  • Mike C

    Hey! At least I’m consistent :D

    Yes, you are! :) And FWIW, I’ve always appreciated that you have a very direct and honest way about you when you respond to someone’s statements/points.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    And FWIW, I’ve always appreciated that you have a very direct and honest way about you when you respond to someone’s statements/points.

    Likewise *kissinthecheek*

  • Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/08/29 « Free Northerner()

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    For better or worse, the term “alpha” got connected with guys who get laid easily because what many guys are trying to deconstruct is what those guys bring to the table that they are lacking. Whether that is “alpha” just becomes a game of linguistic semantics.

    Exactly. In blogs like this and others that examine the SMP, “Alpha” means “Alpha in the SMP”…

    Wure, he could be an “alpha” at home or an “alpha” in his community, or at work, or whatever… but that’s not what this blog’s about or what we’re analyzing…

    Alpha = Alpha in the SMP

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Alpha = Alpha in the SMP

      Yes, but there’s disagreement here as well. I would sooner call a man who succeeds in getting the woman of his choice to fall in love with him an alpha than some pup who’s snagging a lay at closing time. It’s a subjective value judgment, so if alpha = the best male, each person will argue for which man they think is best. Even in the SMP.

      I can’t see my way clear to calling a sexual glutton or jackal the best male.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Sex and the City…FOR DUDES!

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Susan, perhaps reconciliation of the violent evo psych/action film alpha tropes (in which men distinguish an alpha male by being willing to follow his lead, particularly in troubled times) and the sexually-successful SMP version (in which women distinguish the alpha male by having sex with him) *may* have to do with an alpha, as a result of his expensive signals, being a man that women would intuitively be much more inclined to approach and think sexual thoughts about, even if they never acted upon them.

    In theory, I think it should work something like that: the man gains some type of prestige among his peers in a very masculine, valued activity (usually involving stress, possible violence, acquisition of territory/resources, defense, physical prowess, courage, etc.), and then woman responds to related displays by feeling a primal sexual attraction.

    If this relationship between achievement and reward totally breaks down, I think we can get all kinds of confusion, particularly for boys. I believe that it is really dangerous to let an increasingly schizo, politicized group of feminist agitators—both male and female—control the definition of alpha male, because they are going to try to either marginalize it or skew it towards unrecognizable, androgynous traits.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB

      In theory, I think it should work something like that: the man gains some type of prestige among his peers in a very masculine, valued activity (usually involving stress, possible violence, acquisition of territory/resources, defense, physical prowess, courage, etc.), and then woman responds to related displays by feeling a primal sexual attraction.

      Yes, that’s how I see it.

      If this relationship between achievement and reward totally breaks down, I think we can get all kinds of confusion, particularly for boys. I believe that it is really dangerous to let an increasingly schizo, politicized group of feminist agitators—both male and female—control the definition of alpha male, because they are going to try to either marginalize it or skew it towards unrecognizable, androgynous traits.

      I agree about the confusion, and that gets to the values we hope to instill in young men.

      Feminist agitators are ultimately interested in a non-gendered alpha, most of which will be women. Obviously, I think that’s a toxic approach for society.

      There are only two places I see references to alpha males, though:

      1. Research, covering both the positive and negative aspects of the highly aggressive male who is a born leaders, but also may have difficulty in more collaborative settings, e.g. corporate America.

      2. Game, in which alpha is strictly defined by # of sexual partners. A man in an LTR with a SHB 10 having sex three times a day is not alpha, because he’s not out screwing around. At a minimum, he must be constantly exploring and communicating his options for sex outside the relationship or his alpha card will be revoked. It should be clear by now that my objection to this definition of alpha is that it is anathema to healthy relationships between men and women, and a society without those cannot last for long.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    What would Amanda Marcotte think of this:

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB

      What would Amanda Marcotte think of this:

      She would undoubtedly say that men are psychopaths. I thought it was extremely moving – the commitment in the physicality was incredible.

  • Mike C

    Indeed. I don’t really care how people want to define alpha, but when we include a 23 year old layabout punk who’s always wasted and gets laid by walking around bars yelling insults at girls – well that’s troubling. (I acknowledge that the girls who find this arousing are also troubling, and troubled.)

    Susan,

    You are right. IT IS TROUBLING. The fact that it “works” is very troubling. That said, at least to me, it is too convenient and the easy way out to simply say the women it “works” on are dysfunctional in some way. That is probably true to an extent, but there is more to it than that.

    I’m going to turn this into a post.

    Really? Do we really need yet another post on what makes an alpha male? Especially if your core niche mission is getting the 80% in relationships which probably has little to no alphas however you want to define it.

    If you are referring to me, I’d like to clarify and say that is not my opinion at all. I don’t evaluate the morality of promiscuity in either case (though I do judge the immorality of any form of deceit to get sex). I have said very clearly that I don’t think anyone deserves sex or any other rewards of attraction from the opposite sex. I am 100% free market in that respect.

    I appreciate the clarification. I think for a guy I’m pretty darn good at “reading in between the lines” although sometimes I probably overreach a bit. I hadn’t gotten the sense once Bastiat had introduced this HEB-M archetype that you were evaluating their conduct on a different standard.

    I have definitely done this as a response to the manosphere definition of an alpha male as somewhat who gets laid, period. ***If that’s your definition***, then I’m going to point out that this groups includes a lot of idiots and asshats, all of whom should be avoided by women.

    Well…I’ve covered my thoughts on this ad nauseum (alpha-beta attributes on a spectrum). FWIW, I think Bastiat’s attribute of “badassness” is definitely an important one but I don’t see it as the only one in isolation. I have to admit I kind of smiled at your assertion that all male Olympic athletes must be alphas. I think “competitive athleticism” is another attribute but again it is just one part of a mosaic. I’m not ready to walk into any gym, and just because I see a guy pull (deadlift) 405 off the ground declare him an alpha.

    I think the opposite is true – most women here define betas as the good husbands and dads.

    Probably. Although I can think of 2 commenters in particular who seem somewhat emotionally vested in characterizing their husbands as alphas when based on their own descriptions they probably lean more towards either the middle of the spectrum or more towards beta attributes. There isn’t anything negative about that, but just to call a spade a spade. To me, it is suggestive of some conflict of saying “yeah, my husband is a beta”.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      Really? Do we really need yet another post on what makes an alpha male? Especially if your core niche mission is getting the 80% in relationships which probably has little to no alphas however you want to define it.

      The new post is up and is not about that. However, the terminology is important for a key reason. As long as “beta” is used as a pejorative term, without recognition of the importance of beta traits in relationships, guys are going to seek to rid themselves entirely of those traits (which is usually a futile exercise) or feel badly about themselves as loser betas. When you define “alpha” as the winner, and the cost of admission is a lot of casual sex, you’re setting up the wrong incentives, for my purposes.

      I do not want to see men or women migrate from the 80% to the promiscuous 20%, so it makes sense for me to expose what I believe is wrongheaded thinking about what life in the 20% is like, and who that population is.

      Like I said, I can live with any terminology. If players and cads are alpha, then alphas are bad. If men of strong character who have earned the respect of others are alpha, then alphas are awesome. I don’t care what we call them. The former are bad news for women 100% of the time, and the latter may be good relationship material.

      I have to admit I kind of smiled at your assertion that all male Olympic athletes must be alphas…I’m not ready to walk into any gym, and just because I see a guy pull (deadlift) 405 off the ground declare him an alpha.

      Neither am I. I submit there’s a lot of daylight between an Olympic cyclist and a guy who can lift 400 lbs. In my view, the Olympics is about much more than athleticism, or at least that’s how I saw those competitors. Those athletes have a lot of other “stuff” to go that distance.

      To me, it is suggestive of some conflict of saying “yeah, my husband is a beta”.

      That’s hardly surprising when they constantly hear shaming language about betas. If the thread is full of people saying betas are losers, women are going to feel awkward about proclaiming their husband’s betas. When I did that at the Spearhead, I was told that I am obviously a golddigger who never felt attraction for my husband, a terrible mother who allowed her son to grow up beta. Yohami told me my marriage was a sham. I can take it, even laugh it off, but most women don’t want that kind of dressing down.

  • pvw

    Susan:

    I have definitely done this as a response to the manosphere definition of an alpha male as somewhat who gets laid, period. If that’s your definition, then I’m going to point out that this groups includes a lot of idiots and asshats, all of whom should be avoided by women. I think you said yesterday that women would rather define alpha as a good husband or dad. I think the opposite is true – most women here define betas as the good husbands and dads.

    If you want to define alpha the way BB does, then we can stop arguing right now because getting laid isn’t the criterion, overall masculine achievement is. In BB’s world, an alpha male may be a virgin or monogamous, though he would likely have options for sex. In BB’s definition, working hard to create jealousy in a mate would never be necessary, and in fact would be unworthy of an alpha.

    My reply:

    I would add into this category something I think of as the types of men who see themselves as alphas and who then go into marriage with some very warped obsessions about women and submissiveness and who then act as serious hardcore asshats: overcontrolling, overly suspicious, emotionally (if not physically) abusive, inconsiderate of everyone else’s needs (wife and children) but their own and who demand their right to do so because as men they are ordained to be “the head” of the home. I spoke of this some time back, of exposure to men like that in the context of extended family and family friends.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @PVW

      I alluded to this in my new post – there has been some research done about men who engage in negative tactics to guard their mates. The derogate them in a variety of ways as a means of sustaining the relationship, and this behavior is correlated to certain personality characteristics (that are troublesome in and of themselves). Women in relationships need to understand that men using such tactics to keep them interested, attracted or invested share the same traits that narcissists and sociopaths do (and they may in fact be the same people).

  • Mike C

    If this relationship between achievement and reward totally breaks down, I think we can get all kinds of confusion, particularly for boys.

    BB, I think you’ve nailed it here. Confusion reigns.

    Generally speaking, men are linear thinkers. If I do A, B, and C, then the result is I get D. I think it gets very confusing when the result of getting D appears to be very chaotic, arbitrary, and random. I think in the current SMP, there is a lot of confusion on both sides.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #409:
    “Mike did not see it – it was reported by an omega dad at Athol’s site. Sounds like teenage rebellion to me!”

