“Hot & Mean” vs. “Not Hot & Nice”: What Do Girls Want?

Susan Walsh • August 29, 2012

There’s been discussion recently about the following excerpt of an email sent to Athol Kay by a reader:

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.

I can easily imagine the conversation, as I recall many similar all-night girl talk sessions during my own teenage years. As Athol points out, 13 year old girls are just beginning to discover their sexuality, and they respond to the most primitive attraction triggers without any sense of future time orientation. (This is one of the reasons why delaying sex in teenage girls is so vitally important.)

Yet there’s no denying that Hot & Mean trumps Not Hot & Nice. In fact, in a world where those are the only two choices, Hot & Mean gets all the girls. Why is this? This father’s story has been mostly interpreted to confirm that chicks dig jerks and reject nice guys, and of course there is some truth to that. The error is in viewing this as one switch that gets flipped. Women don’t find meanness sexually attractive in and of itself, nor do they find a nice personality a turnoff.

The adage “Treat ‘em mean to keep ‘em keen” has been explored and studied. Both sexes do it, but in this study men used insults and other mean behavior to keep women’s interest by implying that they were incapable of securing a better man or relationship. Psychologists believe this tactic is related to personality traits such as degree of agreeableness (or lack thereof) and aggressivity.

Hot & Mean

Which came first, Hot or Mean? Do hot guys come across as mean, or are mean guys automatically hot? Consider the quintessential mean guy – the bully. Why do boys bully?

They’ve learned bullying at home.
They’re insecure. Many bullies are insecure, and intimidating other kids is an attempt to cover up their insecurity.
They want to feel powerful. Boys who bully need to control others.
They crave attention.
They have personal issues. Underneath this tough exterior, the bully is likely to be angry or depressed.

Girls don’t feel sexually attracted to bullies, even though bullies may lead their peers via intimidation or fear.

In contrast a guy who is “hot,” i.e. very good looking, may be perceived by girls as mean. Why?

He is very selective, rejecting most of the girls who crush on him.
He is less likely to embrace the role of boyfriend, since he can hook up with a variety of girls from a young age if he is so inclined.
He may be good-looking to girls but introverted or shy, which will likely get him labeled as aloof or conceited.
At puberty, there is a shuffling of intrasexual influence among both boys and girls, as some emerge as physically attractive to the opposite sex. The newly crowned popular kids often get cocky with their fresh power and influence.

On the other hand, women have long been attracted to the archetypical Bad Boy: the Brooding Loner or the Charming Sociopath. His appeal is multi-faceted.

1. He is the ultimate challenge. Adolescent girls test their own sexual appeal by embracing the challenge of attracting guys who are unlikely to commit. Unsurprisingly, disagreeable loners and narcissists are the most difficult to lock down.

2. Bad Boys act boldly on their desires. They are often rebellious and they take what they want. This translates into a raw sexuality that females find very arousing. All women fantasize about being “taken” by a strong, bold character overcome with desire. (Hence the appeal of romance novels.)

3. Women are drawn to individuals in need of nurturing, and Bad Boys need more nurturing than anyone else, even though it is futile and generally unwelcome. Brooding Loners in particular are often viewed as damaged goods, and girls can’t resist the dramatic notion of fixing what’s broken in them, or saving them from themselves. We want to show these men what it feels like to be truly loved.

4. Women love the idea of inspiring a man to change, e.g., “You make me want to be a better man.”

I think it’s fair to say that most 13 year olds feel this way. Certainly the ones interested in boys do. As they mature and learn about the opposite sex, their responses become more complex and refined. This varies a great deal by individual, though. A significant number of girls will never get past the desire to tame the Bad Boy. Others grow into a more mature understanding of human nature and their own sexuality.

At my high school there was one very handsome surfer type with long blond hair, blue eyes and high cheekbones. He was almost surly in his demeanor, and he was known to do a lot of drugs. Inexplicably, he took a liking to me. I suspect it was because I presented as cute, bubbly and wholesome, the polar opposite of who he was. I was flattered and titillated to be targeted by this Bad Boy, and my friends were scandalized, which was fun.

Quickly, though, the relationship dynamic became clear. He was looking for me to save him. He wanted me to give him the strength to clean up his act, and we talked for hours on end about his issues. At first it was heady stuff – I felt powerful, like a savior. It didn’t really work, though. The drama got boring. I began to see him as a wounded animal rather than a sexy guy. He was tortured, and I began to feel caged spending time with him. His problems became an enormous burden. After a couple of months, I ended it. That cured me of Bad Boy lust forever. Other women chase that savior role well into their 30s.

Not Hot & Nice

Do girls assume that less attractive guys are nice, or do nice guys behave in a way that makes them less attractive to women?

Craig Bruce is a software developer and and former Computer Science professor who has made a great study of shyness in personal relationships. He describes himself very much as the prototypical Nice Guy TM, and has examined the Nice Guy phenomenon as it relates to attachment styles, i.e. secure, anxious, and avoidant. I think he gets it right, so I’ll let him explain:

TERM	STYLE	DESCRIPTION
Alpha Males	Secure	Outgoing, friendly, intelligent, (socially) powerful, confident, and fun social-group leaders, “have their shit together.”
Regular Guys	Secure	Much of the stuff above, but not necessarily leaders, maybe slight NiceGuy(TM) or Jerk qualities.
NiceGuys(TM)	Anxious	Shy, anxious, low social status, maybe many friendships with women but few real relationships, a push-over, walked upon by others, “needy”, “clingy”, dependent, self-esteem problems, desperate, tries to move relationships too quickly.
Jerks	Avoidant	Exciting, arrogant, psychotic scum

“I’m using a very specific, negative definition of “NiceGuy(TM)” here. Any of the first three types can be “nice” people, in the dictionary sense of the word. And, well, I would guess that there are parallel female equivalents. It is my contention that most human social groups have a male domination hierarchy of some sort, with the more self-confident males near the top and the less self-confident nearer the bottom. Mind you, they don’t butt heads or beat each other up; the more dominant ones lead the group, guide the conversation, are the ones that others look up to, etc. The less dominant ones are followers, and in pathological situations, are ridiculed and taken advantage of.

…Self-esteem theory says that we always want to maximize our self-esteem and that we derive self-esteem from two sources: achievement and affiliations (friends, groups, lovers). Of course, it takes self-esteem in the first place to get these things, so it is circular feedback loop, which can spiral both upwards and downwards. Secure types have this whole system working in a healthy fashion. Anxious types tend to have a lack of affiliations (or at least close affiliations) and so they draw more of their self-esteem from achievement (things like 4.22 GPAs). When both sources are cut off, self-esteem plummets. Avoidant types either don’t like to be close to other people or they tend to see affiliations as being achievements… in a pathological way. The way for them to achieve in this area is being able to dominate and control people. Avoidants don’t care about other people’s feelings and are always looking out for #1.

Person 1	Person 2	Relationship
Secure	Secure	Smooth, harmonious
Secure	Anxious	Smooth — the Secure person is nurturing to the Anxious
Secure	Avoidant	Conflict — Secure loses patience
Anxious	Anxious	Roller Coaster — highs and lows, intense emotions
Avoidant	Anxious	Power — the Avoidant dominates or abuses the Anxious
Avoidant	Avoidant	No intimate relationship possible

…Now, about Jerks. Jerks tend to see themselves positively and other people negatively, so they tend to have high levels of self-confidence and little respect for other people. It is the high self-confidence that attracts women to them, as it causes them to be rambunctions, energetic risk takers. They think they’re God’s gift to women. They tend to be spontaneous without really thinking about consequences. They tend to be impulsive, and so give off an air of danger and adventure. If we look at the chart above, we see that Avoidant types (jerks) don’t tend to have relationships with each other and relationships with Secure people tend to be filled with conflict since a Secure person is not going to take the Avoidant’s “shit”. And so, it tends to be the Insecure, Anxious type of women who falls for the Jerk. These are the women who may be called NiceGirls(TM), parallel to NiceGuys(TM), except that instead of being turned off by the type as women tend to be, the Jerks see these women as easy marks, easy to dominate and thereby increase their self-esteem, and, whatever else a man might want to do with a woman.

…Another thing: A number of people have either said that Alpha Males are defined as the most physically attractive males or that Alpha Males and Jerks are the same thing. I don’t think that that is the way things are at all. Alpha Males are the benevolent socially dominant males of a group that tend to be leaders, care about people, and that everyone in the group tends to look up to, including the females, and Jerks are abusive headcases who socialize in order to conquer people. Physical attractiveness is a different issue, although people who are attractive have an extra card in their hand when it comes to self-esteem and how other people perceive them, but this is only a benefit and not a determinant.”

It is obviously in the best long-term interests of both men and women to develop a secure attachment style if possible, and to choose a partner who is also secure in attachment.

Filed in: Relationship Strategies • Tags: attachment style, Craig Bruce, dating advice, relationship advice, self-esteem theory, sexual attraction, social dominance

Place your ad here
Loading...

http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

I’m 13 months older than my sister. She had many slumber parties and I knew her dozen or so friends for many years. This “hot and mean” or “Not Hot and Nice” is in many ways just a fantasy. I have never seen it in my entire life except or a handful of disturbed females.

Unless, of course, most young women today are disturbed. If so, that’s men’s fault. Men created civilization, and contrary to the deluded, men civilize women, not the other way around.
evilalpha

Do not ever include male “beauty” into a definition of alpha. Anyone who does should be forced to watch a chimp show on animal planet. Alpha is defined by control of resources… and yes pussy is a resource.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Do not ever include male “beauty” into a definition of alpha. Anyone who does should be forced to watch a chimp show on animal planet. Alpha is defined by control of resources… and yes pussy is a resource.
  
  Wrong. Good looking men have more influence, earn more money and are more successful in life. Good looks are most definitely part of being alpha.
Ramble

Of all of the things you mentioned, only one will actually make a girl wet:

Bad Boys act boldly on their desires. They are often rebellious and they take what they want. This translates into a raw sexuality that females find very arousing. All women fantasize about being “taken” by a strong, bold character overcome with desire. (Hence the appeal of romance novels.)

That’s the main course, everything else is gravy (and, likely, simple rationalizing).

All of the “saving”, “getting him to commit”, “making him a better man” are niceties that girls need to apply so that they can feel the sexual excitement of being pounded by a beast with good cheekbones (you will notice that very, very few of the bad boys that attend events like Sturgis have attractive girlfriends riding bitch on their harleys .. most of those girls look pretty rugged and used. The posturing Johnny Depps of the world, on the other hand…).
Jimmy Hendricks

Using these definitions, I’d guess that less than 10% of both genders in HS & College fit into the “secure” style…
Tom

Ramble I have an Ultra Classic….

what about ther hot nice guys?
evilalpha

you will notice that very, very few of the bad boys that attend events like Sturgis have attractive girlfriends riding bitch on their harleys

And? Bikers do better than if those same guys were non bikers. Just sayin’
evilalpha

Susan,

You are cheating. Mean =/= Bully.

The saying is “chicks dig Assholes “not chicks dig bullies” for good reason.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Evil
  
  I did not say that all mean guys are bullies. I gave an example of a mean guy who does not attract women. Chicks don’t dig all jerks or assholes, some of whom are bullies, some of whom are ugly, some of whom have an IQ under 100. There are lots of mean guys who women perceive as “creepy.” It’s a mistake to think that “mean” = attractive.
  
  It’s the fact that the guys are hot that gets them female attention.
GudEnuf

I’ll bet those 13 year old girls also have a crush on Justin Bieber or One Direction.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I’ll bet those 13 year old girls also have a crush on Justin Bieber or One Direction.
  
  It’s true, lol. In addition to the Bad Boy archetype, we have the Effete Troubador, the Golden Boy Athlete and the Class Clown. All do extremely well with women.
Ramble

And?

And, you missed the point.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I’ll bet those 13 year old girls also have a crush on Justin Bieber or One Direction.

It would be funny if that dad had asked for celebrity examples of Hot Mean and their first pick would had been The Bieber…
Ted D

This is all fine and well, but I still think the main point of the 13 year old’s story is being missed by most of the women here:

If you strip everything else out of the picture (that means maturity, logic, will, agency, etc.) female humans tend to be attracted to the darker traits of men. Yes, a “violent” man can certainly use his strength for good, but that doesn’t make him any less violent. And, since much of “Game” and the ‘sphere base their theories on women’s baser instincts, the story of the 13 year old girls pretty much proves their point.

Yes, a woman *may* grow up, mature, and realize that those ‘bad boys’ are bad news, but, in the end, her basic instinct still drives her to be attracted to them. No matter how you paint it, the color doesn’t change. And the real problem IMO at this stage is our society DOES NOT promote maturity in any way, shape, or form. Instead, we do our best to excuse everyone’s bad behavior, and coddle our children well into their 20’s (as is seen so obviously at your local college campus.) So, in the end, the attitude those 13 year old girls have may stick with them all the way through their mid 20’s, which is exactly what leads to lots of P & D, gnashing of teeth, and cries of “where are all the good men.”

The problem is: young women simply aren’t attracted to “good” men naturally. They must learn it. And currently, there is no one teaching them this lesson.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  If you strip everything else out of the picture (that means maturity, logic, will, agency, etc.) female humans tend to be attracted to the darker traits of men
  
  I think that’s too simplistic. Rather, dark traits are extreme examples of what women find attractive.
  
  Women are attracted to confidence.
  Narcissists are the most confident men.
  
  Women are attracted to calm strength rather than anxiety.
  Sociopaths are the least anxious men.
  
  Women are attracted to men who are socially dominant.
  Disagreeable, even violent men are the most dominant.
  
  Women are attracted to men who embrace risk.
  Dangerous men, and men in dangerous settings are the most comfortable with risk.
  
  Why are women attracted to confidence, a cool head, strength, social dominance and capability in high risk situations? Because in the ancestral environment, these men lived longest and accumulated the greatest wealth and respect of other men. They were the Chiefs, the top males. Women are attracted to characteristics that signal Top Male.
  
  As I’ve shared many times before, it is believed that the Dark Triad trifecta evolved specifically to allow men with disagreeable personalities to reproduce, and they are good at getting in and out, not so good at sustaining relationships. These were men who found themselves unsuited for evolved pair bonding, and evolved in a different direction. Because personality traits are largely heritable, they are common today.
Ted D

“I’ll bet those 13 year old girls also have a crush on Justin Bieber or One Direction.”

I don’t know One Direction very well, but anyone can see PLENTY of sexual innuendo from Justin Bieber, and the same could be said about the Jonas brothers as well. (I know, they aren’t really relevant now…) I always got the impression that Justin B’s “handlers” did their best to paint him as a squeeky clean young man that is hiding a lusty dark side. No, I’m not kidding. I’ve always considered him to be very “under the radar” sexually suggestive. I mean, he was pimped out by Usher, right? Have any of you listened to Usher’s music?!
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Susan, I really like the secure/anxious/avoidant attachment style chart matrix. A lot of people out there have emotional problems which manifest in relationships. If nothing else, that is very helpful in identifying different types of relationship patterns.

I look back on my early relationships and can identify why they had so many problems and failed. I had a tendency to go for the “wounded outcast” type who was anxious, but I was also insecure and anxious myself. It wasn’t until I fixed a lot of my own issues that I was able to become good relationship material.
Esau

Ted D: The problem is: young women simply aren’t attracted to “good” men naturally. They must learn it. And currently, there is no one teaching them this lesson.

+many. This is the truth that an honest society (ie not the one I grew up in) would make sure that young men learned. Really, I would say that this caps the thread; all else is (and will be) commentary.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D, @Esau
  
  Women are attracted to characteristics that signal the ability and desire to father strong, healthy progeny, and to raise them for 18 years. Those two desires are a tradeoff and women must balance those things to the best of their ability. It’s not a matter of good or bad. As Helen Fisher said, we are designed to reproduce, not to have relationships. The happiness we find, we make.
Ted D

Susan – Since we are discussing attachment styles, I thought perhaps a test to determine attachment style might be good for discussion.

http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl-attachment-quiz.htm

My results:
Based upon your quiz answers, you appear to have a secure attachment style.

I would be willing to bet $5 that prior to finding the Red Pill, my attachment style was anxious. And, to be honest, I think I’m still borderline there, but getting better.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I always got the impression that Justin B’s “handlers” did their best to paint him as a squeeky clean young man that is hiding a lusty dark side.

Part of the missing disconnect is that if a man is openly mean he is sexually attractive to women because he is mean the rest will be damned but if he is nice but has a bit of a lusty dark side then women are sexually attracted to that too not the nice part. Has everyone forgotten the fried ice/full package/unicorn concept?
If that were the case instead of romance novels spending 30 pages with the leading man talking about the feelings of the leading lady, they would just be banging nonstop with no emotional connection or conquering her heart and neither almost all of them would end up in weddings, faithfulness and babies.
I know that from men’s POV the whole point is to “get her wet and bang her” but is good to try to enter in a woman’s shoes once in a while and see that is not everything for us and not think that is the only thing there is attractive about a fantasy man, even Athol advocates for balance because even if that woman wants to bang you she will get tired of just banging if you don’t bring anything else to the relationship, YMMV.
Ted D

Susan – “I think that’s too simplistic. Rather, dark traits are extreme examples of what women find attractive.”

This seems like “chicken and egg” to me though. Are the Dark Traits (I love that I feel the need to capitalize that, as if it is a proper name, LOL) extreme examples of what women find attractive, or did men evolve to lesson those traits as we became more civilized? (meaning, are women actually attracted to some of the worst traits in men and over time the NEED for those traits declined to the point that we started ‘breeding them out’, so to speak.

“As I’ve shared many times before, it is believed that the Dark Triad trifecta evolved specifically to allow men with disagreeable personalities to reproduce, and they are good at getting in and out, not so good at sustaining relationships. ”

I don’t agree on this point, but you know how I feel about humanity in general. I think the Dark Traits (should I add a TM after that?) are humanities most basic set of working instructions, and we’ve simply evolved past them. As in Lord of the Flies, I believe if you take any group of humans and put them into a survival situation, the ones most likely to survive would be the most sociopathic of the group. However, I will add that if a person were sociopathic AND particularly good at hiding the fact, they would certainly be the most likely to survive, and anyone that sided with them, at least until they become a liability to said sociopath.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  I think the Dark Traits (should I add a TM after that?) are humanities most basic set of working instructions, and we’ve simply evolved past them.
  
  That is correct. Before pair bonding, all mating was short-term. Pair bonding evolved as it became clear that it was the most successful method of reproducing. Some men were not capable of making the shift to bonding, and scientists believe they Dark Triad evolved from them. By using an agressive short-term mating strategy they did reproduce, and their descendants are with us today (obviously).
  
  However, and this is where I always get pushback – women evolved to prefer men who exhibit long-term pair-bonding traits. Not all women fit this model – undoubtedly the female descendants of Dark Triad males have some of those same characteristics. It has been shown that STR types tend to mate with other STR types. Or, as Helen Fisher describes it, dopamine-seeking Explorers tend to choose other Explorers.
slim’s tuna provider

not sure i see where craig bruce is coming from with these categories. in high school and college i was very confident in lots of aspectsof life and had lots of friends but was terribly shy and uncertain with women, especially in high-pressure social situations. as long as romance was out of the question, i was quite calm and reportedly sometimes charming. a lot of my lack of confidence was because i thought i was supposed to be acting “alpha” but had no idea how to do so.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

About 13 year olds being representative of adult attraction mechanisms, I am not so sure. I was super into Sailor Moon when I was 13 and loooved the girliness of the show. I also collected pictures of girls I thought were really pretty, but I never cared to collect pictures of boys. I didn’t crush on the celebrities either.

But obviously I turned out straight.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

My results:
Based upon your quiz answers, you appear to have a secure attachment style.
I got: Your Attachment Style: Insecure/Anxious

Not surprised at all. I still have my “all mean cheat for whatever reasons” flashbacks once in while, less frequent now but still happen. Hard to break the programing it looks like.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

But obviously I turned out straight.

Is Sailor Moon a lesbian tell? I was a fan and even though I was surprised of them having Sailor Saturn and Sailor Neptune in a romantic relationship I though it was a straight girl show, but then I though the same of Card Captor Sakura so maybe my gaydar is broken…
Sassy6519

@ Hope

I was super into Sailor Moon when I was 13 and loooved the girliness of the show.

Me too! I loved that show as well.
Ted D

Susan – “As Helen Fisher said, we are designed to reproduce, not to have relationships. The happiness we find, we make.”

This is absolutely true. However, as civilization has evolved, humanity has put into place systems that counteract some of our more dangerous traits. As much as it offends my “fairness” sensibilities, the fact is fathers keeping daughters “safe from punks” went a LONG way towards keeping young women (who we both agree ARE NOT mature in selecting mates) from ending up with asshats. As much as I dislike anyone being oppressed, the fact is when women had less independence there were far less OOW births and “baby daddy’s” around.

Of course I’m not suggesting we go back to women being less than citizens. But why is it SO SCARY for women to simply admit that at the core of it all, their base instincts are to choose less than savory men to have sex with? I think most men are more than happy to admit that they want to have sex with the most attractive women they can get, so I don’t understand what is so damned horrible about just acknowledging the truth. Once that is accomplished, we can start figuring out how to balance it out so most people do not lose freedom AND we also don’t promote the worst behavior possible. I’m not suggesting we bring back the chastity belt! I would just love to see mothers telling their daughters: “Look, I know those bad boys make you tingly. I know you want to “get to know them better”, but the truth is they are simply bad for you and your future.”

Why is it OK for men to be told, over and over throughout their lives, that THEIR base nature is bad/evil/sexist and to be expected to control them, while women won’t even admit to their own base instincts?

I hope you know I’m on women’s side when it comes to agency, free will, and their ability to OVERRIDE their base instincts. However, it frustrates me to no end that even when presented with plenty of evidence (anecdotal and scientific) women will NOT simply admit the truth: that their base instincts do not select for the best traits in men, and very often select for the worst. Is it shameful? Because I’m not ashamed that I look at and prefer attractive women. At least I’m not ashamed of it anymore.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  But why is it SO SCARY for women to simply admit that at the core of it all, their base instincts are to choose less than savory men to have sex with?
  
  It’s not scary. I just wrote a post about the appeal of the Bad Boy. Every woman ever born understands this. I’ve also explained why he is alluring. Honestly, my motive in writing this post was to say, “Yes! We are drawn to Bad Boys! At 13 the dark, brooding, disaffected male is very tempting indeed. I see no shame in this. As we mature we learn to make good choices.
  
  Isn’t it the same for men? Don’t you graduate from wanting a roll with the town slut to wanting a woman of higher relationship value?
  
  We all have base instincts, and we overrule them with higher order thinking. Isn’t that obvious? I don’t find that women are unwilling to admit this in the least. Oof, the stuff I’ve heard said at the focus group meetings…
Ted D

Susan – “However, and this is where I always get pushback – women evolved to prefer men who exhibit long-term pair-bonding traits.”

Primarily because the environment changed so that long-term bonding became advantageous. So, it was ONLY an adaptation of women’s primary urge that led to monogamy as we know it, correct? That being the case, what if the environment changed again so that long-term bonding was NOT as advantageous? What if women really could manage on their own just fine? Would we still see couples lasting 60 years?

Here is the thing: I feel like you believe that women changing strategies all those years ago to LTR focused somehow rewired their base instincts. I disagree. I believe that adaptation was purely driven by our increasing intelligence and move towards agricultural existence. So, in my mind, if you remove all of our modern living and take us back to our base instincts, you would see the return of women choosing Dark Triad men in full force. And, in some ways, women HAVE returned to their more basic behavior, because our society has largely removed any negative repercussions for bad behavior.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  Primarily because the environment changed so that long-term bonding became advantageous. So, it was ONLY an adaptation of women’s primary urge that led to monogamy as we know it, correct?
  
  No, it was not the environment that changed. Pair bonding evolved 1.5 million years ago. Fossilized remains demonstrate that around that time men who reproduced became smaller and less symmetrical. IOW, women began selecting for different traits, as they realized that women with co-parenting male partners were more successful in raising their young to adulthood. Prior to pair bonding, women raised their children alone, without paternal resources, and often failed. With pair bonding, women evolved preferences for men who would stick around.
  
  That being the case, what if the environment changed again so that long-term bonding was NOT as advantageous? What if women really could manage on their own just fine? Would we still see couples lasting 60 years?
  
  That’s anyone’s guess. Did you see the article last week that older fathers contribute 3 times the genetic mutations that older mothers do? We have believed until now that older women were at risk of having children with birth defects, but now they’ve isolated the genetic mutations, and most are from the older father. Most notably, autism and schizophrenia are believed to result from male genes. Here’s what was really interesting – the geneticist that discovered this said that an increase in autism may be evolutionary advancement. We see it as a negative in our time, but perhaps homo sap stands to benefit in some real and material way via an increase in autism. He was 100% serious, and that blew me away. None of us has any idea, really.
  
  I feel like you believe that women changing strategies all those years ago to LTR focused somehow rewired their base instincts. I disagree. I believe that adaptation was purely driven by our increasing intelligence and move towards agricultural existence.
  
  Check out the big brain on Ted. LOL, you believe? On what basis? If the people who have devoted their lives to studying this don’t know, how do you know better? Evolution is indeed a rewiring of DNA, and that is what pair bonding accomplished. This was many, many eons before agriculture.
Esau

Women are attracted to characteristics that signal the ability and desire to father strong, healthy progeny, and to raise them for 18 years.

Susan, I understand that you want to paint young women’s behavior in the best light possible; but, really, I don’t see how you can write the above sentence without having your keyboard explode. The whole history of reality that’s been described since you started HUS is exactly the opposite: operationally, young women are the most attracted to the men who are the least likely to father and raise healthy children. You cling to these evo-psych justifications like a life raft, but here you’re just openly at odds with reality.

It’s (past) time to expand your thinking; there’s more to behavior than just evo-psych.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Esau
  
  operationally, young women are the most attracted to the men who are the least likely to father and raise healthy children.
  
  What is your basis for this claim among the college population? They’re not having sex with these guys, so how do you know who they are attracted to? Are they attracted to assholes and unable to get sex? Or are they not attracted to assholes and not pursuing them? How many women ready to have sex with assholes will be refused?
  
  I follow the data trail, and it does not support your claim.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Esau
  
  Susan, I understand that you want to paint young women’s behavior in the best light possible
  
  This suggests that I am intellectually dishonest and/or stupid. I am interested in the truth. I have worked much harder to uncover it than you have, and I have not taken anyone’s word for anything, nor have I drawn conclusions without evidence to support them. If you have evidence that contradicts mine, let’s have it. Otherwise, you’re just making noise.
Tom

Ted
women will NOT simply admit the truth: that their base instincts do not select for the best traits in men, and very often select for the worst. Is it shameful?
______________
ok I KNOW this isnt going to come out right, and I`m sure it will be misunderstood by at least one commentor here.

Ted you are right, many women will not understand which men are good selections and which are not because they seem to go off of instincts and base attraction triggers.
(ok for the misunderstood part)… But isnt what women who “play the field”, find out (the hard way?) They get conned by lying cads and players, they follow their attractions to the bad boys etc. But many can and do realise their mistakes and then make better informed choices. Sure it is too bad it took bad choices to learn who the better choices are, but isnt that human? Dont we all make mistakes along the way, and the smart ones learn from those mistakes?
Ofcourse the gal who makes 40 mistakes, may have other issues…lol
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ted #30:
“Primarily because the environment changed so that long-term bonding became advantageous. So, it was ONLY an adaptation of women’s primary urge that led to monogamy as we know it, correct? That being the case, what if the environment changed again so that long-term bonding was NOT as advantageous? What if women really could manage on their own just fine? Would we still see couples lasting 60 years?”

O: Careful, Ted; you just might get the kabosh for skirting a little too close in the direction of noticing (and speaking on) things you’re not supposed to notice…LOL.

But yea, seriously – the Four Sirens, is what you’re talking about, and the truth of the matter is, that these four forces have indeed “freed” Women up – ALL Women in American life, I might add – to the point that they simply don’t have to “put up” with the things their female forebears had to put up with. And while it can be said that this was a very good thing, it also came with some very big downsides.

What you’re saying in this post, is but one of them.

“Here is the thing: I feel like you believe that women changing strategies all those years ago to LTR focused somehow rewired their base instincts. I disagree. I believe that adaptation was purely driven by our increasing intelligence and move towards agricultural existence. So, in my mind, if you remove all of our modern living and take us back to our base instincts, you would see the return of women choosing Dark Triad men in full force. And, in some ways, women HAVE returned to their more basic behavior, because our society has largely removed any negative repercussions for bad behavior.”

O: Boom. You really want to get the book, “Promises I Can Keep”, by Edin and Kafalas. I’ve had the chance to briefly chat with them, and it was quite the interesting conversation. Their work highlights many of the very issues you’re speaking to here, and utterly shatters some of the notions some of us have along these lines. For me, and this was long before I ever knew such a thing as EvoPsyc existed, it was just a given that Women can and will employ differing mating strategies depending on the context and the situation.

O.
Esau

Susan:“women evolved to prefer men who exhibit long-term pair-bonding traits”

On what planet? This absolutely does not correspond to any reality on earth that I’ve ever seen or heard of. (Can you sell tickets to the place you describe? a fortune awaits!)

and this is where I always get pushback

No shit; but you still seem to be unable to learn anything from this continual feedback.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Esau
  
  No shit; but you still seem to be unable to learn anything from this continual feedback.
  
  That’s because I consider the source. You’re so wedded to your pain and your butthurt persona that you can’t bear the thought that women want good men, and yet you still have/had difficulty. Read and learn.
  
  http://www.psmag.com/culture/from-sole-mate-to-soul-mate-the-road-to-monogamy-43832/
  
  Evolutionary biologists have long tried to trace the human path from combat to courtship: When did we crude animals trade polygamy and paternal absenteeism for “I do” and BabyBjörn?
  
  A new study from Sergey Gavrilets, professor of ecology, biology, and mathematics at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, reviews the current evidence and offers an intriguing hypothesis. The transition from “promiscuity to pair-bonding,” Gavrilets writes in the journal PNAS, occurred only when lesser male hominids, realizing their physical inferiority, adopted a “provider” role in partnerships, and female hominids, in turn, began to show fidelity to these partners. (Others have postulated that the rise of agriculture helped smooth the way for the transition.) The role of female choice is not often considered in evolutionary biology, but if Gavrilets’ models are correct, it may be integral to explaining our past.
  
  Scientists have also long debated the origins of pair-bonding, not because its advantages are in dispute, but because, according to evolutionary logic, it ought never to have happened.
  
  Many species are indeed better off, Gavrilets explains, when their males live cooperatively in societies, helping raise families, rather than warring over mates and leaving their offspring fatherless. But males face a “social dilemma” when it comes to spreading their genes: if they choose to spend their energy providing for—rather than fighting for—mates, other males may cheat and “free ride” on their largesse. (So-called “free rider” problems show up not just in biology, but in every corner of economics, psychology, and environmental policy.) Of all the theories that explain why cooperation (i.e. pair-bonding) replaced competition (i.e. promiscuity) among our ancestors, Gavrilets argues, none account for this social dilemma.
  
  The study highlights several current theories of pair-bonding: instead of fighting, male hominids began to devote effort to caring for offspring, protecting their mate, or provisioning food for sex. But Gavrilets builds mathematical models to show how each of these hypotheticals leads to a “sub-optimal” outcome—how “investing more in offspring means that there is more paternity for other males to steal.” Run the model, and instead of choosing cooperation, the males will choose to fight. It’s not the outcome any one male desires, but the free-rider problem effectively “traps” the whole group in a benighted state.
  
  Gavrilets proposes a modification to existing theory. What if we assume that males began to provide for one—and only one—female, and females, likewise, began to depend on a sole mate for food and help with childcare? First, not all men are created equal; there are few Ryan Goslings and many Kevin Redmons. The weaker among us quickly learned the futility of direct competition, and turned to “alternative reproductive strategies” to spread our genes. (I may not be a dreamboat, baby, but I’ll bring you coffee in bed.) Second, females make choices. Whereas previous models ascribe females a passive role, Gavrilets asserts that “because they receive direct benefits from provisioning males, females should be choosy, and they may become, to some extent, faithful” to their providers.
  
  Promiscuity is a funny thing in nature. Despite what your mother and youth pastor spent so many years telling you, sleeping around has real (genetic) benefits. Polyandry—in which females take more than one mate—allows for better gene diversity, boots the likelihood of fertilization, decreases infanticide, and means more male providers. Gavrilets acknowledges that in switching from promiscuity to monogamy, females actually risked lower fertility. The tradeoff was security.
  
  When he runs the model again, with these two assumptions in place, the outcome is different: instead of a spiral into violent competition, male provisioning and female faithfulness “co-evolve in a self-reinforcing manner.” Males escape the “social dilemma” and pair-bonding replaces promiscuity.
  Critically, Gavrilets notes, this process begins with the weakest males—those who have the worst chances of beating out Ryan Gosling for a mate—because they stand to gain the most from an alternative strategy like provisioning. Slowly, the strategy works its way up the dominance hierarchy, as females begin to reward the weaker males with their fidelity. Out of this sexual revolution comes self-domestication. A new kind of society is born, one in which, “except for a very small proportion of the top-ranked individuals, males invest exclusively in provisioning for females, who have evolved very high fidelity to their mates.”
  
  A few million years hence, here we are—imperfect creatures, a long way from the jungle, somewhat closer to commitment.
KiaW

Girlfriend met my dogs the other day. Dog #1 was happy, always available, ready at a moment’s notice to enjoy a belly rub or any attention at all. Dog #2 was standoffish, snarled a bit, and barely let her put her hand near him.

Guess which one she spent by far the most time focusing on and delighting in getting any hint of attention from over the next few days? Yep, #2. Poor #1 was basically ignored or given a few “aww”s at most.

It ain’t just teenagers.
Ted D

Tom – “Dont we all make mistakes along the way, and the smart ones learn from those mistakes?”

I’m one of those people that feel like any mistake that can be prevented, SHOULD be prevented. I’m not a fan of “learning the hard way” because many times that process does not only produce negative results for the person “learning”. Women learning to avoid cads while popping out babies hurts society at large. Women getting pregnant by asshats thus making MORE asshats hurts society. The continuing assault on the traditional family hurts society.

I’m all for letting a kid figure out that they should watch where they are walking by letting them run into a pole. But, at some point you have to step in and stop very dangerous behavior before something really bad happens. I think we are WAY past something bad happening, and are now swimming in lots of bad. And, unfortunately enough, we no longer allow Darwinism to weed out the less than intelligent among us. The result? Women that DO NOT learn from their mistakes early end up having multiple children, who are likely to NOT learn from their mistakes either…
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Tom #32:
” But isnt what women who “play the field”, find out (the hard way?) They get conned by lying cads and players, they follow their attractions to the bad boys etc. But many can and do realise their mistakes and then make better informed choices. Sure it is too bad it took bad choices to learn who the better choices are, but isnt that human? Dont we all make mistakes along the way, and the smart ones learn from those mistakes?”

O: Hey Tom! Very good point, and since I’m of the School of Making Things Painfully Explicit, it will be my pleasure to spell this out to you:

Yes, in a completely Vulcan, dispassionate, EvoPsych-less world you would be right. However, we do not live in that world, and even more to the point, the vast majority of guys out there, if they could choose it (keep in mind, most Men do NOT have much choice in the mating dance), don’t want to get together with a Woman who’s been shot through by Bad Boys. Part of this is EvoPsych-informed, of course; indeed, one could argue that it all is EvoPsych-informed.

But the point is made – guys don’t want to get the sloppy seconds, crude as that may sound. It’s the Truth, Ruth.

And this too, is one of the big “game changers” of our time today: the Internet.

In the not too distant past, guys were for the most part clueless about all this stuff; the sexual psychology of Woman remained a mystery for all but a select few. But in the Information Age, not only can guys get access to such info for literally pennies on the dollar if not FREE, but they also can see and read for themselves Woman’s sexual psyche in action. Connecting the dots from there is not a big leap at all.

Now to be fair, *all* Women don’t get down like that; but a not insignificant number of them do, and I’ll be even more brutally blunt, *the Women that guys want most tend to get down like that more often than not*. No, it’s not fair, but nothing per EvoPsych is. What trips a whole lot of people up about it, is when they go to bringing in their own morality plays into the equation. On strictly EvoPsych terms, “morality” simply has no place in the discussion or larger scheme of things.

To me, all this is just par for the course, and really don’t see much point in going round and round on it; but then I realize that I’m in a forum that tends to attract folks who operate a bit differently than I do, and that I have to be mindful of that. What appears to me to be just the cost of doing business seems to others here to be huge areas of uber-neurotic concern. Me? I simply shrug it off and keep it movin’…

O.
Tom

The whole history of reality that’s been described since you started HUS is exactly the opposite: operationally, young women are the most attracted to the men who are the least likely to father and raise healthy children.
_______
And here I thought it was all aboyt the tingle….lol
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ted #36:
“I’m one of those people that feel like any mistake that can be prevented, SHOULD be prevented. I’m not a fan of “learning the hard way” because many times that process does not only produce negative results for the person “learning”. Women learning to avoid cads while popping out babies hurts society at large. Women getting pregnant by asshats thus making MORE asshats hurts society. The continuing assault on the traditional family hurts society.”

O: Boom!

“I’m all for letting a kid figure out that they should watch where they are walking by letting them run into a pole. But, at some point you have to step in and stop very dangerous behavior before something really bad happens. I think we are WAY past something bad happening, and are now swimming in lots of bad. And, unfortunately enough, we no longer allow Darwinism to weed out the less than intelligent among us. The result? Women that DO NOT learn from their mistakes early end up having multiple children, who are likely to NOT learn from their mistakes either…”

O: Hold on Ted, remember what we talked about…certain folk don’t like the idea of actually intervening, don’t you know.

By the way, there’s another aspect of the problem here – the putative intelligent, simply aren’t reproducing *enough*. And to be sure, there have been attempts to get them to do so; Singapore tried it, and it went down in flames:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_Singapore

So, in a way, Ms. Walsh is kinda sorta doing the Lord’s work…

O.
Tom

Ted I agree with what you are saying.. As for the women poping out babies, I just dont get it. A simple IUD or the pill or (heaven forbid) condoms will cure that problem. The key here is, not all women enter the dating market with the same tools. Some grew up in homes where the parents NEVER talked about sex. They certianly didnt give any insight to their daughters. Some young women are left to fend for themselves. Other women are desperate for male attend for a wide range of reasons. In a perfect world, all women would havew grown up in good solid homes where sex talk wasnt taboo and the girls had a healthy and wholesome view of men and sex. But we do not live in a perfect world.
Ted D

Tom – it is far worse than that around here. There are generations of people that have lived on welfare now. These women are not only coming from bad homes, but in some cases actually see OOW birth as the best way to get ahead! Why? Well, once they get pregnant, they can apply for all kinds of assistance including an apartment of their own, so they don’t have to stay living with their mother and 7 half-siblings. (because they all have different sperm donors.)

And we respond by: giving them more money, food stamps, and free housing that they don’t care about, don’t take care of, and eventually brings the property value around them so low you can’t give a house away. I am supporting this mess with my tax dollars, and it REALLY pisses me off.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #17:
“As I’ve shared many times before, it is believed that the Dark Triad trifecta evolved specifically to allow men with disagreeable personalities to reproduce, and they are good at getting in and out, not so good at sustaining relationships. These were men who found themselves unsuited for evolved pair bonding, and evolved in a different direction. Because personality traits are largely heritable, they are common today.”

O: This has always made sense to me, and the female analog to it would be the gal with the bangin’ bod but a Buttaface; she’s built for short term mating. Indeed, guys can be heard saying “I’m not gonna wife that up!”, when they are checking such gals out on the block. As you know, Women with prettier faces tend to attract more offers for longterm mating opportunities.

O.
GudEnuf

Ted D: “I always got the impression that Justin B’s “handlers” did their best to paint him as a squeeky clean young man that is hiding a lusty dark side.”

Haha, he must be a freaky boy if he convinced Selena Gomez to stop wearing her purity ring. And One Direction… you know the only want “one thing”.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh:
WRT Dr. Fisher, et al – if what you’re saying along these lines, ie, LTR pairbonding and how Women evolved for it over STR mating, how then do you explain both what Ted’s said above, but also what Edin and Kafalas have documented? I should also point out that Tiger’s discussed all this as well in his works – that Women simply wouldn’t need (Beta) Men to care for them due to what Tiger calls “Bureagamy”, but instead simply select Alphas with whom to mate and take it from there (meaning: the State will act as Hubby/Daddy – and not just in the ways Ted pointed out. It’ll also be in the form of expanded Affirmative Action on the campus and in the workplace, certain aspects of healthcare and other state-sponsored services, et al). Clearly, we see evidence of this, *and it is spreading* – it’s not just a matter of it being contained to the “hood”; its gone mainstream.

Your response?

O.
Iggles

@ Ted D:

Susan – Since we are discussing attachment styles, I thought perhaps a test to determine attachment style might be good for discussion.

http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl-attachment-quiz.htm

Ooh, thanks for the link. I love quizzes!!

My attachment style was secure as well
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Tom:
“Ted I agree with what you are saying.. As for the women poping out babies, I just dont get it. A simple IUD or the pill or (heaven forbid) condoms will cure that problem. The key here is, not all women enter the dating market with the same tools. Some grew up in homes where the parents NEVER talked about sex. They certianly didnt give any insight to their daughters. Some young women are left to fend for themselves. Other women are desperate for male attend for a wide range of reasons. In a perfect world, all women would havew grown up in good solid homes where sex talk wasnt taboo and the girls had a healthy and wholesome view of men and sex. But we do not live in a perfect world.”

O: While there is something to be said for all these factors, I think it would be a mistake to assume that these factors alone account for what we are seeing in our time now. Again, as Tiger and Edin and Kafalas have made clear in their works, there is more than ample evidence to suggest, and prove, that many Women in our time are indeed “going it alone” – choosing to be Baby Mamas. Lots of these ladies know very well what a condom etc look like, they simply aren’t interested in them because they want to mate and give birth. Oh, and Hacker discusses too, both in his Two Nations and Mismatch.

Women may have evolved to prefer LTRs, but the evidence is clear that they aren’t that averse to STR mating either…which brings about the desired effect of birthing kids that they wanted, despite not being able to find suitable Males to LTR with…

O.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Women may have evolved to prefer LTRs, but the evidence is clear that they aren’t that averse to STR mating either…which brings about the desired effect of birthing kids that they wanted, despite not being able to find suitable Males to LTR with…
  
  Indeed, women and men both utilize a full range of mating strategies. According to Buss, women pursue STRs for several reasons, including:
  
  Immediate extraction of resources (prostitution is the extreme case)
  
  Dry run for LTR (problematic because men disapprove of promiscuity)
  
  Test for sexual compatibility
  
  Self-assessment of desirability
  
  Potential replacement for current mate
  
  These behaviors correlate strongly to sociosexuality and personality traits.
Darsh

@Tom:

Sure it is too bad it took bad choices to learn who the better choices are, but isnt that human? Dont we all make mistakes along the way, and the smart ones learn from those mistakes?

Almost.

Stupid people don’t learn from their mistakes.
Reasonable people learn from their mistakes.
Smart people learn from others’ mistakes!

Furthermore, a healthy society:
– Helps smart people to continue to make smart choices
– Helps reasonable people to also make smart choices
– Helps stupid people to make reasonable choices

Letting young women ‘learn from their mistakes’ is morally a real cop-out. It’s bad for the individual women, and in aggregate it is bad for society.

And personally speaking, it’s bad for me as well.

I’m fully agreeing with Ted that things need to change. And while I’ve always been of the conviction that a liberal social democracy is the best way to run a state thus far, I am sometimes tempted to go full Social Darwinism on it all and let the stupid, weak, poor and unlucky suffer and die.
Sai

Avoidant!
I couldn’t take the quiz but I know what I’d get. I think that’s part of why I never cared about healing some wounded misunderstood troublemaker: “hey, I’m a fellow student not a guru, solve your own problems. Also, the Civil War is more interesting than you are.”

@Hope
I liked Sailor Moon too! Well, I still do. There’s a new version coming out next year…

@Ted D
My mother and I talk about that all the time! She says that a welfare check is barely enough to have a decent apartment and healthy food, but it doesn’t stop these broads. She likes to get involved in the community and help people, especially the kids she teaches, and one of the reasons she teaches is so more functioning, working people will take less of everybody else’s tax money.
They really aren’t the best neighbors one could ask for. I LIKED those Chriatmas decorations…
Iggles

@ Hope:

About 13 year olds being representative of adult attraction mechanisms, I am not so sure. I was super into Sailor Moon when I was 13 and loooved the girliness of the show. I also collected pictures of girls I thought were really pretty, but I never cared to collect pictures of boys. I didn’t crush on the celebrities either.

But obviously I turned out straight.

Sailor Moon was one of my favorite cartoons at that age!

When I was 13 I was in love with Taylor Hanson, whom when I first saw the video for MMMBop I mistook for a girl! (But heaven help anyone in earshot who said he looked like a girl! Lol, I bristled at that!)

I also was grossed out by chest hair. And was way more interested pursuing my hobbies than chasing after actual boys I knew (though admittedly, my low self-esteem had a big hand in that )

My point is, my 13 year old self is not an indicator of my likes/dislikes as an adult. I’ve grown and changed in so many ways, it’s not applicable!!

Funnily enough, I still think Taylor Hanson is hot, but that’s because he’s grown into an attractive man post-puberty (although many of his teen idol contemporaries didn’t age well..) But in real life I don’t go for guys who look like him. And as an adult I’m no longer grossed out by chest hair (quite the opposite! I like body hair on men; not into the super smooth, groomed & manicured look!) and thankfully my self-esteem is where I wished it had been all along
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

“the ones most likely to survive would be the most sociopathic of the group”

The military has tests to not allow psychopaths to join or remove them if somehow they get in. Their lack of sense ends to them getting killed or else other soldiers.

Psychopaths almost always end up in prison. All serial killers (most of whom are necrophiliacs and cannibals who mutilate their victims) are psychopaths. They completely lack a conscience and are closer to monsters than humans.

As for evolutionary explanations, I can come up with them by the dozens.
Iggles

@ Darsh

Almost.

Stupid people don’t learn from their mistakes.
Reasonable people learn from their mistakes.
Smart people learn from others’ mistakes!

+1000!

I didn’t have to do drugs to know it’s not for me. Nor did I have to participate in hook up culture to know it’s not my scene.

Of course, having future-time orientation helps but I don’t need to make a mistake myself to know something isn’t good for me!

I have little respect for people who know they’re making a bad choice but do it anyway because it “feels good” in the moment. It’s a cop out. I say to them – Learn to delay gratification! It’ll improve your lot in life..
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Sassy, Sai and Iggles: Awesome! Fellow fans of Sailor Moon!

And yeah, I had crushes on some really girly looking guys (not celebrities but guys in class) when I was young. I definitely don’t go for that look anymore.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Sassy, Sai and Iggles: Awesome! Fellow fans of Sailor Moon!

Hey what about me?! I was fan too.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Anacaona, oh you, too!
JustYX

Ahhhh Ramble! You can’t say all women only get wet for bad-boys…not fair!

Bad boys getting ‘teh gurl’ are the ones that get noticed…seriously NAWALT, and I cannot sign up to that view. And I’m hardly a romantic (ask anyone)
http://adamdoglesby.com Adam D. Oglesby

Girls attracted to Bad Boys, my oh my have I run into that one.

Even though I’m straight, I’ve always been attracted to Bad Boys too. My friends growing up tended to be older Alpha Males, dudes I could envy and learn something from. Unfortunately, this matriculation tended to encompass subjects no parent wants their kid learning. And although I possessed few of the obstreperous characteristics of my Bad Boy friends I found those same traits of nascent criminality somehow appealing in a buddy.

Let’s face it, would you rather sit around with some bespectacled nerd marveling over his stamp collection or run the alleys with a James-Dean-Wanna-Be, who tosses fire crackers, breaks glass, and once told an adult who complained: “Shut your trap, old lady!”

As regards dating, we seldom know for certain why we’re rebuffed by the people we hit on. We may assume it’s our bird’s nest of a haircut while in actuality it’s our failure to gargle with Listerine. With that said, I often suspected that the reason I failed to nab the girl was at times because of my good guy persona.

Let’s talk about my first true love. Her name was Lisa and at thirteen she was a spectacularly stunning creature. I swear me and this girl shared a strange, almost psychic chemistry. All I had to do was saunter under her bedroom window at night and there she would appear—seemingly levitating on the balcony–within minutes.

Lisa would scurry downstairs and we’d spend a few precious moments smooching in her hallway.

I’m gone! I’m gaga! I’m a fourteen year old fool in love!

Long story short, I go to work one afternoon (can someone say Illegal Child Labor Laws) and what happens:

My best friend, the Bad Boy—who apparently both my sweetheart and I are attracted to (apparently, for very different reasons)—manages to talk his way into Lisa’s underwear, something I had never managed to do.

Psychic powers be damned, that was the end of me and Lisa.

My experience: There’s a group of women who absolutely despises the nice guy. He may at first appear attractive in the looks department but as soon as they perceive decent (read square, college educated, doing something with his life, no tattoos emblazoned on his jugular) he might as well have a neon sign screaming, “I’m a pussy!” dangling from his neck.

The girl’s parents, of course, constantly bemoan the fact that their daughters climb all over Mr. Nice to get their paws on the Bad Boy, knowing they’re about to witness an old fashioned emotional ass kicking.

But to no avail.

My findings: If you want a real crack at the girl, completely camouflage your good guy credentials.

She asks what you do for a living, holler back: “Do I look like I have a damn job?”

She asks about your background, tell her you report to your probation officer every third Tuesday.

And if she asks you to describe your feelings on emotional domestic abuse, tell her, “They’re evolving!”
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

It strikes me that the human mind (and not only the female mind) associates *power* and *dangerousness* at a very basic level…after all, things that are powerful (fire, horses, electricity, jet engines, etc) all have the capability to be very dangerous.

If the above is true…and if women are generally attracted to power in men…then attraction to dangerousness is almost (not quite) a tautology.
Tasmin

@slims
“not sure i see where craig bruce is coming from with these categories. in high school and college i was very confident in lots of aspectsof life and had lots of friends but was terribly shy and uncertain with women, especially in high-pressure social situations. as long as romance was out of the question, i was quite calm and reportedly sometimes charming. a lot of my lack of confidence was because i thought i was supposed to be acting “alpha” but had no idea how to do so.”

I was very similar. The “Regular Guy” category seems to allow for a lot of sliding up/down the continuum. Perhaps guys like us would be Regular Guy with a lot of NiceGuy gravity pulling in certain contexts/situations. The closer I got to those situations in which I felt the need to compete with other men for women’s attention, self-promote or elevate my confidence aura, or even step into the spotlight, the gravity of the situation became so distracting that there were occasions in which avoidance behaviors would take over. Take women out of the equation and I was a dominant leader on the field, an often quiet but sharp contributor in the classroom, and was often looked up to by younger men. I was always a leader – primarily by action, but I just never had any good locker room stories.

In my case I chalk it up to three things: self-esteem headwind, high introversion, and regular doses of feminist brainbending. Which is why I have spent a lot of time in the “Anxious” attachment style. The self-esteem feedback loop is a real bitch.

I’ll also say that whatever good looks I was blessed with never seemed to enter the equation for me. I wonder if in today’s SMP with more female aggression or perhaps better termed pro-action, I would have had more often and obvious IOI to help shore up that department. But as it was back then if a woman found me attractive I would either never know or find out long after.

Which is why I am a champion of women doing a lot more approaching. There are a hellova lotta Regular Guys out there who have a lot going for them – except when it comes to those intense and/or highly competitive situations. Not that one-on-one is a cake walk, but it still beats the basement of the Beta house.

The challenge for the Regular Guys with N.G. tendencies is that a lot of women, particularly younger women, really really enjoy those situations because they are often both target rich as well as heavy on alpha’s presenting. Things can really get tingling. Not to mention dancing is just so much fun. But once again venue plays an important role here. Sure a lot of those regular guys go to the bars or clubs, but not because they really want to. Just as there are some women who go but aren’t into it. The difference is those women still have the options in those environments. A lot of the Regular Guys by their own action or alpha-overshadow become nearly invisible quite quickly. So don’t go swimming with sharks if you want to play with dolphins. And if you do chose (yes it is a choice) to swim with sharks, then you aren’t allowed to complain about their sharp teeth and tendency to oscillate between indifference and raw aggression.
evilalpha

@Susan

Wrong. Good looking men have more influence, earn more money and are more successful in life.

No. You are wrong!
Replace “good looking” with “white” and it illustrates the absurdity.
evilalpha

@Ted
If you strip everything else out of the picture (that means maturity, logic, will, agency, etc.) female humans tend to be attracted to the darker traits of men…..
And, since much of “Game” and the ‘sphere base their theories on women’s baser instincts, the story of the 13 year old girls pretty much proves their point

Damn. Cosigned again. You are on a roll….especially when you can wind up Susan’s hamster like you just did.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  You are on a roll….especially when you can wind up Susan’s hamster like you just did.
  
  LOL, Susan’s hamster died of old age many years ago.
evilalpha

@Ted
Why is it OK for men to be told, over and over throughout their lives, that THEIR base nature is bad/evil/sexist and to be expected to control them, while women won’t even admit to their own base instincts?

I knew this would be one hamsterific post, but I had no idea how bad it would get.
Iggles

@ evilalpha:

@Susan

Wrong. Good looking men have more influence, earn more money and are more successful in life.

No. You are wrong!

This may be one of those “the chicken or the egg?” conundrums, but research backs Susan up on this claim:

The research reviewed by Hamermesh shows that attractive people, both men and women, earn an average of 3 or 4% more than people with below average looks, which adds up to a significant amount of money over a lifetime. Beautiful people are also hired sooner, get promotions more quickly, are higher-ranking in their companies (a study found the CEOs of larger and more successful companies are rated as being more physically attractive than the CEOs of smaller companies), and get all kinds of extra benefits and perks on the job including, perhaps, more free tickets to fly in F/B class.

source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/the-truth-about-why-beautiful-people-are-more-successful
evilalpha

Chicks don’t dig all jerks or assholes, some of whom are bullies, some of whom are ugly, some of whom have an IQ under 100….It’s the fact that the guys are hot that gets them female attention

Susan,

I’ve never seen you hamster this bad.

“Asshole is aphrodisiac. Take a guy, add “asshole” and he will do better with women than if he were nice. That’s all the phrase “chicks dig assholes” means.

Ryan Lochte got orders of magnitude more sexual attention being an Olympic asshole, than just being an Olympic swimmer. Asshole works for more than just “creeps”.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I need to mention that among the many reasons I lost respect for feminism while I was around Jezebel was the dismissal of science that didn’t backed up their personal believes and agendas.
“Oh sample size of 40 men says that men are happier helping around the house in marriages? See? Feminism makes everyone lives better! More feminism to save the world!”
“Oh a sample size of 2,000 says that women cannot have sex like men?Boo that study is clearly wrong I can have sex like a man and I am really happy. This is another attempt to slut shame…”
Just saying…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Anacaona
  
  I need to mention that among the many reasons I lost respect for feminism while I was around Jezebel was the dismissal of science that didn’t backed up their personal believes and agendas.
  
  Thank you. It’s quite remarkable to see intelligent people dismiss compelling evidence to avoid altering their world view. It’s no skin off my nose, and I suppose they’ll figure out what works via trial and error.
  
  As a former strategy consultant, I confess I’m very surprised by the blinders people seem to be willing to don. You analyze a market, and you get it right or you go home. One bad strategic analysis and your career is over. It’s not about confirming a hypothesis, or confirming what you think you know, and it’s certainly not about throwing good money after bad when you’re invested. It’s only about the best way forward given the facts on the ground. Anyone who doubts my ability and commitment to this doesn’t know anything about me.
Ramble

You can’t say all women only get wet for bad-boys…not fair!

I am not saying that all women go for the same type of guy. I am saying that girls that go for the “bad boys” get wet for the “bad” part. The rest of the thinking that goes with it (I can save him, he will settle down with me, etc) is simply the nice* rationalization.

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

* Nice, as in, it is the part that they can, at least attempt to, sell to polite society. The part about getting wet for mean guys is harder to sell to society.
Jimmy Hendricks

Isn’t it the same for men? Don’t you graduate from wanting a roll with the town slut to wanting a woman of higher relationship value?

“Town slut” should be replaced with “hottest girl in town”… except in extreme cases, promiscuity doesn’t affect SMV when it comes to “wanting a roll.”

But to address the point, “graduating” doesn’t happen… most guys will “want” both options simultaneously. When faced with having to make a choice (as is normally the case for most men), most will take option #2.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Jimmy
  
  But to address the point, “graduating” doesn’t happen… most guys will “want” both options simultaneously. When faced with having to make a choice (as is normally the case for most men), most will take option #2.
  
  Thanks for that insight. I suppose it makes sense that women would develop more selectivity over time, given the sexual gatekeeper role and higher risk for the female in having sex.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

* Nice, as in, it is the part that they can, at least attempt to, sell to polite society. The part about getting wet for mean guys is harder to sell to society.

Didn’t we had a study that says that women actually can’t tell a good dad from a cad when is about they making the choice of a man for themselves? So is not rationalization or at least not un urpose many women actually do believe that “is going to be different with me”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Anacaona
  
  So is not rationalization or at least not un urpose many women actually do believe that “is going to be different with me”
  
  Here is an excerpt from the study:
  
  In a simple experiment the team first asked 33 college-age women to take part in a study assessing how health affected their taste in men. That was just the cover story for them to take over-the-counter fertility tests revealing where they were on their monthly cycle. At both the high fertility and low fertility points of their cycle, the women were randomly shown a biography and photo of a “sexy man,” an award-winning skier and handsome adventurer, or the same for “reliable man,” a hard-working average-looking accountant. Then they asked the women how the men would split the work of parenting, (giving baths, cooking, washing bottles etc.) if they had a baby with him.
  
  Good, old Mr. Reliable. The women estimated he would do around 40% of the household work no matter when they were asked. And the ski champ looked similarly helpful to the women when they were asked at low fertility moments. But the women actually estimated Prince Charming would do as much as 53% of the chores when they were ovulating, a statistically significant difference, “and a surprising one,” Durante says. The “sexy cad” will be a “good dad” transformed into a caring father through the miracle of ovulation.
  
  http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-05-12/why-women-fall-for-bad-boys/54919824/1
  
  Personally, I think that making women choose between a handsome adventurous skier and an average looking accountant is stacking the deck somewhat, sort of like Hot & Mean vs. Not Hot & Nice. Are there no other options?
Ted D

Susan – I’m wih Jimmy. We don’t graduate from wanting the town hottie to a woman of higher relationship value. We mostly do our best to pick the hottest relationship woman we can snag. I for one always hoped to get a two-for-one: hot and sexy (for me only of course) as well as a woman of high quality character. We never get over wanting the sexy, we simply start expecting more along the way. Some of us end up rather disappointed, but that applies to plenty of women as well.

Of course I might be out in left field. So guys: did you grow past wanting the hussy for a quality woman? Or did you simply start looking for a high quality hussy?
Ted D

Ana – “So is not rationalization or at least not un urpose many women actually do believe that “is going to be different with me””

Oh I get that completely. And this is why I and others are insisting that at its core, female desire really does tend to favor some unsavory male traits. otherwise smart women would not find themselves involved with a “bad boy” at all. I firmly believe it is often a subconscious choice. However, women by and large are loathe to admit this very fact, and I honestly can’t understand why. If it was commonly known and accepted, then it would also be completely acceptable to duly inform your friend/niece/sister/neighbor that she must be out of her mind with base lust to even think of getting involved with Mr. Motorcycle. And, knowing this to be true, she wouldn’t get involved with him.

The problem I think is that in general women don’t want to admit that they are indeed at the mercy of thier base desire to some extent. Yet, boys have been told they are at the mercy of thier sexual desire from before they hit puberty and are fully expected to compensate for it. So I can’t help but wonder where the accountability is on the female side of that equation…
INTJ

@ Susan Walsh

Women are attracted to characteristics that signal the ability and desire to father strong, healthy progeny, and to raise them for 18 years. Those two desires are a tradeoff and women must balance those things to the best of their ability. It’s not a matter of good or bad. As Helen Fisher said, we are designed to reproduce, not to have relationships. The happiness we find, we make.

No they aren’t. They’re attracted to characteristics that signal the ability to father attractive, successful, healthy progeny. The father doesn’t need to be the person raising them for 18 years. That role can be filled by someone else.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  No they aren’t. They’re attracted to characteristics that signal the ability to father attractive, successful, healthy progeny. The father doesn’t need to be the person raising them for 18 years. That role can be filled by someone else.
  
  Can you please cite a source for this opinion? It runs counter to everything I’ve read on the subject, and I’ve never come across it before.
Mike M.

I think everybody is ignoring the effects of culture. Teenage girls have been marinating in “Good Girl Reforms Bad Boy” romantic comedies for decades. And are eager to be the heroine of their own live-action rom-com.

Which inevitably proves to be Tragedy, not Comedy. But the girls don’t get that signal from the culture. And keep making the same mistakes.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike M.
  
  I think everybody is ignoring the effects of culture.
  
  That is a great point, I totally agree. For example, I think Sex and the City did a lot to promote casual, no-strings sex. It romanticized the one-night stand, the asshole (Mr. Big), and ridiculed the man of good character (Aidan). It’s the culture that creates the lag between the perception of hooking up and the actual behavior of students.
Joe

@Susan

Isn’t it the same for men? Don’t you graduate from wanting a roll with the town slut to wanting a woman of higher relationship value?

I don’t think that’s quite it either, Susan. It’s only a guess, of course, but I would think that most boys start out “crushing” on the prettiest long before they’re aware of the sexuality – both his and hers. They nominally start as beta-orbiters and some take a long time to get out of that mode.

But I’m not pleased to think that this implies many men then descend to wanting the proverbial roll in the hay with the town slut, while at worst, a girl’s emotional maturity remains flat.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Oh I get that completely. And this is why I and others are insisting that at its core, female desire really does tend to favor some unsavory male traits. otherwise smart women would not find themselves involved with a “bad boy” at all.

Yeah but we are talking about the cohort of women that are actually pursuing the bad boy. Not all women do, which is the problem here. The raw data that says that 80% of this women are not actually engaging on this, so the pluralistic ignorance keeps getting enforced. Instead of saying that certain percentage of women need to be aware that their attractions triggers are fucked up, all women should be aware that their attraction triggers are fucked up… so what gives?
J

OT but encouraging:

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2011/02/he-will-never-have-girlfriend.html#1
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I think everybody is ignoring the effects of culture. Teenage girls have been marinating in “Good Girl Reforms Bad Boy” romantic comedies for decades. And are eager to be the heroine of their own live-action rom-com.

Tell me about it and the last Disney movies have a thief and a womanizer changing in one day because of “the Disney princess that loved them”… we are so fucking screwed up.
INTJ

@ evilalpha

@Susan

Wrong. Good looking men have more influence, earn more money and are more successful in life.

No. You are wrong!
Replace “good looking” with “white” and it illustrates the absurdity.

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

I just noticed something, in the grand scheme of things a man will listen to what attracts a:
1-Hottie/Model/Sexy/Slut
2- 13 year old girl
.
.
.
.
.
.
3-Outliers/low or none hypergamic/Beta lovers/ happily married women that obviously admire and bed their husbands.

I’m sure other type of women fill in the blanks before anyone would listen to our type. More proof of the 80% disconnect.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I’m sure other type of women fill in the blanks before anyone would listen to our type. More proof of the 80% disconnect.
  
  Haha, how do you think I feel? The blogger who is hamsterbating and has an agenda to make women look innocent, while the Daughter of Omega Supplicator is the new Helen Fisher.
Esau

Susan at 62: “You’re so wedded to your pain and your butthurt persona that you can’t bear the thought that women want good men, and yet you still have/had difficulty.”

I’m going to — momentarily — attain a Buddha-level of detachment here and just point out, as politely as possible, that here you speak WAY beyond what you know, and it’s both rude and logically meaningless. You actually know almost nothing factual about me or my life’s experiences at all, because I’ve essentially never written about them here; and that’s because I’m not looking for personal advice never base any arguments solely on my own experiences. When I do go anecdotal I speak from the experiences of the dozen or so men I’ve been close to and known very well over the years, and I am (nearly) always careful to exclude myself from the group. What I write is either true, or not, independent of my personal history; whether I’m personally a saint or a sinner, a Martian or a dog, ultimately counts for nothing.

In short, you don’t actually know anything important about me, and it’s a mistake for you to write as though you do. This attack is pure ignorant ad hominem, where you bypass all substance and instead stoop to insulting my motivations with completely imaginary evidence of your own invention. This is just what the worst of feminist bloggers do reflexively — swerve away from nominally objective facts and attack invented personalities instead — and that’s not company you should be proud to be keeping.

I don’t invent facts about your life as a way of countering your arguments; the least you can do is return the favor, if the motivation to avoid logical fallacy is not sufficient in itself. Now go, and sin no more.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Esau
  
  I know little of your lifestyle, but I know a great deal about you in the revelatory comments you have been leaving here for 2+ years. You are confrontational, judgmental and angry. You regularly accuse women of being unfeeling, even our own Jackie, one of the most empathic people ever to post here!
  
  The chip on your shoulder is so large we see you struggle under its weight in nearly every comment you make here.
  
  Ad hom? Fine, I’m perfectly comfortable with that.
  
  I’ve done the hard work here. Either put up a factual argument or STFU.
J

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.”

What’s interesting to me is we are making so much of this. Most adults understand that there’s a lot in between; I would that these girls will also figure that out.

I like how Craig Bruce differentiates between regular guys and “trademarked” nice guys. It’s the latter that women dislike and distrust precfisely because those are the guys who are overly nice at first and then become nasty when rejected. I’d guess that the average married guy is a regular guy. It’s “nice guys” who have troubles with women. I don’t think “nice girls” do much better though.
J

WhaI don’t know One Direction very well, but anyone can see PLENTY of sexual innuendo from Justin Bieber, and the same could be said about the Jonas brothers as well.

Compared to the teen idols of the past like David Cassidy, sure. Compared to most of the more blatant sexual images that are out there…nah. Every generation seems to have its safe, not-sexually-threatening,beardless, hairless dreamboys.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Compared to the teen idols of the past like David Cassidy, sure
  
  “I think I love you, isn’t that what dreams are made of…”
  
  That brings back memories of my own slumber parties. We listened to that album, drank Tab, ate chocolate chocolate chip cake, and played poker all night long.
  
  I was part of a crowd of about 15 girls, and we had a slumber party for every girl’s birthday. Those are my best memories from high school, hands down.
J

My attachment style was secure as well

Mine too, which surprised me given my childhood. I guess 25 years with a good guy can heal a lot.
Ted D

Susan – “Check out the big brain on Ted”

You didn’t think I was just a pretty face, did you?
J

But why is it SO SCARY for women to simply admit that at the core of it all, their base instincts are to choose less than savory men to have sex with?

Because there are no babymamas on this blog? Because the women you’re talking to don’t feel that way? The type of woman who’d feel that way is probably not reflective enough to discuss her feelings with you.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Susan…”The role of female choice is not often considered in evolutionary biology”….is this really true? I thought the case of the peacock’s tail…useless but really impresses the peacock girlz…was pretty well-known in the field.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @david foster
  
  Susan…”The role of female choice is not often considered in evolutionary biology”….is this really true?
  
  That was a quote from the study, I can’t really say…
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

The type of woman who’d feel that way is probably not reflective enough to discuss her feelings with you.

Reminds me of Bellita’s friend that see nothing wrong on trying to steal boyfriends from her other female friends…

This whole thing annoys me because it sounds like the type of article you would see in Cosmo: WHAT TO KNOW WHAT MEN REALLY WANT? We overheard the conversations of a dozen of 13 year old boys. They reveal the secrets of their gender… uncensored. Take a notebook handy girl after this you will be having them eating from your hand.
Yeah..no.
J

Did you see the article last week that older fathers contribute 3 times the genetic mutations that older mothers do?

3x ? Wow! I’ve been saying all along that older fathers contribute to the mutation rate, but 3x is far more than I’d have predicted.

the geneticist that discovered this said that an increase in autism may be evolutionary advancement.

The genes that make autists autistic also make people better at mathetical, spatial and technical tasks. In our modern world, that can be seen as an advance. I see it las being like the sickle cell gene. A little is adaptive, too much is a big problem.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

the geneticist that discovered this said that an increase in autism may be evolutionary advancement.

I just read an study that says that is autism doesn’t has genetic associations: http://spittoon.23andme.com/health-2/autism-study-reveals-no-genetic-associations/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=blog
M

@ Ted D

“But why is it SO SCARY for women to simply admit that at the core of it all, their base instincts are to choose less than savory men to have sex with?”

It’s not scary. I’ll gladly admit that Hank Moody of Californication (or worse yet, Lew Ashby) gets me 10x more wet than the average “nice guy”. But when women admit stuff like this, it appears to me that men can’t handle it. They don’t want to know the truth.
Women love confidence, charisma, status, money and ‘dark traits’ in the same way men go for a beautiful face or a hot body. But while men are very good at justifying their preferences, women are stuck with being “golddiggers” or just naive and cheap. I accept men’s shallow preferences, but I rarely meet men who fully accept the ‘shallow’ side of women.
Marc

I believe women in general dont want to be treated poorly by a jerk. They know, subconsciously, a man is probably a jerk because he has many options, and not fearful of saying or doing the wrong thing because there is a line of women behind her. This is attractive to her, as she wants to have what every othe woman wants.
–
“The person who cares least in a relationship has all the power”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Marc
  
  Yeah, the Principle of Least Interest is the prevailing strategy in the SMP.
INTJ

@ Susan Walsh

Can you please cite a source for this opinion? It runs counter to everything I’ve read on the subject, and I’ve never come across it before.

You’ve never come across the opinion that women seek to mate with attractive (i.e. high genetic value) males and then get high commitment males to raise the children? I’m surprised you think cuckoldry is not the preferred evolutionary strategy. But here’s an example of the countless sources backing up this fact:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/haselton_gangestad.pdf
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  I am aware of cuckoldry, but the rate is 2-4%. Why do you generalize from such a small minority?
A Definite Beta Guy

@ M

“I accept men’s shallow preferences, but I rarely meet men who fully accept the ‘shallow’ side of women.”

The difference is, as men see it, we like physical traits, and the personality traits are irrelevant in generating sexual attraction. Personality traits come into play when considering commitment, and the personality traits we like are mostly “good” personality traits.

In contrast, and again this is how it appears to men, women are sexually attracted to character traits that are associated with psychopaths and meatheads and various men of low character that men of good character DESPISE.

Essentially what it comes off as is…You are a woman dating a Jew admitting that you find Nazis sexier than him. That’s how it comes across to a hardened, bitter Beta Guy, or even a relatively healthy Beta Guy with some deep wounds.

Coupled with actual, substantial signals she likes the other guy more? Like Price Discrimination? Or saying she was “wild” but now wants to “settle down”?

Then she is basically inviting a Male Psychological Defense powerful enough to defeat a Soviet missile attack.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  In contrast, and again this is how it appears to men, women are sexually attracted to character traits that are associated with psychopaths and meatheads and various men of low character that men of good character DESPISE.
  
  I think men are loath to examine the HOT part. Women are attracted to hot, handsome, well-built men. Character traits cannot be evaluated at first sighting, or even first meeting. The initial attraction is always physical, even for women.
  
  The de-emphasis on looks among men is wishful thinking. The young women I know speak mostly about looks when they speak of guys they’re attracted to. If he’s handsome, and he’s an asshole, they hope to change him. If he’s handsome, and he’s a beta, they hope to change him.
J

Susan’s hamster died of old age many years ago.

They only live a few years…if you’re lucky.
J

That brings back memories of my own slumber parties. We listened to that album, drank Tab, ate chocolate chocolate chip cake, and played poker all night long. I was part of a crowd of about 15 girls, and we had a slumber party for every girl’s birthday. Those are my best memories from high school, hands down.

Ah, Susan, this is wheer we part company. I had a group of 5 girls. We listened to The Beatles’ White Album and then their solo albums and Janis Ian, drank coke and ate pizza. Then we watched horror movies and told each other BS stories about the boyfriends we wished we had.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  . I had a group of 5 girls. We listened to The Beatles’ White Album and then their solo albums and Janis Ian, drank coke and ate pizza. Then we watched horror movies and told each other BS stories about the boyfriends we wished we had.
  
  That sounds awesome! I wish I could go back and attend a few of those!
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Thank you. It’s quite remarkable to see intelligent people dismiss compelling evidence to avoid altering their world view. It’s no skin off my nose, and I suppose they’ll figure out what works via trial and error.

This is one of the main reasons I left the catholic church
“But evolution is the only thing that makes sense look at the mountains of proof”
“The bible says…”
“But it could be a metaphor of the human condition, or the world couldn’t it?”
“The bible says…”
“Arrgggh I rather go to hell…”
This was prior 92 when John Paul 2 decided that it was “more than a theory” but at that point I was done and for the looks of it they haven’t changed their stances against proof. I mean I have nothing against faith, but blind faith…nope if your vision of the world doesn’t match science is time to go back to the drawing board, IMO, YMMV.

Haha, how do you think I feel? The blogger who is hamsterbating and has an agenda to make women look innocent, while the Daughter of Omega Supplicator is the new Helen Fisher.

The 13 year old daughter of Omega suplicator…If it makes you feel better Ladrock had a similar issue when he showed statistics and data that there was not Marriage strike in first marriages from men. Man that was crazy, I think the best compromise they achieved was that the data was going to show the strike in the future…any moment… now. So is not you.

Personally, I think that making women choose between a handsome adventurous skier and an average looking accountant is stacking the deck somewhat, sort of like Hot & Mean vs. Not Hot & Nice. Are there no other options?

I wonder if they had different results if they used the same model for different assessments, also across cultures. I remember I did one in psychology class and I had to pick between a white guy with a tie and glasses that looked absolutely miserable and a black construction worker with a big smile. You all know that me likes them white and nerdy but the smile won me over for this particular choice. There is a lot of nuances that are rarely taken in account IMO.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I remember I did one in psychology class and I had to pick between a white guy with a tie and glasses that looked absolutely miserable and a black construction worker with a big smile.
  
  Haha, talk about not controlling the variables! That’s really the point of the post. Are hot guys mean or are mean guys hot? What is the interaction between good looking and “nice” or “not nice?” Studies have shown that women choose pics of men who look “nice” over men who look “not nice” when ranking attractiveness. But again, not having seen the photos, I can’t say what the controls were. Maybe the “not nice” photos looked like James Holmes and the “nice” photos looked like Ryan Gosling.
M

@ A Definite Beta Guy

Well, the character traits I mentioned creates sexual attraction. So the difference is that there are actually more personality traits which qualifies a man for commitment. It’s personality + personality, rather than looks + personality. It’s just a different combination.
The fact that the character traits women lust for exist within psychopaths or sociopaths is not a problem to me. Very few women write letters for men on death row. The physical traits men desire in women exist in all sorts of undesirable women, including prostitutes, porn stars and sluts. Every time I see an attractive man approach a woman in hoop earrings or fishnet stockings, it will annoy me, but knowing they won’t end up together, it won’t genuinely bother me.

I think women can look at other attractive, but trashy women and acknowledge that they are ‘trash’, but men don’t?

PS If there are grammar mistakes, forgive me, I’m not English/American
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I had a group of 5 girls. We listened to The Beatles’ White Album and then their solo albums and Janis Ian, drank coke and ate pizza. Then we watched horror movies and told each other BS stories about the boyfriends we wished we had.

Slumber parties were not that common when I was a teenager but we did one when we were in college with other 5 girls. We ate tacos, and drank coke and then watched porn movies it was so funny because there was an evangelical one (virgin like the single ones on the group) that kept getting freaked out claiming “Jesus oh this is a sin” and closing her eyes. We rented very lame movies like Hannibal Licter and make fun the situations (so no perverts not making out among each other, ewww) and then we did share stories of how we were going to meet our future husbands. It was really fun.
INTJ

@ Susan Walsh

I am aware of cuckoldry, but the rate is 2-4%. Why do you generalize from such a small minority?

“I’m aware that men like to be with extremely hot women, but the rate is 2-4%. Why do you generalize from such a small minority?”

Wanting something (or rather being evolutionary designed to want something), and actually having it are two totally different things. It’s obvious that condoms, contraception, etc. make cuckoldry much less common these days. It’s also obvious that many women consciously fight their biological impetus for cuckoldry. But that doesn’t mean the evolutionary drive isn’t there, any more than men who marry ugly women aren’t evolutionarily driven to want hot women…

Also note that you don’t have to cheat on your husband to make him raise children that are not his. You can simply become a single mother with the help of an alpha before you marry a beta and have him provide for your children.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  It’s also obvious that many women consciously fight their biological impetus for cuckoldry.
  
  How is it obvious? What is the basis for this claim? We know that women trade off between “good genes” and “good co-parenting traits” when selecting a life partner. You appear to be claiming that women are perpetually unhappy with their choice once they’ve made it. There is overwhelming evidence that this is not the case, so please enlighten me re your sources.
  
  You can simply become a single mother with the help of an alpha before you marry a beta and have him provide for your children.
  
  It’s clear from the data around marriage and OOW births that the beta provider meme is once again not borne out by evidence. Where are these sackless betas working hard and paying to raise another man’s spawn?
  
  I also find it kind of sad that you compare beta males to ugly women men get stuck with because they can’t do any better. There is a lot of self-hatred among betas. Good luck transforming into pure alpha.
Robobob

“it is believed that the Dark Triad trifecta evolved specifically to allow men with disagreeable personalities to reproduce”

This does not make sense. Things which evolve do not do so for any purpose, structures like DT emerge in populations because they can, and because they are more stable than competing patterns. Maybe DT successfully mimics something evolution selects for as beneficial and thereby gets a free ride. NB it needn’t be a good mimic – think bee orchid- it just needs to press the right buttons.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Robobob
  
  Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. Here is the link re the evolution of the Dark Triad traits:
  
  http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/01/23/relationshipstrategies/how-narcissism-evolved
  
  Clearly, the Dark Triad traits are antisocial, yet also adaptive. How can this be explained?
  
  Having a propensity for fewer, more distant relationships could be adaptive in a number of ways. If an individual is born into a dangerous and insecure world, it makes sense to be cautious about trusting others and investing resources in them through pro-social behaviours that are unlikely to be reciprocated (Trivers, 1971). Equally, if an individual does not really care about other‟s feelings, it is possible to form short-term pseudo friendships to one‟s own advantage. These “hit and run” relationships have significant adaptive value, particularly for males in the context of fathering offspring (Jonason et al., 2009).
  
