Regular reader and fellow blogger Bellita has written her penultimate post, and it’s one that I found very gratifying to read. A year ago, Bellita read this in a post by Private Man:
The biggest challenge is for women to re-adjust their approach to men. Women usually look for reasons to reject a man. They find the bad things first. This results in a lot of frustrated single women. To start the readjustment, I have this very simple mental exercise:
Every time you see and/or interact with a man, look for something good about him. This includes online dating profiles.
It can be something small.
It can be something big.
It has to be something.
I recall that post myself – I liked it very much because I believe that attraction triggers are malleable (more on that in a minute). What is required, though, is a conscious effort to be positive and mindful when meeting others. (This can make a huge difference in any meeting, but for obvious reasons is especially relevant to meeting members of the opposite sex.)
Here is what Bellita had to say about using this approach for an entire year:
What I expected was that it would teach me to settle. I thought that focusing on virtue, character and other non-sexy but admirable traits would help me to rationalize happiness with a partner I wasn’t all that attracted to.
What I did not expect was that it would increase the number of men I feltgenuinely attracted to.
I’m seriously amazed at how many more handsome men there are in my city than there were one year ago. But of course, it was not the city that changed; it was I.
Wow, what a Field Report! I find this very profound, but not entirely surprising. Dan Ariely found that although standards of beauty are universal, people are generally very realistic about who they can attract. At speed dating events, Ariely found that very attractive people listed looks as a high priority. Less attractive people were much more likely to express their desire for humor, kindness or intelligence in a mate.
Regardless of our value judgments about the real importance of beauty, it is clear that the process of reprioritization helps us adapt. In the end, we all have to make peace with who we are and what we have to offer, and ultimately, adapting and adjusting well are key to being happier.
…By any stretch of assortative mating imaginable, [my wife] should have had nothing to do with me…I came to believe that, as unsentimental as it sounds, Stephen Still’s song has a lot of truth to it. Far from advocating infidelity, “Love the One You’re With” suggests that we have the ability to discover and love the characteristics of our partner. Instead of merely settling for someone…we end up changing our perspectives, and in the process increasing our love of the person.
Many studies have confirmed the theory that familiarity creates attraction. The more people interact, the more attracted they become to one another. In studies, people rate familiar faces as more attractive than distinctive faces, and their ratings go up the more they are exposed to the same face.
Common sense tells us this – people pair off in middle schools, high schools, and small towns. If anything, people who move to larger settings become paralyzed by the paradox of choice.
In short, attraction is a choice, at least partially.
Today JustYX gave fellow reader Sai some advice after she acknowledged that her feelings of frustration with men are probably coming across to potential boyfriends:
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.
This is the bottom line. By adopting a positive approach, and actively seeking good qualities in others, you have nothing to lose but your feelings of scarcity.
In a recent thread, reader HanSolo shared the five most common regrets of the dying. The last one was “I wish that I had let myself be happier.” Many people don’t realize that happiness is a choice. HanSolo had wise words:
Life is a choice. It is YOUR life. Choose consciously, choose wisely, choose honestly. Choose happiness.
You are literally surrounded by people who might make a great relationship partner. Look for the good qualities in people. Get familiar with people.
Choose attraction.
{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow. Great post Susan! Still digesting it all, but I wholeheartedly agree! When you look for the positive, you FIND more positivity surrounds you!
(And, whoa! Am I actually the first post?
)
Finding the good in everyone is something all of us should try to do. Not only would there be more of chance at romance, but there would be more friendships and better relaionships as well.
Follow up post:
http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/a-dating-exercise-for-women-amazing-follow-up/
Excellent post. Bob Cialdini has stated in the past that the best influencer type that he has found will expertly probe and scan for things to genuinely like and admire about the person he or she is talking to. It involves a deliberate effort—”I want to be positioned to say something flattering or encouraging to you and I’m going to keep at it until I find things that I can compliment.” When you strike gold, you both are made richer by the experience.
Belita’s Field Report is obviously great but I must admit that I don’t actually see women looking for reasons to reject men as necessarily a bad thing.
I consciously look for reasons to reject because, in the same way that everyone’s innocent until proven guilty, I assume that everyone’s an option until something (ie. incompatible sexuality, extreme political views or an inability to listen) informs me otherwise.
There’s too many people and too little time for a woman not to have a method of knocking out a few contenders
@BB
Ah, that’s one of the key components of charm I was referring to earlier. It is a deliberate effort, but one that is undertaken willingly, born of a genuine curiosity about others.
@LouiseC
Yes, filtering is very important. But the idea is to gather in as many potential matches as possible, then filter people out based on red flags related to character.
Attraction is NOT a choice!
Great post! But I get the feeling that this is going to end like the Reasons to date a Beta one…I pray I will be proven wrong.
I like the outlook this takes. That said, you’re assuming that a woman is willing and able to look for the positive for a number of reasons. There are a lot of traumatized women out there for starters (e.g. rape victims, childhood abuse victims, domestic violence victims, etc). Sad to say, but this is a pretty large chunk of the dating market off the top, and not all of them have properly resolved their past. Also, life circumstances vary from woman to woman, and it may be for the best that she takes time off of dating to deal with her stuff. Still, if a woman is willing and ready, I think it would definitely work.
Also, growing up in NYC, I see the paradox of choice live and in color. Heck, it took me a while to snap out of it. Far too many people in my hometown think that because the most beautiful woman in the world could walk down the street means they have a right to her. Perhaps if people dialed it down a few notches, we could see all the wonderful people around us. Sex and The City did an excellent job poking fun of this whole phenomenon when they did a whole episode about “modelizers”. Granted, NYC isn’t all SATC, but that whole mindset cuts across all cultural lines in the city.