    O: Good! All the better, given the nature of Athol’s venue (btw, he and I have had some very interesting off-the-books conversations…your ideology would be quite miffed)

    “You and Mike are three times the age of the girls gossiping at a sleepover.”

    O: So? What does either of our relative age have to do with the price of rice, please? I saw what I saw way back when, and since you want to suggest that we’re just too old to know any better, I see the exact same thing in my time today; among other things, I happen to live in between two major public middle schools.

    On top of all that, how do you explain Mule Chewing Briars’ recent observation, about some 50-60 girls of about the same age continually flocking to the same small cohort of guys? This took place under the aegis of a church event, as I recall. All the gals hitting on the same small cohort of fellas – wow, now where have we heard/seen that one before…things that make you go hmm…

    “As I’ve said, the dangerous, brooding loner is nothing new – he’s an archetype.”

    O: No one suggested that it was “new”; what we suggested is that it’s a heck of a lot more ubiquitous than certain ideological voices, you among them, claim otherwise.

    “I too have known women to find those guys hot – I have found those guys hot. That’s not the same as having sex with them.”

    O: Speak for yourself, LOL. I’m fairly sure it wouldn’t be too hard to find a goodly number of guys here that would argue otherwise – heck, maybe even a few intellectually honest gals, too. I for one, can personally attest to it, and hey, it’s a free country and I’m all for freedom of association. Just don’t try to get me to imbibe the Purple Drank of PC. I’ll pass.

    “It’s like flourless dark chocolate cake. A taste, just a sliver, is divine. Eat 10 of them in one sitting and you’ll puke your guts out and never touch the stuff again. That’s kind of how it is with mean guys.”

    O: Very interesting choice of words and analogy, given the state of the average lady’s dress size these days…

    “There’s nothing new here, move along now.”

    O: See above.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ian #422:
    “Lose the “chill bruh”, I’m not the flailing beta you think is your audience to be preached to.”

    O: The dog that barks the loudest is the one who got hit, bruh.

    “I generally find your posts interesting for the density of thought,”

    O: Thanks…I think…?

    “but hyperbolic to the point that my take is that you’re masking something else, and trying to prove something to yourself, through others, through a performance. I don’t ask for your advice.”

    O: Nor do I recall giving any; I give to the needy, not the greedy.

    But hey, since I’m in a good mood, I’ll bite – what, pray tell, am I “masking”? What, am I trying to “prove” to myself, “through others, through a performance”? And what, if anything, does this have to do with the price of rice? You were saying?

    “As to the subject, that sexual relationships begin with sexual attraction doesn’t blur the distinction between sexual market value and marriage market value. The two, again, have different factors that contribute to their value. Sexual attraction is a common denominator, but additional factors make a person better and worsely suitible for marriage. A more sexually attractive person can have lower value as a spouse than someone less attractive.”

    O: *Sigh*

    For Long Term, Men Favor Face Over Figure
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/fashion/07STUDIED.html?_r=2&ref=fashion

    And for the record, the vast majoriy of guys couldn’t give a you know what’s behind as to whether the gal who’s looking more like Mother Theresa than Jessica Biel has that heart of gold and is a walking composite of Steven Hawking, Galileo, Sir Issac Newton and Arthur Miller; again, see the above link. S. M. V. All. Day.

    “This is stretching itself out, but if you care to carry it any further, kindly argue against something in the second paragraph.”

    O: Wait, so you first start off attempting to do the Ad Hom thing, then end with a demand that I actually address the topic?

    How he do dat?

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Bastiat:
    “As Obs and Mike C noted, it probably is becoming a tired discussion, but the term is thrown around so widely in the Manosphere that it has become a sort of universal, stand-alone expression of male excellence, of someone to aspire to. Thus, it may be important for those who do want to see “alpha” at least partially decoupled from “asshat” to try to have some input into the narrative.”

    O: Yup, this thing is way past tired, but not for the reasons you posit above.

    The reason why the topic is way past tired is because of what others OUTSIDE of the Manosphere attempt to “do” with the whole Alpha Male thing; as a published author in said ‘sphere, I can tell you that such “debates” go on easily a magnitude more outside the sphere than within it. Mainly it comes down to a combo of disaffected guys and in denial gals trying to re-jigger the term so that it fits their ideological worldviews and assuages their bruised egos. And for real, at the end of the day, it just ain’t that deep.

    This is why I like Buss so much, because he stresses the utmost importance of leaving one’s bruised ego and/or staunch ideological worldview at the front door when it comes to dealing with EvoPsych. \

    People should keep that in mind…

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #429:
    “Yes, but there’s disagreement here as well.”

    O: As always, consider the source – who are the ones “disagreeing”, and *why* do they “disagree”? I mean, is it based on EvoPsych grounds, or is this more a bruised ego/ideological thang?

    “I would sooner call a man who succeeds in getting the woman of his choice to fall in love with him an alpha than some pup who’s snagging a lay at closing time.”

    O: Both have won the evolutionary rat race. The End.

    “It’s a subjective value judgment, so if alpha = the best male, each person will argue for which man they think is best. Even in the SMP.”

    O: No, only those who have bruised egos and/or deeply held ideological positions and views staked out will do such things. In purely EvoPsych terms, both won. Period.

    “I can’t see my way clear to calling a sexual glutton or jackal the best male.”

    O: “Best” is a value-judgment term. It has no place in EvoPsych.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Both have won the evolutionary rat race. The End.

      There is evidence that men who have regular sex with one person have significantly more children than men who have casual sex with many women. A man who has sex and does not father a child does not win the race.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      You can’t pick and choose your Evo Psych principles. Evo Psych tells us that women evolved to prefer nice guys with a long-term mating orientation over Dark Triad guys with a short-term mating orientation. Both are mating strategies still in existence today – but the majority of women will prefer the former. There’s a lot that I share here straight out of Evo Psych that you dispute, presumably because you limit your reading to David Buss.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Mike C:
    “Yes, you are! And FWIW, I’ve always appreciated that you have a very direct and honest way about you when you respond to someone’s statements/points.”

    O: I don’t know about that, bruh; I’ve personally found Ms. Anacaona to be anything *but* “direct and honest”, and I have the saved posts of our exchanges to prove it. What I think is fair to say is that she is very opinionated and has a certain kind of zeal in promoting her pet stuff, which again, is perfectly cool by me; it is a free country after all.

    Speaking of which…a little while back Ms. Walsh made the point that frequent HUS commenter Abbott was brown so long as he didn’t do the “American Woman” thing; if he did, she’d make his comments disappear.

    But she doesn’t seem to have any problem with Ms. Anacaona doing exactly the same thing when she goes hard in the paint on ALL the guys back in her old country…what’s up with that?

    Now, to be fair, I don’t really vibe to the notion that *all* American Women are just to the curb, though I don’t knock any guy’s right to find love or lust anywhere he can. If the Mail Order Bride thing is working for him, who am I to knock his hustle?

    But if we’re gonna delete comments for going hard on one group, why then all comments that go on and on and on about another?

    *Question mark over head*

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But she doesn’t seem to have any problem with Ms. Anacaona doing exactly the same thing when she goes hard in the paint on ALL the guys back in her old country…what’s up with that?

      Anacaona does not risk offending my readership. She generally shares specific reports of events she has witnessed, as well as the culture she’s from.

      Abbott does offend my readers every time he says that all American women are worthless and not worthy of commitment. If Abbott had anecdotal experience to share that might be different, but he just rails against American women as all being like Jaclyn Friedman. I do not censor Abbott’s general remarks about the culture.

      My policy is consistent.

  • Escoffier

    “Beta” is not supposed to be an insult, rather a descriptive term. I mean, if a beta is a man who controls his life and appetites, is loyal and doesn’t cheat, works, maintains a good home, raises his children well, and so on, how are these things bad?

    Some people, it seems to me, are too sensetive about being called beta or about calling someone they love beta.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      Some people, it seems to me, are too sensetive about being called beta or about calling someone they love beta.

      Agreed, but as I said, that’s because betas are shamed in the ‘sphere. They are often referred to as simpering, hapless, losers, etc.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #411:
    “Christina Hardford is Plain Jane.”

    O: Yea, I dug that, too.

    Here’s the thing though, if you don’t mind:

    You’ve said recently, that we all have our reasons for being in this (or for that matter, just about any forum), airing our views out and having our voices heard; I make no bones about the fact that this is most definitely true for me. My personal reasons are varied and sundried, among them, because of the fact that I abhor ideological echo chambers, and, because I think we need to hear from a much broader spectrum of voices so that we not only gain a broader perspective, but we can actually begin to acid test some of the stuff we’ve been hearing for years. And I love a good tussle.

    But here’s the thing – why do you think Plain Jane is here? Anyone who goes to the lengths she does to be here or anywhere else certainly must have a reason for it. I’ve tried getting her to talk about this, but haven’t been successful thus far; perhaps someone else will have better luck. In the meantime though Ms. Walsh, why do you think PJ is here? What is it she is trying to say?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But here’s the thing — why do you think Plain Jane is here? Anyone who goes to the lengths she does to be here or anywhere else certainly must have a reason for it.

      If Plain Jane adopted one handle and shared consistent views I would have no problem with her. She is intelligent and makes some highly insightful remarks. But it’s unfair to other readers to be constantly switching identities and genders, pretending to be new to HUS. People are often welcoming, and patient, only to find out it’s Plain Jane again. In addition to this being annoying, it totally obscures any real message she is trying to convey. I don’t know if she is mentally ill or what, but it’s not acceptable and I will continue to delete her upon discovery. I’m sure she enjoys these little charades while they last. Usually I don’t block her until I’m sure it’s her, because there have been a few false positives along the way and I don’t want to ban a legit and interested reader.

  • Escoffier

    I doubt my wife knows the terms, though who knows. However, if you described “beta” as I did above and then asked her “Is your husband that?” she would say “Certainly” and be bewildered by the suggestion that there is any shame in it.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Rosin’s article remind me of this scene of Erik The Viking:

  • Escoffier

    Susan, you probably don’t want to get into this again, but I think it continues to be important. We really do need to understand what an SMP alpha is if we want to understand the things we here are all trying to understand.