  In The Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (2011), a chapter on the link between NPD and short-term mating, The Intertwined Evolution of Narcissism and Short-Term Mating by Holtzman and Strube, explores the latest thinking on this relationship.
  
  The authors point out that it’s hard to understand how such socially aversive traits could have been adaptive after humans underwent natural positive selection for pair-bonding 1.5 million years ago. It was at this time that the benefits of parental investment (LTM) began to outweigh the advantages of STM. So how did narcissism persist in the population?
  
  Up until the occurrence of long-term pair-bonding, the two most important traits for mating were attractiveness and competitiveness. These two traits encouraged dominance. According to fossil remains, however, selection traits began to change around 1.5 million years ago to accompany LTM. Mating males became less symmetrical (a proxy for attractiveness) and smaller, reflecting “decreased selection for intrasexual competitive advantages.”
  
  After this time, it is therefore argued (Eastwick, 2009) that a primary trait under positive selection was cooperativeness – facilitating bi-parental care, attachment and pair-bonds. This was a key turning point in human evolution. When cooperativeness began to be positively selected, contentiousness and attractiveness no longer held a monopoly on reproductive success.
  
  In light of the available phylogenetic evidence, therefore, we hypothesize that narcissism emerged as a unique variant of dominance.
  
  The importance and influence of learning mechanisms in the development of mating strategies cannot be downplayed; the development of narcissistic promiscuity is likely partially due to learning and the contextual effects of rearing environments or cultures. Nevertheless…the behavior genetic evidence clearly indicates a nontrivial degree of heritability…the underlying biological machinery that was shaped by evolution has reciprocally interacted with the learning mechanisms that have shaped narcissistic and STM behavior.
  
  While narcissistic traits clearly help in the acquisition of resources, their attraction in securing short-term mates is less clear. What were the reproductive means that molded narcissism, and why does it persist? The authors theorize that STM directly produced narcissism to compete with trends in long-term mating. The data suggests that narcissists possess greater levels of the qualities conducive to STM:
  
  1. Attractiveness
  
  It is unclear whether greater perceived attractiveness is innate or due to grooming. Narcissists are more likely than other males to be preoccupied with personal appearance. They may also inflate their own perceptions of their attractiveness, enabling them to pursue women beyond their realistic prospects.
  
  Exhibitionism is a core trait of narcissism, and also favors STM. These characteristics were favored before humans evolved to pair-bond.
  
  2. Coercion
  
  According to the researchers, narcissism is slightly related to behaviors that have been conceptualized as risk factors for rape. Once pair bonding evolved, narcissists who were less coercive would have had difficulty reproducing. They were ostracized from, or avoided, long-term pair-bonds.
  
  Narcissists have more fantasies about coercion and sadism during sex, and self-report more coercion and sadism during sex.
  They construe sexual behavior as involving manipulation and power.
  They punish, i.e., have less empathy for, women who withhold sex.
  
  3. Adolescence
  
  Narcissism should peak during adolescence, when males are unable to provide for offspring, and more likely to pursue STM. However, poor attachment in childhood, combined with STM approaches during adolescence may set the stage for a lifetime of STM.
  
  Interesting bits there re attractiveness and narcissism, i.e. “hot and mean”, as well as the prevalence of narcissism in male adolescence.
Esau

Susan, variously:

I follow the data trail, and it does not support your claim.

But, does the “data trail” you followed actually refute any of my claims? If not, then I don’t see that it’s material; see below.

I have not taken anyone’s word for anything, nor have I drawn conclusions without evidence to support them. [*]

I’ve done the hard work here. Either put up a factual argument or STFU[**].

Remind me carefully, so I can get it right: which fruits of your research do you believe actually, directly refute the generalized claim that “chicks dig jerks”, or any of its wordier alternatives? I know for example that you turned up all this information on partner counts among college students, which objectively showed that hookup culture participation was much rarer than many commenters had previously typically imagined. And while that’s good work, dispelling pluralistic ignorance and so on, those numbers say nothing directly about who is or isn’t more attractive to whom; and, if anything, I could make the argument that those numbers are perfectly consistent with, and actually weigh in favor of — though not constitute proof of — the generalized “chicks dig jerks” hypothesis.

Give me a pointer to something that you think objectively disproves “chicks dig jerks”, and I’ll either accept it or tell you why I dispute it objectively and quantitatively; evidence and logic, you know, not using made-up stories about people’s underlying motivations. If you can’t provide such a link, then you should quit insisting that your “hard work” is at all material to this hypothesis, and admit that all you’ve got is anecdotal evidence — and there mine or anyone’s is, to first order, as good as yours.

NB: No, I’m not convinced in the slightest by the mathematical modeling you referred to at 62, under the embarrassingly bombastic heading “read and learn”. I’ve done quite a bit of computer modeling myself, and can go into as much detail as you care for about the limitations of conclusions based on such vastly simplified representations; it’s interesting, to be sure, but for dispositive value I’d much sooner bet my life on what plain old anecdotes to hand imply.

* Of course, the claim that you don’t draw conclusions without supporting evidence is, shall we say, hardly airtight; just in this exchange you’ve violated that very principle by drawing (incorrect) conclusions about my life based on no facts at all. More seriously, pick a post at random with at least 200+ comments in the stream, and I’ll show you at least five instances where you’ve drawn conclusions without supporting scientific objective evidence (this is not remarkable, everyone does it). Just because you’ve “done the hard work” in drawing some conclusions does not prove that you do the same for all.

** I wonder: is, say, Ted D subject to the same “put up a factual argument or STFU” injunction? He’s been saying very much the same thing I have on this thread, with just as much or little scientific evidence to back it up. Or do the depths of your self-admitted ad hom reasoning extend to the point that only “angry, confrontational” people are tasked for evidence, while the exact same thing, but said more politely, is allowed to pass? (so much for being evidence-based)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Esau
  
  And while that’s good work, dispelling pluralistic ignorance and so on, those numbers say nothing directly about who is or isn’t more attractive to whom; and, if anything, I could make the argument that those numbers are perfectly consistent with, and actually weigh in favor of — though not constitute proof of — the generalized “chicks dig jerks” hypothesis.
  
  We know that only 3% of men have sex with more than 6 women during their four years of college.
  
  *Let’s assume they’re the jerkiest of jerks.
  
  We also know that 15% of men are in frats, and another group plays varsity sports. They have more sex than other guys on campus.
  
  *Let’s assume they primarily make up the other 17% of promiscuous, or most desirable, men on campus. To get to 20% overall, we need to define manslut as anyone who has sex with more than 3 girls in college, but for the sake of argument, let’s stick with that.
  
  We know that 15% of women are in sororities, and that female athletes often socialize with males athletes.
  
  *Let’s assume there is a large overlap between women who socialize with promiscuous men and women who are attracted to promiscuous men.
  
  And yet…even the sluttiest men and women are not racking up much of a partner count. If the women are highly attracted to these high status BMOCs, and women are always at the ready when alpha is present, why aren’t we seeing more sex?
  
  And what of the other 80% of women on campus? Surely a woman who sets her sights on hooking up with an alpha might be reasonably expected to succeed, simply by walking into a fraternity party and announcing her desire to get f*cked, no?
  
  If you don’t care for my hypothetical scenario, perhaps these links will serve to inform you:
  
  I. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Preferred+level+of+sexual+experience+in+a+date+or+mate:+the+merger+of%E2%80%A6-a020536041
  
  Surprisingly, we did not find gender differences in how the different versions of the sexuality item were rated. Both men and women preferred chastity in a partner most and extensive prior sexual experience the least. This lack of gender difference is consistent with results from prior mate-selection studies examining preferences for chastity (Hoyt & Hudson, 1981).
  
  …For women only, sociosexual orientation was related to preferences with respect to sexual experience in a potential date or mate. Specifically, women with an unrestricted orientation to sex (i.e., those who have more positive attitudes toward casual, uncommitted sexual activity) gave higher desirability ratings to moderate or considerable sexual experience in a partner than did women with a restricted sociosexual orientation. Conversely, the restricted women rated chastity in a partner as more desirable than did unrestricted women. Women with extensive sexual experience (one dimension tapped by the SOI) should be more willing to consider a sexually experienced person as a partner. More specifically, they would be unlikely to have negative impressions of a sexually active (hence, similar) other (Smith et al., 1993), would assume that they (and others like them) are “uniquely invulnerable” to sexually transmitted diseases (Brehm, 1992), and may be guided by a specific, adaptive mating strategy (e.g., Simpson & Gangestad, 1992).
  
  II. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/all-it-takes-is-a-smile-for-some-guys.html
  
  “There are tons of studies showing that men think women are interested when they’re not,” says Williams College psychologist Carin Perilloux, who conducted the research with Judith A. Easton and David M. Buss of University of Texas at Austin. “Ours is the first to systematically examine individual differences.” The findings will appear in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science.
  
  The research involved 96 male 103 female undergraduates, who were put through a “speed-meeting” exercise—talking for three minutes to each of five potential opposite-sex mates. Before the conversations, the participants rated themselves on their own attractiveness and were assessed for the level of their desire for a short-term sexual encounter. After each “meeting,” they rated the partner on a number of measures, including physical attractiveness and sexual interest in the participant. The model had the advantage of testing the participants in multiple interactions.
  
  The results: Men looking for a quick hookup were more likely to overestimate the women’s desire for them. Men who thought they were hot also thought the women were hot for them—but men who were actually attractive, by the women’s ratings, did not make this mistake. The more attractive the woman was to the man, the more likely he was to overestimate her interest. And women tended to underestimate men’s desire.
  
  III. http://www.bakadesuyo.com/do-women-who-really-enjoy-sex-prefer-bad-boys
  
  The assumption in the literature has been that all women are more interested in relationships than sex. Yet for some women, the sexual aspect of a relationship is primary (Kalof, 1995). In particular, women who are more permissive and who are willing to engage in sex are more attracted to bad boys.
  Source: “Dating Preferences of University Women: An Analysis of the Nice Guy Stereotype” from Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 25339-343, 1999
  Researchers asked college age women what they thought of “nice guys”:
  
  * More than half agreed that nice guys have fewer sex partners.
  * More than half said they preferred nice guys.
  * Which women preferred nice guys? “…women who placed a lesser emphasis on the importance of sex, who had fewer sexual partners, and who were less accepting of men who had many sexual partners”.
  * Overall researchers came to the conclusion that nice guys have fewers sex partners but are preferred for committed relationships.
  
  I wonder: is, say, Ted D subject to the same “put up a factual argument or STFU” injunction? He’s been saying very much the same thing I have on this thread, with just as much or little scientific evidence to back it up. Or do the depths of your self-admitted ad hom reasoning extend to the point that only “angry, confrontational” people are tasked for evidence, while the exact same thing, but said more politely, is allowed to pass?
  
  The short answer to your question is that I have little tolerance for or interest in communicating with people who approach the debate with a consistently disagreeable demeanor. You are extremely disagreeable in your communication style, characterized by your frequent confrontations, accusing others of selfishness, cruelty or misandry.
Esau

Meanwhile, easy and tasty sauce for the goose:

I know a great deal about you in the revelatory comments you have been leaving here for 2+ years.

Waaaay overblown. Without disputing (for now) your conclusions, what you see here is only a narrow, part-time personality, that may have little or nothing to do with how I am IRL. “On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog,” as the famous New Yorker cartoon went; many people change in their on-line personas from their real-life ones.

You are confrontational, judgmental and angry.

Even sticking just with my as revealed on-line personality, I don’t agree with this. But, neither would I disown it. Are these bad things?

Confrontational You’re being quite confrontational right in this exchange, as I imagine you think is called for. I call ‘em as I see ‘em, same as you. Why shouldn’t I be confrontational if I see something that deserves to be confronted, same as you?

Judgemental See above. More importantly, can you provide a specific link to any “judgemental” remark I’ve made on HUS that was not warranted?

Angry Skipping over how subjective and shaming this judgement can be, I’ll quote again my favorite t-shirt from the Bush era, which read “If you’re not completely appalled then you haven’t been paying attention.” (Obama non-fans can probably buy the same item today.) Taking out the shaming element, I easily maintain that anger is often justified, even mandated, by the facts. There are many times and places in history when anger and resentment are the only sane options, the only options that self-respect will allow, while complacency is intellectual and moral error. Calling someone “angry” is just a cheap shaming tactic with no dispositive meaning, if it’s no accompanied by a reasoned argument that anger is not appropriate.

You regularly accuse women of being unfeeling Can you link to any specific accusation I’ve ever made that was unwarranted? Or, as a well-known blogger once put it, please “either put up a factual argument or STFU”.

even our own Jackie, Is the sainted Jackie your go-to example, or do you have others? I wrote extensively and lucidly, in the exchange you refer to, as to how the angelic one unmistakably revealed a flash of malice; do you need links? If you want to engage on the facts of what she actually wrote, I’m certainly game; otherwise this boils down to a sort of anti-ad-hom, that “all claims unfriendly to Jackie must be false, because she’s known to be an angel on earth without a molecule of malice” (At least I’m willing to regard her as a full-spectrum human being in three dimensions, which I think is ultimately the more complimentary and sympathetic view.)
Jimmy Hendricks

This whole thing annoys me because it sounds like the type of article you would see in Cosmo: WHAT TO KNOW WHAT MEN REALLY WANT? We overheard the conversations of a dozen of 13 year old boys. They reveal the secrets of their gender… uncensored. Take a notebook handy girl after this you will be having them eating from your hand.
Yeah..no.

That’s actually not too ridiculous… There’s little to no difference between what I was sexually attracted to at 13 and what I’m attracted to today. I could be wrong, but I think attraction cues pretty static for most guys throughout their lives.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

That’s actually not too ridiculous… There’s little to no difference between what I was sexually attracted to at 13 and what I’m attracted to today. I could be wrong, but I think attraction cues pretty static for most guys throughout their lives.

Really? If I came here saying that the best way to catch a man would be listening to 13 year old boy wishes would you take me seriously?
At least my husband says that he was pretty dumb as a teen so dunno make his dumb version of self attracted doesn’t seem like a good idea.
INTJ

@ Jimmy Hendricks

That’s actually not too ridiculous… There’s little to no difference between what I was sexually attracted to at 13 and what I’m attracted to today. I could be wrong, but I think attraction cues pretty static for most guys throughout their lives.

Definitely true. Of course, the difference is that boys are taught to mature and consider things besides just attraction cues, so the mating strategies change as they get older, even if their basic attraction cues stay the same.

Unfortunately, the equivalent message isn’t getting across as loudly to girls, so many of them continue to follow the same attraction cues they had when they were 13.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Of course, the difference is that boys are taught to mature and consider things besides just attraction cues, so the mating strategies change as they get older, even if their basic attraction cues stay the same.
  
  Unfortunately, the equivalent message isn’t getting across as loudly to girls, so many of them continue to follow the same attraction cues they had when they were 13.
  
  Nonsense. Neither sex is immune to impulsive, risky, or foolish behavior, and both sexes mature cognitively to make better mating decisions over time. The sexual gluttony of most of the men who have options is evidence that many men forfeit education and professional development in hedonistic pursuit of pussy.
SciGuy

@Susan,

I’ve read your site for a few months now, along with other Manosphere sites and I’d like to say that I find your use of scientific research to substantiate your claims refreshing.

As I said, I’ve read other Manosphere sites, particularly Game sites. While I agree that many of their arguments are insightful and generally valid, many of them also seem to suffer from both confirmation and selection bias. So keep citing that research…I’m sure I’m not the only one who appreciates it.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @SciGuy
  
  Bless you, I needed that! I confess I find it ironic that many of the guys who want to discount scientific research are STEM.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@INTJ
Okay from the top
From what I can gather all the research done about evo-bio is done with people that is already past puberty and can select a mate and carry a pregnancy to term or in the case of males have a girl pregnant.
We don’t know even if this 13 year olds started ovulating (I didn’t had my first period till I was 14 for example) and the rate of death at that age from a pregnancy complications for the mother and the child is very high , so is more likely that at that age they haven’t fully developed their attraction cues. We can see it to males able to impregnate them successfully, we can see it in things like aversion to chest hair on males (a secondary sexual characteristic that does indicate fertility on males) and if you look at the media aimed to this target audience, teen heartthrobs are androgynous looking (really all those mean jokes about Bieber looking like a girl are not for free), so even though they are starting to notice boys, this is a too early stage to take it as gospel and/or prediction of their future actions and sexual attractors specially when is just anecdote.
There is no such a thing as studies done at this age to correlate with evobio neither the person reporting is an unbiased source the title of the post was “I see Alpha/Beta everywhere” and he of course is new on this discovery and he didn’t even heard the story first hand, so he had a lot of bias filtering the info, IMO.
So sorry I don’t buy that this tweens are more credible that tons and tons of research in the matter, YMMV.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

While I agree that many of their arguments are insightful and generally valid, many of them also seem to suffer from both confirmation and selection bias.

I don’t think you can avoid this. We did a Myer Briggs test and found out that HUS concentrates a huge amount of people of similar personality traits. So it looks like Internet just enables people to find like minded individuals instead of giving them a good doses of variety, YMMV.
Mireille

A very interesting post; the male reactions to it are quite predictable as usual. I just find it funny that people would want base theories on something that more of a work in progress and is not yet set. We can only make scientific observations after having considered the whole picture.

I personally believe women see their preferences evolve regarding mate response and selection, just like men can switch from STR to LTR minded connections. However, one important point is that the nurturing qualities that men are blaming are also the qualities they’ll need to care for the chosen father and the child. You can’t throw the baby with the bath water.

It seems to me a lot of men around here are decrying the fact they would never find a mate if we were back to just being “animals” and are saddened that some women still function on that model when men have “obviously ” evolved beyond considering women’s looks as criteria number one for mating. If anything, those men should actually be thankful to evolution and women actually refusing to carry the burden of child caring alone or developing a liking to qualities they possess. For everywoman falling for the temporary appeal of jerks, there is some guy buying diners and flowers for a hot but bitchy bimbo. However, it has a short term shelf life; men having more ego desist earlier when women relying on their nurturing qualities might invest more than they should. Should get rid of that nurturing side of women then? May I remind that it is that quality that makes civilization, picking men who have some similar tendencies and replicating them in your children is what makes it that globally we as humans have thrived.
JustYX

“many people change in their on-line personas from their real-life ones. ”

so…you chose that personality! WTF were you thinking?
yareallypua

Nice Guys(TM) aren’t being honest and girls can read that. They’re socially conditioned to repress themselves in order to get along with everyone and try to make people like them. So when the Nice Guy(TM) does something nice for a girl while pretending he doesn’t want sex from her, he’s not being honest about his intentions or desires.

Imagine if you were a billionaire and wherever you went everyone was extra super nice to you and came up to you trying to be your best buddy and always agreeing with you and never daring to risk hurting your feelings or doing anything that might upset you. You’d know they were all full of shit and just trying to get something from you. And you’d say “you’re not just trying to get my money, are you? This friendship is real right?” and they’d go “no no, of course not, we’re just friends. :)” while subconsciously wanting your money and hoping that if they spend enough time around you, you’ll voluntarily give them your money.

An “asshole” is attractive because a girl gets to see all of him, the good and the bad. He doesn’t filter himself or try to impress her or try to be what he thinks she wants him to be. He expresses himself fully, good or bad. She’s attracted to that because she can trust that.

A Nice Guy(TM) sees the asshole getting the girl and he thinks it’s unfair because from his perspective the only difference between himself and the asshole is that the asshole is doing mean things as well as nice and is pushing the girl through a range of negative motions as well as positive. So he concludes “girls like assholes”, when the reality is that he is oblivious to his own dishonesty because he’s been so socially conditioned to behave like the Nice Guy(TM) and repress his desires and thoughts for external approval that he’s essentially too in the middle of it all to see clearly.

This is also why we tell newbies not to buy girls a drink, but advanced guys can buy them a drink. We know the newbie is too blind to his own social conditioning that he can’t tell that the vibe he gives off when he buys a drink is the same as the people pretending to be the billionaire’s new friend. He thinks he wants to do it because he’s just a Nice Guy(TM) but he’s still in denial about his own desires and intent and it takes a while before he’ll finally understand himself in this way. Once he learns to be honest with himself, and he has enough experience, he can return to buying a drink for a girl because NOW he’s coming from a different place (a place of honesty instead of hidden intent).

This expands into some really large over-arching PUA concepts that people who’ve only read The Game and don’t follow modern pickup probably aren’t aware of, but this is the basic summary of a core concept. We call it “Authenticity”, “Congruence”, “Expressing Your Intent” and a bunch of other labels depending on specifically which sub-category of the concept we’re discussing.
Courtley

@SW

“It’s quite remarkable to see intelligent people dismiss compelling evidence to avoid altering their world view. ”

Yes, it is. But this is always what happens whenever people get ideologically committed to a worldview first, and get interested in evidence second.

The reality is, I think, that for a lot of men it’s actually comforting to believe that women in aggregate are biologically incapable of being genuinely attracted to traits that are good in LTRs. This absolves them of the responsibility to admit that their own individual relationship/sexual issues and shortcomings may have been partly their own fault–perhaps through bad factors they could not control, like personality and life situation, but still things that centered around them, not the other. With the worldview they have now, all fault lies with women, with “female nature.”

As for the conversation among the 13-year-olds . . . does this resemble conversations that any female posters remember having at 13? I went to a lot of slumber parties at that age. We talked about the boys we had “crushes” on or the little short-term boyfriends we had, and I don’t remember this “hot but mean” “not-hot but nice” distinction at all. And we were not all stuck on the same ‘alpha male,’ either–and I’m glad Susan pointed out that Alpha Male does not necessarily = Mean Guy. The tall, good looking “Golden Boy Athletes” (prototype of the alpha male in American middle and high schools) were invariably nice guys. The Mean Guys were kids with family problems who acted out at school and were cruel to others, often especially the smaller boys and the girls. They may have picked up a few troubled girls as girlfriends, but they were never boyfriends or crushes of the majority. They also demonstrated high anxiety and other unattractive traits, while the stable, genial, outgoing, athletic Alphas generally seemed calm and in control–which are all quality traits to have in an LTR, AND are traits that can place one in a leadership position.

This idea that “successful with women” automatically = “poor character” seems like jealousy and projection and resentment Susan’s rundown at the beginning of the thread was perfect. Women like confidence, and some will take confidence along with other poor traits over lack of confidence and some accompanying positive traits, but in the end this means women are just attracted to confidence on a basic level, which is certainly not solely a “dark triad” thing.
Sai

@Anacaona
“I need to mention that among the many reasons I lost respect for feminism while I was around Jezebel was the dismissal of science that didn’t backed up their personal believes and agendas.”

That’s when I started to wonder what they were smoking too.
JustYX

@Susan

Women are attracted to confidence.
Narcissists are the most confident men.

Women are attracted to calm strength rather than anxiety.
Sociopaths are the least anxious men.

Women are attracted to men who are socially dominant.
Disagreeable, even violent men are the most dominant.

Women are attracted to men who embrace risk.
Dangerous men, and men in dangerous settings are the most comfortable with risk.

this has more than a whiff of truth to it I reckon.

society used to teach everyone about consequences, which kept the fulfilling of the tingles down I suspect, especially pre-pill. It was kept to the pages of emo-romance-porn (Barbara Cartland etc), where it did little harm beyond raising ladies’ temperature in the bath.

nowadays, however, the pill is here and the media is all about the here & now, sexy, hawt, do whatever feels good etc…now it matters, because women are told to do what they want with abandon, no consequences girrrlfriend (well, till it’s too late maybe. single-mom).

if you remove consequences (and so much thought) from tingle chasing, perhaps the cause of the attraction (e.g. confidence) does take priority over the reality (in this case narcissism). Does it really matter that you pick a bad-boy if right here & now he’s got the consequence free tingle going?

Men would be wise to avoid claiming the moral high-ground on short term sexual thinking imho, but maybe it’s more corrosive on society when women reward bad behaviour (rather than men doing ONS with physical hotties but bad-girl personalities). It sends all the wrong signals to proto-PUAs, and hurts the good guys. Nobody wins in the end, well, apart from the alphas and genuine badboyz.

So, I like your list, it gives a plausible reason for the call of the triad. A bit deeper than the standard ‘All wimminz be ebul’ (read it somewhere, won’t be linking to it).
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JustYX
  
  if you remove consequences (and so much thought) from tingle chasing, perhaps the cause of the attraction (e.g. confidence) does take priority over the reality (in this case narcissism). Does it really matter that you pick a bad-boy if right here & now he’s got the consequence free tingle going?
  
  I think you hit on something important here. I do think a lot of girls figure they’ve got a good 5-10 years of dating ahead of them once they get to college, and they’re not averse to having a few bad boy “mulligans” in the mix. Or at least they don’t see negative consequences to taking more chances than if they were expected to find a husband by college graduation, something that was true only 50 years ago.
  
  So, I like your list, it gives a plausible reason for the call of the triad.
  
  That’s a great expression.
  
  I do think it’s important to explore the causal effects here. I think we draw a lot of conclusions backwards, which is very easy to do.
evilalpha

@Anacaona

I just noticed something, in the grand scheme of things a man will listen to what attracts a: 1-Hottie/Model/Sexy/Slut 2- 13 year old girl . . . . . . 3-Outliers/low or none hypergamic/Beta lovers/ happily married women that obviously admire and bed their husbands.
I’m sure other type of women fill in the blanks before anyone would listen to our type. More proof of the 80% disconnect

Nice hamstering, snow flake, but if the 80% were actually given a chance they’d go for a bad boy asshole in a heart beat. So spin all you wish, but men are fully aware that the hottie, the 13 year old, and the 80% ain’t all that different in their attraction triggers. Do you think the loyal husband and the bad boy don’t both find strippers arousing??? Most good girls ain’t really “good”, they just haven’t been given the opportunity to be bad. That’s all.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @evilalpha
  
  Most good girls ain’t really “good”, they just haven’t been given the opportunity to be bad. That’s all.
  
  LOL, I do think you’d be happier serving the Dark Lord. You remind me of the infant vampires on True Blood who have no control over their behavior.
evilalpha

@Courtley

The reality is, I think, that for a lot of men it’s actually comforting to believe that women in aggregate are biologically incapable of being genuinely attracted to traits that are good in LTRs. This absolves them of the responsibility to admit that their own individual relationship/sexual issues and shortcomings may have been partly their own fault–perhaps through bad factors they could not control, like personality and life situation, but still things that centered around them, not the other. With the worldview they have now, all fault lies with women, with “female nature

Oh no. More of this bullshit!

Look lady, I don’t have a problem getting laid and I still think that “chicks dig assholes”, just like the “losers” that you passive aggressively called out.

Men don’t think this way about women because it’s comforting to us. Men think it because it’s true. But of course women would rather chalk it up to “male ego” than be forced to “own” their shit.
Ted D

M – “But when women admit stuff like this, it appears to me that men can’t handle it. They don’t want to know the truth.”

Thanks for the honest answer, and I agree. The thing is, most men have been lied to all their lives and told that “being nice, being yourself” is what women want. So yes, many/most men DO INDEED get upset when they find out that if they had simply just not listened and did what they wanted, they would have had more success. And this is precisely WHY all this lying/hiding of the truth hurts us all.

I’m not advocating that men should all be bad asses, and women should all stop making good mate choices. However, there are plenty of cad/bad asses around, and I certainly see LOTS of poor mate choices around here. Any man that gets upset at the discovery of women lusting for “bad boys” hasn’t been unplugged, because despite all the pushback we get, Red Pill guys know that down at the root of all this “female choice” is a set of triggers that are almost impossible to completely deny. Surely women can make conscious choices to pick a quality mate, but IF she doesn’t make that choice, or if no one ever told her what NOT to choose, she will probably end up sexing up a cad/player/bad boy type. I see it all around me in the section 8 housing areas. These women are NOT making smart mate choices, and in most cases they all end up with several children to several different “bad boys”, because that IS their natural inclination.

“I accept men’s shallow preferences, but I rarely meet men who fully accept the ‘shallow’ side of women.”

See above. I agree with you, but the only reason men are SO pissed off by this is because we were lied to about it most of our lives. If I’d grown up knowing women tended to choose the cad over the dad, I could have made more informed and intelligent decisions regarding my mating and pairing habits. But, by being lied to, I was denied the opportunity to make that truly informed choice. However, all women know that “men are pigs”, so women DO get all the info to make their choices.

“But while men are very good at justifying their preferences, women are stuck with being “golddiggers” or just naive and cheap.”

I don’t “justify” my choice to anyone, because I don’t have to. The only person I owe a justification to is myself, and I’m perfectly fine knowing I like attractive women. So, why are women so upset to learn that deep down, they actually like ‘bad men’. Liking a hot women doesn’t make me a bad person, and liking a guy that is a little sociopathic doesn’t make you a bad person either. (not saying you DO like sociopaths, so I didn’t mean you as in M). And in fact, knowing and admitting this fact MAY just keep you from making a HUGE mistake and marrying an abusive guy.

In the end, it bothers me when people lie in general, but it really gets my panties in a bunch when they lie to themselves so convincingly that others start to believe them as well.

Susan – “Check out the big brain on Ted. LOL, you believe? On what basis? “

See above. Come around and take a walk in the section 8 housing areas around here, and tell me that left to their own devices women DO NOT by and large choose “bad boys” to be their children’s sperm donor. There is NO WAY you can tell me that these guys are all duping women into believing they are “dad” material. To me, the poorest communities in the U.S. represent the most basic existence of humanity (in the West) outside of people literally living in the woods. They KNOW they will be given a roof and something to eat, so they have no need to select a “dad” and therefore they don’t even bother trying. So, their default mode of mate selection is: bad boy

ADBG – “Essentially what it comes off as is…You are a woman dating a Jew admitting that you find Nazis sexier than him. That’s how it comes across to a hardened, bitter Beta Guy, or even a relatively healthy Beta Guy with some deep wounds.”

LOL. Very nice imagery there, and I agree 100%.

Susan – “I think men are loath to examine the HOT part. Women are attracted to hot, handsome, well-built men. Character traits cannot be evaluated at first sighting, or even first meeting. The initial attraction is always physical, even for women.”

Surely you know that many very successful PUA types are NOT at all handsome. So, although HOT may be an instant trigger for many women, it obviously isn’t the reason women go for the “bad boy” en masse.

M – “Well, the character traits I mentioned creates sexual attraction. So the difference is that there are actually more personality traits which qualifies a man for commitment”

Ouch. OK, I’ll buy this completely. But, then you must understand that for the most part, men in general ARE NOT looking for commitment as the end goal. Sure, most of us will sign on for a lifelong commitment with a women we really like to have sex with that seems decent to live with as well, but it isn’t like most guys are literally looking to get married. You see, what we really want is sex, so if you want to drive behavior, well, then giving sex easily to “bad boys” is a losing proposition, hence the newfound interest in Game. Nice guys are learning to be “bad boys” in the hopes of getting sex, which may or may not come with commitment.

And in case you don’t know, I’m actually very supportive of marriage and the core family. I’ve spent most of my life expecting to marry and have children, but even I realized that before all that, I needed to find a woman I liked having sex with. Because as I found out, there IS no marriage without some type of sex life for most guys, myself included.

JH – “That’s actually not too ridiculous… There’s little to no difference between what I was sexually attracted to at 13 and what I’m attracted to today. I could be wrong, but I think attraction cues pretty static for most guys throughout their lives”

I’ve seen somewhere that this is basically true (I really need to start saving links to the stuff I read for use here and elsewhere…) And to me this is exactly why its important to learn what 13 year old people find attractive, because to me that is about the time when their sexuality and attraction triggers are at their most natural state. All this discussion of “maturing” is totally true, but irrelevant to the discussion I am trying to have. Surely who we choose to mate with is not the only behavior we “mature” into. And to me, anything we have to be mature enough to do correctly is something we’ve overridden with conscious decision, because it proves we have to learn NOT to follow our instinct.

INTJ – “Definitely true. Of course, the difference is that boys are taught to mature and consider things besides just attraction cues, so the mating strategies change as they get older, even if their basic attraction cues stay the same.

Unfortunately, the equivalent message isn’t getting across as loudly to girls, so many of them continue to follow the same attraction cues they had when they were 13.”

This is the point I’m doing a VERY bad job of getting across. Boys are taught from an early age to override their base desires when it comes to sex, but as far as I can see, many/most Western women are NOT taught anything similar. I have to wonder why, and I think it is because to admit that women have such base desires undermines much of what Feminism wants us to believe about women.

Mireille – “It seems to me a lot of men around here are decrying the fact they would never find a mate if we were back to just being “animals” and are saddened that some women still function on that model when men have “obviously ” evolved beyond considering women’s looks as criteria number one for mating.”

I can’t speak for other men, but this isn’t my beef at all. I’m miffed because it would have been FAR EASIER for me to grow up actually being myself than to try and be what I was TOLD to be because WOMEN WANTED IT THAT WAY. I’m saddened that at some level ALL women still function on that model while I was doing my best to downplay the very traits they find attractive. It doesn’t bother me that my wife finds assholean behavior a little arousing, I’m upset because I now have an EX-wife because I did my best to NOT be assholean to her, when in fact I should have just stood up to her and been an asshole. I have NO PROBLEM giving my current wife a little assholean behavior now and again to keep her attracted. I just wish SHE and all women knew that they actually want it as well. Then we could stop playing this game of deception, where I pretend to be a nice guy and she pretends to be attracted to that. I’d much prefer we both know and admit that much of what she finds attractive about me IS NOT the good stuff. Sure, she wants the good stuff, and I’m more than happy to provide it. But, the truth is, my wife isn’t hot for me because I cook well, or clean house, or do laundry, or bring home a paycheck. She may LOVE me for all that, but she isn’t ATTRACTED to me for any of it. What is she attracted to? Well, everyone here is aware of what an opinionated asshole I am. I know my wife finds that highly attractive, because she thoroughly enjoys watching me go into “asshole” mode on people. I generally dislike it because most issues cannot be solved with bad behavior. But, on occasion, being a total dick CAN get you what you want, and when I find myself in one of those situations, I do my best to make sure my wife has a great seat to watch. Because rest assured, she will be on my like white on rice later that night.

Courtley – “The reality is, I think, that for a lot of men it’s actually comforting to believe that women in aggregate are biologically incapable of being genuinely attracted to traits that are good in LTRs. This absolves them of the responsibility to admit that their own individual relationship/sexual issues and shortcomings may have been partly their own fault–perhaps through bad factors they could not control, like personality and life situation, but still things that centered around them, not the other. With the worldview they have now, all fault lies with women, with “female nature.””

I’ve said many times that I am fully aware (now) of my participation in the failure of my marriage. The rub is, that failure was not because I lacked any kind of LTR skills. It was because I lacked “bad boy” skills, or more to the point, I did my damndest to NOT be a “bad boy” to her, which was in the end my fatal mistake. I think most women don’t want to be married to a total asshole, just like most men don’t want to be married to a total bitch. However, a little bitch every now and again does make things interesting for men, and it seems that a little “bad boy” here and there makes married/LTR life much more appealing to women. If this information was known and accepted, everyone would be better informed to take responsibility for their relationship issues and work them out, instead of attempting this feat based on completely misguided ideas. In my case, “common wisdom” told me to be more accommodating, more supplicating, and more “nice” for my wife to keep her from leaving, when in fact I should have simply treated her with some good old fashioned assholean pushback. But, I was led to believe women didn’t LIKE assholes, and although they may indeed not LIKE assholes, they are certainly turned on by them. If I had to choose between my wife liking me and my wife finding me sexually irresistible, I would choose hot for me hands down.

EvilAlpha – “but if the 80% were actually given a chance they’d go for a bad boy asshole in a heart beat.”

And now I find myself cosigning you. Although I will allow for NAWALT and say that perhaps 10% of that 80% wouldn’t jump at the bad boy. The rest? Yep, if they could sex up a true alpha bad boy without consequence, they would do it in a heartbeat.

And if indeed women are just as interested in sex as men, why is it so hard to face this truth? Just about every man alive understands that given the chance to sex up a really hot woman without consequence, they would trip over their pants running to her. But somehow the general consensus is that women are not subject to such desire. THAT is the root of all this BS to me.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  Surely you know that many very successful PUA types are NOT at all handsome. So, although HOT may be an instant trigger for many women, it obviously isn’t the reason women go for the “bad boy” en masse.
  
  I don’t know that. In fact, I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of PUA types are successful on the keyboard. Others are low SMV and successful with women who are low SMV. I see no evidence that unattractive guys are punching well above their weight using PUA.
  
  I also know (for a fact) that some Game bloggers are, shall we say, less than truthful in their claims. Caveat emptor.
Ted D

Susan – “Where are these sackless betas working hard and paying to raise another man’s spawn?”

*raises hand*

I wouldn’t call myself a sackless beta now, but before? Yeah, maybe. And not only did I sign up voluntarily to raise another man’s child once, I’ve done it a second time. However, this time around I had an idea of exactly what I was doing, and why I was doing it. I’m OK with my choice because I’m getting what *I* want out of the situation, and in the process these children will get to have a “father figure” in the house, which studies are finding out is VERY important for proper development of children, including the link I sent you recently regarding a present father being linked to higher self esteem in children.

And to take this a step further, in some ways YOU are that sackless beta Susan, as is everyone that pays taxes. Why you ask? Because OUR tax dollars are supporting single mothers everywhere that got pregnant to an alpha/cad/PUA/”bad boy”. We’ve replaced the sackless beta with the Nanny State (TM). The meme still exists, it has just been absorbed by the state.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  Because OUR tax dollars are supporting single mothers everywhere that got pregnant to an alpha/cad/PUA/”bad boy”.
  
  Wait. We know that more than 50% of births to women under 30 are OOW in the U.S. So, you’re saying that 50% of men who father children are alphas? If society is going to hell in a handbasket, and most men are bad, then that’s a whole lot of alphas. Is it possible to have a population that is 50% alpha male?
JP

@Ted D – “Unfortunately, the equivalent message isn’t getting across as loudly to girls, so many of them continue to follow the same attraction cues they had when they were 13.”

I think my primary attraction cue at that age was “do you have an IQ in the top 1% of the human population?”

I’m not positive that ever changed for me, although if I were dating today, I would do my best to acquire a full psychological profile. I’ve learned that’s important, too after reading enough psychological profiles to learn that there are truly bizzare people out there.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

I think you are seeing the adaptive unconscious filtering mechanism at work: the two boys are screened and put in “hot” or “not hot” categories very quickly, and then they carry with them those emotional tags as they migrate to more conscious parts of the girls’ brains. The “hot” guy’s behavior will then be rationalized as attractive almost regardless of what he does; the poor “not hot” guy will suffer the opposing fate. It’s probably quite difficult to escape from these designations.

I don’t think that the “mean” part is necessarily important. It may be hotness uber alles. He could be “hot and mean”, he could be “hot and nice”, he could be “hot yet glacially indifferent”—I suppose that what is important is that the guy is hot, period.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I don’t think that the “mean” part is necessarily important. It may be hotness uber alles. He could be “hot and mean”, he could be “hot and nice”, he could be “hot yet glacially indifferent”—I suppose that what is important is that the guy is hot, period.
  
  Precisely. Girls flock at 13 to good looking guys. Obviously! No one is tempted by an ugly mean guy, it makes no sense. It does make sense for those guys who find themselves the top pick in middle school to get cocky and choosy, and also to escalate sexually whenever they can. That was even true in 1970 when I was in middle school.
evilalpha

I don’t think that the “mean” part is necessarily important. It may be hotness uber alles. He could be “hot and mean”, he could be “hot and nice”, he could be “hot yet glacially indifferent”—I suppose that what is important is that the guy is hot, period.

Sorry but “hot” needs to be defined, thus a discussion of mean is very important.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Sorry but “hot” needs to be defined, thus a discussion of mean is very important.
  
  A 13 year old girl’s definition of hot:
  
  Boy who has matured early: changed voice, masculine facial structure, facial stubble appearing, maturing musculature.
  
  Good looking face, not too masculine: large eyes, small to medium nose, great smile.
  
  Personality: confident, at ease in social situations.
  
  Status: athlete.
evilalpha

And to take this a step further, in some ways YOU are that sackless beta Susan, as is everyone that pays taxes. Why you ask? Because OUR tax dollars are supporting single mothers everywhere that got pregnant to an alpha/cad/PUA/”bad boy”. We’ve replaced the sackless beta with the Nanny State (TM). The meme still exists, it has just been absorbed by the state

But Ted, women “don’t need men”! Lol.
JP

@Ted – “And to take this a step further, in some ways YOU are that sackless beta Susan, as is everyone that pays taxes. Why you ask? Because OUR tax dollars are supporting single mothers everywhere that got pregnant to an alpha/cad/PUA/”bad boy”. We’ve replaced the sackless beta with the Nanny State (TM).”

The Nanny State had certain financial limitations, such as the wall of debt that we’re going to crash into.
Ted D

EA – “But Ted, women “don’t need men”! Lol.”

However, life needs resources, and if women don’t have men to GET resources, someone or something has to step in, hence the Nanny State (TM) does the job for us in the modern Western world.

I don’t have a problem with someone that is genuinely down on their luck leaning on the government to help. I take issue with people that see Welfare as a lifestyle choice. Not only are they a leech on society, but they generally make things worse by creating more people destined to grow up choosing the same lifestyle. And, what is even more disturbing to me is they tend to reproduce at break neck speed and in large numbers. While hard working people are having one or two children (because as responsible adults they realize they cannot afford more) many Welfare “lifers” have enough children in the house to form a baseball team. So in a way some areas are literally being over run by section 8 housing because those people keep reproducing, which then increases the need for more public housing. The responsible adults? They get pushed out of the area entirely unless they want to deal with the unsavory side effects of section 8 housing.

I’m dealing with exactly this situation in my area, so I am fully aware that I have a “dog in this fight”, and I will even admit that perhaps MY views are a little jaded. But it is easy enough to see that although I may be a little “heated” on the subject, what I say is plenty true enough.
Iggles

@ Ana:

Didn’t we had a study that says that women actually can’t tell a good dad from a cad when is about they making the choice of a man for themselves? So is not rationalization or at least not un urpose many women actually do believe that “is going to be different with me”

You’re right. I remember that post. Women who fall for cads actually think he’s going to treat them different. I can see the faulty logic in that from a hundred miles away, so when I hear that I shake my head and roll my eyes.

Women who don’t fall for cads, don’t go for “misunderstood” jerks who are mean to everyone else but “nice” to her when they are alone. (e.g, Alex Karev from “Grey’s Anatomy”; Season 2!)
It’s juvenile thinking! Mature women realize if he’s rude to waiters, mean to his co-workers, and bitter towards his Ex/baby momma then ONE DAY he’s gonna turn on you too!

Love can’t “save” anyone! Some people learn this lesson sooner than others. And unfortunately, some people never do.
(And yes, women and men are both guilty of trying to so with a lost cause. Prime example of the male hamster: “Yeah, she cheated on me at that party with my friend but she was drunk and didn’t know what she was doing! He took advantage. I love her too much to break up!”)

Yeah but we are talking about the cohort of women that are actually pursuing the bad boy. Not all women do, which is the problem here. The raw data that says that 80% of this women are not actually engaging on this, so the pluralistic ignorance keeps getting enforced. Instead of saying that certain percentage of women need to be aware that their attractions triggers are fucked up, all women should be aware that their attraction triggers are fucked up… so what gives?

+ 1!

I agree, this “all women” have a “base instinct” for bad boys is bogus. I never went for the bad boy.
deti

@ Ted D:

* stands up, begins slow clap*

Epic. Fucking epic. Could. Not. Have. Said. It. Any. Better.

Ted D for president.
Ted D

Susan – “Which women preferred nice guys? “…women who placed a lesser emphasis on the importance of sex, who had fewer sexual partners, and who were less accepting of men who had many sexual partners”.”

Well well. This little gem right here could be key. Women that place lesser emphasis on SEX were less accepting of men with high N. This could really be an issue, because I am fairly confident when I say: men almost NEVER put a “lesser emphasis” on sex. So, women that want a man with a lower N don’t really regard sex as top of the list of importance, while the man she is with probably puts it damn near the very top.

What we have is: men are seeking women that want to have sex and enjoy it, but only with them. (for the most part looking for low N) However, the women most likely to want and enjoy sex are also the most likely to have a high N. And, since our society no longer clamps down on women who have promiscuous tendencies, there are VERY few women left that want and enjoy sex AND have a low N.

I can totally see how this becomes a catch 22 for everyone: the “good girls” can’t understand why men aren’t approaching them, and the “good boys” can’t understand why “good girls” aren’t sexy and hot while “bad girls” are but cannot be relied on for a relationship. The “bad girls” can’t understand why “good boys” won’t marry them because of their N, not realizing that they totally aliened those boys while sexing up the “bad boys” who are cleaning up and getting exactly what they want.

What a total cluster-fuck we’ve made for ourselves and our children…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  Well well. This little gem right here could be key.
  
  Indeed it could.
  
  Women that place lesser emphasis on SEX were less accepting of men with high N. This could really be an issue, because I am fairly confident when I say: men almost NEVER put a “lesser emphasis” on sex. So, women that want a man with a lower N don’t really regard sex as top of the list of importance, while the man she is with probably puts it damn near the very top.
  
  Well, you can’t have it both ways. The woman who puts sex at the top of her list is likely a woman who has exercised that preference on many occasions. You’re buying a high N woman when you want that feature.
  
  there are VERY few women left that want and enjoy sex AND have a low N.
  
  I believe there are many women chomping at the bit to find a partner so they can start having great sex. I know the young women I know who get into relationships at last don’t even want to leave the bedroom over the weekend. How about our own SayWhaat? She was a virgin eight months ago, now her bf begs for the occasional night off, lol.
  
  For most women, sex isn’t any good with a rando, and they know that about themselves from the start. They don’t want a manwhore, though, they want to know that when they bond the guy will be right there with them emotionally.
  
  I can totally see how this becomes a catch 22 for everyone: the “good girls” can’t understand why men aren’t approaching them, and the “good boys” can’t understand why “good girls” aren’t sexy and hot while “bad girls” are but cannot be relied on for a relationship
  
  Exactly, and that’s basically the answer to the question, “Why aren’t the 80% getting together?”
Ted D

aliened = alienated

I need to stop typing angry. LOL
Ted D

Susan – “Bless you, I needed that! I confess I find it ironic that many of the guys who want to discount scientific research are STEM.”

I suppose I classify as a STEM guy, but I’m no scientist. However, as a technology type of guy, I can tell you that for me, it is easy to disregard “scientific studies” when my eyes tell me a different story. I’ve seen time and again how stats can be manipulated to reflect specific outcomes, and I ALWAYS question any study based on asking people questions and expecting truthful answers. In addition, I still maintain that most of those studies DO NOT represent enough people of various SES and lifestyles to represent the whole picture. If I took one of these studies, and replicated it down the street in the local ghetto, I damn well be the answers would look VERY different.

The short version: I really don’t put a lot of faith in any studies of “social sciences” because frankly all that social stuff IS NOT very STEM. There is a huge influence of “touchy/feely” when it comes to studying humans, because we are SO loathe to treat humans the same way we do other creatures when we study them. I’d trust a study of the common groundhog way before I’d trust a study of people, because we are willing to put groundhogs through tests we would consider inhumane on people.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  I’ll agree that studies asking women “Who would you do?” are of limited value. But there are some very useful and valuable studies I’ve covered as well. For example, rank these faces for attractiveness. Now let’s see who you chose. Hmmmm, what do you know? The most attractive men are the ones with a long-term mating orientation!
  
  Or. Sniff these t-shirts. Which ones smell best to you? What do you know? Most women chose these three guys! These guys are “dads!” But wait, the ovulating women chose different guys. They chose cads!
  
  etc.
  
  It is not logical to dismiss all social science studies, particularly since your eyes tell you something very specific. Your reality may or may not be reflected elsewhere, or by the majority.
unigirl

Hey, not very related to the post but I’m looking for a bit of advice here if anyone has any, wasn’t really sure where to put it so sorry about that!
Anyway I popped out for a last minute drink the other night as my brothers were going out, and got talking to a guy who seemed really nice, turns out he goes to my gym, and we had arranged to go for a date at the weekend. Anyway as we were organising it he put in a text, and don’t bring your brother’s this time “lol,” it really irritated me for some reason, and has kind of put me off. I seem to remember I thought he’d said something derogatory about one of my brothers while when we met, although I was drunk at the time and the music was loud so I may have got the wrong end of the stick. Is this a bit of a red flag, like does he sound a bit of a creep for this, or am I overreacting? Other than that he seems very keen, nice etc.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @unigirl
  
  I wouldn’t overreact. He is probably just expressing that he looks forward to spending time alone with you. I would definitely avoid anything private or isolated for a first date, though. And if he badmouths any member of your family during the first date that should be a dealbreaker.
Ted D

EA – “Most good girls ain’t really “good”, they just haven’t been given the opportunity to be bad. That’s all.”

I was with you until this point…

Look, humans are not good or bad, we simply ARE. In the process of being, we make decisions that eventually are judged and determined to be good or bad. But, it isn’t in our nature to know the difference, and we must be taught to recognize it. And that IS my point: young women are NOT being taught to recognize bad behavior in themselves or in others properly, and the result is they make “bad” choices which if left unchecked can make them “bad” people.

If these girls were taught from an early age to recognize and acknowledge their base tendencies, told that they are OK but will lead to heartache without proper re-calibration, and guided to a more mature outlook, we wouldn’t have so many “bad” women around at all. The only reason we don’t have more “bad” men around is because there are plenty of legal ways to keep a lid on it. Most of what constitutes “bad” behavior in men (such as fighting, breaking stuff, causing a riot, etc) have legal repercussions. So, if a man is truly “bad” he tends to end up in jail. However, “bad” behavior manifests far differently in women. They don’t tend to violence as men do, but instead seem to go into more self destructive behavior, which although tragic, is far from illegal. So, in a way, the whole of our Western society is responsible for “bad” girls, because we didn’t preemptively stop them from BEING “bad”.
deti

unigirl @ 154:

You’re overreacting. It was one text. It was probably an effort to be cocky-funny. Go on the date.
Escoffier

“Don’t you graduate from wanting a roll with the town slut to wanting a woman of higher relationship value?”

I would not put it quite this way. I am repeating myself, but I guess it’s necessary. What most guys want is to have sex with the hottest women more or less at will. Only a few can actually achieve this but the biological desire is widely present, not to say universal. It runs hotter in some and cooler in others but it is present in all but the extreme outliers on the left tail (no sex drive).

“Above” biology are the “desiring” part of the soul that wants an emotional connection with a special woman and the “rational” part that enables us to sort women into good and bad risks. I think this desiring part of wanting that connection is present in most men but it less so than the biological urge. That is, it’s a very small number who don’t feel the urge–let’s say 5% just have no sex drive–whereas some larger number has no desire for emotional connection so long as they can get the sex. But well over half of men want that connection at least at some point in their lives.

The rational part is distributed on a very traditional bell curve. Some men can easily sort good from bad women and also can make good decisions for their long term happiness. Others have a very hard time doing this. Most are in the middle.

So, it’s not like we grow up and the base biological desire goes away. It does cool off (thankfully) but it’s always there. What happens, if our characters are well formed, is that we come to appreciate that the emotional connection will bring us greater (and better) happiness than an ever-increasing body count. And we learn to use our brains to figure out how to land one and keep her, and also to govern that base desire so that we don’t cheat on her, piss her off, and lose her.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  I think your description of the importance of character is true for both sexes in making good mating choices. Where there is a difference, I think, is that women don’t feel the same degree of base sexual desire. It’s never just about sex for women, so as we evaluate men, other factors come into play. Very, very few women want an emotionless sexual encounter, or can compartmentalize sex and emotion.
  
  As Ogi Ogas said, women’s arousal may be triggered by one very strong stimulus, several moderate stimuli, or many small stimuli. The algorithm for female attraction is much, much more complex than for males.
Iggles

@ Ana:

From what I can gather all the research done about evo-bio is done with people that is already past puberty and can select a mate and carry a pregnancy to term or in the case of males have a girl pregnant.
We don’t know even if this 13 year olds started ovulating (I didn’t had my first period till I was 14 for example) and the rate of death at that age from a pregnancy complications for the mother and the child is very high , so is more likely that at that age they haven’t fully developed their attraction cues. We can see it to males able to impregnate them successfully, we can see it in things like aversion to chest hair on males (a secondary sexual characteristic that does indicate fertility on males)

Wow, Ana you’re on fire with this post!!!

The bolded parts (emphasis added) really resonate with me! I remember being grossed out by chest hair when I was kid. Now I see it as part of being a man, and prefer men with more body hair as they appear more masculine to me. Grooming and being overly waxed is feminine to me so I dislike it when guys over do it! I cannot relate to women who want their partners to remove their body hair!

and if you look at the media aimed to this target audience, teen heartthrobs are androgynous looking (really all those mean jokes about Bieber looking like a girl are not for free), so even though they are starting to notice boys, this is a too early stage to take it as gospel and/or prediction of their future actions and sexual attractors specially when is just anecdote.

Absolutely!

Hence my 13 year old self’s attraction to Taylor Hanson! The other teen idols I like were androgynous looking as well. Today, as an adult I don’t find androgynous men attractive!
unigirl

Cheers Deti!
Ted D

Susan – “I don’t know that. In fact, I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of PUA types are successful on the keyboard. Others are low SMV and successful with women who are low SMV. I see no evidence that unattractive guys are punching well above their weight using PUA.

I also know (for a fact) that some Game bloggers are, shall we say, less than truthful in their claims. Caveat emptor.”

I don’t know for a fact that most PUAs are underwear model hot either. The few guys I’ve known that were highly successful with women (not all players, but successful all the same) probably consisted of 2/3 “hot” men, and 1/3 of very skilled socialite. The guys without looks simply needed to ramp up their social skills to compensate, but still managed to do well despite their clear disadvantage in looks. No doubt those less attractive men didn’t score as easily as the “hot” guys, but clearly NOT being hot didn’t hurt them too much. And, I’m not talking about LTRs here, I’m talking about ONS/FWB/casual relationships.

I will even say that the less “hot” a guy is, the more his assholean behavior may help him with the ladies. If he can’t “get them wet” with his beautiful smile, he can do the job with his shitty attitude and general lack of caring about what she thinks of him. I’m fairly certain that the little success I’ve had in my life is directly attributed to my inner asshole. I’m not saying I have a face only a mother can love, but I’m no Calvin Klein model either. But, I do have a bit of a bad attitude (FAR more so when I was a young guy) and that coupled with some musical skill “got them wet”, at least enough for me to get the LTRs I was looking for.
Escoffier

Susan, the reason you get so much grief every time you say things like “women are evolved to be attracted to men who will bond with them and raise their children to 18″ is because so many guys think they are EXACTLY that guy and either no women are attracted to them or else they have been summarily dumped well before their children were 18.

You can’t effectively dismiss all of this as anecdotal bitterness. There is too much of it.
Ted D

Susan – “Wait. We know that more than 50% of births to women under 30 are OOW in the U.S. So, you’re saying that 50% of men who father children are alphas? If society is going to hell in a handbasket, and most men are bad, then that’s a whole lot of alphas. Is it possible to have a population that is 50% alpha male?”

Nope. You aren’t including the fact that OOW births ALSO includes lots of couples that live together but are NOT legally married. Furthermore, just as your hookup 80/20 rule goes, I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of those single mothers are choosing from a vastly smaller pool of “alpha” dudes. How many times have you seen stories about guys that have 10+ children to several different women?

As far as it goes, if this trend keeps up (meaning that these baby mamas keep pumping out babies while the more affluent keep trimming back on reproducing) we may find out if we can survive with a 50% + society of alphas. My suspicion? We won’t make it. If there are enough truly violent men around, things will get bad. Which is precisely WHY all this is so important.
Ted D

Susan – “Well, you can’t have it both ways. The woman who puts sex at the top of her list is likely a woman who has exercised that preference on many occasions. You’re buying a high N woman when you want that feature.”

We can’t have it both ways NOW, but we could when promiscuity was publicly chastised and society looked down on promiscuous people. Because, those women that really enjoyed sex still existed, they just “discover” they liked it until they were in a LTR. Then, it was very possible to find yourself with a freak in the bedroom that for all the world appeared to be a very “ladylike” woman.

And again, as much as it offends my fairness ideals, it can’t be overlooked that when women WERE held accountable for their sexual choices in a very public way, we didn’t have all these issues. So, how do we go about convincing young women that really WANT sex to be chaste and choose wisely? That simply because you CAN get sex doesn’t mean you SHOULD get sex? Because, that one thing could make all the difference as it would put us in the position of easily telling who the “good” girls are that want sex, and who the “bad” girls are that want to be promiscuous.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So, how do we go about convincing young women that really WANT sex to be chaste and choose wisely? That simply because you CAN get sex doesn’t mean you SHOULD get sex? Because, that one thing could make all the difference as it would put us in the position of easily telling who the “good” girls are that want sex, and who the “bad” girls are that want to be promiscuous.
  
  You’re exactly right. I’m working on it.
  
  Shaming won’t work, I’m trying to provide logical incentives for being discerning about sexual partners.
JP

When I was in middle school/high school/college, the problem was that if a girl was interested in me, I was extremely unlikely to be interested in her.

In addition, if I was interested in a girl, it was extremely unlikely that she was interested in me.

This might have a lot to do with why people aren’t getting together. It could just true for a lot of people.

There were only two exceptions to this in my life at that time. Once in 7th grade and once in 10th. The number of times it occurred in college was zero.
unigirl

Thanks Susan, that’s what I’m absoloutely dreading, I think what I’m scared of is if something got said, but you know those vague things people say where you know and they know what was meant, but with plausible deniability, if that makes sense, I would want to leave the date but feel I was stuck on it
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Unigirl
  
  Haha, we’ve all been on dates we would like to leave early. It’s not much of a risk to take if you think he could be great.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Escoffier, I don’t want to dismiss all the stories men are telling, but the manosphere is not representative. It’s like 80-90% NT men, as opposed to less than 10% NT men in the general population. They are outliers who congregate online to create an “echo chamber.”

http://www.theanconas.com/MBTI/mfstats.htm

As an NF, I find most NT men to be unbearable and serious turn-off’s. Even though I am sympathetic to and dated several highly intelligent STEM nerds, most self-described NTs are not attractive to me. I don’t wonder why a lot of these men have issues with women. It’s in their very NT personality.
deti

@ Ted D:
“We can’t have it both ways NOW, but we could when promiscuity was publicly chastised and society looked down on promiscuous people”

You’re on fire today!

When external pressures are applied to women to remain (relatively) chaste, society worked better. Feminism agitated for — and won — the removal of those external constraints and consequences. This is why we are where we are now.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Question: why does it seem like restraining women and female sexuality is advocated by the same people who advocate removing restraints on those who work in financial markets and industries? What makes those people so much better that they’d do the right and good thing automatically?

I’m for consistency — restraining everybody.
Escoffier

Look, the core of the “red pill” is the ackowledgement that women’s basic biological desires are different than what polite culture has been telling us for at least the last 50 years. When Susan (or anyone else) says “women are evolved to be attracted to men who will bond with them and raise their children to 18″, that is nothing more or less than a restatement of the blue pill thesis. So, it sounds to a lot of us like she is trying to take us back to square one. And then we remember all these long conversations where it appeared that progress was being made toward understanding and common ground, and we go “WTF?????”

If that thesis–that women want nice guys–is right, then the red pill is wrong and we should stop talking about it. If that thesis is Susan’s thesis but not right or at least debatable, then the guys here have to accept that there is far less common ground than we had come to believe.

What Ted said earlier is correct: society has no problem understanding or talking about the nature of base male sexual desire. We still have a HUGE problem understanding and talking about the base nature of female sexual desire. Susan seems sometimes to swing back and forth between acknowledgement and denial. This makes some of us scratch our heads and wonder what are her real views.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  When Susan (or anyone else) says “women are evolved to be attracted to men who will bond with them and raise their children to 18″, that is nothing more or less than a restatement of the blue pill thesis.
  
  Escoffier, did you read the link I provided to the evolutionary explanation of pair bonding and its resulting shift in female attraction triggers? Are you saying that evolutionary biologists are invested in claiming that women like Nice Guys?
  
  If that thesis–that women want nice guys–is right, then the red pill is wrong and we should stop talking about it. If that thesis is Susan’s thesis but not right or at least debatable, then the guys here have to accept that there is far less common ground than we had come to believe.
  
  Again, I have explained that women want confident, cool, collected, strong men who do not flee from risk. Men like that may be rare today, and in fact, a woman may have go all Dark Triad to get it.
  
  Your mistake is in misunderstanding the difference between a threshold for dominance, and a need for sociopathy.
  
  Susan seems sometimes to swing back and forth between acknowledgement and denial. This makes some of us scratch our heads and wonder what are her real views.
  
  I believe that I am extremely consistent in communicating my views. I have never bought into your claim that women are perpetually feral hypergamous creatures who seek different partners when they ovulate – even at the base level. My primary source of data for that claim is my own experience, but I have researched it thoroughly as well.
  
  While you were away I wrote a Definitive Survey on the sexual behavior of college students. You were one of the primary inspirations for my writing it, due to your insistence during July that there must be a significant number of outlier males with very high N, having sex with at least some women with low N. Please do me the honor of reading that post. The bottom line? 1% of both men and women have 13-15 partners in college, and 0% have more.
  
  http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/06/hookinguprealities/the-definitive-survey-of-college-students-sexual-behavior-by-gender
  
  We do not have the data to say who finds whom attractive. We must extrapolate using data that shows who is having sex with whom.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

The hot guy’s advantage is that his hotness is working for him all the time, like a special attractor field superpower. It’s working for him even when he’s not putting much energy into it. The non-hot player may have to be on the hustle and taking a more ruthless “whatever works” mentality.

A guy who sells cars at a Bentley dealership will have a different set of techniques at his disposal—i.e., a prestige product/luxury British heritage brand that actively sells itself—than will one who sells used cars off of Moe’s Sloplot, although both may be seen as successful salesmen.
Ted D

Hope – “Question: why does it seem like restraining women and female sexuality is advocated by the same people who advocate removing restraints on those who work in financial markets and industries? What makes those people so much better that they’d do the right and good thing automatically?”

I personally don’t advocate for removing restraint from PEOPLE in financial markets or industries at all. I’m for removing restraints on innovation and wealth creation by the government on CORPORATIONs. Companies are NOT people, and they cannot be restrained LIKE people. I’m all for holding people accountable when they screw up, but don’t punish an entire industry because people screw up. Fix the screwing up part and leave the market alone.
JP

@Hope:

“Escoffier, I don’t want to dismiss all the stories men are telling, but the manosphere is not representative. It’s like 80-90% NT men, as opposed to less than 10% NT men in the general population. They are outliers who congregate online to create an “echo chamber.””

I’m not convinced that the Myers-Briggs is a good test. However, that being said, the types of people you you are referring to as NT are precisely the ones who form the online echo chambers.

They definitely use abstract and mathematical reasoning and seem to have limited attachment to the actual social (non-mathematical) world.
evilalpha

@Susan

I see no evidence that unattractive guys are punching well above their weight using PUA.

Define well above.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @evilalpha
  
  Let me rephrase that.
  
  I see no evidence that unattractive guys are punching above their weight using PUA.
Escoffier

I tried to take the Meyers Briggs just so I could be part of the conversation whenever this comes up (which is a lot) but I found the questions so susceptible to different answers that the test was, for me, useless. Classic example of an attempt by social science to systemitize something too complex and nuance to be systemeitized. Literature is much better for conveying these kinds of truths.
evilalpha

@Hope.

Question: why does it seem like restraining women and female sexuality is advocated by the same people who advocate removing restraints on those who work in financial markets and industries? What makes those people so much better that they’d do the right and good thing automatically?

I’m for consistency — restraining everybody

Because the financial markets aren’t controlled by those with vaginas whereas the sexual market is. Thus conservatives preach regulation on sex, not money while feminists preach regulation of money, but not sex.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Ted D, so you don’t believe in corporate personhood or sanctions on other countries either? Corporations and markets are made up of people, just like the sexual marketplaces are made up of people. In the end, restraining the market IS restraining people.

Back on topic, I don’t disagree with the “chicks dig jerks” stereotype, just like I don’t disagree with the “Asian girls dig nerdy guys” stereotype. There is truth in stereotypes, and I’m not going to bury my head in denial about this.

However, look at all the vitriol from the manosphere — don’t a lot of these guys sound like jerks? And a lot of them still seem to have trouble getting chicks to dig them. Just being a jerk doesn’t cut it. You can’t bottle up an essence of “jerkiness” and magically make panties drop.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Back on topic, I don’t disagree with the “chicks dig jerks” stereotype, just like I don’t disagree with the “Asian girls dig nerdy guys” stereotype. There is truth in stereotypes, and I’m not going to bury my head in denial about this.
  
  However, look at all the vitriol from the manosphere — don’t a lot of these guys sound like jerks? And a lot of them still seem to have trouble getting chicks to dig them. Just being a jerk doesn’t cut it. You can’t bottle up an essence of “jerkiness” and magically make panties drop.
  
  +1
  
  CHICKS DIG JERKS!
  
  If you’re a guy who wants to get dug, you can either just start acting like a jerk, i.e. Asshole Game. If you don’t want to become a jerk you can look into why chicks dig jerks. And also which chicks dig which guys, because that is extremely variable. You don’t want to go all Dark and then find out the girls who want you are slags.
Joe

@Hope

I’m for consistency — restraining everybody.

Politics can be interesting, especially when it becomes personal.

But I think you’re slightly misrepresenting the question. It’s not a matter of restraint. That’s inevitable.

The question is who will be doing the restraining. In general, the left favors distant restraint, the further away the better. In general, the right favors restraint originating closer – as close as possible – to the individual.

There is consistency, just not where you’re looking for it.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Hope…”why does it seem like restraining women and female sexuality is advocated by the same people who advocate removing restraints on those who work in financial markets and industries? ”

Is ANYONE seriously proposing LEGAL restraints on female sexuality??…as in “Sleep with more than 4 guys in the same year and you go to jail?”

Social pressure and government action are not the same things.
Ted D

JP – “They definitely use abstract and mathematical reasoning and seem to have limited attachment to the actual social (non-mathematical) world.”

I am very much an INTJ and I don’t have any problem understanding the “social world”. I just think it is entirely wrong to base anything of importance on what is socially acceptable. I tend to feel like social stuff is all fluff that we cover our true natures with. We’ve “civilized” the human animal, but just like a domestic dog will go feral if left in the wild, the human animal will go feral if allowed to operate outside of social convention. My issue is: our current social conventions suck, and it is allowing the human animal to slip back towards a feral state.
Escoffier

Hope, it’s not that chicks dig jerks, they dig a certain kind of jerk. Bitterness is a turn-off to almost everyone. So, yeah, your average manosphere commenter can’t go out to the bars, act like a jerk, and attract all the ladies. They will be instantly turned off by the bitterness.

The kind of jerk that is attractive is the overconfident, cocky jerk, which those guys aren’t and mostly can’t transform themselves into.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The kind of jerk that is attractive is the overconfident, cocky jerk, which those guys aren’t and mostly can’t transform themselves into.
  
  He is also….attractive. Physically so.
evilalpha

However, look at all the vitriol from the manosphere — don’t a lot of these guys sound like jerks? And a lot of them still seem to have trouble getting chicks to dig them. Just being a jerk doesn’t cut it. You can’t bottle up an essence of “jerkiness” and magically make panties drop

Actually they sound like “pissed” betas. Jerks sound completely different and our jerkiness does magically make panties drop.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

David Foster, I’ve read (not here but elsewhere) admiration for Islamic codes and harsh laws that place restrictions on female sexuality. That was considered “conservative” rather than “liberal” by the male observers in question. Would you consider those Islamic states to be liberal?

Escoffier, SATs, GREs and IQ tests are also flawed. They’re useful in their own ways, though. The MBTI is similar.
Escoffier

hope, IQ tests are far less vagued more predictive. That’s good social science (which is also why they are so controversial, because they upset so many PC shibboleths. The MBTI is too vague to be useful.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Escoffier, any time there’s wiggle room, there’s controversy. You view MBTI the way others view IQ tests. I view both as having predictive validity.
evilalpha

Look, humans are not good or bad, we simply ARE

Sorry we digress, but the notion of “good girl” is very much a effective form of social pressure that keeps a good girl from using the “I’m a good girl who does bad things” excuse.

Feminism: All female sexual choices are good, unless we don’t like you.
Ted: Girls aren’t bad. Only the things they do are bad.
Social pressure: Good girls don’t do that!

The first two don’t work!!!
Escoffier

Also, what is likely to happen when/if an affection and sex starved bitter male suddenly gains the attention and interest of an attractive women? Or even a passable one? Chances are he will immediately switch to supplicating mode, he’ll be so damned overjoyed and grateful. So he’s just stacking one turn-off on top of another.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Hope…”I’ve read (not here but elsewhere) admiration for Islamic codes and harsh laws that place restrictions on female sexuality. That was considered “conservative” rather than “liberal” by the male observers in question.”

This is certainly not the view of any significant proportion of conservatives/Republicans/libertarians. Sucking up to Islamic fundamentalists, in the name of “multiculturalism,” is much more common on the left side of the house.
Escoffier

Hope, there’s a huge body of research that shows that IQ tests are really quite reliable. I’m not aware of any such research on the other thing. Plus, I know my own IQ score and that of several other people I know and I look at that and say, “Yep, that’s pretty much how we all stack up.”

But when I tried to take that test, for every question, I found myself saying, “Well it’s part this and part that, sometimes this and sometimes that, in this circumstance it’s that, but when this happens it’s that.” And so on. I found the questions impossible to answer. They are trying to categorize things that just can’t be neatly categorized.
Ramble

With this:

Teenage girls have been marinating in “Good Girl Reforms Bad Boy” romantic comedies for decades. And are eager to be the heroine of their own live-action rom-com.

And this:

I think everybody is ignoring the effects of culture. Teenage girls have been marinating in “Good Girl Reforms Bad Boy” romantic comedies for decades. And are eager to be the heroine of their own live-action rom-com.

Tell me about it and the last Disney movies have a thief and a womanizer changing in one day because of “the Disney princess that loved them”… we are so fucking screwed up.

And this:

I think Sex and the City did a lot to promote casual, no-strings sex. It romanticized the one-night stand, the asshole (Mr. Big), and ridiculed the man of good character (Aidan). It’s the culture that creates the lag between the perception of hooking up and the actual behavior of students.

Just remember, there is a reason why certain kinds of stories sell well amongst girls, and others do not.

This is a theme that I have visited, and revisited, many times. It is important to understand that girls are not being force fed these ideas, no more than boys are force fed ideas about superheroes and valiant soldiers and firemen.
Höllenhund

Is it possible to have a population that is 50% alpha male?

Of course it is. Look at Western Africa and the black inner-city ghettos of the USA. To quote Whiskey:

There are no more Whitopias. And by the standard of showing up for the future, White civilization is a massive failure. So too, Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven, Einstein, Darwin, and Keats. Why? Because the civilization they spawned could not reproduce. It could not create men who reliably got women aroused when they were capable of having kids.

Meanwhile, Cam’ron, Lil Wayne, Kanye West, and Jay Z will live forever. Because their culture reproduces. By making women aroused. It does not matter if a hundred years from now everyone lives in a mud shack looking at the ruins of the Empire State Building or Golden Gate bridge wondering how it was ever built. Shawn Kemp has about 13-15 kids, and Karl Malone at least seven known.

Technology is a dead end, because it only produces nerdy guys who have figured out how to create clean drinking water, so kids don’t die of dysentery by age two. That doesn’t get women aroused (enough to have kids when fertile). Being a thug does.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Is it possible to have a population that is 50% alpha male?
  
  Of course it is.
  
  If it’s common, then we don’t need Game. All men can just become thugs.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

If bitter jerkiness turns women off, but cocky jerkiness turns women on, then jerkiness/meanness itself is not the key, but cockiness/confidence.

David Foster, I don’t know whether it’s an outlier view, but it was definitely not seen by these particular men as multiculturalism, but as a good way of restraining female sexuality. They weren’t libertarians though.

Anyway, I’m not interested in labels, but in what actually happens. What is needed to truly restrain female sexuality? Is personal level shaming enough? Is cultural and religious level shaming enough? Why would the Islamic states need more if they are enough?
INTJ

@ Susan Walsh

How is it obvious? What is the basis for this claim? We know that women trade off between “good genes” and “good co-parenting traits” when selecting a life partner. You appear to be claiming that women are perpetually unhappy with their choice once they’ve made it. There is overwhelming evidence that this is not the case, so please enlighten me re your sources.

I’m not claiming that women are perpetually unhappy with their choice. I’m simply claiming that the evolutionary drive for most women is to mate with attractive males (and attractiveness in males is to a large extent driven by dominant behavior), and to seek good providers to raise their children. There’s a lot of maturity and non-attraction factors that go into relationships, and women don’t necessarily follow their evolutionary drive.

You can simply become a single mother with the help of an alpha before you marry a beta and have him provide for your children.

It’s clear from the data around marriage and OOW births that the beta provider meme is once again not borne out by evidence. Where are these sackless betas working hard and paying to raise another man’s spawn?

Once again the fact is that due to birth control, the evolutionary drive for cuckoldry does not actually result in cuckoldry – the girl who hooked-up with assholes when she was young and then married a “nice guy” when she became more mature probably used the pill and never mothered any children for those assholes. That doesn’t change the fact that the evolutionary drive exists.

I also find it kind of sad that you compare beta males to ugly women men get stuck with because they can’t do any better. There is a lot of self-hatred among betas. Good luck transforming into pure alpha.

I’m no Hank Moody. If accepting that amounts to self-hatred, then I’m a proud self-hater.

Also, I’m not comparing beta males to ugly women men get stuck with. I’m comparing them to the sweet but not so hot women that men settle down with (as opposed to the bitchy sluts that they have one-night-stands with).
Höllenhund

If it’s common, then we don’t need Game. All men can just become thugs.

If we consider the matriarchal chav culture of the UK to be the canary in the coal mine for Western Civilization – and there’s no reason not to do so, considering that the UK was the first Western nation to succumb to the nanny state mentality, feminism and Marxist contamination in general -, that’s a very likely possibility. Definitely more likely than Game becoming widespread.
evilalpha

@Susan
I see no evidence that unattractive guys are punching above their weight using PUA.

Well of course, a man can’t be unattractive and punch above his weight, but then I’m not talking about male looks like you are.

Game is simply a short skirt, push up bra, lipstick, and high heels but for men’s interactions with women.

Some really unattractive men become less unattractive.
Some unattractive men become attractive.
And some attractive men become really attractive.
evilalpha

“The kind of jerk that is attractive is the overconfident, cocky jerk, which those guys aren’t and mostly can’t transform themselves into.”

He is also….attractive. Physically so.

Naw. Average is more than enough.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Naw. Average is more than enough.
  
  Yeah, for average looking women it is.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Escoffier, it sounds like you’re in the middle of the road with regard to the MBTI. I was very strong on most of the dimensions, so I had no trouble at all with the questions. That is indeed a flaw with the test, but I have also found that people of similar temperaments test similarly, and that most people I naturally get along with have been iNtuitives. My husband was more in the middle with regard to introversion/extroversion. I’ve heard that referred to as an “ambivert.”
JP

@Susan:

“We do not have the data to say who finds whom attractive. We must extrapolate using data that shows who is having sex with whom.”

Well, people are trying. Apparently, there is a hormonal component.

“In the first study women viewed online dating profiles of either a sexy man or a reliable man during periods of both high and low fertility. Participants were asked to indicate the expected paternal contribution from the men if they had a child together based on how helpful the man would be caring for the baby, shopping for food, cooking and contributing to household chores. Near ovulation women thought that the sexy man would contribute more to these domestic duties.
“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” explained Durante. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120514134301.htm
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JP
  
  Yes, indeed. Fortunately, women have 26 other days a month to double check their judgment calls.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

This could really be an issue, because I am fairly confident when I say: men almost NEVER put a “lesser emphasis” on sex.

You do? You don’t want to have sex with a woman without a connection right? That is the core of the good girl is not less emphasis on sex but less emphasis on anonymous sex with a guy she doesn’t know anything about. Got it?

And we were not all stuck on the same ‘alpha male,’ either

Of all my friends that are “good girls” we all were attracted to entirely different type of men. I don’t remember any of us ever saying “that guy is hot” regardless a boyfriend or husband. I know women having different tastes on men crazy huh?

Nice hamstering, snow flake, but if the 80% were actually given a chance they’d go for a bad boy asshole in a heart beat. So spin all you wish, but men are fully aware that the hottie, the 13 year old, and the 80% ain’t all that different in their attraction triggers. Do you think the loyal husband and the bad boy don’t both find strippers arousing??? Most good girls ain’t really “good”, they just haven’t been given the opportunity to be bad. That’s all.

Blah, blah, blah…

And now I find myself cosigning you. Although I will allow for NAWALT and say that perhaps 10% of that 80% wouldn’t jump at the bad boy. The rest? Yep, if they could sex up a true alpha bad boy without consequence, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Et tu brutus?

It’s juvenile thinking! Mature women realize if he’s rude to waiters, mean to his co-workers, and bitter towards his Ex/baby momma then ONE DAY he’s gonna turn on you too!

This used to be a dating advice: Want to know if a guy is good for real see how he treats those beneath him or other women? Cosmo doesn’t teaches those things anymore :p Another good advice was that pump and dumpers are to be avoided if he thinks banging a woman he wouldn’t want in his life is his God given right he totally would do the same to you or to some other woman when you are not looking.

Precisely. Girls flock at 13 to good looking guys. Obviously!

This was a South Park episode were the girls were all over hot kid that could dance. The boys struggled with dancing but in the end learned to be attractive to the girls, in the end when the hot kid changed his likings the girl were all over the new thing he was into…

I’m for consistency — restraining everybody

Yes but the issue is that restraining is usually advocated for others not for themselves. You think the guys that are having lots of casual sex would be advocating for female restraining? Same principle.

If that thesis–that women want nice guys–is right, then the red pill is wrong and we should stop talking about it. If that thesis is Susan’s thesis but not right or at least debatable, then the guys here have to accept that there is far less common ground than we had come to believe.