“You are literally surrounded by people who might make a great relationship partner. Look for the good qualities in people. Get familiar with people.”
+1. Yes indeed.
And props to Bellita for her experiment–perspective is so key here. Really loved what she wrote. As a woman, I think I keep a pretty good group of sensible and kind female friends, but the few times I’ve been subjected to a “There are NO good guyyyyss out there” female rant I’ve just been . . . confused. I don’t get it–do these girls not have male acquaintances or colleagues or friends (not like LJBF but like, men they know in a wider social circle) who come across as decent, intelligent and reasonably attractive? It seems impossible not to.
As others have pointed out, besides increasing romantic options, this outlook on others just makes the entire world seem like a better place and people in general more beautiful. I don’t want to get too Oprah-ish on HUS but I think general positivity towards other human beings increases one’s confidence and is an attractive trait in and of itself–at least to other good people.
@Ana
“But I get the feeling that this is going to end like the Reasons to date a Beta one…I pray I will be proven wrong.”
I don’t know. I am not getting that “red flag” vibe from this post at all. This posts strikes me as being 99% Beta-approved
@Todd
“Granted, NYC isn’t all SATC, but that whole mindset cuts across all cultural lines in the city.”
Even Brooklyn?
I don’t know. I am not getting that “red flag” vibe from this post at all. This posts strikes me as being 99% Beta-approved
The “praise a Beta” posts are my favorites. I’m hoping you are right
@Courtley
Yep, even Brooklyn. The thing is that the sheer number of options often makes people default for the best possible options, even if that option is unrealistic. Getting rid of that mindset isn’t about settling per se as much as settling for what you actually value. Too many people believe that settling is about dating whoever says yes. It’s more about dating someone who has those few things you really, really want in a relationship.
but the few times I’ve been subjected to a “There are NO good guyyyyss out there” female rant I’ve just been . . . confused. I don’t get it–do these girls not have male acquaintances or colleagues or friends (not like LJBF but like, men they know in a wider social circle) who come across as decent, intelligent and reasonably attractive? It seems impossible not to.
That’s exactly the pool of men I would look at if I were single–decent guys with good characters who hade been vetted by mutual friends. If familiarity does indeed breed attraction, then there is much to be said for looking for good guys and then giving them a chance. That seems a better strategy to me than going to a bar or getting online and taking the meat market approach.
getting online and taking the meat market approach.
Errr you know hubby and me meet online, right?
@J
Oh, absolutely–believe me, I try to milk the whole friends-of-friends connection whenever possible.
I definitely like the idea of having some kind of social connection to someone and know their character has been vetted by other people that I trust.
Instant Attraction or None—that’s what my personal experience has been. If I made a move on a female prospect she either liked me immediately or she didn’t.
If she didn’t, there was nothing I was going to do to change that—not kindness, not humor, not money. (Well, maybe money. Too bad I didn’t think of that then).
I must emit some kind of polarizing personality pollen. I sidle up to you at the bar and grin in your face and you either hate my damn guts or you can’t keep your paws to yourself–no in between.
If there was no instant attraction, I could sign her up on my platonic acquaintance list; we could be buddies, hang-out pals, shoulder to cry on friends—but the intimate relationship aspect was taken completely off the table.
Forever!
Therefore, for me, trying to make someone like me proved to be both humiliating and ultimately futile.
On to the point of the dating game as played by others: My impressions vary somewhat from the studies sited. In my observation, folks usually desperately want to date above their rank (especially as far as appearance goes). I’ve yet to find an unattractive person who doesn’t want to date Brad Pitt or Will Smith—unless, maybe they’re a guy.
Few folks wake up, look in the mirror and admit “I’m a lowly 2. I should only grin and bat my eyes only at other 2’s.”
Nope, they seem determined to make a complete ass of themselves and go after a 5 or 6 or better. Usually they’re quickly rebuffed, security is summoned and they’re unceremoniously shown the door– because the 5/6 is looking skyward as well, lusting after the 7/8.
In the end, unless they want to walk down the aisle arm in arm with their mechanical erotic device, the homely wind up settling for someone more in keeping with their sub-zero appearance ranking.
But in their heart of hearts they’ll always secretly lament the inferior cosmetics of their mate.
To Susan and Bellita, wow! And thank you both for putting that to print.
@PUA > MRA
No, it is, and you’ll find that out. That’s not a prediction; it’s the human condition.
I’m hoping you figure it out before your last day.
@Ana
Yeah, but I didn’t mean like you and Hope. You both may have been on line when you met your husbands , but you weren’t posting a myspace angle photo and a stupid profile about how you’re a “heels to jeans” kinda gal who enjoys beer and kittens that men can reject on a superficial basis. I meant like OKCupid or Plenty of Fish, not Sciconnect or gaming. I can see though that I wasn’t clear.
Thank you for the link, Susan!
I’m starting to think that that should be my last post because there’s no way I can top it now!
I meant like OKCupid or Plenty of Fish, not Sciconnect or gaming. I can see though that I wasn’t clear.
Err I had been on OKCupid, Match.com, Yahoo personals I tried Eharmony like everyone here knows, nerdpassions… the only reason I didn’t tried Plenty of Fish was because I was already married when they launched it. I know what you mean about no stupid profiles just wanted to mention that I particularly think that choosing a dating site is like choosing a therapist just because one doesn’t work doesn’t mean all of them won’t either, YMMV.
Freakin’ A, you all saw that? XD I was actually more frustrated with myself (kind of like Ted D says, I try to be fair by being harsh with EVERYONE including me).