    So, from what you said above, it’s important to note that alpha is distinct from virtuous, moral, admirable, etc. An alpha might be a guy who gets the respect (and/or envy) of other men, but then again he might not.

    Also, it’s not so simple as to leave it at the tautological “an alpha is a guy who gets laid.” An alpha is a guy with the traits that are broadly attractive to women and that would allow him to get laid a lot if he wants to. Not all of them want to. But, it does seem in this SMP, that a lot of them choose to because they can.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      Susan, you probably don’t want to get into this again, but I think it continues to be important. We really do need to understand what an SMP alpha is if we want to understand the things we here are all trying to understand.

      I think it’s fair to say we’re not going to reach consensus on that. So I’ll let you define alpha and respond accordingly. I just need to know whether alphas are good for relationships or not.

      Also, it’s not so simple as to leave it at the tautological “an alpha is a guy who gets laid.” An alpha is a guy with the traits that are broadly attractive to women and that would allow him to get laid a lot if he wants to. Not all of them want to. But, it does seem in this SMP, that a lot of them choose to because they can.

      That is not the manosphere definition.

      Shall we let Roissy be the final arbiter? A couple of weeks ago Roissy called Robert Pattinson a loser beta for being in a monogamous relationship. Interestingly, his SMV test for men has nothing in it about past sexual experience.

      http://heartiste.wordpress.com/dating-market-value-test-for-men/

      By Roissy’s rubric, people you have defined as “SMP winners” would earn a low score on this test,

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #404:
    “I’m saying that we should have guaranteed opportunity rather than results.”

    O: Ms. Walsh, how many Women, White, Black or otherwise, are REALLY good with getting rid of Affirmative Action? We both know that, to ask the question, is to answer it.

    “In my view, different but equal is not the same as separate but equal. The goal of the Civil Rights movement was a different, i.e. diverse, but equal society.”

    O: Sure, but here’s the thing: in both cases, the CR and the FL (Feminist Lobby), it is verboten to criticize, in ANY way, either of those movements; to suggest that either of them had unintended consequences, or side effects, is tantamount to bringing back Jim Crow or chaining Women to the kitchen barefoot and pregnant – and the Professionally Aggrieved in both camps know and plays to/on this. In the case of the CR, and more specifically Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the point was to end “segregation” in the schools. Well, guess what? Some five decades later, we come to find out that not only is there just as much, if not MORE “segregation” in the schools, but those schools that are Black in every way, are truly piss-poor in every way, too. This is what Cosby was driving at, though I think his personal frustration got out in front of him and alas, the real message got lost in the sauce. But the real deal is, that public/government agencies like the Education Dept. have long been cash cows for the Black middle class – and in that same period of time we’ve seen massive declines of Black student performance, as Thomas Sowell makes quite clear in what he considers his favorite work “Black Rednecks & White Liberals”. Yes, I’m saying that Black students overall, did better under the boot of Jim Crow, than in the decades following the BVB decision. But the deal is, we all know this – which explains why we’ve seen so much White/Black Flight (you’re in Beantown; I don’t need to tell you just how contentious “bussing” was in 70s, et al), because a huge part of the problem was that a lot of the teachers, who just happened to be Black, sucked. Add that to the offspring of the breakdown of the Black family filling said schools, or worse, being “exported” to schools in White areas, and viola!-White folk (and a not insignificant number of Black folk too – note how relatively few Black teachers ever sent THEIR kids to the very kinds of schools in which they worked) fighting like the devil not only to get away from Black incompetence and pathology, but doing all they can to pull the gangplank up behind them in a myriad of ways, like really high housing prices, or private schools charging really high fees and the like.

    Well, like you said, the same thing can be said and seen on the FL side too; stuff doesn’t work out anywhere near the way it’s “supposed” to, but, because there’s ideological positions to protect and money!-never, ever forget the money – to be made, you can bet your bottom dollah that we will continue to see the FL ride this wagon till the wheels fall off. And because Women overall, have too much emotionally and materially invested in the system as is, we can also be relatively assured that they won’t do what it takes to end it either. I mean, take that ridiculous nonsese that’s going on right now in Missouri, the “War on Women” canard, etc. It’s all a sick joke. But, it’s political and it’s powerful. Women benefit from it all, just like Black folks benefitted from the CR.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #404:
    “I disagree. I know they don’t ring any bells for you, but none of them is uglier than your average elementary school mom, IMO.”

    O: Put their pics up and just ask the fellas of HUS – and the fellas alone – as to whether they’d tap either of em, let alone wife any of em up, based on looks alone.

    “I do think, however, that many feminists are born when girls reach middle school and discover that boys find them unattractive.”

    O: Then you’re saying the same thing I’m saying, just in a more circuituitous way. I prefer the Muay Thai approach to your Tai Chi. ;)

    “Of course the feminists wouldn’t say, or even admit to themselves, that they made a mistake.”

    O: Of course not; they can’t even be real with how they look, how are they gonna be real with anything else?

    “All the snarky attitude is a defense against the very idea that they may have screwed some things up along the way. The only recourse now is to encourage and sponsor debate about the effects of their movement. It’s not all that difficult – fewer and fewer women identify with them. They’re radicalized and getting moreso.”

    O: No, they’re not. Women are in lockstep with the major aims and goals of the Feminist Lobby. They’re just trying to run the Old Jedi Mindtrick, kinda like folks on the right refer to themselves as “Libertarians” today because they know the terms “Republican” and “Conservative” is mud, politically. Cheap marketing trick – change the name but the same product. Homey don’t play that.

    As Caitlyn Moran has made abundantly clear, we live and breathe, in a thoroughly Feminized society now; NONE of the Women who claim not to be down with Feminists, would want to give back or even dial down, on the goodies Feminism has brought for them – and which makes your self-appointed mission very, very interesting – because at the end of the day, as Plain Jane rightly noted, hookup culture exists, because Women overall, want it to. Even if most Women don’t like it, they don’t truly want to end it either, because they’ll see it as an ideological turning back of the clock of Women’s progress and liberation. It’s an unwinnable thing, Ms. Walsh. The ladies are trying to have it both ways, and aren’t even honest enough to themselves, let alone anyone else, to admit it.

    And they will fail. Badly.

    “By the way, Jessica Valenti has written a book about motherhood following the birth of her first child. It got trashed in the weekend reviews.”

    O: Thanks for turning me on to Ms. Valenti’s newest/latest! I made a quick stop by Amazon to see what all the fuss was about; the following quote I think, sums things I’ve been banging the drum here and elsewhere about for a good long minute:

    “I should have known I was in for a disappointment even in the preface, as only a page or two into the book comes the first “Mad Men” reference, tossed out casually and offhand, a kind of dogwhistle letting us know that this book is by and for a very specific demographic. This is yet another volume about the neuroses of the chattering classes, dressed up as a work of general interest. This is a book calculated to sell itself, and then self-destruct in admitted irrelevance. Valenti got to write this book because she’s Valenti, she was known to a publisher and an audience, and it was thought that a book on motherhood by her would be marketable to that niche. But the truth of the matter is, we did not need her book. What we need is a book by someone else–lots of someone elses, really–who is not part of this upper crust coastal elite set, mostly based in Manhattan, who dominate the discourse on parenthood and everything else in this country. I will give Valenti credit, at least, for nodding here and there in the book to the fact that the “debate” she is entering into is a rarefied and elitist one, that all too often columnists from the Times or the Post sit down to hash out “what’s wrong with parenting” and “what should mothers do” and really they are only talking about the parenting of the economic top 10% and the mothers who are elite professionals with many options available to them. But we don’t need or want to hear wealthy white women concede, with liberal guilt, that the discourse leaves out the rest of us, or to allow for our existence with a token nod and a bone thrown out in a passing paragraph or anecdote. We need to be included in the conversation, for the good of all. They can wring their hands that we need more daycare options, or work flexibility, or parental leave, they are very good at such hand-wringing. But has it ever yet changed a thing for the practical conditions of actual mothers outside their elite social circles?”

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R2KQIKDF9R4ZK7/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0547892616&nodeID=283155&store=books

    Word.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #404:
    “Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t have the answers to society’s big problems. You think I’m a turtle retracting into its shell, but the truth is, what motivates me to get up each morning and write is helping young women and men get together in relationships. The women like those Rosin wrote about – manly and ambitious, wanting only casual sex? I frankly don’t care about them – I’m more focused on helping younger women not turn into them. It’s a narrowly defined mission to be sure, but I’ve never pretended to be anything but a niche player.”

    O: I get all that – but here’s the thing. I was simply asking you a question in response to a comment you made, not me. Personally, my position is more or less in lockstep with Murray’s (Real Education): that the vast majority of people on the college campus today simply do not belong there, that we need to get rid of IQ testing at jobs and that we need to bring back Vo-Tech training. Simple solutions, but the problem is, special interest groups and lobbies, along with certain ideologies, will prevent commonsense from prevailing. At any rate, I think CUNY is a good example of what happens when we allow open enrollment.

    As for young people getting together, they’re doing that just fine – at least the demos I see do. Which brings us round robin back to taboo “evil” things like HBD. See, I think that flick Idiocracy had it right, but again, we’re too ideological for our own good.

    And while you may not care about the “Manly Women” Rosin et al write about, the fact of the matter is that they are or will soon be the Mistresses of the Universe that calls all or most or many or even some of the shots in the world in which the rest of us has to exist – so they *do* matter. Doing the turtle (or ostrich) isn’t going to change that fact.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ooops, my bad:

    “that we need to get rid of IQ testing at jobs and that we need to bring back Vo-Tech training.”

    What I meant to say was that we need to get rid of stuff like the Griggs v Duke Power decision and *bring in IQ testing on jobs*, along with bringing back the importance and *prestige* of Vo-Tech training in schools, especially at the highschool level. And my guess is that this will indeed happen, if even on a limited, smaller scale, as the Sons of the Cognitive (White) Elite begin to “fail” in appreiciable numbers.

    That self-presevation is a powerful drug…

    O.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Susan, you probably don’t want to get into this again, but I think it continues to be important. We really do need to understand what an SMP alpha is if we want to understand the things we here are all trying to understand.