I think the issue is that there is a middle ground that it has been ignored. Taking the red pill doesn’t mean puking the blue one, means making it a purple pill. That would be more or less Athol philosophy both are needed to keep a relationship going and succeeding and you shouldn’t hate either just calibrate and not over doing it. So no extrapolating what a 13 year old says in a slumber party as the “key to women” is overdoing it. All sorts of cognitive tests done at that age show a very limited range of all sorts of things. I’m all for early marriage but even I say that 13 year old shouldn’t be having sex or marrying they are not ready for any of those and they will change too much to keep the same attraction around. Even if those girls were given the “Hot mean” they crave they would be losing attraction at some point when they are actually grown. And again this is something I had seen first hand in my country were you can actually find 13 year old (or younger) having kids and running with their boyfriends to raise them. They don’t make it to the 20’s with the same bad boy.

This is a theme that I have visited, and revisited, many times. It is important to understand that girls are not being force fed these ideas, no more than boys are force fed ideas about superheroes and valiant soldiers and firemen.

Except that 50 years ago you wouldn’t find this sort of programs around…why was that? I think we also told you that the media has always being a source of change, revolutions start with printing info and sending it around as movements do and that is why the first thing a dictator does is take control of the newspapers or the TV. Not sure if you are familiar with this kind of political environment given that USA never suffered from the age of the dictators but take a look at Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Trujillo…all of them took control of the media FIRST after taking power. People can be easily manipulated with the high and shiny.
Escoffier

Susan, first, can you drop the unwarranted hostility and cavalier mis-statement of my views? I am not Dalrock. I am not Roissy. I am not a PUA, an MRA, a manosphere blogger, or even a commenter (anywhere but here). I am not your enemy. You should know that by now.

This:

“your claim that women are perpetually feral hypergamous creatures who seek different partners when they ovulate ”

is complete bullshit and you should know it.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  I know you are not my enemy, of course I do. I apologize – my description was the online equivalent of total frustration. Re the red pill, I recall saying to you once that I had swallowed the red pill, but I feel like some of you swallowed a red Volkswagen Beetle. We don’t disagree on the basic principles, but I believe we do disagree on:
  
  the degree of variation in the female population
  
  the role of hypergamy in dating (considerable) and in a good marriage (baseline minimum)
  
  what is at root of female sexual attraction triggers (self-confidence vs. asshole vibe)
  
  etc.
  
  If you haven’t already, I really would appreciate your reading the post I wrote in response to your request for more data about sexual norms in college. It drives a stake through Wudang’s claims and I feel 100% satisfied intellectually with my claims about who is having sex in college, and with whom.
  
  I wrote that post to end the debate about the 20%, or at least my role in it. I am also trying (with obviously limited success) to discuss what is attractive in men without using the now tortured to the point of meaninglessness terms alpha and beta.
  
  I do not doubt that these red pill discussions are valuable for men to have, but I am not really the person to sponsor that debate. With all due respect, there are indeed other blogs where you will find much agreement re female baseness. I am sure you can see that it is not a good use of my time to engage in debates where you are trying to convince me that women are a certain way. I feel like I have an excellent handle on that, and that it’s unhaaaaaaaaapppy men who seem most invested in a different narrative.
modernguy

Haha, look at all the hamstering going on.

What are girls really attracted to?

Who cares? The bottom line is that the hot girls are putting out for douchebags. Those are the facts on the ground. Does it matter that theoretically a girl would choose a faithful prince charming on a white horse before a bold idiot with tribal tats? No. Because in the real world real alphas as Susan would like them to be defined comprise some minuscule percentage of men. In the meantime girls will go for the douche and leave good but boring men out in the cold until they’ve had their fun. So man up and marry that slut!
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @modernguy
  
  Who cares? The bottom line is that the hot girls are putting out for douchebags.
  
  Excellent! Your analytical bent amazes! There’s your strategy – be a douchebag! Happy F*cking!
modernguy

If we consider the matriarchal chav culture of the UK to be the canary in the coal mine for Western Civilization – and there’s no reason not to do so, considering that the UK was the first Western nation to succumb to the nanny state mentality, feminism and Marxist contamination in general -, that’s a very likely possibility. Definitely more likely than Game becoming widespread.

That is a form of game! How does anyone believe douches become douches? Is there a gene that codes for getting tribal tats and wearing mma branded shirts? No. Guys do that because they see it works with women. They adopt patterns of behaviour that they see work for other guys to improve their success with women. That is game. Thus the douche plague sweeping western civilization.
Zach

@Susan 215

Agreed, 100%. I think you and evilalpha are both right on some level. Solid game certainly helps average looking guys get girls, but I’ve almost never (and I mean EXTREMELY rarely) seen an average looking guy use game to get a 8.5+ looking girl. And if he has, it almost is always with the help of $$. There’s only so far game can stretch. I have one friend, let’s call him Jack, who has excellent game but is a very average looking guy. He uses said game to do quite well with average looking girls, but gets rejected constantly and definitively by the better looking women. Meanwhile, my friend Joe and myself, who are both significantly better looking than Jack, have about the same level of game as he does, but we hook up with much more attractive girls than he does, simply due to looks.
Zach

@everyone

Also, I think there’s been a big misunderstanding here that alpha automatically means dbag. Just look around and you’ll see that’s not true. Think back to high school, one of the most hormonally-driven times of your life. Think about the “cool” guys. Were some of them dicks? Absolutely. Were all of them dicks? Absolutely not. Hmm, if that’s the case, then how did they manage to be “cool” without being total assholes? Might that not be something to consider, instead of whining about how you have to be an asshole to get women? Because as far as I remember, those nicer cool guys got plenty of girls.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“Classic example of an attempt by social science to systemitize something too complex and nuance to be systemeitized. Literature is much better for conveying these kinds of truths.”

Very true. In the second-wave SMP,* too often Paris (Roosh) and Agamemnon (Roissy) got the girl instead of Achilles (the leader of men). This is a lousy way to win a war/have a healthy society. Not sure if even Homer imagined the “less than marriage material boyfriend”/slumming with the Herb/Marnie-Charlie/male-order bride dynamic that was also rife.

If one feels compelled to satisfy the feminist fairness rules, it could also be pointed out that Helen (solipsistic HB) too often got the guy.

* – skeptical Susan will ever take this out, but it is always available to her readers who are trying to reconcile their experiences in their third-wave SMP with what the clearly competent, but older, men are saying about theirs’. Those men are not social retards.
modernguy

Think back to high school, one of the most hormonally-driven times of your life. Think about the “cool” guys. Were some of them dicks? Absolutely. Were all of them dicks? Absolutely not.

True, the lesson being that if you’re in the cool top ten percent you’ll get plenty of action. If you’re not, wait about 10 or 15 years until those girls have had their fun and are ready to finally let you wife them up, you lucky guy you!
Desiderius

Ted,

“I suppose I classify as a STEM guy, but I’m no scientist.”

What Susan has attracted here in the male commenters is the E in STEM. Like scientists, we’re trained to give half-assed science (i.e. most social science) the respect it deserves (more than none, but less than eliminating all other sources of information as invalid), but unlike scientists, we’re trained how to most effectively act in such environments of limited information/information of limited quality. It’s called satisficing.

To talk right down to earth, in a language that every Wharton MBA can easily understand, we’re giving due weight to the Peter Lynch investment strategy in analyzing the SMP.
Escoffier

Susan, I did read that post. Not arguing the numbers here. I’m just saying that BOTH sexes have baseline, biologican sexual desires that are analagous, but different.

For men, it is the desire for 1) hotness; 2) variety; and 3) plenty. Preferrably all three, or at least two out of three, or if that fails, one out of three.

For women it is the desire for 1) dominance; 2) high status; and (distant third) 3) hotness.

These baseline desires do not necessarily control our actions. Essentially, the more civilized we are, the less they control us, and the more we control them. But they never go away.

What makes these sexual desires “base” in context is how we act on them. A man not in control of his will cheat, father multiple kids whom he never takes and care of, break hearts, and basically be an a-hole A woman not in control of hers will also cheat, but more commonly leave a perfectly good and faithful man in a desire either to “trade up” or to get some excitement.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL WOMEN ARE ITCHING TO FUCK ALPHAS any more than it means that all mean are constantly trying to screw everything in a skirt. It means, rather, that we all have these baseline desires that we can’t get rid of and need to control. Just as nearly all of us like food. If we constantly ate whenever we wanted as much we wanted, we’d be blimps. We have to learn to control that apppetite. And we have to learn to control the sexual appetite.

You very frequently write things that are tantamount to denying the existence of the base female sexual desire. That is what I and others find frustrating.

RE: evolution toward pair bonding. I don’t know if that arises from ev0lution or not. I know that I feel an impetus toward pair bonding and indeed I have formed a strong pair bind. I can’t say where it comes from. Maybe it did evolve. Wherever it came from, though, one thing is certain: it has NOT erased my basic male desire for hotness, variety and plenty. I have to control that using my brain and my character.

So it seems extremely doubtful to me that men feel the pair bond instinct along with their old baseline desire, but in women the pair bond instinct has completely wiped away their old baseline sexual desire.

And, once again, what is hook-up culture if not the reassertion of that old baseline female desire once the restraints that held it in check have been loosened?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  You very frequently write things that are tantamount to denying the existence of the base female sexual desire. That is what I and others find frustrating.
  
  Let’s explore the frustration you expressed in this thread. If I understand correctly, you balked at my contention that women evolved to reward traits suitable for long-term mating. Here is what I based that claim on:
  
  Faithful females who choose good providers key to evolutionary shift to modern family, study finds
  
  In early human evolution, when faithful females began to choose good providers as mates, pair-bonding replaced promiscuity, laying the foundation for the emergence of the institution of the modern family, a new study finds. The study helps answer long-standing questions in evolutionary biology about how the modern family, characterized by intense, social attachments with exclusive mates, emerged following earlier times of promiscuity. In addition to the establishment of stable, long-lasting relationships, the transition to pair-bonding was also characterized by a reduction in male-to-male competition in favor of providing for females and providing close parental involvement.
  
  The Rise and Fall of Sexual Promiscuity
  
  The study highlights several current theories of pair-bonding: instead of fighting, male hominids began to devote effort to caring for offspring, protecting their mate, or provisioning food for sex. But Gavrilets builds mathematical models to show how each of these hypotheticals leads to a “sub-optimal” outcome—how “investing more in offspring means that there is more paternity for other males to steal.” Run the model, and instead of choosing cooperation, the males will choose to fight. It’s not the outcome any one male desires, but the free-rider problem effectively “traps” the whole group in a benighted state.
  
  Gavrilets proposes a modification to existing theory. What if we assume that males began to provide for one—and only one—female, and females, likewise, began to depend on a sole mate for food and help with childcare? First, not all men are created equal; there are few Ryan Goslings and many Kevin Redmons. The weaker among us quickly learned the futility of direct competition, and turned to “alternative reproductive strategies” to spread our genes. (I may not be a dreamboat, baby, but I’ll bring you coffee in bed.) Second, females make choices. Whereas previous models ascribe females a passive role, Gavrilets asserts that “because they receive direct benefits from provisioning males, females should be choosy, and they may become, to some extent, faithful” to their providers.
  
  Promiscuity is a funny thing in nature. Despite what your mother and youth pastor spent so many years telling you, sleeping around has real (genetic) benefits. Polyandry—in which females take more than one mate—allows for better gene diversity, boots the likelihood of fertilization, decreases infanticide, and means more male providers. Gavrilets acknowledges that in switching from promiscuity to monogamy, females actually risked lower fertility. The tradeoff was security.
  
  When he runs the model again, with these two assumptions in place, the outcome is different: instead of a spiral into violent competition, male provisioning and female faithfulness “co-evolve in a self-reinforcing manner.” Males escape the “social dilemma” and pair-bonding replaces promiscuity.
  
  Note that the study does not speak for all women, or for women today, but it does offer a theory (which is all we can hope for) that explains the development of pair bonding, a major evolutionary shift. Enough people changed to supplant female promiscuity with co-parenting as women began to choose lower ranking males who stuck around over higher ranking males who pumped and dumped. They key here is female choice, which is indisputable.
  
  What do you think?
Zach

@modernguy

Or, stop being a tool and maybe try and better yourself by learning what those guys did that made them “cool”. Charisma, charm, and leadership are things which can be learned and cultivated. If you think that the famous political leaders of the past were all “naturals” who never worked at improving themselves, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Winston Churchill, widely considered one of the greatest orators of the 20th century (and greatest leaders) spent hours and hours rehearsing each speech he gave, so that when he gave it it would APPEAR to be off-the-cuff.

The sort of skills which are taught by How to Make Friends and Influence People are extremely applicable to the SMP. So to throw up your hands, whine and say “I’ll never be like that” is simply defeatist.
JustYX

@Ana
“Love can’t “save” anyone!”

say it ain’t so!

oh noes, couldn’t you have broken that news more gently?

Damn it, another cunning plan goes into the rubbish bin
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Escoffier and Zach, both of your posts above are excellent. I would agree with the baseline plus civilization argument, as well as conscious cultivation of attractive characteristics.
modernguy

It’s not defeatist to say that most men will never achieve that. Most men will never become rich. Those are the facts of life, but should we accept a system where the top few reap all the rewards and the rest get scraps?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Those are the facts of life, but should we accept a system where the top few reap all the rewards and the rest get scraps?
  
  Only 3% of men and women in college are promiscuous. Only 20% of men and women have more than three sexual partners in college. 40% of male and female college students are virgins!
  
  The claim about scraps is a myth.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

And, once again, what is hook-up culture if not the reassertion of that old baseline female desire once the restraints that held it in check have been loosened?

Except that the majority of women don’t enjoy hooking up according with several studies. So it cannot be natural if is not enjoyed widespreadly.
The missing element is that the sexual revolution was not created in a vacuum. It was not “here have the pill, sex has no consequences” but “Here have the pill, you don’t need a man, have sex like man all men are pigs are rapists anyway, you don’t need to be a mother, if a man doesn’t want you at your worst he doesn’t deserve you at your best, indulge yourself you deserve it for being you…” and so on. If women were naturally inclined to this how come feminism needs to smack them on the head all the time with it and shame anything resembling restrain and selectiveness? It doesn’t make sense don’t you think?
Ted D

Susan – “I believe that I am extremely consistent in communicating my views. I have never bought into your claim that women are perpetually feral hypergamous creatures who seek different partners when they ovulate – even at the base level.”

I think you take this to extreme. The claim is that women are ALWAYS hypergamous, whether they are married, single, widowed, or whatever. The amount of hypergamy varies a great deal from women to women. So, while you may be happily married and not bothered by your hypergamous instincts (because deep down your husband satisfies those desires enough for you to be content) another women married to your husband might find herself with a very serious wandering eye, and eventually a divorce while seeking to satisfy her hypergamy.

end result is: women NEVER stop trying to trade up, within reason.

Which means: the only way for a man to successfully remain in an average relationship long term is to always make sure to satisfy his wife’s/GF’s hypergamous instincts while adding in enough beta to hedge his bets. Because the truth is, there is always a more “manly” man somewhere. And, when your wife/GF meets him, you better be damn sure you are bringing more to the table than your alpha appeal, whatever it is. Because in the end, it is not likely to be your alphaness that keeps her from cheating, it is her relative comfort level with her hypergamous desires coupled with the comfort and security you’ve built with her using beta traits.

Men need to know this before they get strapped down by the family court system by saying “I Do”.

Ana – “You do? You don’t want to have sex with a woman without a connection right? That is the core of the good girl is not less emphasis on sex but less emphasis on anonymous sex with a guy she doesn’t know anything about. Got it?”

I’m sorry to say, but you have me all wrong. My emphasis on sex in my relationships has always been “top 10” or so, but now it is top 3. Yes, I strive to find that deeper connection with a woman before we have sex, because I find that deeper connection attractive. It turns me on to think about having such a connection, and having one with a particular women makes her more attractive to me regardless of her actual physical beauty. But, that doesn’t mean in any way that sex isn’t important to me in a relationship, and in fact I’ve learned that it is paramount for me to remain happy with a woman long term. I’m trying to come up with a rank in my head on the fly, and it isn’t easy, but I’ll try. In terms of importance, these are what I need from a woman in a relationship:
1. Respect
2. sex
3. Love
4. Like
Of course I want all of it, but if I had to start picking things to lose, I would start at 4 and work my way up. That means, it is far less important for me that my wife likes me than that she loves me. Less important that she loves me than has enthusiastic sex with me, and less important that she has enthusiastic sex with me than respects me. Of course, some of these overlap. I fully expect a woman that enthusiastically sexes me up to love me, but it’s clear that for some women the love part isn’t essential. I also tend to believe that when a woman respects a man, she often learns to love him because of the traits that earn him her respect. And lastly, it is generally hard to not like a man that you love, have sex with, and respect. So, by gaining a woman’s respect, you can get her to want to have sex with you, which can get her to love you, and then she can’t help but like you.

Good Lord, does that make any sense to you? I can’t tell because in my head this is crystal clear. LOL

“This used to be a dating advice: Want to know if a guy is good for real see how he treats those beneath him or other women?”

Cosigned! I have always said that to measure a man’s true nature, pay attention to how he treats people he DOES NOT have to be civil with.

“Yes but the issue is that restraining is usually advocated for others not for themselves. You think the guys that are having lots of casual sex would be advocating for female restraining? Same principle.”

And again I agree with you here. And, that is why I’ve always said that both women AND men should have very serious limits placed on their sexuality. Back in the old days, it was women’s sexuality that was repressed. It may have worked to an extent, but it made women unhappy. The last 50 years or so has been an experiment on repressing men’s sexuality while unleashing women’s, and we all know how badly that turned out. So, how about we try repressing everyone’s promiscuity and see how it goes? To me, it makes perfect logical sense.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  end result is: women NEVER stop trying to trade up, within reason.
  
  Strongly disagree. Please cite your source for this claim.
  
  This is the wiki definition for female hypergamy:
  
  Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as “marrying up”) is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher looks, socioeconomic, caste or status than oneself.
  
  The term is often used more specifically in reference to a perceived tendency among human cultures for females to seek or be encouraged to pursue male suitors that are higher status than themselves, which often manifests itself as being attracted to men who are comparatively older, wealthier or otherwise more privileged than themselves. According to evolutionary psychologists, females have evolved a preference for higher status males because they offer their prospective children both “better” genes and greater resources, e.g. food and security. Men, who invest less in their children, have less reason to prefer mates with high social status. Some have even argued that men “marry-down” to ensure that their mates have a higher incentive to remain faithful.
  
  Please highlight the part where women never stop trying to trade up. If I’m not mistaken, you have absorbed this “truth” from the manosphere, but I have not seen a single piece of evidence to support it.
  
  Do you know how many divorces occur as women leave to “trade up?”
  
  Do you have statistics re women refusing to marry in hopes of continually trading up?
  
  Do you have statistics on breakups, and what percent occur because a woman trades up to a man of higher status?
  
  Even most “frivolous” have nothing to do with trading up.
  
  Of course, all of these things may happen, but the question is, to what degree? If it happens to you, or if I leave my husband for a richer guy, we now have a sample of 2. That is not statistically significant or even instructive. In fact, hypergamy in Pittsburgh is not even necessarily conclusive, though if you had data for even one city, it might be something to go on.
  
  You may see “I see it with my own eyes,” but that is not defensible as conclusive.
  
  As far as I know, only one rogue academic without good standing among his peers has even addressed the topic. (F. Roger Devlin). Roissy popularized the notion on his blog, but even he tweaked it out of recognition. Here is what Devlin, who coined the term, says about hypergamy:
  
  The traditional answer to the question, “How do I get Mr. Tall-Dark-and-Handsome to commit?” is, “You probably won’t.” Those men go fast, and they usually go to the most attractive females. But that does not, of course, guarantee the contentment of those females either: four women walked out on Cary Grant. Part of the folk wisdom of all ages and peoples has been that sexual attraction is an inadequate basis for matrimony.
  
  Monogamy means that women are not permitted to mate with a man, however attractive, once he has been claimed by another woman. It does not get a more attractive mate for a woman than she would otherwise get; it normally gets her a less attractive one. “Liberated,” hypergamous female mating — i.e., what we have now — is what ensures highly attractive mates for most women. But, of course, those mates “don’t commit” — really, are unable to commit to all the women who desire them. The average woman must decide between having the most attractive “sex partner” possible and having a permanent husband.
  
  As you can see, Devlin addresses hypergamy as it relates to a one-time mating decision – marriage.
  
  I have researched this question exhaustively. If you have evidence that I am incorrect, please provide it. Otherwise, I will ask you and Escoffier to cease making this claim, as it has no basis.
Ted D

Susan – “With all due respect, there are indeed other blogs where you will find much agreement re female baseness.”

Speaking for myself, the reason I would rather have “red pill” discussions here is: I already know what the R’s think of all this, and going there to “discuss” only ends up in an echo chamber for most, and a virtual tongue lashing to those few of us that actually want to discuss things rationally. I know it frustrates you and the other women here to no end sometimes, but *I* greatly value having this discussion here, even if no one every budged from their POV. As you point out regularly, there are many more people reading here than posting, and I feel that my POV is certainly valid enough for them to read it and decide for themselves.

I have no desire to go wallow in places where everyone agrees with me. I much prefer verbally (virtually verbally?) sparring with people that think I’m full of shit, because it makes me think VERY hard about my beliefs, and by thinking hard about them I can be more assured I am correct, or quickly find that I am indeed full of shit and figure out where I went wrong.

I have no intention of actually changing anyone’s mind with my writing. All I hope is to better understand my views, your views, and hopefully put a thought or two into the minds of people that might not HAVE a view to share yet. At the end of the day, what I want more than anything else, is to get more people to simply stop and think. Even if afterwards they don’t agree with me, I much prefer they have a standpoint than none at all.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

say it ain’t so!

oh noes, couldn’t you have broken that news more gently?

Damn it, another cunning plan goes into the rubbish bin

That was Iggles…this are not the droids you are looking for.;)

But, that doesn’t mean in any way that sex isn’t important to me in a relationship, and in fact I’ve learned that it is paramount for me to remain happy with a woman long term.

That is what I meant. The flashy hottie that sleeps with a hot guy at the drop of hat likes sex with strangers. The good girl that is not flashy likes sex with a man she respect. There is no a this for that, except for waiting to gain her respect or trust. Really Athol’s long suffering husbands whose wives don’t have sex with them, didn’t married virgins in their majority and ended up in sexless marriages anyway. The idea that if she is sexual 24/7 she will be sexual with you 24/7 for the rest of your life is not a guarantee. A woman can be selective and highly sexual and slutty and decide not to put out with you for whatever reason, YMMV.
Escoffier

Zach, you are partly right, but here’s what your analysis misses. First we have to assume that every man or most men could learn AND APPLY game. This is doubtful but at least theoretically possible since the only thing stopping them, if they are not totally physically hideous, is internal. Second, we have to assume that some huge % of them actually WOULD. I think this will never happen but let’s stipulate.

What would be the result? at first a lot of these guys would be more successful with women. But over time their advantage will dissipate. All they will do is just push up the values of the guys truly at the top. Girls will always want, all other things being equal, the top guys.

It’s sort of like admission to elite colleges. Every year there are more top students with great grades and high scores, so what it takes to get in rises every year. The secondary ed system can conceivably produce huge #s of kids with the chops to succceed at Harvard but it can’t produce more slots at Harvard. (Only Havard could do that, and it won’t, for obvious reasons.) So the overproduction of kids who could do well at Harvard simply has the effect of making it ever harder to get into Harvard.

In the SMP, the overproduction of alphas and faux alphas will just make women want the super-alphas all the more. In this type of unrestrained, unregulated SMP, there will always be only a small % of men who are truly and consistently in demand. Which means there will always be a lot of “losers” or small(er) time winners who will be envious of the big winners.

So, yeah, we can improve ourselves. But by mathematical definition the bottom 80% cannot transform themselves into the top 20%. All they can do is raise the overall level of game in the entire cohort. Which I suppose would be a good thing, if it were possible.

But the pyramid is always going to have a top, and the men at the top are always going to be the most desired. And most of them are going to be the naturals, not the self-transformations.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  So, yeah, we can improve ourselves. But by mathematical definition the bottom 80% cannot transform themselves into the top 20%. All they can do is raise the overall level of game in the entire cohort. Which I suppose would be a good thing, if it were possible.
  
  But the pyramid is always going to have a top, and the men at the top are always going to be the most desired. And most of them are going to be the naturals, not the self-transformations.
  
  What is wrong with being in the 80% and dating women in the 80%?
  
  People can’t all be at the top of the pyramid, and they need to get over it. That’s true in all areas of life, not just mating. It seems to me that spending energy wanting to be part of the group of males who gets casual sex is a terrible way to live life. Talk about an attitude of scarcity!
modernguy

Excellent! Your analytical bent amazes! There’s your strategy – be a douchebag! Happy F*cking!

What’s wrong with that? Should I work ten times as hard to be the respectable, charismatic, high status nice guy that you would prefer? What are the benefits? These douchebags are swimming in pussy without any responsibilities or obligations! On to the next one. If you look down on that kind of attitude, remember that it’s today’s women who enable it, and even encourage it.
Escoffier

Susan, the reason I (and others) prefer to have the conversation here is because this site is so much more civilized, the commenters more reasonable, and everyone more open-minded. There is no dialogue in those other places. One can learn from them, as I do, but talking to the people is a complete waste of time. Plus, so many of them are truly unpleasant dickheads.

I feel like we are making dialectical progress toward the truth here. Elsewhere, they occasionally (and sometimes often) speak the truth but it surrounded by lots of lies, half-truths, mistakes, myths and various forms of stupidity that one must be careful. And, when they do make mistakes, no matter how stupid or obvious, talking them out of their errors is impossible.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I feel like we are making dialectical progress toward the truth here
  
  In that case, carry on, but honestly, the never ending debates about female sexuality exhaust me. Especially since I’m the one doing all the work
Zach

@modernguy

Until the government starts mandating that women sleep with you, then yes, you will have to accept it.

@Escoffier

I think you touched mostly on my point in your second-to-last paragraph. Yes, mathematically, and relatively, you will always have a top 20% and bottom 80%. That never changes. What does change is the range between the top 20 and bottom 80, as well as the range overall. For instance, would it not be better for all men if the 20-80 range was 10-7, with all values falling in between, instead of 10-3?

For something as malleable as sexual attraction, a smaller range means more options for the lower end of the range. Attractiveness, is BOTH absolute and relative. Take 100 men, and there will obviously be the most attractive one and the least attractive one, but that doesn’t mean the least attractive one is unattractive. It’s like saying the poorest billionaire is a poor man.

In another example, by your logic a family in the US in 1900 who had an inflation adjusted income of $20,000, and was in the 50th percentile of income would not want to trade places with a family in the US today with an inflation adjusted income of $45,000 because the new family was in the 45th percentile. Relatively, they may be worse off, but ABSOLUTELY they are far, far better off.

Basically, self-improvement, game, etc, aims not for a destruction of the pyramid, but for a flatter, broader one.
Passer_By

“Nice and not hot” = “Nice and Easy”
“Nice and hot” = “Nice and Rough”

The wisdom of Tina Turner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XRNQ2C2x0

Ike obviously qualified as “Mean and Hot”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  Great observation! Even Tina Turner liked it nice and easy sometimes.
Zach

@Escoffier

Further examples come to mind, but directly @ your Harvard example, no, there will not be more slots at Harvard. But in striving for Harvard, and not achieving it, many of those students will likely end up at Cornell, Penn, Dartmouth, etc instead of their local community college. I view that as a very good thing.
Ted D

Susan – I’d also like to add, thanks for creating a place where I can have a civil and enjoyable conversation about this stuff. (enjoyable not meaning it doesn’t sometimes piss me off, but enjoyable in that no matter how pissed off I might get, I still want more.) I sincerely hope that I am not chasing away any of your readers, but at the same time I also sincerely hope that at least on occasion I give them food for thought. Not only are you (and I for that matter) trying to help young women navigate the SMP, but the fact that your target audience is college educated women, many of them will go on to possibly be influential members of society. And if they can find the balance between my POV and yours, perhaps they will be the ones to find the solution. I’m not just trying to save hymens here, I’m hoping to enlighten and educate the people that we will be passing the future to when we are ready to let it pass us by.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D, @Escoffier
  
  For all the talk of choking on the red pill, I think you two have pretty good instincts about female psychology, as evidenced by my total inability to stay annoyed with either one of you.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Ike obviously qualified as “Mean and Hot”

Didn’t she left him, too?
Zach

@modernguy

By that logic, you should have no scruples about developing a Ponzi scheme, or robbing a bank, or stealing Social Security checks out of the mail. They all take a hell of a lot less work than educating yourself, working at a career, and excelling. There’s a big difference between easy and ethical. Now in the SMP, that can be a little murkier, as some of the women are essentially throwing open their vaults with an invitation to rob them, but still, being lazy is not a good excuse to be a douchebag, or a criminal.
Escoffier

Zach, I don’t know that it would work they way you describe, though. I mean, sticking with the money analogy, it makes me think of California (or NYC) real estate. Incomes go up and up, even in inflation adjusted terms, I make more than my parents, but I still can’t afford Pebble Beach. Actually it’s more out of reach for me now than it was for them in the ’70s. Hell, these days I can’t even afford Santa Cruz, which they could easily in the ’70s.

So, if it’s true that a major attraction trigger for women is status, then even as you raise the collecetive status of the whole cohort, women–and especially the hottest women–will continue to fix their gaze only on the very top. Won’t they?

I mean, the way most markets deal with rising prosperity/influx of new money is just to send prices ever upward. If you checked the ratio of (say) the cost of a place at 820 5th compared to the median income, it’s MUCH higher today than it ways 30 or 50 years ago, even as incomes have risen a great deal in absolute terms.

In this case the “price” is the sum total of the qualities a man has to have to snag hot babes. The hot babe is the co-op.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  women–and especially the hottest women–will continue to fix their gaze only on the very top. Won’t they?
  
  Women want to marry up. They want a man with higher status than themselves. The hottest women want the hottest men. The female with an MMV of 7 wants a male with MMV of 8. And so on down the line.
  
  Hypergamy is not absolute – it is always relative to the status of the female. This is why the lopsided college ratios are going to be so problematic for marriage rates. A full third of college educated women will not have the opportunity to marry men with the same level of education. Since education is a proxy for future status, this will wreak havoc in the SMP. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
modernguy

Until the government starts mandating that women sleep with you, then yes, you will have to accept it.

This is not true. All you need is a social atmosphere in which promiscuity is shunned. The goal is to facilitate monogamous pairing and disincentivise promiscuity and hypergamy . If HB7s can’t fool themselves into thinking they’re HB10s because the frat boys deign to take turns with them they’ll just have to pair off with a man who ranks on the same level as them. Shocking! I know. Whatever would we do.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

“Polyandry—in which females take more than one mate—allows for better gene diversity, boots the likelihood of fertilization, decreases infanticide, and means more male providers.”

No, it increases infanticide. The best way for a child to be killed is to have the mother live with a man who is not the father of the child.

If you want to see this dynamic in nature, a male lion will kill the cubs of another male lion. One of the first things I saw when five years old were dead kittens killed by a tomcat who wasn’t the father.
modernguy

By that logic, you should have no scruples about developing a Ponzi scheme, or robbing a bank, or stealing Social Security checks out of the mail. They all take a hell of a lot less work than educating yourself, working at a career, and excelling. There’s a big difference between easy and ethical. Now in the SMP, that can be a little murkier, as some of the women are essentially throwing open their vaults with an invitation to rob them, but still, being lazy is not a good excuse to be a douchebag, or a criminal.

If I created a Ponzi scheme and got bailed out, kept my winnings and my position, why not? Hell, a minor jail stint is an asset in SMP these days.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Something that I find interesting… I’m sure that I’m not the only one here who went through a youthful phase of being intrigued by strippers. I once asked a stripper about the type of male customer that she found most offensive, and I was surprised to hear that she—and her friends readily agreed with this—particularly hated the guy who, when approached by a stripper (who is going to try to hustle him for a dance) says something like, “You should talk to my friend over there—he’s the one with the money.”

At first I was surprised by this; isn’t this guy sort of doing her a favor, since by her own admission this was in fact all about money? Wasn’t he preventing her from wasting her time chatting up an economic dead-end?

It turns out that strippers want to be the only ones in the dancer-customer relationship that have the cynical “Red Pill”-type knowledge. It is important that the man buy into the delusion that perhaps the girl really likes him for his personality and so on.

I have observed that *some* PUAs may have a similar thing going on. Ironically, they actually do not want women to be truly shallow creatures, the types of girls who would base their assessment of a man on a short list of mercenary and objective criteria: hotness, job prestige, type of car, school attended, assessment of clothes/shoes/watch/cufflinks quality…

This would be anathema to that particular group of PUA coaches; they want women to value “personality” and related, rather subjective traits over simple, objective, pass/fail-type mate-search criteria, while simultaneously wishing to reserve the right to be shallow for themselves.

Perhaps the “Red Pill” equivalent for women is to realize that traits that *can* be faked, eventually will be, and so objective criteria may need to be used from time to time. The woman’s mirror-image response to a PUA hustle might be, “You should talk to my friend over there—she’s the one who doesn’t care about hotness or money. I do.”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The woman’s mirror-image response to a PUA hustle might be, “You should talk to my friend over there—she’s the one who doesn’t care about hotness or money. I do.
  
  ROFLMAO
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

This conversation about “affording” top women reminds me of a running joke between me and my husband. I said that I’m like the made in China imitation of the expensive hot all-American babe. So he got me at a bargain low price. He said it’s better to get a good deal for good quality than buying overpriced.
Sassy6519

@ Susan Walsh

I think men are loath to examine the HOT part. Women are attracted to hot, handsome, well-built men. Character traits cannot be evaluated at first sighting, or even first meeting. The initial attraction is always physical, even for women.

The de-emphasis on looks among men is wishful thinking. The young women I know speak mostly about looks when they speak of guys they’re attracted to.

So true.

I’ve stated several times in the past that men seem to greatly underestimate how important good male looks are to good looking women. Average looking women are also attracted to good looking men, but they will probably be more lenient in that department than very attractive women. I like men who have similar SMV to myself. It’s always been that way, as far as I can remember.

@ Zach

Also, I think there’s been a big misunderstanding here that alpha automatically means dbag. Just look around and you’ll see that’s not true. Think back to high school, one of the most hormonally-driven times of your life. Think about the “cool” guys. Were some of them dicks? Absolutely. Were all of them dicks? Absolutely not. Hmm, if that’s the case, then how did they manage to be “cool” without being total assholes? Might that not be something to consider, instead of whining about how you have to be an asshole to get women? Because as far as I remember, those nicer cool guys got plenty of girls.

This x 1,000

@ modernguy

It’s not defeatist to say that most men will never achieve that. Most men will never become rich. Those are the facts of life, but should we accept a system where the top few reap all the rewards and the rest get scraps?

That system has always been in place. Not everyone is able to reproduce or have a relationship. It may not be fair, but nature and biology aren’t quite concerned with fairness.

I think a big problem is that people have come to feel entitled to sex/relationships. It’s never going to be that way. There’s a reason why the phrase “Survival of the Fittest” exists.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Desiderius…”in the second-wave SMP,* too often Paris (Roosh) and Agamemnon (Roissy) got the girl instead of Achilles (the leader of men).”

Really good. Classics professors should use this to advertise their classes….
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

This conversation about “affording” top women reminds me of a running joke between me and my husband. I said that I’m like the made in China imitation of the expensive hot all-American babe. So he got me at a bargain low price. He said it’s better to get a good deal for good quality than buying overpriced.

Heh I had a similar joke with hubby. Well I love a bargain as well so I can’t really get offended can I?

I think a big problem is that people have come to feel entitled to sex/relationships. It’s never going to be that way. There’s a reason why the phrase “Survival of the Fittest” exists.

Both PUA’s and Susan want to the help the majority of people to get fit. I think the problem is that for a PUA fit means “bang around with hot babes as much as possible and avoiding the female trappings of commitment” while for Susan is “get married to good women and preferably have babies” thus that is another problem, the middle ground is hard to achieve with this strategies at odds.
Zach

@Escoffier

Yes, I thought about this rejoinder while I was writing my response. I was just too lazy at the time to refute it or counter it. I did in a way though. The attractiveness of people is, as I said, both absolute and relative. And the point of game is not necessarily about status in the sense of monetary status. In fact, as Bastiat so astutely points out, it’s about negating those markers. It’s about improving a man to the point where he becomes an OPTION.

Let’s say you have girl A. Girl A will not sleep with any guy below a 7. Let’s say you have Guy A and Guy B. Guy A is a 9. Girl A wants to sleep with Guy A. Guy B learns game, and moves himself up to a 7. Now, although girl A will still prefer Guy A, she will CONSIDER Guy B as an option [sidenote: Susan, the option for italics instead of caps here would be great. It looks like I’m “yelling” a lot]. That doesn’t mean she still won’t sleep with Guy A 90% of the time, but now the balance has shifted from 100% Guy A and 0% Guy B to 90% Guy A and 10% Guy B. That is a definite improvement for Guy B.

Now you’ll say that if the entire population moved the median from a 5 to a 7, that Girl A would raise her threshold to an 8. However, I don’t believe that’s applicable here, as the SMP is hardly a rational, efficient marketplace in which each participant has perfect information. It contains many information asymmetries and is quite inefficient. Girl A will never have enough information to know that she should raise her “price” to an 8. Her information will be based purely on her local observations, not on the market as a whole. In large population groups, such as cities, this creates massive inefficiencies, which game, as I see it, was designed in part to arbitrage.

@modernguy

So you want to attempt to change society back to previous slut-shaming behavior, but yet you are perfectly happy taking the shortcut of a Ponzi scheme? The two views are wholly incompatible. It’s like decrying the obesity epidemic while in the meantime chowing down on buckets of cheese fries every day. If you’re not going to be any better than the system allows you to be, then why should anyone else?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Zach
  
  I would just like to observe that based on the way you think, I believe you are exceedingly well suited to business school. The Case Study Method is falling by the wayside – even old Harvard has moved away from it. But there is still some of that, and you will nail cases because you present your ideas very effectively. I have no doubt you will nail the quantitative and abstract stuff as well.
Zach

@modernguy

And before you come back at me with “what about you”, I LIKE this system. It’s great for me. I can sleep with lots of girls (I got laid by two different women last Friday and Saturday, and made out with a third on Sunday), and still get plenty of them to commit to me if/when I want to. One of the biggest reasons I started writing on this blog was not to assail the current system, but because it echoed a lot of what I told my female friends to do when navigating this SMP. As one of the “sharks”, I can advise them pretty well on how to avoid getting bitten.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Anacaona, yep I love cheap stuff, too!

I’ve noticed that men tend to prefer women who self-assess less than their “fair market price,” so a legitimate 7 who thinks of herself as a 5 is viewed more favorably than the 7 who thinks of herself as a 9, because she is a “bargain” price-wise. Women tend to prefer men who think more of themselves, so a 7 who is cocky and thinks of himself as a 9 is viewed more favorably than the 7 who is humble and thinks of himself as a 5.

This discrepancy may explain some strange dynamics in the SMV, especially the hook-up culture where women tend to inflate their views of themselves. Perhaps the most stable relationships are between objectively equal partners with the female who thinks less of herself. For example you have two 7’s, but the female 7 thinks of herself as a 5 and views the male 7 as a 9. The male 7 knows he deserves the female 7, but he doesn’t really think he can do better than her. The female gets her hypergamy satisfied, and the male who has not been getting large amounts of female attention from females 7 and above is also happy.
Desiderius

Bob Wallace,

“’Polyandry—in which females take more than one mate—allows for better gene diversity, boots the likelihood of fertilization, decreases infanticide, and means more male providers.’

No, it increases infanticide. The best way for a child to be killed is to have the mother live with a man who is not the father of the child.”

See also.
http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

A while back my father’s secretary brought a little girl to our home. At first she wouldn’t talk to me, so I just talked to the secretary, and somehow the subject turned to my jacket that’s full off cigarette burns. The secretary thought the jacket should go, and just to be nice, I asked the little girl what she thought of the jacket.

She said she didn’t like it either. And so I said to her :

“Why thank you, I think I’m gonna wrap you up in a hotdog roll, pour some tomato sauce over you, and sell you to some cannibals for a few bucks”

The change in her demeanor was immediate. I mean it was immediate. She couldn’t get enough of me.

Not even when I told her that I was gonna go and look for a boyfriend for her in the Weskoppies Mental Hospital.

She ate it up. Unbelievable.

… and the secretary tells me, that this little girl still mentions me from time to time …
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Marellus
  
  The change in her demeanor was immediate. I mean it was immediate. She couldn’t get enough of me.
  
  Not even when I told her that I was gonna go and look for a boyfriend for her in the Weskoppies Mental Hospital.
  
  Kids love to be scared and teased in a safe environment. It’s the same psychology that makes fairy tales appealing, even though many of them have scary stuff happening, e.g. children get eaten!
  
  I think the relationship between humans and danger – both sexes – is a very interesting one. Obviously, some are drawn to risk and danger, others enjoy observing it, and still others are completely risk averse.
  
  I grew up skiing (I know, I know, SWPL) and learned very quickly that I did not embrace risk in the same way that my brothers did, and struggling to keep up with them on challenging slopes was the source of much anxiety when I was growing up. I like watching dangerous movies and shows, though.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I’ve noticed that men tend to prefer women who self-assess less than their “fair market price,” so a legitimate 7 who thinks of herself as a 5 is viewed more favorably than the 7 who thinks of herself as a 9, because she is a “bargain” price-wise. Women tend to prefer men who think more of themselves, so a 7 who is cocky and thinks of himself as a 9 is viewed more favorably than the 7 who is humble and thinks of himself as a 5.

I will change this for SOME men like your hubby and mine. I’m not sure all men would go for that given the flashiness of the sexy ones.
When I decided to increase my SMV I never though on getting a higher status man more like increasing my confidence in initiating and having less chances of rejection for my nerdy type. I think hubby and I are probably the same market value and we both kind of strive for keeping the balance. He tries harder to keep his weight down and wearing the hair the way I like it and I try to do the same.
Passer_By

@anacaona

“Didn’t she left him, too?”

Only after 20+ years of him pimp slapping her every day. The fact that it took a rich (and quite hot) celebrity that long to leave a chronic wife beater qualifies him as “mean and hot”.
JustYX

I would suspect that men like a woman who underestimates herself because:

if you’re a male 7 and get a chance of a female 9, what’s not to like?

if one assumes that the higher the smp value of a woman is, the harder work she is to keep (hypergamy related I expect), then a male 7 is going to prefer a female 7 who thinks she’s a 5. She’s happy that she thinks that she’s getting a +2 guy. He’s happy because he he’s getting a 7 for the maintainence costs of a 5

so, that’s plausible.

A man who overvalues himself is displaying confidence, an entry in the chick-crack category. Obviously, if he undersells himself he is perceived as thinking himself a loser…not chick crack, not at all
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

“I’ve stated several times in the past that men seem to greatly underestimate how important good male looks are to good looking women. Average looking women are also attracted to good looking men, but they will probably be more lenient in that department than very attractive women. I like men who have similar SMV to myself. It’s always been that way, as far as I can remember.”

O: Hmm. Ms. Walsh or anyone else reading this is more than welcome to factually correct me on this point, but I recall reading in various media sources online that Male “beauty” products and services have ramped up to the point that an entire burgeoning industry has grown up around it; indeed, 20 years ago, the term “Metrosexual” was alien; today, it is the coin of the realm. This fact alone debunks the notion put forth by a number of ladies that guys in aggregate, do not consider their appearance to be important. They most certainly do – and we know this in terms of Male beauty business receipts.

“It’s not defeatist to say that most men will never achieve that. Most men will never become rich. Those are the facts of life, but should we accept a system where the top few reap all the rewards and the rest get scraps?”

“That system has always been in place. Not everyone is able to reproduce or have a relationship. It may not be fair, but nature and biology aren’t quite concerned with fairness.”

O: This is not the point. The point is, that while we are more than willing to shrug our collective shoulders at the Male losers of the reproductive game, we are NOT willing to do the same when it comes to the ladies.

Now, to be sure, I know why this is; EvoPsych answers the question – but – if you’re a Woman living in our time, you don’t accept EvoPsych, because it directly contradicts your worldview, which is all about “social constructs” – right? Why should do anything and everything to ensure that the most number of Women pair off, but shrug our shoulders when it comes to the guys? You have to be philosophically consistent – either you’re willing to accept the EvoPsych way of doing business, or, you have to accept that yea, both Men and Women “deserve” to get a mate. The way things have been working in recent times, is that only Women “deserve” a mate; Men? They gotta get in where they fit in.

Now, here’s the thing for me – I can go either way. And truth be told, I think most guys can, too. What I don’t like, is how many Women try to have it both ways, and this is something I aggressively “filter” for. Whenever possible, I am certain to cut the ring in half and force the Woman to choose; I need to see if she’s really, truly, about her “ideals”; if so, let’s see just how committed she is when faced with paying for the full freight (kinda like the paying for dates thing – if you’re so “independent” and want to do away with old outmoded gender norms – and if you’ve got a degree and your own job, then you do – then you can prove it by anteing up for the first date, unprompted).

I see that the discussion is slowly turning from one about what Women do, to one about what Men do. While I most certainly get it, it’s a futile exercise, for the very reasons I’ve noted above along EvoPsych lines (and what Ted’s recently said on the matter vis a vie the Boner Test). The guys aren’t the wildcard here; you ladies are. The real question as we move deeper into the 21st century, is how will Women come to grips, truly, with ALL that “choice” and “freedom”, really means?

If this discussion is anything to go by, you’ve got a long way to go, Ms. Virginia Slim…

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

Only after 20+ years of him pimp slapping her every day. The fact that it took a rich (and quite hot) celebrity that long to leave a chronic wife beater qualifies him as “mean and hot”.

It was always her fault, it might sound stupid but in abusive relationships there is always the psychological manipulation is not about the sex or the attraction is about “If you only behave better this wouldn’t go this way” they come crying with flowers and asking forgiveness
Ted D

JustYX – “A man who overvalues himself is displaying confidence, an entry in the chick-crack category.”

But, if such a man were to marry a woman he got with that overvaluation, he would be setting himself up for a lifetime of hard work simply to keep her hypergamous instincts in check.
Passer_By

@susan

“I think men are loath to examine the HOT part. Women are attracted to hot, handsome, well-built men. Character traits cannot be evaluated at first sighting, or even first meeting. The initial attraction is always physical, even for women. The de-emphasis on looks among men is wishful thinking. The young women I know speak mostly about looks when they speak of guys they’re attracted to. If he’s handsome, and he’s an asshole, they hope to change him. If he’s handsome, and he’s a beta, they hope to change him.”

Well, if women also require some measure of social dominance, status and confidence, then by definition they are partially deemphasizing looks. In other words, the percentage weight of all factors considered can only add to 100%.

I suppose the only way your contention could have some validity (i.e., a man must have the looks AND all those other things) is if we are going to have a society where 10% or less of the men get all the women (other than the really ugly ones).
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I find myself thoroughly perplexed by this thread. I wrote a post explaining that girls are indeed attracted to Bad Boys, Brooding Loners and Charming Sociopaths, and the men are filing protests like, “But women are attracted to Bad Boys!”
  
  What am I missing here? Let me try this again. Women are attracted to qualities that Bad Boys have in spades. Confidence, boldness, lack of fear, lack of anxiety, rebelliousness – courage to stand up to the herd, a challenge.
  
  Men who have these qualities in abundance will do well with women, regardless of their character. It is very possible to have these qualities and be a good man, as Bastiat Blogger so patiently points out with regularity. In fact, the good man with these qualities will also have the admiration and respect of his male peers, and women value that highly as well. Bad Boys don’t have that.
  
  In any case, these qualities are in short supply in the male population today. Why is a question for another post, but I think we can agree that *most* men (80% anyway) do not exhibit these traits. On the other hand, self-obsessed, lying sociopaths display these traits abundantly.
  
  The man who displays these traits in abundance will earn female sexual attraction. The man who lacks these traits will be unable to stimulate female attraction or interest.
  
  Here are some comments (paraphrased in some cases for brevity) that I do not understand. I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me.
  
  Evilalpha: “Asshole is aphrodisiac.”
  
  Why is that? From an evolutionary standpoint, why do assholes make the best mates?
  
  Ted D: Women tend to be attracted to the darker traits of men. Women’s base instincts draw them to violence. Women are attracted to the worst traits in men. Young women aren’t naturally attracted to good men.
  
  What behaviors do bad men produce that represent a reproductive advantage to women? Why are women hardwired to like “bad” instead of “good?”
  
  YareallyPUA: Assholes are honest. They express themselves fully. A woman is attracted to that because she can trust that.
  
  If a man is honest about being disagreeable and selfish, isn’t that just making it easier for a woman to walk away? Or are you saying that women prefer disagreeable mates? If so, why do you think that is?
  
  Escoffier: Women’s basic biological desires are different than what men have been told. “For women it is the desire for 1) dominance; 2) high status; and (distant third) 3) hotness.”
  
  I don’t disagree with any of this. Why are we arguing?
  
  Perhaps it is your repeated use of the word “base.” I don’t think that sexual desires are base in either sex, according to the definition of base as “vile, low, sordid, ignoble.” It is this value judgment that I believe I am having difficulty with. Morality is not a factor. We are reproduction machines, and as such, we are presumably more “perfect” than at any previous time. That suggests that both the male desire for variety, and the female desires for dominance and status are in balance.
  
  The wiring of the biological agendas has not changed in 100,000 years. If men cannot get variety, perhaps the SMP becomes dysfunctional. If women cannot find men who are dominant and higher status than themselves, the SMP becomes dysfunctional. Of course, we must be concerned about more than the SMP. If we rut like animals and fail to do things like work, we descend into chaos. This is already happening in lower SES groups. In the middle class, we see men going to great lengths to acquire sexual variety, and women going to great lengths to acquire dominance. And yet, the number of sexual partners, even those smack in the middle of hookup culture, remains low, for both women and men, in equal proportion. In reality, most people are either not experiencing attraction that leads to sex, or they are having monogamous sex across a large percentage of the population.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Well, if women also require some measure of social dominance, status and confidence, then by definition they are partially deemphasizing looks. In other words, the percentage weight of all factors considered can only add to 100%.
  
  I think that as women mature, they most certainly give strong weight to other factors. Looks are less important to women than men, overall. However, I think it’s fair to say that at 13, girls are atwitter about good looking, i.e. hot, guys. When girls say “hot” they are referring to looks.
Evilalpha

Et tu brutus?

Awww. Butthurt cause Ted won’t pick your “side”. He doesn’t owe you allegiance. You’re even worse than I thought.
JustYX

@TedD
“But, if such a man were to marry a woman he got with that overvaluation, he would be setting himself up for a lifetime of hard work simply to keep her hypergamous instincts in check.”

an excellent point, if depressing for ‘the good guys’ , OTOH if he’s after an ONS? nay probs.

Another case where the benefits go to the PUAs (PUAs by choice, or as a result of modern SMP machinations)
Ted D

EA – “Et tu brutus?

Awww. Butthurt cause Ted won’t pick your “side”. He doesn’t owe you allegiance. You’re even worse than I thought.”

Easy man. Of all the regulars here, Ana is near the top of my list in terms of women I respect AND in terms of women who’s opinion I tend to agree with. I’m not coming to her defense because she doesn’t need me to do so, but there isn’t any need for you to be disrespectful.

And for the record, the only “side” I’m on is my own. All things being equal, I suppose I do stand on the men’s side of the fence, but only because I honestly believe that for the most part, the men’s view is more logical. To be sure, if I truly believed that it was in societies best interests to continue repressing men’s sexual desires, there is a fair chance I’d be on the women’s side instead. But, the last 50 years has proven to me that of the two evils (repressing women’s or men’s sexuality) repressing the male desire has little to no positive influence, and seems to have many detrimental effects to society in general. I’m still on the fence regarding repression of female sexuality, mostly because I wasn’t alive when that was the norm, and I have no first hand experience with it. But, if it comes down to it, I’d be OK with it if it was indeed the best for society as well.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT FOR THE FELLAS OF HUS

Given the nature of the topic, and reading through the exchanges and comments of many here, I thought to post up the following:

In this post, and many, many others, Ms. Walsh argues quite vociferously, for the notion that the majority of Women – and let’s be clear here, by “Women” she means, middle class, college educated, smart Women – definitely do select for traits like character and integrity in their future mates. She presents a panopoly of data to support her assertions, and tends to take a jaundiced view toward anyone who suggests otherwise.

So, here’s what I propose – I’m going to layout a true vignette from my own life, and then hand it off to the fellas of this forum – they will decide if what I’m saying is spot-on, or just plain ole whacked.

Ready?

Here we go:

While I’m not inclined to disclose my “N”, I will say that I’ve been around the block; I’ve loved and have been loved, by more than my fair share of Women. I made it a practice to ask them what specifically they saw in me, that made them want to partner with me. Vitually all of them noted “intelligence” as a major factor. Many said other things, some said more arcane or off the beaten path things, etc.

But only ONE Woman, in my entire life to date, has specifically said, that what made her want to partner with me, was my “character and intregrity” –

Ms. Brown Sugah.

In fact, when she said it, I was taken aback, simply for the fact that I had *never heard a Woman say such a thing before*; I honestly didn’t know how to respond, to tell you the truth. And of course, it raised all manner of uncomfortable questions for me, especially in light of Ms. Walsh’s oft-stated position on the matter:

Because, if indeed Women make such a big deal out of “character” and “intergrity” and so forth, then why of all the Women I’ve been with, only ONE had actually mentioned it as a first principle in dealing with me?

Now, I know what some of you may say – “Well Obsidian, maybe it was the kind of Women you were attracting…”

Yea, I thought about that too; problem is, I had always controlled for the Ratchet Factor; I simply don’t attract them to me, and in truth virtually all of the previous Women in my life fit the same profile Ms. Brown Sugah did – middle class, college educated, two-parent home, well-adjusted, white collar professionals. Yet, again, she was the only Woman to actually tell me this.

So…what’s up with that?

I have some theories, along with the “Bad Boy/Hot & Mean” hypothesis floating around in the current discussion…but I really wanna get the feelings of the fellas in the room on this.

Of all the Women in your life, how many of them specifically stated, that it was your “character and/or integrity” that locked them in for YOU? Either way, why do you think that is?

I’ll have more to say, after I see a bit of feedback on my “research question…”

Holla back fellas

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

Ana is near the top of my list in terms of women I respect AND in terms of women who’s opinion I tend to agree with. I’m not coming to her defense because she doesn’t need me to do so, but there isn’t any need for you to be disrespectful.

Thanks for the clarification. We are both judgmental bastards we are just judging differently here.
I mostly want a society were both genders foster their best sides and suppress their worst. And doing it on one gender only doesn’t work in the long run it only leads to resentment and bitterness. Feminism grew so fast and powerful because women were seeing all the rules they had to follow while men (technically at least we all know this was more complex)could do whatever they want to. Like men now see women getting away with many crappy things because of their vaginas. It should be people’s rights and responsibilities first, genitalia shouldn’t factor on it, YMMV.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #170:
“I’ll agree that studies asking women “Who would you do?” are of limited value. But there are some very useful and valuable studies I’ve covered as well. For example, rank these faces for attractiveness. Now let’s see who you chose. Hmmmm, what do you know? The most attractive men are the ones with a long-term mating orientation!”

O: Yes, by Ms. Walsh, the thing for me is – WHO were the Women being asked here? Are they White? Black? Hispanic? What were their SES levels? See, this is important because I see something wholly different from what you’re selling here – and let’s be clear. You have every right to tell me to step off because you’re focusing on your own demo. Fair enough – but how does that make the “study” anymore accurate? All it does is confirm stuff for you and yours – not necessarily anything truly objective.

And how do I know that? Again, “Maury” is your friend…for every lady in said “study” that finds thus and so face attractive, I can easily point to two times as many Women who find the “hypermasculine” faces attractive – and have the guy’s babies in tow to prove it.

So…what’s up with that?

“Or. Sniff these t-shirts. Which ones smell best to you? What do you know? Most women chose these three guys! These guys are “dads!” But wait, the ovulating women chose different guys. They chose cads!”

O: All that tells me is that Women are quite malleable sexually, and can and will deploy whichever mating strategy per the context they find themselves in. For me, no big whup.

“It is not logical to dismiss all social science studies, particularly since your eyes tell you something very specific. Your reality may or may not be reflected elsewhere, or by the majority.”

O: Perhaps. But here’s the thing Ms. Walsh – me and Ted see a lot more of the same things than not – and we don’t have a heck of a lot in common, either. We live on opposite sides of the Commonwealth; he’s White, I’m Black; he’s in IT, I’m a Union Brotha; etc, et al. Yet, we see the exact same things going down, and they both seem to be at odds with a lot of what you’re saying here.

I find that truly fascinating, myself.

O.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Obsidian
  
  me and Ted see a lot more of the same things than not — and we don’t have a heck of a lot in common, either. We live on opposite sides of the Commonwealth; he’s White, I’m Black; he’s in IT, I’m a Union Brotha; etc, et al. Yet, we see the exact same things going down, and they both seem to be at odds with a lot of what you’re saying here.
  
  I’m not going to debate study design with you. Everything you have read by David Buss relied on precisely the studies you are now discrediting.
  
  Based on Ted’s descriptions of Pittsburgh, it sounds to me like the two of you live in very similar communities. *Shrugs.* It’s hardly surprising that your observations would differ from a study of college students aged 20.
Escoffier

Zach, that makes sense, but I wonder how extensive that effect would be. She would have information, maybe not of the whole SMP, but she would notice that in her little corner of it, suddenly there were a lot more 7s. Since men can do nothing or little about their faces, that would mean two things: a lot of guys hitting the gym (visual cue), a lot of guys learning game techniques (behavioral cues). Some women will no doubt be delighted and get with those 7s. But others will notice the glut and adjust their price accordingly.

This whole conversation got started (in my interpretation) when you responded to someone by saying, in effect, stop whining and improve yourself. My point is only that this strategy, while valuable, has limits. We cannot all vault ourselves into the top 20%. The most desirable women are always going to want the most desirable men. So, even if game went totally mainstream, you are still going to have legions of bitter, pissed off men who can’t get the women they want.
Escoffier

meant to add “because a great many of those women will simply place themselves even further out of reach.”
Passer_By

@susan
“Isn’t it the same for men? Don’t you graduate from wanting a roll with the town slut to wanting a woman of higher relationship value? ”

This is a poor analogy, IMO, and reflects a misunderstanding among women that I see a lot of. He wants an easy roll in the hey with an attractive woman. He chooses the town slut because she’s available for one, not because he’d rather have it with her than with a “higher quality” woman, although contrary to what many here think I do think some promiscuous women can still be of high quality (though I wouldn’t want a relationship with them because of the sense of feeling like she handed out for free what I would have to invest for). In most cases, a guy would probably rather have it with the less tread worn woman if he could (assuming she had enough experience to not be totally awkward).

By contrast, the women (particularly young women and girls) seem to want the quick lay almost EXCLUSIVELY with the bad boy, and affirmatively reject it with the men of higher quality. If this were simply a looks thing, guys would get it. But, contrary to what you say, it’s not. At least it doesnt’ seem so from where most guys are sitting.

Is the kid in this article really that much more good looking (if at all) than the good looking but studious guys these girls were undoubtedly rejecting?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20011476-504083.html

http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article1109362.ece

(page through the photos on the above articles)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  Is the kid in this article really that much more good looking (if at all) than the good looking but studious guys these girls were undoubtedly rejecting?
  
  Personally, I find that guy supremely unappealing. Blech. He is not good looking. Obviously, he had something going for him, because these two biddies were fighting over him.
  
  Here’s the thing – these girls – they would never, ever date a guy who was studious. Why would they? I suspect they are of low intelligence themselves. They obviously want the badass, and they are far from alone. This isn’t new either. Criminals – the absolute scum of society – always have women. I think that’s been true throughout history.
evilalpha

Easy man. Of all the regulars here, Ana is near the top of my list in terms of women I respect AND in terms of women who’s opinion I tend to agree with. I’m not coming to her defense because she doesn’t need me to do so, but there isn’t any need for you to be disrespectful.

But this is you coming to her defense. And if you wanna be the “respect” police then can you start by reading her comments a little more closely. Just sayin’
Passer_By

@susan
“I find myself thoroughly perplexed by this thread. I wrote a post explaining that girls are indeed attracted to Bad Boys, Brooding Loners and Charming Sociopaths, and the men are filing protests like, “But women are attracted to Bad Boys!””

But you later sort of back tracked and said it’s all (or nearly all) about looks. The debate is over that contention. Or, at least I think it is (I’m a late entry here). Somehow, you seem to be conflating looks with those qualities.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  But you later sort of back tracked and said it’s all (or nearly all) about looks. The debate is over that contention
  
  I do believe that when girls say guys are “Hot & Mean,” it is the guy’s looks they’re focusing on, not the fact that he is mean. I don’t think “mean” is a quality that many women select for. The problem here is that we’re discussing the attraction triggers for 13 year olds. When my own kids were 13, they were just figuring out which members of the opposite sex were hot, and that was based on looks. By high school, things began to shift a bit, and power players emerged based on other qualities, but in general I think it’s fair to say that popularity throughout high school is heavily weighted towards physical attractiveness for both sexes.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #272:
“The man who displays these traits in abundance will earn female sexual attraction. The man who lacks these traits will be unable to stimulate female attraction or interest.”

O: This is the crux of the problem, Ms. Walsh, and with all due respect, we’ve both kinda circled each other on it, but now I’d like to get right to the nub of it:

You’re right to say that this end of the Internet tends to attract people of a certain psych profile; as I’ve said on the previous thread/discussion, the seduction community tends to attract Ectomorph/skinny/nerdy guys, as a rule. Naturals tend to be Mesomorphic, for the most part (yes, there are racial/ethnic aspects of this to consider as well; there’s a reason why, for example, one is hardpressed to find many Brothas in a lair – it’s because most Brothas tend to be more Mesomorphic by comparison and hence, more “natural”).

In other words, the guys you are talking about above – and that makes up a goodly portion of the Manosphere as such – are the ones who are risking being the losers out there in today’s SMP. No, it’s not your or any Woman’s responsibility to find a fix for it. But it does explain why we see what we see in our time today.

This is why I advocate for much more honestly and plain speaking, because it’s getting much harder to paper over the truth; as She Who Shall Not Be Named rightly noted, Nature isn’t fair, and has never been; and to be brutally blunt, it’s especially harsh on the Male side of the fence. Most guys simply didn’t get a mate down through human evolutionary history. It is, what it is.

At some point, we as a society are going to have to have a sitdown with the Male losers of the SMP and simply break it to them what the deal is. Game is a great thing, but I wouldn’t be telling the truth if I said that it’s a rising tide that will lift all boats. If only that were so.

But the truth – the sad, painful truth – is that Game won’t be able to help every guy – and this explains why such guys are heard loud and long on blogs like Roosh and Roissy. They know they don’t have what it takes to get the biggest bang from the buck with Game, and it hurts. Let’s face it, as a society that places so much on “winning” we really don’t have a heck of a lot of love for its losers.

It is, what it is.

O.
evilalpha

But, if such a man were to marry a woman he got with that overvaluation, he would be setting himself up for a lifetime of hard work simply to keep her hypergamous instincts in check.

Ted ,
What’s all this stuff about lifetime? Women’s SMV drops like a stone as she pushes 30, has kids etc.
Passer_By

@susan

“Evilalpha: “Asshole is aphrodisiac.” Why is that? From an evolutionary standpoint, why do assholes make the best mates?

Ted D: Women tend to be attracted to the darker traits of men. Women’s base instincts draw them to violence. Women are attracted to the worst traits in men. Young women aren’t naturally attracted to good men.

What behaviors do bad men produce that represent a reproductive advantage to women? Why are women hardwired to like “bad” instead of “good?””

I’m going to engage in a bit of speculation here – most evopsych is just speculation using logic. In the EEA, it’s likely that only the top dogs could get away with habitually assaholic behavior. There were no rules prohibiting a beat down of them, otherwise. Women probably evolved to be attracted to this behavior since it was a reliable proxy indicator of alpha statuts. Civilization caused this to no longer be a reliable proxy indicator, but the hind brain wants what it wants.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

She would have information, maybe not of the whole SMP, but she would notice that in her little corner of it, suddenly there were a lot more 7s. Since men can do nothing or little about their faces, that would mean two things: a lot of guys hitting the gym (visual cue), a lot of guys learning game techniques (behavioral cues). Some women will no doubt be delighted and get with those 7s. But others will notice the glut and adjust their price accordingly.

Women’s hypergamy doesn’t exist in a vacuum the same way a woman competes with other women for the newest car, the new Manolo Blanicks who has the biggest collection of Edward’s posters there is always the chance that some female friends get something better and she decides to top it. Susan has mentioned mommy wars so indeed the idea that highly hypergamic women can find a level to what they would never look at another man is not very accurate, IME.

By contrast, the women (particularly young women and girls) seem to want the quick lay almost EXCLUSIVELY with the bad boy, and affirmatively reject it with the men of higher quality. If this were simply a looks thing, guys would get it. But, contrary to what you say, it’s not. At least it doesnt’ seem so from where most guys are sitting.

I think this is another gender disconnect. We discussed that women can tell a bitch a mile away even though a man wouldn’t now she is the same for assholes a man can see the guy is up to no good (hence why the advice of having a male good friend or relative to take a look at one’s prospect and really the blond girl with the long hair in the pic was obviously a bitch)so what for men seems obvious for women is not, again this is a complex issue.
Mike C

Escoffier @162

Excellent comment. I think you’ve captured the different dimensions of the male sex drive perfectly. I especially like the categorization into base/biological, emotional, and rational. I think the female sex drive could also be categorized this way, but as soon as we start talking about the base/biological component of the female sex drive we get into uncomfortable territory.

Susan, in this thread, I believe you emphasized male looks and indicated that many men downplay the importance of looks. FWIW, I absolutely agree with you. Anyone who thinks “looks don’t matter” is kidding themselves, and I agree that for the most part male 5s in *JUST LOOKS* are not out pulling female 8-9s in looks. I myself have heard of some of the women some of the more unnattractive male PUAs/Gamers land, and they aren’t picking up models. It’s one thing to high jump over a 7 foot bar, and quite another to step over a 2 inch high bar.

*ALL THAT SAID* you yourself on a number of occassions have used the term *sexy ugly* which is an oxymoron if a man used it. So clearly, a man can be “hot” by conveying certain personality traits and behavioral attributes irrespective of physical appearance in isolation.

Off the point, but I would always tell a guy to work on appearance first. It is the low-hanging fruit as improving your physical appearance is formulaic and methodical where developing Game and associated behavioral attributes like “confidence” is much more hit or miss/trial and error/iterative.

This one is for you Bastiat. The “Hot and Mean” probably isn’t a causal relationship running purely in one direction or another but something more like George Soro’s Reflexivity and a dynamic feedback loop of reinforcement in both directions.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  *ALL THAT SAID* you yourself on a number of occassions have used the term *sexy ugly* which is an oxymoron if a man used it. So clearly, a man can be “hot” by conveying certain personality traits and behavioral attributes irrespective of physical appearance in isolation.
  
  Absolutely! I think “sexy ugly* is real for men – there are trainers at my gym who fit this description. They are extremely confident and masculine, and that’s sexy. Enough so that I believe they have girlfriends who are definitely decent looking.
  
  I will say, though, that the teenage girl does not relate to the sexy ugly concept. That is definitely something that comes later. When we are young, we are very shallow, in general.
  
  Again, I feel that there is a world of difference in the attraction triggers of women aged 13, 23, 33, and 43. In fact, I know there is. I’ve had many, many conversations with other women at each of those ages.
Escoffier

Susan, we are arguing about whether women, not just men, but women too, have an unruly sexual desire that they need to control and that is fundamentally different from men’s. Sometimes you seem to deny that and that’s when I go “whoah.” I’m not the only one.

When you said, earlier in this thread, that women are biologically wired to pair bond with a good guy who will stick with them and their kid until the critter is 18, that sounded like a denial. Moreover, it sounded like an assertion that, when it comes to women, biology pushes them toward goodness and virute and toward committing to betas, so there is nothing to worry about.

I don’t doubt that most women are inclined–whether owing to evolution or something else–to pair bond. But I also think that their innate desire for “better” tempts them to ditch that guy for another one, or for more excitement. Clearly, not all women do this. But the desire is in there somewhere and they need to control it. When we deny it, we are working against that purpose.

Re: base, OK, let me clarify. I said “baseline” several times. What I mean is that this type of desire is basic, innate, on auto-pilot, not naturally tutored or governed by any of the soul/mind’s higher aspects. So, in that sense we can call it morally neutral.

But it is “base” in this sense: were we all to indulge our baseline/basic sexual desires exactly as we feel them, the resultant behavior would be horribly base. Each sex will behave badly in different ways if they had their way.

The danger peculiar to men, if they don’t get theirs under control, is that they will just rove around and screw as many women as they can, lie and cheat, etc., deadening their souls in the process.

Women are not interested in a high body count for its own sake the way men are. The danger peculiar to women is that they will be perpetually unsatisfied with the man they have and ready to ditch him without remorse, and they will do so, breaking hearts and wrecking families the process.

Whenever I point out the former, you have no problem with it. When I point out the latter, you get mad and deny it.

Well if it’s all not true, then what is the problem? How did we get hookup culture? How did this SMP get so messed up? It’s all the men’s fault? or is there no problem with the SMP? If so, what are we talking about?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  When you said, earlier in this thread, that women are biologically wired to pair bond with a good guy who will stick with them and their kid until the critter is 18, that sounded like a denial. Moreover, it sounded like an assertion that, when it comes to women, biology pushes them toward goodness and virute and toward committing to betas, so there is nothing to worry about.
  
  I made that claim with a link to a study expressing that. Pair bonding evolved and trumped casual sex as women began reproducing with previously lower ranking males. Human remains going back 1.5 million years show a distinct shift toward smaller and less symmetrical men at that time. It’s not about goodness, or virtue, per se. I’m simply reporting what evo psychologists have said conclusively: Women select husbands based on their suitability for long-term mating, comprising at least a dozen factors.
  
  Women who have casual sex need not worry about male investment. Perhaps that is the source of your confusion.
  
  But I also think that their innate desire for “better” tempts them to ditch that guy for another one, or for more excitement.
  
  I disagree. Let’s leave it there. You have repeatedly said this is what you believe, but have yet to offer any evidence this is the case. In fact, your claim runs counter to my personal experience, the experience of women I am acquainted with, the experience of my readers, and the research done in this area. Clearly, you find this concept important to your own view, so have it. I really don’t know what else to say. I think you’re wrong.
  
  The danger peculiar to men, if they don’t get theirs under control, is that they will just rove around and screw as many women as they can, lie and cheat, etc., deadening their souls in the process.
  
  I’ll take your word for it. Frankly, this doesn’t resonate for me either, I can’t relate to it. But I accept it as the male view.
  
  The danger peculiar to women is that they will be perpetually unsatisfied with the man they have and ready to ditch him without remorse, and they will do so, breaking hearts and wrecking families the process.
  
  Ah, I see. You want a tit for tat. Do you have evidence that women wreck families more than men do by attempting to trade up? I think you’re making a fallacious comparison. Men want sexual variety and, according to you, struggle throughout their lives to repress this urge. We’re not like that. We select, and we’re damned difficult to please. If we select poorly, we could wind up married to a violent brute, or a shiftless layabout, or a man who will pursue his biological urges. We put all our energy into selecting a spouse. Once we do that, our job is done.
  
  A more likely area for male disappointment is the energy we give to our children. Husbands are often jealous of young children – mine was. I would lay down my life for my children without hesitation, but would not do the same for my husband if I had children. Are they higher priority? Yes. No Question. That is the more apt comparison, IMO.
  
  I’ll be honest here – I can truthfully say that I have known exactly four women to leave their husbands for other men. I can count more than a dozen men who have either left their wives for other lovers (both female and male) or whose wives discovered they’d been cheating for years. If you want to compare tomcatting to trading up, the men win that competition hands down.
  
  Well if it’s all not true, then what is the problem? How did we get hookup culture? How did this SMP get so messed up? It’s all the men’s fault? or is there no problem with the SMP? If so, what are we talking about?
  
  The Sexual Revolution ushered in casual sex, where physical intimacy precedes emotional intimacy. The ‘free love’ of the SR is the antithesis of hypergamy – it’s “what the hell” sex. And it’s not just a few males getting it – the post with all the data showed that 50% of freshman males get laid within one semester. The pyramid is already fairly flat.
  
  The fault lies with both sexes, though ultimately I hold women accountable as the gatekeepers of sex. I do think it’s important to recognize that two generations have been raised in a climate and culture that promotes casual sex and mocks commitment. Perhaps the parents, or grandparents, of young people today are to blame, rather than the youngsters themselves.
Just1X

@Susan #270
hey! NAMALT
INTJ

@ Anacaona

I think this is another gender disconnect. We discussed that women can tell a bitch a mile away even though a man wouldn’t now she is the same for assholes a man can see the guy is up to no good (hence why the advice of having a male good friend or relative to take a look at one’s prospect and really the blond girl with the long hair in the pic was obviously a bitch)so what for men seems obvious for women is not, again this is a complex issue.

Yeah it’s pretty obvious to us men too that the blond girl in that pic is a bitch.

It’s weird in fact. I’ve always assumed that I need to shoot for girls that I find only somewhat attractive, because the most attractive girls are likely to be too conceited and bitchy. What I realized though is that I naturally find “nice” looks to be attractive. I can tell that the girl in that pic is objectively somewhat “hot” to other guys, but I find her very unattractive.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Yeah it’s pretty obvious to us men too that the blond girl in that pic is a bitch.

Yeah but if the bitch puts out many men will endure the bitchiness. I know that men are supposedly aware of the trade offs but not so sure if the good girls that doesn’t get invited to prom while seeing the hot bitches constantly surrounded by men can see it that way. So we are back to square one. Men and women might as well speak different languages. Nature is cruel indeed.
Escoffier

Oh, one other important thing: it’s MUCH easier for women to indulge their base sexual desires than it is for men. The overwhelming majority of men desire to have sex with as many attractive women as they can. Very few men can actually accomplish this.

By comparison, it’s a whole lot easier for a woman to snag, at least for a short time, a man of 1-3 SMP points higher than herself. Getting one at her own SMP is no problem ever.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  By comparison, it’s a whole lot easier for a woman to snag, at least for a short time, a man of 1-3 SMP points higher than herself. Getting one at her own SMP is no problem ever.
  
  Yes, the access to sex is asymmetrical, as sex is always more “expensive” for females.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

It’s weird in fact. I’ve always assumed that I need to shoot for girls that I find only somewhat attractive, because the most attractive girls are likely to be too conceited and bitchy. What I realized though is that I naturally find “nice” looks to be attractive.

You probably are a “girl next door looks” kind of guy. You should go for what you find attractive always willing to bolt at the first sign of “The crazy”. I think the problems start when “crazy hottie” gets a hold out of the guy using sex or the promise of sex and unless you are equipped with “The crazy kills my boner” sort of trigger you are screwed up for a long time, YMMV.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #145:
“The short answer to your question is that I have little tolerance for or interest in communicating with people who approach the debate with a consistently disagreeable demeanor. You are extremely disagreeable in your communication style, characterized by your frequent confrontations, accusing others of selfishness, cruelty or misandry.”

O: That may indeed be the case, but I can’t in good conscience let this one go.

Ms. Walsh, again, even if everything you’ve said about Esau above is 100% correct, the fact of the matter is that you did indeed assail him with a clusterbomb full of Ad Hominem attacks, none of which you backed up with any factual evidence in the least. Now, you have the bully pulpit as it’s your blog, but I think you can do much better than that – even more to the point, you would not stand for any (Male) commenter to do the same thing to any (Female) reader/commenter here – nor should you. I’m sorry, but I’m seeing a heck of a lot of seriously inconsistent behavior on your part here, and I gotta call you on it. Yea, it would be great if people argued in the way *we* might like; but that doesn’t change the actual nature of their argument, and to be frank I do see it as a kind of dodge on your part (your lengty quotes on the 80/20 myth – see, you’ve convinced me too – notwithstanding.

Now, Imma be completely honest in that I’ve been going hard in the paint here over the past few months; I make no excuses for it, and take full responsibility for it – in fact, I think it’s fair to say that I’ve played quite a bit more rough ball than Easu has. And like the other guys, I spend my time here because it’s not the bitter echo chamber that many of the Manosphere haunts tend to be, despite the fact that much truth is to be found there – that, and the fact that you are, on balance, for more a “Man” than many of them are (I’m looking at you, Roissy). All that said, you have every right under the Sun to ban me and anyone else you don’t much like, for any reason you don’t much like.

But, what separates you from them (read: many parts of the Manosphere) is the fact that you actually try to adhere to some form of objective standard. In a world where Ideology is King (and yes, I’ve leaned on you for yours at times), that’s really saying something.

I think you can take Esau out to the woodshed without ever referencing what you think you know about his personal life or motivations.

I’m just sayin.

O.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Obs
  
  Ms. Walsh, again, even if everything you’ve said about Esau above is 100% correct, the fact of the matter is that you did indeed assail him with a clusterbomb full of Ad Hominem attacks, none of which you backed up with any factual evidence in the least.
  
  I have let Esau have his say for years now. I have always found him difficult, in that he is very harsh in his demeanor. Interacting with Esau is not enjoyable. But that’s fine – I have attempted to focus on his intelligent commentary and have, I believe, taken his many aggressive challenges in stride.
  
  I grow weary of Esau. His nasty commentary, toward me and others, has worsened. I don’t like his tone or his snarky delivery, e.g. “Go and sin no more.”
  
  Here’s the thing about ad hominem attacks: Sometimes I just don’t want to deal with certain people. I don’t care what they have to say. They’re no fun. As you know, I liken HUS to my living room. Esau’s been rude for a long time now, and I am asking him to change his way of communicating or to leave.
  
  I am interested in more than POVs, arguements and debates. I am interested in a community that has formed here. I feel protective of its members, and have zero tolerance for bullying or rudeness. It doesn’t matter how right you are.
INTJ

@ Susan Walsh

Note that the study does not speak for all women, or for women today, but it does offer a theory (which is all we can hope for) that explains the development of pair bonding, a major evolutionary shift. Enough people changed to supplant female promiscuity with co-parenting as women began to choose lower ranking males who stuck around over higher ranking males who pumped and dumped. They key here is female choice, which is indisputable.

What do you think?