Ironically I do look for positive things in people I see a lot like in work or church. But most of the time those are ‘serious’ places and I don’t WANT to see them any more than I must. I know that must sound strange.
I also will compare pros/cons a lot. Maybe I’ll be better at this in a new environment.
This reply is for you Ted Ogleby.
The “issue” you raise is, I don’t know if you realise; probably the most relevant to this topic of attraction (specifically female one.) You see most girls have a utilitarian attitude towards men as to how good or naturally pre-disposed they are to pushing their right buttons so they can experience “the tingle”. As such they adopt an SMP strategy of the all-important list of traits which is useful to friend-zone or outright reject candidates that just aren’t ticking off the points on their Mr. Right list. As such their attraction is all about determinisms like “a real man makes the first move” or “confidence is sexy” and also alot of instant judgments.
Or to sum it all up: hypergamy. In the end what I’ve written above is all there is to it. That is what your experiences are based on and you’ve simply adapted to the hypergamy game.
My advice for you is to watch out for the women that do take an instant attraction to you: because they’re taking an instant attraction to your superficial traits and the image they have of you. They are not attracted to you as a person with a specific character and attributes that they could not care less about (or even see) with their hypergamic attitude and behaviour.
Get laid, make them walk a mile for you and dump them as soon as they either get too attached or start to go cold. And never ever fall for her.
Great approach/post.
As a man I know this approach works wonders for woman. In the broader sense this looking for positives within, through and around a man engages emotional triggers that can lead to attraction. At the very least this great outlook will show you the way in what you essential need and want or don’t want from a man. For us men out there, girls you know what triggers our attention; yet for this man beauty is common, but coupled with a great outlook in life, now thats dangerous…..:)
One of the biggest impacts of this exercise (I’ve been getting a fair number of comments and emails from women on this) is that women simply start noticing more men. If they notice more men, they will notice more attractive men.
Funny how that works
@Mrs Susan Walsh
(from the single standard ex-thread)
I’m calling you out over this…have you got something to say about me? Well…let’s hear it shall we hmmm?
Are you calling me a beta?
@PUA>MRA
OK, then! Sounds like you are well positioned for abundance and happiness, enjoy the ride!
I can understand what PUA>MRA means in the sense that many/most people form snap-judgments with very limited data and often rely on very simple heuristics; as we all know, many sales and pick-up techniques rely on this.
For example, research has indicated that students judge teachers within seconds and then make extrapolations about how much they will enjoy the full multi-week course, and that these extrapolations then tend to be fulfilled. The impression is more or less made quickly and then we may consciously look for confirmation and to provide a story that makes sense of what we see (which is often what we want to see).
If attraction works like this, then the race has effectively started long before the conscious brain has put together a coherent justification for the feeling, and there is a lot of psychic momentum created by these subconscious assessment modules.
On the other hand, we can certainly try to choose if we want to emphasize the optimistic or pessimistic elements in an environment (sure, some people are better at this than others). Perhaps what Susan is presenting is a case for dealing with the neutral or borderline cases—the person in front of us presents a roughly even mix of attractive and less-attractive traits and an attempt is made to explore the attractive ones and buy time to uncover new features that could be very exciting, but which require effort to uncover.
If someone requires “love/lust at first sight”, that person will obvious not like this approach and will feel that it involves too much compromise.
I also wonder if this approach will tend to be more successful for women, since men usually have simple, straightforward, highly visual attraction triggers and women can have a complex, shifting mosaic…?
@Todd
Yes, or to phrase it the way the Aussie economists did, it’s about finding the greatest weighted average of the qualities you value most in one person. This requires an attitude in short supply in our ME culture. That is openness, withholding judgment, looking past the superficial and being realistic about your own market value.
Susan, “If anything, people who move to larger settings become paralyzed by the paradox of choice.”
Eric Barker had a post about this and online dating:
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/why-is-it-so-hard-to-find-a-spouse-in-nyc
“Attraction is NOT a choice!”
Usually women say this, which means they are naturally attracted to the most high status guy that are available.
Settling goes both ways. A woman typically doesn’t settle. They hold out. When they do settle, it might be too late. It is a good idea for women to settle at their peak attractiveness. Men can hold out. It usually works in their favor.
@Todd
Agree completely with NYC and choice issues. I find the problem isn’t so much that it turns the head (although it does) as that it makes it hard to invest all that much effort in one particular person. And I don’t mean invest effort as in try and date them, but invest as in go the extra mile to try and make things work. Knowing that there’s dozens, hundred, and thousands of other girls out there if something doesn’t work out with the girl you’re with makes you far less tolerant of problems or issues, and far less willing to work through them.
OK, I, didn’t realize all that, so sorry if I offended you.
I’ve never done any online dating (obviously). I never even did the personal ad thing or computer dating that existed before online dating. It always struck me as an invitation to have men treat you as a commodity, like in the bar scene. Sciconnect obviously worked for you, but what were the others like? I’ve never really looked except to click on links when those services are references in blog posts.
Susan…”to phrase it the way the Aussie economists did, it’s about finding the greatest weighted average of the qualities you value most in one person.”
I don’t think it’s a weighted average, I think it’s a Gestalt. The particular pattern of personality attributes that may draw James to Elise, or may draw Elise to Thomas, may well not be predictable to the individuals involved until it happens. Even at the strictly physical level, there are subconscious attractors–immune-system compatibility as determined by smell, tones of voice, body language, etc.
Usually women say this, which means they are naturally attracted to the most high status guy that are available.
Actually, usually men say this, which means they are naturally attracted to the most bonerific women that are available. I’ve had loads of debates with men who say point blank, “No boner, no relationship.” or “The penis does lie.” Similarly, there’s the Roissyite idea, echoed even by Dalrock, that the best thing a woman has to offer is her looks.