    So, from what you said above, it’s important to note that alpha is distinct from virtuous, moral, admirable, etc. An alpha might be a guy who gets the respect (and/or envy) of other men, but then again he might not.

    Also, it’s not so simple as to leave it at the tautological “an alpha is a guy who gets laid.” An alpha is a guy with the traits that are broadly attractive to women and that would allow him to get laid a lot if he wants to. Not all of them want to. But, it does seem in this SMP, that a lot of them choose to because they can.

    This 10000000%

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    A man who has sex and does not father a child does not win the race.

    Oh come on Susan! You know that sex evolved for sex sake’s only it was not a reward to a behaviour that allowed reproduction so of course if he gets laid even if there is not product whatsoever evolution says “You winner!” this is obvious for all the systems needed to create reproduction in both men and women that getting children out of it is completely divorced from being a winner or not from nature’s POV /sarcasm off.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #454:
    “There is evidence that men who have regular sex with one person have significantly more children than men who have casual sex with many women. A man who has sex and does not father a child does not win the race.”

    O: Tell that to Antonio Cromartie, Ray Lewis, or Terrell Owens – and before you say “they’re famous/rich!” lemme stop you right there, because there are literally millions of guys running around with nowhere near the fame or loot who have done the exact same thing.

    You were saying…?

    ;)

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Tell that to Antonio Cromartie, Ray Lewis, or Terrell Owens — and before you say “they’re famous/rich!” lemme stop you right there, because there are literally millions of guys running around with nowhere near the fame or loot who have done the exact same thing.

      You are a master of the Exception Fallacy.

      Millions of guys running around having casual sex without commitment? Then why the need for Game?

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #454:
    “I alluded to this in my new post – there has been some research done about men who engage in negative tactics to guard their mates. The derogate them in a variety of ways as a means of sustaining the relationship, and this behavior is correlated to certain personality characteristics (that are troublesome in and of themselves). Women in relationships need to understand that men using such tactics to keep them interested, attracted or invested share the same traits that narcissists and sociopaths do (and they may in fact be the same people).”

    O: Yea, I caught Ms. PVW’s comment too, and would like to ask her what demographic her “family and friends” come from; I’m just very curious.

    But in the meantime, here’s the problem: the kind of guys you’re on a crusade against? *They never seem to go wanting for feminine companionship*. Even guys like Buss and others, note this fact. Which raises all kinds of deliciously politically incorrect questions for the ladies at large – don’t it?

    O.

  • Tom

    Mike C.
    I have to admit I kind of smiled at your assertion that all male Olympic athletes must be alphas. I think “competitive athleticism” is another attribute but again it is just one part of a mosaic. I’m not ready to walk into any gym, and just because I see a guy pull (deadlift) 405 off the ground declare him an alpha.
    _____________
    I will totally agree with you here. Sometimes people who have not lived in that arena seem to think or have the concept of what makes a great athlete tick. There is a huge difference between being alpha and being highly competitve. I would say most alphas are competitive, but many if not most competitive men are not alphas. Even amongst highly competitive alphas there normally will be one alpha who is “the” alpha. In some cases think of the captian of the football team in college, especially if voted upon by his team mates. Is the greastest olympian ever, Phelps an alpha? I dont think so. he is confident in his swimming ability, and he is fiersly competitive, but alpha?.. No.. He is actually a shy person away from the pool

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Is the greastest olympian ever, Phelps an alpha? I dont think so. he is confident in his swimming ability, and he is fiersly competitive, but alpha?.. No.. He is actually a shy person away from the pool

      His sexual exploits are legendary. Does that make a difference?

      If shyness is the defining disqualifier, then Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino are not alpha, as both are open about being painfully shy.

      Honestly, I’m as tired as anyone of this topic. We should be able to talk about relationship qualities without constantly coming back to this. I fear that my overlap with the manosphere makes this impossible.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #458:
    “You can’t pick and choose your Evo Psych principles. Evo Psych tells us that women evolved to *prefer* nice guys with a long-term mating orientation over Dark Triad guys with a short-term mating orientation.”

    O: LOL. I’m not “picking and choosing” at all – I never said that Beta Guys *can’t* get laid, get married, reproduce, etc, whatever – what I’m saying is that the kinds of guys you like to rail against can and do clean up out there, while more often than not the kinds of guys you’re rooting for have barely made it out of bed and put their pants on. If anything, what EvoPsych tells us, is that Women have a “mission variable” suite of mating strategies that are deployed depending on the particularities of the situation – this is what Edin and Kafalas saw up close and personal when they wrote their groundbreaking work, Promises I Can Keep. As you’ve said yourself, Women can be and often are observed to be quite “malleable” when it comes to such things.

    “Both are mating strategies still in existence today – but the majority of women will prefer the former.
    There’s a lot that I share here straight out of Evo Psych that you dispute, presumably because you limit your reading to David Buss.”

    O: Again, nice try, but no cigar; Edin and Kafalas shoots you right out of the sky like a WW2 Zero with that one. And that’s just for starters.

    And as it happens, I read a heck of a lot more EvoPsych than Buss:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      the kinds of guys you like to rail against can and do clean up out there, while more often than not the kinds of guys you’re rooting for have barely made it out of bed and put their pants on.

      First, I don’t care whether the guys I rail against are successful with women or not. I simply don’t want *my female readers* to wind up with them, as they are terrible relationship prospects. As it happens, I believe that *most* women are not interested in those men.

      People with avoidant attachment styles tend to be drawn to one another, and that’s a blessing. That’s the 20%, and I’m not particularly interested in them.

      Second, your claim about men of good character is demonstrably false. They are in fact most of the men acquiring an education, and developing promising careers.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Evo Psych tells us that women evolved to prefer nice guys with a long-term mating orientation over Dark Triad guys with a short-term mating orientation. Both are mating strategies still in existence today – but the majority of women will prefer the former. ”

    Keep this little tidbit in mind though:

    I can’t find it (because I suck at keeping links) but I read this somewhere. It may not have been a study and might just be someone making theory, but it makes sense to me so I’ll throw it out as food for though.

    It is speculated that when times are tough, women tend to be attracted to those darker traits more often because such men are better survivors when the going gets tough. Being as our society is in a good bit of turmoil both financially and socially, the world is a bit scary at the moment (Iran getting nukes, North Korea being North Korea, etc.) is it possible that young women are going into “stress mode” and starting to look for men that can kick ass and take names in preparation?

    Look at how easy life was in the U.S. post WWII. Families had money, the economy was booming, and for the most part our society was supported by the nuclear family. Yes, there were bad marriages and abusive relationships, but they weren’t the norm and certainly weren’t the highlight.

    In contrast, look at how life as progressively gotten harder in many ways since the 1960’s. The U.S. lost tons of blue collar jobs which meant many families going without a secure income. Continued world conflict with increasingly more violence has been on the rise since the Cold War ended. You can’t turn on the news without seeing horror and anguish. Even our TV shows pander to the lowest common denominator by glamorizing the worst of humanity.

    Maybe there really is a “return of the Dark Triad” in progress, and we’ve only just seen the tip of the iceberg. To me, this makes some sense. If the world is indeed heading towards a period of hardship and violence, sociopathic narcissists will be high on the list of people that survive.

    And I’ll add this: if the shit ever really does hit the fan, I intend to utilize my lack of compassion and empathy for other humans to my fullest ability. I am certainly a “gentleman” and behave in a civil manner when the environment calls for it. But as I’ve said many times most of that is simply me behaving as others expect me to, not me behaving as I naturally would on my own. When it comes down to it, the only people that matter to me are my family and friends, in that order. When it is all about survival, all bets are off, and I won’t have any moral issue at all doing what I must to ensure their and my own survival.

    Scary? Absolutely. Sexy? Well, it appears that at least some women think so.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      It is speculated that when times are tough, women tend to be attracted to those darker traits more often because such men are better survivors when the going gets tough

      We sort of cross posted, so please see my recent comment. I did want to point out that women in dangerous and violent countries seek partners with more dominance, and women in safer countries want less dominance in their partners. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were regional differences as well – people who feel very safe in the U.S. may not consciously seek a male who can physically protect them in a crisis, while people living in a dangerous environment would.

      For example, if I lived in the Alaskan wilderness, I would probably not choose a singer songwriter to marry. I’d want a guy who could shoot a grizzly. In that setting I would find him sexy. In Boston? Not really.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #460:
    *Quoting me*: But she doesn’t seem to have any problem with Ms. Anacaona doing exactly the same thing when she goes hard in the paint on ALL the guys back in her old country…what’s up with that?

    “Anacaona does not risk offending my readership. She generally shares specific reports of events she has witnessed, as well as the culture she’s from.”

    O: Ms. Anacaona may not “offend your readership” but she has most assuredly gone on record as saying that ALL the Men back home ain’t sh*t and I can prove it if you want. It’ll take me a bit of time to find the specific comments though…

    “Abbott does offend my readers every time he says that all American women are worthless and not worthy of commitment. If Abbott had anecdotal experience to share that might be different, but he just rails against American women as all being like Jaclyn Friedman. I do not censor Abbott’s general remarks about the culture.”

    O: Nor did I say you did. I am calling you out on your flagrant hypocrisy here, deleting the comments of one and allowing the comments of another, *when they both do the exact same thing*.

    “My policy is consistent.”

    O: No, you are honest – you just made that clear above – you “care” about what Abbot says, because he’s “offending” your core audience, which just happens to be American Women. Since you don’t have any Dominican Men in your audience, you could care less what Ms. Anacaona said.

    Huge difference, though I suppose being a straight shooter, albeit one when caught cold busted, accounts for something…

    O.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. I suspect it is because you are much more interested in pontificating than listening. Anacaona and Abbott do not both do the exact same thing.

      In any case, I feel no need to explain my moderation policy to you. I reserve the right to delete or edit any comments I wish (I always note an edit).

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    But she doesn’t seem to have any problem with Ms. Anacaona doing exactly the same thing when she goes hard in the paint on ALL the guys back in her old country…what’s up with that?

    ??? I stopped mentioning my country men like I promised I had shared anecdotes about my culture but not more talk about Dominican cads…so why do you bring me up?