Yes, women can choose between good genes from alphas and good provider from a beta, and both are equally valid strategies from an evolutionary standpoint. But both of these are strictly inferior to having the best of both worlds – by mating with alphas during and shortly after ovulation but roping in a beta provider to raise the children. Yes, beta providers developed strategies (such as possessiveness and religious requirements of female purity) to prevent this. But when successfully pulled off, it would always lead to the best outcome.

Again, I’m not saying that cuckoldry is common today. I’m saying that cuckoldry was the evolutionary optimal strategy for women and that biological drive still exists. This is the base biological sexual strategy (and by “base”, I mean what is inherent).

I don’t see why you’re so offended by this suggestion. It’s not like us men are taking the high road. I’m perfectly happy to accept that men’s evolutionary optimal strategy was to have sex with as many women as possible to “spread the seed” and then provide for all the resulting children – legitimate or illegitimate. Of course, women used marriage to demand that the male provide solely for her children, or at most the children of a few co-wives, so this strategy wasn’t always possible to pull off.

Thanks to modern social conditioning, most men are quite happy to one woman exclusively (both sexually and otherwise), just as women were quite happy not to cuckold or fool around with the bad boys before becoming a reformed slut and marrying the good guy. Unfortunately, thanks to feminism, the social conditioning on women has been greatly loosened, and the evolutionary sex drive for mating with the alpha while using a beta for support is becoming increasingly relevant. The most common form this takes is having a jerk boyfriend while keeping a nice guy in the friend-zone to have a shoulder to cry on
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  Again, I’m not saying that cuckoldry is common today. I’m saying that cuckoldry was the evolutionary optimal strategy for women and that biological drive still exists.
  
  Cuckoldry was never optimal. It carried enormous risk of death or violence between men, and also to the woman. At best, cuckoldry was always an enormous gamble, and rarely intentional. I suspect that women who cheated and became pregnant crossed their fingers they would not be found out, but often were. For one thing, it is thought that much cheating occurred among betas who stayed behind to guard women and children while alphas hunted. That meant the timing would leave little doubt as to paternity.
  
  I think you’re misinformed.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Question for the guys.
It seems that social studies are not reliable proof for many of you. What would be reliable proof that will force you reevaluate your assessment of the women’s sexuality according to the combination of manosphere anecdotal evidence your own personal lives and some comments/articles/blogs there and here?
Sai

@deti
“Ted D for president.”
We could do (have done?) SO much worse.

Ted: “Back in the old days, it was women’s sexuality that was repressed. It may have worked to an extent, but it made women unhappy. The last 50 years or so has been an experiment on repressing men’s sexuality while unleashing women’s, and we all know how badly that turned out. So, how about we try repressing everyone’s promiscuity and see how it goes? To me, it makes perfect logical sense.”
Anacona: “It should be people’s rights and responsibilities first, genitalia shouldn’t factor on it, YMMV.”
Escoffier: “But it is “base” in this sense: were we all to indulge our baseline/basic sexual desires exactly as we feel them, the resultant behavior would be horribly base. Each sex will behave badly in different ways if they had their way.”

I agree with these three. Let’s try chastity belts for everyone. (THAT’S A JOKE)

@Anacona
“Nature is cruel indeed.”
She really is, the harridan.

@JP
“I think my primary attraction cue at that age was “do you have an IQ in the top 1% of the human population?”

The only person I came close to liking in high school wore glasses, inspired me to pay more attention to politics by explaining his beliefs, joked about taking over the world and was working on a musical about the Russian Revolution. In biology he did all the writing and let me do all the dissecting, and in chemistry we laughed together while trying to figure out the work. He only liked me as a friend. I didn’t think I deserved him anyway.

For the record, I had plenty of opportunities to walk over to a frat house (heck, there are buses) and find a drunken ONS. But I didn’t.
Escoffier

Susan, earlier you ruled Devlin out as a source/authority/backup/whatever. Now you are citing him and getting his ideas wrong.

Devlin is NOT claiming that hypergamy affects only a one-time decision. If you read the whole of that piece, and all of his other stuff, what he is saying is that hypergamy is an ever-present desire. For some women it is simply satisfied because they land a man they love and who is dominant and handsome enough and that is that for them. Others may continue to feel some impulse toward hypergamy but resist it because they have good character. And, in the past, we used to have massive social stigma against women (or men) indulging their base sexual desires.

The stigma is gone. Good character is harder to find. A relationship that leave a woman (or man) satisfied 100% of the time is quite rare. So naturally the bad consequences of hypergamy arise more often today that they used to. For basically the same reasons that we have more high count (male) players than we used to.

I have written exhaustively about why I think your view of hypergamy is not correct. In a nutshell, it is completely illogical and inconsistent to base your view of female sexual nature on evolutionary biology, which you claim has hard-wired humanity for more or less the same way for 100,000 years, and then to assert that hypergamy is directed toward a human (not natural) institution that arose at most around 6,000 years ago.

All that said, I think Ted is wrong that women never stop trying to trade up. What I do believe to be true is that A) most of them have a natural desire to get the highest status male they can; B) That natural desire does lead many to think about trading up; C) Society no longer teaches them not to, nor does it punish them if they do, so D) Naturally we have more trading up than we used to when these restraints were in place.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  Susan, earlier you ruled Devlin out as a source/authority/backup/whatever. Now you are citing him and getting his ideas wrong.
  
  I still rule him out as a reputable source, as evidenced by this description of him:
  
  As far as I know, only one rogue academic without good standing among his peers has even addressed the topic. (F. Roger Devlin).
  
  Does that sound to you like I’m citing someone I find credible? He’s an MRA with zero scholarly work behind his theories. Perhaps I should have used a /sarcasm notation.
  
  I actually quoted Devlin from an MRA blog, I did not have the piece in its entirety. If my point about Roissy’s exaggerating his view is wrong I apologize for the error, but I still don’t respect Devlin as a source. And he is literally the only source for this concept. Not a single scholar in the fields of evo biology, evo psychology, or sexuality has accepted his view. James Taranto recently mentioned female hypergamy in the WSJ and defined it as “marrying up,” which is the definition that Stephanie Coontz uses. In addition, there are several studies in the academic literature about female hypergamy, and all define it in that same way.
  
  Just be aware that you are aligning yourself with one rogue independent writer who has not studied female sexuality, and that this view of female hypergamy is restricted to Game and MRA blogs.
  
  For some women it is simply satisfied because they land a man they love and who is dominant and handsome enough and that is that for them. Others may continue to feel some impulse toward hypergamy but resist it because they have good character.
  
  If a woman falls in love may we assume that her hypergamy has been satisfied? If so, then may we assume that if her husband’s status relative to her own does not change, her hypergamous desire will have been satisfied?
  
  Can we assume that a married woman who continues to feel some hypergamous impulse either married a man she did not fall in love with, or married a man whose status has deteriorated since she did fall in love?
  
  IOW, falling in love and future hypergamy should be mutually exclusive.
  
  it is completely illogical and inconsistent to base your view of female sexual nature on evolutionary biology, which you claim has hard-wired humanity for more or less the same way for 100,000 years, and then to assert that hypergamy is directed toward a human (not natural) institution that arose at most around 6,000 years ago.
  
  Evolutionary biology concerns itself with short and long-term mating, i.e. marriage. Hypergamy is a hard-wired feature that women deploy as part of the selection process. Status is one of many characteristics women seek for long-term mating. I agree that a woman who compromises on this when she chooses her mate may regret it in the same way that a woman who chooses a man who is unkind or unintelligent may regret her choice later.
Mike C

It seems to me that spending energy wanting to be part of the group of males who gets casual sex is a terrible way to live life.

Haha…spoken as a woman.

I suspect on some level no woman can grok why *most* guys….even those who wouldn’t necessarily exercise it…still would want to be part of the group of males who can get casual sex. Being part of that group is connected to alot of the dynamics of the male psyche. Why do you think the “price discrimination” issue is something that bothers guys so much?
Sassy6519

@ Escoffier

By comparison, it’s a whole lot easier for a woman to snag, at least for a short time, a man of 1-3 SMP points higher than herself. Getting one at her own SMP is no problem ever.

This isn’t true all the time.

I’ve known plenty, and I mean plenty, of female 4s, 5s, and 6s who have a very hard time attracting male attention. These women aren’t promiscuous, very outgoing, or very flirty. They may as well be invisible to male 5s and 6s.

One thing I’ve noticed, out in the dating world, is that men work from the top down. Instinctively, men are drawn to very attractive women. They will also always desire very attractive women. It isn’t until they are frequently rejected by very attractive women that they decide to start working their way down the SMV scale. If the 9s, 8s, and 7s aren’t paying a man any attention, eventually he begins to focus his attention on the 6s and 5s.

Whenever I’ve ever been out with some of those women, they comment often on the fact that men ignore them and approach me instead. Trust me when I say that even male 4s and 5s have approached me, misguidedly thinking that they had a shot with me. It makes no sense at all. I understand “shooting for the stars” and everything, but I was very clearly out of their league. They would have often been much better matched with the lower SMV women with me, but they never bothered to approach them. I would even go as far as to try to set them up together, but the men continually ignored them in favor of me.

I understand that it’s a woman’s job to increase her appearance as much as possible, but there is a ceiling for such transformations. Some women will always be 4s, 5s, and 6s, plastic surgery notwithstanding. Those women do indeed have a hard time attracting male attention.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

Yeah but if the bitch puts out many men will endure the bitchiness. I know that men are supposedly aware of the trade offs but not so sure if the good girls that doesn’t get invited to prom while seeing the hot bitches constantly surrounded by men can see it that way. So we are back to square one. Men and women might as well speak different languages. Nature is cruel indeed.

You’re correct (with the usual caveat of NAMALT).

I think Susan is definitely correct about PI. All the nice guys and nice girls get demoralized by seeing the hot jerks and bitches pairing up with each other.

I feel for the nice girls too, but I think it’s much more important to get nice guys to have confidence, since they’re the ones who need to approach the nice girls on the other side.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Mike, great reflexivity reference! “The Alchemy of the SMP,” by Mike C.

I think that the bar being set for what constitutes jerk/asshole behavior is probably too low and is being based on hypothetical, adversarial bar-banter situations that are far less frequent than one might think.

If a woman is struggling to lift something heavy, do you help? If she is trying to push her wheelchair-bound, Korean War veteran grandfather through a door to a coffee house, do you hold it for her? Would you give up a seat for a visibly pregnant woman to sit down?

Playfully teasing a girl about her interest in “Twilight” is not being a jerk IMHO. Having confidence because you value your time and respect yourself is not necessarily “Asshole Game” unless we have allowed the most deeply-wounded betas and arch-feminists to define these terms. Jokingly telling a girl to stop looking at your ass is not some dark, narcissistic sociopath behavior; true Dark Triad behavior would be something like following a guy who somehow insulted you out to the parking lot and putting his head through the windshield of his car.

Even the most inked up, Affliction-wearing, juiced, bronzer-using Jersey Shore douches that I know—they start and quit MMA with regularity, usually coming in and wanting to take a lot of fighter-posedown and action pics for their FB pages—regularly demonstrate at least quasi-chivalric traits around women. I’m not saying that they are doing this for noble reasons—they aren’t, they usually just want to have sex. However, they still want to be thought of as cool guys.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @BB
  
  Playfully teasing a girl about her interest in “Twilight” is not being a jerk IMHO. Having confidence because you value your time and respect yourself is not necessarily “Asshole Game” unless we have allowed the most deeply-wounded betas and arch-feminists to define these terms. Jokingly telling a girl to stop looking at your ass is not some dark, narcissistic sociopath behavior;
  
  Cosign! I have always been a fan of witty banter, and I’m here to tell ya, it is definitely possible to neg males and get them all hot and bothered in the process. Of course, this only works with highly confident males, who enjoy the challenge for a change. I regularly punched above my weight based on personality and smarts. I know it can work, though none of us is for all markets.
Passer_By

@anacaona

“Yeah but if the bitch puts out many men will endure the bitchiness. I know that men are supposedly aware of the trade offs but not so sure if the good girls that doesn’t get invited to prom while seeing the hot bitches constantly surrounded by men can see it that way. So we are back to square one.”

Perhaps. But the point we are making is that her bitchiness is not, in and of itself, an attraction trigger for him. At least not in the vast majority of cases. However, the jerkiness does seem to be an attraction trigger for the women. They don’t think of it that consciously, of course – there is no “God, if I could just find a jerk to fall in love with everything would be great.” They probably don’t even think of the jerk as a jerk, because they rationalize it away due to their attraction to it. But it doesn’t negate the fact that the jerkiness is an attraction trigger to their hindbrain in the same way that nice tits and a .7 waiste to hip ratio is an attraction trigger for me.

Also, to say the blond girl in those pictures is a bitch is a bit of an understatement, given that she murdered the other girl to keep her away from her ugly jerky thug.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I suspect on some level no woman can grok why *most* guys….even those who wouldn’t necessarily exercise it…still would want to be part of the group of males who can get casual sex.

But aren’t men the “logical” sex? I mean if only top 20% of men can have casual sex spending all your energy on that is like all men wanting to be president. Is not logical so why wouldn’t just stop and try for something available or men are not logical about sex?

Trust me when I say that even male 4s and 5s have approached me, misguidedly thinking that they had a shot with me. It makes no sense at all. I understand “shooting for the stars” and everything, but I was very clearly out of their league. They would have often been much better matched with the lower SMV women with me, but they never bothered to approach them. I would even go as far as to try to set them up together, but the men continually ignored them in favor of me.

Now that I had been around USA more I had noticed this too. Men here claim that men recalibrate fast into what they are available I wonder what fast mean, a year? After they are out of college? Or they keep accumulating money, jobs… hoping to use this attributes to land the hotties while ignoring the ones on their league? Here we had seen many men advising young ones to wait it out till their SMP increases so there is incentive for them to keep ignoring their female peers.
I know at least three cases of men orbiting women higher than they are and I know at least one of them had the chance to date a woman of similar value and rejected her so it doesn’t look like they are going to quit any time soon so…so again the 80% disconnect has a lot of factors in it, YMMV.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

It’s weird in fact. I’ve always assumed that I need to shoot for girls that I find only somewhat attractive, because the most attractive girls are likely to be too conceited and bitchy. What I realized though is that I naturally find “nice” looks to be attractive.

You probably are a “girl next door looks” kind of guy. You should go for what you find attractive always willing to bolt at the first sign of “The crazy”. I think the problems start when “crazy hottie” gets a hold out of the guy using sex or the promise of sex and unless you are equipped with “The crazy kills my boner” sort of trigger you are screwed up for a long time, YMMV.

The crazy doesn’t kill my boner, but I wouldn’t be able to have a relationship with someone I don’t respect. I suppose that’s where I’m different from the average supplicating beta.

The only thing that annoys me is that I don’t find a lot of the would-be “girls next door” attractive simply because of their weight. It makes me feel mean. At least I’m not being hypocritical, since I’m physically fit myself.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

“I’ve known plenty, and I mean plenty, of female 4s, 5s, and 6s who have a very hard time attracting male attention. These women aren’t promiscuous, very outgoing, or very flirty. They may as well be invisible to male 5s and 6s.”

O: Tru dat.

“One thing I’ve noticed, out in the dating world, is that men work from the top down. Instinctively, men are drawn to very attractive women. They will also always desire very attractive women. It isn’t until they are frequently rejected by very attractive women that they decide to start working their way down the SMV scale. If the 9s, 8s, and 7s aren’t paying a man any attention, eventually he begins to focus his attention on the 6s and 5s.”

O: Again – tru dat.

“Whenever I’ve ever been out with some of those women, they comment often on the fact that men ignore them and approach me instead. Trust me when I say that even male 4s and 5s have approached me, misguidedly thinking that they had a shot with me. It makes no sense at all. I understand “shooting for the stars” and everything, but I was very clearly out of their league. They would have often been much better matched with the lower SMV women with me, but they never bothered to approach them. I would even go as far as to try to set them up together, but the men continually ignored them in favor of me.”

O: This is getting kinda scary, but I gotta be real – the lady speaks the truth here…

“I understand that it’s a woman’s job to increase her appearance as much as possible, but there is a ceiling for such transformations. Some women will always be 4s, 5s, and 6s, plastic surgery notwithstanding. Those women do indeed have a hard time attracting male attention.”

O: Boom. So much for the notion that a Woman can boost her SMV by 2-4 points by merely taking a trip to Sephora. To be sure, it doesn’t hurt, and can net a gal about a point or so, which can prove decisive; but the plain truth of it is, if you’re a gal who’s a 4, being a 7 is outta the question.

It just is.

O.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ramble #201:
“This is a theme that I have visited, and revisited, many times. It is important to understand that girls are not being force fed these ideas, no more than boys are force fed ideas about superheroes and valiant soldiers and firemen.”

O: This is a very powerful point, and I recally distinctly Ramble making it a little while back – and I noticed that no one really spoke to it.

EvoPsych holds that everything we see around us in terms of entertainment and the like is really a kind of exploiting of our evolved psychologies in various ways; when it comes to the SATC narrative, what’s happening there is the entertainment business exploiting female sexual psychology. The same can be said of Cinderella mythology, etc.

So, it is erroneous to suggest that “the culture” is “making” us/them do thus and so; entertainment cannot concoct something out of whole cloth. Rather, they are merely exploiting (and yes, manipulating) what is already there – Gangsta Rap, Rom-Coms, flicks like The Avengers, Porn, Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey, et al – all of it, falls into the same boat.

O.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ted #234:
BOOM! You are killin’ it today.

I bow before your greatness, Good Sir.

O.
INTJ

* “Attractive” in the above post should read “unattractive”. I fend them unattractive.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

But the point we are making is that her bitchiness is not, in and of itself, an attraction trigger for him. At least not in the vast majority of cases.

But men only know that for women doesn’t look like that at all: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Love-Bitches-Relationship/dp/1580627560 and http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Girls-Learn-Their-Secrets/dp/292386512X …so is so hard to think that women can be thinking the same? Putting up with the asshole part because the guy is confident? Just think about it for a second there.

Also, to say the blond girl in those pictures is a bitch is a bit of an understatement, given that she murdered the other girl to keep her away from her ugly jerky thug.

I was just looking at the pics first I read the recount later. There is a reason I despise love triangles one never knows what can happen and who is crazier than the other.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Anacaona
  
  Why Men Love Bitches is actually an excellent book! I wrote about it here:
  
  Can Women Run Game on Men?
Mike C

I’ve known plenty, and I mean plenty, of female 4s, 5s, and 6s who have a very hard time attracting male attention. These women aren’t promiscuous, very outgoing, or very flirty. They may as well be invisible to male 5s and 6s.

I think you cannot underestimate the ubiquity of porn here. As you go lower and lower down the female SMV scale, the relative attractiveness of porn becomes higher and higher. Again, men are visual, so porn fills the visual need. Speaking bluntly, if the choice was between a 4 and a virtual Jenna Haze, I’m going with the virtual Jenna Haze. I do think in our sort of hypervisually stimuated society where images of sexy woman are everywhere, men start to get desensitized to women who maybe minus all that visual stimulation would be able to elicit something but now elicit nothing but apathy.

One thing I’ve noticed, out in the dating world, is that men work from the top down. Instinctively, men are drawn to very attractive women. They will also always desire very attractive women. It isn’t until they are frequently rejected by very attractive women that they decide to start working their way down the SMV scale. If the 9s, 8s, and 7s aren’t paying a man any attention, eventually he begins to focus his attention on the 6s and 5s.

Well….right. This is just common sense. Put yourself in the shoes of man. You are the approacher and initiator. Obviously, you want to land the woman you find the most visually attractive. The only way to calibrate this is start with perhaps the highest you realistically think you can pull and see what you actually can get and who you are rejected by. I know if I were single tomorrow, I have a sense of what is the highest end I realistically might be able to pull versus what is the lowest boundary I would find acceptable, but I would be more inclined to work from the top down for anything seriously long-term.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

The crazy doesn’t kill my boner, but I wouldn’t be able to have a relationship with someone I don’t respect. I suppose that’s where I’m different from the average supplicating beta.

Then you have “No respect-No boner” then that is not a bad trait to have.

The only thing that annoys me is that I don’t find a lot of the would-be “girls next door” attractive simply because of their weight. It makes me feel mean. At least I’m not being hypocritical, since I’m physically fit myself.

You don’t have to be attracted to some women out of duty. Keep working out and try to join some health clubs or classes. Check in Meetup they have all sorts of groups ,maybe you can find a fit girl next door sooner than later. Good luck!
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Ted D

The problem is: young women simply aren’t attracted to “good” men naturally. They must learn it. And currently, there is no one teaching them this lesson.

Agreed and I’ll even go further. We’re not teaching men how to appeal to those triggers in women. Thus, men tend to learn them by trial and error with plenty of bitterness (not helped by the immature women such as the on Rosin quoted who got off on rejecting men…that’s straight out of the ‘sphere) and a natural inclination to take the easy (ie Dark Triad) route to triggers over being a stand up man.

Conversely women are learned too late that Dark Triadis inferior long term to the stand up man. By that point, however, many stand up men have been trained “women are bitches who deserve the bad boy they lust after” leading to “where are all the good men.”

We don’t (or at least didn’t) expect kids in junior high and high school to figure out calculus or basic physics. We understand that it took centuries of brilliant thinkers working to develop them and expecting the average kid to just figure it out in a couple of years is a waste of time that will fail anyway.

Let somehow, we figure they have penises and vaginas so they can figure out sex and dating without thousands of years of human traditions that grew to help them.

My results:
Based upon your quiz answers, you appear to have a secure attachment style.

Me too, I think it’s broken.

@Ana

Is Sailor Moon a lesbian tell?

In my experience it’s a bigger tell for men with strong feminine sides. Worse experience at a con ever was the entire troop of scouts being done in cosplay by 40+ year old men. Take about a brain blech moment.

@Susan

However, and this is where I always get pushback – women evolved to prefer men who exhibit long-term pair-bonding traits

You get push back because modern western women are not displaying this or even a real prioritization of long-term pair-bonding, especially during their prime child bearing years. I honestly think you have a blind spot on that one.

The majority of births to women under 30 (ie, those prime child bearing years) in the US are now to unwed women. Although we can argue until the cows come home on the why, women do file for the majority of divorces. Finally, there is a subsegment of media world (books, movies, and TV) that can legitimately be labeled divorce porn. Of all the examples I that come to mind one can reasonably be said to be targeted at men.

Do I think you’re wrong about pair-bonding in women? No, but I think the US is now into multiple generations of trying to program it out of women which has succeeded to the point they don’t display those desires until late or post fertility. Men, on the other hand, or not getting the anti-pair bonding message and are confused. It’s easy for them to conclude women don’t care about pair bonding or pair bonding positive traits.

@Tom

But isnt what women who “play the field”, find out (the hard way?) They get conned by lying cads and players, they follow their attractions to the bad boys etc. But many can and do realise their mistakes and then make better informed choices. Sure it is too bad it took bad choices to learn who the better choices are, but isnt that human? Dont we all make mistakes along the way, and the smart ones learn from those mistakes?

Believe it or not I agree but I think you’re missing two key points that I made above:

1. The more we just throw young women to the wolves to learn the hard way over the culture trying to teach them some defenses first the more likely women are to take much or even most of their fertile period learning the hard way. A by product of learning the hard way to that degree is children without a reliable partner.

2. While we let women learn the hard way we ironically teach men the wrong lesson at the same time. Too many men will have learned “Dark Triad for the win” by the time women learn “nice is better than mean”.

@Esau

On what planet? This absolutely does not correspond to any reality on earth that I’ve ever seen or heard of. (Can you sell tickets to the place you describe? a fortune awaits!)

This one. Do not confuse the confluence of technology (removing the need for labor to have resources) and a deliberate, nearly society wide attempt to subvert those instinctual preferences with their non-existance.
evilalpha

I’ve known plenty, and I mean plenty, of female 4s, 5s, and 6s who have a very hard time attracting male attention.

Hey Sassy,

Define 4/5/6 for me.
Sassy6519

@ Mike C

Well….right. This is just common sense. Put yourself in the shoes of man. You are the approacher and initiator. Obviously, you want to land the woman you find the most visually attractive. The only way to calibrate this is start with perhaps the highest you realistically think you can pull and see what you actually can get and who you are rejected by. I know if I were single tomorrow, I have a sense of what is the highest end I realistically might be able to pull versus what is the lowest boundary I would find acceptable, but I would be more inclined to work from the top down for anything seriously long-term.

I get this, but my question is what do low SMV men do?

If a man is a 4, 5, or 6, on the SMV scale, I see only 3 options.

1. Find and date a woman with comparable low SMV to yourself. It does happen, and I’ve seen plenty of unattractive people get together.

2. Work on himself until he increases his SMV as much as possible. Realistic boundaries should be noted, however. Not every man can be an 8, 9, or 10. That’s just the way things are. Not all men can date 8, 9, and 10 SMV women. That’s just the way things are.

3. Refuse to date women of comparable SMV and remain alone, or spend most of his time alone. If a man would rather lust over women in porn than land a tangible woman that he could reasonably get, that’s his prerogative.

I think it’s important for both men and women to come to terms with their true SMV rank. If you have low SMV, accept it or do something to change it. If the women or men that you want aren’t paying any attention to you, lower the bar.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

In my experience it’s a bigger tell for men with strong feminine sides. Worse experience at a con ever was the entire troop of scouts being done in cosplay by 40+ year old men. Take about a brain blech moment.

Well Latinos have a long tradition of transvestism, so no necessarily brain bleach for me as long as is well done and not to mock women I find men dressed as women really interesting and fun. Sadly I goggled it and those guys should had made more effort like shaving at the very least and using padding to simulate breasts…Oh well the intention counts I guess.
evilalpha

Evilalpha: “Asshole is aphrodisiac.”
Why is that? From an evolutionary standpoint, why do assholes make the best mates?

Short answer…Assholes have the bandwidth.

Let me explain. Social ranking determines access and control of survival resources especially among primate species. In a primal environment, assholery is prerequisite for males in scaling the social ladder as well as securing a high position. Quite simply, the more completive the environment the worse nice males do.

Now the females in such settings don’t have modern feminist constructs and manmade technology to aid in their survival. Without such “freedoms” these primitive females are dependent on the group for individual survival and extremely dependent on the group for the survival of any potential offspring.

Having a baby is a costly endeavor and so any charity/support is critical. Higher ranking males can grant favors/help. Lower ranking males typically do not have the resources or command of resources to take care of anyone but themselves.

Want proof of female preference?
Check out the paternity rates in primate groups. It is the biggest asshole, not the “best looking”, nor the “nicest” monkey that has the most baby mamas.

Hope that helps
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @evilalpha
  
  In a primal environment, assholery is prerequisite for males in scaling the social ladder as well as securing a high position
  
  Um, I don’t think so. The leader had to be a man who could command loyalty and respect from other men. An asshole, defined as someone only looking out for #1, would not meet those criteria. If a man rose to the top by sheer physical prowess, but was an asshole, it was just a matter of time before other men plotted his downfall. Men can’t be leaders without being popular or despots. There’s no reason to believe that despots could have prevailed in the ancestral environment.
Sassy6519

@ evilalpha

Hey Sassy,

Define 4/5/6 for me.

Sure. I’ll use some other descriptions of the hotness scale, since I’m in agreement with them.

http://livingwithballs.com/the-hotness-scale-defined/

http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/the-10-point-scale-for-female-attractiveness/
INTJ

@ Sassy

Sure. I’ll use some other descriptions of the hotness scale, since I’m in agreement with them.

http://livingwithballs.com/the-hotness-scale-defined/

http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/the-10-point-scale-for-female-attractiveness/

Interesting. I find the 6 in the first link photos to be the most attractive and the 8 to be the least attractive…

The first link is also rather useless in describing attractiveness, since it describes the male’s subjective reaction, not the objective attractiveness of the person.

But I think Badger’s comment in the second link is most relevant:

-Interesting you put “plain” at 4. In reality, I think most plain women are around level 6 for most men. I can never get tired of mentioning this, but most men don’t have any options, so they will consider any woman who isn’t busted in their “league.” Honestly, for your average beta, a plain woman with a pleasant personality is great relationship material.

Trouble is, even plain women are of course not very interested in guys who don’t have options, so those guys’ willingness to accept a lack of spectacular beauty in their mate is useless in the marketplace.

It’s weird that the author of that list says that “weight may or may not be a problem” for 4s. He seems to be saying that 5s and above don’t have weight problems, which means that most men would be happy to have a 5 or 6, given that over 50% of young women are overweight.
Passer_By

@sassy

At a quick glance, I don’t completely disagree with the guy’s verbal descriptions at the livingwithballs site (though I think he makes the 8 and 9 status too unattainable), but his rankings of the pictures at the top are downright bizarre. His 5 is really a 7. His 6 is an 8, His 7 is an 8+ or 9, and his 8 is really a 5 or a 6 but with big boobs. His 8.5 is too weirded up to rate (who is that?). His 9 is barely more attractive than his 6 and 7, if at all.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  His 8.5 is too weirded up to rate (who is that?)
  
  Clearly he has a fetish. She’s gross. He also has a thing for huge asses. That pic of Kim Kardashian makes her look very bottom heavy, far from ideal.
  
  Also, Drew Barrymore is not a 5. Sheesh, I’d like to see some of these guys doing the judging.
Sassy6519

@ Passer_By

I thought his personal rankings of the pictures were off as well. I didn’t really have a problem with his written descriptions of the different numbers though.
Escoffier

Susan, re the 80%, that WAS my point, that people need to learn to be happier with what they have/can get. Sure, guys may be able to improve their chances with game but they still won’t be able to get the HB10s.

What I gather from a lot of comments from men is that while there are many who simply want a nice girl and are frustrated that they can’t get one, there are also many who see the top alphas snagging 10 after 10 and they envy that tremendously and often resent both the guys and the girls. I don’t think that sour feeling will ever go away, even with game.

The analogy is someone who envies the rich. He makes some coin, but finds that prices have risen all around him. He still can’t afford Park or 5th. So he makes even more money and still prices go up and no dice. There are people like that who can never be satisfied unless they are at the very top and never will be, even though by other metrics they might have very nice lives.

So, my point was, don’t assume that even if a lot more guys learned game all the whining would stop. The pool of super-winners will always be small.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So, my point was, don’t assume that even if a lot more guys learned game all the whining would stop. The pool of super-winners will always be small.
  
  Agree 100%. I just don’t care for whining. That is literally the antithesis of what is attractive in a male. Sack up or shut up. Sorry to be brutal, but that’s the bottom line. For a woman, hearing a male whine is sickitating.
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Tom

Ted I agree with what you are saying.. As for the women poping out babies, I just dont get it. A simple IUD or the pill or (heaven forbid) condoms will cure that problem

Why are you surprised a woman learning in the school of hard knocks about men’s behavior is doing so without a thought out plan on birthcontrol. Lack of forethought and planning is the same in both cases.

@Adam

She asks what you do for a living, holler back: “Do I look like I have a damn job?”

She asks about your background, tell her you report to your probation officer every third Tuesday.

And if she asks you to describe your feelings on emotional domestic abuse, tell her, “They’re evolving!”

I’d try that but I do, in fact, look like I have a damn job.

@Susan

It’s not scary. I just wrote a post about the appeal of the Bad Boy. Every woman ever born understands this. I’ve also explained why he is alluring. Honestly, my motive in writing this post was to say, “Yes! We are drawn to Bad Boys! At 13 the dark, brooding, disaffected male is very tempting indeed. I see no shame in this. As we mature we learn to make good choices.

Isn’t it the same for men? Don’t you graduate from wanting a roll with the town slut to wanting a woman of higher relationship value?

We all have base instincts, and we overrule them with higher order thinking. Isn’t that obvious? I don’t find that women are unwilling to admit this in the least. Oof, the stuff I’ve heard said at the focus group meetings…

In this place and time men are still strongly encouraged to make that transition early and are looked down on for not doing so.

Women, on the other hand, or encouraged to explore those dark attractions sufficiently before “settling” for a nice guy. While the ‘sphere makes that script out to be much more sinister than the reality the core idea: that we encourage women not to overcome base instincts but to reveal in them for at least their 20s (again, through most of their fertile life) is very real.

@Mike M.

I think everybody is ignoring the effects of culture. Teenage girls have been marinating in “Good Girl Reforms Bad Boy” romantic comedies for decades. And are eager to be the heroine of their own live-action rom-com.

Which inevitably proves to be Tragedy, not Comedy. But the girls don’t get that signal from the culture. And keep making the same mistakes.

+my next bonus (and remember, I’m a banker)

I think that’s still Susan’s biggest blind spot: that our culture has actively quit encouraging women to move away from the basest attractors and teaching them a better way. Until recently, men only got the old messages about stand-up guy and all that. However, nature will seek balance and men, having no successful guidance on using higher traits are figuring out how to use their baser ones.

@Ana

Tell me about it and the last Disney movies have a thief and a womanizer changing in one day because of “the Disney princess that loved them”… we are so fucking screwed up.

Which ones are these?

@J

What’s interesting to me is we are making so much of this. Most adults understand that there’s a lot in between; I would that these girls will also figure that out.

Because our culture, by teaching women to indulge this thinking before “settling down” means many of those girls, instead of being taught by adults, will be figuring it out on their own at 35 while shopping with the one who got away for his wedding suit and still be too clueless to realize the bride is figuratively pissing on her by encouraging it.

Another will get artifically inseminated at 38 due to baby rabies and the fact she’s got a 60+ item list. Five years later she’ll write a book where she’s confused about why she still can’t find a man and oblivious to the idea that maybe it’s her.

Meanwhile the 13 year old boys out in the park late talking smack will learn from these girls that being the embodiment of the Dark Triad is they way to go. They’ll figure it out about the time these girls finally get a clue on why the Dark Triad isn’t what they want.

@M

But when women admit stuff like this, it appears to me that men can’t handle it. They don’t want to know the truth.

Actually, it’s not the truth we can’t handle. It’s them expecting those of us who aren’t douche-bags to still be their emotional support systems afterwards. It’s also them getting mad when we decide to become what they admitted they want.

@Marc

“The person who cares least in a relationship has all the power”

In my current relationship I have intentionally worked to maintain least interest to the best degree that I can. I’m learning it does make it easier but I also notice I’m less attached. It probably is why the poly doesn’t bother me as much…I’m working hard to be less into her than she is into me…which is ironic as I’m the mono one and she’s the poly one, but what works works.

@Susan

That is a great point, I totally agree. For example, I think Sex and the City did a lot to promote casual, no-strings sex. It romanticized the one-night stand, the asshole (Mr. Big), and ridiculed the man of good character (Aidan). It’s the culture that creates the lag between the perception of hooking up and the actual behavior of students.

Yet you’re surprised in the world of “Sex and the City” that men don’t buy women prefer pair bonding traits? You may have science on your side but when most men have their own experiment proof on their side you need to expand your theory. It’s like trying to convince someone who is in a frame of reference moving at 0.9c relative to you that Newtonian motion is valid. It is, but it’s incomplete because it doesn’t account for their environment.

@Ana

This was prior 92 when John Paul 2 decided that it was “more than a theory” but at that point I was done and for the looks of it they haven’t changed their stances against proof. I mean I have nothing against faith, but blind faith…nope if your vision of the world doesn’t match science is time to go back to the drawing board, IMO, YMMV.

It’s not that they’re anti-proof. In fact, an openness to science is why I left Protestant upbringing for the Catholic Church.

What most people tend to forget is how old the Church is. The only institution on the planet that is as old as The Catholic and Orthodox Churches is the Japanese Imperial Family.

Institutions don’t survive that long without being very deliberate in their changes. They are large ships that take time to steer. John Paul II was “right on time” in my evaluation. He also laid the groundwork for the Church to approve birth control for married couples with his Theology of the Body but I don’t expect that logical outcome until about 2050. Notice both are roughly 100 years (2-3 generations) after the triggering event (Darwin and the Pill respectively).

@Ana

Really? If I came here saying that the best way to catch a man would be listening to 13 year old boy wishes would you take me seriously?

Why You’re Not Married

I am the mother of a 13-year-old boy, which is like living with the single-cell protozoa version of a husband. Here’s what my son wants out of life: macaroni and cheese, a video game, and Kim Kardashian. Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian angry? I didn’t think so. You’ve seen Kim Kardashian smile, wiggle, and make a sex tape. Female anger terrifies men. I know it seems unfair that you have to work around a man’s fear and insecurity in order to get married — but actually, it’s perfect, since working around a man’s fear and insecurity is big part of what you’ll be doing as a wife.

A widely written, talked about, supported, and opposed article makes just that argument.

So, yes, women apparently do take listening to 13 year old boys seriously.

I take listening to 13 year old girls seriously in the context of understanding what they innately bring to the field because, in our culture, we’ve abandoned to a large degree trying to better equip them. So, instead of teaching them our mistakes we’re letting them make the same ones. That’s what makes it valuable: understanding how we get here and how we might change it for the next generation
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Herb
  
  Yet you’re surprised in the world of “Sex and the City” that men don’t buy women prefer pair bonding traits? You may have science on your side but when most men have their own experiment proof on their side you need to expand your theory. It’s like trying to convince someone who is in a frame of reference moving at 0.9c relative to you that Newtonian motion is valid. It is, but it’s incomplete because it doesn’t account for their environment.
  
  But Sex and the City is not real or accurate. It’s just culture, and it’s fake. That’s not what the SMP looks like, even in NY.
ExNewYorker

“I suspect on some level no woman can grok why *most* guys….even those who wouldn’t necessarily exercise it…still would want to be part of the group of males who can get casual sex. Being part of that group is connected to alot of the dynamics of the male psyche. Why do you think the “price discrimination” issue is something that bothers guys so much?”

Have to reiterate Mike C.’s point here. For a majority of men, there’s always some deep fantasy of unrestricted casual sex with a variety of hot women. Now, few guys short of rock stars, movie stars, etc., get this sort of access, so most guys have learned to sublimate or ignore or find alternatives to this desire or they realize that scratching that itch is not consequence free. But the desire is still there.
Escoffier

Sassy, in your first link, I found both the 8 and the 8.5 disgusting. And trashy. No way. Not for me.
chris

I think we need to reexamine the emphasis being placed on “pair bonding.” Simply put, the modern notion of lifelong marriage is NOT “natural” hence why there are so many problems without harsh social restriction. In the human societies our ancestors emerged from, ithat is pre-settled farming societies, everyone in the tribe of a 150 or so people was vaguely related to each other and the women slept with many men and the men slept with many women. Everyone’s thirst for sexual novelty was consistently quenched, and paternity certainty did not matter all that much as the tribe as a whole functioned as the father of children.

It’s as if the life’s of many young women is reverting to this primordial state of human sexuality without a comparable number of young men experiencing the same.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Chris
  
  Eh, Sex at Dawn made a splash among sex pozzies, but the authors are supposedly personally invested in open marriage, and I don’t think any scholars took the book seriously.
INTJ

@ Herb

Yet you’re surprised in the world of “Sex and the City” that men don’t buy women prefer pair bonding traits? You may have science on your side but when most men have their own experiment proof on their side you need to expand your theory.It’s like trying to convince someone who is in a frame of reference moving at 0.9c relative to you that Newtonian motion is valid. It is, but it’s incomplete because it doesn’t account for their environment.

ROFL. This comment is gold!
M

@ Sassy
http://livingwithballs.com/the-hotness-scale-defined/

Omg. I am genuinely surprised a woman agrees with this. I have always known men rate up big boobs significantly but that “8” …..
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Courtley

The reality is, I think, that for a lot of men it’s actually comforting to believe that women in aggregate are biologically incapable of being genuinely attracted to traits that are good in LTRs. This absolves them of the responsibility to admit that their own individual relationship/sexual issues and shortcomings may have been partly their own fault–perhaps through bad factors they could not control, like personality and life situation, but still things that centered around them, not the other. With the worldview they have now, all fault lies with women, with “female nature.”

I believe human beings are capable of escaping biological destiny. That is the essence of humanity. At the risk of quoting Ayn Rand, the human survival instinct/adaptation is reason.

However, I do think we live in a culture that values living on instinct and recrating the wheel instead of teaching what reason has allowed us to learn and transmit for millenia in some weird quest for freedom (from reason?) or authenticity. One of the places we’ve done this more than any other is with young women with respect to sexuality. Why?

Yes, it is. But this is always what happens whenever people get ideologically committed to a worldview first, and get interested in evidence second.

We allowed ideology about patriarchy, freedom, oppression, and so on to trump the knowledge our forebearers gave us.

Burke advocated that we draw “from the general bank of the ages, because he suspected that any particular person or generation has a rather small stock of reason; thus where the radical argues “we don’t understand the purpose of this social custom; let’s dismantle it,” the conservative says “since we don’t understand it, we’d better leave it alone.” – Jerry Pournelle

Humans over come biology by reason. Reason, over time, produces shared knowledge we transmit. When it comes to female sexuality in western nations we are now ruled by radicals. Thus, women are expected to reason all this out more and more on their own. That this isn’t working as well as teaching should not surprise anyone.

@JustXY

if you remove consequences (and so much thought) from tingle chasing, perhaps the cause of the attraction (e.g. confidence) does take priority over the reality (in this case narcissism). Does it really matter that you pick a bad-boy if right here & now he’s got the consequence free tingle going?

Men would be wise to avoid claiming the moral high-ground on short term sexual thinking imho, but maybe it’s more corrosive on society when women reward bad behaviour (rather than men doing ONS with physical hotties but bad-girl personalities). It sends all the wrong signals to proto-PUAs, and hurts the good guys. Nobody wins in the end, well, apart from the alphas and genuine badboyz.

Exactly. Susan likes to talk about the 80% aren’t and 20% are but at some point enough people are being unwise that those who aren’t decide to change their behavior to “get some”. My concern is the explosion of the ‘sphere and celebration of Dark Triad traits is evidence we’ve reached a tipping point where we are failing to teach enough women (and forcing them to learn on their own, the hard way) about the Dark Triad that we are rewarding men who actively try to become fake psychopaths.

The stats on the breakdown of the tie between marriage and childbirth seem to bear that fear out.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Herb
  
  My concern is the explosion of the ‘sphere and celebration of Dark Triad traits is evidence we’ve reached a tipping point where we are failing to teach enough women (and forcing them to learn on their own, the hard way) about the Dark Triad that we are rewarding men who actively try to become fake psychopaths.
  
  I share your concern. Here’s a question – Does pretending to be a psychopath lead to genuine psychopathy?
evilalpha

Omg. I am genuinely surprised a woman agrees with this. I have always known men rate up big boobs significantly but that “8″

Even most men wouldn’t rank her an 8. She’s got top rack, but face and overall body are just Ok. I think she’s a 6.
Mike M.

With regard to beauty, I think taste has a certain amount to do with how men rate women. One man’s 8 is another’s 10. And vice versa.

The key is for a woman to look attractive enough to get a man interested…then reel him in with personality/character. Susan’s 25 tips from a week or so ago.

It also helps to cast your hook where the fish are…and know what fish are good.
INTJ

@ Mike M.

With regard to beauty, I think taste has a certain amount to do with how men rate women. One man’s 8 is another’s 10. And vice versa.

The key is for a woman to look attractive enough to get a man interested…then reel him in with personality/character. Susan’s 25 tips from a week or so ago.

It also helps to cast your hook where the fish are…and know what fish are good.

Personally my tastes are perfectly demonstrated by the MGID ads at the bottom of HUS posts (not the celebrity stuff, but the “x bits of advice w.r.t. men” pics). The girls are sooooo attractive. Serious eye-candy right there.
deti

@ Herb:

“However, I do think we live in a culture that values living on instinct and recrating the wheel instead of teaching what reason has allowed us to learn and transmit for millenia in some weird quest for freedom (from reason?) or authenticity. One of the places we’ve done this more than any other is with young women with respect to sexuality. Why?”

Because:

1. neither men nor women liked living under the limitations and restrictions it placed on their sexual conduct.

2. cheap, safe and effective birth control meant those restrictions and limitations could be removed.

3. women quickly learned they could get confident, dominant, good looking men for sex (but not much else). Result: women and the top men get the vast majority of the sex.

4. women no longer need husbands due to no fault divorce and the ability to earn their own money.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Which ones are these?

Tangled Flint aka Eugene is a thief and he changes his ways for Blondie in fact she makes friends with a bunch of criminals in a bar all of them change their ways because she reminds them of their dreams.
The princess and the frog: Prince Naveem is obviously a lazy womanizer and even though his transformation took longer he ends up a hard working man in love with the hard working leading lady.
This are a far cry from the classic Disney Princes even Aladdin had a better back story and he was already a good guy that only stealed food so he wouldn’t starve, a different set of goals that robbing the crown to become rich IMO, and he already showed nobility by offering the genie to be free before he marries Jasmine, Eugene shows no redeeming qualities aside from falling for Blondie after telling her “the sad history of his childhood”. Again we are fucking screwed up.

So, yes, women apparently do take listening to 13 year old boys seriously.
*facepalm* Specially her reasoning it never occurred to her that her son was an ass man? Maybe?

It’s not that they’re anti-proof. In fact, an openness to science is why I left Protestant upbringing for the Catholic Church.
Don’t get me wrong I have evangelical relatives that are really in denial about this so I know you could had done worse in the terms of what religion takes science less seriously.

Institutions don’t survive that long without being very deliberate in their changes.

True but I already made the change and at least in my country there is not so much closeness about other subjects so back then it was really frustrating that we couldn’t even talk about the subject.
I’m not that optimistic about birth control though part of the reason beyond not birth control is to avoid getting outnumbered by the Muslims I think the Muslims are going to become the majority religion anyway but I don’t think they will give up on this for a longer time, maybe a whole century, YMMV.
Sai

@Sassy
So this is how that scale works.
Thanks for sharing the truth.

@Herb
“I believe human beings are capable of escaping biological destiny.”
So do I! Sometimes articles about gender relations sound so fatalistic, as if no one can do better than to blindly follow primitive instinct. Those aren’t necessarily all bad, but we learned to use toilets, so we can improve in this area too.
Escoffier

Susan, Devlin is not a rogue academic. He is actually a reasonably competent scholar in my own field and has written a book about a very complex thinker. I gather that he does not have a tenured position somewhere but that is no shame on him, lots of good scholars can’t get jobs in this market. Devlin is a student of philosophy, which is far more complex, demanding and comprehensive a field than any of the ancillary social sciences, all of which are derivative from one branch of philosophy. I would put more stock in what a philosopher says about social phenomena the same way that I would trust what a physicist says about math or chemistry rather than the reverse. Also, Devlin is not a game blogger and all his writings on this precede the emergence of the game blogs.

Beyond this, you know what I think of credentialism. It makes more sense to focus on the quality of the arguments.

As to that, if hypergamy is all about marriage, then what accounts for college girls chasing frat stars and super jocks? That’s not hypergamy?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  As to that, if hypergamy is all about marriage, then what accounts for college girls chasing frat stars and super jocks? That’s not hypergamy?
  
  It appears that the women chasing them are fellow Greeks. I believe they see these men as their equals.
  
  There’s no question that some single women flock to high status males. That is indeed hypergamy. Presumably, if they landed one of these males for a relationship, their hypergamous needs would be satisfied. However, 90% of college women don’t chase frat stars or super jocks. What does that tell you about their level of hypergamy?
  
  Zach provided stats from Penn about the sexual partners of frat stars and varsity athletes vs. everyone else. They were higher, but not much. I should post that.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I believe human beings are capable of escaping biological destiny. That is the essence of humanity.

I like the term transcend more than escape but I share a similar outlook.
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@deti

My “why” was rhetorical because the next bit of Courtley I quoted was meant to answer it.

Not that I disagree with your reasons, but they can be rolled up in “people get ideologically committed to a worldview first” (feminism in this case).

What your list doesn’t answer is if #1-4 are true, why are so many women who have reaped the benefits of #1-4 unhappy with the outcome.

“we don’t understand the purpose of this social custom; let’s dismantle it” applies more to marriage than I think even people in the ‘sphere who complain about marriage 2.0 think about it.

Marriage is one of the oldest identifiable customs. Feminist reductionism that turns it into “property rights over women” isn’t comprehensive enough, but no ‘sphere analysis is either IMHO. We mostly acknowledge the family and marriage are the foundational building blocks of society but I don’t think any of us have more than a fractional understand of why that is. It got to where it is over 6,000+ (probably 20,000+) years over several billion people. That’s a lot of knowledge just flushed down the toilet.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

If you do “view results” on this page, you can see the ratings:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/female-beauty-from-1-to-10/

I think this is better because not all of the girls are celebrities.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Kids love to be scared and teased in a safe environment. It’s the same psychology that makes fairy tales appealing, even though many of them have scary stuff happening, e.g. children get eaten!

I’m sure the effect would had been the same if it would had been a little boy. Specially if her parents only have white washed fairytales for them to know or/and are helicoptering if everyone is playing it safe for the kids of course they are going to remember the stranger that scared them but was not mean or threatening.
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Ana

I like the term transcend more than escape but I share a similar outlook.

I agree, it’s a better term.
INTJ

@ Herb

Marriage is one of the oldest identifiable customs. Feminist reductionism that turns it into “property rights over women” isn’t comprehensive enough, but no ‘sphere analysis is either IMHO. We mostly acknowledge the family and marriage are the foundational building blocks of society but I don’t think any of us have more than a fractional understand of why that is. It got to where it is over 6,000+ (probably 20,000+) years over several billion people. That’s a lot of knowledge just flushed down the toilet.

To be fair though, marriage has always been changing over time, and went through dramatic changes in the past several hundred years.

Of course, it never was abandoned altogether as liberals tried to do recently (unsuccessfully I hope).
Joe

@Hope:

If you do “view results” on this page, you can see the ratings:

That’s hilarious.

I’m amused by how seriously and consistently wrong the results are. There’s one who’s underrated by at least 4 points, the one rated a 10 (um… that’s achievable by mere mortals, btw) is overrated by at least 1 and is not as attractive as two others in the group (and maybe 3).

Most are seriously underrated and underrated out of spite, I think.

Okay, some are celebrities. That scale has nothing to do with the scale we used for real women in college.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Of course, it never was abandoned altogether as liberals tried to do recently (unsuccessfully I hope).

Nah the moment marriage becomes something only done minority elite, and I mean demonstrated, they will be rallying about how poor people deserve to be married and how society failed them, the whole competition among women will only means that if only the high class gets the ring all women will want it. That would be an interesting addition to the SMP for sure, YMMV.
INTJ

@ Joe

That’s hilarious.

I’m amused by how seriously and consistently wrong the results are. There’s one who’s underrated by at least 4 points, the one rated a 10 (um… that’s achievable by mere mortals, btw) is overrated by at least 1 and is not as attractive as two others in the group (and maybe 3).

Most are seriously underrated and underrated out of spite, I think.

Okay, some are celebrities. That scale has nothing to do with the scale we used for real women in college.

No shit. I guess PUAs have a weird taste in looks.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  No shit. I guess PUAs have a weird taste in looks.
  
  Haha. It’s called “everyone I bang is an 8, at least.” It warps the mind after a while.
Sai

@Anacaona
The comment about the elite and marriage is interesting. A couple of years ago I saw articles/books about marriage being for white people.
Escoffier

Susan, I think all that the guys are saying here is that looks matter more to guys than they do to girls.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Susan, I think all that the guys are saying here is that looks matter more to guys than they do to girls.
  
  Cosign that. But looks do matter to girls, and they matter to teenage girls most of all.
Passer_By

On this hypergamy thing, Susan is getting hung up on definitions. The traditional definition of hypergamy is based on the notion in many societies throughout history that girls should seek to marry up in social class. Of course it was a “marriage” related decision, because traditionally, marriage was the only time at which they could pick a mate.

But Devlin has simply chosen to apply the word to a different (modern) phenomenon – namely the notion that women are more selective in the sexual attraction than men are. In other words, a female 6 will not be as physically attracted to a male 6 as he will typically be to her. On the other hand, she might be even more attracted to a male 10 than the male 6 would be to a female 10. These numbers aren’t just as to physical attractiveness, but as to the combination of things that each sex desires. You’ve never seen a bunch of boys faint in the presence of some hot woman the ways girls used to faint in the presence of the Beatles or Elvis. To me, this is “Devlinesque” hypergamy in a nut shell.

There’s a reason why we’ve always had the “girl next door” fantasy but never the “boy next door” equivalent.

Having said that, it seems to me that manosphere just randomly applies the word “hypergamy” to just about any female behavior they don’t like. That women often prefer thugs and bad boys to reasonably good looking but nice and stable guys is not a function of hypergamy – it’s owing to the fact that evolution has obviously saddled them with some unfortunate attraction triggers that often cause them rank the desireability of men in a perverse order. And the fact that women so often feel compelled to frivolously divorce is not usually a function of hypergamy – since it’s unlikely that a 35 year old mother is likely to do better in a mate than she was able to get when she was 25 and stretch mark free. Women’s sexual rank falls much faster than a mans in that time frame, so the odds of her “trading up” would seem pretty slim in most cases. But nature seems to have cursed her with a need to find a new mate (probably for genetic variety), so she suddenly starts to find her old mate reprehensible, even though he’s the same average joe she seemed happy to marry. I’ve seen this a lot, and the level of contempt these women generate for their husbands is not pretty.

He who can no longer be mentioned here once did an interesting statistical analysis and created a graph showing that the rate of divorce for every 1,000 married women is a steadily declining curve after the age of about 22 or so, asymototically approaching zero as they get older. Assuming his analysis is correct (I don’t know if it was), this would at least seem to suggest that her urge to chuck her mate so as to seek a new one is heavily influenced by whether she perceives that she can more or less trade sideways. Like I said, the notion of trading up from what she could snag when she was 5 or 10 years younger and hadn’t given birth two or three times seems unlikely in most cases. But if for some reason her husband’s mate status falls dramatically, all bets are off for many women, I guess.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  Having said that, it seems to me that manosphere just randomly applies the word “hypergamy” to just about any female behavior they don’t like.
  
  No sh*t. I appreciated your comment, it rings true, and I would simply observe that nowhere do you claim that hypergamy is a lifelong burden that women shoulder. I feel strongly that this notion of lifelong discontentment is a troubling one. It also seems likely to curtail reproduction, so I’m not sure why women would be plagued by “base hypergamous urges” even after marriage.
Passer_By

Also, Susan, I have a son that just turned 13. Oddly, when he was in the range of 7 to 11 years old, all the girls in class seemed (according to their parents) to have little crushes on him based on looks and the fact that he did well. I know one guy who used to tease his daugher mercilessly about it. But in the last year or two I’ve noticed a lot of them go for the jerks in his class who are in fact a bit mean and (more importantly) get in trouble a lot. And they are not objectively better looking. In fact, one was sort of a doughy oaf and the other kind of funny looking but with a high level of cocky social dominance and machiavellianism.

Just food for thought.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  But in the last year or two I’ve noticed a lot of them go for the jerks in his class who are in fact a bit mean and (more importantly) get in trouble a lot. And they are not objectively better looking. In fact, one was sort of a doughy oaf and the other kind of funny looking but with a high level of cocky social dominance and machiavellianism.
  
  Thanks, that is a good field report. It sounds like a cocky attitude can boost a guy’s SMV even in 7th grade.
Escoffier

Passer_By @361 is very good, but I would clarify one thing. It’s probably true that few women, especially as they get older, SUCCESSFULLY divorce their husbands and upgrade. But apparently it’s not uncommon for women to initiate divorce in the hope or expectation that they can do better only to be disappointed. Dalrock points this out with lots of glee.

Even if a women doesn’t have a new mate in mind when she initiates divorce, the mere fact of dumping a dull but good man I think is a manifestation of hypergamy.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  But apparently it’s not uncommon for women to initiate divorce in the hope or expectation that they can do better only to be disappointed. Dalrock points this out with lots of glee.
  
  How does KC Lardo know this?
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Mike C and Susan, the thing about “ugly sexy” is that the guys who have had this description applied to them tend to be tall and have very high testosterone. Case in point would be Seal. Heidi Klum told the story of how when she saw him being well-endowed, she became enamored.

I don’t think “ugly sexy” is all about good game. It still seems to be mostly about raw physicality, but more on the testosterone / height / masculinity side, rather than the “pretty boy” side. Confidence and cockiness only go so far on a short and skinny guy who lacks visual markers of testosterone. It’s when you add the testosterone factor that the “ugly sexy” designation starts to make sense.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Like I said, the notion of trading up from what she could snag when she was 5 or 10 years younger and hadn’t given birth two or three times seems unlikely in most cases.

I wish this studies covered things like menopause. I do wonder if the most hypergamic women once their bodies are done with reproduction change their ways. Probably do. Still data is always important.
Escoffier

susan, when you write posts like that, it sounds like you are denying absolutely every bit of manosphere/red pill/whatever you want to call it “wisdom.”

You know you can’t deny that divorces are overwhelmingly initiated by women. What accounts for that?

You know you can’t deny that alphas clean up in this SMP and betas go betting. What accounts for that?

Really, I almost hate to say this, but you get into these modes when you are totally on “team woman.” Women have no innate bad desires they need to control. Women’s souls are pure. Biology impells them to pair bond with good, decent betas.

Meanwhile all aroud you are beta males crying out that no women will even look at them and young women tell you frankly that they think betas are gross losers, and you report that honestly in one breath, but then when a man says “that is owing to a base female desire that women need to learn to control” in the next breath you howl in anger.

Really, I have a hard time escaping the conclusion that you just can’t accept that there is anything dangerous or unruly about female sexuality. About men, sure, but the girls are pure.

So, if that is true, I ask again, why do we have hookup culture? You’ve said a thousand times that women are the gatekeepers to sex. if their sexual desire is so biologically driven to noble, productive ends, why are we in this mess?

My own opinion is that, any time a male says something unflattering about female sexuality, you take as an attack and feel obliged to defend. Well, most of us men are quite capable of discussing our own low natures analytically without getting our backs up and without believing that this low nature defines our whole being.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  I don’t know what comment you are referring to.
  
  You know you can’t deny that divorces are overwhelmingly initiated by women. What accounts for that?
  
  I’ve written a post about this:
  
  http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/01/10/hookinguprealities/the-eat-pray-love-divorce-trend/
  
  In it I share the only study to be published on the topic, one that even Lackrod did not uncover.
  
  You know you can’t deny that alphas clean up in this SMP and betas go betting. What accounts for that?
  
  Dammit, I am losing patience with you. If you really had read the definitive survey post, you would know this is simply not true. Let me say it one more time:
  
  3% of men have more than 6 partners in college.
  20% of men have more than 3 partners in college.
  50% of college freshman males get laid in a semester.
  
  The numbers imply that many guys are getting some sex, and very few guys are getting a lot of sex.
  
  Meanwhile all aroud you are beta males crying out that no women will even look at them and young women tell you frankly that they think betas are gross losers,
  
  Excuse me? Women telling me that betas are gross losers? WTF are you talking about? It’s men who say that here, not women.
  
  My own opinion is that, any time a male says something unflattering about female sexuality, you take as an attack and feel obliged to defend. Well, most of us men are quite capable of discussing our own low natures analytically without getting our backs up and without believing that this low nature defines our whole being.
  
  There are many objective reports about female sexuality. I’ve written posts on most of them. I won’t link, because it’s clear to me you don’t bother really considering anything I say. I have never opined on female sexuality without citing sources. Unbiased, academic sources. You keep citing Game bloggers and MRAs as sources. Frankly, I see you as someone who emotionally buys into a certain narrative for reasons unknown to me. Fine, you do what you need to do.
  
  The post is about why females like bad boys. I guess that’s not apologetic enough for you. I don’t understand your motives here. You want a blog where the conversation is civil, yet you relentlessly push your agenda in a way that challenges my composure and makes civility very difficult. You’re talking, but you’re not listening. I don’t think you really have an interest in anything but having your own conclusions confirmed.
  
  I really, really hate it when this blog is no fun.
Passer_By

“But apparently it’s not uncommon for women to initiate divorce in the hope or expectation that they can do better only to be disappointed. Dalrock points this out with lots of glee.”

I know he does – but I don’t think most women in that case are thinking of it as “trading up”. I think nature just compels them to start to be really put off by their husband and to feel “suffocated” in the marriage.

“Even if a women doesn’t have a new mate in mind when she initiates divorce, the mere fact of dumping a dull but good man I think is a manifestation of hypergamy.”

Again, I think applying the term “hypergamy” here is inapt. I think (and I’m just speculating) it is a manifestation of the fact that evolution has given her an inner urge for serial monogamy for the purpose of genetic variety in her offspring. If it were all about hypergamy, evolution would have instilled in her a desire to stay with that initial mate absent an extreme change in circumstances, because she is so unlikely to do better after having aged 10 years and birthed a few kids.

Also, I think the mistake that you (and Susan) are making is that you are conflating unexplainable urges that nature gives women (and that result in a certain outcome) with their conscious thoughts. If you do that, they can sound very aweful – constantly looking for a better deal. But if nature tricks them into suddenly feeling like their old mate is vile (for the purpose of encouraging genetic variety), you can bet she will feel quite justified about leaving him. When a guy wants to leave a woman, he usually retains a lot of feeling and compassion for her – almost a protectiveness. When the wife wants to get rid of the husband, the contempt is usually off the charts and permanent. They really convince themselves that this guy is disgusting and horrible, even though the woman’s SMV has usually fallen a lot more than his since their marriage. Go figure.
Passer_By

@susan

“At best, cuckoldry was always an enormous gamble, and rarely intentional”

Again, this is an example of what I said above about conflating conscious thoughts with the “strategy” that evolution has given them through urges and desires. It’s not that women plan to cuckold in the vast majority of cases, it’s that evolution would selected for genes that gave them the urge to cheat with a higher mate status male at optimum times. They may well feel horrible about it immediately afterwords and forever, but it doesn’t change the outcome.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  evolution would selected for genes that gave them the urge to cheat with a higher mate status male at optimum times. They may well feel horrible about it immediately afterwords and forever, but it doesn’t change the outcome.
  
  Are you saying that women were not capable of assessing risk when choosing sexual partners? Females would certainly have been aware that if they were caught cheating they might be killed for it.
  
  Or are you simply making the point that both women and men experience the urge to cheat? Which is obviously true. I believe around a quarter of both sexes cheat in marriage – women commit as much adultery as men do.
  
  That doesn’t mean that cuckoldry was a conscious strategy so that women could get superior genes and resources from two different men, which is what INTJ claimed. The female mating strategy could either be short or long-term. When long-term, it required a tradeoff re status vs. provisioning.
Escoffier

One more thing. In another thread, you quoted a married female character from a Woody Allen movie saying something like “Whether I do or don’t sleep with this hot famous actor, either way, I will regret it forever, so I may as well fuck him.” And you said most women feel/think that way.

And now once again here you are getting all pissed off at me for saying that women have a natural hypergamous impulse? Are you serious? Do you not see the massive contradiction here?
chris

NO Susan, you have it wrong.

Read “Sex at Dawn.”

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
Susuan, when you describe cuckoldry, what is the time frame you’re talking about?

I guess cuckoldry would be a problem in settled farming societies where, just the land, women became a sort of property. But in the societies that humans naturally evolved it — hunter gatherer groups of about 150 people — it’s pretty dubious that the men cared that much about paternity certainty since the men were all likely to be related to the each other to some degree anyway. Look at the description of how carefree about sex those polynesian natives Captain Cook encountered in his voyages were. The women would consistently go around fucking multiple men, meaning that the society did not really care about who was the father of whom.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @chris
  
  Sorry, but Sex at Dawn just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Escoffier

Passer_By,

OK, that makes sense. But the deeper point stands. There is a bad/base/unproductive/immoral aspect to female sexual desire that women need to learn to control. Every time a male posts something to that effect, all Susan hears is “MISOGYNY” and she goes into defense mode for the female sex. I’m not trying to attack women. I am saying that it’s preposterous to accept that men can be pigs but insist that women are pure. It also is, or should be, antethetical to the spirit of this blog.

I mean, if Susan’s current thesis were true, all she would need to say to young women would be “Follow your instincts.” Right? Because if women are wired to seek dependable betas, then her college girl audience should naturally be locking down decent, dependable nerds right and left. Is that happening? If it were, would this blog even be necessary?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  There is a bad/base/unproductive/immoral aspect to female sexual desire that women need to learn to control.
  
  Wow.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  I am saying that it’s preposterous to accept that men can be pigs but insist that women are pure.
  
  It seems to me that you are engaging in some sort of sexual mea culpa, and you want company. I’m not talking about morality or values, or baseness. I reject that framework.
  
  I don’t accept that men are pigs. Nor do I think either sex is pure. As I mentioned earlier, it’s the morality stuff I object to here. We are designed to reproduce. For both sexes, reproduction is optimal (biologically) when sex is had with a variety of partners. However, infants died unless dad stuck around, so women learned that ONSs with very dominant men were costly, because they resulted in a year of pregnancy followed by infant death, during the woman’s key fertile years.
  
  Having sex is not the win. Getting pregnant is not the win. Raising a child to adulthood is the win. Only the latter counts as reproductive success. Therefore, women evolved to select men who gave them the best possible combination of genes and collaborative parenting, because that strategy produced the greatest number of adults.
  
  Females and males today still execute a full range of mating strategies. Both have incentives to engage in short-term mating and long-term mating. Removing the fear of pregnancy obviously provides a strong incentive for both males and females to have more sex, as the primary risk of unwanted pregnancy has been removed.
Escoffier

@376, re: young teens, yeah, cute probably is the most imporant. My childhood coincided with the first great age of the teeny-bopper girl mag, I remember it well.

But the older they get, the more that other traits matter. By 17, girls can get quite hot for scrawny ugly guys who play drums for a band that got two gigs last year.
Escoffier

Shaun Cassidy!!!!
Mike C

Mike C and Susan, the thing about “ugly sexy” is that the guys who have had this description applied to them tend to be tall and have very high testosterone. Case in point would be Seal. Heidi Klum told the story of how when she saw him being well-endowed, she became enamored.

I don’t think “ugly sexy” is all about good game. It still seems to be mostly about raw physicality, but more on the testosterone / height / masculinity side, rather than the “pretty boy” side. Confidence and cockiness only go so far on a short and skinny guy who lacks visual markers of testosterone. It’s when you add the testosterone factor that the “ugly sexy” designation starts to make sense.

Hope,

IDK….maybe you are right that this the case for some women that the “sexy/ugly” is still more about physical masculinity and high testosterone, but I think behavior/game is part of it too. I’m working off memory here but I’m 99% sure I’m right, but I think Susan referred to two characters on that Girls show as being “sexy/ugly” and neither of those guys were tall and high testosterone. I don’t recall the one character’s name, I think it has a pompous kind of ring to it, but as I recall he was a short man with a slight build.

I think we are using “looks” in a different way though. To me height is obviously a component of looks. I’d say the 3 main components of a male’s physical appearance are face, height, and build not necessarily in that order of importance. I think what you might be getting at is that some women prioritize build and height which would be masculine and dominance oriented over face which might be more “pretty”. My sense is that when Susan says “looks” she is talking somewhere between 90-100% face and not factoring in height or build. FWIW, as a side point, one of the things where I’ve noticed the biggest discrepancy between most commenters here and women IRL is on the height issue.
Escoffier

Yeah, post Zach’s numbers. I always have a hard time accepting facts that are sunnier than my world-view, but it is good for me to be exposed to them.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I always have a hard time accepting facts that are sunnier than my world-view
  
  You don’t say.
Passer_By

@susan

I have a bit of a thing for curves, but even factoring that in, that picture of Kardashian makes her look like she’s got bona fide steatopygia. Also, even considering my love of curves, his 8 is still a 6 based on her face, though she might be an 8 for purposes of a one night stand given her endowments. (Google Gianna Michaels).
INTJ

@ Susan

Escoffier and Passer_by have it right. Despite the mountain of evidence of women’s basic sexual desires (which are just as bad as men’s basic sexual desires), you seem to be emotionally clinging on to the idea that women’s basic evolutionary sexual strategies are somehow fair and pure.

To be fair, I think to some extent you perceive the notion that women might be primally attracted to jerks to be an attack on beta males, and you’re trying to defend beta males as much as you’re trying to defend females.

But simply pretending that betas are highly desirable not just as dads and romantic partners but also as sexual partners really isn’t helping. It’s very much like the “you would make a great boyfriend for someone else” speech. Telling us we’re really attractive when obviously we aren’t as attractive as the jerks doesn’t make us happy. It only makes us more frustrated.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Despite the mountain of evidence of women’s basic sexual desires (which are just as bad as men’s basic sexual desires), you seem to be emotionally clinging on to the idea that women’s basic evolutionary sexual strategies are somehow fair and pure.
  
  Sexual desire is not bad, or base, or fair, or pure. Not for either sex. It just is. We are reproducing machines. No value judgment. I categorically reject any and all attempts to categorize male or female sexual desire as any of the above.
Escoffier

he knows because he compares the divorce rate of the over 40s to their remarriage rate and, Surprise!, it turns out that a lot of them don’t get remarried. Oops!
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  he knows because he compares the divorce rate of the over 40s to their remarriage rate and, Surprise!, it turns out that a lot of them don’t get remarried. Oops!
  
  How does he know why they get divorced? I have read that a lot of women over 40 get divorced with no intention of remarrying.
INTJ

@ Susan

Clearly he has a fetish. She’s gross. He also has a thing for huge asses. That pic of Kim Kardashian makes her look very bottom heavy, far from ideal.

Also, Drew Barrymore is not a 5. Sheesh, I’d like to see some of these guys doing the judging.

According to the comments the 8.5 is Shakira… I never did like her. Agree with your Kardashian assessment too, though I think part of the problem is just the way she’s standing in that picture.

I do have to somewhat defend the Drew Barrymore assessment though. It’s true that she’s quite pretty, and I’d be very happy if I get an SO who ends up looking like her 15 years down the road. But at least from my current perspective, she looks way too old. That and the lipstick and expression she happened to have at the time look somewhat bad. Regardless, Gianna Michaels looks god awful.
OffTheCuff

Sass: “Trust me when I say that even male 4s and 5s have approached me, misguidedly thinking that they had a shot with me. It makes no sense at all.”

That’s because the 500 guys who didn’t approach you, you fail to reliaze even exist. You only see the mistakes and long shots, and then assume its everyone.

Sue: “Yes, the access to sex is asymmetrical, as sex is always more “expensive” for females.”

Not anymore, with modern technology. Not enough to erase equal the ease of access.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Not anymore, with modern technology. Not enough to erase equal the ease of access.
  
  Gee, how unfair! Is there a Director of Evolution you might take this up with?
INTJ

@ Susan

Agree 100%. I just don’t care for whining. That is literally the antithesis of what is attractive in a male. Sack up or shut up. Sorry to be brutal, but that’s the bottom line. For a woman, hearing a male whine is sickitating.

I’m not taking this personally, as I only whine on the internet.

But many nerdy males I know complain about perceived injustices, and these complaints can often be viewed as “whining”. This is in contrast to most males, who aggressively try to get what they deserve. The former strategy is cooperative (trying to convince others to treat you fairly), while the latter is adversarial (forcing others to treat you fairly). I think a healthy individual should use a balanced mixture of the two tactics (don’t be a pushover, but do try to work things out when possible).

In such an individualistic society, should women really look down on whiners? I think the pendulum is way too far on the adversarial side, and it’s a good idea to reward (within limits) cooperative behavior.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

What I like about the first looks list is that 5’s and down don’t even deserve a picture. I do wonder if anyone has made an assessment of how the looks are spread on percentage of women. The invisible 80% with not girl game = looks is probably represented on the 5 and down.
But then there is no hope for this mess to be fixed, the men with no confidence will continue orbiting 6 and up, learning game, GTWO and/or fapping to porn while the 5 and down will try to get sex and up and end up left in the shelve? Messy situation indeed. Assortative mating might had left some people on bad and unfair marriages but I’m sure the numbers were never this bad, YMMV.
Escoffier

I don’t have an agenda beyond the truth. If what you are saying about female sexuality in this thread were the truth, then there would be no problem. Women would choose dependable guys and stay with them and everyone would be happy. But that is obviously not happening. Certainly not among the young.

Susan, I read all your posts. That should be clear. When we get into these tiffs it’s because I’m reading you carefully, not because I’m ignoring you.

Bottom line: girls and boys both have low aspects to their nature that are equally low but different in their effects. Both sexes need to learn to control them. You are happy to admit that about boys but can be very defensive when it comes to the girls.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  If what you are saying about female sexuality in this thread were the truth, then there would be no problem. Women would choose dependable guys and stay with them and everyone would be happy. But that is obviously not happening.
  
  I believe your error is in believing that I claimed that women evolved to select for beta traits only. That is not what I (or the study) says. Women evolved to select for the best possible combination of superior genes and traits suitable for co-parenting. We want a hot guy who’s monogamous. Nothing new there, right? The usual unicorn theory. Very rarely can we get both. So we optimize, or conversely, settle. The ideal mate today has a mix of alpha and beta traits.
  
  Per Athol:
  
  The Alpha Traits are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.The
  
  Beta Traits are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby.
  
  So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you.
  
  As I said in the post, if a woman’s only choice is pure alpha (Hot & Mean), or pure beta (Not Hot & Nice), alpha wins every time.
  
  The problem in today’s SMP, as I see it, is that there are few men with the optimal mix of both traits – we tend to have mostly the two extremes, as observed by the 13 year old. Ideally, she will mature to select a mate with a good balance of traits, if she can find one.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  I owe you a reply re the scene in To Rome With Love where a wife is in the bedroom of a movie star, looks at herself in the mirror, and decides to cheat. I did not mean to suggest that all wives would enter the bedroom of a movie star to cheat. I meant that a wife who joins a movie star in his hotel room, then goes off the the bathroom for a heart-to-heart with herself, is very likely to use that kind of logic to go ahead with the adultery.
Escoffier

So, re: 405, that’s a denial, right? A denial that there is anything low about female sexual desire that females need to learn to control.

You have no problem accepting the same about men. I have no problem STATING the same about men. We naturally want to fuck a lot of pretty girls. But we can be educated/habituated to choose and adhere to monogamy. I believe that is the best life for both men and women. But it doesn’t come naturally, for either sex.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  But we can be educated/habituated to choose and adhere to monogamy. I believe that is the best life for both men and women. But it doesn’t come naturally, for either sex.
  
  I believe I’ve read that even after pair-bonding, couples tended to stay together in cycles of 4-7 years. Serial monogamy appears to be the mating strategy that humans revert to when left to their own devices.
  
  Civilization and economies require monogamy.
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Susan

But Sex and the City is not real or accurate. It’s just culture, and it’s fake. That’s not what the SMP looks like, even in NY.

True, but culture influences how we approach life. If Carrie Bradshaw and women like her are sold as the ideal to young women they were adjust their behavior towards that idea. We were already pointing young women that way when I was a teen in the late 70s and early 80s. Now we’re doing it to a larger degree.

Here’s a question – Does pretending to be a psychopath lead to genuine psychopathy?

Well, fake it until you make it is a method people use to change their behavior and personality so that would indicate it’s possible. I’d like to think it you have some humanity you can’t intentionally exorcise it, but I have to admit I think for some it is possible. I’m more concerned about people learning such behavior young before their personality is formed. At 46 I’d probably always be faking as I would expect from someone learning it at 36 or even 26. It’s someone deciding to be a fake asshole at 16 I would worry about. Don’t even ask me to contemplate someone learning assholery at 6 (although Obsidian and Ted D, among others, probably have stories).
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Herb
  
  True, but culture influences how we approach life. If Carrie Bradshaw and women like her are sold as the ideal to young women they were adjust their behavior towards that idea. We were already pointing young women that way when I was a teen in the late 70s and early 80s. Now we’re doing it to a larger degree.
  
  Agreed, I think SATC had an enormous effect on young women and fueled hookup culture.
  
  Well, fake it until you make it is a method people use to change their behavior and personality so that would indicate it’s possible. I’d like to think it you have some humanity you can’t intentionally exorcise it, but I have to admit I think for some it is possible
  
  That makes sense. So a guy pretending to be an asshole for long enough may become one. I saw this happen with one of my kids’ friends. He was the greatest kid growing up – very high testosterone, star athlete, but also a gentle soul. He obviously decided to go the asshole route and moved to NY to be a Master of the Universe. He’s miserable. Now he wants nothing more than to come home, date someone nice, and work on the buy side somewhere. The real “Tim” is back. But I fear that often times, those guys change for good.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“Yeah, post Zach’s numbers.”

“I LIKE this system. It’s great for me. I can sleep with lots of girls (I got laid by two different women last Friday and Saturday, and made out with a third on Sunday), and still get plenty of them to commit to me if/when I want to.”

Hmmm, looks like about 3 last weekend. That earns this:

“I would just like to observe that based on the way you think, I believe you are exceedingly well suited to business school. The Case Study Method is falling by the wayside – even old Harvard has moved away from it. But there is still some of that, and you will nail cases because you present your ideas very effectively. I have no doubt you will nail the quantitative and abstract stuff as well.”

So Susan is part of both the problem and the solution. Just like the rest of us. She’s not the patron saint of betas/good alphas (BTW, Zach, Churchill’s lifetime N was exactly 1, like many of the great men in history – there’s a Mencken article somewhere on that topic, and there was a time when most men of your capacity strove to achieve a similar standard. Worked a hell of a lot better than this SMP. Just saying.)

I’m not sure what the men here are trying to accomplish going around and around the same old debates with Susan. Her highest personal value is non-judgmentalism – she has made that clear. We’re not going to change that or get her to accept anything that threatens that identity.

And that’s fine, and probably more than fine since there are a lot of young women who could use the authentically unconditional love and support she offers them. The irony is that they could likely benefit even more from the sort of supportive but frank (and, yes, judgmental) pushback/critique she offers to her male commenters here, its done me a world of good, but you know, abundance mentality, they don’t have to get the whole package from Susan.

One other thing. Her rose-colored view of female attraction triggers serves as a dubious picture of the real, but it makes a hell of an ideal, and many young people are starving for some honest-to-goodness authentic idealism. Maybe they can fake Susan’s triggers until they make it.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I’m not sure what the men here are trying to accomplish going around and around the same old debates with Susan. Her highest personal value is non-judgmentalism — she has made that clear. We’re not going to change that or get her to accept anything that threatens that identity.
  
  Non-judgmentalism is a key part of my personality – my daughter’s friends would never have confided in me instead of their own mothers without that. There would be no shared intimacies, no support for young women, and no HUS with moral judgment.
  
  You are correct. This is who I am, and it’s a key part of the HUS business strategy.
  
  The irony is that they could likely benefit even more from the sort of supportive but frank (and, yes, judgmental) pushback/critique she offers to her male commenters here
  
  Huh? You just offered an example where I didn’t judge Zach for promiscuity. Zach knows perfectly well that I judge him a poor prospect for an LTR. I’m very open about that. At the same time, I judge him an excellent prospect for business school. I don’t see a contradiction there. Should I say he’d suck as a consultant because he has casual sex? That’s preposterous.
  