Knowing that there’s dozens, hundred, and thousands of other girls out there if something doesn’t work out with the girl you’re with makes you far less tolerant of problems or issues, and far less willing to work through them.
Yet paradoxically you will never have all the depth of relationship possible unless you do pick one person, who will no doubt have problems and issues, and then work through them. I would say in fact that part of what builds strength in a relationship is committing to work through problems, learning to do so and having some sucess at it, and then having reciprocal feelings of gratitude to your partner for putting in the effort.
J, Anacaona, I’ve dabbled in online dating sites and had some profiles on OKCupid, Plenty of Fish, some other sites, etc. Personally, I really disliked them. They all really felt superficial and like “meat markets.” I’m a bit of a romantic, and I’ve never had a relationship from those dating sites.
That doesn’t mean other people can’t find success with them, especially if they go about it the right way. I just couldn’t do it. I felt like men were only evaluating me based on my pictures and didn’t give a crap about me as a person, which was basically true. I wanted a deeper connection, and most people are not… deep.
Also, I’m not sure if you have heard of Dunbar’s number. It is the cognitive limit to number of concurrent human relationships (around 150). I was getting hundreds of messages per week, which I suppose was a good “problem” to have, but I couldn’t have possibly gone through them all. Of course those guys were also sending tons of messages to other women.
Incidentally, the average size of a gaming guild conforms to Dunbar’s number for more cohesive groups (around 50), and that’s where I met my husband. I also had a higher chance of meeting a higher IQ guy in a gaming guild that is more “selective” about its members than on dating sites, because of the different audiences (nerds vs. everyone) and the barriers to entry.
I do think online dating can work, but they weren’t for me.
I’ve never thought, in my own life, that attraction was a choice. Then again I’ve never thought much about it. In any case, I don’t think it would be a problem for me because I’ve never been a “10-chaser” and I see plenty of women I find attractive all the time. My standards are not also of the hyper-critical “sharp kness” variety one encounters on the internet.
OK, I, didn’t realize all that, so sorry if I offended you.
Heh I’m not easy to offend. I just don’t want for people to close themselves to online dating given the advantages out of it. I don’t think I would be married if it wasn’t for that.
I’ve never done any online dating (obviously). I never even did the personal ad thing or computer dating that existed before online dating. It always struck me as an invitation to have men treat you as a commodity, like in the bar scene.
I preferred online dating to going to a bar, specially since I’m not a drinker and I would distrust a person that likes bar hoping so we all have our prejudices.
Sciconnect obviously worked for you, but what were the others like?
Hubby meet his last girlfriend in Sciconnect, he had an unsavory experience at E-harmony and one of his friends meet his current live in AA girlfriend at Chemistry.com. Online dating is like sending online resumes, out of 100 you might get 1 or 2 good chances of getting a job. But would you tell someone unemployed that he shouldn’t sent resumes online just because the chances are small given the huge selection of people? I guess not, so is a similar principle. I should make a post about it.
and looked except to click on links when those services are references in blog posts.
You should check the success histories, some people are indeed pairing up, I don’t think the problem is on the service but on the users and again filtering is important. Is similar to the manosphere guys that are praising expating. You can find a lot of willing woman with traditional values but if you don’t do your homework you can end up with a clever golddigger that just want a Visa or worst a time bomb that is dreaming with becoming the typical american woman depicted on Sex and the City, Pretty Little Liars, Girls, Gossip Girl and in a decade will be frivolous divorcing you. Filtering is an important skill.
I wanted to mention that the network method is a good one except that in my particular case it wouldn’t work. Given our special circumstances all my female friends brothers, cousins, male relatives and friends were cads as well and you wouldn’t hook up a friend with someone you know for sure is treating women like plastic cups, right? Heck a man wouldn’t allow his own sister/cousin or goof friend to hang out with one of his friends knowing exactly how bad they are so again online dating was pretty much my only option of finding a pool of men with something beyond a dick to offer, so please don’t bash it, this could be the difference between giving in and just date whatever loser is available in the close proximity and finding a loving husband and starting a solid family for the kids in the audience.
I’m a bit of a romantic, and I’ve never had a relationship from those dating sites.
I never understood why is considered anti romantic, trying to meet people is trying to meet people, and making an effort to find love is romantic regardless of the method, specially in this “casual sex” times, IMO… I guess we need more romance novels/Rom-Com with online dating as settings… :/
@J “No boner, no relationship.” is not the same as “Attraction is NOT a choice!”
You might say it means the same thing, but men are saying the quote on the left and women are saying the other and they mean different things to each.
Ana @ 41:
I agree with everything you wrote. Online dating is just another way to meet people. I don’t know why people bash it because it didn’t work for them. In this SMP sticking to the “old rules” may leave you single for a long time (e.g., what if no guys ask you o ut? What if your friends don’t don’t know decent guys they set you up with?).
+1
I met my bf online and I honestly can’t picture how we would have met otherwise. We live in a large city, and we didn’t have any friends in common or definitely didn’t run in the same circles! He’s an awesome, quality guy who was looking for a relationship. Not a hook up.
I also personally know an engaged couple who met online.
I met my bf online and I honestly can’t picture how we would have met otherwise.