  • Liberal Libertarians

    ” They’re just trying to run the Old Jedi Mindtrick, kinda like folks on the right refer to themselves as “Libertarians” today because they know the terms “Republican” and “Conservative” is mud, politically. Cheap marketing trick – change the name but the same product. ”

    Wrong. Republicans are imperialist warmongers and conservatives want to impose their conservative values on others. Libertarians are more akin to non-state sponsored hippies in our live and let love mentality.

  • Abbot

    “hookup culture exists, because Women overall, want it to.”

    and men offer little or no resistance to that desire. The hookerup culture then will become the dominant culture and shifting to another culture later – the Dedication Culture – will be very awkward and less desirous than ever before, especially since men will offer much resistance to that female desire despite their own desire to do so.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ted:

    Yup, you pretty much nailed it – what we are seeing in many ways, and not just in terms of the SMP mind you, is a kind of “natalist” reversion to type going on here in the broader society. For example, on the last page of the comments in this thread, toward the end, I was telling Ms. Walsh about what happened in the years following the landmark Brown v Board of Education decision – we now have at least as much, if not more, segregation in the country’s schools as we had back in the day. Reversion to type; people prefer to be among their own, all other things being equal.

    Same deal is occuring with the ladies to an extent. No need really to discuss the guys – as you said on the “Choose Attraction” thread, with us guys, these kinds of these are much simpler and straightforward; make a guy horny enough and he can and will twerk it out with a barnyard animal.

    So, this is about the ladies, and what Roissy has said about the Four Sirens, is not only real, but they again, are at the root of things here. They in many ways, have literally freed Women up in ways that many of us may not like to publicly admit.

    Again, go back to Edin and Kafalas’ work Promises I Can Keep – if that ain’t an example of the Four Sirens in action along with a reversion to type, then I don’t know what is. Keep in mind, what those two lady sociologists studied and wrote about, ain’t some isolated phenomenon, like the hooking up crowd Ms. Walsh deals with; this cohort Edin and Kafalas were talking about is much, much larger than that. Plus the fact that they’ve been at it much longer, too.

    A core tenet of Game is simply this: who you gonna believe – me, or your lying eyes?

    Let that, be your guide. Given where you are, I think you see exactly what I’m saying.

    Oh, and my email address is the same. Get at me.

    O.

  • Escoffier

    Roissy’s definition of alpha is as I describe. In one of his early attempts to define the term, he used the example of a military guy he knew who was revered by his fellow soldiers, very brave, strong, highly decorated, the whole thing, but very supplicating around females, prone to one-itis, etc., and hence not “alpha” in the SMP sense.

    I think you mis-interpret his comment about Pattinson. He is not beta simply because he was in an LTR. Lots of true alpahs do that. He was beta because of his behavior, which in any case Roissy was speculating about since none of us knows the private relationship dynamic between the two of them.

    Alphas may or may not be good for relationships. What defines someone who is good for a relationship ultimately is good character. Alphas don’t necessarily have bad charater. However, bad character and alpha-ness probably correlate. Partly that is simply owing to temptation. Any guy who has the traits to satisfy a basic, biological male desire (sleep with lots of pretty girls) will be very tempted to do so if he can. It takes serious will power to resist that. Yet, we know that lots of alphas willingly take themselves off the market for the right girl and stick with her. Do a majority do that? I don’t know. Certainly, in these times, it’s much easier to play the field indefinitely than it used to be.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      Roissy’s definition of alpha is as I describe.

      Is that according to the test for men to determine how sexually attractive they are to women? Found at the top of his site? Or do you refer to some other definition?

      His relevant remark on Pattinson:

      You can be the best looking man in the world, but if you’re a beta in your core (and there is evidence in his quoted words that Pattinson is an unreconstructed beta) you will suffer a higher chance of getting cheated on by your girlfriend if she spends any nontrivial amount of time with an alpha male who has the ATTITUDE.

      Robert Pattinson surely has more sexual options than any other man living. He is the ultimate SMP winner. How can he be beta? I don’t understand. (BTW, for those who care, there are rumors that Pattinson was cheating on KS all along. If true, does that turn him back to alpha?

      Surely you can see how utterly ridiculous this is. If you’re going to preach the gospel according to Roissy, feel free, but at least address the inconsistencies.

  • J

    What would Amanda Marcotte think of this

    Why would anyone care what would she’d think?

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #463:
    “If Plain Jane adopted one handle and shared consistent views I would have no problem with her. She is intelligent and makes some highly insightful remarks. But it’s unfair to other readers to be constantly switching identities and genders, pretending to be new to HUS. People are often welcoming, and patient, only to find out it’s Plain Jane again. In addition to this being annoying, it totally obscures any real message she is trying to convey. I don’t know if she is mentally ill or what, but it’s not acceptable and I will continue to delete her upon discovery. I’m sure she enjoys these little charades while they last. Usually I don’t block her until I’m sure it’s her, because there have been a few false positives along the way and I don’t want to ban a legit and interested reader.”

    O: Yes, I can dig it. Having said that though, I think the reason why Plain Jane shows up here and elsewhere in the ‘sphere, is because the message(s) really have rattled her cage. I’m not even going to speculate what her mental/emotional state is, and don’t know how relevant it would be in any event; I just know that the sphere really has her hoppin’ so to speak. And I think she just might be kind of emblematic in a way of the larger culture in certainn respects.

    Basically, she vehemently rejects pretty much anything the Manosphere says, or what she thinks is says. when it comes to your stuff, I don’t see her railing against that per se; indeed if anything, I think her writings suggest having more affinity with your positions on the issues than not. She just seems to be the loyal opposition to all things Manosphere, LOL. To which, I’ll freely admit, I find amusing and entertaining.

    But it’s clear that she’s been rattled and again I don’t want to make too much of that, because I’m of the view that I can takedown one’s positions based on that alone and sans the personal stuff. She’s an interesting character to say the least – and I think that the very existence of the Manosphere in general, and Game in particular, scares the you know what outta her.

    In this, her fears and irrational reactions, wouldn’t be totally unfounded…

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Anacaona #467:
    “??? I stopped mentioning my country men like I promised I had shared anecdotes about my culture but not more talk about Dominican cads…so why do you bring me up?”

    O: Because I wanted to highlight the distinction being made between the way Ms. Walsh deals with Abbott versus the way she deals (or doesn’t) with you. That’s why.

    O.

  • Tom

    His sexual exploits are legendary. Does that make a difference?

    No I dont think so. The ability to get laid is not exclusively alpha. Famous trumps being alpha, most of the time.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @LL $468:
    “Wrong. Republicans are imperialist warmongers and conservatives want to impose their conservative values on others. Libertarians are more akin to non-state sponsored hippies in our live and let love mentality.”

    O: Sure, I get the whole Ron Paul thing, and to be fank, while I do think he and his boy are kinda kooky (and possibly just a weebit bigoted) I don’t have that much of a problem with em. Too bad they’ll never be in power, but I do think they keep the political discourse in the country interesting.

    But that doesn’t change what I said. For example, take Thomas Sowell; he calls himself a “Libertarian” and I know why he does; it’s because being Black and a Republican is just about the worst thing you can be in many ways. You truly are a Man without a Country.

    Lots of folks on the Right have been running away from self-identifying as Republicans, because the brand is mud. The same is true for many Women in our time when it comes to Feminism. Both are still firmly rooted to those respective ideals, they just don’t call them that or wanted to be associated with the labels.

    Hence, the Old Jedi Mindtrick.

    O.

  • Tom

    Had phelps decided to be an auto mechanic, most women would not give him a second look, he does not have the classic good looks in the face.. more of a Gomer Pyle look. Now his body, thats a different story.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #480:
    “First, I don’t care whether the guys I rail against are successful with women or not. I simply don’t want *my female readers* to wind up with them, as they are terrible relationship prospects. As it happens, I believe that *most* women are not interested in those men.”

    O: You most certainly DO care, hence your frequent denunciations and “shaming” of them. Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with that; do you. (And not that there is any hard evidence on the ground that it’ll matter much anyway…)

    “People with avoidant attachment styles tend to be drawn to one another, and that’s a blessing. That’s the 20%, and I’m not particularly interested in them.”

    O: They tend to be drawn together per the demographic you’re interested in, which is the undergrad, living on campus far away from home, college scene – am I right? If so, it then raises lots of very interesting questions as for the rest of life outside that bubble – which as it happens can and does intersect with the bubble you’re interested in…

    “Second, your claim about men of good character is demonstrably false. They are in fact most of the men acquiring an education, and developing promising careers.”

    O: Excuse me? What have I said about Men and character? And, are you really going to sit there and make the case that, simply because a Man goes to school and gets a job, that he’s of good character? If so, two words:

    Bernie. Maddoff.

    There are many, many other examples…

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #477:
    “You are a master of the Exception Fallacy.”

    O: Under normal circumstances I would gladly accept any comment with the word “master” in it; today though, I have to respectfully decilne.

    I also find it ironic that you would attempt to suggest that my reading comprehension is off; projection much?

    My point is that there are literally millions of winners per the EvoPsych definition of the term, because they have not only impregnated many Women (three, four or more Baby Mamas) but in most cases they haven’ married or otherwise “wifed up” ANY of them. Again: T.O., and again, there are millions of non-famous, non-monied guys like that running around. Watch Maury.

    “Millions of guys running around having casual sex without commitment? Then why the need for Game?”

    O: LOL. Game is for, in the main, the guys the guys we’re talking about most assuredly are not. Most of the guys I’m talking about are for all intents, Naturals; they tend to have Mesomorphic body types, which has its own attendant psych profiles. Most of the guys in the community are Ectomorph types, with a smattering of Endomorphs; very few Mesos.

    Again, checkout Maury. Or spend a day in the family court building near you.

    O.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    (BTW, for those who care, there are rumors that Pattinson was cheating on KS all along. If true, does that turn him back to alpha?