  Where I do get judgmental is in general issues of character – using people, manipulating people, lying, the strong preying on the weak, etc. The nature of sex is that males are more likely to rely on these tactics to acquire sex than women are. This is the asymmetry of sex, but it also means that women have no quick “in and out” method for securing commitment.
Plain Jane

“And that’s fine, and probably more than fine since there are a lot of young women who could use the authentically unconditional love and support she offers them.”

Where’s my love and support?
Escoffier

Churchill’s wife actually cheated on him.

I don’t think Susan’s highest value is non-judgmentalism. While I am quite judgemental and believe that judgementalism is essential, the point under dispute here is whether both men AND women have unruly sexual desires that they need to control. That’s a totally non-judgemental point, BOTH sexes need to get their appetites under control.

Susan has no problem acknowledging base male sexual desire but she get ferocious when a male brings up base female sexual desire.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  the point under dispute here is whether both men AND women have unruly sexual desires that they need to control. That’s a totally non-judgemental point, BOTH sexes need to get their appetites under control.
  
  I agree with this, I just don’t buy that your version of hypergamy is what women need to control.
Plain Jane

“True, but culture influences how we approach life. If Carrie Bradshaw and women like her are sold as the ideal to young women they were adjust their behavior towards that idea.”

Puh-leze brah!

I watched several episodes of that show and in every one the frustration experienced by those 3 ladies was highlighted. The only one shown sailing through the SATC SMP was Samantha with flying colors. For the other 3 there was more disappointment and heart break than peaches n cream.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

The one sense where its not a waste of time is that fact that Susan is not the only one who reads your comments, and other readers may not have the same prior commitments she has.

Only one beef I’d have with those comments, as I think we’ve discussed before, is that hypergamy is a red herring – it is as much a cultural achievement as monogamy. The bad boy isn’t bad because he’s higher status, he’s bad because he’s spreading his seed to the detriment of all around him – kids who grow up without a family, women who have trouble bonding to their subsequent husbands, if they are even able to find one, those husbands themselves, good men demoralized by his success. He does a lot of damage. What he isn’t is higher status than the women he knocks up.

Attraction to promiscuity cues manifests differently the higher one goes up the SES scale, but it is what remains when culture is removed and the environment no longer favors pair-bonding.
INTJ

@ Susan

@Chris

Eh, Sex at Dawn made a splash among sex pozzies, but the authors are supposedly personally invested in open marriage, and I don’t think any scholars took the book seriously.

You don’t need that book to see that without the provider restrictions imposed by modern society, relationships were very un-monogamous. You can witness it to this day in small tribes in India.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“Susan has no problem acknowledging base male sexual desire but she get ferocious when a male brings up base female sexual desire.”

“Sexual desire is not bad, or base, or fair, or pure. Not for either sex. It just is. We are reproducing machines. No value judgment. I categorically reject any and all attempts to categorize male or female sexual desire as any of the above.”

She doesn’t even acknowledge the concept of base (as opposed to higher) desires. Didn’t stop her from raising her children from one to the other, but intellectually, she doesn’t want to go there and its her blog.

Look, for one thing she’s trying to run a business in a ferociously blue-pill world. Subversion is never optimal but sometimes necessary.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  She doesn’t even acknowledge the concept of base (as opposed to higher) desires.
  
  Oh yeah I do. Let’s start with the definition of base:
  
  base Noun /bās/
  
  Synonyms:
  adjective: mean, vile, low, ignoble, sordid, scurvy, villainous, abject
  
  Here are sexual behaviors that I believe meet the definition of base:
  
  Lying about feelings or intentions to get sex or resources
  Cheating/adultery
  Acquiring sex based on one’s authority over another
  Incest
  Pedophilia
  Rape
  
  Am I missing any?
OffTheCuff

Sue: “Gee, how unfair! Is there a Director of Evolution you might take this up with?”

Easy, tiger. I said nothing about fairness. The world ain’t fair and I am cool with that.

You equated ease of access to sex as a fair trade-off for the risk, not me. I am merely pointing out that such risk is much lower than you imply, since modern technology has all but erased it. Nothing has changed male access similarly, at least in the broad since where most men have access to sex as women have access to those risk-reducers… and actually, nothing can.

The only thing men can do is refuse to invest or commit. Or both.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @OTC
  
  I am merely pointing out that such risk is much lower than you imply, since modern technology has all but erased it. Nothing has changed male access similarly, at least in the broad since where most men have access to sex as women have access to those risk-reducers… and actually, nothing can.
  
  The only thing men can do is refuse to invest or commit. Or both.
  
  Agreed.
INTJ

@ Susan

Sexual desire is not bad, or base, or fair, or pure. Not for either sex. It just is. We are reproducing machines. No value judgment. I categorically reject any and all attempts to categorize male or female sexual desire as any of the above.

Unless you take the sex-pozzie position, we’re simply arguing semantics. I’ll just phrase it differently then: “Some aspects of innate sexual desires in men and women are obstacles to having healthy, happy, and stable monogamous relationships.” By “innate” I mean not tempered by cultural factors or conscious decisions. Would you agree with that statement?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  “Some aspects of innate sexual desires in men and women are obstacles to having healthy, happy, and stable monogamous relationships.” By “innate” I mean not tempered by cultural factors or conscious decisions. Would you agree with that statement?
  
  Happily.
Plain Jane

“Sexual desire is not bad, or base, or fair, or pure. Not for either sex. It just is. We are reproducing machines. No value judgment. I categorically reject any and all attempts to categorize male or female sexual desire as any of the above.”

Fair enough Susan but I admit you’ve got even me confused about this. You do use judgemental words like cad, slut, man-ho, etc.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Fair enough Susan but I admit you’ve got even me confused about this. You do use judgemental words like cad, slut, man-ho, etc.
  
  Well, cads are liars, so that’s immoral.
  
  I have no problem with players and sluts, especially when they service each other. I believe they make very poor relationship prospects, so I will repeatedly point out why no woman or man should attempt to pair off with one in hopes of getting into a relationship.
  
  When a woman goes for a player and gets burned, I hold the woman responsible. It is our job to choose sexual partners wisely.
Desiderius

For what its worth, and based on my experience as a teacher, I think the young female acting out as detailed in the Rosin/Marcotte articles is an attempt to get Susan’s generation off the non-judgmentalism kick and to set some boundaries for them – teachers who refuse to set boundaries for student behavior can make students anxious, they can perceive it as neglect* – but I don’t see Susan’s generation budging any time soon; its too central to their sense of who they are.

* – a common mistake among second-career teachers used to working with adults, and one I made as well
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

It has been a while since we have had this level of…misunderstanding?
I’m tempted to start a countdown: 230 days without gender misunderstanding once we get past this one…if we ever get past this one that is :/
Bob

uh oh guys we’re witnessing Walsh start to do a lot of hamstering of her own
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@Desiderius

“Parental divorce during childhood was the single strongest social predictor of early death.”

Society got around these problems in the past by making divorce very hard to get, by not having no-fault divorce, and when there was divorce the children almost always went to the father. And, of course, when a girl got pregnant without being married, she was sent away to give birth and the baby was given to an orphanage.

It wasn’t perfert but it was in many ways better than what we have today.
Desiderius

PJ,

“Where’s my love and support?

”

I believe the rule is either highly-functioning or in her target audience. Looks like you’d better step your game up.
Plain Jane

“For what its worth, and based on my experience as a teacher, I think the young female acting out as detailed in the Rosin/Marcotte articles is an attempt to get Susan’s generation off the non-judgmentalism kick and to set some boundaries for them – teachers who refuse to set boundaries for student behavior can make students anxious, they can perceive it as neglect* – but I don’t see Susan’s generation budging any time soon; its too central to their sense of who they are.”

Desiderius, ever hear of “no schooling”? Its a sub-culture within the home schooling culture.
INTJ

@ Plain Jane

Desiderius, ever hear of “no schooling”? Its a sub-culture within the home schooling culture.

No-schooling is about getting rid of artificial structure and encouraging learning initiative in them. This can and indeed should be done while setting boundaries.
Plain Jane

“No-schooling is about getting rid of artificial structure and encouraging learning initiative in them. This can and indeed should be done while setting boundaries.”

No, no-schooling sets no boundaries. Not even on what they eat! No schedule, they do what they want when they want.
INTJ

@ Plain Jane

“No-schooling is about getting rid of artificial structure and encouraging learning initiative in them. This can and indeed should be done while setting boundaries.”

No, no-schooling sets no boundaries. Not even on what they eat! No schedule, they do what they want when they want.

Yikes. I see you’re correct. This article best describes my thoughts on that: http://www.mhea.com/features/unschool.htm
HanSolo

@Mike C

I think you cannot underestimate the ubiquity of porn here. As you go lower and lower down the female SMV scale, the relative attractiveness of porn becomes higher and higher. Again, men are visual, so porn fills the visual need. Speaking bluntly, if the choice was between a 4 and a virtual Jenna Haze, I’m going with the virtual Jenna Haze. I do think in our sort of hypervisually stimuated society where images of sexy woman are everywhere, men start to get desensitized to women who maybe minus all that visual stimulation would be able to elicit something but now elicit nothing but apathy.

Porn. The best form of birth control.
INTJ

@ HanSolo

Porn. The best form of birth control.

I’ve managed quite well without it.
HanSolo

@INTJ

Personally my tastes are perfectly demonstrated by the MGID ads at the bottom of HUS posts (not the celebrity stuff, but the “x bits of advice w.r.t. men” pics). The girls are sooooo attractive. Serious eye-candy right there.

Now we know why you read here!
HanSolo

@Joe

“Most are seriously underrated and underrated out of spite, I think.”

I agree that too often the ratings are either biased high (field reports to seek ego validation) or low (out of spite as you say). A couple of them that had votes centered around 3 or 4 looked fairly average, more like 5 or 6.
Höllenhund

If we reject the argument that women are always looking to trade up, how do we explain the widespread phenomenon of female shit-testing?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  If we reject the argument that women are always looking to trade up, how do we explain the widespread phenomenon of female shit-testing?
  
  Shit testing is boot camp, it’s us testing your mettle to see if you are strong. We don’t want to be in charge, so if you let us take control, we’ll kick you to the curb. We only shit test men we are attracted to, or think we could be attracted to. When it happens in LTRs or marriage, it’s because the woman perceives weakness in the man, and she’s “taking his temperature.”
Höllenhund

It seems that social studies are not reliable proof for many of you.

Indeed they aren’t – as long as they are based on what women say instead of what they actually do.

What would be reliable proof that will force you reevaluate your assessment of the women’s sexuality according to the combination of manosphere anecdotal evidence your own personal lives and some comments/articles/blogs there and here?

A study showing that STD rates – corrected for women’s biologically higher exposure to sexually transmitted infection – are not higher among women than among men in any particular social class or geographical area. That’d be reliable proof. Good luck for anyone trying to come up with it.
Höllenhund

Quotation marks are missing from my previous comment.

Re: #221

No. The defining feature of the British chav culture and any other backward matriarchal culture is widespread violence among men, because the never-ending violent jockeying for the top dog status is the only way for men to prove their social status in such an environment. This is largely explained by genetics, as a disproportionately large segment of children are sired by alpha thugs. Game as we know it, however, doesn’t include violence – in fact it has no violent aspects at all. In that it’s historically unusual, since male intrasexual competition has traditionally been more or less – normally more – violent in every age and society. We’ll see its return in the West as well, as previously erected social structures that tightly regulated male violence – and the threat of male violence – keep breaking down.
Höllenhund

Re: Obs

Now, to be sure, I know why this is; EvoPsych answers the question – but – if you’re a Woman living in our time, you don’t accept EvoPsych, because it directly contradicts your worldview, which is all about “social constructs” – right? Why should do anything and everything to ensure that the most number of Women pair off, but shrug our shoulders when it comes to the guys? You have to be philosophically consistent – either you’re willing to accept the EvoPsych way of doing business, or, you have to accept that yea, both Men and Women “deserve” to get a mate.</blockquote<

Absolutely. I find it rather comical whenever a woman loudly declares that the sexual marketplace has nothing to do with fairness and men should just accept that and THEN spend a considerable amount of time discussing which types of male behaviors are unfair, unethical and should therefore be discouraged.
Höllenhund

Re: INTJ

But many nerdy males I know complain about perceived injustices, and these complaints can often be viewed as “whining”. This is in contrast to most males, who aggressively try to get what they deserve. The former strategy is cooperative (trying to convince others to treat you fairly), while the latter is adversarial (forcing others to treat you fairly). I think a healthy individual should use a balanced mixture of the two tactics (don’t be a pushover, but do try to work things out when possible).

In such an individualistic society, should women really look down on whiners? I think the pendulum is way too far on the adversarial side, and it’s a good idea to reward (within limits) cooperative behavior.

It’s more simple than that. Western societies operates thus:

women whining = women on a quest for justice
men on a quest for justice = men whining

This is, of course, explained by the deep-seated hatred and contempt for men and the mentality of female supremacism, both of which are an integral part of Victorian heritage.
Höllenhund

Sometimes I just don’t want to deal with certain people. I don’t care what they have to say. They’re no fun.

You’ll get exactly nowhere in your supposed quest for the truth and solutions if you refuse to interact with people that aren’t “fun” and “enjoyable”.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  You’ll get exactly nowhere in your supposed quest for the truth and solutions if you refuse to interact with people that aren’t “fun” and “enjoyable”.
  
  Well I tolerate you don’t I? I’ve tolerated Esau too, as well as scores of hostile MRAs who found their way here from KC Lardo’s. I’ve allowed more haters to have their say here than all the other Game bloggers put together.
  
  But even I have my limits, and they usually revolve around rudeness, especially to other commenters.
Höllenhund

Re: Escoffier

Devlin is a student of philosophy, which is far more complex, demanding and comprehensive a field than any of the ancillary social sciences, all of which are derivative from one branch of philosophy. I would put more stock in what a philosopher says about social phenomena the same way that I would trust what a physicist says about math or chemistry rather than the reverse.

One apparent sign of his background in philosophy that deserves to be pointed out is his excellent ability to detect and deconstruct lies. This is the reason I argue that his most enjoyable works are his book reviews, not his other essays. Not only can he write well but he’s also a deeply subversive thinker, which I consider to be his defining quality. His succint review of Charles Murray’s latest book “Coming Apart” is arguably one of the best articles that has been written on the current American sexual marketplace:

http://www.toqonline.com/blog/elite-and-underclass/
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  What are Devlin’s bona fide qualifications for writing about female sexuality? As his definition of female hypergamy has not been endorsed by a single credible living soul, I am curious to know where he derived his theory. Did he just sit down and make it up? He is regarded as an MRA and misogynist, not intellectually honest wrt women.
  
  I am prepared to consider his viewpoint if anyone can explain why he is qualified to opine on female sexuality. Being smart, a student of philosophy etc, doesn’t count. How is he an expert witness?
HanSolo

@Susan

With all due respect, I think you meant to say:

“I would just like to observe that based on the way you think, I believe you are exceedingly well suited to [pickup] school. The [Mystery] Method is falling by the wayside – even old [Style] Harvard has moved away from it. But there is still some of that, and you will nail HBS10’s because you [DHV] very effectively. I have no doubt you will nail the [7’s and the 8’s] as well.”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @HanSolo
  
  “I would just like to observe that based on the way you think, I believe you are exceedingly well suited to [pickup] school. The [Mystery] Method is falling by the wayside – even old [Style] Harvard has moved away from it. But there is still some of that, and you will nail HBS10′s because you [DHV] very effectively. I have no doubt you will nail the [7’s and the 8’s] as well.”
  
  Haha! Are you saying that alpha dog wouldn’t be good in business? He’s probably going to make a great CEO someday. I might not want my daughter marrying him, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t add value in another way.
Höllenhund

Re: modernguy

What’s wrong with that? Should I work ten times as hard to be the respectable, charismatic, high status nice guy that you would prefer? What are the benefits? These douchebags are swimming in pussy without any responsibilities or obligations! On to the next one. If you look down on that kind of attitude, remember that it’s today’s women who enable it, and even encourage it.

Women can and do elicit all sorts of reactions and behaviors from men. I think we can agree on that one. However, consider Western women’s typical behavior since their hypergamy has been unleashed. They elicit various responses from men: thuggery, Game, ghosting, spree-killing, porn addiction, MGTOW, you name it. One male behavior they generally more and more fail to elicit is the behavior of a responsible, dutiful husband and father. Interesting, isn’t it?
modernguy

So you want to attempt to change society back to previous slut-shaming behavior, but yet you are perfectly happy taking the shortcut of a Ponzi scheme? The two views are wholly incompatible. It’s like decrying the obesity epidemic while in the meantime chowing down on buckets of cheese fries every day. If you’re not going to be any better than the system allows you to be, then why should anyone else?

Better in what way? Should I labour mightily to improve my rank and wife up one of these sluts? Good options are few and far between. In the meantime, a man’s gotta eat.

That system has always been in place. Not everyone is able to reproduce or have a relationship. It may not be fair, but nature and biology aren’t quite concerned with fairness.

I think a big problem is that people have come to feel entitled to sex/relationships. It’s never going to be that way. There’s a reason why the phrase “Survival of the Fittest” exists.

Nature or biology may not be, but as people, we are. As an idea, “survival of the fittest” has an amazing attraction for lazy thinkers. Would you be in favour of letting Africa starve? Is nature in favour of it?
Höllenhund

I find the “survival of the fittest” argument rather comical. Were that idea actually implemented in the US, a sizable minority of the population would quickly starve to death, and a sizable segment within that minority would be single mothers and spinsters. I reckon that wouldn’t be terribly popular among women.
Passer_By

I find it interesting (funny?) that Escoffier came to these sites as the world’s biggest white knight, but now seems to have overdosed on the red pill. He will eventually find “balance Danielson”, as Mr. Miagi would say.

In defense of Escoffier, I think his point is that, as men, we all know that we are pigs and must suppress our more base urges – society tells us so as boys and reminds of us of it daily. We don’t deny it,really. But society now tells women to “follow their hearts”, and that their hearts are pure, which really means to follow their more base urges, which they translate as some higher calling. Maybe susan doesn’t like the term “base”. How about “primal”, instead?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  In defense of Escoffier, I think his point is that, as men, we all know that we are pigs and must suppress our more base urges — society tells us so as boys and reminds of us of it daily
  
  If that’s the case, then Escoffier is asking me to solve a problem I have no way to address. I don’t think that men are pigs, and I have never sought to suppress my son’s sexuality, or encouraged him to pedestalize women. In fact, I’m his primary shit test advisor.
  
  On the other hand, some males have used coercive mating strategies through time, and they still exist today. Women can and should be warned about risky behavior that may lead to sexual assault.
  
  Of course we all have primal sexual urges. Is there anything more primal than the moment of orgasm?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

A study showing that STD rates – corrected for women’s biologically higher exposure to sexually transmitted infection – are not higher among women than among men in any particular social class or geographical area. That’d be reliable proof. Good luck for anyone trying to come up with it.

This seem fair enough actually: STD’s don’t have agendas, except for the same as us: reproduction and survival.
But aren’t educated women less likely to get STD’s because they are using condoms and other methods? And explain corrected for women’s biology?
And about the good luck well I always loved a challenge so I will be on the look out for that kind of study. Thank you for wishing me good luck though
Plain Jane

” I do think in our sort of hypervisually stimuated society where images of sexy woman are everywhere, men start to get desensitized to women who maybe minus all that visual stimulation would be able to elicit something but now elicit nothing but apathy.

Porn. The best form of birth control.”

So the Feminists were right about media and body image after all. The Dove Campaign is trying to bring some balance and normalcy. Let’s see if other brands do the same.
HanSolo

@Anacaona

How do educated women use condoms? I thought men use condoms. Or are we talking strap-ons? Just messin’ with you. lol
HanSolo

@Plain Jane

And for all the neo-cons and others worried about high Islamic birthrates leading them to take over the world, maybe carpet bomb muff divers delivering crates of porn over Pakistan is the key.
modernguy

women whining = women on a quest for justice
men on a quest for justice = men whining

Agree 100%. I just don’t care for whining. That is literally the antithesis of what is attractive in a male. Sack up or shut up. Sorry to be brutal, but that’s the bottom line. For a woman, hearing a male whine is sickitating.

Haha! In a sense it reminds one that the discussions here can’t end up being more than just an amusing way to pass the time, because ultimately women aren’t going to be reasoned into behaving better. Feelings must prevail! Until you’ve worked yourself into an unworkable situation and need bailing out – by men. It’ll get to that point, and ultimately what it’s going to show is that men really have let things get out of hand by letting women get out of hand.
JustYX

@Susan #332

I always have a hard time accepting facts that are sunnier than my world-view
You don’t say.

Not bad Susan, I’ll give that a 7/10 (I did laugh a bit)

My first stab would have been, “You must have that happen a lot(?)”

be fair…do I win?

(I’m not interested in the battle, just lightening the mood. I can’t see an argument that you always take the wimminz side sticking, it’s ridiculous)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JustYX
  
  I think we’re tied on that retort, but I loved your comment about “why would you choose that personality?” haha!
modernguy

Women can and do elicit all sorts of reactions and behaviors from men. I think we can agree on that one. However, consider Western women’s typical behavior since their hypergamy has been unleashed. They elicit various responses from men: thuggery, Game, ghosting, spree-killing, porn addiction, MGTOW, you name it. One male behavior they generally more and more fail to elicit is the behavior of a responsible, dutiful husband and father. Interesting, isn’t it?

Yeah, I agree, but who needs your anecdotal evidence and personal observation when we can look to statistics and social science studies to tell us how the real world functions! Eyes!? You don’t need those, we have surveys! Are you credentialed? No!? Then why do you have an opinion!?

At least that seems to be Susan’s view of it. I think at the very least we should look at the resonance that notions in the manosphere have for so many men in today’s SMP and ask whether that might hint at some underlying legitimacy. Is it purely a fantasy that so many men have that the SMP is awash in sluts putting out for a minority of guys while many others lose out? That seems to be what Susan would have us believe.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @modernguy
  
  Is it purely a fantasy that so many men have that the SMP is awash in sluts putting out for a minority of guys while many others lose out?
  
  What I have concluded is that 20% or fewer women are sluts who put out for 20% or fewer of men. If you want to be in that 20% of men and you’re not, you’re going to be unhappy. But the fact is that 80% of women are not promiscuous at all, and I believe that the corresponding 80% of men is most likely to be sexually successful with that cohort.
ExNewYorker

@Susan

“Women are attracted to characteristics that signal the ability and desire to father strong, healthy progeny, and to raise them for 18 years.”
…
“However, and this is where I always get pushback – women evolved to prefer men who exhibit long-term pair-bonding traits.”
…
“Enough people changed to supplant female promiscuity with co-parenting as women began to choose lower ranking males who stuck around over higher ranking males who pumped and dumped. They key here is female choice, which is indisputable.

What do you think?”

That’s a possible model…however, it’s possible to suggest an alternative view, one in which female choice had little effect, and where the the key was inter-male cooperation.

First things first, your model suffers from several “modernisms”. For example the “raise them for 18 years” is clearly a reference to modern norms. Same thing with female choice…that’s a reference to how things work today, but those are not likely the way things were in the past. I’ll suggest an alternative view (and I credit this to Brendan, who mentioned this general outline on some other blog I can’t remember at this point).

It’s several million years ago, and Lucy and her relatives display the dimorphism typical of species where one male hoards all the available females (e.g. gorillas). However, over time, some of these hominid groups develop differently when some of the non-topdog males decide to cooperate and kill the male topdog and “split the spoils”. For some groups, this leads to a fight to be the new top dog, thus replicating the original group structure. But some groups develop different structures, where the cooperating males stabilize into a working hierarchy where most of the active males get their own female mates, and thus reduce the intragroup conflict. The upper echelon males might get first choice or even more than that, but enough males are happy enough to keep the group peace. Over time, due to decreased intra-group conflict and enhanced male cooperation, these bands of hominids are able to hunt larger game, create larger clan structures, promote task specialization. With these advantages, they overtake groups still clinging to the older structures or ones possibly having “matriarchal” arrangements (either through organized violence or just plain outbreeding). In these bands, the pair-bonding occurred because the average male benefited significantly with this new structure. In this scenario, there is little room for female choice. In fact, what would evolve might be females who could deal with the harshness of this existence by adapting to it. With no significant technology, the upper echelon males would require diplomacy and cooperation with other male members of the groups…in fact, there would be significant kin ties between males of such groups.

This state of affairs would reach some equilibrium until the invention of agriculture, which would have it’s own set of social repercussions…

We don’t have much evidence of our pre-history to ascertain the exact group structures our ancestors evolved in. Looking at hunter gatherer structures or early historical structures (like reading the Iliad) would suggest that what I postulated isn’t atypical in the human experience, and might better correspond to our ancestral development than “females choosing good providers”. It would be more like “males cooperating to create a relatively stable structure to split the spoils and forcing the females to accept that structure”.

Perhaps we’ll get a clearer view through historical genetics and new anthropological discoveries…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @ExNewYorker
  
  We don’t have much evidence of our pre-history to ascertain the exact group structures our ancestors evolved in
  
  Indeed we don’t. Consider this post from Evolvify (emphasis his):
  
  The Pick-Up Artists’ Alpha-Male Narrative Myth
  
  Here’s where I do object: The hackneyed use of evolutionary psychology and pop-paleoanthropology to craft narratives of our evolutionary past, then use them to justify behaviors or strategies. Among PUAs, this is commonly manifested in a narrative that goes something like: “Humans evolved emotional responses that influence attraction in the paleolithic. During this period of human evolution, we lived in tribes. Because of the protective advantages, resource advantages, and social advantages of tribal leaders, women evolved an attraction to tribal leaders, a.k.a. alpha-males. Therefore, men should act like alpha males to attract women.”
  
  Anthropology argument against tribal alpha-male narrative
  
  There is no good reason to believe that humans evolved in hierarchical tribes between tens of thousands to two million years ago. To the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence showing that humans evolved in largely egalitarian bands that punished attempts of dominance with social sanctioning, banishment, and death (Boehm 1999). Yes, that’s basically saying that alpha males got offed by their social group — not exactly a benefit to reproduction. It appears that human ancestors likely lived in dominance hierarchies sometime in our distant past, but probably prior to the evolution of the hominin (human) line (Boehm 1999; Debreuil 2010). These works indicate that whatever “alpha” dominance tendencies evolved in our remote ancestors has most likely been evolving in the opposite direction for a couple million years.
  
  Evolutionary argument against tribal alpha-male narrative
  
  Without going into tedious detail, it’s unlikely that the alpha-male behavioral type (however imprecise that classification may be) is particularly adaptive. Traits that confer significant reproductive advantage tend to spread through a population rapidly. That basically means that traits that consistently vary widely among a species are probably not under significant selection pressures. If being alpha was the ne plus ultra of mate wooing strategies, there would be a whooooooollle lot fewer “betas.”
  
  Evidence of what works better
  
  If evolved human dominance behaviors have been decreasing over time, we would expect to see something else evolve to replace it. Because of the evolution of hominin brain size and cognition across the paleolithic, we might expect that whatever trait evolved via sexual selection related to these developments. Indeed, humor and intelligence appear to be more attractive to women than testosterone-related masculinity when it matters most — during female ovulation (Kaufman, et al. 2007).
  
  Verdict
  
  Masculine or “alpha” behavior is attractive to some women sometimes. It appears to be a retained trait from multiple millions of years ago, that was once advantageous, but has lost its significance with respect to the population as a whole. I’ve personally experimented with gender stereotypes enough to know that the opposite of masculinity can be attractive to women as well. When successful, either approach will lead to massive selection bias.
  
  So, the PUAs are partially right on the attractiveness of masculinity. However, their narrative is a myth, and buying into such myths can limit reproductive success — or whatever term the PUA flavor of the month is using for “fucking” these days.
  Then again, if you have intelligence, and the humor related to it, you probably already know that playing one strategy for every game is itself a sub-optimal strategy.
  
  Thoughts?
SciGuy

@ Susan

“Bless you, I needed that! I confess I find it ironic that many of the guys who want to discount scientific research are STEM.”

You’re welcome! I find that ironic as well, though I suppose it can be chalked up as a case of being too close to the problem. As a geeky, beta, STEM type myself, I know how easy it is to sink into resentment. At times like that I have to step back, take a deep breath and remind myself that the limits of my personal vision are not the limits of the world.

@ Ted D

“I suppose I classify as a STEM guy, but I’m no scientist. However, as a technology type of guy, I can tell you that for me, it is easy to disregard “scientific studies” when my eyes tell me a different story. I’ve seen time and again how stats can be manipulated to reflect specific outcomes, and I ALWAYS question any study based on asking people questions and expecting truthful answers. In addition, I still maintain that most of those studies DO NOT represent enough people of various SES and lifestyles to represent the whole picture.”

I can understand where you’re coming from on this, and I would agree that data from many of the social sciences are more error-prone than data in the hard sciences – and, depending on the researcher, biased as well. However, if such research is always assumed to be biased and even to have “cooked” results, then our own anecdotal evidence is hardly a worthy substitute, given the human tendency towards confirmation bias, and that the people we meet and whose behavior we take note of are surely not a random sample.
JustYX

@Hollenhund

You’ll get exactly nowhere in your supposed quest for the truth and solutions if you refuse to interact with people that aren’t “fun” and “enjoyable”.

Yes, but there are different ways to say the same thing.

Some help make HUS an interesting, fun place to be whilst having a good debate. Others just piss people off and lead to bad tempered argument and a loss of readers.

HUS is, I suspect, both a mission and proto-business for Susan, and for both reasons she does get to make decisions about its direction. She does get to try and drive the tone of the place, it’s her place. She keeps man hating feminists out which makes this a viable place for men to comment. She’s also kicked some men out to keep it a viable place for her core target audience – young women. Why does it seem so hard for some people to understand that Susan gets to set the rules in order to keep her blog headed where she wants it to be? I would say the same thing if it was a man running the place, this is not about Susan’s gender/sex whatever.

I’m one of the people who think that Esau is a hateful twunt, his sneering, patronising, dishonest presentation of feminism’s screwing over of the SMP, MMP and society as ‘mistakes were made’. And all we little people need to do (he’s personally too busy with important things) is tweak a few levers on the male, female equality settings. This was from his first recent comment on a slightly older thread. I didn’t say much at the time, beyond pointing out his 60/40 M/F ratio in college had happened 40 years ago (he made out it was a fanciful scenario, which was typically feminist dishonest). I was in an extremely good mood – MY BAD. I’m glad that he’s gone. If he comes back with comments that aad honestly to the debate – no problem, I will hold no grudge. With his recent tone – eff him, I’d have tossed his worthless arse out long before Susan did.

I have personally said some not very positive things about women’s behaviour on this blog (including this thread, but moreso older ones). Susan has never threatened me, never done worse than call me on any weakness in what I’m saying. Has (AFAIAA) only deleted a couple of my comments for using the C word (fair enough, I have no complaints).

When I’m in a bad mood, I stay away – that’s a pretty good rule for life in general, I reckon. HUS has improved my take on society and teh ebul wimminz, it did it by maintaining a good natured debate on interesting subjects.

All of that is FWIW
Höllenhund

Haven’t you heard of female condoms, HanSolo?
JustYX

@modernguy

For a woman, hearing a male whine is sickitating.

Haha! In a sense it reminds one that the discussions here can’t end up being more than just an amusing way to pass the time, because ultimately women aren’t going to be reasoned into behaving better. Feelings must prevail!

Oh FFS, do you not think that I agree with you? Because I do, about the double whining standards.

But she’s being realistic about the actual SMP and MMP. Isn’t She?

Isn’t that the whole point about HUS, it is a mix of “wouldn’t it be better if” and “this is how it works now”?

Maybe just for me then. I love truth, justice and the MRA way, but I also like to keep it somewhat real.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Oh FFS, do you not think that I agree with you? Because I do, about the double whining standards.
  
  But she’s being realistic about the actual SMP and MMP. Isn’t She?
  
  There are definitely double standards when it comes to expressing emotion. Crying, whining, even pouting are things women can and do get away with every day. Men are raised to be stoic (and are less naturally emotional anyway) so we penalize them for displays of emotion. It’s not just women – males don’t tolerate this in other males either.
  
  In the same way, a woman who is stoic and unemotional will often be perceived as unfeminine and unattractive by males.
  
  We like our sex differences.
http://www.cupidslibrary.com Vic Corts

I would go for someone less hot but nice. I feel thats the healthier way for any relationship. Nice is key to a long lasting, stable relationship.
Höllenhund

But aren’t educated women less likely to get STD’s because they are using condoms and other methods?

That’s beside the point. Your guess is likely correct but the same can be said about educated men, and I reckon educated men and women normally have sex with one another and not with members of other classes. The question is whether their STD rates are equal or not.

And explain corrected for women’s biology?

Women are, on average, at greater risk of contacting venereal diseases due to the higher vulnerability of vaginal tissue to microscopic ruptures and whatnot.
HanSolo

@Höllenhund

I have but they never showed us how to put them in a vase in sex-ed.
HanSolo

@ExNewYorker

Interesting theory. A prehistoric revenge of the nerds.
Höllenhund

That’s all nice and reasonable, JustYX, but the fact remains that as long as discussions about instilling dread, alpha relapse, frivolous divorce, the destructive effects of hypergamy, child support, cuckoldry, and other subjebts connected to the SMP that women find unnerving and irritating, are stopped short here for no other reason but to protect the sensibilities of young women, none of you will get one inch closer to the truth and solutions all of you supposedly want to arrive at. You might as well hang out at the Cosmopolitan forum (I’m sure they have one).

Anonymous age 70, a social activist who probably has more experience with these issues than either of us, summed the problem up thus:

I have been at this for over 30 years, at some level or other, and at times very much a public activist. I was often asked by women what men wanted, etc., etc., etc.

Few women, including those asking on this board, really want to hear the truth. They want to hear “nice” and the truth is not nice.

They go to the MRA boards, and encounter large quantities of anger, which is pretty much where millions of men are today, and they go, “Oh, horrors, something is wrong with these guys. They are angry and bitter. They have no credibility.” And thus learn nothing about the inevitable result of modern feminism, as practiced by the vast majority of American women, even those who proclaim they are not feminists because they have no reference to compare themselves with.

There is no “nice” fix for our social and marital problems. Nice never has fixed problems as grave as we have today.

Nice didn’t stop King George. Nice didn’t free the slaves. Nice didn’t stop Hitler. Nice didn’t stop lynchings of black men. And, nice is not going to fix the breach between men and women today.

Yet, we have a lot of men who think they can be nice, and be effective in the Men’s movement, and we have women who think men MUST be nice if they want to accomplish anything.

In every case over nearly 30 years, when a woman has asked me what is needed to bring men back to marriage, I tell them, it’s better we don’t discuss it, whenever I do, the women get all angry.

And, it’s like a script. They insist they are “different” and just want to know. The minute I make it clear it is American Women who must change their behavior, they get all red in the face and start calling me ugly names. No more. With 45 years of vicious attacks directed at men, they imagine it is men who must change their behavior. I suppose maybe advance bending-over classes?

So, if you think you can get anywhere by being nice and explaining things to AW, be my guest. Heh, heh.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Hollenhund
  
  So angry and bitter is still the preferred strategy for MRAs. How’s that working for you?
  
  Feminists brilliantly solicited the active help of males in pushing their agenda through. You will not change anything as long as you view women as the enemy, recommend repealing suffrage, expound on the inferiority of the female intellect, etc. So far, MRAs are content to be unhaaaaaapppy together online. I suppose that’s a good enough strategy if a bit of comfort and a boost is all that most of those men are after.
SciGuy

I have a question for everyone. I’ve been reading HUS for a few months now, along with other Manosphere sites.

On many sites, though certainly not all, it is claimed that women are exclusively attracted to alpha types, while betas are found to be unattractive or downright repulsive. In keeping with the debate right here on this thread, alpha behaviors are often described in negative terms, such as “asshole”, “Dark Triad”, etc. It is claimed, as it has been on this thread, that if given free reign women would choose charming psychopaths over “nice” provider types any day of the week.

It is also claimed that, in accordance with the Pareto principle, 20% of the men – the alphas, whose numbers may be even smaller, get 80% of the women (or, in Susan’s reformulation, 80% of the sex – a far more plausible accounting) – while betas get the scraps, and many betas get nothing at all. Actually,
I like the terms used in much of the scientific research: Cads and Dads. And no, I don’t think “Cads” and “Dads” are exactly synonymous with “Alpha” and “Beta”. The terms themselves are too vaguely defined for such exact comparison anyway, but I digress.

So to sum up: Cads get nearly all mating privileges, while Dads constitute the vast majority of the male population.

Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?

If Cads always get the girl, and therefore get to reproduce while the Dads don’t, at least not in nearly the same numbers, then why do Dads exist at all? Wouldn’t such men have been bred nearly out of existence eons ago due to sexual selection? But as the self-taught Cads (PUAs) themselves tell us, not only do Dads exist, but they constitute most men!

Actually, I suppose this question is rhetorical.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @SciGuy
  
  If Cads always get the girl, and therefore get to reproduce while the Dads don’t, at least not in nearly the same numbers, then why do Dads exist at all? Wouldn’t such men have been bred nearly out of existence eons ago due to sexual selection? But as the self-taught Cads (PUAs) themselves tell us, not only do Dads exist, but they constitute most men!
  
  Thanks for stating the obvious – you are channeling a commenter named Megaman who pops in from time to time. As he pointed out:
  
  Men Age 18+ (Census 2008): 108,783,000
  Married Men Age 18+ (Census 2008): 64,129,000 (59%)
  Married Men who describe their marriages as “very happy” (GSS, 2008): 63%Married Men who describe their marriages as “pretty happy” (GSS, 2008): 33%
  
  I’ll point out the National Marriage Project report for 2004 on which men marry and why. They concluded 22% of men are hardcore commitment avoiders
  
  It’s beta males who marry and stay married, and they appear to be quite content.
Höllenhund

So to sum up: Cads get nearly all mating privileges, while Dads constitute the vast majority of the male population. Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?

There’s not one bit of a problem with this as long as you keep in mind that female sexuality used to be regulated, especially after the agricultural revolution ushered in enforced lifelong monogamy. The beta segment of the male population exploded as a result, and what we’ve seen in the past couple of decades is the reversal of this trend. Betas are slowly but surely going extinct, and society’s capacity for wealth creation will also disappear.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

We don’t have much evidence of our pre-history to ascertain the exact group structures our ancestors evolved in. Looking at hunter gatherer structures or early historical structures (like reading the Iliad) would suggest that what I postulated isn’t atypical in the human experience, and might better correspond to our ancestral development than “females choosing good providers”.

I read Brendan’s model before but I told him and repeat that is incomplete. Female choice had to be a factor or we wouldn’t have any level of attraction to dads and we know there is conflict, depending on hormonal levels and fertility in most women. You cannot force adaptation. If anything I think a few mutants leaning to more monogamy paired up successfully and started to gain advantages: their kids lived longer the men invested more the women lived longer and had more children, also all the time they didn’t spent on mate hunting/poaching was used to produce better weapons or gather more food and then the model became a meme and started to get copied till they became majority and made the rules to spread it by force to the less inclined to promiscuity, YMMV.

@Holle
Got it. Eyes open looking for that.
Jimmy Hendricks

This isn’t scientific at all….

But does anyone else find it interesting that the universal male complain is that “woman only go for assholes…” and the universal female complaint is “all men are assholes…”

Makes you think…
JustYX

@Höllenhund

but this isn’t an MRA site – that’s my point.

Susan can legitmately cat-herd the tone of the conversation, clearly there’s no iron rule enforced. Say what you want, but say it politely (or reasonably so) and be prepared to back it up. I’m not going to search back page by page for comments where I’ve been disparaging of women, but I have made such comments. I never got backlash. I had a absence of a few weeks, or so, and was publicly welcomed back – it blew me away! I hadn’t ever made an effort to bend the truth, just present it in a reasonable way.

I haven’t been ‘nice’ all the time. I admit lately, I’ve been softer, but when I showed up here as a commenter it was during the Dalrock blow-out. Susan made an ‘open thread – ask what you will post’ (IIRC). I did show up, I hadn’t bothered with either side of the endless ‘he said, she said’ (I didn’t care), I just bluntly asked what she thought about a couple of MRA issues, I got a clear, unambiguous, factual reply from Susan. I has no issues with her answer, and I stayed. In fact if you look back, my second comment got caught in moderation (don’t know why), and I accused Susan of modding me. She must have been highly stressed at the time, but she let the accusation slide and just answered the question. That’s why I’m defending her, I’m defending her actions.

I still read Dalrock, AVFM, Spearhead etc My views on MRA stuff haven’t changed at all. But if I’m looking for blunt in your face wimminz be ebul stuff, I don’t come here – because this is not an MRA site.

‘We’ probably don’t have very much of anything that we disagree about. We’re not going to get into a big row about anything. And anon at 69/70 talks a lot of sense (except about evolution on the spearhead in the last few days – he lost me there).

My suggestion (FWIW) is if you think that you have a disagreement with Susan, or Susan’s views; ask a clear set of questions about them (just leave out the jabs about hypocracy etc they truly don’t help). In my experience you will get an honest reply. You can take it from there…but she never claimed to be an MRA

peace brother, because we really don’t have any meat to fight over.
JustYX

@Jimmy … and your comment made me laugh, cool
Sai

@Höllenhund
“women whining = women on a quest for justice
men on a quest for justice = men whining

This is, of course, explained by the deep-seated hatred and contempt for men and the mentality of female supremacism, both of which are an integral part of Victorian heritage.”

If a man wants to complain, I say let him, there’s no harm and he could be trying to make good points.
This originated with the Victorians? How? I believe you, I just haven’t seen that before.

“Nice didn’t stop King George. Nice didn’t free the slaves. Nice didn’t stop Hitler. Nice didn’t stop lynchings of black men. And, nice is not going to fix the breach between men and women today.”

Death was involved in fixing those problems… For all I know that might be the future. I don’t think many people would miss Marcotte. I don’t know…

@HanSolo
“How do educated women use condoms? I thought men use condoms.”
LOL

“And for all the neo-cons and others worried about high Islamic birthrates leading them to take over the world, maybe carpet bomb muff divers delivering crates of porn over Pakistan is the key.”
I’ll do it!
JustYX

@Sai
the theory is that it was the Victorian era that saw the creation of the “Women are morally superior to men” meme.
Kathy

“(I’m not interested in the battle, just lightening the mood. I can’t see an argument that you always take the wimminz side sticking, it’s ridiculous)”

As much as I know that you hate my guts, Just..

I have to say, that you have nailed it.

You’re a pretty fair and balanced guy in your views..
JustYX

@Kathy

could we leave it ‘we have our differences’?

I have no grudge with you, you do tend to rub me up the wrong way (and maybe that’s mutual?)

and thanks, coming from you…
Kathy

“could we leave it ‘we have our differences’?

Yeah, I reckon we could , mate.

cheers.
http://IfCadsalwaysgetthegirl,andthereforegettoreproducewhiletheDadsdon’t,atleastnotinnearlythesamenumbers,thenwhydoDadsexistatall? OffTheCuff

Sic: “If Cads always get the girl, and therefore get to reproduce while the Dads don’t, at least not in nearly the same numbers, then why do Dads exist at all? ”

Oversimplified thinking. Of course cads reproduce! Look up “Bistable strategy”. A small population of cads can produce plenty of children, but if the pool gets too big it will be self-limiting, until it becomes advantageous to cheat again, and then the population of cads grows. We talked about this a while back with the hawk/dove strategy.
deti

“Men want sexual variety and, according to you, struggle throughout their lives to repress this urge. We’re not like that. We select, and we’re damned difficult to please. If we select poorly, we could wind up married to a violent brute, or a shiftless layabout, or a man who will pursue his biological urges. We put all our energy into selecting a spouse. Once we do that, our job is done. ”

How does this explain the high divorce rate? Women frivolously divorcing? Women initiating divorce well over 50% of the time?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @deti
  
  How does this explain the high divorce rate? Women frivolously divorcing? Women initiating divorce well over 50% of the time?
  
  Heh, you’re not going to like this. In my post on Eat Pray Love divorce, I covered the only study known to address the reasons people divorce. If Dalrock has since come up with better data, by all means share. The study is here:
  
  People’s Reasons for Divorcing (Amato and Previti, 2003).
  
  Here’s an excerpt:
  
  Consistent with expectations, women in this study were more likely to report problematic behavior on the part of their former husbands (infidelity, substance use, mental and physical abuse), and men were more likely to report that they did not know what caused the divorce. These gender differences replicate findings from several prior studies (Bloom et al., 1985; Cleek & Pearson, 1985; Kitson,1992; Levinger, 1966).
  
  Contrary to expectations, however, men were no more likely than women to refer to external causes, and men were more
  likely than women to report problems with communication. The latter finding appears to clash with the assumption that women are more relationship centered than men (Thompson & Walker, 1991) and that wives are more sensitive than husbands to marital problems involving emotions and communication (Cleek & Pearson, 1985). Nevertheless, this result is consistent with a study showing that communication problems (such as avoiding problem-solving discussions) predict marital unhappiness more strongly among husbands than wives (Roberts, 2000).
  
  Although it is possible that men are becoming more sensitive to relationship dynamics in marriage, we suspect that some men used general references to poor communication and other relationship problems to avoid admitting that their own misbehavior undermined the marriage.
  
  …Several studies suggest that socioeconomic status is correlated with people’s reasons for divorce. Kitson (1992) found that high-SES individuals, following divorce, were more likely to complain about lack of communication, changes in interests or values, incompatibility, and their ex-spouses’ self- centeredness. In contrast, low-SES individuals were more likely to complain about physical abuse, going out with the boys/girls, neglect of household duties, gambling, criminal activities, financial problems, and employment problems.
  
  These results suggest that as SES increases, individuals are less likely to report instrumental reasons and more likely to report expressive and relationship-centered reasons.
  
  (Remember, the National Marriage Project puts the divorce rate among the college educated at 17% after ten years.)
szopen

@susan
” Character traits cannot be evaluated at first sighting, or even first meeting.”

They can, with very low relibility though. Actually, even with chimps we have this: http://www.psychology.bangor.ac.uk/ward/assets/Kramer_11_chimpanzee.pdf

However, this is very unpopular research.

It took a long of time to read all the comments here….

@others
As for the others: remember, if you have your opinion on something, then you must always ask yourselves: how one could convince you, that you are wrong? If there is no such way, you have no opinion. You have faith (i don’t know whether I express myself clearly in English on that). I have already posted once a link confirming a confirmation bias phenomenon. In short, ALL people, both males and females, tend to believe only in data which confirm their prior opinions, most actively filters out data and arguments which do not fit their existing opinions, and is more critical to the papers which contradict their opinions.

People tend to forget that ALL characteristics of males and females tend to be distributed in normal distribution. NAWALT is not a joke. Is ackonwledgment of reality. Therefore, It must be the same with “attraction to jerks” characteristics, if such thing could be expressed as a single trait. The curve describing the number of woman who have this trait with intensity rated in 0-100 would have probably normal distribution, and one may safely say that while there could be sizeable proportion of woman for whom “jerkiness” is real aphrodysiac, there simply must be a proportion of females, who wouldn’t even understand why other tend to rate “jerks” as hot.

Someone who thinks that “all woman digs jerks” is living in a fantasy land.

In addition, there could be statistically significant differences between different populations of humans. I would predict that in environment, where access to food is easy, females would be more attracted to jerks and there would be, as a result, more male with “jerk” personalities. In difficult environments, there should be more females preferring LTR strategy, and, as a result, less “jerks”. I would love to see a paper which could confirm or disprove this prediction. In short, the more northern population, the less jerks should be there and the less STR-strategy preferring females. Does anyone knows about such papers?

And finally, I have looked at “hot scale” and I am quit esurprised. Some of the woman described as hot are, in my opinion, downright ugly.
In this link http://livingwithballs.com/the-hotness-scale-defined/ the woman described as “8” is really ugly.

Kardashian is not hot in my opinion. Halle Berry is REALLY hot. Penelope Cruz is not hot.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Szopen
  
  Forgive my delay in responding to your comment at 8:55 a.m. Your comment is so sensible and reasonable I saved it so that I can get better at this. We should all read it and remember our own biases and flaws.
Kathy

I agree with your version of hypergamy, Susan…..

It certainly ties in with my own anecdotal experiences..

I live in a middle class suburb close to the beach.. In my own street, the women have been married to their husbands for some years.. No divorces, or separations…
GudEnuf

Susan: <i.Sorry, but Sex at Dawn just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Did you hear someone published a rebuttal book? It’s called Sex at Dusk.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @GudEnuf
  
  Did you hear someone published a rebuttal book? It’s called Sex at Dusk.
  
  I’d missed that! Apparently, only one academic even bothered to address Sex at Dawn, and the author of Dusk painstakingly tore their theories to shreds. From a review:
  
  Does monogamy look a bit more appealing? Of course Saxon agrees that humans fool around, and that many cultures permit marriage with more than one wife (although few hubbies can afford the luxury of additional egg-makers). However, she points out that even though sperm strategy and egg strategy diverge from the get-go (potentially creating a sort of evolutionary arms race between genders), lifetime sexual monogamy permits the interests of both parents to converge on the same offspring for a lifetime. Now, “what harms the reproductive fitness of one sex harms that of the other too and is therefore not selected.”
INTJ

@ HanSolo

@Plain Jane

And for all the neo-cons and others worried about high Islamic birthrates leading them to take over the world, maybe carpet bomb muff divers delivering crates of porn over Pakistan is the key.

Not going to work. They already have access to the internet, and it doesn’t seem to be doing much for their birth rates.
INTJ

@ Jimmy Hendricks

This isn’t scientific at all….

But does anyone else find it interesting that the universal male complain is that “woman only go for assholes…” and the universal female complaint is “all men are assholes…”

Makes you think…

This comment is gold!
INTJ

@

Death was involved in fixing those problems… For all I know that might be the future. I don’t think many people would miss Marcotte. I don’t know…

Haha. I love your comments. You seem to be the kind of girl that can really think from a man’s point of view.

Btw, do you have any technical education? Would it be out of your reach to move to Silicon Valley? It’s darn expensive, but if you can get a job there, you’d meet a lot of single nerds who want long-term relationships.
INTJ

@ Susan

That doesn’t mean that cuckoldry was a conscious strategy so that women could get superior genes and resources from two different men, which is what INTJ claimed. The female mating strategy could either be short or long-term. When long-term, it required a tradeoff re status vs. provisioning.

*Facepalm* I claimed exactly the opposite. I claimed that cuckoldry is an evolutionary biological strategy so that women get superior genes and resources from two different men. And this cuckoldry often happens simply by switching between short-term strategies (thus obtaining good genes) and long-term strategies (thus obtaining good resources for those good genes).

Consciously, women don’t approve of cuckoldry, and will obviously try not to do it. But the biological urge is there, and when we take away social restraints and encourage women to follow their urges, you’re going to have a lot of women mating with good-genes men and then wondering why the other men aren’t willing to provide them with good-resources. This is demonstrated quite clearly by all the women who go after jerks when they’re young and then switch to going after nice guys when they mature.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  This is demonstrated quite clearly by all the women who go after jerks when they’re young and then switch to going after nice guys when they mature.
  
  Perhaps, but I’m on record as saying that I suspect the “alpha cock carousel —–> beta provider” meme is not valid. Of course it does happen, but I think what happens much more often is that the ACC women keep chasing alphas, staying single a la Kate Bolick. Meanwhile, most betas marry women with a low (or low-ish) N.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

I read Brendan’s model before but I told him and repeat that is incomplete. Female choice had to be a factor or we wouldn’t have any level of attraction to dads and we know there is conflict, depending on hormonal levels and fertility in most women. You cannot force adaptation. If anything I think a few mutants leaning to more monogamy paired up successfully and started to gain advantages: their kids lived longer the men invested more the women lived longer and had more children, also all the time they didn’t spent on mate hunting/poaching was used to produce better weapons or gather more food and then the model became a meme and started to get copied till they became majority and made the rules to spread it by force to the less inclined to promiscuity, YMMV.

Yes you can. It’s called violence. It was an integral part of male mating strategies for a very long time.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  Yes you can. It’s called violence. It was an integral part of male mating strategies for a very long time.
  
  How is this an adaptation? It’s more likely that violence from alphas was a primary factor in the adaption to pair bonding.
INTJ

@ Susan

“Some aspects of innate sexual desires in men and women are obstacles to having healthy, happy, and stable monogamous relationships.” By “innate” I mean not tempered by cultural factors or conscious decisions. Would you agree with that statement?

Happily.

It is my belief that for the good of the society, we should be judgmental towards people who act on these aspects of innate sexual desires.

If we don’t do this, and non-judgmental people like you and feminists prevail, then we will be creating a society that does not reward constructive behavior. Every person will be encouraged to pursue the best individual strategy for himself or herself – regardless of the consequences for others. Actually, why am I talking in the future tense? We’ve already created such a society.

I’m increasingly realizing that I have to now make the decision wether to continue being a constructive individual in a society that punishes such behavior or to simply give in and become a selfish individual.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  I’m increasingly realizing that I have to now make the decision wether to continue being a constructive individual in a society that punishes such behavior or to simply give in and become a selfish individual.
  
  I appreciate your careful consideration of that question. I think that it is very possible to be constructive in society even while getting your needs met. You might have a relationship that models successful emotional intimacy for others, for example. You can’t change behavior with shame unless everyone is on the same page. If you follow that strategy, you may feel virtuous but you may also die alone. Why not do what you believe is right, live your life accordingly, and not worry about what other people are up to? The vast majority of people do not engage in unproductive or immoral sexual behavior. Let them enjoy their decline.
INTJ

@ Susan

I believe I’ve read that even after pair-bonding, couples tended to stay together in cycles of 4-7 years. Serial monogamy appears to be the mating strategy that humans revert to when left to their own devices.

Civilization and economies require monogamy.

Civilization and economies require stable monogamy, not serial monogamy. It’s much harder to raise children in a complex civilization without stable monogamy… Just look at what’s happening in inner-city black America.

Serial monogamy worked great when we had simple tribal societies. But it’s not going to cut it today.
INTJ

@ Susan

Shit testing is boot camp, it’s us testing your mettle to see if you are strong. We don’t want to be in charge, so if you let us take control, we’ll kick you to the curb. We only shit test men we are attracted to, or think we could be attracted to. When it happens in LTRs or marriage, it’s because the woman perceives weakness in the man, and she’s “taking his temperature.”

???? You don’t call that hypergamy?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  When it happens in LTRs or marriage, it’s because the woman perceives weakness in the man, and she’s “taking his temperature.”
  
  ???? You don’t call that hypergamy?
  
  No I don’t. A woman who shit tests a man is not doing so in order to replace him, she is testing and sending a signal that she hopes he is still the strong leader she needs.
  
  Most of the men at Athol’s confess straight out that they let themselves get too beta in the marriage. They weren’t like that when they were dating, but now they’re long-suffering and passive. The female thinks, “WTH? This is not the together guy I married.”
  
  It is perhaps the equivalent of the wife who lets herself go physically.
  
  Hypergamy as defined by men here is about actively seeking a replacement at the first sign of weakness. I do not believe women operate that way in marriage.
Marc

I think guys are attracted to bitches because we like to think she will be “difficult” with other men if she were our gf/wife.
.
I dont believe girls are looking for men 2-3 points higher in the looks dept. It would guarantee a lifetime of insecurity for her. (Rob Lowe syndrome). Maybe for some casual sex, not long term. Im no Jesse Metcalfe, but I had a woman tell me “youre too good looking for me. I dont need that craziness in my life”.
.
We frequently see attractive women with average dudes. But NEVER do you see hot guys with average looking women. N E V E R.
.
Sassy and I think alike in this game! Her points are usually my thoughts exactly.
Höllenhund

Shit testing is boot camp, it’s us testing your mettle to see if you are strong. We don’t want to be in charge, so if you let us take control, we’ll kick you to the curb.

The only reason a woman would even want to test if her partner is strong is that she has already, consciously or not, seriously considered the option of trading up. In other words, she has already made up her mind that there’s a real possibility of her not being with the highest-status man she could be with.

Well I tolerate you don’t I?

You tolerate but you don’t listen. You’ve decided in advance that you won’t agree with the Manosphere on anything, because otherwise your female readers would leave the blog. I’m sure you remember that the only reason men like me have found your site in the first place was your decision to start a silly online feud with multiple Manosphere bloggers back in 2009 (hookingupsmart.com/2009/10/02/hookinguprealities/stop-putting-out-for-alpha-asshats/). You fired the first shots and thus showed your hostility.

You’ve made sure to keep up this feud ever since, declaring more and more Manosphere unwelcome and undesirable who cannot even be named here, because whenever one of their leaders comes here to comment, you can attack them and thus prove your credentials to your readers as another defender of innocent women from horrible, misogynist ogres. Which, of course, is a perfect vehicle for mainstream acceptance.

What are Devlin’s bona fide qualifications for writing about female sexuality?

And what are yours? Or Athol’s, or Badger’s or any other male blogger’s who got your stamp of approval? All of you have access to the same pool of public data and anecdotal evidence. What’s next? Are you going to argue that only the arguments of credentialed anthropologists and sexologists should be considered relevant about female sexuality?

As his definition of female hypergamy has not been endorsed by a single credible living soul, I am curious to know where he derived his theory.

He studied and observed, obviously. Again, who gets to decide who’s “credible” and who’s not? “Credible” to whom?

He is regarded as an MRA and misogynist, not intellectually honest wrt women.

Yes – by mainstream journos, the political supporters of feminism. And how does his alleged status as an MRA discredit his arguments in any way?

I am prepared to consider his viewpoint if anyone can explain why he is qualified to opine on female sexuality. Being smart, a student of philosophy etc, doesn’t count.

Doesn’t count because…?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Hollenhund
  
  The only reason a woman would even want to test if her partner is strong is that she has already, consciously or not, seriously considered the option of trading up. In other words, she has already made up her mind that there’s a real possibility of her not being with the highest-status man she could be with.
  
  Nonsense. She may be fully committed to the marriage, and be wondering where the hell her strong and confident lover went. She orders him around, wanting to get a rise out of him, some pushback. If he fails the test and continues his namby pamby ways, she will grow increasingly frustrated, and ultimately disgusted by him, losing attraction completely. At that point she may think of separating. There is no prerequisite of another potential mate in the wings, even in her mind.
  
  You tolerate but you don’t listen. You’ve decided in advance that you won’t agree with the Manosphere on anything, because otherwise your female readers would leave the blog.
  
  But I do agree with the Manosphere on many things! I do listen, but I don’t always agree with you. The manosphere initially welcomed me because I was pro-Game and pro-beta. The post that really got everyone upset was when I addressed accusations that I was on Team Woman. I stated clearly that I am a woman who prioritizes relationships. That led to accusations that I endorse the feminine imperative at the direct expense of men. There are many blogs in the ‘sphere that preach male supremacy. They supply my haters.
  
  Let me blow my own horn here for a minute. I have successfully communicated several manosphere concepts that women were heretofore entirely ignorant of, most notably the idea that only a few top males get no-strings sex, and that claims that “guys have it made” in hookup culture are false. I also have written here about family law, divorce and alimony. Many young women were surprised to learn, for example, that the recent Massachusetts alimony law included the income of a second wife. I have weighed in on the immorality of cuckoldry as confessed by Hugo Schwyzer. Many of the posts I have written are only tangentially relevant to my mission, but I write them because I believe the information needs to be disseminated. This is the way that I choose to contribute to males.
  
  Meanwhile, if I venture to a blog where you comment frequently, I’m likely to see you opining that women are not capable of clear or logical thinking. And other niceties along those lines. I will not risk such statements being read here on my own blog by female readers. If you don’t think that’s reasonable, you’re an extremist.
  
  As for the feud, it has a way of going on and on regardless of what I do. I decided – and boy, was it a great decision – to stop welcoming those haters and extremists here. My life has improved dramatically, more women stick around to comment, and the traffic grows. Despite losing these male supremacists, HUS is no echo chamber, and the tenor of debate here is positive and productive.
  
  And what are yours? Or Athol’s, or Badger’s or any other male blogger’s who got your stamp of approval? All of you have access to the same pool of public data and anecdotal evidence. What’s next? Are you going to argue that only the arguments of credentialed anthropologists and sexologists should be considered relevant about female sexuality?
  
  Athol bases his work on the work of Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist. Dalrock relies heavily on data to make his arguments. I rely heavily on research to learn about the SMP and share my insights. AFAIK, Devlin literally made up a theory, and subsequently failed to test it in any way. It appears to be based on nothing but his own musings. I call BS on that. It was Roissy who popularized Devlin’s notion of hypergamy, and this theory is limited to the manosphere. Not a single person outside of Game/MRA circles recognizes Devlin’s work in this area. (Michelle Langley, another fraud, is a similar story.) To be clear, anyone is welcome to offer an opinion, posit a theory, test a hypothesis, etc. What one may not do is offer a treatise on a subject about which one knows nothing, refuse to test it in any fashion, and expect it to be accepted as is. Only a fool would swallow such an illegitimately formed theory.
JustYX

@Susan
re “why would you choose that personality?”

recognition at last! oh glorious day!

I thought that it was a good one, and very restrained given what I actually think of him…(which I think I’ve fully explored in a comment this morning)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JustYX
  
  recognition at last! oh glorious day!
  
  Ha! You thought it was a tumbleweed, but I cracked up when I read it.
Escoffier

Susan, biologically, we all need to eat. Biologically, we all get hungry. That’s a basic biological urge common to the entire human race and both sexes. If we don’t control that urge, we will get fat and ruin our health. So we all need to control it.

Unfortunately, we are not biologically wired to eat exactly as many calories as we need to stay healthy and then stop. We remain “hungry” and we keep enjoying food well past that point. Also, the foods that humans enjoy the most tend to be the ones that are least good for us, especially if consumed to excess–and those foods are also the ones we are most prone to consume to excess. While the foods that are most good for us tend to be the ones a lot of us least want to eat.

The analogy to sex should be obvious. The key difference is that the sexual appetite differs qualitatively between men and women.

You said above that agree with the assesment that BOTH sexes have unruly desires they need to control, but you don’t agree that hypergamy is the peculiar desire that women need to learn to control. OK, then what is the female challenge?

Beyond that, I would ask this. Do you really think female sexual desire is the same as men’s? Do you think any but the most extreme outlying females seek to rack up high body counts the way lots of men aim to do? When I asked you earlier if you think that hypergamy accounts for frat star, super-jock, and alpha chasing, you said yes. Are you now taking that back?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  OK, then what is the female challenge?
  
  Choosing the best male to father her children. A man of good character. Avoiding bad boys, especially during ovulation. Going for the man who is a dad instead of a cad. This may have some similarities to hypergamy, but is not the same thing. Bad boys may or may not have status. Status is comprised of both prestige and social dominance.
  
  When I asked you earlier if you think that hypergamy accounts for frat star, super-jock, and alpha chasing, you said yes. Are you now taking that back?
  
  No. Girls who throw themselves at men more attractive than they are are clearly making a play for social dominance. That’s hypergamy. Women oriented primarily toward short-term mating will perpetually try to snag a night with the highest status male possible, and their offer of no-strings sex makes this possible.
  
  For long-term mating, a woman desires to “marry up.” Research shows that women prefer to marry men more educated than they are and with higher incomes than theirs. Conversely, men prefer to marry women with less education and less income. (Though assortative mating has increased in the UMC.) The woman oriented toward long-term mating must judge the “optimal stopping point” in her search for a mate. Most women marry having satisfied their hypergamous instincts – the data re assortative mating tells us this. I do not believe, nor have I ever seen any evidence, that women continually have hypergamy radar activated for a higher status mate.
  
  Of course, there are extremely hypergamic women (usually STR types) and if they marry, they are at higher risk for continuing their usual pattern of always attempting to get with a male of higher status.
  
  For the record, hypergamy simply means “marry up” or “mate up.” It does not imply a constantly rising bar, a search for ever higher status, as if women were making a life journey from bronze male, to silver male to gold male. That’s nonsense.
Escoffier

Also, the reason monogamy is important is that monogamy is crucial to virtue, and virtue is essential to happiness. Unfortunately, much of what constitutes virtuious behavior is not biologically wired as our (humans’) default setting.
evilalpha

@Ssuan

Um, I don’t think so. The leader had to be a man who could command loyalty and respect from other men. An asshole, defined as someone only looking out for #1, would not meet those criteria. If a man rose to the top by sheer physical prowess, but was an asshole, it was just a matter of time before other men plotted his downfall. Men can’t be leaders without being popular or despots. There’s no reason to believe that despots could have prevailed in the ancestral environment.

Wow. You are sooo dug in.

1. Men?? This is evolution, not modern democracy. Please start thinking “males”. Watch a chimp movie if that helps.
2. Lead males rule with a combination of fear + need + alliance. It’s that simple. Control through fear and need fall in the asshole category.
3. Even those who starve people and murder up-risers still have friends and allies. Having friends doesn’t make one NOT a despot. Such is the case with alpha primates. They are assholes AND they have allies.
JP

@Susan – “Shit testing is boot camp, it’s us testing your mettle to see if you are strong. We don’t want to be in charge, so if you let us take control, we’ll kick you to the curb. We only shit test men we are attracted to, or think we could be attracted to. When it happens in LTRs or marriage, it’s because the woman perceives weakness in the man, and she’s “taking his temperature.”

I don’t even understand what a “shit test” is, nor do I understand what “strong”or “weak”really mean. My wife gets annoyed with me with respect to this, but I have no idea as to what I’m supposed to be doing.

And I’m not trolling, I’ve just never figured out a lot of basic human day to day interactions and issues. Most of my early life was spent ignoring human nature because it seemed illogical or counter to professed moral ideals.

Note: I am well aware that this did not serve me well. I finally started to try to figure out people and how they actually operate a few years ago.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JP
  
  For a shit test baptism by fire, you may enjoy my own shit test confession:
  
  http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/03/21/relationshipstrategies/why-we-shit-test/
  
  That post still gets a lot of hits, by the way. You’re not alone among men who have no clue what the hell this is about.
evilalpha

Of course we all have primal sexual urges. Is there anything more primal than the moment of orgasm?

Yes there is. You’ve never hunted or been hunted have you? Eating/being eaten precedes sex in the brain.
http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

I think that one of the biggest problems facing any revival of the associative pairing model is that most men do not get rated very highly. As I put it out 10 years ago on Mancoat:

“The average girl looks pretty good to the average man, but the average man looks kind of icky to the average girl.”

Any site that allows for the rating of photographs of men and women displays this tendency. The rating of women by men tends to follow a simple bell-shaped curve, whereas any rating of men by women invariably results in a lot of men being gathered into the 2,3 and 4 position with only a few 8s and above.

The 8s and aboves usually all had above average height and well-defined musculature, the kind that comes from either a strenuous occupation or a commitment to gym-work. That’s one thing the kind of pisses me off about the “Hot Chicks with Douchebags” site. The “Douchebags” always seem to be pretty well-built, despite the fact that they aren’t always the crispiest fry in the Happy Meal.

The good news is that a lot of women seem to be willing to accept 2s, 3s, and 4s if the 2s, 3s and 4s are persistent enough in pressing their case. Anecdotally, I am beginning to see this with my daughter’s friends, who are approaching prime pair-off time in their lives.

The ones who take the attitude “oh, he isn’t much but he’s as good as anyone else is pulling” are exhibiting success in pairing off, whereas the girls who say “a boy isn’t worth anything unless he makes your teeth fall out” are heading straight for the soft harems.

PS – sexy-ugly works well for female practitioners as well: Catherine Keeler, Amy Winehouse, Bjork, Uma Thurman (we call her ‘goat girl’ in our house), Angelica Huston, Giulietta Masina – the list goes on and on.

Men are so idiosyncratic in their tastes in women that it would behoove women to remember that for each self-perceived flaw they have, there is likely to be a man out there fetishizing them. That generally doesn’t work the other way around.
Höllenhund

But does anyone else find it interesting that the universal male complain is that “woman only go for assholes…” and the universal female complaint is “all men are assholes…”

Makes you think…

Apex fallacy. Nothing is new under the Sun.
Zach

@Desiderus 411

The numbers that are being referred to are not my N numbers, they are the results of the sex survey poll taken at Penn last year, which I sent along to Susan.

On another note, my point about Churchill was completely unrelated to his N, but thanks anyway.

I think you’re grossly misunderstanding the mission statement of this blog. If you’re looking for a crusade to change the current SMP, this ain’t it. Regardless of judgement, pushback, etc, etc, what Susan does provide are some very smart ways for a young woman to navigate an increasingly difficult SMP. Let’s face it: men have won this SMP. We can have NSA sex mostly when we want, have relationships when we want, and get married pretty much when we want. The “cartel” of women and sex has been broken. I often find myself giving advice to the women I know on how to successfully navigate this marketplace. Most of it centers on my knowledge of how guys like myself act, and how to tease out the bullshit from those who actually are interested. I give them advice on how to NOT find me. And from my experience, a LOT of Susan’s advice is spot-on. You don’t have to go around condemning the existence of sharks in order to give people tips on how to avoid them. “Don’t swim off the coast of South Africa with a bucket of chum” doesn’t have to be accompanied by “because sharks are the most evil beings in existence”. So if all you’re looking for is a place to sh*t on players and condemn modern mores, I’m sure there are dozens of wingnut evangelical sites out there for you. This isn’t one of them.

@Escoffier

I think it boils down to this: I never view self-improvement as a bad thing or useless. By your logic, no one should ever start a new business, because if everyone does, the market will be over-saturated. And yet we still end up with the Apples, Googles and Microsofts of the world….
J

@SW

Cosign! I have always been a fan of witty banter, and I’m here to tell ya, it is definitely possible to neg males and get them all hot and bothered in the process. Of course, this only works with highly confident males, who enjoy the challenge for a change. I regularly punched above my weight based on personality and smarts. I know it can work, though none of us is for all markets.

Me too.

@Obs

I know you posed the question to the menfolk, but I’ll weigh in with the comment that I chose DH based on character. Is he a Bad Boy or a Good Boy? Hard to say. Certainly he is bad boy enough to shift for himself in this world; he is confident, courageous, shows leadership, etc. But he brings some good, old Beta reliability to the table. I find that a nice balance. And while I don’t fall in the pattern of lavishingly respecting him because he is the “man,” and I am just the submissive woman, in terms of real respect for him as an individual and real admiration–well, I wouldn’t have married him if I didn’t feel that.
deti

Zach:

“Let’s face it: men have won this SMP.”

No. Should be

“Let’s face it: good looking, successful players like me have won this SMP.”

Fixed it for you.
Zach

One follow-up comment with a couple of real life examples.

Example 1: Last Saturday, at my friend’s birthday party, I met a girl. She was a friend of a friend, we started talking, then we started dancing, then making out at the bar. I said “let’s go back to my place” and she came. At my place, we had drunken sex (which, Susan, I can say, is always far worse than non-drunken sex). At no point did I say I loved her, or did I lie to her in any way to get her to come home with me. She left the next morning while I was asleep. I’m not going to stop her mid-act and say “you know what, if you really want to date me, you shouldn’t be sleeping with me right now.” It’s her prerogative to do that, not mine.

Also, when I tell my dad, who’s 72, about some of my stories, he says “Jesus, did I grow up in the wrong time”. I think that says it all for who has won this SMP.

Example 2: Over a month ago, I meet a girl at a bar. We talk for a bit, make out for a bit, and then I ask her to go home with me. She says no. She follows up with “but I did have a really good time with you here tonight, so I’ll give you my number and you can call me to go out for drinks and coffee. We can get to know each other. Five years ago (she was 28) I would have probably gone home with you, but I’ve learned a lot since then.” SHE was hooking up smart. I declined her offer of the number, since I wouldn’t have asked her out, but I told her I respected her stance, and gave her a high five. THAT is what I tell my girl friends to do. THAT is the sort of thing Susan’s blog is here to teach.

@Susan

Yes, I’m probably not a great prospect for an LTR. I have no qualms with that. I personally think I can be a great bf, but I do present quite a few “risk factors” for girls who are interested. Cheating is not one of those. I’d like to think I’m the exception to the rule (high N, etc, not good for dating), but by the probabilities I am the rule.

And thank you, I also don’t think business school, work, or much else in the professional sphere has anything to do with dating habits.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Zach
  
  Example 1 is entirely on the girl. In my view, you did nothing wrong.
  
  Example 2 shows you to be a man of integrity.
Zach

@modernguy 443

Um, yes, you should. You’re sitting there now looking for a handout (the SMP to change drastically) and then complaining bitterly when it doesn’t come. You’re whining. As someone up above said, sack up (get off your ass and work at it) or shut up.
Escoffier

SOME men (a minority) have won in this SMP.
Zach

@HanSolo 441

I’ve never learned Game, never read the book, never seen a seminar, never read a single website dedicated to it. I use “game” as a term for “ability to interact with and pick up women”, not “Game” in the sense of Neil Strauss’ book. When my friends and I refer to a guy having great game, we’re not saying “wow, he really imitates Mystery well”. We’re saying he’s good a picking up women, period. I don’t know a single guy who’s spent time learning that stuff, and I certainly haven’t. I actually have no idea what you mean by an HB10.
Zach

@Deti

Yes and no. I have plenty of friends who I would put more towards the beta than alpha end of the pool, and they still have far higher Ns today than they would have had 50 years ago. Most all of the beta guys I know are at least over 5, with some closer to 10. They would never have gotten there 50-60 years ago. So in the sense of sex as a whole being easier to get, then yes I think that men in general have won.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Zach
  
  Most all of the beta guys I know are at least over 5, with some closer to 10.
  
  This is true of the beta guys I know as well, who are 23-26.
Ted D

Susan – “For all the talk of choking on the red pill, I think you two have pretty good instincts about female psychology, as evidenced by my total inability to stay annoyed with either one of you.”

LOL. Is it my turn to be happy and offended? :-p

I finally got that damn pill down I think. I won’t say I’m a guru or anything, but I’m past most of my mental hang-ups, and now I’m working on integrating this stuff into my everyday life. I told you about my little experiments, which is just one way I’m trying to bring this stuff to the surface, but there are others. I’ve sent my first male friend to MMSL this week because of some trouble he is having in his marriage. I am now more than confident enough in all this to actually spread the word, and I’m looking forward to him finishing the book so we can chat. (He ordered the book after only an hour of browsing Athol’s site.)

“I’ll be honest here – I can truthfully say that I have known exactly four women to leave their husbands for other men. I can count more than a dozen men who have either left their wives for other lovers (both female and male) or whose wives discovered they’d been cheating for years. If you want to compare tomcatting to trading up, the men win that competition hands down.”

This MUST be either geographical, or because of you SES. I have seen the exact opposite for the most part. Sure, there have been a few guys that left their wives for a “younger model” (not runway model, more like model of car…) but by and large it has been women that left, filed, and usually either went straight to the arms of another man, or was with a new guy within the year. And, of those women, about half were total bitches in family court, not only raking these guys over the coals for money, but also using their children as ammo during family court hearings. 10 years after the divorce, one of these guys is STILL having weekly problems dealing with his ex because she uses their son against him. He is literally NOT looking to improve his employment, because he knows she will drag him back to court for increased child support. And, it isn’t that this guy doesn’t want to spend money on his son, as I’ve personally seen him spend WAY more on school shopping for his one child than we spend on our three, but he KNOWS the money he sends her DOES NOT all go to support his son. Instead, a good bit goes toward her supporting the loser she is living with. Oh, he is indeed an “alpha”, but only in the “success with women” department since he can’t even support himself. Did I mention this woman is in her late 30’s? Yep, late 30’s living with a guy who can’t support himself, AND her teenage son.

I have more like this, but this one is by far the worst. I always say that I was lucky, but truthfully my ex-wife IS a good person despite her issues and our differences. But, IME, most women aren’t even civil when divorce happens, let alone “good”.

Also, I saw this article a few days ago, and figured it would make this conversation MUCH more interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/more-americans-rejecting-marriage-in-50s-and-beyond.html?pagewanted=all

“Over the past 20 years, the divorce rate among baby boomers has surged by more than 50 percent, even as divorce rates over all have stabilized nationally. At the same time, more adults are remaining single. The shift is changing the traditional portrait of older Americans: About a third of adults ages 46 through 64 were divorced, separated or had never been married in 2010, compared with 13 percent in 1970, according to an analysis of recently released census data conducted by demographers at Bowling Green State University, in Ohio.”

So, it seems that many of those supposed “happy and content” women are indeed checking out, although I will concede that many of them are probably NOT divorcing for other men. I still maintain that in some sense, they are divorcing because they feel unsatisfied, and I may have mistaken that dissatisfaction for a form of hypergamy.

“Are you saying that women were not capable of assessing risk when choosing sexual partners? “

Do you think by and large women are showing that capability today? In many cases, I do not think woman ARE indeed capable of correctly assessing risk when choosing mating partners, and at least I see the results of that every single day, just down a few blocks. Now, I’m not saying this is any particular woman’s fault, but I WILL say that it is ALL women’s fault for NOT teaching these young girls to make those assessments correctly. I firmly believe it is not something we are born with, but instead it must be learned, either by trial and error (which is VERY bad for women and society) or by older women teaching it. And no, I don’t have any study to back this up either.

“That doesn’t mean that cuckoldry was a conscious strategy so that women could get superior genes and resources from two different men, which is what INTJ claimed.”

I don’t think he claimed that… I think what he, I, and many men here are trying to say is: it is in women’s “primal” sexual nature to ALWAYS try to get the best DNA for making babies. If that means cuckolding, so be it. If it means snagging and marrying an alpha, so be it. If it means sexing up alpha after alpha until she gets knocked up, so be it. The problem is, ALL of these strategies CAN be successful in the right climate. My argument is: our current climate encourages the latter and the first option MUCH MORE than the middle, which is to say we are NOT promoting life-long pair bonding, and the result is less marriages making it the distance. I don’t believe women are somehow evil for this, but I would LOVE it if women would simply acknowledge it, internalize it, and THEN work on making those risk assessments with better knowledge.

“Non-judgmentalism is a key part of my personality”

LOL and this is why you get so frustrated with me. I start from a place of judgment and work my way towards the center, while you start in the center and form judgments along the way. In many cases, I’m at what I consider the beginning of a thought process, and you see me as WAY out in left field.