Yeah we had done the exercise of what if we had meet in person? And there would had been a lot of things to get over. Hubby doesn’t approach women just out of looks he needs to see some common ground first, I probably would had approached and talked to him a bit but if he wouldn’t had asked my phone or something I would had assumed he wouldn’t had found me attractive (and spent the next four days thinking what was wrong with me, the wrong hair, the wrong shirt, the wrong phrase?). He would had been like all the other guys I liked looking at them, praying he will say something or thinking on saying something and probably nothing would had happened. Online dating gave us a lot of time to think what to say and getting to know each other and at least for me having our conversations recorded meant that I could verify he was a trustworthy it guy, he never made a promise he wouldn’t keep and he never lied to me and when I asked him to sent me a sweated T-shirt he didn’t freaked out but sent it with no problem so he also smelled really good. I was like “This one is a keeper!” after three months or so and then I went all in doing my best to conquer him and I won!!!!
Again all this wouldn’t had been possible without computers. God bless Charles Babbage and Sir Tim Berners-Lee!
Anacaona, but you weren’t on the dating sites locally. You were in a different country. The sites I was on had lots of nearby men, since I lived in a major metropolitan area. As Cooper mentioned in another thread, everybody on those sites want to meet in-person as soon as possible, which I didn’t like. I wanted to get to know the person much more deeply before doing any date-like activity together.
With my husband, he was far away so we couldn’t meet in person immediately. We got to know each other over the course of many weeks, kind of like you with your husband. That’s more what I meant by “romantic.” You establish a genuine connection first, before jumping in to lunch/dinner dates and whatnot.
J: “Actually, usually men say this, which means they are naturally attracted to the most bonerific women that are available. I’ve had loads of debates with men who say point blank, “No boner, no relationship.” or “The penis does lie.””
Men are talking about their floor of attraction there, not the ceiling.
Sure, we’re naturally attracted to the “most bonerific”, but we’re also attracted to the “least bonerific”, too, as longer as they are bonerific at all. The standard for bonerific is pretty low, when you actually put it to the test.
Attraction is NOT a choice!
But rejection sure as hell is a choice you fucktard. Ever heard of nitpicking? I once caught a girl on a bad day and was like meh, and yet the very next week I saw her was like “Hey”
“The standard for bonerific is pretty low, when you actually put it to the test.”
IME with men over the years, this is largely very true. Sure, I’ve known a few guys that were really picky, but they were also naturally attractive to women, so they had the luxury of being choosy.
The rest of us? It may not be romantic to admit, but most of us have a rather low threshold for what will trigger an erection, and that is most assuredly true of our younger brothers. Basically, men just want a woman attractive enough to physically turn him on. Once that basic threshold is met (and again, for most guys it isn’t all that hard to make it) THEN you get into the nitty gritty of character, personality, compatibility, etc.
And as far as it goes, no women should EVER feel “special” because she managed to turn a man on. Again, in general our threshold for that is low. There is nothing great about managing to make a penis get hard. Seriously, it isn’t difficult at all.
And as far as it goes, no women should EVER feel “special” because she managed to turn a man on
I can’t believe I’m cosigning you.
And as far as it goes, no women should EVER feel “special” because she managed to turn a man on.
I still can’t believe this is something you need to say out loud…like really? Don’t you have a brother or a male friend that tells you this? Men will pop a boner sometimes by accident it only means that he is alive and you don’t look like his mom…that is about it.
evilalpha – “I can’t believe I’m cosigning you.”
ROFL. I’m not sure how I should take that. Am I so bad?
@Valentin
Great advice here. It’s fine to be attracted by someone’s physical presence – in fact, it’s more than fine. But some women do want to be set on constant vibrate and won’t even be particularly interested in you as a person. BTW, this is where good looking beta guys get in trouble. They get the tingle going, but then don’t deliver the push-pull, aloofness and indifference that extremely hypergamous women need.
@Susan
Great advice here. It’s fine to be attracted by someone’s physical presence – in fact, it’s more than fine. But some women do want to be set on constant vibrate and won’t even be particularly interested in you as a person. BTW, this is where good looking beta guys get in trouble. They get the tingle going, but then don’t deliver the push-pull, aloofness and indifference that extremely hypergamous women need.
Constant vibrate!! Lmao.
@Ng
Welcome, thanks for your comment.
Women who bring more than looks to the table, including a positive disposition, generous spirit, etc. have a huge competitive advantage in today’s SMP because there are so many entitled princesses out there.
@Private Man
Good point – I talk a lot about that invisibility factor at college. And it works both ways – I think both sexes need to look up and observe those around them more, especially in cities.
@BB
Mutual lust at first sight (obvs love at first sight is just lust) is extremely rare. Waiting for lightning to strike is a bad strategy.
I think there’s a difference between first impressions and getting to know a person. I don’t think a positive outlook is suddenly going to have the effect of doubling the number of strangers one finds attractive, though it did have an effect for Bellita. I think an open and positive attitude is useful in not filtering people out for the wrong reasons.
We know that people fall for those they are in close proximity to. Repeated exposure to people makes us more attracted to them. That’s been demonstrated very clearly. And the attraction switch may get flipped at any time. That’s why two seniors in high school can suddenly crush on each other even though they’ve been in school together since kindergarten. It is why a guy may suddenly see his sister’s friend in a whole new light. When we’re open to seeing people, we see more than their superficial qualities.
As Dan Ariely said, standards of beauty are universal. No man goes crazy over a 5, even the 5. However, the male 5 has, perhaps by necessity, developed other attraction triggers. He will give points for other qualities as he gets to know the woman, and in his mind, he is not settling. He is genuinely attracted.
A very high percentage of married men describe themselves as highly satisfied, including sexually. That would not be possible if their triggers did not allow burgeoning attraction for women of similar SMV.