    I’m sure many men would say that YES. But Susan there is a whole bunch of lies about Robsten and the whole “cheating” scandal so I wouldn’t comment on that till there is more info available from legitimate sources. Roissy is pretty much looking for examples to confirm his bias, he after all has an agenda so he can only see “A famous man got cheated on, let’s look at the signs he was a Beta an Alpha never gets cheated on no matter what…. that is impossible does not compute…brain melt…”. Rob was an easy target because of his British self deprecating humor, he doesn’t know anything about him beyond that, but he doesn’t care and I’m sure most of most his audience either. Roissy sells absolute success over women 100% guaranteed (no cheating, not cuckoldry, lots of sex with hot women…) so of course he will say that. I’m sure that even the most Alpha man in his list would be the label of Beta if they got cheated on regardless, YMMV.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ooops, my bad again:
    LOL. Game is for, in the main, the guys who are NOT the type of guys we’re talking about above. Most of the guys I’m talking about are for all intents, Naturals; they tend to have Mesomorphic body types, which has its own attendant psych profiles. Most of the guys in the community are Ectomorph types, with a smattering of Endomorphs; very few Mesos.

    For the most part, and this is no great state secret, the Game community is shot through with skinny, geeky, dorky, nerdy guys; a goodly percentage are round boys, too, but the aforementioned type, bodywise, tends to be the most prominent. This is based both on what I’ve read and seen with my own eyes from hanging out at quite a few lairs and bootcamp-events.

    The guys like Cromartie, Owens, et al, regardless of their lack of fame or wealth, nevertheless tend to have the bodytypes *and attendant personality/psych files* that lends itself towards being Game Naturals; hence the results in terms of, and I quote Ludacris now, “having Ho’s in different area codes…”

    HBD, strikes again…

    O.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    From Jack Donovan’s meditation on masculine traits in today’s world:

    “A man who is obviously game can step ahead of a man who is not, simply because he can expect the man who is less game to yield to him. Some people talk about masculinity by attempting to determine who is ‘alpha’ and who is ‘beta’ in a given situation…

    “Feigning gameness can be an effective strategy, so long as no one calls your bluff. Gameness can be feigned through body language, through vocal inflection and through word choice. Creating a sense that you are ready to push as hard as necessary to get what you want is a way to establish authority, whether you are a prisoner, a businessman, a law enforcement professional, a parent, or someone trying to discipline a dog. Most people will not test someone who is feigning gameness if the actor is convincing enough. Feigning gameness is a means of asserting one’s will, and people do it all the time even in primitive societies.

    “Feigning gameness can also unfortunately lead to delusional behavior. Many people affect the attitudes and postures of violence (my note: the “B” in “HEM-B”) even though they have no experience with or expectation of physical violence. There is a fearlessness that comes with knowing that you can say whatever you want because there is a large, heavily armed man standing behind you. People can talk tough without having to do the primitive math of violence, because they believe that law enforcement will either intervene and stop or punish the attacker. Delusional gameness relies on the deterrent of men and women who are prepared to use violence to enforce the law. Delusional gameness is only possible when there is almost no danger of violent escalation. In less secure, less luxurious times and places, assertiveness must be accompanied by physical courage and daring. When there is no expectation that you will be ‘saved’ or that most people fear the violent retribution of the state, it is foolish to provoke a dangerous looking man unless you are prepared to fight him.”

  • Abbot

    FINALLY!! Much novelty usually spreads from the military to the mainstream and this is going to be no different. Its been discussed here before – a stand-along dedicated website will be created that outs the sluts. For each one that lies, there will be several men who rat her out. Its a way for the harem bros to fire a warning shot for the rest of the guys, especially those struggling with weeding out the wife worthy.

    http://jezebel.com/5938483/cheat-on-or-with-a-guy-in-the-military-and-you-will-get-shamed-on-facebook

    Its a grenade lobbed into the hookerup cauldron

    .

  • Ted D

    Abbot – I sincerely hope this trend continues. Although, in the interest of fairness, I hope cheating men get the exact. same. treatment.

  • Abbot

    “I hope cheating men get the exact. same. treatment.”

    The non-military site concept is not really about cheating, just promiscuity. There is nothing women can do to stop themselves from being outed except to stop being promiscuous.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    “Name That Alpha, HUS Edition! Alpha or Not—You Decide!!!”

    Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tb12T3mXFs

    What is this man’s N? We don’t know; judging by the film, he’s probably celibate right now because his son recently died of cancer. He also has spent a lot of time in Afghanistan, where he probably didn’t get laid much. Is he alpha? You decide!

    Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD_2BenM5DM

    Looks like an SMP winner! But is he alpha? You decide!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB

      OMG, Name That Alpha is hilarious. Perhaps I should start that feature.

      Exhibit A was pretty badass, but what does that mean about James Holmes?

      Exhibit B gave me an embarrassing feeling, as my kids used to say.

      How about this?

      httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac_e7QDrh2E

      The 5 magic words to make women swoon? “part owner of nightclub”

      Definition of preselection? “My ex is an exotic dancer.”

      Game was written and codified for very specific environments.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    @BB
    The first video reminded me of Terminator 2 when they made the deal and he had to make sure not to kill everyone and he didn’t. Would you call Model T an Alpha?

    Had you though on changing your definition to something like a Renaissance man? A man with the whole package of both leadership and sexual charisma but with many self made and chosen traits seem closer to that that being the leader just because of circumstances. Is a bit like everyone makes fun of Aquaman on dry land because he was pretty much useless on the old Superfriend’s cartoons. But then on the sea he was THE MAN so that is a problem with your definition. Environment changes the outcome and level of leadership qualities. If Johnny Strong tried to become the leader of a rock band he might not have the same “Alphaness”, YMMV.

  • Abbot

    Here is a site that got started and was then shut down –

    Outing The Slut Next Door – Women’s Watch, Inc.
    http://www.womenswatchinc.org/blog/outing-the-slut-next-door/Jan 14, 2012 – Home » Outing The Slut Next Door … Slut-shaming 2.0 … In a running feature on the site, users submit photos of women with the question, …

  • Sai

    @Susan Walsh
    “If the thread is full of people saying betas are losers, women are going to feel awkward about proclaiming their husband’s betas. When I did that at the Spearhead, I was told that I am obviously a golddigger who never felt attraction for my husband, a terrible mother who allowed her son to grow up beta.”

    Wait, I thought sane women were allowed there. I mean, a lot of men destroyed by feminazis were beta, so  at least there’d be some sympathy for fellow men, right?

     @Ted D
    If the world gets that much more sucky and I am unable to move to a less sucky place, you are welcome to kill me, eat my corpse and use my silver coin collection to get things you need.
    I mean it. My ghost won’t be too torn up about not being there for The Mad Max Experience.

    @Liberal Libertarians
    “Libertarians are more akin to non-state sponsored hippies in our live and let love mentality.”
    As my brother said, “Everybody leave everybody else the @$#% alone.”

  • Escoffier

    I don’t see any inconsistencies.

    Roissy asserts that alpha-ness is fundamentally a matter of behavioral traits. Other factors contribute. Above all, according to him, is fame–which Pattinson has in spades. Also in the running would be good looks, muscles, style and money. But a guy can have all of these things and still be beta if his behavior is beta. That’s Roissy’s point in discussing Pattinson, so I gather. He’s speculating because none of us could see the private relationship. But if a guy that rich, that famous, and that good looking could get cheated on, it’s reasonable to assume it was because he was acting beta to the girl and it turned her off.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      I don’t see any inconsistencies.

      Roissy asserts that alpha-ness is fundamentally a matter of behavioral traits. Other factors contribute.

      Here are the first 15 items in Roissy’s SMV test:

      age
      height
      BMI
      strength
      hairline
      income
      car
      looks
      athletic
      occupation
      # friends
      # internet friends (bad)
      recent attendance at house party
      are you funny
      IQ

      The last 12 relate to behavioral traits.

      Can you cite where he mentions fame or style?

      But if a guy that rich, that famous, and that good looking could get cheated on, it’s reasonable to assume it was because he was acting beta to the girl and it turned her off.

      I can see why men would want to believe that getting cheated on only happens when one is beta, but I doubt that assertion. Most of the cheating stories I have heard are in couples where the male “instills dread” or produces anxiety by making the woman wonder if he will step out. She cheats preemptively. I’m sure that women do cheat when their partners are supplicating, but we have no information re RPatz in that regard. It was ridiculous for Roissy to claim that he is beta when he is the most desired man on the planet. What makes him beta? Being in love? Not cheating? Ugh, this is so dysfunctional.

  • Ted D

    Sai – “I mean it. My ghost won’t be too torn up about not being there for The Mad Max Experience.”

    You strike me more as the type I’d like to have on my side. And for the record, I have NO CLUE if I would be at all successful surviving such a thing. All I’m saying is I don’t have many moral hangups to get over in order to do it. I’d do my best to hedge my bets by getting as many like minded individuals together as quickly as I could. This is known to many as: the Zombie Plan

    No, I’m not expecting the dead to start walking anytime soon. But, as I’ve said many times, preparations for a zombie apocalypse look an awful lot like a survival plan to make it through any bad environment. At least at the individual level. And for whatever reason, people get that “icky” feeling when discussing the need to kill other humans, unless they are walking dead and then it’s OK. My group? We still call it the zombie plan, but we all know it would not likely be dead people we would be needing to shoot.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Ana, Strong IS the leader of a rock band, believe it or not! That’s his music playing in the clip.

    I know what you mean, though—the original construct had looks, $$, brains, and badassedness as the four key inputs—a man with these can provide the woman with high-performance turbosperm, economic resources, intellectual stimulation/analysis/problem-solving ability (“CogDom” in DoD think-tank speak), and physical protection. He may not be able to provide emotional support and reassurances, though, and might in fact struggle to understand these because he’d be so exaggeratedly masculine in general.

    There is a high probability that he will have a scary N, and there will always be a high risk of cheating with this guy if only because it will be so readily available. It’s definitely a mixed bag of goods.

    So the man could signal these qualities directly or indirectly. A mimic would try to rely on indirect signals that were highly correlated with how a good-looking, wealthy, well-educated/traveled, badass man would be *supposed* to behave, even if he had not actually developed any of these traits. The woman then has to develop a sensor suite in her SMP gun platform that can tell the real alphas from the mimics and shoot the mimics, so you get the whole PUA vs. HUS arms race effect and the occasional strange bedfellows that this can create.