“base Noun /bās/
Synonyms:
adjective: mean, vile, low, ignoble, sordid, scurvy, villainous, abject”

Well damn. This is not what I meant by base at all. I meant it as “basic female sexual desire”, or put another way, the set of sexual desire women have without the addition of conscious choice. My apologies for painting that out to be “sordid”, as that wasn’t at all my intent.

“Lying about feelings or intentions to get sex or resources
Cheating/adultery
Acquiring sex based on one’s authority over another
Incest
Pedophilia
Rape”

Ugh. Yeah, we were not on the same page. I meant base as in:
What attracts female humans to male humans without adding in ANY conscious thought process.

“Of course we all have primal sexual urges. Is there anything more primal than the moment of orgasm?”

I tend to ask: is there anything more spiritual than the moment of orgasm? And, starting from that perspective, it may be clearer why I hold the views about casual sex that I do.

Escoffier – “But apparently it’s not uncommon for women to initiate divorce in the hope or expectation that they can do better only to be disappointed. Dalrock points this out with lots of glee.”

This is exactly what eventually happened with my divorce. I can’t say I took much “glee” in it, but it was hard NOT to say “I told you so…” when it finally dawned on her that the grass IS NOT greener. I actually felt just a little bad about it, but was also already pursuing a relationship with my current wife at the time, and even IF I hadn’t there was NO WAY I would have considered trying to reconcile at that point. She had already “test driven” a few prospective new men, and I told her on her way out the door that the moment she slept with another man any chances of us working it out were over.

“Even if a women doesn’t have a new mate in mind when she initiates divorce, the mere fact of dumping a dull but good man I think is a manifestation of hypergamy.”

Cosigned, although as Susan pointed out, I have no proof other than what I’ve observed my entire life. It is very interesting to go back over these events with my new perspective. I know “hindsight is always 20/20” and all that, but the truth is: after finding the ‘sphere and the Red Pill, so much of what I’ve observed but been confused about came into focus that I can’t ignore it or discount all of it to me trying to apply my new outlook to past events. I’m sure many people do that often, and I am of course susceptible to that as well, but I cannot describe here the paces I put myself through to try and filter my biases out. Yes, sometimes when I post comments, I get a bit emotional (like I said, I have them, I just usually hide them well) and that shows in my writing, but that DOES NOT mean that the conclusions I’m writing about were made from an emotional process. To the contrary, I’ve come to these conclusions after a lot of long, hard thinking, and now that I’ve come to these conclusions I am “getting behind them” which may very well appear to be more emotion based than reason based. To be honest, I tend to get just a little offended when I’m accused of being emotional and/or illogical here, but I have to keep in mind that Susan, yourself, and all the regulars here are not the average bear, and if any group of people on the internet can call me on my shit, it is indeed the folks here.

SciGuy – “However, if such research is always assumed to be biased and even to have “cooked” results, then our own anecdotal evidence is hardly a worthy substitute, given the human tendency towards confirmation bias, and that the people we meet and whose behavior we take note of are surely not a random sample.”

See my comment above. I fully admit that as a human I can’t remove all bias, but I’d swear on a Bible that I truly do my best to filter that crap out before I go on a mission to ‘spread the word’. One thing that is becoming clearer to me, and I still find it very interesting, is that geography plays a pretty large role in a lot of this. SES does as well, and maybe those two are tied together, but it seems like someone from my area of the world (Pittsburgh, PA) has a VERY different view of the world than someone from Utah. Yes, on some level this makes sense, but since we are indeed one country and in this modern age we are SO interconnected, I still find it amazing that these regional differences survive. I think that what I (and Obsidian observes on the other side of the state) see is truly different than what Susan sees, and not just because of SES. Maybe areas that were historically ‘blue collar’ have some very key differences than areas that were/are primarily ‘white collar’ or even agricultural? Again, in this modern day and age I can’t logically see WHY these differences exist, but I can’t deny that they do exist.

INTJ – “It is my belief that for the good of the society, we should be judgmental towards people who act on these aspects of innate sexual desires.”

YES! Spoken like a true INTJ.

“I’m increasingly realizing that I have to now make the decision wether to continue being a constructive individual in a society that punishes such behavior or to simply give in and become a selfish individual.”

It’s a real bitch, isn’t it? I’ve always been naturally selfish, but my desire for fairness forces me to consciously make decisions that are more selfless, for lack of a better term. This is why I say that should things ever go south in the Western world, I won’t have problems doing whatever must be done. The only reason I ‘behave’ most of the time is I do not like the consequences placed on me by society for bad behavior. At this point, I’m in the middle between total selfish asshole and constructive individual. Since I still have young children in the house, I’ll probably stay close to constructive for awhile. But, once they are adults?…

“Shit testing is boot camp, it’s us testing your mettle to see if you are strong. We don’t want to be in charge, so if you let us take control, we’ll kick you to the curb. We only shit test men we are attracted to, or think we could be attracted to. When it happens in LTRs or marriage, it’s because the woman perceives weakness in the man, and she’s “taking his temperature.”

“???? You don’t call that hypergamy?”

EXACLTY!!!!

Hollenhund – “The only reason a woman would even want to test if her partner is strong is that she has already, consciously or not, seriously considered the option of trading up.”

Cosigned. I can’t figure out why women don’t understand this. If she is shit testing, she already has doubt. If she already has doubt, she is already contemplating a change, and in most cases today, that change leads to divorce.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  I have seen the exact opposite for the most part. Sure, there have been a few guys that left their wives for a “younger model” (not runway model, more like model of car…) but by and large it has been women that left, filed, and usually either went straight to the arms of another man, or was with a new guy within the year. And, of those women, about half were total bitches in family court, not only raking these guys over the coals for money, but also using their children as ammo during family court hearings.
  
  I always wondered “Who are these people who go on Jerry Springer? Where do they come from?” Now I know. Pittsburgh.
JustYX

What a day

comedy props from Susan
Peace with Kathy
now for the tricky triple…(no, no clues)
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Just a fun side note about Neill Strauss for those who aren’t aware of his progression towards survivalism: after leaving (?) the PUA lifestyle, Strauss started taking tactical shooting, survival, and knife combatives classes; bought a Rokon off-road motorcycle; and studied offshore financial vehicles and expat strategies with a cryptolibertarian group. He wrote a book—“Emergency”—about his experiences; it’s a pretty nice read and I think it may reveal a man moving from faux-alpha social presentation to investing in some “badass” skills and putting some genuine alpha into his capabilities radius.
Höllenhund

Meh. Neil Strauss is just a typical feminist and provides further proof that the PUA industry is de facto feminist.

http://timeoutchicago.com/sex-dating/12914409/neil-strauss-interview
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@ Susan Walsh

“I have no problem with players and sluts”

I define a player (cad) as a narcissist who has no concern for the 100 or so women he’s had sex with. They’re cowards. That’s s what a lot of so-called Alphas are.

A slut is a women who has no concern for the man. They’re cowards, too.

I’ve met both kinds more than once, and they end up ruining their lives.

The closest to a “good Alpha” is a chivalrous man in the original sense – an armed knight who protected the weak, helpless and powerless, who dealt justice, who noble and honorable.

I consider Alpha and Beta to be basically ridiculous concepts. But if you want to use them, the original definition of chivalry included both Alpha and Beta traits.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @BobWallace
  
  I consider Alpha and Beta to be basically ridiculous concepts. But if you want to use them, the original definition of chivalry included both Alpha and Beta traits.
  
  Cosigned.
J

he knows because he compares the divorce rate of the over 40s to their remarriage rate and, Surprise!, it turns out that a lot of them don’t get remarried.

I used to go ’round in circles with Dalrock on this one. I’m not sure so sure that not remarrying is such a bad thing for a woman over 40. There are, in my community, a number of women who for years I thought were married women who retained maiden names or the names of their first husband so that they and their kids shared a last name. It turns out that many of these women have been living monogamoulsy with their SOs for 10-20 years without ever marrying. Why? Both parties got burned once and don’t want to try again. Or because marriage would mean blending finances and neither party wants to do that. Or because there are issues around whose kids from a former marriage would inherit what. Or the woman is a widow and doesn’t want to give up her SS benefits. I see loads of women in happy, committed realtionships, but who are past childbearing and don’t necessarily want to be married again. I’ve never seen D even attempt to gather those statistics.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @J
  
  I see loads of women in happy, committed realtionships, but who are past childbearing and don’t necessarily want to be married again.
  
  I’ve read that many women seek divorce with no intention to marry again, particularly after the age of 50, an age bracket where divorce is increasing. I can honestly say that I would not consider marrying again whether I became divorced or widowed. I do know some women over 40 in serious dating relationships, but only one was interested in marrying, which she did.
  
  I think inheritance laws also play a big role here. My father is 79 and has been with one woman for 15 years, but would never consider marrying because the finances get messy and he would likely be leaving money to her blood relatives rather than his own.
Ramble

I mostly want a society were both genders foster their best sides and suppress their worst. And doing it on one gender only doesn’t work in the long run it only leads to resentment and bitterness.

This is absolutely correct.

But, it leads to a debate about what constitutes our best sides. Because, a strident feminist could, probably, easily agree with you. So, should girls be “strong” and “independent” or supportive and demure?

Granted, this is a debate that is happening at HUS almost everyday.
Escoffier

J, I don’t necessarily disagree, though Dalrock’s point is that a lot of women initiate divorce with the exepctation that they will easily find another man, or at the very least that their lives will improve, and neither turns out to be the case.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  Dalrock’s point is that a lot of women initiate divorce with the exepctation that they will easily find another man, or at the very least that their lives will improve
  
  Wait a minute, those are two dramatically different goals.
  
  First, where does Dalrock get his information that a lot of women initiate divorce with the expectation that they will easily find another man? What percentage of women do this?
  
  Second, why would any woman initiate divorce is she didn’t expect her life to improve? Most women divorce to get out of a bad marriage (in their view). Improving one’s life is the only incentive I can imagine for marrying or subsequently divorcing.
evilalpha

Meh. Neil Strauss is just a typical feminist and provides further proof that the PUA industry is de facto feminist.

Neil Strauss is only one dude and atypical at that. PUA is not de facto feminist… The communities hate each other too much for that to be true.
Mike C

So to sum up: Cads get nearly all mating privileges, while Dads constitute the vast majority of the male population.

Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?

If Cads always get the girl, and therefore get to reproduce while the Dads don’t, at least not in nearly the same numbers, then why do Dads exist at all? Wouldn’t such men have been bred nearly out of existence eons ago due to sexual selection? But as the self-taught Cads (PUAs) themselves tell us, not only do Dads exist, but they constitute most men!

Sciguy,

Ignoring for a moment the binary distinction between Cads and Dads (I think there are high N guys who end up making good Dads) but let’s say we can neatly map guys into one of those two categories. I think the answer to your question is that most women do in fact end up with Dads. Whether or not they “settle” for Dads I think is largely semantics, but I think that is what happens.

I take alot from discussions I have with women in real life as opposted to the Internet blogosphere, and discussions that are relayed to me about women in real life. Long story short, my sister visited a few weeks ago. She is early-mid 30s, single, and definitely very interested in finding a guy for marriage and having children. She has alot of female friends and colleagues who are married with children, and they all basically relayed the same thing that she was too picky especially in terms of things like a “spark” or “chemistry”. Based on what these women were telling her, it is clear to me that many women do in fact get to their thirties, want marriage and children, and grab one of the remaining “acceptable Dad” types off the shelf who is still single. It probably isn’t as simple as reducing it to “in the twenties sleep with the alpha Cad, and then in the thirties settle for the beta Dad” but there is at least some kernel of truth that is one approach women take to mating. Again, I’m not just making this shit up…this is direct conversations of women being relayed to me.

FWIW, the tide may be turning. My fiancee does make-up for brides as part of her job and has done so for about 10 years. I asked her recently if the average age of brides seems to be going down. She said yes. So I think some women may in fact deciding to commit to Dad types at much younger ages.
J

@SciGuy

No, I think your question is more than rhetorical. All the ‘sphere’s theorizing about how cads are at such a big advantage DOES ignore the objective truth that most of us up until 1960 were fathered by dads, whether we came from societies that repressed women or societies that gave them more freedom. Feminism is seen as making all us gals more feral, but frankly I think the Pill and the widespread availability if other contraception has more to do with it than anything else. In fact, I would say that it was the Pill that allowed for the development of sex positive feminism. Prior to the Pill, the focus of feminism was women in the work place and, earlier, on women’s rights within marriage.
Lavazza

So the Beta Marriage to Divorce reads something like: Slightly anxious man meets more anxious woman and attracts her by luck that makes him seem more secure than he is. He becomes more secure through the relation and nurtures her. Through marriage and kids more power is given to the woman and she becomes either avoidant or secure. If the woman becomes secure, everything is fine. But if the woman becomes avoidant instead of secure and, instead of cutting off relations, according to the scheme, the man stays, the man becomes anxious. Finally the woman tires of the situation and divorces the man. The man has no way of becoming secure again, but at least protects himself by avoiding relations with anxious or avoidant women. Secure women are always hard to find, even for secure men.
Valentin

“The average girl looks pretty good to the average man, but the average man looks kind of icky to the average girl.”
“The good news is that a lot of women seem to be willing to accept 2s, 3s, and 4s if the 2s, 3s and 4s are persistent enough in pressing their case.

Actually it’s very bad news: these two factors are what are causing and widening the divide between men and women on the SMP. This base attitude is why women go around with the notion that “there just aren’t enough good men out there”. So it’s actually bad news: mostly for the women as this imbalance and unfairness is of their own design and maintenance.
Ted D

Escoffier – “Unfortunately, much of what constitutes virtuious behavior is not biologically wired as our (humans’) default setting.”

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single “virtuous” behavior that IS wired in. Virtue is a direct result of civility, which is a direct result of civilization. Without it, we are indeed simply animals, and animals are NOT virtuous.

JP – “And I’m not trolling, I’ve just never figured out a lot of basic human day to day interactions and issues. Most of my early life was spent ignoring human nature because it seemed illogical or counter to professed moral ideals.”

Are you by chance another INTJ that found HUS? I’ve been making a solid effort to understand those day to day interactions, and although I am learning the how of it all, I still just don’t see the why. It is all just so much work for very little real benefit to me.
Escoffier

Ted, I think empathy, which can lead to altruism, is biologically wired. Alas, it is often in conflict with selfishness, which is also biologically wired, so …
evilalpha

Let’s face it: men have won this SMP. We can have NSA sex mostly when we want, have relationships when we want, and get married pretty much when we want.

Not so fast Zach.

That drunken NSA sex you just had may have been rape. And that relationship you want… is with a “reformed” slut. And your marriage when you wanted… will end in divorce and the laws will gouge you.

The war still rages.
J

There’s not one bit of a problem with this as long as you keep in mind that female sexuality used to be regulated, especially after the agricultural revolution ushered in enforced lifelong monogamy. The beta segment of the male population exploded as a result, and what we’ve seen in the past couple of decades is the reversal of this trend. Betas are slowly but surely going extinct, and society’s capacity for wealth creation will also disappear.

I think that the social trends we are seeing now will reversethemselves long before that happens, and I believe that female choice will be a big part of that.

And for Obs: I do signs of this happening among both black and white working class women. Many of these women are limiting the size of their families as they find themseles struggling to support their kids. Others do have MC longings. As many of you know, I spent a big chunk of time going in and out of the hospital last spring. Before that, I spent a lot time at the nursing home visiting my parents. I got to know a lot of these women in lower level health care jobs, and most seem to want and be working towards more stable lives.
INTJ

@ Mike C

FWIW, the tide may be turning. My fiancee does make-up for brides as part of her job and has done so for about 10 years. I asked her recently if the average age of brides seems to be going down. She said yes. So I think some women may in fact deciding to commit to Dad types at much younger ages.

This is good news. Makes me hopeful.
INTJ

There are definitely double standards when it comes to expressing emotion. Crying, whining, even pouting are things women can and do get away with every day. Men are raised to be stoic (and are less naturally emotional anyway) so we penalize them for displays of emotion. It’s not just women – males don’t tolerate this in other males either.

Less naturally emotional? We might have fewer out of control emotions, but we certainly have feelings just as strongly as women. Just cause we don’t express emotions doesn’t mean we don’t have them.

And yes, emotional expression in males is disliked by both males and females (and this is something that should be lessened).

In the same way, a woman who is stoic and unemotional will often be perceived as unfeminine and unattractive by males.

We like our sex differences.

NAWALT
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  Less naturally emotional? We might have fewer out of control emotions, but we certainly have feelings just as strongly as women. Just cause we don’t express emotions doesn’t mean we don’t have them.
  
  My knowledge about this is garnered from males. Guys here often say that women are just so emotional…and of course we like drama. My guess is that emotional sensitivity is inversely related to testosterone.
INTJ

@ Susan

Thanks for stating the obvious – you are channeling a commenter named Megaman who pops in from time to time. As he pointed out:

Men Age 18+ (Census 2008): 108,783,000
Married Men Age 18+ (Census 2008): 64,129,000 (59%)
Married Men who describe their marriages as “very happy” (GSS, 2008): 63%Married Men who describe their marriages as “pretty happy” (GSS, 2008): 33%

I’ll point out the National Marriage Project report for 2004 on which men marry and why. They concluded 22% of men are hardcore commitment avoiders

It’s beta males who marry and stay married, and they appear to be quite content.

W’re happy when and if we get married. Until then, we have to wait and watch while all the girls chase the alphas.
Ted D

Susan – “It’s beta males who marry and stay married, and they appear to be quite content.”

It’s beta males who marry and end up in divorce court. – fixed.
evilalpha

@Susan
Thoughts?

This sounds more like a narrative crafted from “Sex at Dawn” than the truth.
Cooperation and orgies did not characterize early hominid societies.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @evilalpha
  
  This sounds more like a narrative crafted from “Sex at Dawn” than the truth.
  
  The truth is elusive. We’re all throwing darts.
J

…even after pair-bonding, couples tended to stay together in cycles of 4-7 years. Serial monogamy appears to be the mating strategy that humans revert to when left to their own devices. ..Civilization and economies require monogamy.

Exactly. That is why I always go back to the idea that friendship between spouses is the sine qua non of a lifelong marriage. Yeah, we all love our husbands while the dopamine is flowing, but then what? Either you break up as people do in H/G societies or you build a freindship-based oxytocin attachment.

I believe that you, Susan, and I have the longest marriages of all the women on the blog. I have also noticed that you, like me, tend to “hang out” with your husband. I think that men, at least those capable of lifelong monogamy, really life that. Yeah, they want food, sex and respect, as the guys here will oftern emphasize, but they want it from someone who can also be somewhat of a buddy.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Yeah, they want food, sex and respect, as the guys here will oftern emphasize, but they want it from someone who can also be somewhat of a buddy.
  
  Helen Fisher says that men get a lot of their intimacy from their wives, while women get more from female friends. My husband and I definitely hang out – every day one of us will say, “What shall we do tonight after dinner? You reading? Or should we watch something?” We generally are homebodies on Fridays, then go out on Saturdays. Now that our kids are grown, we don’t have sports commitments, so we can play on weekends. We go for walks, go to museums, eat out. Haha, old folks activities.
Mike C

I believe I’ve read that even after pair-bonding, couples tended to stay together in cycles of 4-7 years. Serial monogamy appears to be the mating strategy that is what humans

***women*** revert to when left to their own devices.

Susan,

Fixed it for ya. In all probability the mating strategy men would revert to would be one lifelong partner along with multiple short-term mating partners along the way. This can be seen by observing that with adultery generally speaking the woman leaves the man for the other man but men generally don’t leave their wives for the other woman.

Civilization and economies require monogamy.

Agreed. Or at least enough of it to produce productive citizens that can add to overall wealth. As Ted D pointed out, there are people content to basically have just a roof, some food, and probably cable and a cell phone. If they are sort of de facto quarantined off into their separate geographic zones and at least enough of the overall wealth is directed their way to prevent rioting in the streets, then overall society may be able to function with minimal levels of monogamy that the middle and upper classes practice.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  This can be seen by observing that with adultery generally speaking the woman leaves the man for the other man but men generally don’t leave their wives for the other woman.
  
  Do you have information to support this claim, or is this your impression from the manosphere? I keep seeing all sorts of claims like this, and finding myself totally unaware of any such information or source for it, find myself perplexed. The meme is a favorite on Game blogs. The idea is that the male craves sexual variety, so cheating doesn’t really threaten the marriage, it’s just sex. Whereas the woman is loathe to cheat until she’s already exited the marriage emotionally, making it more likely that she is “done” by the time she cheats, which makes the marriage likely to fail. Personally, I think this has a flavor of “boys will be boys” to it – IMO cheating is cheating, vows are broken, I don’t want to hear excuses.
J

though Dalrock’s point is that a lot of women initiate divorce with the exepctation that they will easily find another man, or at the very least that their lives will improve, and neither turns out to be the case.

That’s because Dalrock thinks all women do notihing but watch Lifetime all day or those “Christian” movies that he references that I’d never heard of before. I don’t know a single divorced woman who left her marriage frivolously, and some have no plans at all to meet another man.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  That’s because Dalrock thinks all women do notihing but watch Lifetime all day or those “Christian” movies that he references that I’d never heard of before.
  
  LOL, slowly a portrait of Mrs. Dalrock emerges.
J

I asked her recently if the average age of brides seems to be going down. She said yes. So I think some women may in fact deciding to commit to Dad types at much younger ages.

I think young women have the opportunity to see so many older women struggling with infertility that they realize that women don’t have forever.
J

@Plain Jane

Good to see you posting as PJ. Thanks.
Sassy6519

@ OffTheCuff

That’s because the 500 guys who didn’t approach you, you fail to reliaze even exist. You only see the mistakes and long shots, and then assume its everyone.

I’ve said no such thing.

I do take the time to notice nearly all the men in any room I enter. I notice the most attractive males, and I notice the less attractive males. Sometimes I approach men to strike up conversations with them, and other times I’m approached.

Most of the time, the men who approach me have a similar SMV to me. Other times, there are men who clearly do not match up with me in that area. They approach me, despite that, and are politely turned down.

The point of my post was to confirm that low SMV males sometimes do approach higher SMV females, despite the fact that there is a huge discrepancy between their two SMVs.

If the male 4s and 5s who approached me would have spent their time and effort approaching women who looked similar to them, perhaps they would have a better shot at landing someone. There’s no guarantee of that, but I would think that the odds would be more in their favor.
J

@Hollenhund

I don’t mean this in a snarky way, but it occurs to me that you were sort of a veteran in the ‘sphere when I started posting about two years ago. Your views have been pretty static. I’m curious to know what the impact of over a two year dose of the red pill has had on your personal life, if you wouldn’t mind talking about it. Has taking the red pill improved your life? If so, how?
http://IfCadsalwaysgetthegirl,andthereforegettoreproducewhiletheDadsdon’t,atleastnotinnearlythesamenumbers,thenwhydoDadsexistatall? OffTheCuff

Sass: “The point of my post was to confirm that low SMV males sometimes do approach higher SMV females, despite the fact that there is a huge discrepancy between their two SMVs.”

While I agree, the context of your post seemed to imply that the few men who do, are proof that most men shoot out of their league (the PJ hypothesis) and it’s silly/wrong/wasteful to do so, because I believe it was in response to someone saying that men tend to learn their “league” early… either from experience, or by social/cultural mechanisms.

My point is men do learn, as evidenced by the all men who left you alone. Of the few that don’t, those who approach you are either a) will learn soon enough or b) don’t care, and are taking the long shot, because it works often enough.

My experience is that men undervalue themselves, far more than they aim too high and get tons of rejections. From your experience, it’s the opposite, because you only see it from your perspective of being approached a lot.

The male sex drive is too far strong to tolerate a 100% rejection rate for very long, which would be the result of ALWAYS shooting out of their league.
HanSolo

@INTJ

I was joking but actually fertility in most countries, including Islamic ones, is falling. In Iran it’s only 1.8 children per woman.

http://www.worldcrunch.com/myth-soaring-muslim-fertility-rates/culture-society/the-myth-of-soaring-muslim-fertility-rates/c3s4990/#.UEDvMdbZQ4g
HanSolo

@Susan

@HanSolo

“I would just like to observe that based on the way you think, I believe you are exceedingly well suited to [pickup] school. The [Mystery] Method is falling by the wayside – even old [Style] Harvard has moved away from it. But there is still some of that, and you will nail HBS10′s because you [DHV] very effectively. I have no doubt you will nail the [7’s and the 8’s] as well.”

Haha! Are you saying that alpha dog wouldn’t be good in business? He’s probably going to make a great CEO someday. I might not want my daughter marrying him, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t add value in another way.

LOL. Not saying anything about his business ability. I have no reason to doubt it. I was reading Desiderius’ comment that put together Zach’s N=n+2 with your praise for his business-school ability and it was late. My mind was in one of those find-anything funny modes and your use of the word ‘nail’ set off my imagination.

No value judgement (you’ll appreciate that while others won’t) but you have to admit that nailing the HBS 10’s was a rather sweet play on words. haha If you read it again, knowing that I’m not making or implying any statement about morals or management ability, I’m sure you enjoy it even more. And the only judgement was in affirming his ability to nail the 7-10’s–not too unflattering I must say.
Jason773

Just wanted to say the 1-10 scale discussion was amusing. There is never any consensus there.

Susan,

You seemed to state that Drew Barrymore was higher than a 5, as that specific blog stated. What would your rating be for her?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Jason
  
  Drew Barrymore in her prime? A solid 7. She’s a Cover Girl model right now and looks pretty fine.
HanSolo

@Jimmy Hendrix

But does anyone else find it interesting that the universal male complain is that “woman only go for assholes…” and the universal female complaint is “all men are assholes…”

Makes you think…

Classic!

Now, making a related point, I think that men are on a spectrum of jerk/good-guy traits. At one end they’re always jerks, at the other always good or nice. But most in the middle are a mix.

The relative SMV/MMV of both parties comes into play. The guy who’s a 6 will act like a jerk to the female 4 whom he will either ignore or P&D while acting like a nice lapdog to the female 8. Since many women have some hypergamous tendencies, especially in their stay-free 20’s, betting on the long odds–higher value man or bust–they will tend to experience the jerk side of the two-sided male coin.
Ted D

J – “Yeah, they want food, sex and respect, as the guys here will oftern emphasize, but they want it from someone who can also be somewhat of a buddy.”

If you are interested in keeping tabs, add me to this list of men. Keep in mind thought, that in terms of importance, being my buddy is a ways down the list. However, I think your point is relevant and probably correct: marriages last longer if there is a genuine “friendship” quality between the husband and wife IN ADDITION to a healthy marriage.

“That’s because Dalrock thinks all women do notihing but watch Lifetime all day or those “Christian” movies that he references that I’d never heard of before.”

The marriage counselor my ex and I went to suggested we watch Fireproof, which IS one of those movies Dalrock talks about. He isn’t wrong in the least, the movie was TOTAL feminist BS, signed and approved by the “Church”.

“ I don’t know a single divorced woman who left her marriage frivolously, and some have no plans at all to meet another man.”

As I said, maybe this is a SES/Geography thing, but I know of many women that did exactly this. Now, we can quibble over what defines “frivolous”, but none of them were being abused, and other than a lack of alpha attitude, I don’t see anything these men did to cause the women to choose the nuclear option.
Höllenhund

I don’t mean this in a snarky way,

Of course you do, J.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

“And for all the neo-cons and others worried about high Islamic birthrates leading them to take over the world, maybe carpet bomb muff divers delivering crates of porn over Pakistan is the key

Porn replaced women because of the long “dry spells” men have in a culture were sex is so hard to obtain unless you break many of the social programing. Muslims marry their kids really young and they both have the duty to satisfy each other’s needs. Even if the porn lady is prettier the wife that has been putting out regularly won’t have that much competition. So you will need to raise the age of marriage and give the guys porn and make women less prone to have sex when their husband’s want and then you can get a similar result, YMMV.

Having sex is not the win. Getting pregnant is not the win. Raising a child to adulthood is the win. Only the latter counts as reproductive success.

I think Manosphere is aware of the grandfather’s test survival of the offspring till they reproduce themselves is the evolutionary win. And Alpha that father’s many kids but whose neither of them bears him a kid (die of disease, gets killed, die on childbirth, grows up to hate men because her daddy abandoned mom ;)) might as well had spilled it on the ground.

Did you hear someone published a rebuttal book? It’s called Sex at Dusk.

Seems like both books together make a present for someone I know. Thanks

Yes you can. It’s called violence. It was an integral part of male mating strategies for a very long time.

In the studies about sexual attraction in modern women they do find beta traits attractive. You cannot rewired the brain and create a transmittable trait with violence. That is not how evolution works.
And don’t buy into the feminist narrative of women being sheep and men being wolves I come from a traditional society and I can tell you, you cannot force women to accept anything. They might not use spears and swords to fight for their communal rights but they can use words, tears and poison and had you tried to have sex with a woman that doesn’t want you? Men don’t enjoy that either one of the most universal traits of heterosexual porn is that the female performer looks into it (sometimes to a fault) the whole idea that all men are pseudo rapists and if they could use violence to submit a woman and enjoy it is really, really, really not the way sex work, so I doubt this “Men forced women into monogamy against their will” theories you cannot create a civilization were half of the population is just taking it. You really can’t, YMMV

We frequently see attractive women with average dudes. But NEVER do you see hot guys with average looking women. N E V E R.

Wrong, Barbra Streisand and James Brolin, Denzel Washington and Wife, Hugh Jackman and wife, Clive Owen and wife…do some google searches you would be surprised is not common but is not as rare as some might think

Susan, biologically, we all need to eat. Biologically, we all get hungry. That’s a basic biological urge common to the entire human race and both sexes. If we don’t control that urge, we will get fat and ruin our health. So we all need to control it.

Incomplete picture. There are variations on this some people can’t digest certain foods, some people have obesity genes and no matter how little they eat they still gain more weight than normal counterparts, some people are the opposite eating everything they can still being overweight and there is anorexia, bulimia and many eating deviation from the standard. Sex should be as complicated I mean we have asexuals in the population they don’t need to control anything do they?

Uma Thurman (we call her ‘goat girl’ in our house)

I though I was the only one that found her ugly. I think the only movie where I saw the attractiveness was in Gattaca, not even as Poison Ivy she made the cut, IMO.

If it means sexing up alpha after alpha until she gets knocked up, so be it.

If it means traveling 3,000 miles and leave her family behind to have a Beta husband so be it

But, it leads to a debate about what constitutes our best sides. Because, a strident feminist could, probably, easily agree with you. So, should girls be “strong” and “independent” or supportive and demure?

True this is another issue with modern womanhood and manhood. What is the best way to be? As sure as hell is not whatever you feel like at the moment that is for sure…I think.

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single “virtuous” behavior that IS wired in. Virtue is a direct result of civility, which is a direct result of civilization. Without it, we are indeed simply animals, and animals are NOT virtuous.

Many studies had shown animals exhibiting compassion, kindness altruism we couldn’t had invented the civilization rules out of thin air. We adapted to pick virtue because we probably saw it working from others more leaning towards it.
God didn’t just made us to experience the bad feelings, you know? Good feelings are also part of our nature is just that we are in conflict with them. The eternal jihad of good vs evil we all have to endure in our lifetimes and possibly beyond, YMMV.
Höllenhund

Feminists brilliantly solicited the active help of males in pushing their agenda through.

Come on. You know, I know and you know that I know that men and women approach this issue differently. Nobody ever talks of “Team Man”, which is hardly a coincidence.

To quote someone that is, according to your own stated view, would make an excellent spokesperson for the men’s movement:

Women are not interested in any reconciliation at all other than on their terms of a continued more or less complete capitulation to women, on the basis of “accepted” feminism. That is — feminism, sans the sexual stuff about abortion and casual sex. That is — feminism without “sex pozzie” feminism. That is the ground upon which Christian women want reconciliation, and it is no ground for reconciliation at all, but rather a ground for consolidation of the “gains”, in terms of relative power, for women vis-a-vis men, as a result of “accepted” mainstream feminism.

On a different note, I find it somewhat curious that you decry certain men for essentially being the mirror image of feminists and then you decry them for NOT copying the political methods of those some feminists.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Hollenhund
  
  I find it somewhat curious that you decry certain men for essentially being the mirror image of feminists and then you decry them for NOT copying the political methods of those some feminists.
  
  I think they’re both full of sh*t, but feminists have a much better marketing strategy.
HanSolo

@Zach

I’ve never learned Game, never read the book, never seen a seminar, never read a single website dedicated to it. I use “game” as a term for “ability to interact with and pick up women”, not “Game” in the sense of Neil Strauss’ book. When my friends and I refer to a guy having great game, we’re not saying “wow, he really imitates Mystery well”. We’re saying he’s good a picking up women, period. I don’t know a single guy who’s spent time learning that stuff, and I certainly haven’t. I actually have no idea what you mean by an HB10.

I see game as you do. Mystery didn’t invent game, evolution did. He, and others, simply observed and inferred what works with women. Others are naturally better at it and never had to consciously learn it.

My rewriting of Susan’s statement was simply having a bit of fun, not meant to imply that you had studied to become a PUA.

I read the book, ‘The Game’, not to learn any skills but because it is a rather fascinating and humorous story.

HB stands for hot babe, often putting her looks ranking behind it. So my HBS10 was a play on this, combining Harvard Business School with the PUA HB acronym.

Also, see my comment 558 where I explain my mindset in writing the comment.

Cheers
HanSolo

@Zach

One other thing. I enjoy reading your observations and experiences. I think that women greatly benefit from having men that tell them how it is, especially the type of me they find attractive.
Ted D

Ana – “Many studies had shown animals exhibiting compassion, kindness altruism we couldn’t had invented the civilization rules out of thin air. We adapted to pick virtue because we probably saw it working from others more leaning towards it.”

But kindness and altruism ARE NOT virtue, but virtue comes FROM kindness and altruism. Surely animals can feel a form of empathy for each other, and there are many examples of such. (mothers lingering over the body of dead offspring come to mind, but there are plenty of others.) However, to me we cannot link that to virtue, because it is NOT a conscious decision. All animals “feel” to some extent, but to be virtuous requires feeling AND thinking in the form of deductive reasoning. Until someone proves beyond all doubt that animals are self-aware, higher thinking, and introspective enough to recognize behaviors based on their biology, it isn’t virtue in my book.

“God didn’t just made us to experience the bad feelings, you know? Good feelings are also part of our nature is just that we are in conflict with them. The eternal jihad of good vs evil we all have to endure in our lifetimes and possibly beyond, YMMV.”

This is where my heathenism is going to show, and part of the reason why I am no longer a practicing Catholic. For all that I am spiritual and believe in God, I DO NOT believe in the theory of creation as presented in the Bible. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe that God created us, I simply don’t believe he created us with the evolved intelligence we have today, or even anything like it. I think we were animals, just like every other mammal on the planet, and evolution provided us with higher intelligence based on any number of factors. To me, the story of Adam and Eve is simply a fictitious way of explaining how we went from regular animal to self-awareness, meaning that the moment we became self-aware, we “ate the forbidden fruit” and set ourselves down the path you describe above. Because before we were self-aware, there WAS no good or evil.
evilalpha

I though I was the only one that found her ugly. I think the only movie where I saw the attractiveness was in Gattaca, not even as Poison Ivy she made the cut, IMO

Uma had the appeal of an attractive body…long legs, nice tits, tight ass. No one thought she was pretty.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Susan, re: alphas in the EEA. Basically the man’s role in the EEA was what would be considered inherently hyper-alpha in most communities today—protein provision via stalk hunting, long-range persistence hunting, eventually team-based big-game hunting; all without firearms, many times with substantive risk of being killed by large prehistoric carnivores. The dominant/hot male in such a group would be the most skilled and powerful hunter, and hunting is as we know a composite activity that requires a mix of qualities.

There is some evidence that meat brought back from hunting parties was probably placed at a communal table and that individually selfish behavior about food was punished. The top guy would get rewarded in other ways, including being held in high esteem by his peers and by women and by being sought for counsel.

Because there was one central profession for men—“hunter”—and the resulting competitive architecture would create clear visibility for high-performers, I doubt there was much question about who the best guys were.

In other words, “alpha” in our usage would have been directly linked to performance and achievement in the approx. 30-150-person-strong social worlds of the human EEA.
Ted D

crap, I wanted to add…

Which ultimately means: the garden of Eden wasn’t a real place, it was simply ignorance on our part. And, once we “knew” better, we lost it forever. After all, ignorance is bliss…
HanSolo

@JustYX

What a day

comedy props from Susan
Peace with Kathy
now for the tricky triple…(no, no clues)

I think the Nobel Peace Prize is next.
modernguy

Um, yes, you should. You’re sitting there now looking for a handout (the SMP to change drastically) and then complaining bitterly when it doesn’t come. You’re whining. As someone up above said, sack up (get off your ass and work at it) or shut up.

Huh? I think it should change, but that’s because the incentives for men to marry and sacrifice for their families need to be reinstated. I’m not going to marry some slut who’s been defiled by ten other guys and pretend I care about her when she spent her twenties thinking that sharing beds with strangers was something akin to an enjoyable game. Most guys I know feel the same way when they think about it. It’s really the shallowness of these girls that signals their unsuitability, and I don’t care in the least about a person’s “personal growth”. That’s just the hamster talking. Anyway, in the meantime, as long as girls are bending over for guys with some game and muscles then that’s just what I’ll have to do.
Ted D

” It’s really the shallowness of these girls that signals their unsuitability, and I don’t care in the least about a person’s “personal growth”. ”

It occurs to me that before the sexual revolution, women managed to have “personal growth” in their lives without sexing up tons of men. So, can someone explain to me exactly why women MUST have lots of casual sex today to “learn the hard lesson” and get “personal growth”?
HanSolo

@Ted D

I was going out with this girl and we were going to watch a dvd that she brought. Guess which one it was….

Yes, Fireproof! God, it was lame. The typical over-reaction to porn use and blaming the man while she takes off her ring and starts flirting it up with the Doctor at work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireproof_(film)
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“SOME men (a minority) have won in this SMP.”

No, no they haven’t. They’re just too thick to realize they’re shitting in their own bed. Too bad we all have to sleep in it.
HanSolo

@Anacaona

Wrong, Barbra Streisand and James Brolin, Denzel Washington and Wife, Hugh Jackman and wife, Clive Owen and wife…do some google searches you would be surprised is not common but is not as rare as some might think

If you also include high status males that may or may not have good looks you can add Michael Jordan’s 1st wife to that list, Lamar Odom and Khloe Kardashian. Even Bill Clinton with Hillary. One theory is that some of them may want the more stable lower SMV wife at home while they get the hotness and/or variety on the side. In Clinton’s case, Paula Jones was quite pretty, except for the slightly long nose. Jennifer flowers wasn’t that great but slightly hotter than Hillara, at least in an 80’s, milfy kind of way. Even Monica has a cute face below the 15 or so extra pounds of chub.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Ted
I can see you have a different vision of virtue than I and even though I agree with the metaphor of self awareness and Genesis I don’t think it cancels the concept of good and evil being inherently part of the nature “enabled” by God, YMMV.

Thoughts?

This is actually a problem if being Beta was not widespread enough in the past it and Alpha’s can cooperate and share women for the sake of the tribe without Beta traits then they wouldn’t had been any Betas at all. Just Alpha’s who would had been though to cooperate. Obviously societies worked better with a few leaders and many followers so there has to be a good element of attraction for the followers to reproduce and for that women have to select them all the time including during fertility. So yeah the whole Beta’s are not sexually attractive to any woman is overblown they wouldn’t be any or they would be minority, like homosexuality or asexuality. Not the case for USA at all, YMMV.
Ted D

Ana – “even though I agree with the metaphor of self awareness and Genesis I don’t think it cancels the concept of good and evil being inherently part of the nature “enabled” by God,”

Is it good or evil when a wolf pack kills a deer for food? Is it good or evil when a herd of deer leaves behind one of its own because it is sickly and that pack of wolves attacks it? Nature has no way of determining what is good or bad, because nature does not have self-awareness.

And, just to add a little more blasphemy: to me, God did indeed create us perfectly. But, when we became self-aware, we broke his perfection. I truly don’t believe that “free will” was EVER part of God’s plan for us. I can’t say if it was the Devil or simply evolution that caused it, but I truly don’t believe God wanted us to be self-aware at all. And, as this clearly shows, I don’t believe in God’s complete and omnipotent power. At the very least, he must share power with Satan. Of course, Satan (as well as God in fact) could completely be figments our humanities imagination. I tend to believe based on the fact that if I don’t, and God exists, I’m going to Hell. However, if I believe and God does not exist, I won’t know once I die. So in a way, I’m kinda hedging my bets… Not sure how this will play out for me at the Pearly Gates, but I’m hoping God has a great sense of humor…
JustYX

@HanSolo

How did you guess?

Can I pencil in your vote?
Passer_By

@sassy
“If the male 4s and 5s who approached me would have spent their time and effort approaching women who looked similar to them, perhaps they would have a better shot at landing someone. There’s no guarantee of that, but I would think that the odds would be more in their favor.”

Is it possible that, in process of noticing all the men in the room, that you appear more sociable and open than your friends who are 4s and 5s (who appear closed off), and some men who are 4s and 5s interpret it as you being open to their approach (since they aren’t used to someone noticing them)?
Ted D

Passer_by – “Is it possible that, in process of noticing all the men in the room, that you appear more sociable and open than your friends who are 4s and 5s (who appear closed off), and some men who are 4s and 5s interpret it as you being open to their approach (since they aren’t used to someone noticing them)?”

Damn, that is a VERY interesting concept. Since Sassy is indeed pretty confident in herself (do I get the vote for biggest understatement in this thread for that?) probably presents in a way that shows she is comfortable, confident, and she is also likely rather “friendly” in general, because she is relatively content with herself. Those 4’s and 5’s may very well know that they don’t stack up, might feel self-conscious or even a little resentful, and the outcome is they appear to be closed off.

The worst part if this is true is: that means those 4’s and 5’s are killing their chances of being approached, and they don’t have a clue.
Passer_By

@susan
“What are Devlin’s bona fide qualifications for writing about female sexuality? As his definition of female hypergamy has not been endorsed by a single credible living soul, ”

What are yours? What are Roissy’s? What are Mystery’s? His credibility comes from the fact that many of his observations ring very true and more true than the common narrative. Obviously, some of it is hyperbole to make a point.

As far as his “definition” of hypergamy – his use is just not a use that is popular in mainstream. maybe he should have coined an entirely new term like “sexual hyper-selectiveness”. Honestly, I think you’re a little too hung up on the fact that he is using an old word in a new way.

The old “hypergamy” was describing a practical desire to marry into money and class, whether on the part of the woman or her family. There was no guarantee that she would attracted to the guy she married. What if she married Mr. Burns from the Simpsons? Devlin is just using the concept to describe who they are willing to fuck (and I emphasize “are willing to” more than “want to”, since everybody, male and female, “wants” the best). Men are much much more egalitarian about who can give them a boner than women are about who can give them the tingle. That’s Devlin’s hypergamy. Is it not true? Putting aside that you don’t like the word he chose for some reason, do you disagree with the underlying observation?
evilalpha

Obviously societies worked better with a few leaders and many followers so there has to be a good element of attraction for the followers to reproduce and for that women have to select them all the time including during fertility.

When primatologists track paternity it is alphas who produce the most offspring, not the betas
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  When primatologists track paternity it is alphas who produce the most offspring, not the betas
  
  womp womp womp
  
  Wrong again.
  
  As I have already said, reproducing males became smaller and more asymmetrical 1.5 million years ago when pair-bonding evolved. A massive move from alpha to beta reproduction.
Passer_By

@susan
“Thoughts?”

I think he’s knocking down a lot of strawmen, as are many in this thread. But, the bottom line, if women weren’t wildly more attracted to status and dominance, then ugly rock stars and athletes wouldn’t get laid like tile while otherwise attractive but socially reserved computer scientists get to keep company with Rosy Palm and her five hairy friends.

having said that, I think 90s of “game” is just eliminating certain behaviors that signal low status (which boys were often socialized to adopt), rather than appearing to be the “dominant male” of the tribe.

I would also point out that sexual attraction wasn’t just developed in the last 100,000 years, so a lot of attraction triggers are probably layers upon layers built up over millions of years. So, undoubtedly, it’s complicated and at times conflicting. It’s also likely (in my estimation) that women from groups that spent the last 50,000 years in harsher climates are more beta male inclined than women whose ancestors spent the last 50,000 years in climates where food was more naturally plentiful. this is probably why women in Scandinavian countries still seem, by and large, to pair up with relatively nice betas despite the extreme feminism that is rampant there. I would also speculate that any individual woman might be more beta inclined or alpha inclined depending on the environment she is in. I don’t just mean her choices, which would of course be influenced. I’m speculating that her actual attraction triggers might vary depending on the circumstances.
HanSolo

@JustYX

How did you guess?

Can I pencil in your vote?

To paraphrase Yoda, “No. Not yet. One thing remains. Tom. You must confront* Tom. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be. And confront him you will.”

*confront = make peace here
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“Susan has no problem acknowledging base male sexual desire but she get ferocious when a male brings up base female sexual desire.”

Do you know any women for whom this would not be true, including members of older generations back to when you where a kid? Susan would lose her woman club card if she didn’t get ferocious – has there ever been a time when bringing that up wasn’t guarded closely as a female prerogative?

To the extent men did, I don’t think it has ever been something women were thrilled about. We’re encroaching here on their territory, and shouldn’t be surprised to meet with every sort of rebuff. Its nothing personal or irrational on their part – its deeply cultural.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

When primatologists track paternity it is alphas who produce the most offspring, not the betas

Homo Sapiens aka humans:
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

Great Apes
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
J

I don’t mean this in a snarky way,…Of course you do, J.

Not really, HH, but I do have a point that I don’t suppose you’ll take in any better spirit than you did my last comment. I’ll still put it out there for general consideration, though. You don’t have to feel it’s directed at you personally since you are not the only person I’d be tempted to discuss this with.

It seems to me that a lot of veterans of the ‘sphere manage to reiterate the same points for years on end online, but they also tend to have little to say about how these discussions actually improve their lives. I’ve seen guys on HUS build relationships with women, get engaged, get married, etc. I don’t see a lot of happily-ever-after stories elsewhere in the ‘sphere. In fact, I don’t see a lot of men who even come to some sort of inner peace over their situations. Instead, it’s just the same people, proudly indulging in the same schadenfreude, trying the same things that don’t work over and over again. It’s painful to watch, and I really don’t see what people get out it except for the cold comfort that, yeah, everyone really is against them–the feminists, the courts, five year old girls who will grow up to be whores just to piss them off. There comes a time that even people who have legitimate grievances move on and find other, more helpful places to put their energies.
http://n/a Samael

Maybe I’m just crazy here.. but the way I see it is that these behavior and personality triggers that women look for are almost completely useless in the modern day context.. In fact I will go as far as to say in my experience with jobs, school and almost everything in life, most people are irrationally confident in themselves. For every manager that worked hard, treats his employees well, there’s 15 useless idiots on a power trip that can’t even perform the task he’s supposed to manage that well and simply got a higher position because he was more assertive or confident… The problem is that when there is these Dark Triad traits or hyper-confidence, these are valued more than any real worth is. I mean I’ve known college educated women ( I’m from a small town in northwestern Washington state) who are attracted to useless gangster types because they’re just so “hot and confident”.. In all seriousness I don’t really care if that’s what you want.

I’ll say this though, if you won’t use your higher thinking abilities to realize that all this stuff is basically a show, then you deserve every fucked up relationship you get yourself into. You won’t get sympathy from me.

A personal example about curbing base desires or even controlling emotions is that I know that I have a very nasty and even dangerous temper. I acknowledge this about myself and I try for the most part to avoid conflict. Thanks to the red pill I now realize this at many times in relationships makes we seem weak to women. This has fucked over every relationship I’ve ever been in… although I’m just learning about it now.

I think what really should be happening is that women should be educated that if you seek hyper-confidence and all that other shit then you will most most assuredly be relegated to a life of STR’s, single motherhood and harem participation. If you truly desire a successful LTR, learn to prioritize other traits. Simple.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Samael
  
  Welcome, this is a great comment:
  
  I’ll say this though, if you won’t use your higher thinking abilities to realize that all this stuff is basically a show, then you deserve every fucked up relationship you get yourself into. You won’t get sympathy from me.
  
  I agree with this too:
  
  women should be educated that if you seek hyper-confidence and all that other shit then you will most most assuredly be relegated to a life of STR’s, single motherhood and harem participation. If you truly desire a successful LTR, learn to prioritize other traits. Simple.
  
  It really is simple, women need only look around and observe other females.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I’m speculating that her actual attraction triggers might vary depending on the circumstances.
BINGO! We have a winner! Women’s sexuality is a lot malleable with enough programing women will find attractive and higher status all sorts of things hence you most companies target women to sell them crap and they will buy it if they are told enough that this will make them “empowered” or whatever cliche phrase is in at the time
PS
I’m the only one that wants to puke every time they hear/read the word empowered? What that even means? I would feel empowered if I gained superpowers can feminists do that?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

To paraphrase Yoda, “No. Not yet. One thing remains. Tom. You must confront* Tom. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be. And confront him you will.”

And I though Luke was the Jedi…I guess you learn something if you hang out with them long enough
INTJ

Wow. Han Solo paying heed to Master Yoda. This is something.
Plain Jane

“The average girl looks pretty good to the average man, but the average man looks kind of icky to the average girl.”

I’ll second that. And especially if the average guy is significantly older than the average girl, then he really looks icky, even if he’d be considered an age adjusted HG8 by the women his age.
J

The marriage counselor my ex and I went to suggested we watch Fireproof, which IS one of those movies Dalrock talks about. He isn’t wrong in the least, the movie was TOTAL feminist BS, signed and approved by the “Church”.

Wow! I’ve nevr met anyone IRL who has ever talked baout that movie and, if I did, they would probably laugh at it. Who the hell, except mega-churchians, breaks up a marriage because a guy looked at some porn? If the guy only looked at porn and ignored his wife, I can see that there’d be a problem, but again I know no one IRL who would go nuts over finding a little porn on the computer history–unless a kid got into it. I probably know more women who giggle over the time they looked at online porn with their husbands than I know women who would go nuts over it. Really.

As I said, maybe this is a SES/Geography thing, but I know of many women that did exactly this.

I would bet that your right. Upper SES women tend to marry later and less impulsive live, have values that lean toward building a life that they are heavily invested in and worry a lot about how marital issues will affect kids. Most are reluctant to end a marriage without a real effort to work things out.

@HanSolo

I was going out with this girl and we were going to watch a dvd that she brought. Guess which one it was….

On a date?! Usually women want to hide their neuroses at least until after the ring goes on the finger.

LMAO. Where do you find people like this?
evilalpha

@Anacaona

Great Apes
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae

Why did you cut and paste that crap as if it was relevant?

“The two chimpanzee species are the closest living relatives to humans, all being members of the Hominini tribe (along with extinct species of Hominina subtribe).”

Enough said!
Plain Jane

INTJ qouting a Plain Jane,

“And for all the neo-cons and others worried about high Islamic birthrates leading them to take over the world, maybe carpet bomb muff divers delivering crates of porn over Pakistan is the key.”

INTJ, I didn’t write that. Is someone else here writing as Plain Jane too? Hmm. Let me scroll up and see.
J

When primatologists track paternity it is alphas who produce the most offspring, not the betas

Among apes? Humans? I dunno….Humans are pretty K-selected and require a lot of parental care.
INTJ

@ Plain Jane

INTJ qouting a Plain Jane,

“And for all the neo-cons and others worried about high Islamic birthrates leading them to take over the world, maybe carpet bomb muff divers delivering crates of porn over Pakistan is the key.”

INTJ, I didn’t write that. Is someone else here writing as Plain Jane too? Hmm. Let me scroll up and see.

No it was HanSolo. Don’t know why I addressed you. Might have written (or planned to write) a response to you and mixed up the two.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Among apes? Humans? I dunno….Humans are pretty K-selected and require a lot of parental care.

This is the point I was trying to make to EA but it seems that he failed biology.

@EvilAlpha
If your behaviour is based on the idea that Apes are so much like us that anything they do is what comes naturally to our species maybe you could benefit from living like an ape for a couple of years. Start with getting yourself naked, eating your food raw, and practicing coprophagia too of course, beating up your chest to attract females…Observe take notes and get back at us. I’m sure you will find the truth about female attracting factors in not time.
evilalpha

@passerby
this is probably why women in Scandinavian countries still seem, by and large, to pair up with relatively nice betas despite the extreme feminism that is rampant there

What do you mean by pair up?
INTJ

Who cares about primates. We have DNA evidence of humans themselves: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.full

Historically, for every two women that were able to pass on their genes, only one man was able to.
evilalpha

@Anacoana

Do you think your ass gets big because of Darwin’s theory, or because you choose to store the extra calories there? I really can’t help you if you deny evolution.
evilalpha

Historically, for every two women that were able to pass on their genes, only one man was able to.

Wow. That was one impressive checkmate!
M

@ Passer_by
” this is probably why women in Scandinavian countries still seem, by and large, to pair up with relatively nice betas despite the extreme feminism that is rampant there.”

They have to choose feminine men because there is no testosterone left. Feminism killed it. I’m sure some Scandinavian men still have a masculine core, but they are forced to hide it.
It’s part of the reason I moved out and still have to explain to mum that I’m not interested in her fixing me up with a Norwegian guy.

I still watch some Norwegian TV and an American author was guest in a talk show a while ago. John Gray, he’s a relationship counselor? Anyway, at one point he said “I am not saying men shouldn’t help out with housework”. Which pretty much made the other guests furious and caused them to freeze him out of the conversation. You cannot say that in Norway, “helping out” implies it’s the woman’s job in the first place.
You really have to watch your words in Scandinavia – it’s not a tolerant culture.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Historically, for every two women that were able to pass on their genes, only one man was able to.

We already addressed this. Males go to war, hunting trips and do all sorts of risky behaviour, (Visiting the Grand Canyon guess what gender was more likely to pose for pics at the edge of cliff’s going as far as jumping the barriers, also the signs of “This is the profile of the people that get lost and died on the canyon every year” handsome man between 16 and 36..hubby and I were facepalming for an hour…) Of course many of them died before able to reproduce, men do stupid dangerous shit even in modern times I can’t imagine they being more cautious on the past.

Do you think your ass gets big because of Darwin’s theory, or because you choose to store the extra calories there? I really can’t help you if you deny evolution.

My ass is tiny, so I have no idea what you are talking about.:p
HanSolo

@INTJ and Anacaona

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Infinities#Star_Wars_Infinities:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back

In an alternate version, Luke dies and Han thinks he’s supposed to go to Dagobah to become a Jedi. Unlucky for him, Leia comes along and Yoda tells him it’s her. LOL
HanSolo

@INTJ

Blockquotes are not effective cock blocks at keeping the blocked quote and the response apart.
Passer_By

@M
“They have to choose feminine men because there is no testosterone left. Feminism killed it. I’m sure some Scandinavian men still have a masculine core, but they are forced to hide it.”

My point is, you don’t get the sense that, in their late teens through mid to late 20s, just a subset of guys are getting all the action the way you do in large American cities. But I don’t live there so i can’t say.
INTJ

@ evilalpha

Wow. That was one impressive checkmate!

And then there’s the greatest alpha male of all time, Genghis Khan. His direct patrilineal descendants (i.e. sons of sons of sons etc.) number around 16 million!

One can only imagine how many beta males he must have removed from the gene pool.

http://www.isteve.com/2003_genes_of_history_greatest_lover_found.htm
evilalpha

And then there’s the greatest alpha male of all time, Genghis Khan. His direct patrilineal descendants (i.e. sons of sons of sons etc.) number around 16 million!

Yeah, but he only had that many descendants because he was so good looking and a great dad!
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Didn’t Genghis Khan get a lot of his partners via forcible sex and harem membership?
HanSolo

@INTJ

Rasputin doesn’t live up to Genghis Khan’s prowess but he was “Russia’s greatest love machine!” We heard this song in junior high social studies. It was awesome!
INTJ

@ HanSolo

Rasputin doesn’t live up to Genghis Khan’s prowess but he was “Russia’s greatest love machine!” We heard this song in junior high social studies. It was awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvDMlk3kSYg

Haha. I heard about that song cause it was adapted for a Bollywood movie, Agent Vinod.
INTJ

@ HanSolo

Come to think of it, we can assume with almost certainty that Rasputin is descended from Genghis Khan (pretty much everybody in the region is).
HanSolo

@INTJ

I love Bollywood. Bride & Prejudice was pretty funny. Mr. Kholi (playing the role of Mr. Collins) proposes to Lalita (Elizabeth) telling her that he what does miss in Am-rica is companionship, that she’s “very peppy and bright” and when she refuses that she “may never get such a great offer like this again.”
JutR

Zach:

“Let’s face it: men have won this SMP.”

Well you won. You slept with a bunch of other men’s future wives.

Those of us who think forming a pair bond based on physical intimacy is important to maintaining long term relationships have kinda lost out though.

I hope whoever would have been my wife in an assorted mating society will have some fond memories of her wasted years with the Zachs of society.

On a different note, I carded Drew Barrymore when I worked at a brewpub in the late ’90s. In real life she was a 6. She might hit 7 if she had flirted when I requested a form of backup ID for her California license. She wasn’t rude at all, and in fact, she was quite accommodating when I approached her as she was leaving with a request for an autograph for my best friend (he was smitten with her since ET). I would not have recognized her if I hadn’t taken her ID and seen her name. She had her hair short, and dyed black. She was small, I thought closer to 5′ than 5.5′, wearing torn jeans, and a canvas jacket, and suprisingly well humored. We kept her identity quiet while she was there, and she seemed to appreciate that.

So anyway, on the anecdotal scale, 5 is a bit low.
INTJ

@ JutR

Zach:

“Let’s face it: men have won this SMP.”

Well you won. You slept with a bunch of other men’s future wives.

Those of us who think forming a pair bond based on physical intimacy is important to maintaining long term relationships have kinda lost out though.

I hope whoever would have been my wife in an assorted mating society will have some fond memories of her wasted years with the Zachs of society.

This was the reaction to Zach’s post that I had but couldn’t quite put into words.
HanSolo

@J

Wow! I’ve nevr met anyone IRL who has ever talked baout that movie and, if I did, they would probably laugh at it. Who the hell, except mega-churchians, breaks up a marriage because a guy looked at some porn? If the guy only looked at porn and ignored his wife, I can see that there’d be a problem, but again I know no one IRL who would go nuts over finding a little porn on the computer history–unless a kid got into it. I probably know more women who giggle over the time they looked at online porn with their husbands than I know women who would go nuts over it. Really.

….

On a date?! Usually women want to hide their neuroses at least until after the ring goes on the finger. LMAO. Where do you find people like this?

She was from my former church and they scare the women to death about porn and shame the men. Many of these women think that he’s being unfaithful if he looks at a bit, that it means he doesn’t love her, that he’s comparing her to them, that he’ll seen be with prostitutes, other women or become a pedophile, etc. Some of these things do happen from time to time but porn is only 1 factor. Of course, too much porn can be a problem but few reach that severity, and the shame, the guilt and the taboo of it make it a worse problem for the men who get too into it. If it leads him to not having sex with her then that’s a problem but overall it’s overblown and the very shaming of it (excessively) ends up creating more problems than the porn itself.
INTJ

@ HanSolo

I love Bollywood. Bride & Prejudice was pretty funny. Mr. Kholi (playing the role of Mr. Collins) proposes to Lalita (Elizabeth) telling her that he what does miss in Am-rica is companionship, that she’s “very peppy and bright” and when she refuses that she “may never get such a great offer like this again.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nqoPInNcvo

Damn. I hope Indians don’t view all NRIs like me as Mr. Collins types.
HanSolo

Well, I doubt all NRIs are like Mr. Kholi. In the movie she’s a total hotty whereas he’s an awkward, dorky, well, Mr. Collins.
Passer_By

@szopen

It looks like I inadvertantly repeated some of what you posted above when I speculated that women in the harsher (northern euro) climates might have evolved more of a beta preference while women in more hospitible climates where food was abundant might have done the opposite. Not sure why I missed your comment before posting that. I don’t know of any papers looking at it (it would pretty politically incorrect), but, as I said, you can see it play out in the mate selection of women in Scandinavia despite heavy feminism socialism there. They don’t really “need” a beta man for survival, but they seem to pair up with them anyway at much higher rate than you would see elsewhere, and seem content with more equalist relationships that would turn many women off here. At least that’s how it looks from afar.

Anyway, I also agree with much of what you say regarding distribution (typically a bell shaped curve). The tendency to hypergamy (devlinesque hypergamy) would exist on such a curve, as would many other things.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  Anyway, I also agree with much of what you say regarding distribution (typically a bell shaped curve). The tendency to hypergamy (devlinesque hypergamy) would exist on such a curve, as would many other things.
  
  Interesting, I thought that devlinesque hypergamy had only one volume setting: high. All hypergamy all the time. That is certainly the way Roissy interprets him.
Sassy6519

@ Passer_By

Is it possible that, in process of noticing all the men in the room, that you appear more sociable and open than your friends who are 4s and 5s (who appear closed off), and some men who are 4s and 5s interpret it as you being open to their approach (since they aren’t used to someone noticing them)?

If even barely looking in their general direction is considered giving them a reason to approach, then I guess so.

@ Ted D

Damn, that is a VERY interesting concept. Since Sassy is indeed pretty confident in herself (do I get the vote for biggest understatement in this thread for that?)

Hey, I resent that comment!

Aside from that, I figured I would check in before my date tonight. This thread has been very interesting to read indeed.
Sai

…SO MUCH WIN IN THE COMMENTS TODAY

@INTJ
Sorry, I tried one semester of MATLAB and knew this was not the field for me. But maybe I can visit Silicon Valley one day.

Anybody remember the cartoon ‘Freakazoid?’ One episode featured a villain kidnapping nerds and stealing their intelligence… then people missed the nerds, so Freakazoid convinced the guy that girls would only want to be friends with him unless he focused on a different attribute. In the end “Nerdator switched over to kidnapping good looking but vapid airheads…and no one cared.”

(I love how Rasputin and Genghis Khan get awesome 70s songs.)
Escoffier

RE: the woody allen movie, I agree with that. I never believed, as some in the manosphere insist, that all women will drop their panties when a very high status man indicates interest. I do, however, believe that most women’s attraction triggers are pulled when a super high status man shows interest, the same way most men’s attraction triggers are pulled when a super-hot babe strolls into view. What stops us, of both sexes, is character. Plus we may simply want other things.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  @EScoffier
  
  . I do, however, believe that most women’s attraction triggers are pulled when a super high status man shows interest, the same way most men’s attraction triggers are pulled when a super-hot babe strolls into view. What stops us, of both sexes, is character. Plus we may simply want other things.
  
  Yes, but for me at least, super high status would not be enough. I would have to be physically attracted. For example, I would not be titillated by attention from Wolf Blitzer, James Carville, or Joe Biden. However, I would tingle for Bill Murray, Alec Baldwin or Brit Hume.
Escoffier

When I asked, “What is the female challenge?” I meant, “What desires–endemic to females but not to males–which can potentially get them into trouble and/or hurt those around them if acted upon, do females need to learn to control?”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  “What desires–endemic to females but not to males–which can potentially get them into trouble and/or hurt those around them if acted upon, do females need to learn to control?”
  
  My answer is still “selecting the wrong man.” Why doesn’t that work?
  
  What can I say? I haven’t ever been tempted to cheat or sex up another man. I can’t offer a mea culpa there. Obviously, some women do cheat, so I suppose that both sexes need to honor their vows and not indulge flirtation, emotional involvement or sex with another person.
  
  Haha, I feel like you’re quizzing me and you keep telling me I’m getting the answer wrong. I honestly don’t know what you want me to say. I am content with my marriage and my sex life. I can’t begin to imagine leaving my husband (or having left him at any point in the past) to get with a more famous or wealthy man. I know a few famous and wealthy men, and to be honest, they’re mostly physically repulsive.
  
  Maybe other women can better confirm your notions.
Escoffier

I don’t think Dalrock’s data on the reasoning behind divorce is all that solid. Not that I blame him, I don’t think there is much good data. And, anyway, I’m not citing him as an authority, just reporting his views.

Certainly, he likes to point out that remarriage rate for divorced women is lower than for divorced men, and he likes to quote divorcees who say “I don’t need a man, I’m so happy now” and then cackle that they are full of it.

Though, certainly, Susan, it must be true that some cohort of women leave perfectly decent but dull men expecting their lives to magically bloom only to find that life alone is much gloomier than they expected. What else is divorce porn all about ? It’s selling a fantasy. Dump Mr. Dull and become a beautiful princess?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  it must be true that some cohort of women leave perfectly decent but dull men expecting their lives to magically bloom only to find that life alone is much gloomier than they expected. What else is divorce porn all about ? It’s selling a fantasy. Dump Mr. Dull and become a beautiful princess?
  
  Perhaps, I don’t know. I haven’t met a woman who followed this script.
  
  Also, I don’t know what divorce porn is. Do you mean the book Eat Pray Love?
M

@ Susan
“I can honestly say that I would not consider marrying again whether I became divorced or widowed. ”

Can I ask why?
My mother is widowed and she is with a new man but they are not married. However marriage laws are completely different back home so I don’t think there are any practical reasons for it.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @M
  
  I don’t feel the need or desire to have another partner in life. I have many interests, and if I were single again, I would spend time on them, spend time with my kids, etc. I just don’t really feel that I would be inclined to date. I don’t judge anyone for remarrying – if I died I would hope my husband would not be lonely. I just think I could be quite happy alone at my age (55).
JustYX

@Susan

(Esau) “many people change in their on-line personas from their real-life ones. ”
(me) so…you chose that personality! WTF were you thinking?

given the praise, I thought I’d bring it out again…thanks for the glory Susan *sobs*
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JustYX
  
  given the praise, I thought I’d bring it out again…thanks for the glory Susan *sobs*
  
  Haha, you are attention whoring!
JutR

I wonder if women would like to be shit tested.

How about if a man was constantly trying to feed his woman poor food choices, and buying her ugly clothes, and if she eats or wears them, he loses attraction. Add in some critical comments and public detraction of her appearance. Maybe he talks bad about her to his friends, picking on physical flaws.

I kinda think that if men did things like that on a large scale, women would appreciate the male side of the SMP and MMP a little more.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

My guess is that emotional sensitivity is inversely related to testosterone.

I think this is reported by transgendered people. The ones that transition from females to males, with testosterone included, notice that they feel less threatened about the environment and they don’t cry as much as they used to. Is a whole new different perspective of the world depending on if they added more testosterone or estrogen.
Sai

@JutR

That post kind of makes me laugh, but I do think if enough men did this women might ease up on them. Maybe I’d think differently if I were in a relationship, but it reminds me a bit too much of Internet trolling for some reason.
modernguy

Lol JutR, good one.

It’s funny to see how women bloggers and commenters try to justify shit testing. I always get the image in my head of some poor sap who slaves away for his family and bends over backwards to make his wife happy only to find out that that’s exactly what makes her hate him. Presumably that is supposed to show that he’s somehow “weak”, like if a tiger or a cannibal jumped out of the woods in the his back yard he would let it eat his family. Seriously, how much correlation is there between failing your wife’s idiotic shit tests and allowing harm to come to your family? How about digging up some statistics on that Susan, because it sounds like total BS.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @modernguy
  
  It’s funny to see how women bloggers and commenters try to justify shit testing.
  
  To be clear, in my post on shit testing I say that I am ashamed for my behavior. To my knowledge, I have not shit tested my husband in 28 years, though he might be able to come up with an example or two.
  
  Shit testing is not admirable, but it is hardwired IMO. Via that tactic women get important information about their potential mates. We all know that women abhor supplication in males, and failing a shit test = supplication.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Bob Wallace..”I consider Alpha and Beta to be basically ridiculous concepts. But if you want to use them, the original definition of chivalry included both Alpha and Beta traits.” (cosigned by Susan)

A very interesting piece on chivalry by C S Lewis:

http://yourdailycslewis.blogspot.com/2005/08/necessity-of-chivalry.html

…which is very much in agreement with that point.
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Susan

Men Age 18+ (Census 2008): 108,783,000
Married Men Age 18+ (Census 2008): 64,129,000 (59%)
Married Men who describe their marriages as “very happy” (GSS, 2008): 63%Married Men who describe their marriages as “pretty happy” (GSS, 2008): 33%

I’ll point out the National Marriage Project report for 2004 on which men marry and why. They concluded 22% of men are hardcore commitment avoiders

It’s beta males who marry and stay married, and they appear to be quite content.

Two points and what I think is the important take-away.

1. 1970 that percentage on marriage was 72%. That’s a 18% decrease in 40 years.

2. As I keep ranting about, over 50% of children born to mothers under 30 (ie, in their peak fertility years) are born to unmarried women.

Change happens at the margin. Over time, if change in the same direction occurs the margin all of a sudden is you, not people over there.

Are women on the whole still choosing Dads over Cads. Based on the rate of decline in marriage and, especially, the unmarried birth rate a slim majority might but even if they are that margin is getting damn close to the center. Plus the overall marriage rate is going to change slower than the births to married mothers rate because couple past child bearing years will keep the first one up.

I think based on how fast the marriage rate is falling and the fact we’re seeing a majority of births to unmarried mothers in the under 30 category and for all mothers it is now at 41.5% that without a change in direction it is safe to argue that women under 30 are not, in fact, choosing Dads over Cads.

On a different point I’ve been mulling over your digging into stats on college sex rates and your contention that it means the ‘sphere’s model of the top 20% of men getting all the sex is wrong. While the strong version, the cock carousel where every woman is a high N slut with alpha’s cannot be matched to your stats I’d argue the weak version: 20% of men get the majority of sex from all women (not just the promiscuous ones) is.

I’d have to go back to get all your numbers to build an exactly matching model, but for now consider this thought model. A society with 100 men and 100 women where at some time T both the average man and the average woman have N=1.

For the women, each woman in fact has N=1 (ie, there are no high N women). However, the top 20% of men each has N=3, the middle 40% have N=1, and the bottom 40% have N=0.

There are no sluts but the top 20% of men have, in fact, gotten the majority of the sex while a sizable plurality have gotten no sexual access.

In the real world that bottom group probably has closer to N=1 but with most women at N=2 or 3 (which is consistent with your stats) it’s still very easy for a situation like my imaginary world to occur.

I think something closer to this than your 20/20 promiscuous against 80/80 wallflower model is a better working theory because it explains both the widely held male observation that there is a shut out male population and the lack of observation cock carousel riding in the data.

Just something to consider.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@SW

It’s beta males who marry and stay married, and they appear to be quite content.

SciGuy asked the right questions, but what he and you forget is… none of that matters. As in most *fictional* dramas, happiness and optimism (relatively speaking) are boring. Discontent and pessimism sell. Most especially online
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Megaman
  
  You are too cynical! I am fighting the good fight!
  
  Haha, were your ears burning?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Maybe other women can better confirm your notions.

I think we had been in this situation before, many times. If women don’t accept they are attracted to jerks in the absence of consequences then is all blame it on denial, hamstering… but if they accept they are then is “you are making your own bed, don’t complain when the jerk cheats on you, pump and dump you…” but then if they promise to follow their “superior brain” then is “I don’t want a woman that doesn’t tingle for me and is only with me because I look good in paper” There is no right answer It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma…
I wish they could tell us: The right answer is X so we can at least know what they want instead of running in circles because this is a discussion we have had before and I’m getting the feeling that we will have again, with no results at all.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Anacaona
  
  There is no right answer It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma…
  I wish they could tell us: The right answer is X so we can at least know what they want instead of running in circles because this is a discussion we have had before and I’m getting the feeling that we will have again, with no results at all.
  
  So true! I feel like the Road Runner, always trying to outrun the accusations and forced confessions.
  
  I’ve made many mistakes in my life, and have caved to many temptations. It just happens that I have not experienced the temptation to trade up, much less indulged it.
  
  This was always true for me – my first bf was the Golden Boy, second was the Effete Troubador – I don’t think I made a real jump until I met my husband, and then only because my own status was higher (and equal to his).
INTJ

@ Susan

Perhaps, but I’m on record as saying that I suspect the “alpha cock carousel —–> beta provider” meme is not valid. Of course it does happen, but I think what happens much more often is that the ACC women keep chasing alphas, staying single a la Kate Bolick. Meanwhile, most betas marry women with a low (or low-ish) N.

I’m not talking about high-N. They might even just have a few long term relationships with jerks, thus keeping a low-N. But the fact is that a very large portion of young girls are not interested in beta males. Sure, most of them mature out of it and start showing interest in beta males, some sooner than others. But the strategy at least at first is to go for jerks.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  But the fact is that a very large portion of young girls are not interested in beta males. Sure, most of them mature out of it and start showing interest in beta males, some sooner than others. But the strategy at least at first is to go for jerks.
  
  I guess this bears repeating:
  
  *Most* women are interested in a combination of alpha and beta traits. If we are forced to choose between pure alpha and pure beta, we will choose pure alpha.
  
  The beta male’s best strategy is to add alpha characteristics – for real, not fake. This is far more easily accomplished than adding beta traits to an alpha. Betas with Inner Game are what women want.
  
  We want men who are strong, not men who beat us.
  
  We want men who take a stand, not men who order us around and hold us in low regard.
  
  We want men who have purpose in life, not men who chase pussy for a living.
  
  We want men with potential and drive, not men who indulge a hedonistic, nihilistic lifestyle.
  
  We want men with empathy, not sociopaths and narcissists.
  
  etc.
INTJ

@ Susan

My knowledge about this is garnered from males. Guys here often say that women are just so emotional…and of course we like drama. My guess is that emotional sensitivity is inversely related to testosterone.

Wanting drama isn’t the only emotion in the world. There are other more mature emotions that both sexes experience. Love for example.
chris

@Susan

If you are still going to read Sex at Dawn, make sure to read Sex at Dusk first as it was written 2 years after Sex at Dawn specifically to point out all of Sex at Dawn’s flawed arguments and theories.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201207/sex-dusk

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10611616.pdf
INTJ

@ Susan

womp womp womp

Wrong again.

As I have already said, reproducing males became smaller and more asymmetrical 1.5 million years ago when pair-bonding evolved. A massive move from alpha to beta reproduction.

You’re mixing up serial polygyny with monogamy. Permanent polygyny didn’t happen until about 20,000 years ago, and true monogamy didn’t happen until something like 1,000 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Evolutionary_history_of_human_monogamy

“The genetic evidence for the evolution of monogamy in humans is more complex but much more straightforward. While female effective population size (the number of individuals successfully producing offspring and contributing to the gene pool), as indicated by mitochondrial-DNA evidence, increased around the time of human (not hominid) expansion out of Africa (about 80,000–100,000 years ago), male effective population size, as indicated by Y-chromosome evidence, did not increase until 18,000 years ago, which coincides with the advent of agriculture.[45]

Although, scientists discuss the evolution of monogamy in humans as if it is the prevailing mating strategy among Homo sapiens, only approximately 17.8% (100) of 563 societies sampled in Murdock’s Atlas of World Cultures has any form of monogamy (although these account for much larger than 17.8% of the World population).[50] Therefore, “genetic monogamy appears to be extremely rare in humans,” and “social monogamy is not common, … often reduc[ing] to serial polygyny in a biological sense”.[41] This means that monogamy is not now and probably never was the predominant mating system among the hominid lineage.[41][50][51]

In Herodutus’s Histories, which contained some of the earliest anthropological writings, Herodotus noted a few societies and tribes that did not even opt for social monogamy at the time (circa 500 BC). One tribe he mentions had open relationships in the villages and then after puberty the boys were assigned their ‘fathers’ by who they most resembled. He mentions other socially open tribes, where mating openly in the daylight outside was observed. It is postulated that the reason he noted these was more likely as they were not the norm at the time in Ancient Greece where monogamy prevailed.”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @INTJ
  
  I wasn’t addressing monogamy or any other form of mating. I was simply reporting that around 1.5 million years ago the characteristics of the successfully reproducing male changed dramatically, away from “alpha.”
chris

Also

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/sex-at-dusk-2/50099
Cooper

“Perhaps, but I’m on record as saying that I suspect the “alpha cock carousel —–> beta provider” meme is not valid. Of course it does happen, but I think what happens much more often is that the ACC women keep chasing alphas, staying single a la Kate Bolick. Meanwhile, most betas marry women with a low (or low-ish) N.”

Something about this doesn’t seem right. Is this under the presumption that ACC-leaders are some how ever seizing they carousel?
To me, the carousel-leaders are usually always of high-value – and these high-value men are bound to settle eventually, no?
And it seems like the preference for low-N women is common throughout all men – AAC-leader, frat-boys, and mostly all betas.

So, where the hell is the evidence that beta-male are going to have, any decent (that you seem to think) of, a selection of low-N women?

By the numbers, the ACC-leaders are more desired. And, IMO, sure,y those guys aren’t going to be, feasibly, going to be able to continue to for forever. So, if they are going to be marrying at some point, wouldn’t they dominate they marriage market, as well? (what says they wouldn’t)

I don’t understand the presumption that the guys reaping their way in through the SMP, are some how leaving the MMV market to be dominated by betas. I think the AAC-guy is likely going to have his pickings in both markets.
(cause even by the time he actually opts to the MMV-market, he’s still going to have a huge value advantage over most betas)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Cooper
  
  By the numbers, the ACC-leaders are more desired. And, IMO, sure,y those guys aren’t going to be, feasibly, going to be able to continue to for forever. So, if they are going to be marrying at some point, wouldn’t they dominate they marriage market, as well? (what says they wouldn’t)
  
  I don’t understand the presumption that the guys reaping their way in through the SMP, are some how leaving the MMV market to be dominated by betas. I think the AAC-guy is likely going to have his pickings in both markets.
  
  Which numbers do you refer to? What I have provided are numbers that demonstrate that 3% of both men and women have more than six partners in college. Does that mean those men are “more desired?” If so, they are more desired by promiscuous women, since we have no indication that they are desired by low N women.
  
  Meanwhile, the pyramid (with it’s apex) is a lot flatter than previously thought (by the ‘sphere). Very few men are getting lots of partners, around 20% of each sex tops three partners, 40% of both sexes are virgins, and 37% of both sexes have 1-3 sex partners in college. The last group most likely includes most of the LTRs. Is a guy who had 3 hot gf’s in college for a year each less desired than a guy who had two ONSs per year? I’m not following your logic.
  