@Zach
If NYC is as tipped toward males as you report, then women should take the opposite tack. Be prepared to meet a man more than halfway, be extremely low maintenance, and avoid LJBFing guys. I recall a post (Caroline I think?) who had a new bf in NYC and he was too beta, so she worked with him to get his alpha up and it worked. He was ready to do what she needed once she communicated what that was.
@david foster
Good point. There’s a whole bunch of stuff going on beneath the surface. The truth is, some LJBFs are probably the result of the female’s detecting a bad DNA match. If the smell is off, we’ll pull back, same with the taste of a kiss. There are good reasons for this, even if it is a disappointment in the moment.
@Hope #39
Your description sums up what would be my fears about online dating if I were single. The popular sites like OK Cupid, PoF, etc. remind me of a one of those big assortment boxes of candy where half of the fillings are gross and people repeatedly pick one piece of candy, take a bit and spit it out. Only at the dating sites, people sometimes return the half-eaten pieces to the box.
@Ana
again online dating was pretty much my only option of finding a pool of men with something beyond a dick to offer, so please don’t bash it
@ Iggles
I met my bf online and I honestly can’t picture how we would have met otherwise. We live in a large city, and we didn’t have any friends in common or definitely didn’t run in the same circles! He’s an awesome, quality guy who was looking for a relationship. Not a hook up.
I can very easily see why you both did online dating, and it certainly worked for you.
@OTC
Men are talking about their floor of attraction there, not the ceiling.
In all the times I had this discussion at CH, I’m not sure everyone would have agreed with you. What you are saying makes more sense. Often what they have to say really shut down the conversation. I mean what can I say to a flaccid penis about nice girls?
The standard for bonerific is pretty low, when you actually put it to the test.
Hmmm. I’ll try to feel less good about myself next time DH wakes up me up in the morning with that special surprise.
Some people say that you need to settle, but “settling” has different meanings depending on the person. Take an 7 and a 2. Both think that a 9 of the opposite sex is hot as heck. But, given assortive mating based on SMV, the 7 has to settle for a little less than a 9 while the 2 has to settle for a lot less.
Being with someone who you feel is the person that you are the most happy with, given your opportunities, is the best you can go for. The “given your opportunities” in there sounds cold and nonromantic, but it’s obvious reality. It just comes down to choice really, though, doesn’t it? If you’d rather be alone or hold out for something which you think will be better, nobody is stopping you. The consequence of that choice, of course, can be being alone for a very long time or the rest of your life, and I don’t feel sorry for people who make that choice and don’t like the result. I made that choice, and it worked out, but it won’t for some people, certainly. You are responsible for your own happiness.
I’d also argue that some young shy people are in general quite picky, and may possibly benefit a lot from trying a relationship or two without needing to see it as a potential marriage, in order to gain a little perspective.
J- “Hmmm. I’ll try to feel less good about myself next time DH wakes up me up in the morning with that special surprise”
Lol. Sorry dear. I didn’t mean to burst any bubbles, but it is the nature of the beast. You should still feel good about yourself regardless. After all, he chose you to share all that morning glory with.
“Incidentally, the average size of a gaming guild conforms to Dunbar’s number for more cohesive groups (around 50), and that’s where I met my husband”
Have their been studies of this? In the last MMO I played, active membership for some of the guilds seemed to reach into 100+, with surges during war-time of hundreds. Plus, the game was geopolitical, so the guilds were in larger alliances with very deep relationships.
Ana on boners:
” it only means that he is alive and you don’t look like his mom..”
Classic
You should still feel good about yourself regardless. After all, he chose you to share all that morning glory with
Awwwww.
it only means that he is alive and you don’t look like his mom..
To tell the truth, I do sort of look like my MIL. And DH and I look more alike than DH and his sister do.
A Definite Beta Guy, here are a few links about Dunbar’s number:
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/10/dunbar_group_co.html
http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2006/02/dunbar-number.html
Classic
Glad you like it
To tell the truth, I do sort of look like my MIL. And DH and I look more alike than DH and his sister do.
I was going to mention that even looking like his mom is not a total dealbreaker for boners but given my latest mentions of porn I didn’t wanted to be label “The pervert of HUS”
Now seriously,I read that couples tend to look similar even interracial ones so I’m not surprised. I think another important point is to teach the kids to try to pair up as similar SMV and MMV as possible. I’m sure stability on that aspect is important, YMMV.
Now seriously,I read that couples tend to look similar even interracial ones so I’m not surprised.
Some of that comes from years of mirroring each other’s facial expressions. DH and I are both mutts, but we have some shared ethnicity that caused us to look alike even as a new couple. (His mom and my dad were distant cousins.) 25 years of making the same faces have increased that.
@J
That is at least some slight excuse for the guy who asked you out after seeing you together.
Hope, I had never heard of the Dunbar number before. Stuff like this, IMO, is so interesting.
Thank you.
I’ve thought of that. Things like height, peacocking, extroversion, beauty grab attention. Attention opens the door to having positive experiences with a person, biology runs its course, a relationship sparks up. It’s been amazing to me how much your perspective of a person changes whenever you get into a relationship.
I’m not sure attraction is a choice, but, attention? Sure.
J: “In all the times I had this discussion at CH, I’m not sure everyone would have agreed with you. What you are saying makes more sense. Often what they have to say really shut down the conversation.”
Players who really do have high standards (as Ted noted) and the rest are talking smack, IMO. Remember, the shtick is to act like you have options, so that you can turn down women, and keep doing it until you do. They’re practicing the mindset on you, and with each other. Sad thing, is that it works.
J: “Hmmm. I’ll try to feel less good about myself next time DH wakes up me up in the morning with that special surprise. ”
Yeah. EMB’s happen naturally, even if no woman is present. Men get a bunch during sleep, too, naturally.