    This is not in keeping with the LTR-orientation of Susan’s site, but I feel like adding that, even if the legit alpha guy is just totally fucked up when it comes to LTRs, a woman could still have a casual romp and have it make sense from the (admittedly cold-blooded) strategic reproduction/sperm donor POV. If you are going to get drunk and suffer a hangover, you may as well get hammered on the Chateau Petrus if that is available.

  • OffTheCuff

    Esc: “An alpha is a guy with the traits that are broadly attractive to women and that would allow him to get laid a lot if he wants to.”

    Yep. “If he wants”. This is being aware of your own real options, and from there, choosing to exercise them or not.

    J: “Why would anyone care what would [Marcotte] think?”

    Because given her writing, without the name, most women would agree with most of her positions, either tacitly, weakly, or strongly. Very few would risk disagreeing. Perhaps they don’t know her by name, but they sure know her ideals.

  • Escoffier

    On this question of “if he wants to,” here is a real life example.

    My best friend in grad school, and for a long time after, was an “alpha” in this sense. He told me that his count was 40 just before he got married. Obviously I can’t be sure that’s true but it’s plausible. He got married in his late 20s and is still married, a good father, a good provider, nice home, active in the church, you name it. I have no reason to believe that he has ever cheated and I actually would be shocked to learn that he had. I think he takes his marriage very seriously. So, he no longer “wants to” sleep around. But he could, I’ve seen the way women react to him.

    So, is this guy and alpha or a beta? Seems to me he is an alpha who chose to settle down because he wanted a family and while he had no moral problem with screwing around as a bachelor, his morality will not countenance screwing around as a husband. He certainly lives like a beta today, quite dependable and loyal so far as I know.

    Now, is he a leader of men? Sort of. He is charismatic, loud, boistrous, and socially dominant. He can “own” a room. He is the furthest thing from shy. He is also physically big and has trained in martial arts for a long time. All this is very “alpha” in the conventional sense.

    But is he dominant in the sense that all the other men in his sphere look up to him? Not quite. He was far from the best student in our group. Nobody looked to him as anything more than a social leader. His work was second rate at best. He is not a great writer and while smart, far from brilliant. This matters because when you are talking about a group of “intellectual” (which we sort of were) then the guy who gets the most affirmation and admiration of the other guys is going to be the smartest one. He was not that.

    To be blunt at the risk of sounding arrogant, I was a better student than he was and more of the leader of our group than he was–among the guys. Add women into the mix, and that changed.

    What this guy had/has, aside from everything else, were exactly the behavioral “alpha” traits that Roissy describes that women find attractive.

  • Abbot

    “Perhaps they don’t know her by name, but they sure know her ideals.”

    Her ideal is collective misery. They would know nothing if it was not about sex. Sex sells. Marcotte is running with that but its not a movie, its real life, and she is attempting to construct a self-pimp manual or guide complete with her concocted risk mitigates at every turn. She must be called out wherever she sticks her nasty self.

  • Sai

    @Ted D
    Aw shucks.
    “We still call it the zombie plan, but we all know it would not likely be dead people we would be needing to shoot.”
    The guys who have us the 2nd Amendment would do it, I’ll bet.
    (I need to find a book and make sure that’s true.)

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Relevant article for bloggers of all kinds!
    ‘It just makes me happy when I can make someone angry’ – A special investigation into the dark world of trolling:

    http://www.news.com.au/national/it-just-makes-me-happy-when-i-can-make-someone-angry-a-special-investigation-into-the-dark-world-of-trolling/story-fndo4eg9-1226283852843

  • Abbot
  • Marcotte is Plain Jane

    This just in from BAU in Quantico VA, Marcotte has been trolling here as Plain Jane and all her alias for 2 years now.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Marcotte has been trolling here as Plain Jane and all her alias for 2 years now.

      That would be gratifying, but alas, I know this to be false.

  • J

    The non-military site concept is not really about cheating, just promiscuity. There is nothing women can do to stop themselves from being outed except to stop being promiscuous.

    Slander and libel much? What’s to stop the neighbor who’s angry that I told her kid to get off my lawn from calling me a slut on the net?

  • Escoffier

    I agree, we don’t know what caused Stewart to cheat, that is, beyond her various interviews in which she said that her life was too easy and she wanted drama, danger, etc. Which would at least suggest that she found Pattinson too boring, despite his fame and everything else. Roissy is speculating there, which he occasionally does, and couching his speculations as if he knew for sure, which he also likes to do. When one reads him, one has to keep that in mind and factor in the appropriate discounts.

    Re: fame, he has said that many times, that fame is the ultimate aphrodesiac. His alpha test, if you actually take it and work through it, you can rack up a lot of points in the front section (as I do) and then give them all back and more in the back section (as I do). Which is to say, behavioral traits are, to him, more important than anything intrinsic. That mirrors my own experience and observation.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I agree, we don’t know what caused Stewart to cheat, that is, beyond her various interviews in which she said that her life was too easy and she wanted drama, danger, etc. Which would at least suggest that she found Pattinson too boring, despite his fame and everything else.

      Eh, like I said, there’s speculation about his sex life. I’ve also heard theories that the whole thing is a sham designed to drum up interest for the last Twilight movie. It sounds crazy, except that these two have been willing to coordinate publicity about their personal lives and the movies before.

      In any case, it’s clear that in assuming, Roissy made an ass out of himself. He does this early and often, correctly surmising that few if any readers have the balls to call him out.

  • J

    This just in from BAU in Quantico VA, Marcotte has been trolling here as Plain Jane and all her alias for 2 years now.

    LMAO

  • J

    And BTW my Marcotte question was rhetorical.

  • Desiderius

    Escoffier,

    “To be blunt at the risk of sounding arrogant, I was a better student than he was and more of the leader of our group than he was–among the guys. Add women into the mix, and that changed.”

    That’s the dynamic that Susan is likely missing*, but it might not be a bad idea to give her a some room/credit. We’re asking her to accept something that is powerfully counter-intuitive not only to her, but everyone in her generation, and most women outside it. It would be like telling us there is a generation of men not attracted to the usual fertility cues.

    The stuff about our pain coloring our thought is, um, way over the top, but she’s also pushing us to be more empirical, which is solid counsel, and of course our experiences with our SMP may no longer be that valid for the SMP of her target audience.

    Her blog.

    * – the assumption is that being a leader of men is attractive to women. That was certainly true in Susan’s SMP, and in a way that may make it difficult for those who participated in that SMP to grasp how another could be different.

    My guess is that it is also becoming truer again in the rising generation, as feminism runs out of the fumes of pluralistic ignorance on which its been running for a while. Advocating for the hookup culture was a big mistake for them, as it threatens the pluralistic ignorance of the older generations, who have been ignoring the existence of the hookup culture with all their might.

    As for what happened in between, the Marcottes of the world are not at all turned on by leaders of men (aside from a sort of love/hate dynamic described by Roissy that would be a lousy basis for a healthy relationship) – they see them as a threat, and will tear them down by any means necessary. The much larger number of women influenced by the Marcottes (often through intimidation) picked up a sort of low-level suspicion of such men as well, seeing them as anything from over-idealistic chumps, to potential players, to too big of a risk to want a patriarchal relationship and crowd out her own aspirations/turn back the clock on her. This made whatever attraction they felt problematic, both within and without relationships/marriages.

    Susan, there are good men, leaders of men, who have been royally hosed by that SMP, and not just by the SMP. It is not just the unsuccessful calling attention to it, but you knew that. Would you put Travis in that category?

    Had some promising success myself today and a date next week, so allowed myself one comment.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Desiderius

      As for what happened in between, the Marcottes of the world are not at all turned on by leaders of men (aside from a sort of love/hate dynamic described by Roissy that would be a lousy basis for a healthy relationship) — they see them as a threat, and will tear them down by any means necessary.

      I hadn’t thought of that, thank you! Definitely, feminists are most likely to suspect and punish men who are respected by their fellow men.

      Had some promising success myself today and a date next week, so allowed myself one comment.

      Pish posh, why limit yourself? We are on the edge of our seats..

  • J

    I’ve also heard theories that the whole thing is a sham designed to drum up interest for the last Twilight movie. It sounds crazy, except that these two have been willing to coordinate publicity about their personal lives and the movies before.

    Perhaps the whole relationship was a sham dreamt up by the publicists to promote the films. It wouldn’t be the first time that happened. That used to be a classic Hollywood thing.

  • J

    Had some promising success myself today and a date next week, so allowed myself one comment.

    Good for you! Same girl?

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    @Desi
    Good luck from the deepness of my heart and love the pic you look nice approachable and huggable all good points in my book :D

    It sounds crazy, except that these two have been willing to coordinate publicity about their personal lives and the movies before.

    ??? This is new they are usually trying to hide their personal lives most of the time, which is part of the whole “making out in the middle of the day”. Not that they wouldn’t do this for the movie of course but they are not kin to paps.

    Perhaps the whole relationship was a sham dreamt up by the publicists to promote the films. It wouldn’t be the first time that happened. That used to be a classic Hollywood thing.

    I love how the conspiracy theories are filtering, we all called the whole thing odd the moment the pics appeared so is nice to see outsiders calling it that. That being said I’m almost 99% sure that the relationship was real (we had been stalking this people since 2009 I think we found out they were together before the paps did) the rest is up for the grabs and time to tell, but there is a lot going on that doesn’t add up to “cheating” scandal, YMMV.

  • Sai

    “This just in from BAU in Quantico VA, Marcotte has been trolling here as Plain Jane and all her alias for 2 years now.”
    ROFL

    @Escoffier
    “beyond her various interviews in which she said that her life was too easy and she wanted drama, danger, etc.”
    I have words for girls who think that this is how to cope with that.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Ted D…”It is speculated that when times are tough, women tend to be attracted to those darker traits more often because such men are better survivors when the going gets tough. Being as our society is in a good bit of turmoil both financially and socially, the world is a bit scary at the moment (Iran getting nukes, North Korea being North Korea, etc.) is it possible that young women are going into “stress mode” and starting to look for men that can kick ass and take names in preparation? Look at how easy life was in the U.S. post WWII. Families had money, the economy was booming, and for the most part our society was supported by the nuclear family.”

    OTOH, look at the U.S. PRE WWII….depression, widespread unemployment, the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the widespread belief that our future would be totalitarian one way or the other….Did the dark-triad phenomenon occur to the same extent in that era?