  Re MMV, the men least likely to marry are high N men. They delay marriage longer if they marry at all, and are less likely to want children (cads, not dads). So the marriage market, AFAICT, is mostly “regular” guys pairing off with “regular” girls, with a median # of sexual partners at something well under 10, I would guess.
Cooper

@INTJ
“But the fact is that a very large portion of young girls are not interested in beta males. Sure, most of them mature out of it and start showing interest in beta males, some sooner than others. But the strategy at least at first is to go for jerks.”

I think TedD had a very interesting point that we still aren’t comfortable talking about the wrongs of female attraction. We can demonize the male imperative with such language like “animals,” or “dogs.” But the female attractions seems to never deserve being excused – nevermind require maturing.

A couple days ago it hit me – we keep shoving male sexuality lower, and lower. And women want to keep up! The truth is many men don’t agree with epitomizing male-sexuality as seeking casual-sex. Yet, society keeps enforcing it, and feminized women want to match the same “freedom” that we’re casting on men. Essentially they want to be, equally as much of, “dogs.”. (make any sense?)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Cooper
  
  I think TedD had a very interesting point that we still aren’t comfortable talking about the wrongs of female attraction.
  
  This is such BS, I’m surprised to hear this from you Cooper.
  
  Female attraction triggers are not wrong. Male attraction triggers are not wrong.
  
  It is not wrong for men to prioritize superficial qualities like appearance over character or intelligence.
  
  It is not wrong for women to prioritize “genetic fitness,” as demonstrated by dominance and strength, over character or intelligence.
  
  Both sexes make tradeoffs to maximize their reproductive potential. The imperative is biological, and is the same for both sexes. The sexes are in conflict during mating. It has ever been thus. Stop whining about it.
  
  We can demonize the male imperative with such language like “animals,” or “dogs.” But the female attractions seems to never deserve being excused — nevermind require maturing.
  
  Male imperative? Sounds like you’re hanging out with an asshole blogger. Don’t bring that crap back here.
  
  I haven’t heard anyone complain about being called the top dog or the alpha of the pack. When was the last time you called a woman a bitch? Depictions I read here of feral women mounting thugs are common as well.
  
  The fact is, we are animals. It is our higher order thinking and ability to use judgment that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. I see quite a few members of both sexes rutting thoughtlessly, without any evidence of reason or concern for another. They might as well be dogs.
INTJ

@ Cooper

You probably have more experience dealing with this, so it would be nice if you could give me advice or emotional support on this:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/forum/hooking-up/help-me/
INTJ

@ Cooper

I think TedD had a very interesting point that we still aren’t comfortable talking about the wrongs of female attraction. We can demonize the male imperative with such language like “animals,” or “dogs.” But the female attractions seems to never deserve being excused – nevermind require maturing.

A couple days ago it hit me – we keep shoving male sexuality lower, and lower. And women want to keep up! The truth is many men don’t agree with epitomizing male-sexuality as seeking casual-sex. Yet, society keeps enforcing it, and feminized women want to match the same “freedom” that we’re casting on men. Essentially they want to be, equally as much of, “dogs.”. (make any sense?)

Definitely. Feminists especially convince themselves that male sexuality is terrible while female sexuality isn’t. Then they start getting annoyed that men get to be dogs and women don’t, and decide women should be dogs like men to be liberated.
modernguy

I think we had been in this situation before, many times. If women don’t accept they are attracted to jerks in the absence of consequences then is all blame it on denial, hamstering… but if they accept they are then is “you are making your own bed, don’t complain when the jerk cheats on you, pump and dump you…” but then if they promise to follow their “superior brain” then is “I don’t want a woman that doesn’t tingle for me and is only with me because I look good in paper” There is no right answer It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma…
I wish they could tell us: The right answer is X so we can at least know what they want instead of running in circles because this is a discussion we have had before and I’m getting the feeling that we will have again, with no results at all.

There is no solution. Women are attracted to the wrong thing. It doesn’t apply anymore. What it made sense to value in the jungle doesn’t make sense to value anymore.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Women are attracted to the wrong thing
  
  Banging my head repeatedly against the wall at this point!!!!
  
  Stop! Please just stop!
modernguy

Shit testing is not admirable, but it is hardwired IMO. Via that tactic women get important information about their potential mates. We all know that women abhor supplication in males, and failing a shit test = supplication.

I’m not so sure about the “test”, because the results ultimately don’t mean anything in this environment. Consider the average guy: he works a day job doing some menial task and brings in a paycheck every couple of weeks. How dynamic is that environment? How much variance is there going to be in his life if he behaves one way or another? Very little. The object is to get the job done and get your paycheck. In a sense he’s supplicating every single day to his employer.

The shit test is a way for women to get a little thrill when their man responds in a way that in the long distant past would have indicated something about his vitality and initiative. In the context of the modern monogamous family unit where the guy is a cog in a huge machine slaving to support the unit it means nothing. But the thrill is still generated. Human attraction is based on indicators of fitness that are obsolete. Humans were not meant to live in this kind of environment. Or at least our bodies are not compatible with it. Look at all the attention bodybuilders get. They spend years in the gym and what do they do with it all? Nothing.
Samael

So I was having a conversation about dating with my buddy and his wife (she’s 20 he’s 27, my age) and my buddy is talking about the girl he dated before his wife and he says “Ya know looking back I think she totally resented me when I was nice to her. Like if I was getting up to grab a soda and she asked me for one and got it for her she would kind of become distant.”
His wife interjects with ” Oh yeah, girls love it when you tell them no and to get it yourself and shit.”
I said “So a guy treating you no different from any other company he would have in his home is a turn off?”
She says “Oh yeah! I used to be like that but I’m not anymore”
I say “You realize how fucked up that is, right!?”
She says “Yeah but that’s how it works.”
At that point me and my buddy make eye contact across the room with eyebrows raised….

Keep in mind now this is a woman of average N, upper 3. GPA, from a town of roughly 60,000 (double the size of my town) not some mythical dick slaying super skank… Fail.
Mike C

@Susan

Do you have information to support this claim, or is this your impression from the manosphere? I keep seeing all sorts of claims like this, and finding myself totally unaware of any such information or source for it, find myself perplexed.

No, I don’t have an authoritative source for this contention. I”ll admit it is just a general impression based on observation. Just thinking of a high profile case like Eliot Spitzer, and I’m sure I could think of others that fit the mold that the man generally has no intention of leaving the wife. Some years back I spent some time on the womens infidelity website, and to my recollection many of the cheating women had in fact left for the other man. In just a few minutes of Googling, I did find this:

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5002656_cheating-women.html

Moving Up

A woman generally cheats with someone who has a higher status than her husband. This can be either financially or in terms of treatment or sensitivity.

Moving Out

Because women become more emotionally attached, they are more likely to leave their husbands. Women put a greater emphasis on affairs than men do.

Its not that important to me to spend any serious time looking for more definitive studies on the issue.

The idea is that the male craves sexual variety, so cheating doesn’t really threaten the marriage, it’s just sex. Whereas the woman is loathe to cheat until she’s already exited the marriage emotionally, making it more likely that she is “done” by the time she cheats, which makes the marriage likely to fail. Personally, I think this has a flavor of “boys will be boys” to it – IMO cheating is cheating, vows are broken, I don’t want to hear excuses.

Ehhhh… I was simply making a declarative statement about the different outcomes (leave or stay) in male and female infidelity (which maybe is wrong but I don’t think so). I wasn’t trying to justify or make excuses for cheating regardless of whether it is male or female. You have a strong tendency to respond to imagined points you think I am making. Don’t make assumptions about subtext that isn’t there.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  . You have a strong tendency to respond to imagined points you think I am making. Don’t make assumptions about subtext that isn’t there.
  
  Fair enough. Just so you know, remarks on topics are cumulative from my POV. In the last month, there have probably been a dozen comments by various commenters suggesting that female infidelity is “worse” than male infidelity because it threatens the marriage more. I see a comment like yours and I think, “This again.” I understand you weren’t making the same point, but the fact is that I have repeatedly seen the argument that men should suffer lower consequences than women for infidelity. In fact, many men of Lackrod’s site argued that divorcing for infidelity is frivolous, using this justification.
Plain Jane

” When I asked you earlier if you think that hypergamy accounts for frat star, super-jock, and alpha chasing, you said yes. Are you now taking that back?”

“No. Girls who throw themselves at men more attractive than they are are clearly making a play for social dominance. That’s hypergamy.”

Don’t know about “throwing myself” but all the better looking than me men I’ve dated have been men that I pursued first, because I liked the way they looked. They were not Frat brahs, or athletes, just very good looking. It wasn’ hypergamy because most of them had no status at all and I couldn’t care less. They looked good, and once I got to know them we had enough in common that made for pleasant dating. That’s it.
http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

Another HUS Thought Experiment

On several occasions now, ms walsh has mentioned her “great purge” of what she considered malevolent voices from the manosphere that had encroached on her blog; she happily reports that her decision was the right one, as her lady readership has grown as a result.

And yet, the manosphere still gets mentioned here. Indeed, barely a discussion goes by without such a mention-and let me be clear here:

Those who mention said manosphere, are almost always by women themselves.

I think the events of the past month or so suggest that another “purge” may indeed be in the offing; i might be included in that, as im currently being moderated already. So, given that this seems to be the case, id like to offer the following thought experiment:

Would references to the manosphere, puas and the like, still go on here at hus, if *all the menz were purged from it*?

Id say emphatically YES, it would. I offer as proof, quite a few all-female forums who, like hus, cant seem to go a fortnight w/o mentioning some aspect of the manosphere either: jezebel, feministe and of course, ms marcotte over at pandagon come to mind, just to name a few.

The question, of course, has to be: WHY?

I mean-if the ladies all agree that the manosphere is shot through with hurt, hateful loser guys-why the need to constantly refer to them at all? If their ideas are utterly false; if their attitudes, not just toward women but toward life itself; if their physically not the cats meow-then why do you ladies mention them so much?

I mean, sure, one can allow for the trainwreck thing-id be lying if i didnt say that i wasnt guilty of this myself-so yea theres something to be said of that. Still though, the sheer frequency with which said sphere gets mentioned, suggests that this is something more going on here.

Let me propose the following reason why i think both the ladies of venues like hus, clutch, jezebel and others, discuss the manosphere so goshdarn much:

Because it frightens them.

After its all said and done, the ladies know, in that way that only ladies really possess-intuitively-that theres a seachange afoot. Kind of how animals can sense a coming storm? Yea. Like that.

Now, i dont want anyone to get this twisted-im not talking alarmist stuff here. None of the “the revolution wont be televised” stuff. Rather, i just mean that the ladies are deeply concerned that the manosphere-its very existence-represents a real seachange in the male body politic. They are deeply afraid that its ideas could spread to other “blue pill” guys. And that those ideas could prove disasterous, from a female standpoint.

Sure, theres a lot of the freak factor to gawk at and to use as target practice about the manosphere: roosh, welmer/wf price of the spearhead, and of course roissy, certainly do make fine targets of themselves; but at their core is the idea that men no longer have to play by the “lifescript” thats been handed to them. And thats what really has a lot of women on edge.

I recall a recent discussion btw ms walsh and myself, where she said that i was, and i quote her now, “a bad bet for an ltr/marriage”, because i never chose to marry and because i showed no “dad traits”. Ive responded to this charge/statement but ms walsh refused to post it; she may refuse to post or otherwise “edit” this one. But if she does, she will have missed the point im attempting to make here:

That the big takeaway for me in my time in the manosphere, is that i do not have to accept my “role” as mandated by society-women, really to be frank-and that i have just as much a right to live my life as i see fit, as any woman. To be sure, i had always known that intuitively; but to be able to see a broadbased community of men who said “its ok”, well, that only sealed the deal for me.

Ms walshs saying that to me not only put me down, it really gave me a crystal clear epiphany; and now i clearly see why she, and so many women, not just here but at venues who have themselves found themselves at odds with hus, would consider me a “bad bet for an ltr/marriage”-even while she herself has gone on record as to my character and integrity. Ive never lied to a woman to get in her pants; ive never cheated on a woman whom i was in an ltr with; and ive always been responsible sexually if i was involved with more than one woman at a time-which included using condoms and offering at any time to be fully std tested, *before any sex happened*. I dont have baby mamas running around, and i know this for a fact, as i had to be cleared by the philly family court when taking care of some important business with city hall.

Yet, i was a “bad bet”. And from ms walsh pov, i am-*because i refuse to play the game*. I live life on my own terms-and thats deeply upsetting to her, and to all the other women who cannot seem not to mention the manosphere. Once i was blind but now i see.

Ill end here.

O.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Obsidian
  
  Rather, i just mean that the ladies are deeply concerned that the manosphere-its very existence-represents a real seachange in the male body politic. They are deeply afraid that its ideas could spread to other “blue pill” guys. And that those ideas could prove disasterous, from a female standpoint.
  
  Nah, I don’t think so. I think the manosophere is a curiosity, almost a cult. It’s an interesting collection of personalities and conversations, a form of entertainment.
  
  I think that my readers welcome the red pill, as it is our best hope that the number of men women find attractive will increase, and that dominance, which has eroded so dramatically from the male population since the Women’s Movement will make a comeback.
  
  As you know, I endorse Game, and as far as I know, that’s true of all of my female readers as well.
  
  I recall a recent discussion btw ms walsh and myself, where she said that i was, and i quote her now, “a bad bet for an ltr/marriage”, because i never chose to marry and because i showed no “dad traits
  
  I don’t think those were my exact words, but from an objective standard, you are a risky bet. The fact is, a man in his mid-40s who has never been married raises a red flag. Why not? Was no one good enough for you? Did you not want children? What have you been doing for the last 15 years? Are you a reformed player? etc. It may have nothing to do with character and integrity, but be more about the choices you’ve made and what that says about your priorities.
  
  I have no problem with anyone living on their own terms, man or woman. Just know that all choices have consequences. A large part of what I encourage women to do is seek out “dads” instead of “cads.” For those of us who want to marry and have a family, we just don’t have time to waste on men who don’t share the same objectives.
  
  It doesn’t mean we’re frightened of you, it just means you are not on the front lines for long-term mating.
modernguy

I say “You realize how fucked up that is, right!?”
She says “Yeah but that’s how it works.”

Classic. Gotta keep up the charade.
http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@ms walsh:
Hollenhund makes a powerful point and to be frank i am rather saddened to see that you havent directly addressed it:

That, at the end of the day, *you* were the one to seek the manosphere out, not the other way around. Your posts about “asshats” and the like, is what got it all started; we, you and i, would never have known of each other otherwise.

So, its very important to keep things in perspective here: the manosphere has always been to itself-for the most part, then and now, fairly content to “go its own way”. Its been the lady-headed venues of the blogosphere, that have gone after the manosphere-not the other way around. And i say that as a bona fide member of said sphere-one of the very few who are black, at that.

I think what ive said in my previous comment, about the idea that the manosphere represents, at bottom, the formalization of the notion of men reconsidering “roles” and often *rejecting them*, is a matter of grave importance to you, many of your lady readers, and many women online elsewhere. I think this is what drives much of what you and others say along these lines.

I mean, lets be brutally frank: puas, cads and the like are easily avoided-your recent and massive sex study vis a vie the college campus bears this out. Moreover, we both have agreed that charles murrays data in “coming apart” is good-the vast majority of todays white, umc female freshmen, will indeed go on to find and walk down the aisle, with their “kevin”. Its baked in the cake.

So, since we both know these facts, what, really, IS the “mission” of hus? I mean, will hus play any substantial role in upping the white umc marital rate? That is your stated target market afterall. By all accounts-again your college sex survey work, and murrays data, just to name a few-suggests strongly that if hus were gone tomorrow, all the white umc college gals reading this right now are gonna be alright. Again, its baked in the cake.

Of course, if youre jessica shairer, or if youre one of those “jerry springer” people you mentioned earlier, sho hate it. But since thats not your target demo, thats not your problem. Fair enough.

So, why the *need* for hus?

Heres my take:

I think you-and by extension many, many women-just like the idea of talking about love, romance and relationships, “jane austen” style. And to be sure youre not alone; black women are known to do this too, albeit with some tweaks and differences. But the point im getting at is despite the fact that your core target demo has no real problems to be concerned about (yet), your readership has grown. I posit this is because of the innate desire of women in general to discuss relationships. There really is no problem, in a large scale way, that needs addressing. Your target demo is avoiding the asshat players, and marrying the good guy betas. We both have agreed that this is an irrefutable fact.

HUS: Mission Accomplished.

Or…is it?

O.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Obs
  
  That, at the end of the day, *you* were the one to seek the manosphere out, not the other way around. Your posts about “asshats” and the like, is what got it all started
  
  I wrote a post inspired by Tucker Max, and linked to Roissy, who had also just posted about TM. I had never heard of Roissy, had no idea there was a manosphere, or what it was. The Game was just a book that got briefly passed around my son’s friend group in high school. I was then deluged with angry and hostile students of Game, and viciously attacked by Ferdinand. You entered the fray at that point and brought a civility and rationality to the conversation, and you know I appreciated that very much.
  
  Its been the lady-headed venues of the blogosphere, that have gone after the manosphere-not the other way around.
  
  I do not go to any ‘sphere blogs to spew hate, but members of the ‘sphere do that on nearly every post here. They make spectacles of themselves, frankly, and they amuse as much as anything. If my haters just ignored HUS they’d quickly become irrelevant.
  
  Most importantly, though, there are a lot of young people here, mostly male but also some females, who read both here and at Heartiste. Roissy and I make unlikely bedfellows (!!!!) but we are frequent bookends in Google Reader, I think. Overlap in commenters is inevitable.
  
  FWIW, I get mentioned on manosphere blogs very regularly – several times every week in fact. I don’t think it means much.
http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@ms j:
Thanks for taking the time out to respond to my little “survey” even though you werent the target, because it gives me the chance to address something:

I dont want you to take this the wrong way, but by your own admission *you married late*. You were in your upper 30s, at least, at the time, right? If im right, it only goes to strengthen my point:

That for all the talk about “character and integrity” there is scant evidence of this being a deciding factor in terms of mate selection insofar as the ladies are concerned, *when it matters most*, which is when theyre most fertile-late teens through 20s. Ms brown sugah is definitely younger than you but shes not in her 20s, and told me that had we met back then she would not have been so attuned either.

And then theres the infamous “lists” we know quite a few women have of their ideal man. Ive seen a number of such lists and “character and integrity” werent number one; they werent even in the top ten. Other things, like looks, height, status, money, were far and away more important-and again, lets be clear. Im not talking about the ratchets of the world here-im talking about the bougie girls.

So, while im very familiar with the “data” ms walsh presents, and while i hear fully what youre saying, it simply doesnt fit my life, my reality, and if the responses im getting over at my blog are any indication i am NOT alone. Quite the reverse in fact.

And to be brutally frank, i dont know how to feel about that, because, like churchill said, if you want more of something, you subsidize it. And simply put, real rap, a man having “character and integrity” simply doesnt account for much out on the smp, stand alone, or should i say, its not going to be the decisive, deal breaker factor that ms walsh keeps trying to make it out to be. Sure, she has her sliderule; i have my life experience.

Ill continue to let the latter be my guide.

O.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

Well, there you go (thx INTJ).

“only approximately 17.8% (100) of 563 societies sampled in Murdock’s Atlas of World Cultures has any form of monogamy (although these account for much larger than 17.8% of the World population).[50] Therefore, “genetic monogamy appears to be extremely rare in humans,” and “social monogamy is not common, … often reduc[ing] to serial polygyny in a biological sense”.

Genetic monogamy extremely rare = we ain’t born pair-bonding
Uncommon social monogamy often reducing to polygyny = takes cultural work to maintain it*
Account for much larger than 17.8% = why its worth it

* – ideally encouragement over enforcement
Desiderius

“And then there’s the greatest alpha male of all time, Genghis Khan. His direct patrilineal descendants (i.e. sons of sons of sons etc.) number around 16 million!

Yeah, but he only had that many descendants because he was so good looking and a great dad!”

This (outstanding) movie paints him exactly that way. Most leaders of men are.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Genetic monogamy extremely rare = we ain’t born pair-bonding
Uncommon social monogamy often reducing to polygyny = takes cultural work to maintain it*
Account for much larger than 17.8% = why its worth it

* – ideally encouragement over enforcement
One of the things that impressed me the most when I was hanging out with my Muslim girlfriends was how many of them were only wives. If you list Muslim culture as polygamy practitioner you would be right but within that culture they had all sorts of trappings. The first wife can specified on her bride contract to be the only wife the man can take, there is a limit of four wives and even if you can afford more than one and the first bride doesn’t care you still need to have enough to make everything but duplicate (if you buy a ring for one of the wives you have to buy them for all whether they deserve it or not) buy two houses or a house big enough to accommodate two brides, had you ever lived with two women wanting to do decoration of the house or ordering the house food? I can tell you is not fun at all! Many of my friends asked to be only wife because of their experiences of seeing their mothers miserable lives because of some bitchy stuff the other wife did or because they were unhappy with the arrangement but it was too late for them to change their contracts. There were other intimacies around this issue…Just saying I would like to see how many of this people were up to the poliginy even if allowed legally and socially. Pair bonding most had been replacing poliginy for enough time given that we have Jealousy (and you can find it in the brain not in the behaviour: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1147525/The-green-eyed-monster-lives-brain-Scientists-discover-jealousy-lobe.html) and all sorts of behavious to prevent mate poaching whether temporary (sexual affairs) or permanent (mate poaching). Women that are sharing a husband using all sorts of tricks to try to overrule the other woman, really just read Leah and Rachel cunning to get him to sleep with one or another over fruit for freak’s sake! No to mention that if the “lost boys” on polygamous Mormoms phenomenon is to be considered on a society where every male is entitled to a wife cannot sustain itself for long either, specially if you consider the high maternity death rate on the past. So yeah again this doesn’t say the whole story allowed doesn’t mean practiced by everyone we allow homosexuality it doesn’t mean all of us are homosexual does it?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Sorry I meant every male is entitled to more than one wife and attempts to take them.
http://Obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@ms j:
I know you were speaking to hollenhund, and i dont know if he will (or has) responded to your question, but heres the deal from my vantage point:

1. Your premise is slightly off: the manosphere sees guys getting with ladies all the time; granted, they may not qualify in the way you/ms walsh/et al *here* would like, but it happens nonetheless-i know because im a personal witness; and that leads me to the next point:

2. The real point of the manosphere you know, isnt necessarily to play matchmaker; its about men telling their stories, *in their own voices*. Its not about “moving on”, “finding inner peace” or anything like that; to be sure, and again im a witness (as are other denizens of the sphere, like ted et al), all of those things can happen as a side benefit. But none of that is the sole purpose of the sphere youre referring to; the purpose is for men to life up their voice, and tell their stories.

Why this so deeply bothers women such as yourself, is something that ive been giving a lot of thought to lately, and i think i have the answer. Hear me out.

For more than three decades running, women have dominated the nature, tone and style of the “discourse” between the sexes; to coin a phrase by bill maher, the only acceptable male role was to do “the oprah nod” reverentially, while women held forth with their stories, in their own voices. And for decades, again, men simply took it, no matter how true or false said “stories” were (and we know that quite a few were/are indeed false-like the bunk about “income gaps” or the bs surrounding “rape” in our time, or the socalled “war on women” et al).

Whats different this time around-and which explains the ladies here and elsewheres constant referencing of the sphere, is men arent too keen to do the oprah nod anymore; now we have something to say too.

And it is clear to me that women do not like it.

I finally see where some guys, like hollenhund, are coming from with this notion of “man up game 2.0″-its an attempt by women to change the nature of the discourse being had by men themselves. Hence what we saw happen to tom matlack and the good men project, and attempts to have puas investigated, jailed and the like (all of those attempts have failed).

This is something that is deeply unsettling to a lot of women, on a whole host of levels that even they may not be aware of or able to articulate in a conscious way, they always took it as a given that men would simply accept the new grrl order. When they didnt, the ladies went you know what.

So, yes, in a way-a very important one-youre right. The manospheres mission aint about “moving on”. Its about men telling their stories, in their own voices.

And you know what, ms j?

Youre living proof, that the fellas are being heard.

O.
JutR

Sai, I’m not trolling, and I am not suggesting anyone make their partner feel uncomfortable for their own comfort.

I was just trying to make an analogy that would allow a better emotional connection to the situation, to bring some perspective.

I’m not saying I did it well, but that was the intent.
szopen

@passer_by
“It’s also likely (in my estimation) that women from groups that spent the last 50,000 years in harsher climates are more beta male inclined than women whose ancestors spent the last 50,000 years in climates where food was more naturally plentiful”

This is exactly what I have written few posts above yours. To restate:
“there could be statistically significant differences between different populations of humans. I would predict that in environment, where access to food is easy, females would be more attracted to jerks and there would be, as a result, more male with “jerk” personalities. In difficult environments, there should be more females preferring LTR strategy, and, as a result, less “jerks”. “
szopen

@evilalpha
“When primatologists track paternity it is alphas who produce the most offspring, not the betas”

No. We are indeed descendent directly from quite few males. But there is absolutely no way to prove, whether this males were alphas or betas. In addition, amongst our ancestors were also numerous other males, but we have lost their Y chromosomes, which could be due to numerous effects, not necessarily due to the fact, that they had not some good virtues.

Unless you prove all alpha abilities are carried solely by genes on Y chromosome.

In addition, “The two chimpanzee species are the closest living relatives to humans, all being members of the Hominini tribe” is true, but irrevelant. We are not descendants of chimps. Indeed, some very basic qualities of humans, which are shared by all humans and even by children, and as such were probably evolved in EEA, are NOT present in chimps. I’m talking about fairness. Only humans seem to refuse unfair offers in dictator games. Chimps are far more rational in that regard and they accept whatever offer they get, even if it is unfair. This is enough to prove, that you cannot use chimpanzees as an example to explain human behaviour. Chimps and us have common ancestor, and that’s it.

In addition, even in chimps, betas can cooperate to murder the opponent (which was a nasty surprise to researchers: that chimps are capable to planning and execute a cold-blooded murder).
szopen

@passer_by
sorry, I posted a comment before reading the thread to the end. SOrry once again.
INTJ

@ Susan

Didn’t Genghis Khan get a lot of his partners via forcible sex and harem membership?

It doesn’t matter. Genghis Khan’s mother decided to mate with his father – who probably exhibited the same alpha male characteristics he passed on to Genghis Khan. In other words, she was an alpha male chaser. If the movie “Mongol” is true, then she actually left her husband and ran off with Genghis Khan’s father. Now her alpha-chasing tendencies have been inherited by all of Genghis Khan’s female descendants. Just think about that for a second.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Genghis Khan’s mother decided to mate with his father — who probably exhibited the same alpha male characteristics he passed on to Genghis Khan. In other words, she was an alpha male chaser.
  
  Maybe she was raped or part of Daddy Khan’s harem.
szopen

@INTJ
“And then there’s the greatest alpha male of all time, Genghis Khan. His direct patrilineal descendants (i.e. sons of sons of sons etc.) number around 16 million!ę

No. We do not have DNA of Genghis Khan. Todaz we have 16 million descendants from some male, who lived in Genghis Khan times, somewhere in Mongolia. The fact that this male was Genghis Khan is a logical deduction, something which is very probable. But this is not a fact.

ANother thing is that if you are English, then most likely you are NOT descendant ot Genghis Khan. Even more, you are not descendant of some uber-alphas. Read “Farewell to the Alms” by CLarks or some decent abstract. In short, in England, most people descend from hard-working middle class.
Just a thought

Susan, one female writer at the HuffPost refuted Hannah Rosin’s article. Her response was well written and pithy, you have to check it out .
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rachel-ryan/hannah-rosin-hookup-cultures-_b_1828460.html?utm_hp_ref=women&ir=Women
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Just a thought
  
  I did see that article by Rachel Ryan. Perhaps I’ll still post on it.
Desiderius

So much good stuff, attempting to be brief.

“Feminists brilliantly solicited the active help of males in pushing their agenda through. You will not change anything as long as you view women as the enemy, recommend repealing suffrage, expound on the inferiority of the female intellect, etc. So far, MRAs are content to be unhaaaaaapppy together online. I suppose that’s a good enough strategy if a bit of comfort and a boost is all that most of those men are after.”

From your lips to manosphere ears… The unhaaaapppy thing is coffee-through-the-nose brilliant.
Desiderius

“Where I do get judgmental is in general issues of character – using people, manipulating people, lying, the strong preying on the weak, etc. The nature of sex is that males are more likely to rely on these tactics to acquire sex than women are. This is the asymmetry of sex, but it also means that women have no quick “in and out” method for securing commitment.”

Looking at the Rosin article, and the behavior of the women around us, I don’t think most men would agree that that asymmetry still holds, even if they are behaving that way to acquire something other than sex (commitment is not exactly it). Think of your experiences with women in the workplace – that’s what we’re seeing both within and without it.

It’s not some flaw in female nature – we recognize it because it stands in such stark contrast to the behavior of the women who raised us. I think its a natural consequence of being new to the power they currently enjoy. Power corrupts, and whenever you’re new at something, it takes a while to get the hang of doing it well.
Desiderius

“Haha! Are you saying that alpha dog wouldn’t be good in business? He’s probably going to make a great CEO someday. I might not want my daughter marrying him, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t add value in another way.”

Good enough by our lower standards, but not great. There is a reason why our leadership class is struggling as women gain more of a say in choosing who leads. Again, likely nothing more than being new at it.

Great leaders maximize the number and effectiveness of positive-sum games, creating win-win opportunities for everyone to meet their goals. Men over generations of power developed ways to identify and promote those with the character to best identify and capitalize on those opportunities.

Dominance games are necessarily zero- and usually negative-sum. Women who favor them, in the SMP or the workplace, among themselves or the men they choose, impede that process and leave us with leaders less capable of fulfilling that role.

An asshole is not an extra-assertive man, he’s one who undermines positive-sum games with negative-sum behavior – a jerk. Men complain (sic – its far from whining) when women choose such men in the SMP, workplace, or ballot box not out of envy (sure, there is plenty of that in the manosphere, but that’s not what you’re getting here), but because we know such men are bad for us all.

Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad, but choosing the bad itself is a problem. As I understand it, you’re assuming that women are taking the good with the bad. That is not always, or even primarily, our experience.
Desiderius

“Maybe I’m just crazy here.. but the way I see it is that these behavior and personality triggers that women look for are almost completely useless in the modern day context..”

They’re becoming more useful as women look for them.
Sai

@JutR

No no, you aren’t trolling! The girl who wants to start a fight over the toilet seat would be trolling. I thought your post was funny because it reminded me of some game where the woman had to try to not be a fail mate.

Sorry about that.
INTJ

@ szopen

No. We do not have DNA of Genghis Khan. Todaz we have 16 million descendants from some male, who lived in Genghis Khan times, somewhere in Mongolia. The fact that this male was Genghis Khan is a logical deduction, something which is very probable. But this is not a fact.

First, those 16 million men are not just “descendants”. They’re patrilineal descendants. There’s a big difference. Second, if you look at the statistical studies that Susan uses, they use a p<0.05 score, which is equivalent to a 95% probability that the conclusion is valid. Now, I can say with at least 95% certainty that the guy from whom those people are descended was Genghis Khan. I'll grant you the point if you can give me even one plausible alternative to Genghis Khan (other than Genghis Khan's father, father's father, etc.).

ANother thing is that if you are English, then most likely you are NOT descendant ot Genghis Khan. Even more, you are not descendant of some uber-alphas. Read “Farewell to the Alms” by CLarks or some decent abstract. In short, in England, most people descend from hard-working middle class.

Don’t know about England, but 2 million men in Ireland are patrilineal descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages. There’s a lot of myth and legend surrounding Niall, but given his aggressive warfare, it’s pretty clear he was an alpha male.
Desiderius

“My answer is still “selecting the wrong man.” Why doesn’t that work?”

At this point, works fine for me. The discussion is about the why, and its nothing more than the fact that many women today were raised differently than you were. Their attraction triggers are different. Triggers operate prior to behavior – its why we speak of desire – so a behavior-focused approach will miss them.

There are base desires too. In my five years as a teacher, I was never once aroused by my students. I literally felt no desire for them – they were like neices and daughters to me. Had I felt that desire, it would have been a problem, whatever my behavior, but because of my upbringing, I didn’t even feel it.

I did feel it, inappropriately, for that 18-year-old lifeguard that approached me once I was no longer a teacher. Culture is powerful.

In the past two years just in my area, I think there have been five incidents of (female) teachers having sex with students. No male. Something is off.
INTJ

@ szopen

Didn’t type my complete response up there.

ANother thing is that if you are English, then most likely you are NOT descendant ot Genghis Khan. Even more, you are not descendant of some uber-alphas. Read “Farewell to the Alms” by CLarks or some decent abstract. In short, in England, most people descend from hard-working middle class.

I’m not going to give much credibility to a malthusianist like Clarks. His viewpoint that the poor are uncivilized and violent while the upper class are civilized dads is about as far from reality as possible.
INTJ

@ Just a thought

That article is brilliant. You should write an article with it Susan.
Desiderius

“Um, I don’t think so. The leader had to be a man who could command loyalty and respect from other men. An asshole, defined as someone only looking out for #1, would not meet those criteria.”

That’s it in a nutshell. Sorry I’ve lost the cite for the comment.
http://x OffTheCuff

Sue: “The vast majority of people do not engage in unproductive or immoral sexual behavior.”

Well, that depends on your morals, doesn’t it? Few people have n=0 or 1 which are the only valid numbers according to Christian morals. Add in divorce, premarital sex, OOW births, porn, and cheating stats, it’s pretty solid view that Christian sexual morals are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Zach/Sue: “Most all of the beta guys I know are at least over 5, with some closer to 10.”

Gonna toot the elite horn here again. When most people you know is at or above the median (6/3) then your crowd is not so representative of real life. Here, nobody seems to know any low-N (below median, for their age group) people…

Sue: “Drew Barrymore in her prime? A solid 7. She’s a Cover Girl model right now and looks pretty fine.”

ROTFL. She’s a cover girl because she was already famous as a child actor. She could not be a model on her looks alone, like Queen Latifah. These cover girls always struck me as sort of a affirmative-action kinda marketing to average women (“see, people who look like you can be a cover girl too, if you are already rich and famous!”).
Joe

@OTC

Few people have n=0 or 1 which are the only valid numbers according to Christian morals.

That’s a pretty odd use of the word “valid”, OTC. [Insert appropriate line from The Princess Bride here]

Really, it’s nearly enough to bring into question the validity of your outlook regarding Christian morals.

[That was the polite way of saying “Sounds like you don’t know what you’re talkin’ about, bud.”]
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  [Insert appropriate line from The Princess Bride here]
  
  LOL
Desiderius

Zach,

“The numbers that are being referred to are not my N numbers, they are the results of the sex survey poll taken at Penn last year, which I sent along to Susan.”

Yeah, that was the joke. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you would have caught it in rl. Electronic communication is problematic because we miss so many of the non-verbal cues that allow us to demonstrate mental/social acuity when we catch them in rl. If you want to run with the big dogs, better make sure you can catch their jokes, they won’t be as gentle as I was here.

“On another note, my point about Churchill was completely unrelated to his N, but thanks anyway.”

Other than the fact that he was polishing his speeches while you’re chasing tail. The skills you’re developing are in fact widely applicable, but there has to be a balance. Susan is more impressed with what you’ve shown of that than the men and Marcottes who now do the hiring are likely to be.

“I think you’re grossly misunderstanding the mission statement of this blog. If you’re looking for a crusade to change the current SMP, this ain’t it.”

In the process of making my peace with it. You characterize it well.

“So if all you’re looking for is a place to sh*t on players and condemn modern mores, I’m sure there are dozens of wingnut evangelical sites out there for you. This isn’t one of them.”

Comparing yourself to a dysfunctional subculture is indeed good for a quick self-esteem hit, but cutting yourself off from your own long, proud, rich, and successful heritage to do so is a high price to pay.

The culture dominated the world, and largely in a good* way; you’ve managed to dominate some women, or be dominated by them, which one is not entirely clear.

* – read that book if you’re curious what the life of a real alpha is like. Their families play a starring role throughout.
Desiderius

“We want…”

And we want women aware of something other than their own wants.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  And we want women aware of something other than their own wants.
  
  Then stop telling us what we want, which requires our constant attention to the issue. I can assure you that most women would rather get on with it than defend and justify their choices 24/7.
Desiderius

“Then stop telling us what we want, which requires our constant attention to the issue. I can assure you that most women would rather get on with it than defend and justify their choices 24/7.”

Got it.
Samael

@Desiderius

That article on nerds struck a chord with me. I wasn’t the brainy nerd in the typical fashion because I hated school and refused to try so my GPA was in the toilet (though I did graduate because I promised my mom I would). It’s funny to think about but yeah I really didn’t want to be popular, my problem was the damn popular kids wouldn’t leave me alone.

It was in middle school that I discovered metal and punk rock so I adopted the old school punk mentally of shunning social status. The thing is at the time I never guessed that the attitude would have girls interested in me. Now my high school “career” was drug/alcohol free but my friends and I skipped school to play guitar and work on each other’s hot rods and shit. Looking back now I had lots of opportunities I never even realized.

That makes me the often spoke of, rarely witnessed über mega ultra alpha right? The guy that has options but doesn’t act on them let alone realize he has them?
Samael

forgot the /sarcam on the last bit… oopsies!
Royale W. Cheese

@Susan
“This is one of the reasons why delaying sex in teenage girls is so vitally important.”

Amen to that.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@SW

You are too cynical! I am fighting the good fight!

I’m only cynical WRT anonymous, online environments. Patterns of behavior tend to be very predictable, from what I’ve observed. At least you’re fighting for something worthwhile. Your detractors, who seem to be attracted en mass to HUS like moths to a flame, are merely fighting *against* your positions. Hence the reason why “that study is worthless” and “those facts don’t matter”. I don’t happen to agree, but if I did, it would logically follow that opinions are even worth even less, and they *really* don’t matter in the grand scheme of things.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Banging my head repeatedly against the wall at this point!!!!

I’m thinking on a new product: Padded desks for bloggers. For those moments when banging your head on a desk takes more time than actually blogging.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I’m thinking on a new product: Padded desks for bloggers. For those moments when banging your head on a desk takes more time than actually blogging.
  
  Brilliant! That is actually a very funny idea. It would make a good comic, at least.
HanSolo

Hi Susan,

I read some of the post on shit testing…the fact that I read the posts and comments should be taken as a compliment to both. I want to clear up some confusion.

In 669 on this post you say

To be clear, in my post on shit testing I say that I am ashamed for my behavior. To my knowledge, I have not shit tested my husband in 28 years, though he might be able to come up with an example or two.

while in comment 69 on the other post you say the following: (http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/03/21/relationshipstrategies/why-we-shit-test/#comment-34731)

<I’ll cosign everything the guys have said – my husband has failed many shit tests in the course of our 26 year marriage. Actually, he’s gotten better with time. Early on, he had all the hand, but I fought hard to get some back and succeeded. We lived in balance until the kids were born. At that point, I began shit testing him like crazy and also became pretty bitchy about sex. I made it clear he was third in line for having needs met. At some point, he just sat me down and said, “This is unacceptable. I will not settle for this in a marriage.” He was very calm but it was clear that he was also 100% serious. Since then, I have worked hard to make sure he was happy in our marriage – I did not want to lose him. At this point, I know the deal, but if I shit test him, all it really takes is his flared nostrils for me to feel intimidated! I will confess, as regulars here know, that I am a bit feisty – it took him a few years to figure out how to best manage himself in our relationship. That was the key.

Can you reconcile these two statements? Do you no longer view this and the other shit tests as such? Not trying to be argumentative either. I foun the s-t post helpful and am trying to think back on my life about shit tests I’ve experienced. I think in the past I was too much to the beta side and didn’t even realize them and now I’m trying to come up with a good definition. I think some shit tests are obvious whereas other ones aren’t. I suppose that instead of trying to identify whether things are a s-t or not it’s just easier to have a strong inner frame of what is acceptable behavior and respond accordingly. If someone’s asking for something unreasonable then you just say no, sometimes with humor, sometimes with aloof disinterest, sometimes with a “you’re being a spoiled brat” or “this is not acceptable.”

My one question would be on the less-than-obvious shit tests. To me if I’m going to the kitchen and planning on coming back and she asks me to bring her some water that doesn’t sound like a shit test. It just sounds like a sensible and courteous thing. I would ask her the same. For me, something like this would be my “shit test” for her, that if she becomes unattracted for me bring her the water then I don’t want to be with someone that insane and petty. Maybe if I get her the water but add something like, “sure but that’s going to cost you a blow job tonight” then it allows me to not come across as a total pussy while not being a totally selfish douche. I feel like I’m going through a Ted-like internal debate on this one.

Thoughts on the borderline, not-blatantly-obvious shit test? TIA
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @HanSolo
  
  I’ll cosign everything the guys have said – my husband has failed many shit tests in the course of our 26 year marriage. Actually, he’s gotten better with time. Early on, he had all the hand, but I fought hard to get some back and succeeded. We lived in balance until the kids were born. At that point, I began shit testing him like crazy and also became pretty bitchy about sex. I made it clear he was third in line for having needs met. At some point, he just sat me down and said, “This is unacceptable. I will not settle for this in a marriage.” He was very calm but it was clear that he was also 100% serious. Since then, I have worked hard to make sure he was happy in our marriage – I did not want to lose him. At this point, I know the deal, but if I shit test him, all it really takes is his flared nostrils for me to feel intimidated! I will confess, as regulars here know, that I am a bit feisty – it took him a few years to figure out how to best manage himself in our relationship. That was the key.
  
  Wow, thanks for pointing that out. What an inconsistency. I had blacked out that very difficult time. I have discussed it often here, though – my husband giving me an ultimatum about sex when the kids were little. And it’s true the kids came first, always, and I didn’t give him much attention. I don’t really recall what shit tests I might have had in mind in that comment. To be honest, I think I just made him a low priority, and as he took it, I lost respect and attraction for him.
  
  I’ve also mentioned here that I have an unfortunate tendency to interrupt my husband, and he definitely doesn’t tolerate that, but that is not really a shit test. It’s more thoughtlessness than testing his ability to stand up to me.
  
  Sorry I can’t explain it better. I really don’t recall what I was thinking then.
  
  Personally, I don’t think that grabbing a drink for a spouse should be viewed as anything other than a kind gesture. If either my husband or I goes downstairs to the kitchen in the evening, we always ask the other, “Can I get you anything?”
  
  A shit test is an order or unreasonable request. I guess it could also just be acting bitchy and waiting to see how quickly you get called out on it. It’s a way that women make sure guys will step up and lead or dominate, or at the very least, not tolerate spoiled brat behavior.
  
  In my view, common courtesy and kindness does not qualify.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@ David Foster

“A very interesting piece on chivalry by C S Lewis”

Knights, who ideally followed the Code of Chivalry, were originally armed men who protected the weak, powerless and helpless, who were honorable and noble, who engaged in nobless oblige, who did not lie and steal.

That is a combination of “Alpha” and “Beta.” As far as I’m concerned, today any chivalrous man is an armed man.

I also noticed that many so-called Alphas are actually narcissistic cads, and every one of them I’ve met has been a coward. The female version of a cad is a slut.

What a man is supposed to be has been discussed for several hundred if not thousands of years, and to apply modern (and confused) concepts of Alpha, Beta, Delta, etc. is to ignore the ancient wisdom of people who thought about these things their entire lives.

Most of the guys I know are going to hysterically deny they are the Gammas and Deltas they really are and insist they are Alphas and Sigmas. And if you ask them what chivalry really means they don’t have a clue.
Escoffier

Susan, what I am getting at is this.

If the “red pill” has any core meaning, it is that for the past 50 or so years, intellectuals have peddled a lie which goes something like this. The male sex drive is bad and dangerous and needs to be brought under control. The female sex drive on the other hand is A) not very powerful and B) oriented toward good and productive ends. Men are naturally polygamous horn-dogs, women are naturally monogamous nesters. Hence, what men need to do for their own good in order to land a woman is make clear to women that they would make really great nesting partners.

So the red pillers come along and say this is all hogwash. They then take things too far in the other direction. Women are inherently alpha-chasing, feral, disloyal, etc.

What I am saying is that the blue pill and the extreme red pill accounts are both wrong. The truth is that BOTH sexes have biological sexual urges which, if left uncontrolled and unchannelled, will lead to bad behavior. Moreover, the desire peculiar and endemic to each sex is different than the other. Women are not generally seeking to rack up their counts. They are not interested in variety for its own sake. And they care less than men do about looks. Men on the other hand care much less about status and are turned off by dominence. They also almost never are interested in “trading up.” If men want to make a trade, it will be almost exclusively for looks and youth. Also, cheating men are much more likely to think of their exploits as “something on the side” and prefer to keep their wives if they can, whereas cheating women almost always have lost attraction for their husbands and are ready to move on.

In my view, neither sex is better or worse than the other. They both have unruly desires they need to learn to control, that, if acted on without restraint, lead to bad consequences for themselves and for those around them.

But you often write as if you don’t believe this is true for women. You say that nature and biology compel women to seek betas and pair bond. There is nothing inside them that they need to learn to control. That’s very “blue pill”: sugar and spice and everything nice, etc.

Yet when I asked what desires, endemic to women but not to men, do women need to learn to get under control, you said “selecting the wrong man.” Well, what does that boil down to? Doesn’t it mean, “choosing the superfically attractive man of low(er) character over the bland or dull man of good character?” If that’s what you mean, then I agree. That is exactly the innate sexual desire that females need to learn to get control of. The same way that men need to get control of our fixation on beauty over character and our desire for endless variety.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  If the “red pill” has any core meaning, it is that for the past 50 or so years, intellectuals have peddled a lie which goes something like this. The male sex drive is bad and dangerous and needs to be brought under control. The female sex drive on the other hand is A) not very powerful and B) oriented toward good and productive ends.
  
  I have had a different experience. I’m older than you are, I watched the Sexual Revolution and the Women’s Movement unfold. Who are the intellectuals you reference? Do you mean feminists? I have never heard anyone but feminists, e.g. Dworkin, demonize the male sex drive. I certainly never bought into that, nor did anyone I grew up with. However, I won’t second guess your experience as a male.
  
  You don’t grasp the female experience wrt sexual power. I have been told all my life that the female sex drive is powerful indeed. I recall stealing my mother’s night table copy of “The Sensuous Woman” in 1969. John Updike wrote of couples swapping. The Graduate introduced us to Mrs. Robinson, the first cougar. The book The Ice Storm in 1994 showed us what key parties were like in the early 70s. I saw nude people sliding in the mud at Woodstock, and naked hippies having sex in the woods at Big Sur. Sex was everywhere. Women were going for it and men were ecstatic. I grew up believing that sex was powerful, and dangerous, and liberating and exciting, and that all sex was oriented toward good and productive ends. (The Catholic church of my youth sought to counteract this in the culture, and failed miserably.)
  
  Men are naturally polygamous horn-dogs, women are naturally monogamous nesters. Hence, what men need to do for their own good in order to land a woman is make clear to women that they would make really great nesting partners.
  
  I grew up in a family of men who were not polygamous horn dogs. They were faithful family men who kept their Playboy magazines in the top shelf of the closet. The men I knew were good nesting partners. In fact, my paternal grandfather raised three children alone after his wife left (to a mental institution) when they were little. I grew up knowing that I wanted a great nesting partner. My husband presented his nesting qualifications early on, and that sealed the deal. This is not unusual among my female peers – it’s the same story with minor variations for most of the women I have known in my life.
  
  I was taught that women are naturally monogamous nesters, but that blew up with Women’s Lib. My own mother burned her bra and took an assertiveness training course. She told me to buy my own clothes, get my own food and do my own laundry (I was around 11.) But she was definitely monogamous – again, in the mold of my family. But she abandoned the role of nester with great drama.
  
  So the red pillers come along and say this is all hogwash. They then take things too far in the other direction. Women are inherently alpha-chasing, feral, disloyal, etc.
  
  The Sexual Revolution led all men to expect a lot more casual sex, and they welcomed it initially with great enthusiasm. Many were very disappointed when women failed to select them. In an unregulated market, women went for the most confident and commanding males. However – and this is very important – beta males got more sex after the Sex Rev than they had before. Alpha got more, but betas gained as well.
  
  http://glpiggy.net/2010/04/06/beta-males-sex-lives-improved-absolutely-after-the-sexual-revolution/
  
  I believe that what’s really going on is a disappointment in alphas getting more gains. It’s a failure of the Sex Rev to meet expectations of betas. The promise of free love remains unfulfilled for most men.
  
  Moreover, the desire peculiar and endemic to each sex is different than the other.
  
  Yes.
  
  Men want sexual variety.
  
  Women want the best possible mate for conceiving, birthing and raising young.
  
  This is the simple and rather obvious corollary. I do not know to what extent men struggle with this after monogamous commitment, and I am certain this varies a great deal by individual. It may be that what females want is different in both nature and timing – we do not, to the best of my knowledge, struggle with this throughout our lives.
  
  Because I seem to be failing to explain this adequately, I offer the following notes from David Buss, the most highly esteemed Evolutionary Psychologist in the world.
  
  From Davis Buss’ The Evolution of Desire:
  
  What do Women Want?
  
  Evolution has favored women who prefer men who possess attributes that confer benefits and who dislike men who possess attributes that impose costs.
  
  ECONOMIC CAPACITY
  
  Females prefer males who offer resources:
  
  Resources have to be accruable, defensible and controllable by men.
  Men differ from each other in their holdings and willingness to invest them in a woman.
  Advantages of being with one man outweighed advantages of being with several men.
  
  SOCIAL STATUS
  AGE
  AMBITION AND INDUSTRIOUSNESS
  DEPENDABILITY AND STABILITY
  Undependable people provide erratically and inflict heavy costs on their mates.
  INTELLIGENCE
  COMPATIBILITY
  SIZE AND STRENGTH
  Women prefer men who display physical and athletic prowess.
  GOOD HEALTH
  LOVE AND COMMITMENT
  Given the tremendous costs women incur because of sex, pregnancy and childbirth, it is reasonable for them to require commitment from a man in return. Resources can be directly observed, but commitment cannot be. Gauging it requires looking for cues that signal the likelihood of fidelity in channeling resources. Love is one of the most important cues to commitment.
  
  “Because sex is one of the most valuable reproductive resources women can offer, they have evolved psychological mechanisms that cause them to resist giving it away indiscriminately. Requiring love, sincerity and kindness is a way of securing a commitment of resources commensurate with the value of the resource that women give up to men.”
  
  What do Men Want? Men Want Something Else
  
  Why men marry poses a puzzle. Casual sex without commitment would have sufficed if all he needed was to reproduce. So there must have been powerful adaptive advantages to committing years of investment to a woman.
  
  One possibility is that men who refused to commit would have had trouble attracting the most desirable mating partners. Women did not consent to sex without the commitment. Women desire a lasting commitment, and the most desirable women are in the best position to get what they want.
  
  A second possibility is that infants and young were more likely to die without the prolonged investment from two parents or related kin. Even children who survived without a father would have suffered from the absence of his teaching and political alliances. Fathers often have a strong hand in arranging beneficial marriages for offspring – so children without fathers would be hurt. This gave an advantage to men who married.
  Men sought women who were able to bear children, but how did they judge a woman’s reproductive capacity? Men evolved mechanisms to sense cues to a woman’s reproductive health value.
  
  Men prioritize youth and health.
  
  Youth:
  In the US, men express desire for women younger than they are. The preferred age difference is approx. 2.5 years. Tribal people often prefer a post pubescent female who has not borne her first child, 15-18 yrs.
  
  Standards of Physical Beauty:
  Full lips
  Clear, smooth skin
  Clear eyes
  Lustrous hair
  Good muscle tone
  Behavior: bouncy, youthful gait; animated facial expression, high energy level.
  
  These are the physical cues to youth and health, comprising the ingredients of male standards for female beauty.
  
  Men place a premium on physical appearance and attractiveness. Men tend to see attractiveness as important whereas women see it as desirable but not very important. The importance of attractiveness has increased dramatically in the U.S. in the 20th c., equally for men and women. But it is still greatest for men.
  
  Beauty is not just important for reproductive value. It also affects a man’s social status. An attractive woman is a signal of status to same-sex competitors and to other potential mates.
  
  Marriage patterns in America confirm that men with the most resources can most easily actualize their preferences. Men with high occupational status marry more attractive women than those who are low in occupational status. Occupational status is the BEST predictor of the attractiveness a man can get.
  
  The primary benefit of casual sex to ancestral men was an increase in the no. of offspring. To gain access to a variety of women, men have evolved mechanisms that help them to seek a variety of sexual partners:
  
  1. Lust – there is a universal male desire for sexual variety. The function of lust is to motivate sexual intercourse. For a lifetime, men would like to have 18 sex partners, and women only 4-5.
  
  2. Let little time elapse before seeking intercourse. Large time investments interfere with number and variety. Men are positive about having sex with women they have known for one week, and only slightly disinclined to have sex with s/o they have known for one hour. For most women, sex after one hour is an impossibility.
  
  3. Lower standards to ensure the presence of more eligible players. For brief encounters, men require lower levels of such assets as: charm, athleticism, education, generosity, honesty, independence, kindness, intellectuality, loyalty, sense of humor, sociability, wealth, responsibility, spontaneity, cooperativeness and emotional stability. The only characteristics that men rate signif. more undesirable than women: a low sex drive, physical unattractiveness, need for commitment, and hairiness.
  
  Men’s low standards reveal a precise strategy to gain access to a variety of partners. Compared with their lt preferences, men don’t want casual partners who are prudish, conservative or have a low sex drive. In contrast to lt standards, for st they want: sexual experience including promiscuity, high sex drive. Men don’t care about women’s commitment – in fact, if they are involved with someone already, it reduced the odds that she would seek a commitment from them.
  
  Kinsey: “There seems to be no question but that the human male would be promiscuous in his choice of sexual partners throughout the whole of his life if there were no social restrictions….the human female is much less interested in a variety of partners.
  
  Women and Casual Sex
  
  Women can gain advantages from casual sex as one strategy within a flexible sexual repertoire. There must always have been willing women, or men could not have pursued their own interest in brief affairs.
  
  The immediate extraction of resources is a key adaptive benefit that women secure thru affairs. Prostitution is the extreme case of this.
  
  Affairs also provide an opportunity to evaluate potential husbands. Women can gauge the intentions of the prospective mate. How reliable is he, how does he hold up under stress? It allows her to penetrate any potential deception.
  
  Intercourse gives a couple the opportunity to see how compatible they are sexually. Thru sex women can gauge a man’s sensitivity, his concern with her happiness and his flexibility.
  
  Women gain a more accurate self-assessment of their own desirability from casual sex. Underestimating is especially detrimental. It leads to fewer resources, less paternal investment, and inferior genes to pass to her children. By engaging in brief affairs with several men, a woman can accurately assess her own mating value. She obtains valuable info about the quality of the men she can potentially attract.
  
  Women may also secure back-up protection against other men. This is particularly true for cultures where women are at risk of attack or rape.
  
  A lover may also serve as a potential replacement for a mate if he should desert, get ill or injured, be infertile or die.
  
  It is theoretically possible thru casual sex for women to gain superior genes to pass on to their children. It is far easier for a woman to get a superior man to have sex with her than marry her. In the UK, women typically have affairs with men who are higher in status than their husbands.
  
  Sexy Son Hypothesis: Women prefer to have casual sex with men who are attractive to other women b/c they will have sons who possess the same charming characteristics. Lent credence by finding that women are more exacting wrt physical attractiveness in a casual encounter than they are with a permanent mate.
  
  Favorable Contexts for Casual Sex
  
  1. Absence of investing father during childhood increases incidence of casual sex.
  2. Women of divorced parents are more promiscuous.
  3. Women with absent fathers menstruate earlier.
  
  So women may be pursuing a strategy of extracting emendate resources from a number of st partners, rather than trying to secure the continued investment of one.
  
  Another factor that is likely to foster brief sexual encounters – although differently for men and women – is ones’ future desirability as a mate. A man at the apprenticeship stage of a promising career may pursue only brief affairs, figuring that he will be able to attract a more desirable permanent mate later on, when his career is closer to its peak. A woman whose desirability is low may reason that she cannot attract a husband of the quality she desires and so may pursue carefree st relationships as an alternative.
  
  That’s all I got. I have nothing more to add.
  
  Just so you know, I take your criticism personally, as it has been rife with implications of bias, hypocrisy and fuck-wittedness. Same goes for Mike C.
Mike C

@ Obsidian

i might be included in that, as im currently being moderated already. So, given that this seems to be the case, id like to offer the following thought experiment:

Hmmm…interesting. This excerpt above is from two “steel on target” comments you wrote that have showed up in my e-mail but I don’t see them on the webpage. I’m assuming either they were deleted or that your comments go automatically into moderation.

Your meta-analysis of the dynamics of the manosphere as it relates to HUS, other blogs, and random female commenters are so f****ng money.

Rather, i just mean that the ladies are deeply concerned that the manosphere-its very existence-represents a real seachange in the male body politic. They are deeply afraid that its ideas could spread to other “blue pill” guys. And that those ideas could prove disasterous, from a female standpoint.

Absolutely. I’ve questioned, wondered, pondered many of the same things you have. I’ve wondered why there is such a level of antagonism, hostility towards some. I think for many women the spread of “red pill” ideas to “blue pill” men is very scary.
Mike C

Ehhh..screwed up the bolding
Mike C

Escoffier @735,

Cosign the whole thing enthusiastically. That is a perfect, balanced, sensible summary of the entire situation. I’d suggest if anyone disagrees with the basics of what you’ve outlined in 735, they are no longer evaluating things objectively but bringing a strong bias to any and all analysis.

Yet when I asked what desires, endemic to women but not to men, do women need to learn to get under control, you said “selecting the wrong man.” Well, what does that boil down to? Doesn’t it mean, “choosing the superfically attractive man of low(er) character over the bland or dull man of good character?” If that’s what you mean, then I agree. That is exactly the innate sexual desire that females need to learn to get control of. The same way that men need to get control of our fixation on beauty over character and our desire for endless variety.

Yes…this is so obvious. Where does this “selecting the wrong man” come from? Obviously, there is something in the attraction triggers which sometimes lead to selecting the wrong man which needs to be controlled. And as you correctly point out, men have this as well. It is why men sometimes select HOT and bitchy and/or crazy. Because they are overly focusing on hot and young instead of the dsyfunctional personality traits.
http://adamdoglesby.com Adam D. Oglesby

The thing is Hot and Mean may be, in part, as much optical illusion as authentic. The Exciting/charismatic guy is virtually the same as the Hot and Mean one—possessing similar aphrodisiac properties and just as likely to make other men as moist as the women.

Men and women—platonically or romantically—are both moths drawn to same flame; rushing willy-nilly toward the exciting, the dangerous, the fascinating and away from the boring, the safe, the reasonable—even if cosmetically the latter is just as Hot.

Charismatics attract the Sycophants, the Adorer’s, the Wanna-Be-Like’s, the Hangers-On’s–just like the Hot and Mean dude does.

While the women may want to bed him, the dudes seek to ingratiate themselves with the Charismatic, absorb his technique, behaving much like mongrels eager to lap up the drunken vomit of their master.

Both males and females bite, scratch and claw to be in the Charismatic’s presence, to be—in effect—on The List, bristling at any perceived competition to do his bidding.

There’s little question that adulation in large enough doses almost always proves toxic, making the receiver of this over-abundance of praise, accolades and attention into a near insufferable ass-wipe of the highest order. (Mean.)

Yet the Charismatic can treat the throngs of his fan club like poop simply because they’re so vast in number and so eager to please that his behaving like a screw-loose tyrant risks few consequences.

Followers will likely swallow the abuse and still mewl and clamor around his ankles like obedient puppies begging for forgiveness.

One does not have to be hot to be perceived that way. Fans of professional sports can probably list a dozen individuals who are a few steps below Cro-Magnon man in the looks and intelligence department. But slap a sports jersey on them, a few championships rings, a seven figure salary and viola, instant Adonis.
Iggles

@ evilalpha:

And then there’s the greatest alpha male of all time, Genghis Khan. His direct patrilineal descendants (i.e. sons of sons of sons etc.) number around 16 million!

Yeah, but he only had that many descendants because he was so good looking and a great dad!

Eh, maybe it was his alpha-ness that got him so many women. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Being that he was an ancient conqueror I’m pretty sure he got so many babies mommas through rape. As such most of the women did NOT choose him over any betas (you know, their recently killed husbands and boyfriends..).

“He was famous for being merciless. Known for killing boys and men of captured cities; and kidnapping the woman and girls. To a question about the source of happiness he was known to have said: The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”

[source]
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Bob Wallace…”Knights, who ideally followed the Code of Chivalry, were originally armed men who protected the weak, powerless and helpless, who were honorable and noble, who engaged in nobless oblige, who did not lie and steal.”

Of course, real-life knight often fell short of this idea–indeed, probably usually fell short of it. The same knight who behaved with exquisite courtesy toward a damsel of appropriate class might well rape a peasant woman, beat up her husband, and steal the family’s property.

Still, Lewis would argue–and I would agree–that the introduction of the ideal represented a Platonic Form of great value.
Escoffier

Mike C, reminds me of a Woody Allen line to his hot ex-wife: “My analyst warned me about you. But you were so beautiful, I got another analyst.”
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

“Of course, real-life knight often fell short of this idea–indeed, probably usually fell short of it. The same knight who behaved with exquisite courtesy toward a damsel of appropriate class might well rape a peasant woman, beat up her husband, and steal the family’s property.”

You’re quite right. The Code of Chivalry is a Platonic ideal. Unfortunately these days it’s not taught at all. Instead, some men are following for the Manosphere concepts of Alpha, Beta, etc., which I think is more confusing than enlightening.

Witness some of the comments here about how Genghis Khan was an Alpha. Genghis Khan was the worst mass murderer in history (today it’d be about 50 million people), God knows how many women he raped, and the pastimes of his soldiers were to make pyramids of human skulls.

There was nothing admirable about Khan, and at the end of his life he admitted all his violence solved nothing.

You might as well call Hitler an Alpha, or Stalin, or Pol Pot.
Mike C

Mike C, reminds me of a Woody Allen line to his hot ex-wife: “My analyst warned me about you. But you were so beautiful, I got another analyst.”

Haha. Yup. I think beauty/”hotness” is obviously the male “blind spot” where if it is present at an extreme enough level it can lead us to women with absolutely horrendous character and personality attributes that we overlook. I suspect the female equivalent is essentially “Confidence TM” where a man who displays that in spades triggers attraction at a level that leads many women to overlook serious character and personality deficiencies.

It’s funny. I get stories relayed to me every single day from my player/cad co-worker. In my view, he has a lot of serious character issues mixed in with some remnant of a decent guy buried somewhere in there….kind of like Darth Vader and his redemption at the end of Return of the Jedi. But the one thing he displays perfectly is “Confidence”.

I’ve tried my best to gently steer him in the direction of a different lifestyle, but I am starting to think it is a lost cause. Anyhow, I’ve got a frontline view through his eyes and the various things he relays to me.

If there is just one thing I could tell a woman as a sort of a warning, it is that that “confidence” trigger is the one most likely to lead you down wrong road. I’m not going to say this applies to 100% of men that fit the bill, but any man who is supremely confident, very smooth….almost perfectly smooth is likely to at the least be a player if not a guy with character issues. And the reason is because often that confidence and smoothness comes from repeated practice on a large number of women.
Iggles

@ Bob Wallace:

Witness some of the comments here about how Genghis Khan was an Alpha. Genghis Khan was the worst mass murderer in history (today it’d be about 50 million people), God knows how many women he raped, and the pastimes of his soldiers were to make pyramids of human skulls.

There was nothing admirable about Khan, and at the end of his life he admitted all his violence solved nothing.

Spot on! + 1,000,000
J

@Han #617

I believe you, but I think that this is one of those SES/geopgraphy things. I can’t imagine sitting through a sermon about porn. I don’t think I’ve actually ever heard one. In fact, I find it sort of laughable. I’d prefer to listen to something uplifting and positive than a list of “don’ts.” My not looking for someone to tell me what not to do; tell me how to go about doing something good.

If your pastor was trying to make some sort of point about how to have a good marriage, I’d have thought he’d concentrate on how to be loving or considerate, or how to work together rather than worrying about who’s doing a little one-armed browsing. I have to admit that I really don’t understand what passes for religion in some of these churches you guys describe. It’s out of my realm of experience. The last sermon I heard about marriage had to do with developing empathy for one’s spouse and being selfless. Porn never seems to come up.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Re: alpha, beta, chivalry, etc. I agree that it can be very confusing. Maybe there is a rough analogue in the world of men’s wardrobe and style…

Bespoke tailors are working off of an idealized masculine template that has remained relatively constant for a long time, and they have had many decades now to figure out how to generate it. So they start from the notion that all guys—a diverse group that might include City or Wall Street investment bankers, arms dealers like Kashoggi and Said, professional athletes, celebrity actors, etc.—want the same basic “alpha” template in terms of look: “tall, symmetrical, comfortable mesomorph with money and good taste.” It is assumed that this the best presentation for a man, that it will naturally enhance physical confidence, and that it will yield the best results in dynamic social interactions with both men (via respect) and women (via attractiveness). The man could be a loyal husband and family man or he could be the world’s most terrifying PUA, but the tailor’s job is not to sermonize and it is certainly not to try to tell the guy to “just be himself” if that means setting the guy up for failure.

To that end, the purpose of the bespoke jacket is to give the man’s upper body a pleasing V shape. The purpose of the pants is to make the legs look longer and ideally to stress the “military muscles” that would come from long practice at soldiering (“sartorial splendor” being originally linked to the sartorius muscles in the legs). Each piece of clothing has a specific role to play in the system.

The tailor is going to try to use his art to make his customer fit the a priori idealized-male template the best way possible, and he has a number of tricks up his sleeve to do this. But if a customer says, “Oh, hey, I’d really like to look short, narrow-shouldered, wide-hipped, and fat, with stubby legs. Isn’t this attractive to women?” the tailor will obviously try to talk him out of going for that particular look.

If a man really *is* a tall, symmetrical mesomorph, than the tailor will have a much easier job and can concentrate on the “money and good taste” aspects of the presentation immediately.

I think that the more sophisticated Game coaches are working off of some sense of similarly universal alpha template and trying to bring everybody they can up to at least a basic level of interpersonal effectiveness, although they are working through the social skill equivalents of the bespoke tailoring (I stress “sophisticated” because some of these guys are giving trite, throwaway advice that could easily torpedo a man’s ability to get great risk-adjusted returns in the SMP).

An unpleasant but necessary part of this whole experience, at least for some guys, may be the realization that a template exists at all, and that this template may not fit with the moral conceptual framework that they have been repeatedly told—by women, in many cases—to use as a guide in the SMP. Hence the feeling of disgust that many guys express here when the “wrong” men are unjustly rewarded by women.
Mike C

BB,

Great analogy with the tailor…

An unpleasant but necessary part of this whole experience, at least for some guys, may be the realization that a template exists at all, and that this template may not fit with the moral conceptual framework that they have been repeatedly told—by women, in many cases—to use as a guide in the SMP. Hence the feeling of disgust that many guys express here when the “wrong” men are unjustly rewarded by women.

I think you’ve nailed it here.
Iggles

@ SW:

I don’t think those were my exact words, but from an objective standard, you are a risky bet. The fact is, a man in his mid-40s who has never been married raises a red flag. Why not? Was no one good enough for you? Did you not want children? What have you been doing for the last 15 years? Are you a reformed player? etc. It may have nothing to do with character and integrity, but be more about the choices you’ve made and what that says about your priorities.

To weigh in here, I do see Susan’s point. If a woman wants marriage and children then an unmarried man of that age does raise questions.

From what I’ve seen most never married men in their 40s are single either because they shun marriage in general or have personal issues to work through, which prevent them from forming lasting relationships.

Case in point, I know a guy who is 39 and sounds great on paper (well paying STEM job, various interests and hobbies, rather diverse social circle of friends). He’s a good person and great friend. He has no shortage of dates and interest from women. However, the guy is a TERRIBLE bet for marriages/kids/even a LTR — he has never had a relationship that lasted more than 6 months!

I had set him up with a friend once and learned through her that he has a number of relationship issues to sort out. I feel for him because he is truly getting in his own way. STRs are all he truly knows because at a certain point he’s not comfortable with the relationship emotionally escalating to the level it needs for true intimacy.

His situation is different from Obsidian’s, whom as I recalled mentioned in a prior post that he chose not to get married. My point is the older one gets, the less likely is it that they never married because they simply “haven’t met the right person yet” — though anyone who falls into this camp, male or female, is a good prospect for marriage/family IMO. The trick is, if marriage is your goal, you have to weed out those who genuinely want it from those who don’t want it and/or can’t sustain it. So yes, it makes sense to question the “why?” after a certain age to make sure your goals align!

I have no problem with anyone living on their own terms, man or woman. Just know that all choices have consequences. A large part of what I encourage women to do is seek out “dads” instead of “cads.” For those of us who want to marry and have a family, we just don’t have time to waste on men who don’t share the same objectives.

It doesn’t mean we’re frightened of you, it just means you are not on the front lines for long-term mating.

+1

Similarly, a woman with Obsidian’s romantic history might draw concern from marriage minded men. They would want to know if she’s looking for husband or if she’s a serial monogamist who moves on after a certain number of years.
J

@Ted

If you are interested in keeping tabs, add me to this list of men

I’m not surprised, Ted.

Keep in mind thought, that in terms of importance, being my buddy is a ways down the list. However, I think your point is relevant and probably correct: marriages last longer if there is a genuine “friendship” quality between the husband and wife IN ADDITION to a healthy marriage.

Oh, I don’t mean to discount the importance of sex. I know that when you guys hear “friends,” you worry about LJBF. That’s not at all what I mean though. In an ideal marriage, the husband thinks of his wife as a buddy
…that he can give orgasms to.

The marriage counselor my ex and I went to suggested we watch Fireproof, which IS one of those movies Dalrock talks about. He isn’t wrong in the least, the movie was TOTAL feminist BS, signed and approved by the “Church”.

I’ve been thinking about this since yesterday, and I’m really appalled. Unless you specifically chose this counselor because s/he represented a particular Christian outlook, giving you a video with any sort of religious content is extremely out of line, biased and unprofessional. A therapist’s job is listen and to help you clarify your values, not to impose his/her own.

Some years ago, I was assigned by an HMO to a born-again pediatrician. In the course of asking legitimate questions about my sons’ development (Does the baby sleep through the night? Does you toddler recognize and understand the word “no”?), he felt the need to editorialize, prostelyze and interject childrearing methodology from born again “authorities” like Dr. James Dobson, who advocates spanking. He also told me that “The Bible says ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child.’ ” I asked him if that was the same rod as in “Thy rod and staff comfort me,” and explained that the metaphor the Bible uses refers to shepards using a rod to guide the movements of a flock, not to beat the sheep. I further told him that we had a differing set of beliefs and that I found his interpretation of Scripture to be uninformed and not relevant to the service I was actually paying him to provide. When he proved incapable of keeping lid on that stuff, I complained to my HMO and got them to switch me to a different doctor.
Desiderius

Susan,

“Roissy and I make unlikely bedfellows (!!!!) but we are frequent bookends in Google Reader, I think.”

You’re my two go-to sources. Your commenters are, um, juuust a little bit better.

“I don’t think those were my exact words, but from an objective standard, you are a risky bet. The fact is, a man in his mid-40s who has never been married raises a red flag. Why not?”

I’m 42. Missed opportunities in early-late 20’s, like many women.

“Was no one good enough for you?”

No, two best opportunities: one went for the brass ring with a clearly better man (BB clone) and didn’t get there. Other wanted to stay near home (WV) and I wanted to go for the career brass ring. I would have married either one, both then and in retrospect. No, I didn’t ask.

Another moved to Dallas to pursue her PhD, another I bailed prematurely because she wasn’t ambitious/worldly enough and I thought we’d be incompatible. There are 5-10 others where the decision was a wise one; until recently I was usually the decider once things got past one date.

“Did you not want children?”

No, always did. Always been great with kids (cousins, siblings, students)

“What have you been doing for the last 15 years?”

The last two getting back in the game, prior to that primarily concerned with not dying, including two years without an erection that I thought was due to nerve damage from the catheter during my transplant, but was likely just extremely low T. Oddly enough, was brought back to life by stumbling onto some quality porn.

“Are you a reformed player?”

More than I realized at the time. If making-out counts (used to be the thing to keep it in our pants, at least until exclusivity) my N is somewhere around 25-30. There were some very sweet girls in fifth-grade who took it upon themselves to make sure my friends and I were well-trained.

Skipped sixth and never really was a natural again.

My target audience has never been into players (BB clone was a player, but also a better man by any measure), if anything I have to work against any player vibe they pick up from me (real, imagined, or badly faked). Susan’s right about the UMC, at least the chunk I’ve been with/am trying with mixed results to get back with.

I do see the behavior described by the manosphere all over the MMC and in workplaces, but my main competition in my target demographic is my own issues (work ongoing, thx to Roissy and Susan), careers/inertia, and “less than marriage material” boyfriends and the damage spending extended time with them does to the ability to form healthy relationships with equals.
Desiderius

“Hence the feeling of disgust that many guys express here when the “wrong” men are unjustly rewarded by women.”

Serious social change does require some negative-sum games, and people skilled at playing them. Could be women are feeling the need.
J

Because women become more emotionally attached, they are more likely to leave their husbands. Women put a greater emphasis on affairs than men do.

Not exactly. If a woman cheats on a guy, she has already become emotionally unattached from him. It’s a symptom of a greater problem. Women’s affairs don’t end marriages. They are a sign that the marriage has been over emotionally from the woman’s perspective for a long time.
Mike C

Not exactly. If a woman cheats on a guy, she has already become emotionally unattached from him. It’s a symptom of a greater problem. Women’s affairs don’t end marriages. They are a sign that the marriage has been over emotionally from the woman’s perspective for a long time.

Distinction without a difference.
J

@SW

I can honestly say that I would not consider marrying again whether I became divorced or widowed. I do know some women over 40 in serious dating relationships, but only one was interested in marrying, which she did.

It’s a hard decision. I love being married, but it involves a lot of compromises that I don’t know if I’d want to make with a new person at this stage of the game. OTOH, I wouldn’t want to be alone.

I think inheritance laws also play a big role here. My father is 79 and has been with one woman for 15 years, but would never consider marrying because the finances get messy and he would likely be leaving money to her blood relatives rather than his own.

I know of many, many couples like your dad and his gf. I had an uncle who lived with a woman (the widowed best friend of his dead wife, actually) for close to 20 years. They never married due to the inheritance laws. We always treated them like a married couple. When he passed away, most people treated her as his widow.
Mike C

It’s a hard decision. I love being married, but it involves a lot of compromises that I don’t know if I’d want to make with a new person at this stage of the game. OTOH, I wouldn’t want to be alone.

I’m genuinely curious what “a lot of those compromises” are. I’m currently engaged and this will be my second marriage. Unlike my first marriage, I think I’ve chosen wisely, and I screened heavily for a personality type that I think is highly compatible with me. For me, I consider that I am giving up one major thing but beyond that I can’t think of much else I am compromising on by getting married.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@ Bastiat Blogger

“So they start from the notion that all guys—a diverse group that might include City or Wall Street investment bankers, arms dealers like Kashoggi and Said, professional athletes, celebrity actors, etc.—want the same basic “alpha” template in terms of look”

Define the masculine template in terms of character. Not Alpha, Beta, etc., but what history and wisdom has shown a man is supposed to be.

It was discussed in the Bible, by Aristotle, by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, by C.S. Lewis and many others. All agreed on the basics.
J

Distinction without a difference.

In terms of the final outcome for the man involved, of course. In terms of understanding why women behave they way they do, not so much.
Mike C

***Define the masculine template in terms of character.*** Not Alpha, Beta, etc., but what history and wisdom has shown a man is supposed to be.

Bob, are women instinctively attracted and drawn to this man?
Escoffier

There is another reason why a guy over 40 may not be married: he so beta that every woman he meets LJBFs him almost instantly. I know a couple of guys like this, stable, reasonably handsome (or at least not repulsive), able to maintain friendships with plenty of high quality females, but they can’t get a date to save their lives.
J

What I mean, Mike, is that when someone who has spent all their adult life with one person, as Susan and I have, they’ve gotten used to living in a certain way that that is composed in part of the accomodations they made for their spouse, their own tastes, tastes and ideas they picked up from their spouse, etc. It’s hard to start all that anew as a middle-aged person.

That was the context of the convo, Susan and I were having. It probably doesn’t apply to your situation; you’re younger and weren’t married as long. I doubt there’s anything important that you’d be compromising about that would outweigh the benefits of your getting remarried. I felt as you feel regarding compromises when I married DH, but that was nearly a quarter of a century ago.
J

Helen Fisher says that men get a lot of their intimacy from their wives, while women get more from female friends.

She’s right.

so we can play on weekends. We go for walks, go to museums, eat out. Haha, old folks activities.

Old folks? Oh, shit. Throw in a hike around the state park with the dog, and that’s what DH and I do.
JutR

Escoffier, I disagree a little.

I fit your criteria for a while, although tall, I was introverted, chubby, and beta, always putting the woman ahead of me. I was kind, thoughtful, and doing everything wrong.

I stopped trying to attract women at around the age of 30, and 12 years later, I am pretty happy where I am, wilfully celibate, financially stable, with a wide arrangement of friends, and zero hooks in me from past mistakes. At this point in time, I am pretty set in my ways, my life is stable, well maintained, and not likely to change unless I will the change. When you weigh the costs of marriage and the potential downsides, and the available candidates, it is highly unlikely that I will desire to change my status from eternal bachelor (without the usual carnal implications) to committed husband.

If you haven’t figured out what you are doing wrong, and can’t get dates at 40, then you aren’t putting a lot of thought into life, and you probably aren’t a good bet.
J

For example, I would not be titillated by attention from Wolf Blitzer, James Carville, or Joe Biden.

Carville must be he ugliest man alive; he makes Blitzer look hot. Have you seen Carville’s wife? It’s a triumph of assortative mating.

Also, I shamefully admit to laughing at your Mrs. D remark. I believe she is a teacher, so she probably doesn’t watch Lifetime all day.

Although I would assume that much of all our pictures of the opposite sex come from our spouses.
Jonathan

Susan Walsh 748:

A shit test is an order or unreasonable request. I guess it could also just be acting bitchy and waiting to see how quickly you get called out on it. It’s a way that women make sure guys will step up and lead or dominate, or at the very least, not tolerate spoiled brat behavior.