I never have as much time to read and comment as I’d like, but I just wanted to say that I think this post is solid gold. Far from being harsh and unromantic, I think that promoting realistic expectations and a sense of agency (as opposed to waiting around for something “perfect” or for “destiny” to intervene in your life) is the fastest possible route to fostering genuine happiness in most people’s romantic sphere.
Incidentally, the reason I haven’t had time to comment is because I’ve been spending it with my new boyfriend. A little over a month ago, good filtering, emotional escalation, open-mindedness, holding out on sex and a willingness to take emotional risks to follow a gut feeling all paid off for me, and I’ve begun a legit relationship with a man I’m proud and delighted every day to be with.
Noooooo! Say it isn’t so!!!!
That is at least some slight excuse for the guy who asked you out after seeing you together.
The thing is, I’m sure he meant no offense. We are one of those couples who look alike, and he doesn’t read body language well. And they day he asked, I was picking up my son at his house, had been gardening and was not wearing my rings.
@Scoot
That’s fantastic! I am so happy for you!
Players who really do have high standards (as Ted noted) and the rest are talking smack, IMO.
Mine too, though I will tell you that when I’d say, “Jeez, have some realistic standards,” they’d go nuts.
They’re practicing the mindset on you, and with each other. Sad thing, is that it works.
That they’d practice on some random middle-aged woman on the net is sort of laughable. I wonder how much really works, though. Sure a guy can turn down some women of low SMV, but I really doubt that makes the HB 10s come running no matter how much these guys swear up and down that it did happen. I take descriptions on the net of what people look like with a grain of salt. Most of us attract people who are about as attractive as we are. If a male 4 can game a tipsy or horny 6 into bed for a night, good for him. But I doubt that presages a lifetime of bedding 8s unless he really has something solid to offer them.
That’s not to say that improving social skills, overcoming shyness, dressing better, learning to read people better, etc. can’t help. I think they can. But it really kills me when I see people pass up a reasonable choice of mate to go after pie in the sky and then blame social/economic forces for their loneliness. If you’re a 4, find yourself a nice 4. You aren’t getting George Clooney or Angela Jolie.
I’ve commented before about the blogger who hated his 6 gf for reminding him of his low SMV; he vowed to find himself a 9. He’d be a lot better off working on his self hatred instead of fantasizing about some mythical 9 who wants to deal with his emotional problems. Girls with options aren’t interested.
Yeah. EMB’s happen naturally, even if no woman is present. Men get a bunch during sleep, too, naturally.
I know. I was being lighhearted.
Ramble, glad you also found it interesting! I love stuff like this, because it’s applicable across many different fields.
One reason I don’t follow celebrities is that I believe our brains are fooled into thinking of those people as someone we know personally, when in fact that is far from the case. I’d rather reserve that social energy for people who are actually close to me.
Scoot, that’s really awesome. Firsthand testimonial that HUS material works for getting relationships!
If you’re a 4, find yourself a nice 4
Sorry, but that’s more a woman’s problem than a man’s. It’s called hypergamy. Hypergamy is also the reason why game works. Ironic isn’t it.
One reason I don’t follow celebrities is that I believe our brains are fooled into thinking of those people as someone we know personally, when in fact that is far from the case. I’d rather reserve that social energy for people who are actually close to me.
This is exactly how it works.
I did my thesis on Celebrities on Advertising so I had been following the phenomenon for a while and you are right the brain through exposure recognizes then as part of their group/herd/pack or alternative thinks of it as the enemy that must be destroyed. I don’t think one should be totally isolated to avoid the effect and I think some people are more influenced than others though. Being out the loop on “mass media” is not entirely good. Is better to know a bit but just enough to be informed without becoming obsessed. I also have the theory that extreme (haters and lovers) are this way because they don’t have strong groups around them, are socially hard to make friends or keep them, so they expose themselves to handful of celebrities and madness ensue. Is a fascinating phenomenon IMO, and is going to get worse before it gets better sadly.
@Scoot
Congratulations!
@Susan
That would be a good addition to the blog. Testimonials of people entering relationships due to following your advice. Just a suggestion.
Why than you, EA. In the time I’ve been commenting on these blogs, this is the first time I’ve heard of hypergamy. You’re comments are enlightening as always.
When does school start?
Yaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy, Scoot!
@ Scoot
Yay! Congrats.
@ Everyone
I know I’ve been MIA for a bit on this blog, but I’ve been rather preoccupied myself with a stunning fellow. I’ve also been using the tips Susan and others have given me, especially regarding how I interact with men, and I think it has paid off big time. I have a really good feeling about this guy I’ve been dating. I’ll keep you all posted.
Sassy – “I have a really good feeling about this guy I’ve been dating. I’ll keep you all posted. ”
Good luck! You will have to fill us in on at least some details eventually you know. I’m VERY curious as to what mix of traits a guy needs to truly lock you down.
@Sassy
That’s so great!
Congrats Scoot and Sassy!
Thanks, everyone! And thanks especially for the fireworks, Susan! I didn’t expect such a celebration, but I guess that’s fitting since that’s pretty much how I feel about it inside my head all the time lately.
The following may or may not be worth noting:
- This took time. I’d been single (and concurrently abstinent!) for four long years prior to this. This new fellow and I went through a full 6 months of flirting and uncertainty before we decided to be together, during which time I was inwardly fretting a bit but always (lightheartedly) clear with him about how I felt, what I wanted, and what I would not do. I had atttempted the same thing with two other men over the past 4 years, but they didn’t go for it.