    Maybe what is different is the level of societal self-confidence….the fundamentally optimistic spirit that we’ll make it through one way or the other has been undercut by several decades of preaching by professors, journalists, and “activists” that we’re a bad country and don’t deserve to survive, leading to a loss of social cohesion and a feeling of impending disintegration.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @david foster

      Maybe what is different is the level of societal self-confidence….the fundamentally optimistic spirit that we’ll make it through one way or the other has been undercut by several decades of preaching by professors, journalists, and “activists” that we’re a bad country and don’t deserve to survive, leading to a loss of social cohesion and a feeling of impending disintegration.

      Wow, I wonder how this interacts with the self-esteem movement, which created two ME generations. Is the result “every man for himself?”

  • Ted D

    David foster – I think you have it right. Per-WWII the U.S. environment was generally optimistic despite the depression. My grandfather told me plenty of stories about how tough things were, but even as everyone struggled there was a sense of a “light at the end of the tunnel”. He said that everyone being in the same boat helped to actually build communities and a sense of reliance on your friends and neighbors.

    Contrast that to where we are as a society now, and it becomes apparent quickly that we are NOT the same country, at least socially speaking.

  • Ted D

    “Wow, I wonder how this interacts with the self-esteem movement, which created two ME generations. Is the result “every man for himself?””

    I think that is EXACTLY what we’ve created. We took our rugged individualism to an extreme end. But, the U.S. is also very good at taking everything to the extreme.

  • Desiderius

    Ana,

    “Good luck from the deepness of my heart and love the pic you look nice approachable and huggable all good points in my book :D”

    Thx, sweetheart – love your comments/character too, mean it, even if you do feel so turned off you have to leave the room when drill sergeants (leaders of men) enter. ;-)

    As for luck – you make your own. Relearning things I knew when 25, but love learning, so beats apathy.

  • Desiderius

    Susan,

    “I hadn’t thought of that, thank you! Definitely, feminists are most likely to suspect and punish men who are respected by their fellow men.”

    There are implications that flow from that that would make my seat a little uncomfortable were I up there on that high horse with you and J, unless you’d like to argue that feminists didn’t much effect the second-wave SMP…

    “Pish posh, why limit yourself? We are on the edge of our seats..”

    Seems to me you just answered your own question.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Re societal self-confidence…Arthur Koestler wrote an extremely interesting novel (published in 1950), The Age of Longing, which deals with this subject and has unfortunately never been well-read. His main protagonist, Hydie, is a young American woman living in Paris…she was briefly married but has never had a sexually or emotionally-satisfactory relationship with a man. She is unable to be attracted to any of the men in her Paris intellectual circle, but falls hard for a committed Russian Communist who has the belief in the future which is lacking among her European and American friends. (Fedya isn’t much on foreplay, but Hydie’s orgasms with him are incredible nonetheless.)

    I reviewed it at length here:

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/11799.html

  • Pingback: On hookup culture as a ‘delay tactic’ in one’s ‘sexual career’ « Ruminations()

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    Did the dark-triad phenomenon occur to the same extent in that era?

    I didn’t wanted to talk about this again but you are right in the third world there is not adoration of the thug is more likely tolerance at best because they are so many that you can’t really avoid them and the third world is actually poorer and more desperate than USA, so its not my experience that the most though times make women more likely to want a thug is widely know that the thug might get more resources but he will spent them on himself and or treat you like crap because he has you under your wing or/and will get chopped of to pieces by the other males once he crosses certain line, in insecure times you long for security not more more insecurity.

    Thx, sweetheart – love your comments/character too, mean it, even if you do feel so turned off you have to leave the room when drill sergeants (leaders of men) enter

    Heh Yes Sir!

    As for luck – you make your own. Relearning things I knew when 25, but love learning, so beats apathy.

    THAT IS THE SPIRIT! :D

  • Escoffier

    hey foster that review of Kostler was really good.

  • Desiderius

    Escoffier,

    Wouldn’t be surprised if students in 2500 were reading Koestler along with their Shakespeare and Austen.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Escoffier….thanks!

    Desiderius….”Wouldn’t be surprised if students in 2500 were reading Koestler along with their Shakespeare and Austen.” Yeah, he had a lot to say and said it well….as an ex-Communist himself, he understood the psychology of the type pretty well. In his personal life, he seems to have been very much a Bad Boy.

  • Sai

    @Höllenhund
    “White civilization is a massive failure. So too, Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven, Einstein, Darwin, and Keats….Meanwhile, Cam’ron, Lil Wayne, Kanye West, and Jay Z will live forever.”

    …He’s right.
    TAKE ME WITH YOU LUDWIG, KANYE DISGUSTS ME-

    @david foster
    Does Hydie’s friend have a brother?
    (of course not, because they’re made up)

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Sai..Hydie’s friend….I’m guessing by “friend” you mean the decent French guy rather than the Communist lover?

    Might be a little old for you by now, anyhow, given that he must have been at least 25-30 back in 1950…

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Susan

    As long as “beta” is used as a pejorative term, without recognition of the importance of beta traits in relationships, guys are going to seek to rid themselves entirely of those traits (which is usually a futile exercise) or feel badly about themselves as loser betas.

    While we’re at it can we get rid of “Herb” as the term for “loser beta/omega/below omega”.

    Thx.

    :)

  • Sai

    @david foster
    I’d take either if they’d have me. I don’t like commies but am fascinated by Russians (go figure), and an old brainy Frenchman would be lightyears beyond what I can get around here.
    …sorry, I’m just being silly/sad again today because I have bad DNA and bad neighbors; I plan to move but changing faces is harder than changing houses. Fictional dudes can’t say no, haha. /creepy
    (I need to get a copy and read the book all the way through already…)

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Sai….if you do read the book, I’d be interested in knowing what you think about it. It’s a little off-topic for this site, maybe, but not totally off-topic.

    You’ve mentioned possibly moving to another country….I’m wondering if you’ve already tried a different location in the US?

  • Sai

    @david foster
    Part of me hopes to meet someone while traveling, if it’s possible. That way I don’t have to worry about being too busy with a relationship to have gotten some culture and adventure. (My dad says I would see myself differently had I lived somewhere else and he has yet to explain, but I figured as long as I’m out doing things I may find out.) 
    I haven’t gone anywhere in the U.S. besides on vacation and I haven’t even gotten a passport yet, but I want to see how different things can be -even if I don’t meet anyone I can still learn a lot.

  • Plain Jane

    “Wouldn’t be surprised if students in 2500 were reading Koestler along with their Shakespeare and Austen.”

    I’d be surprised if they were reading at all!

  • Plain Jane

    “I agree, we don’t know what caused Stewart to cheat, that is, beyond her various interviews in which she said that her life was too easy and she wanted drama, danger, etc.”

    A sincere question: do you really think it qualifies as “cheating” if they are not even engaged, much less married? There is no legal or religious contract in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. How can one cheat?

    I think young woman between the ages of 16 to late 20s/early 30s crave more adventure and excitement than older women due to hormones.

  • Plain Jane

    “But that doesn’t change what I said. For example, take Thomas Sowell; he calls himself a “Libertarian” and I know why he does; it’s because being Black and a Republican is just about the worst thing you can be in many ways. You truly are a Man without a Country. ”

    I’ve been watching the Republican Convention and one of the “rising stars” in the party who delivered the opening speech was a Black American woman who’s parents are from Haiti, I believe. Forget her name but she’s predicted to go really far in the party.

    Then you’ve got Marco Rubio, a very young looking Latino predicted to be president one day, as is Nikki Haley, Punjabi kudi, and that other Desi guy, Gov of Louisianna, Bobby Jindal.

    My prediction is that in 10 years the Republican Party will be dominated by minorities.

    And the MRAs must be fuming because Romney bigged up women leaders and politicians (including his senator mom) throughout the entire speech and said, “my wife’s job as a mom is a lot more important than mine” and also plugged SINGLE MOMS, the nemesis of the Manosphere.

    Rock on with yo’ feminazi self, Mittie!

  • Pingback: Hanna Rosin: Feminists and the Hook-up Culture « Free Northerner()

  • Abbot

    “woman between the ages of 16 to late 20s/early 30s crave more adventure and excitement”

    What strategy is required to satisfy that craving?

  • JutR

    I do so like the Abbot v Plain Jane showdown.

    I hope she answers. I’d be interested to know what strategies are out there, and which ones she recommends.

  • Plain Jane

    “What strategy is required to satisfy that craving?”

    For me it was travel, though I had already done more than most people since my birth, thanks to the “lifestyle” of my parents. We did settle down for a few years in a particularly boring place when I was a teen and shortly after I got the itch to travel again, but this time by myself, as a young adult. And do things like climb dangerous mountains, scuba dive, etc. Now that I’ve hit 30? Meh, not so much. I’m genuinely tired now and feel the need to root myself.

  • JutR

    So they want to travel more due to hormones?

    And here I was thinking intellectual curiosity would be at the root of a desire to travel.

    Thrill seeking traits may not be as rooted in estrogen as you think.

  • Sai

    @JutR
    “And here I was thinking intellectual curiosity would be at the root of a desire to travel.

    Thrill seeking traits may not be as rooted in estrogen as you think.”
    I thought they came from dopamine and/or testosterone… I’d better check on that.

    My brother seems to also support an alternative to hooking up, because he showed me this:

    http://tapiture.com/image/i-know-which-one-i-d-choose-virgin-soda-cleveland-show/

  • JutR

    Haha, Sai, thank you, that gave me a good chuckle. Having seen quite a few bachelorette parties with penis straws and various props, and such, I can say, not everyone seems may have the same outlook.

    And I think the desire to travel is almost universal among the youth. I am not sure we can pin that one on rampant hormones. What one does on that travel may be more linked to hormonal choices.

  • MaMu1977

    @J

    If you think that the “military cheaters” website should be taken down/deleted from Facebook, then the same should be done for dontdatehimgirl.com (a website that often has full names, pictures and consistently updated contact info for the “hims” in question.

  • Pingback: On hookup culture as a ‘delay tactic’ in one’s ‘sexual career’ | My Website / Blog()