- The new gentleman admits he was a little scared by the above at times, fearing I might be too square, too serious, too vanilla, too demanding, etc. He worried he might not be able to live up to my expectations, which is why he said things took a while – he had to get to know me first. He says I seemed “churchy,” which is especially funny since I’m an atheist. Now, he seems to respect those behaviors an awful lot. He claims no girl who was actually interested in him has ever held out on hooking up until after commitment. None. Ever!
- He’s right in the eye of the college-aged hookup culture storm, but he’s first-generation American and learned strong family values from his immigrant family’s culture. I think this is a very big bonus.
@Sassy
Congrats to you, too!!
@Scoot, Sassy
Congratulations!
@J
“If you’re a 4, find yourself a nice 4. You aren’t getting George Clooney or Angela Jolie.”
Do you mean a *nice* 4?
Sorry, bad attempt at a “nice-guy” joke. I’ve heard that there are also stereotypes of ugly and mean people who are jealous and just plain frustrated.
In other news, plastic surgery can still be had.
(I actually think Clooney is ugly and Jolie looks like a man.)
Good to hear Sassy & Scoot
congrats
I have found this to be the case for me. It’s hard for me to believe now, but when I met my husband, I thought he was butt-ugly. Tall, gangly, glasses … But then we started hanging out a lot, I realized he was incredibly smart and funny, and then one day I saw him playing soccer and it suddenly dawned on me that he wasn’t gangly but *wiry,* and as a matter of fact I found that really freaking hot. And another day soon after he took off his glasses and I realized that WOAH, he had really great eyes. He actually IS attractive — I just somehow didn’t notice this at first.
No, I didn’t choose him for his looks. But by the time we were in a serious relationship, I LOVED his looks. I don’t know if attraction is mutable for everyone, but it is for me.
Incidentally, I have always tried the “see the best in everyone” approach, both in romance and friendship, and it’s never steered me wrong. Even if you later find out that they have some other quality you can’t stand, at least you were able to see the good in them too and give them a chance.
@Sheila
Welcome, thanks for leaving that awesome comment! It’s great to hear from people who have already done this in real life. I think it’s related to the abundance vs. scarcity mentality. If we assume there are lots of good, worthy and attractive people out there, instead of figuring we’ll never meet someone who is good enough, we will observe lots of attractive people.
@Susan
I think it’s a great idea. Women naturally look for reasons to filter men out–that’s good to a point to protect their eggs from unsavory sperm. On top of this natural winnowing, the “men are pigs” and “women don’t need men” memes amplify the screening to unhealthy levels of suspicion, not to mention rendering most men more invisible than Frodo and Sam snuggling under Frodo’s camouflage cloak near the Black Gate.
Looking for positive traits in men presupposes noticing men and doing both should start to provide positive affirmation to the weary query of where are all the good men.
I believe that women’s attraction triggers are more malleable than men’s since men base such a high % on looks whereas women give more weight to such things as status, charm, badboyedness and other more socially-determined traits.
I would say that, instantaneously, attraction is not a choice but that women can gradually open the door to feeling it more by noticing the positive in men and allowing the marginal but previously-shunned-or-ignored less-than-flashy man to have time to work his attraction magic–kind of like a time-release pill.
ps Glad you liked the article I quoted. One correction. I didn’t say those words though. They were the final words in the article.
@HanSolo
You’re funny, and your point is so true.
I wonder if this is the reason why people can work together for three years and then suddenly feel attracted. Perhaps the familiarity quotient has worked in the man’s favor – the woman flirts – and he responds, because he’s found her attractive all along.
Susan – “I wonder if this is the reason why people can work together for three years and then suddenly feel attracted. Perhaps the familiarity quotient has worked in the man’s favor – the woman flirts – and he responds, because he’s found her attractive all along.”
As someone that has been managing projects with mixed sex teams, I’ve seen this play out many times. In fact, I find it odd that this isn’t common knowledge: familiarity between people of the opposite sex does often lead to feelings of “deeper connection”. More often than not, that feeling goes away once the project is over, but I’ve seen it last and turn into a relationship on occasion. It can be a real team killer though if it goes bad while the project is in progress, which is why I’m thankful that IT tends to be a mostly male field. I don’t have those mixed teams very often.
@PUA >MRA
Well, I can’t disagree. Sure, attraction is not a choice. What is a choice is being overly dismissive. If one chooses not to be so dismissive, their dismissiveness will no longer drown out underlying attraction toward generally good potential partners.
Focus in what you have to OFFER
What reason does a quality man have to
be with you????????????????
You cannot compete with sex, because men
with money are outsourcing, 1) better product
2) Cheaper price 3). They can’t be sued (foreign brides, brasil
Is very popular now among rich men)
Of course the guys at the car wash need a mate,
and the lube auto place??
THINK ABOUT IT
Do you realize “men have stopped dating
Here”, they buy plane tickets, have other
residents in other countries. Business men
live between places, and employees, work 80
hour weeks. and have a month off in Argentina,
it the South of Brasil. It does not take a lot
of money to do this, anyone who makes 100
grand a year or more?? I know hundreds
of guys who do this, the laws are ridiculus
here, you can’t talk to a girl at work, if she has
one drink, she can turn you in for rape, and
if the guy gets married, he will be financially
destroyed, because of unfair laws in favor of
women. I met a girl in church in Rio De Janeiro,
and don’t have to worry about all of this stuff?
Do you girls have a solution for this problem??
Guys have been hunting for a solution, with no
real answer???
Of course it depends on what level of guy you are
working on, there are many that are not very smart
and don’t make enough money, and have no
choice but to put up with your agenda above.
I guess that is the pool of men, you girls are
working with, and that is OK??? Many poor
people can have babies and be happy?? I guess
it depends on your goals??
{ 1 trackback }