Another way for a guy not to tolerate spoiled brat behavior is to walk. From his point of view it’s like dealing with nagging. He may be capable of dominating her but at some point decides it’s not worth the effort. As with nagging, the best remedy may be for women to learn not to shit test. Instead they could learn to satisfy their need for reassurance in non-destructive ways, as men are taught to deal with their own characteristic behavior flaws.
Ramble

I have never heard anyone but feminists, e.g. Dworkin, demonize the male sex drive.

Besides Entourage (which has been famously derided by the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor winner, Tina Fey, as a show for complete fucking idiots), can you name one tv show in the last 30 years to show the “pure” male sex drive (i.e. she is hot, I want to fuck her, I just did fuck her, life is good and everyone is happy for me) as a good thing and not something to be tolerated and eye-rolled at.

I recall stealing my mother’s night table copy of “The Sensuous Woman” in 1969. John Updike wrote of couples swapping. The Graduate introduced us to Mrs. Robinson, the first cougar. The book The Ice Storm in 1994 showed us what key parties were like in the early 70s. I saw nude people sliding in the mud at Woodstock, and naked hippies having sex in the woods at Big Sur.

All of these examples are from before the age of Political Correctness (or make references to that time). After that period, female sexuality was something to be embrace and explored.

However – and this is very important – beta males got more sex after the Sex Rev than they had before. Alpha got more, but betas gained as well.

http://glpiggy.net/2010/04/06/beta-males-sex-lives-improved-absolutely-after-the-sexual-revolution/

Wait a minute. I thought that a bigger percentage of guys in college are virgins today than ever before?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ramble
  
  All of these examples are from before the age of Political Correctness (or make references to that time). After that period, female sexuality was something to be embrace and explored.
  
  No, all of those examples are female sexuality being accurately described. Some of them celebrate it, some demonize it, e.g. Mrs. Robinson.
  
  The point is, the last 50 years have carried a strong message that the female sex drive is powerful. In fact, the strength of the female sex drive has probably been exaggerated, in an attempt to make women like Jaclyn Friedman seem normal.
J

dont want you to take this the wrong way, but by your own admission *you married late*. You were in your upper 30s, at least, at the time, right? If im right, it only goes to strengthen my point:

Oh no, I was in my late thirties when I had my older son. I had been maried several years at that point. I was over 30 when I married though. I would not attribute that to a desire to chase after man of low character as much as I would say that I was afraid to marry due to having had a rather unstable childhood. I married a man who was in a similar position. I’d say we both finally reached to point where our need to marry overcame our fears.

On an amusing note, in the video of our wedding ceremony, we both look scared shitless going down the aisle. We look relieved on our way out during the recessional. My first words to my husband as a married woman were, “Holy Christ, I can’t believe we just did that!” He replied, “We did, J we did. Let’s just hope we don’t fuck this up.” The Pachabel Canon in D played in the backgound as I wondered if anyone had heard us.

Romantic, huh?

And to be brutally frank, i dont know how to feel about that, because, like churchill said, if you want more of something, you subsidize it.

I can’t say I ever subsidized cads, but I never could really relate to men who hadn’t been hurt like I was. I was fortunate to find a guy whose life experiences were similar enough to mine to understand me but who was not so damaged as to not be able to function in a relationship. We had the same goal of making a good life together without any Pollyana-ishness about the “wonder” of families (which neither of us can abide). I could have married younger if I’d been a bit more emotionally unhealthy and found a thug like dear old dad or conversely had been able to relate to a Wally Cleaver type. And, had I met D when I was 20, I’d have married him. That’s not quite the ‘sphere’s narrative of late marrying women, but it’s the truth.

a man having “character and integrity” simply doesnt account for much out on the smp, stand alone, or should i say, its not going to be the decisive, deal breaker factor that ms walsh keeps trying to make it out to be.

I would characterized DH as having character and integrity. In fact, I’ve done so here many times.
Mike C

Just so you know, I take your criticism personally, as it has been rife with implications of bias, hypocrisy and fuck-wittedness. Same goes for Mike C.

I’m sorry if that is the case but that is on you then (I’m not sure what “fuck-wittedness” is). Clearly, both Escoffier and myself have very strong fundamental disagreements with you on certain aspects of analyzing the SMP, particularly the aspect of “female nature” and what exactly constitutes “hypergamy” and related issues to those 2 points. I’m pretty good at recognizing the real deal from poseurs and Escoffier strikes me as top-rate mind obviously heavily grounded in proper thought underlying someone who has studied philosophy in depth where one key focus distinguishing logically sound argumentation from flawed argumentation.

I’ll close this comment with something from Vox Day who I think is one of the few male/manosphere bloggers you seem to respect/be on good terms with which oddly enough I find bizarre because much of his content can be interpreted just as misogynistic as some of the others you’ve decided are sociopaths.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/08/men-and-women-difference.html

Perhaps ultimately we speak different languages.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  (I’m not sure what “fuck-wittedness” is).
  
  Idiocy and stupidity.
  
  Your preemptively stating that “anyone,” i.e. Susan, who doesn’t totally buy Escoffier’s comment is biased suggests inferior thinking at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst. That’s a cheap shot.
  
  Clearly, both Escoffier and myself have very strong fundamental disagreements with you on certain aspects of analyzing the SMP, particularly the aspect of “female nature” and what exactly constitutes “hypergamy” and related issues to those 2 points
  
  I have presented far more in the way of supporting arguments than both of you put together. If either of you had made a cogent argument I’d have been happy to consider it, but I have not heard a single argument that trumps Buss’s theory or supports Devlin’s. Not to mention that Devlin is grade school t-ball and Buss is the New York Yankees. (H/T Vince Gilligan) Why two such intellectually gifted men can’t discern this is beyond me.
  
  In short, WYSIWYG. If you disagree so strongly that you can’t live with it, I’ll understand. But I’m sick to death of the hypergamy issue being vomited up every few weeks.
  
  I’ll also add that I cannot imagine how a man who shares your views can have a relationship that feels secure. Always looking over your shoulder for the next potential “trade” your wife might make must be torture. It seems like a form of self-flagellation.
Mike C

Wait a minute. I thought that a bigger percentage of guys in college are virgins today than ever before?

Right. Isn’t this what the Definitive post just said? I don’t understand this making both arguments depending on which one is more convenient for the particular point to respond to.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  I don’t understand this making both arguments depending on which one is more convenient for the particular point to respond to.
  
  Again with the personal digs!
  
  Wait a minute. I thought that a bigger percentage of guys in college are virgins today than ever before?
  
  Than ever before? Where have I said that? I said that there is a trend of waiting longer for sex for both males and females – the number of virgins of both sexes is rising.
  
  Do you really take that to mean that there were fewer than 43% of male virgins prior to the Sexual Revolution? Hmmm, let’s see.
  
  A useful summary of these trends from both percentage and partner-number perspectives, based on a long-unpublished 1970 Kinsey Institute survey, is Klassen, et al., 1989 (Table 1, pp. 554-55). This showed 92% of ever-married women born before 1900 to have been virgin at marriage — and the reader should recall that historically 95% of American men and women have gotten married at some point in their lives. This high figure declined, on average, by about 8% per decade-cohort until it reached 61% for the cohort born in the 1930’s — the one now known as the “silent generation” which came of age in the 1950’s. Then, dramatically, it plunged 24% to 37% for the cohort born in the 1940’s — that turned-on, tripped-out, miniskirted, bra-burning, Woodstock-seasoned, “flower-child” cohort to whom we owe the slogan, “smash monogamy.” The next Klassen cohort, 1950’s-born “disco-era” women, dropped another 7%, to only 30% virgin at marriage by 1970. Measured by percentages of women who had had premarital sex, the change was very great, increasing almost ninefold, from 8 percent of women born in the 19th century to 70 percent of those born at the peak of the Baby Boom.
  
  http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/pages/faculty/welliott/Sexrevns.htm
  
  Clearly, the number of virgins at marriage has fallen dramatically over time for both sexes (obvs). I don’t have data for college, but it’s fair to assume the trend is mirrored there.
  
  Furthermore, what the Definitive post did say is that access to sex in college is fairly widespread among non-virgin males. In a study of 412 males, 75% of whom where freshmen and sophomores:
  
  69% of subjects reported hooking up during one semester.
  
  73% of those, or 50% overall, included sexual intercourse.
  
  23% were in stable, committed romantics relationships throughout the semester. Of these, 44% of these hooked up with other females, and 67% of these hookups, or 30% of the boyfriends cheated with intercourse.
J

The real point of the manosphere you know, isnt necessarily to play matchmaker; its about men telling their stories, *in their own voices*. Its not about “moving on”, “finding inner peace” or anything like that; to be sure, and again im a witness (as are other denizens of the sphere, like ted et al), all of those things can happen as a side benefit. But none of that is the sole purpose of the sphere youre referring to; the purpose is for men to life up their voice, and tell their stories.

Maybe so, Obs, but when I heard the same guys crying the same blues for years and years on end, I have to wonder how healthy, happy-making or productive that is. And lest you think I’m jst being bitchy because it’s men crying, I’ll tell you that when I have female friends IRL doing the same, I get tough and tell them to move on as well. How many years can a person do that? It’s a waste of time and life.

For more than three decades running, women have dominated the nature, tone and style of the “discourse” between the sexes; to coin a phrase by bill maher, the only acceptable male role was to do “the oprah nod” reverentially, while women held forth with their stories, in their own voices. And for decades, again, men simply took it, no matter how true or false said “stories” were (and we know that quite a few were/are indeed false-like the bunk about “income gaps” or the bs surrounding “rape” in our time, or the socalled “war on women” et al).</i

I'd challenge you to find any evidence of my holding such opinions or even discussing those issues except in answer to the questions of others. These are not a part of my agenda.
INTJ

@ Susan

However – and this is very important – beta males got more sex after the Sex Rev than they had before. Alpha got more, but betas gained as well.

http://glpiggy.net/2010/04/06/beta-males-sex-lives-improved-absolutely-after-the-sexual-revolution/

Lol. That’s ridiculous. Reread the post you linked. Betas aren’t getting more sex. They’re getting more pre-marital sex. That’s cause in the old days betas would get married and get regular marital sex. These days, they don’t get married for another 5-10 years (that too if they’re lucky), and they get very little if any sex while waiting.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Betas aren’t getting more sex. They’re getting more pre-marital sex…they don’t get married for another 5-10 years (that too if they’re lucky), and they get very little if any sex while waiting.
  
  This makes no sense to me.
J

@Desi

I did feel it, inappropriately, for that 18-year-old lifeguard that approached me once I was no longer a teacher. Culture is powerful.

I find it hard to regard feelings as inappropriate. Feelings are just feelings. That you didn’t act on them is commendable.

In the past two years just in my area, I think there have been five incidents of (female) teachers having sex with students. No male. Something is off.

ANY teacher having sex with a student is a HUGE breach of public trust and should be punished. I say this as a parent and as one who has worked with teens for most of her professional life.
INTJ

I was pleased to see that Suzanne Barr resigned after the sexual harassment allegations. Perhaps it’s a sign that the double standard might be weakening.
J

Obsidian: Rather, i just mean that the ladies are deeply concerned that the manosphere-its very existence-represents a real seachange in the male body politic. They are deeply afraid that its ideas could spread to other “blue pill” guys. And that those ideas could prove disasterous, from a female standpoint.

SW: Nah, I don’t think so. I think the manosophere is a curiosity, almost a cult. It’s an interesting collection of personalities and conversations, a form of entertainment.

J: I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The net is an aggregator of like-minded people. If you spend time at Etsy, you’ll think that women live to bead things. If you spend time at Stormfront, you’ll think that there’s a Nazi on every corner. If you go to DH’s internt haunts, you’ll think that Frank Zappa is Jesus and expect his imminent return. Yet, you run into few people like those IRL.
Ramble

I find it hard to regard feelings as inappropriate. Feelings are just feelings. That you didn’t act on them is commendable.

It all depends on how you define “inappropriate”. As a man, I can tell you that on a few occasions, I felt some very real feeling of “I am going to smash his fucking face in”. And, I don’t mean that I felt viscerally angry, I mean that I felt that I wanted to do some very real damage to this asshole.

Again, feeling those feelings and acting one them, like you said, are different things. But, still, …

wait, I got a better example.

Jeffrey Dahmer went something like 10 years between his first murder and his second. Apparently, he spent that decade fighting off feelings of murder and raping corpses. Now, for those 10 years, he did not act on it.

Still, I think that many would describe those feelings as inappropriate, and worse. I understand that is an extreme example, and your greater point of not acting on some of these feelings is completely valid and understood, but, again, it all depends on how you define “inappropriate”.
Ramble

If you spend time at Etsy, you’ll think that women live to bead things. If you spend time at Stormfront, you’ll think that there’s a Nazi on every corner.

No you wouldn’t. Some of these things are very easy to as niche “markets”. Yea, a few people will come to odd conclusions upon visiting some of these places, but most people with an IQ over 100 (I am betting) will not.

However, what some of these places do do for us, is give us some insight into what happens at the edges. As in, what do slighted men feel? Or, what do 15 year old girls worry about? (Number one question to Susan is, “how to I get a boyfriend”).

However, your point about the net aggregating like minds is valid.
J

Jeffrey Dahmer went something like 10 years between his first murder and his second. Apparently, he spent that decade fighting off feelings of murder and raping corpses. Now, for those 10 years, he did not act on it.

I have no idea what was in Dahmer’s mind during that decade, if he fought off the feelings or relived the first murder while jacking off. I suspect how he dealt with those thoughts had a huge impact on whether or not he acted out, but I’d be talking out of my butt if I attempted to speculate more.

No you wouldn’t. Some of these things are very easy to as niche “markets”. Yea, a few people will come to odd conclusions upon visiting some of these places, but most people with an IQ over 100 (I am betting) will not.

I’m exaggerating to prove a point, but I do belive that these sites/TV/other media do give people an overblown view of reality. To give a personal example, I was describing my wedding dress in response to a question asked by the wife of a couple DH and I know. It was a beautiful dress that a freind made for me and I was a bit gushy. The husband made a remark comparing me to one of those bridezilla-types on “Say Yes to the Dress.” (Hey, I made a TV show mixed metaphor!) DH shook his head at him. I looked at him and said, “I bet I’m least girly straight woman you know.” He said, “Yeah, you’re right.” Even bright people respond to memes more than they do teh reality in from of their noses.

However, what some of these places do do for us, is give us some insight into what happens at the edges. As in, what do slighted men feel? Or, what do 15 year old girls worry about? (Number one question to Susan is, “how to I get a boyfriend”).

Indeed.
Cooper

@Susan
“Sounds like you’re hanging out with an asshole blogger. Don’t bring that crap back here.”

You should k ow by now I’m all HUS. And I’m glad you’ll call me out when I’m out of line.

Although, I still want to stubbornly go out on a limb (heh) and argue that both sexes have a tendency to be attracted to partners with long-term risks. (*shrugs*)
—–

“Men want sexual variety.”

Why does this not resonate with me? Having it not makes me feel alien -like as if I’m saying my blood ain’t red.
Even with all the stats with how low-N is so much more common, how much variety are men really having vs wanting?
Sai

“To a question about the source of happiness he was known to have said: The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”

Conan, what is best in life? *brick* Sorry.

“You might as well call Hitler an Alpha, or Stalin, or Pol Pot.”

Slightly off-topic and y’all might hate me for this… but apparently Uncle Joe got a lot of chicks. Consensually. I’d post a link to his old (skinny) photograph but that means I’d see it and end up self-flagellating.

I wish some multi-million-dollar conservative think tank would just start running ads saying “GIRLS, THINK OF THE FUTURE AND USE YOUR BRAIN WHEN YOU PICK GUYS.” It wouldn’t be PC but I bet it would sink in if people saw it enough. That’s how TV works.
Ramble

I have no idea what was in Dahmer’s mind during that decade, if he fought off the feelings or relived the first murder while jacking off.

He said that he wanted to kill again, during those 10 years, for his sexual gratification, but he knew it was wrong and tried to fight off the feelings.

I’m exaggerating to prove a point…

I understand. I exaggerate a lot myself.

The husband made a remark comparing me to one of those bridezilla-types on “Say Yes to the Dress.” (Hey, I made a TV show mixed metaphor!) DH shook his head at him. I looked at him and said, “I bet I’m least girly straight woman you know.” He said, “Yeah, you’re right.”

None of this is really all that important, but…

Which husband made a remark? Yours or someone elses?
When you “looked at him”, which “him” did you look at, your husband or some other husband?

Lastly, I am not sure that I got your point. Your initial point was about people visiting websites and thinking that everyone cared this much about, say, the Minnesota Vikings or Stenciling or whatever.

Then, someone made a reference to a reality show and that connects to that original point some how.

Either way, I am confident that I got your original point, but, afterwards, I definitely got confused.
http://x OffTheCuff

Coop: “Why does this not resonate with me?”

Inexperience. You haven’t felt the Coolidge effect yet!
Escoffier

First, Susan, if you want to take something personally, you should internalize the fact that we’re all here talking on your blog, responding to your posts, talking to you and to your commenters. I don’t think a Wharton grad needs the implications of that spelled out. But you want to hear it, I will.

1) It’s not just feminists who have said that about the male sex drive, they are just the loudest and most shrill. Also, I wouldn’t call it demonization. Sure, when Dworkin and MacKinnon say it, it’s demonization. But lots of men have said similar things, with a smile. Susan, you must have noticed by now how many of your make commenters will affirm the dark or low side of male sexual desire. Hotness over character? Check. Variety over monogamy? Check. These are things we viscerally want, things the little head wants but that the big head, if rules, can squelch. We all know this about ourselves. We don’t necessarily think less of ourselves just for having the desire. The good ones among us do, however, think less of ourselves for letting the desire rule, or (especially) for letting the desire lead us to betray a commitment. As well we should.

2) The generational point is important but not, I think, decisive. I’ve said before that think your generation was wilder than mine. But really what is at issue here is what is said from the commanding heights of the culture. Yes, from one angle, that has been “sex positive” for a long time. But it is, on closer inspection, only “sex positive” on female terms. We have this whole ridiculous “rape” hysteria on campus. Read the scholarship of Kasey Johnson and Harvey Silverglate. On many campuses, men can now be accused of rape in secret proceedings and never even know who their accuser is. The broader cultural points have been made by Ramble and others.

3) Susan, two things re: “polygamous horn dogs.” I am not one either. All I am saying is that when most men see a pretty girl, their penis involuntarily says “I would like to fuck her.” Most of us never act on it. But that is nonetheless what our baseline natures are pushing us to want. Second, when you say that none of the men in your family felt the same impulse, I find that hard to reconcile with the stack of Plaboys on the shelf. What is that if not a manifestation of the male desire for a plethora of pretty girls? Sure, it’s better to indulge that desire through magazines than through flesh. But the baseline desire is still the same. Also, you have posted before about how your father was so flirtatious that it often made your mother cry. Well, isn’t that a manifestation of the same desire? Pig though you may think me to be, I have never flirted with other women in front of my wife and I have never made her cry by exhibiting desire for someone else.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  But the baseline desire is still the same. Also, you have posted before about how your father was so flirtatious that it often made your mother cry. Well, isn’t that a manifestation of the same desire? Pig though you may think me to be, I have never flirted with other women in front of my wife and I have never made her cry by exhibiting desire for someone else.
  
  Yes, the baseline desire is there – in mentioning the Playboys I was acknowledging my father had it and channeled it appropriately. He was a flirt, and that was hard enough for my mother despite the fact that he never cheated. She wanted a monogamous fellow nester, not a husband with “two in the kitty.”
  
  I do not think you are a pig for having those feelings, and if you take nothing else away from this debate, know that I am not disgusted by male sexuality.
  
  What you want is a female corollary that you think is “as bad” or “as base” as your own sexuality. I’ve given you objective information about the nature of female sexuality. Since I don’t judge it in any case, I have zero incentive to perpetuate a lie. If anything, the more hypergamous women are, the easier my job as a blogger is, because the solution would simply be to “think with the big head.” As it is, female sexuality is much more complex than that, and so the solution must be as well.
Joe

@Estopher

I know a couple of guys like this, stable, reasonably handsome (or at least not repulsive), able to maintain friendships with plenty of high quality females, but they can’t get a date to save their lives.

Please allow a person story.
My 95 year old aunt had been married for many years to an “old school” man who was incredibly domineering. Had 5 kids, 4 of whom survived childhood. Her husband died in his 60s. I didn’t realize that she was still in her forties.

Well, after he was gone, it took about six months and a lot of attention from her kids, my cousins, to perk up, but she started to look younger. A lot younger. After about five years she started dating a guy. I met him once; he seemed “nice”.

He was a bit older, in his fifties, and never had been married (so my other aunts told her she was crazy to get involved with a “confirmed” bachelor – I know this from my mother). But his health wasn’t good. No one expected him to be around long, so she married him anyway.

They were happily married for 20 years, before he passed. She’s still glad she made that decision. Sometimes you just don’t know why someone is single. Sometimes it’s only because they haven’t met the right person.
modernguy

We want men who are strong, not men who beat us.

We want men who take a stand, not men who order us around and hold us in low regard.

We want men who have purpose in life, not men who chase pussy for a living.

We want men with potential and drive, not men who indulge a hedonistic, nihilistic lifestyle.

We want men with empathy, not sociopaths and narcissists.

etc.

And until you find that man that has the first traits you’ll take all the men that have the second.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  And until you find that man that has the first traits you’ll take all the men that have the second.
  
  Precisely, especially when the supply of the good men is very low, or appears to be.
Joe

Escoffier – Sorry. I mis-remembered your handle. Apologies.
Escoffier

Joe, no worries.

Sure, there are always exceptions. but the guys I have in mind I do think are single for a reason. The are “good” guys, but they don’t pull the attraction triggers at all.
Cooper

“Coolidge” hmm?

Lol, obviously not.
Escoffier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect
Cooper

@Escoffier

Haha, I just returned from that page.
J

Which husband made a remark? Yours or someone elses?
When you “looked at him”, which “him” did you look at, your husband or some other husband?

We were with another couple. To prevent more pronounc refernce confusion I’ll call them Jack and Jane. Jane and I were talking about an upcoming wedding and reminiscing about our own. Jane asked about my gown, which I described as georgeous. Jack made a remark comparing me to one of those bridezilla-types on “Say Yes to the Dress.” (Hey, I made a TV show mixed metaphor!) DH shook his head at Jack. I looked at Jack and said, “I bet I’m least girly straight woman you know.” Jack said, “Yeah, you’re right.”

Lastly, I am not sure that I got your point. Your initial point was about people visiting websites and thinking that everyone cared this much about, say, the Minnesota Vikings or Stenciling or whatever. Then, someone made a reference to a reality show and that connects to that original point some how.

Sorry to be unclear. I meant that people sometimes respond more to what they see in media (TV shows, websites, etc.) than they do to what they see in front of their own eyes. Because we were talking wedding gowns, Jack’s mind went to how women in reality shows act. He made an observation about me based on what he knew about women from those shows rather than actually looking at me. People also make judgments about reality based on other media like websites. To go back to my original point, I might think Nazi were ready to take over America if I used Stormfront as my reference point instead of reality.

Or think back to discusion about child abductions a while back. It’s something everyone worries over because of all the media attention it gets, despite the fact that it’s quite unlikely statistically.
Plain Jane

“The Graduate introduced us to Mrs. Robinson, the first cougar.”

That was Ayn Rand. Before her, Khadija, first wife of Prophet Muhammad who was around 20 years elder to him, if not more.
Cooper

@OTC
I don’t know if I’ll ever actually seek sexial variety – and saying so beforehand will undoubtably will have me, stubbornly, attempt so.
I have witnessed this effect, even if not in a personally-sexual manner, among a group when a new girl is mixed in.

Like Escoffier said: “The good ones among us do, however, think less of ourselves for letting the desire rule, or (especially) for letting the desire lead us to betray a commitment. As well we should.”
Escoffier

I have never sought sexual variety. But I have desired it. At times I still do. But especially now, I will not pursue it. I love my wife. I will not betray her. I will not break up my family.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  I have never sought sexual variety. But I have desired it. At times I still do. But especially now, I will not pursue it. I love my wife. I will not betray her. I will not break up my family.
  
  I admire this very much. May I respectfully suggest that you are struggling with this issue right now, and seeking reassurance that this would be much easier in some ways if you thought your wife was having similar feelings?
  
  Don’t answer. It’s just armchair psychology, but I have thought this for a while now.
Sai

That’s what women in relationships ought to say, except replace “variety” with “a ‘better’ version.”
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Bob, my personal view on the “alpha” template in terms of character would be that the “alpha” is the type of guy who you would want with you in a serious, emergency type of situation. I think masculinity is ultimately defined by performance during extreme events.

“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
― Heraclitus

I think this concept of the brave, loyal, ferocious-if-cornered man is the *dog* and attractiveness to women is the *tail*. We assume that because the dog has a tail, the two sets of qualities will go together and the hero figure will get the girl(s). This is satisfying in some deep way. Perhaps form will follow function and the guy will have a heroic appearance, but I’ve known plenty of guys who “look like Tarzan, fight like Jane.”

However, when the masculine hunt/war/fraternal attributes that men intuitively respect are decoupled from the attractiveness attribute that women reward with sexual favor, then the tail starts to wag the dog and some guys will start to look purely at success with women as the benchmark for how to be successful men overall (and this isn’t an unreasonable thing to do).

If you are dealing with a Spartan woman, perhaps this would work because her idea of celebrated masculinity would correspond well to the male version of the same; if you are dealing with radical feminists, you are going to end up with some very confused guys.

Just my $.02! What do you think?
INTJ

@ Cooper

Why does this not resonate with me? Having it not makes me feel alien -like as if I’m saying my blood ain’t red.
Even with all the stats with how low-N is so much more common, how much variety are men really having vs wanting?

Well personally it feels like I’m not capable of seeking variety through casual sex – I’m just not wired that way. Now seeking variety through polygyny would be different though. I don’t think any of my innate wirings would stop me from doing so.
Cooper

@INTJ
Hey, sorry I don’t have a better answer for your forum thread. I think you’ll understand what I said.

Something tells me that you and I – like I’ve noticed before – are likely the two on here late on a (west coast) evening.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@ Bastiat Blogger,

“Bob, my personal view on the “alpha” template in terms of character would be that the “alpha” is the type of guy who you would want with you in a serious, emergency type of situation.”

I find the term Alphas, Beta, etc. not all that useful. But if you want to apply them to traditional concepts of masculinity:

The Alpha is the one who does not seek violence but is willing to use it to defend himself and others. To use the chivalric ideal, that is why knights were armed.

They defended the weak, powerless and defenseless. They showed compassion and empathy. They did not lie or steal. That sounds more of a Beta than anything else.

These things are why I say the ideal is the Alpha and Beta together. These are the men you want in a serious situation, especially since I have found that the narcissistic Alphas (cads) are cowards.

There is something else that does not fall under either the modern concepts of Alpha or Beta. The phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Constitution is the Greek word “eudaimonia,” which best translates as “flourishing.” It is achieved by “arete,” or excellence, which means fulfilling your talents to your best.

I knew a five-year-old who could play the guitar. I knew a four-year-old who taught himself to read. I had a girlfriend who climbed light poles to the top when she was five. She grew up to be a professional athlete.

People often show their talents by the time they are five. They just have to develop them.

So then, I would define a man, based on a few thousand years of observation and experiment, as someone who is willing to defend himself and others, including through violence if necessary, who is brave (which means mastering his fear), who defends the weak and helpless, who is honorable and noble and loyal, who shows compassion and empathy, does not lie or steal, and develops his talents to the best he can.

If a woman is not attracted to these qualities, who does not respect and admire and love such men, then I consider these women unworthy.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Bob Wallace
  
  If a woman is not attracted to these qualities, who does not respect and admire and love such men, then I consider these women unworthy.
  
  +1
  
  I acknowledge that there are many unworthy women.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@Coop

Haha, I just returned from that page.

Yes, you’ve been compared to a chicken, Coop. Interesting that birds tend to be some of the most monogamous species on the planet. Male desire for variety is very often overstated, perhaps for effect in an argument. Or at least boiled down to some base sexual desire, when isn’t necessarily that at all.
Royale W. Cheese

@MikeC
“If there is just one thing I could tell a woman as a sort of a warning, it is that that “confidence” trigger is the one most likely to lead you down wrong road. I’m not going to say this applies to 100% of men that fit the bill, but any man who is supremely confident, very smooth….almost perfectly smooth is likely to at the least be a player if not a guy with character issues. And the reason is because often that confidence and smoothness comes from repeated practice on a large number of women.”

I thought about Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver when I read that.
Mike C

***Male desire for variety is very often overstated***, perhaps for effect in an argument. Or at least boiled down to some base sexual desire, when isn’t necessarily that at all.

How do you know this? Most likely, this is an assertion based entirely on personal projection. I suspect male desire for variety runs across a spectrum based on a variety of factors. Based on info I’ve been privy to about women bodybuilders using steroids and male hormones, I suspect testosterone levels are a key determinant of how strong that drive is. My best guess is there is a minority of guys like yourself, Cooper, …I think Ted D would qualify where the desire to have a variety of casual sex with attractive women is minimal to non-existent.
Mike C

I thought about Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver when I read that.

I never watched Leave it to Beaver so I had to Google Eddie Haskell but yeah that is a good parallel. What you see on the surface appearance isn’t indicative of anything in the core. The more I think about this though…the more I think male “confidence” really is the equivalent of female “hotness/beauty” is that it essentially creates a distorted prism through which everything else is evaluated about that person. I can’t find where I read this, but it indicated that men get a dopamine rush from seeing a very beautiful woman. I think many men literally perceive beautiful women differently. This of course is the answer to the question why do men like bitches. They don’t like the bitchiness….they literally block it out when it is accompanied by extreme beauty. Women do the exact same for confidence which is why women go for “jerks”. They don’t see the jerkiness because the confidence is blocking it out.
Mike C

Male desire for variety is very often overstated, perhaps for effect in an argument. Or at least boiled down to some base sexual desire, when isn’t necessarily that at all.

I was motivated by your assertion here to spend some time Googling on the Coolidge effect. Based on what I was able to quickly find and skim rapidly, it appears it actually is something that has been studied extensively, tested extensively, and found to be very valid. Interestingly, it appears to exist in some women as well but it looks like it is much less pronounced. Here is just one link which I’m sure Susan will be familiar with since she is a big Buss follower:

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/4/sociology/origins-of-human-sexuality.shtml

“The search for casual sex is a trait that men have adapted due to men increasing their chances of reproductive success by mating with multiple females. Buss demonstrates this by pointing to a phenomenon called the Coolidge effect. The Coolidge effect is a “tendency of males to be sexually rearoused upon the presentation of novel females, giving them a further impulse to gain sexual access to multiple women. As evidence for this occurrence, Buss cites research done by Kinsey which found that 50 percent of males and only 26 percent of female had extramarital affairs. A similar study done by another scientist yielded even more surprising results. According to the “Hunts” survey, 41 percent of males and only 18 percent of women engaged in extramarital affairs. These studies along with others indicate: men far more than women pursue novelty in their sexual relationships. Buss claims that the behaviors of homosexuals serve to strengthen his arguments for the evolutionary basis of sex differences in the desire for mates. Homosexual men, according to buss exhibit the same evolutionary traits as heterosexual males. Both homosexual and heterosexual males place great importance on the appearance of their partners. They also both attach immense weight to a potential partner’s age. Lesbians however, like heterosexual females, place little importance on a companion’s physical appearance. Buss points to a study that seems to offer evidence to substantiate this claim. According to one investigation, which asked what qualities an individual desired in a mate, heterosexual women and lesbian women alike tended to place “little emphasis on physical appearance, with only 19.5 percent of the heterosexual women and 18 percent of the lesbians mentioning this quality. Whereas heterosexual men noted physical beauty as a quality they seek in a mate 48 percent of the time and homosexual men 29 percent of the time.” There is also evidence for Buss’s claim in the number of sexual partners had by both homosexuals and lesbians. (EMPHASIS)****Homosexuals again tend to exhibit the same quality as heterosexual men preferring many sex partners. “The evidence suggests that when men are unconstrained by the courtship and commitment requirements typically imposed by women, they freely satisfy their desires for casual sex with a variety of partners.”****(EMPHASIS) Contrary to men, lesbian women, much like heterosexual women, tended to “settle into intimate, lasting, committed relationships.” This evidence seems to suggest that men and women have evolved unconscious desires that do not change with sexual preference. Men and women tend to exhibit their expected sexual behavior regardless of their sexual preference.

I think the fact that Buss looked at homosexuals and lesbians makes a ton of sense. I think one way to identify and analyze what Escoffier and I are calling the “base” sex drives of males and females is where both partners are the same sex and thus they are mutually reinforcing instead of competing. Looking at male homosexual behavior gives you a glimpse of what raw male drive looks like.

I spent the time to peruse these links for this reason. I think reasonable people can degree on some things especially as it relates to opinions. But when someone makes a statement that literally is completely divorced from factual reality, I’ve got to call total bullshit on that.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I think one way to identify and analyze what Escoffier and I are calling the “base” sex drives of males and females is where both partners are the same sex and thus they are mutually reinforcing instead of competing.
  
  Sounds reasonable. Do you have any data showing that lesbians frequently break up to trade up? How is hypergamy manifested among lesbians? How does “lesbian bed death” fit into this?
Mike C

In the SMP, the overproduction of alphas and faux alphas will just make women want the super-alphas all the more. In this type of unrestrained, unregulated SMP, there will always be only a small % of men who are truly and consistently in demand. Which means there will always be a lot of “losers” or small(er) time winners who will be envious of the big winners.

So, yeah, we can improve ourselves. But by mathematical definition the bottom 80% cannot transform themselves into the top 20%. All they can do is raise the overall level of game in the entire cohort. Which I suppose would be a good thing, if it were possible.

But the pyramid is always going to have a top, and the men at the top are always going to be the most desired. And most of them are going to be the naturals, not the self-transformations.

Escoffier,

I’m not sure about this. First, this point is purely academic since we won’t have a SMP where there is some massive excess of men displaying alpha traits or becoming faux-alphas (however one wants to define those terms). I’ve been around these parts for a number of years, most guys just say f it, there are really only a minority of guys who will try to do this and succeed to some extent.

Even if there were a ton, I’m not sure it would matter unless STATUS really does trump everything else like overall charisma and appearance by some very large order of magnitude. Consider the female parallel. Imagine the world was populated only by 15-20% bodyfat women with waist to hip ratios of .7, perky C breasts, tight asses, long legs, awesome facial symmetry, vibrant and youthful skin. Would men really start to be less attracted to some based on some hyperdiscrimination like one woman has a waist of 24 versus 26? I don’t think this would happen. ALL those women meeting those criteria would be found to be attractive.

I think you’d see the similar effect amongst men who demonstrate the “right” communication, body language, interaction style, and behavioral patterns. They would all be attractive, not just the top 10-20% I think.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I think you’d see the similar effect amongst men who demonstrate the “right” communication, body language, interaction style, and behavioral patterns. They would all be attractive, not just the top 10-20% I think.
  
  I once described a desert island of 100 men and 100 women, where all 100 men are extremely attractive, let’s say 10s. Brad Pitt, George Clooney, etc. I asked readers whether all 100 guys would be found attractive or alpha, and the men here (students of Game) insisted that only 20% would be alpha. That women would immediately recalibrate and shift their attraction triggers to choose only a small minority of males.
  
  I don’t know the answer to the question, but I found it an interesting exercise.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

The more I think about this though…the more I think male “confidence” really is the equivalent of female “hotness/beauty” is that it essentially creates a distorted prism through which everything else is evaluated about that person.

I actually can agree with that assessment but I would never say that “All men will stay with a hot girl in spite of the craziness and all men should suppress this instinct because they are attracted to it” this circular started because they wanted to say that all women are the same when in reality is probably an spectrum as well and shaming women here that seem to be on the low end (maybe except for Sassy) seems counterproductive I mean we had a good prepost where Bellita admits that she learned to open her eyes to men, if she was just an hypergamy machine this wouldn’t had been possible, right? I believe in shaming the idiots because they obviously cannot rationalize their stupidity away but for the ones seeking the light giving a solid good advice is better than telling them “you are just an Alpha chaser and if you are not you are secretly craving it” Uhh no, not all of us and specially the women at HUS.
Really Mike if you were going to a forum for advice about women and all the women where telling you that you are a pig and you will need to stop being a pig would you feel compelled to go back?

I can’t find where I read this, but it indicated that men get a dopamine rush from seeing a very beautiful woman.

Men also lose cognitive abilities when in presence of beautiful women. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6132718/Men-lose-their-minds-speaking-to-pretty-women.html Hence the male hamster.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I think you’d see the similar effect amongst men who demonstrate the “right” communication, body language, interaction style, and behavioral patterns. They would all be attractive, not just the top 10-20% I think.

I will say that IME Escoffier is right women don/t need a variety but the best men in every environment having lots of Alpha only mean that something else will become the new best. In fact being an Alpha starts to lose status if the majority of men show the traits. You really don’t think mother nature will be so easily cheated on.
Mike C

I actually can agree with that assessment but I would never say that “All men will stay with a hot girl in spite of the craziness and all men should suppress this instinct because they are attracted to it” this circular started because they wanted to say that all women are the same when in reality is probably an spectrum as well and shaming women here that seem to be on the low end (maybe except for Sassy) seems counterproductive

Well…most importantly, my view is pretty much all these items we discuss are on a spectrum. Once we recognize that though, it makes more sense to talk in terms of generalized proclivities and tendencies. I”m not really sure about the “shaming women” thing. I”m NOT on board with any of that frankly. I”m a live and let live kind of guy. But I get especially annoyed at selective shaming. I’m not really sure what that even means. I mean…I don’t hang out in real life with people whose lifestyles I disapprove of. Is that shaming? I don’t go around telling people what I think about their lifestyle choices. Its not my business and I honestly don’t give a f*ck. I do try to offer some advice to my player co-worker as I think he needs to find balance, but I never tell him “yeah, the lifestyle you lead is really f*cked up”. I wouldn’t say that to some random promiscous woman. What is it my place to tell her about her sex life? Now on a blog about sex and dating and mating, that discussion will take place with various opinions being exchanged.

I mean we had a good prepost where Bellita admits that she learned to open her eyes to men, if she was just an hypergamy machine this wouldn’t had been possible, right? I believe in shaming the idiots because they obviously cannot rationalize their stupidity away but for the ones seeking the light giving a solid good advice is better than telling them “you are just an Alpha chaser and if you are not you are secretly craving it”

Ana, who is telling Bellita she is just an alpha chaser? It certainly isn’t me. I was sounding her horn months ago with her peahenning post she made. There is a key distinction to be made here. There is the overall SMP and what the majority of women are like, and then there is the very small subset of active commenters here. Personally, I think the SMP would vastly improve if it was made up of Anas, and Hopes, and Jackies, etc. Some of us like Escoffier and myself prefer discussions that are more abstract and philosophical in nature. Very little of our overall points has anything to do with some of the regular female commenters here.

Really Mike if you were going to a forum for advice about women and all the women where telling you that you are a pig and you will need to stop being a pig would you feel compelled to go back?

Well….if they said “You, Mike C, yeah I’m talking about you, you are a pig” then I’d tell them to f*ck off and I’d probably leave because they don’t know me. But if they say “Hey, here are some tendencies we see in men overall” I think it would be stupid of me to assume they are directly saying that about me.

Ya know, one of the reasons I continue to participate here is I find the interaction between men and women interesting from a meta-analysis sense. I like to observe the back and forth and see how men and women respond to each other in discussion and debate. For me, it has been a fascinating learning experience. I’ve learned more about female argumentation and communication being here than I did in my previous 35 years or so of my life. There are actually a great number of itemized takeaways I’ve gleaned. One in particular is that women tend to PERSONALIZE everything. The most abstract point about the most abstract argument gets interpreted as saying something about them, or their relationship, or their husband, or whatever. Discussions that begin in the abstract cannot stay in the abstract. I’ve read somewhere that women think in terms of connections and relationships.

Men also lose cognitive abilities when in presence of beautiful women.

I’m not surprised. I used to have some mental tricks I would use when I was out. I would picture her rolling out of bed with her hair all screwed up and no makeup, or sitting on the toilet taking a sh*t. Something to try and takeaway that “awe” feeling that beauty generates.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  There is the overall SMP and what the majority of women are like, and then there is the very small subset of active commenters here.
  
  You overemphasize the difference. My focus group women, even the promiscuous ones, are much closer in their attitudes and tastes to the women commenters here than to the prototypical female you tend to describe. Based on emails I receive, I believe that is true of my readers as well. And the college data makes clear that 97% of women are not chasing alphas or anyone, for that matter.
  
  You are obviously wedded to your view of women, and if 500 women showed up right now and argued with you, you would simply say that you know differently because you work with a guy who gets hot girls for sex every day.
  
  This is not about women being unable to grasp abstract concepts. This is about you telling us that you know better than we do what women are like. No woman here denies that there are many slutty, impulsive and hypergamic women out there. You claim to believe that these qualities are on a spectrum, but you appear to argue this distribution with hypergamy on the bottom axis:
Mike C

And Ana, regarding the whole shaming thing, here’s the thing, if this 80/20 split is indeed correct, then worrying about or shaming the 20% is just flat out stupid and a waste of time and effort.

It would be like a U.S. citizen worrying about the fiscal and monetary policy in Ecuador. Who cares? The U.S. citizen’s economic well being will be completely unaffected by what takes place in Ecuador. So if the 20% are simply racking up high numbers by having sex with each other and just passing each other around, then why would anyone in the 80% care one bit about it?

And that leads me to another point. I think there is a tendency to conflate all the various men’s points about various things into some monolithic “male commentary”. I generally try to address people as individuals recognizing that Susan and Hope and Ana and whoever may not be in total agreement. For example, there are things I agree with Ted D on and things I have no common view with him on such as this “shaming” deal so it doesn’t make sense for someone to address me by putting his view on that on me.
Desiderius

MikeC,

“Looking at male homosexual behavior gives you a glimpse of what raw male drive looks like.”

Uh, there’s a sentence missing here that goes somewhere I don’t think you want to go. Leaving it out instead of engaging it doesn’t look good.

“But when someone makes a statement that literally is completely divorced from factual reality, I’ve got to call total bullshit on that.”

I’m calling total bullshit on leaving out what female homosexual behavior says about the raw female sex drive…

It backs Susan, not the manosphere frame.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“There is another reason why a guy over 40 may not be married: he so beta that every woman he meets LJBFs him almost instantly. I know a couple of guys like this, stable, reasonably handsome (or at least not repulsive), able to maintain friendships with plenty of high quality females, but they can’t get a date to save their lives.”

That’s where I was in my 30’s. Lot’s of women in the same boat. When a high achiever is in a situation where he/she has obviously not highly achieved, there is a very strong compulsion to qualify oneself uninvited, which is a massive turn-off. I’ve been aware of this for awhile in both dating environments and job interviews, and it is very difficult to stop doing it.
Desiderius

Mike C,

“Discussions that begin in the abstract cannot stay in the abstract.”

We don’t live in the abstract. Abstraction divorced from reality isn’t much use. I know, pot kettle. Good discussion of that here.
Lamia

@BastiatBlogger & @Bob Wallace

“I would define a man, based on a few thousand years of observation and experiment, as someone who is willing to defend himself and others, including through violence if necessary, who is brave (which means mastering his fear), who defends the weak and helpless, who is honorable and noble and loyal, who shows compassion and empathy, does not lie or steal, and develops his talents to the best he can.”

A thousand times yes. A man should not determine his worth by how attractive he is to women. There are so many inspiring, incredible qualities men intrinsically possess… if only they trusted that being a man is something truly wonderful in and of itself. As a woman, I am completely floored by men when they are in their element and enjoy their masculinity – Its a deep, unwavering confidence, its honor, quiet strength, substance, courage in the face of adversity, fierce loyalty and yes, compassion .. these are the qualities that make a man that women deeply yearn for… but cannot be sought for that reason alone. I cannot tell you how beautiful I find men who exhibit even SOME of these qualities .. men like this ARE insanely attractive. And isn’t it a more worthy goal to aspire to ideals such as these? Many come naturally to many men when they spend time to find out who they are and are true to themselves.. rather than worrying about PUA tactics, negg-ing (?), not being too beta etc It is qualities like the ones I mentioned before that many woman crave because it is the yang to our yin – we do not possess your quiet strength, your courage, your commitment to completing the task/mission etc. Whilst I am particularly adoring of men, I think most women would agree that the qualities described by Bastiat Blogger and Bob Wallace are what make you guys so incredibly special & irreplaceable… despite what some feminist-thinking might say. I don’t think I am expressing myself very clearly .. I just wanted to reaffirm that its never, ever about being “hot & mean” – at least not to any woman who has a good heart .. and some sense.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Lamia
  
  Welcome, and thanks for your great comment!
Desiderius

BB,

“Just my $.02! What do you think?”

I think as usual you’re spot on. I think we’re having a great discussion about the red pill world and what caused it just in time to miss a revival already ongoing of a world better described by the blue pill.

Crickets from Susan’s target audience, including Courtley. Susan livid to the point of abusing the nearest beta supplicator (Escoffier, who continues to soldier away bravely). She’s not in denial, she’s trying desperately to drag us into the present tense.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Crickets from Susan’s target audience, including Courtley.
  
  Because they know the debate is pointless and not in good faith. Why would anyone engage if they had a choice? Ana gets my eternal gratitude for wading in.
Desiderius

Lamia,

“I don’t think I am expressing myself very clearly ..”

I would disagree, but I hate to be disagreeable…
INTJ

@ Cooper

Something tells me that you and I – like I’ve noticed before – are likely the two on here late on a (west coast) evening.

Yeah. Though I’m not actually on the West coast now (I’m studying at UT Austin). I just haven’t adjusted to central time yet.
Mike C

I’m calling total bullshit on leaving out what female homosexual behavior says about the raw female sex drive…

It backs Susan, not the manosphere frame.

Nice AMOG. You’re learning.

Here is the excerpt regarding lesbians:

Lesbians however, like heterosexual females, place little importance on a companion’s physical appearance. Buss points to a study that seems to offer evidence to substantiate this claim. According to one investigation, which asked what qualities an individual desired in a mate, heterosexual women and lesbian women alike tended to place “little emphasis on physical appearance, with only 19.5 percent of the heterosexual women and 18 percent of the lesbians mentioning this quality.

…..

Contrary to men, lesbian women, much like heterosexual women, tended to “settle into intimate, lasting, committed relationships.”

IDK…I can’t speak for the “manosphere” but I’ve never taken the position that women prefer casual sex with a variety of partners over a committed relationship so there is nothing there that is revolutionary to me.

Googling quickly…found this:

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-how-do-you-stay-in-a-lesbian-relationship-for-nearly-30-years-1300232068.html

The average length of the longest relationship with another woman was 5 years.

5 years. Interesting. This supports the view that women are wired for serial monogamy. Keep one partner for 3-7 years and then trade for a different one.
INTJ

@ Mike C

I think the fact that Buss looked at homosexuals and lesbians makes a ton of sense.

Remember the thing we saw about divorce rates between lesbians and gays in England? Wasn’t pleasant to read.
Desiderius

J,

“I find it hard to regard feelings as inappropriate. Feelings are just feelings.”

You’re right. Maybe dangerous would be a better word than inappropriate. The whole rationale behind removing value judgments from feelings was so that we can better be aware of them instead of repressing them. Fighting against awareness lest a verboten value judgment be made defeats that whole purpose, which is what we’ve been arguing has happened with female desire. Awareness should be the goal.

“That you didn’t act on them is commendable.”

Thanks, but I doubt I could have supplied the level of dominance she was seeking for long, or wanted to. The male rationalization hamster can convince us we can “save” a woman too, if she is beautiful enough.
Desiderius

MikeC,

“Nice AMOG.”

I’m neither AMOGging, nor white knighting. I’ve plowed through Susan’s many hints and cues to back off and my own determination both to focus on meatspace and to be more reticent.

Here’s the thing: a lot of people I know/am related to are really hurting because we’re having trouble finding/getting with when we find the kind of people like Susan, our aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, etc… we know we need to start and raise the kind of families they have and we admire/seek to emulate.

Even if it involves looking like a fool in front of the whole internet, I’m determined to do what I can to improve that situation.
Lokland

@Susan

Shit Tests

Curiosity question and storytime.

The only time the lady shit tests is when ovulating. I can handle two days of bitchiness every month.

However, last time it went overboard. In an amusement park, people everywhere and she escalates the shit test. No reasonable solution.

What would a womens reaction be to a men abandoning/dumping/divorcing her over a shit test?

I’ve done it twice before. It works well. (Not divorce obviously, but leaving a women under a streetlight in a sketcy part of town alone cause she decided to be a bitch works wonders on attitude adjustment. Atleast assuming that women has any sense.)

One last thing.

Physical attractiveness and shit testing.

I’ve noticed this as a personal thing but if I happen to gain a touch of weight the shit tests are hardcore whereas being lean and fit is just a simple resistance test.
I suspect most of the guys who have to deal with nuclear shit tests are short and fat. Doesn’t make it right.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Lokland
  
  Thanks for stopping by, it’s good to see you.
  
  What would a womens reaction be to a men abandoning/dumping/divorcing her over a shit test?
  
  I recall a female reader sharing a story that she stormed out of the apartment during a fight, expecting the guy to call her back or come after her. Instead he just remained at his laptop and was still there when she returned an hour later. She apologized.
  
  Don’t enable shit testing!
  
  Walking away, ignoring her, getting out of the car, etc. are all excellent responses. Leaving her alone in a dangerous part of town seems excessive, and divorce is ridiculous, because all the woman really wants is to be “taken in hand.”
Kathy

“Second, when you say that none of the men in your family felt the same impulse, I find that hard to reconcile with the stack of Plaboys on the shelf. What is that if not a manifestation of the male desire for a plethora of pretty girls? Sure, it’s better to indulge that desire through magazines than through flesh. But the baseline desire is still the same. Also, you have posted before about how your father was so flirtatious that it often made your mother cry. Well, isn’t that a manifestation of the same desire? Pig though you may think me to be, I have never flirted with other women in front of my wife and I have never made her cry by exhibiting desire for someone else.

Escoffier. you just do not get it!!
NAMALT!!.
My husband and I have a very special bond…
When I first had sex with my husband, before we we married, he told me that he never enjoyed sex as much as he did with me!!.
Okay…..I believed him… Actions speak louder than words..

When we WERE married he told me sometime later that he never ever thought of having sex with another woman once he had met me..

Such was our deep connection..

You underestimate the power of deep love and commitment ESc..
http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Mike C

An increased frontostriatal coupling helped men to control immediate reward desiring. Women showed the reverse frontostriatal connectivity during a ‘desire-reason dilemma’.

OK then, stop whining about your need for sexual variety. If you’re so capable of controlling impulses, we shouldn’t have to hear about how hard it is to repress your base urges.
INTJ

@ Lamia, Bastiat Blogger, Bob Wallace

I agree with your definition of a man. Here’s a similar one using my role model: http://artofmanliness.com/2011/02/02/lessons-in-manliness-from-atticus-finch/
INTJ

@ Lokland

I’ve noticed this as a personal thing but if I happen to gain a touch of weight the shit tests are hardcore whereas being lean and fit is just a simple resistance test.
I suspect most of the guys who have to deal with nuclear shit tests are short and fat. Doesn’t make it right.

In fact it’s really wrong when you consider that those who’re lean like us have higher self-esteem and thus would be more able to deal with a shit-test.

But I guess that’s the purpose of the shit-testing…
Mike C

OK then, stop whining about your need for sexual variety. If you’re so capable of controlling impulses, we shouldn’t have to hear about how hard it is to repress your base urges.

And you just proved my point about personalizing arguments.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  And you just proved my point about personalizing arguments.
  
  And you’re not personalizing when you predict someone’s “biased” response or claim to be puzzled at how my arguments keep changing conveniently to suit the debate? You’ve always done this – cheering Olive on when she confessed to extreme hypergamy and saying you just don’t understand why other women keep denying the truth as expressed by Olive.
  
  For you to claim that you are not extremely personally invested in the debate, for whatever reason, is futile.
INTJ

@ Susan

I’ll also add that I cannot imagine how a man who shares your views can have a relationship that feels secure. Always looking over your shoulder for the next potential “trade” your wife might make must be torture. It seems like a form of self-flagellation.

I acknowledge the male drive for variety. I don’t think women who share this view need to feel insecure in a relationship. Men are a lot more than just their innate sexual desire, and it should be easy to trust a man who consciously wants to be monogamous, especially in a culture that encourages him to do so. At least that is until he tries to flirt with other women or something. Then, she should be worried.

Similarly, I would be perfectly secure in a relationship. Unless she tried shit-testing me too much. Then I’d be worried.
Mike C

In short, WYSIWYG. If you disagree so strongly that you can’t live with it, I’ll understand.

I’ll survive

But I’m sick to death of the hypergamy issue being vomited up every few weeks.

But you put this post up about hot & mean versus not hot and nice. You are a smart woman. For the life of me, I can’t figure how you would think a post like that would bring in the debate about hypergamy and female sexual nature that Escoffier addresses. If you are sick to death of certain issues, then stop putting up blog posts on related issues/questions.

I’ll also add that I cannot imagine how a man who shares your views can have a relationship that feels secure. Always looking over your shoulder for the next potential “trade” your wife might make must be torture. It seems like a form of self-flagellation.

The way you have this worded is tricky. I’m not sure if this is a question of me, an attack on me, or an attack on Escoffier or what exactly it is.

So I’ll answer genuinely. The Numero Uno absolute top thing just about every guy says when he has been cheated on or left or the woman filed for divorce is “I never thought she was capable of this”. So many men who “FEEL” secure are just naive. There is a time bomb set to explode. They just don’t know the bomb is there and what the counter is that.

That said, I’m personally secure while recognizing there is no absolute certainty in life. I’ve got a good number of reasons to feel secure, but I’m also not naive enough to think I could just let my Sex Rank (Athol) plummet without opening the door to problems down the road.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  For the life of me, I can’t figure how you would think a post like that would bring in the debate about hypergamy and female sexual nature that Escoffier addresses. If you are sick to death of certain issues, then stop putting up blog posts on related issues/questions.
  
  Stop putting up posts about female sexuality at a blog called Hooking Up Smart? That’s an interesting idea.
  
  For the record, I don’t think this post has anything to do with hypergamy. I acknowledge that women like bad and disagreeable men, and I offer several explanations as to why.
  
  I do not deny female hypergamy, which is the desire to “mate up.” Undoubtedly some women going for charming sociopaths are doing this. However, this has nothing to do with “trading up,” moving from one mate who is higher status to a new mate because he is even higher status.
  
  Most women date men assortatively – of similar levels of status to their own (at least) and they often date sequential men of similar status.
  
  Escoffier’s definition of hypergamy has women feeling the urge to trade up and up and up throughout their lives. I think this theory is bogus, and I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to support it.
INTJ

@ Susan

Your comment (#935) doesn’t seem to have addressed my point (#777).

According to you, only 50% of students had sexual intercourse during college, and some of that was only casual sex, not steady sex (having sex once in a semester is not exactly having a lot of sex).

Most importantly, only 23%had stable committed relationships. Considering that 1/3-1/2 of them cheated, most of these guys with relationships must have been alpha asshats.

You might call this a victory for beta males w.r.t. having sex, but it’s a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Escoffier

I’m not always looking over my shoulder for my wife to trade up. I have zero expectation that she will ever do that, because I think she has good character. I also think she is happy in the marriage.

(BTW, one of the nice things about commenting here rather than in the manosphere, is that after posting that here, I do not have to endure a flood of comments from embittered men saying “Just wait, chump, she’s already screwing her divorce lawyer and the papers will be served any day now.”)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  (BTW, one of the nice things about commenting here rather than in the manosphere, is that after posting that here, I do not have to endure a flood of comments from embittered men saying “Just wait, chump, she’s already screwing her divorce lawyer and the papers will be served any day now.”)
  
  Whenever you and Ted D say stuff like this I feel like renting some of KC Lardo’s rabid pack.
Escoffier

Susan, I’m not struggling with it. I’ve said before and I will say it again: I personally find the male desire for variety rather easy to control. I don’t have to restrain myself from hitting on women and never have.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Susan, I’m not struggling with it. I’ve said before and I will say it again: I personally find the male desire for variety rather easy to control. I don’t have to restrain myself from hitting on women and never have.
  
  Then I don’t understand your obsession with female hypergamy. In four years I have not encountered a single reader who is as focused on one idea as you are on this.
Escoffier

Re #839, then it sounds like my suspicious is correct: you do think female sexuality is by nature or biology more directed to productive ends than the male. Or to put it another way, is more moral. I know you don’t like to use moral language, but really that’s what it boils down to.

I not only don’t agree. I also think all the various maladies you diagnose would not exist if there weren’t a problem with female sexuality that is analagous to the problems we all see with male sexuality.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Re #839, then it sounds like my suspicious is correct: you do think female sexuality is by nature or biology more directed to productive ends than the male. Or to put it another way, is more moral. I know you don’t like to use moral language, but really that’s what it boils down to.
  
  In looking over 839, I can’t for the life of me figure out what you’re talking about. I have provided numerous sources – maybe a dozen or two at this point? – to give you more information about female sexuality. None of it is concerned with value judgments. I have not hidden or omitted anything – I’m simply sharing the research of experts in the field.
  
  If you feel shortchanged in some way – that females are being given too much credit – I don’t really know what to tell you. Buss highlights all kinds of tricks that women use to get the best genes and resources for their kids, potentially including cuckoldry – did you bother to read the excerpt from his writings?
Escoffier

Re: Lesbians, Susan, you yourself made a post not long ago saying that lesbian pairings had the highest divorce rate of all.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@Susan Walsh

“I recall a female reader sharing a story that she stormed out of the apartment during a fight, expecting the guy to call her back or come after her.”

In college I was towing a car steered by my girlfriend. She kept crashing into my back of my car. When I asked why this was happening, she got out of the car and ran away.

I sat on my hood of my car until she came back. Do you know what she said?

“You were supposed to chase me.”

I told her I would never chase her under any circumstances. She never did it again.

She tried this on other guys and they did chase her.

She ended up marrying a guy who didn’t chase her.
Ramble

No

Yes. All of those examples are from before the age of Political Correctness. And the message since then has been quite different.

You can still find examples that support what you are saying, but you can also finds tons that tow the PC line. Granted, of late (say, the last 5 years or so), there seems to be a new shift in place. More willingness to challenge PC orthodoxy, or just ignore it altogether. But, still, PC is still the reigning religion of the modern West.
Ramble

Than ever before?
…
Do you really take that to mean that there were fewer than 43% of male virgins prior to the Sexual Revolution? Hmmm, let’s see.

OK, I meant in recent times. I did not mean to include the likes of Ancient Egypt.

And, Susan, it was just a question.

Furthermore, what the Definitive post did say is that access to sex in college is fairly widespread among non-virgin males. In a study of 412 males, 75% of whom where freshmen and sophomores:

69% of subjects reported hooking up during one semester.

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

Personally, I am getting confused by all the numbers. Which is not normal for me. I would need to congregate them all and have a good long look to get a better idea as to what they are saying. But, at times it seems like a stat is saying that college kids are having plenty of sex and the next is saying that a large percentage are virgins. I am sure that I am missing something.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  But, at times it seems like a stat is saying that college kids are having plenty of sex and the next is saying that a large percentage are virgins. I am sure that I am missing something.
  
  Read the Definitive post again slowly.
http://www.femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

cheering Olive on when she confessed to extreme hypergamy and saying you just don’t understand why other women keep denying the truth as expressed by Olive.

Just because I’m not participating doesn’t mean I’m not lurking.

Not sure why you wanted to bring up this stuff again, but for the record, I’ve never thought of myself as “extremely hypergamous.” My guess is that I’m somewhere in the middle of that spectrum (something I’ve said many times, BTW), and part of my blogging journey was about learning to rechannel the urges.

I mean, how could I be “extremely hypergamous?” My BF works the night shift in a convenience store and hasn’t finished college, while I’m getting my masters. I couldn’t live with that arrangement forever, but it suits me for now.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Olive
  
  Not sure why you wanted to bring up this stuff again, but for the record, I’ve never thought of myself as “extremely hypergamous.”
  
  I bring it up because it’s an example of making debates here personal. You will recall that Mike C and Yohami asserted that you spoke the truth about female hypergamy, while other women were dishonest about female nature, and that I strongly objected to that.
  
  My bad on the word extremely. I used it because I view Mike C’s views on hypergamy as extreme, and he was so pleased with your mea culpa.
Royale W. Cheese

@MikeC
“I can’t find where I read this, but it indicated that men get a dopamine rush from seeing a very beautiful woman. I think many men literally perceive beautiful women differently.”

I liken this to how a lot of people, including myself, love cats. They’re beautiful and cute and soft. They get away with a lot of stuff that would get other creatures thrown out of the house, or at worst shot. They jump on furniture, scratch up things, deliberately knock things over, sit on your papers while you’re reading them, yack on your carpet, and we still think they are adorable and try to keep them happy. I’ve even defended these offenses as cute, funny, and part of my sweet dear cat’s “unique personality.” I’m exhausted of cats nowadays and would much rather have a dog.
Desiderius

Susan,

“Because they know the debate is pointless and not in good faith. Why would anyone engage if they had a choice? Ana gets my eternal gratitude for wading in.”

Yeah, I said it was beside the point (its not pointless, just doesn’t belong here), that’s why I brought it up.

The imputation of bad faith on your part is a rad fem move that is not going to work on the more assertive men you claim (and I believe you – that’s what good faith looks like) to want.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The imputation of bad faith on your part is a rad fem move
  
  Here is the meaning of bad faith that I meant to imply:
  
  1. A person may hold beliefs in their mind even though they are directly contradicted by facts. These are beliefs held in bad faith. But there is debate as to whether this self deception is intentional or not. In his book Being and Nothingness, the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre defined bad faith as hiding the truth from oneself.
  
  2. They constantly fail to respond to the point you’re actually making.
  
  3. If you direct them to a source, whether it be a website or a book or whatever, they do not take the time to actually look at it and/or respond to the point you made.
  
  4. They don’t allow you to make clarifications and qualifications without hitting you with a ‘gotcha.’
  
  I believe it is very clear that all of these conditions have been met in my interactions with Escoffier and Mike C.
INTJ

@ Susan

This makes no sense to me.

I stated it badly. What I mean’t is that while it’s true that men in general are more likely to have premarital sex and to have higher-N counts, this is still usually in the form of occasional casual sex. So instead of getting married at 20 like they used to once open a time (but not getting much sex before marriage), beta males are basically having to wait till 25-30 to get married and getting sparse sex in the meantime.

So having more pre-marital sex isn’t a good thing if it comes at the cost of getting married later…
Royale W. Cheese

After reading these comments about sh*t testing, I’m thinking that one of the things contributing to my perpetual single status is my lack of sh*t testing. I think that such behavior is beneath me. I prefer to keep things civil and mature.

So, adopting the sh*t testing behavior could be a good way to step up my female game. Give the guy something to battle and conquer so that he thinks he has accomplished something.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Royale, please don’t do that!!!
szopen

@intj
“First, those 16 million men are not just “descendants”. They’re patrilineal descendants. There’s a big difference. Second, if you look at the statistical studies that Susan uses, they use a p<0.05 score, which is equivalent to a 95% probability that the conclusion is valid. Now, I can say with at least 95% certainty that the guy from whom those people are descended was Genghis Khan. I'll grant you the point if you can give me even one plausible alternative to Genghis Khan"

Ok, let's go step by step:

16 million of males today have the same Y chromosome variation.
The age of this particular variation may be estimated. Since one can estimate the ratio of mutation, then, if you ASSUME the same ratio of mutations over the time, THEN you can APPROXIMATELY date the age of this particular chromosome variation to be 1.000 years old.

Since those males are more often in Mongolia and terrains which once belonged to Mongol empire, you can assume this variation originated from Mongolia.

Those are two first IFs — first one is assumption about correct dating of when this variation appeared, second, where it originated.

There is no article I know who would say that this is 95% probability of this being descendants of Genghis Khan, The very article you probably read cites several possibilities: that this could be a chromosome already common amongst the Genghis Khan and so on. I agree that idea that it was Genghis Khan who is ancesotr of all those males is the most probable and maybe I could even agree on 95% probabilities. However, the question is whether it has anything to do with being ALPHA as in the sense (being picked by the females). ANd the answer is no, it has not.

Both Genghis and his descendants had harems, and they had not asked any female whether they want to be a part of this harem. If Genghis left so many descendants, it is because of his military prowess, not because of him being "ALPHA" as (vaguely) defined by PUAs I read. Therefore it is useless to bring his example as "the woman dig arseholes". If you say that then maybe Genghis father was chosone by his mother because he was ALPHA, then you are simply stating, that you BELIEVE (not even that this is your hypothesis). You are simply stating that whatever are the facts, you will be always willing to bend them to fit your theory of "woman dig arseholes".

And let me restate what I have written previously about why the fact that we descend in the patrilinear line from few males does not mean we descend from alphas. I am not native English speaker and hence I may be not clear about this.

1) The fact that we have some male ancestor, which is common to male ancestors of other people is not proof per se that this male ancestor was ALPHA. We know that such man exists, and this is a fact. Wehther he was "beta" or "alpha" is a hypothesis, and therefore stating "such male existed, therefore he was alpha and this is a proof that woman dig arseholes" is serious violation of rules of logical reasoning.
2) Such male could appear due to simple genetic drift and probabilistic differentiation of population. Imagine, that we have initially A B C D males, with different Y chromosome variation. The probability of having a son is a probabilistic function. I know decent guy, who have three daughters and he will leave no male descendants, and this is not dependendant from whether he is alpha or beta.
Also, the survival of sons is not entirely due to their own characteristics, but maybe also due to chance. As such, simply due to chance, there is non-trivial possibility, that in second generation we could have three sons of A, two of B, one of A, and zero sons of D: 3A 2B D. In another generation each of sons of A have again some probabilistic chance of having sons or not, but simply due to the fact that there is more A-descendants, there is greater chance that there will be some son, while for D and B there will be gretear chance that they will leave no male descendants solely due to chance.

What I wanted to argue here, is that the fact that we descend solely from few male ancestors may be solely due to chance, and may not even depend from ceratin qualities of those ancestors (obviously, the alternative hypothesis, that this was NOT due to chance, also is possible).

Finally, the evolution has not stopped million, or 50 thousand years ago. If you are descendant from Western Europe, then you are a product of almost a thousand year of very specific marriage patterns. Google Hajnal line, if you can. Within this area, woman and male married in later age (woman could marry as late as in their 27 or 28), and the large proportion of both males and females was NOT married (due to monogomy — in poligamy poor woman can marry wealthy husband, who can marry several poor woman — in monogamy wealthy man can have only one wife, widower cases nonwithstanding). The chance of marriage and having children was positevely correlated with the WEALTH accumulated by males. Meaning, that for at least 50 generation there was selection for choosing "dad" qualities. While this cannot undone the evolution, this is enough time to allow for alternative strategies to spread – so a strategy "prefer dad over cad" if would exists before, it could spread quite fast even over such limited (in evolutionary terms) time period (And BTW: My home land, Poland, was exactly on Hajnal line so we have somewhat a mixture: young married woman, in 22-24 y/o, and old husbands).
Escoffier

Royale, I can say with 99% certainty, that’s NOT the reason you’re single. Very bad habit to get into.
szopen

@sassy, passer_by and other discussing female 4s and 5s…

Actually, it brought me a question, what are real limits of 4s to increasse their attractiveness, bare plastic operation. Here is personal story: i Had a friend, who was nerdy (just like I was) computer guy. He fell in love with some girl, from other city. When I saw the photo of this girl, I was shocked: she was just downright UGLY. I couldn’t understand why my friend could fell so much for her. Moreover, I find out there were also two other people who tried to get her interested. When I was hitchhiking around the Poland I came to the city, where taht girl lived, and when I met her, I was even more astounded: she was not just ugly. She has no boobs, no arse worth talking about, she was just bones and skin. She was very intelligent girl, that’s true, but that was it.

But after few minutes in her company, i started suddenly understand, why guys found her so attractive. She was so full of energy, so.. lively, unpredictable, so in her company you fell as she was tornado dressed in mini skirt. So my question is: is this common? Do other guys met also such girls? And whether 4-girl can simply change her attractiveness due to changes in her behaviour, using some kind of equivalent of “the game”? After all, it is logical that some kind of female Game MUST exist.
Ramble

I liken this to how a lot of people, including myself, love cats. …
… and we still think they are adorable and try to keep them happy.

Royale, when you said “people”, I think you meant women. IME, very, very few men have that sort of appreciation for cats.

And they certainly don’t have that kind of relationship with their dogs. They may let them get away with some things when they are young puppies, but not much.

I know this seems like an odd nit to pick, but I am saying it to help reiterate the point that guys and girls are different and we should not project our feelings too much.

re: Smart Girls and Shit Testing

I have dated a few girls that, basically, rarely shit tested. They were simply too logical to do so. Well, on occasion, and I would invite them to be more dramatic and unreasonable. You know, just conjure up some ridiculous drama.

Well, they would try to be dramatic, but, invariably, they would start smiling in the middle of it, and before we could ever even get into anything, they would start kissing me.

Hopefully you will meet a really great guy and then, later on, you can just pretend to be bitchy and unreasonable and then get some good hot sex.
Cooper

Royale, no! It doesn’t work like that.

Isn’t that like saying I’m going gawk at hot women more often, or longer, so my woman can “battle” for my attention?
Samael

@ szopen

Yes I have dropped below my normal physical attractiveness standards for an awesome personality.

Also I have gone against my usual no slut policy because of the same thing and I all I got from that situation was nuclear shit tests, shattered confidence, baggage and a lousy t-shirt.
Joe

Szopen, I’d say it’s common.

My story is the same, but exactly opposite. I knew a girl in college (we were classmates and friends, actually) who rather quickly became known as a “variable star” (yeah, I pal’ed around with a lot of astronomy majors). She’d be gorgeous, angelic, one day, and a bit of a mess the next. No, that’s not uncommon, but the degree of variation we saw was notable, at least, a bit.

Well, after college, Susanna got to work in television with no less personages than Michelle Pfeiffer, Stephen Furst and Josh Mostel, whom some here may recognize as the son of Zero Mostel.

In other words, yeah, we have a bit more control over our attractiveness than we want to believe sometimes.
Desiderius

“armchair psychology”

Good table turn. That one might just work.
Desiderius

“I don’t understand this making both arguments depending on which one is more convenient for the particular point to respond to.

Again with the personal digs!”

What’s personal about it? I just called MikeC out on a corner he cut and he didn’t take it personally. We all do these things sometimes even when we’re trying to avoid them. I used to take this sort of thing personally all the time, and sometimes still will reflexively, and it was a big improvement letting that go or even just being aware of the dynamic.

MikeC’s not perfect either, nor is INTJ, but when he caught the shit-test contradiction, it was still a valid catch, and we didn’t think less of you for that contradiction. You speak with authority – that’s because you’ve authored a life many of us would like to emulate. You make mistakes, you’re human. The one doesn’t detract from the other.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Desiderius
  
  What’s personal about it? I just called MikeC out on a corner he cut and he didn’t take it personally. We all do these things sometimes even when we’re trying to avoid them.
  
  I am responding directly to comments accusing me of dishonesty in the form of changing positions to suit the debate, using arguments regardless of whether they support my position, and moving the goal posts. It is personal.
  
  I’m happy to admit an error when it’s pointed out. There are 126,000 comments on this site, and a good number of them are mine. I’m sure there are inconsistencies, both apparent and real, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify. What I object to is the accusation that I am deliberately and dishonestly managing the debate in some way.
  
  You and I have had several misunderstandings and miscommunications, but I have never suspected or accused you of trying to bait and switch or elude real and honest debate.
Samael

@ Lamia “…And some sense” <– that being the golden ticket!

I get the feeling a lot of women today have very little sense of who they are and what they really want out of life.

@ Lolkand re: shit testing and being overweight

You know there might be some truth to this based on the girl herself. If she's cute but slightly overweight and a bit insecure she probably won't shit test you at all. However in my experience with a very attractive, in shape girl I can see you might have a point here.

The relationship (if you can call it that) that led me to the manosphere was like this. I myself am not a particularly fit guy. I'm 6'3" and 320, built kinda like a NFL player (one of my English teachers who was the football coach for my high school begged me to play) meaning my arms and legs are in some what of decent shape and have definition, but my midsection is something akin to a beer keg. The girl in question was a co-worker in a restaurant I was working at. She was something like 5'7", maybe 100lbs, in killer shape, cute face, a bit feisty and half white half Samoan. The usual build up over time happened but I mostly ignored her to a possible slutty history (never confirmed btw) but we ended up getting along really well at a work party and started hanging out… (Ladies there's something for you in this story as well) Now I honestly considered this a friendship and for a month or so it was, casual hang outs watching movies, etc. But then she started to open up more to me and started doing things straight off of Susan's 25 un PC ways to make him your bf post (holy crap can these work on a LTR orientated guy!), and at this point I fell… HARD. I did the near impossible according to the manosphere and got myself out of the friend zone (yes when I brought my feelings up to her I got the old I thought we were just friends accusatory sex fiend crap). In the aftermath I hobbled my way to the manosphere completely ignorant to most of this attraction stuff… If I had known some of this stuff before I started getting interested in girls I would have bailed on most of my past experiences.

If nothing else, ladies should avoid shit testing for nothing more than common courtesy. Every little bit makes living in this screwed up society slightly less shitty than it already is. Thank you.
Royale W. Cheese

@Cooper
“Isn’t that like saying I’m going gawk at hot women more often, or longer, so my woman can “battle” for my attention?”

Yes, it is like that. That’s why I’ve been reluctant to resort to sh*t testing, dark female game, or whatever one can call it.

But, I’m not talking “nuclear” sh*t testing (as Samael put it). Like maybe allowing myself to get a little b*tchy if he forgets my birthday, or Valentine’s Day, although in reality I don’t feel the least bit entitled to any gifts on those days, but I do light up with joy if I am fortunate enough to get something.

I do believe that there are level-headed guys out there who do not go for the sh*t test, but I suspect that most of them are age 50+. I know that sounds bad, similar to “level-headed women are rare exceptions.”
Abbot

“Dont we all make mistakes along the way, and the smart ones learn from those mistakes?”

Of course, and men later should cut them some slack when she is done euphemistically expressing mistakes that she absolutely does not consider to be mistakes. Men universally – the “smart ones” – don’t want or need someone who is proud of her development-via-multi-penis or deal with the wayward baggage, the wretch of it all notwithstanding.

“Of course the gal who makes 40 mistakes, may have other issues”

Of course the gal who makes 4 mistakes, may have other issues

Typo fixed
Escoffier

Royale, I think a majority of men will tell you that they do not find such tests attractive. We view them as things to be endured if we like everything else about the girl. Lucky for me, my wife never does this.
Abbot

“Stupid people don’t learn from their mistakes.
Reasonable people learn from their mistakes.
Smart people learn from others’ mistakes!”

That is precisely why feminists and slut defenders rail against any broadcasting of how commitment-minded men really feel about women who have expressed with multi mistaken penises. Women can be swayed and they will go in the direction of early marriage and shun feminism if enough horror stories leak from the real-life experiences of their older hookered-up friends, sisters and women in general.
Cooper

Royale, you shouldn’t have to allow yourself to get bitchy if your boyfriend forgets you Bday.
That’s extremely level-headed to not really feel entitled to something, but that is your day.

Doesn’t really constitute a shit test.
Sai

@Bob Wallace
“So then, I would define a man, based on a few thousand years of observation and experiment, as someone who is willing to defend himself and others, including through violence if necessary, who is brave (which means mastering his fear), who defends the weak and helpless, who is honorable and noble and loyal, who shows compassion and empathy, does not lie or steal, and develops his talents to the best he can.”

I respect guys like this!
I think of it like a car… The above qualities are like the basics that are required for it to work right. I’d like more than that in order to feel attraction as well as respect, the way I want my car to run properly AND look nice. But without the basics the other things are worth jack.

Also, WTF was up with the actual car story? That’s practically vandalism! I bet she would’ve been mad if you’d hit her car. I’m not a man but if it was me there would’ve been a cop chasing her.

@Cooper
“Isn’t that like saying I’m going gawk at hot women more often, or longer, so my woman can “battle” for my attention?”
Yes it is.
Samael

@ Royale

Shit testing or fake bitchyness (oft referred to as “game playing”) will send the guys desire heading for the hills unless they’re really naive.

The only advice I have is if you seek a level headed guy be blunt and forward.
Not in a jump his bones way, more like a “I really enjoyed our conversation would like to get together and do this again sometime?’ sorta way.

I think the misconception about a woman’s forwardness is simply this:
Girl to guy “Hey stud, Let’s get together so I can show you my O face”
problem: masculine behavior = turn off for most guys.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

For me, I consider that I am giving up one major thing but beyond that I can’t think of much else I am compromising on by getting married.

I think is part of the way women try to be symbiotic about relationship. I had adopted a whole new way of conduct to adapt better to my husband’s need and probably will have a lot more with time. Being set on your ways is usually a reason why people past certain age don’t marry it probably works the same way for people that had been married a long time.

Old folks? Oh, shit. Throw in a hike around the state park with the dog, and that’s what DH and I do.

Add playing video games and that is my hubby and me…what young people does single young for fun? I wouldn’t even know at this point…

Or think back to discusion about child abductions a while back. It’s something everyone worries over because of all the media attention it gets, despite the fact that it’s quite unlikely statistically.

You should read the discussion on the free range kids book in amazon there is this crazy helicoptered woman that is so mad about the book and risk of the kid getting kidnapped that is not even funny.

Now on a blog about sex and dating and mating, that discussion will take place with various opinions being exchanged.

Well this is the amount of shaming we are making, making more article about it is more important than doing it personally. Like mentioned before Media is a good source of shame. I don’t think anyone here is compelled to do it on a one to one level specially because is less effective but in here is not only good is probably more effective the

“Hey, here are some tendencies we see in men overall” I think it would be stupid of me to assume they are directly saying that about me.

??? I’m not taking this personally. But I do notice that there is a tendency to push this theme again, and again, and again. You are right about the confidence blind women to the bad aspects IMO, but you are an outlier.
The male commenters want to proof their perception by overriding the data.
I’m just trying to remind them that if they start denying the studies they are not different than dogmatic feminists: rape is an under reported crime, crap. You an sit and try to make sense of it , like you did, or deny it. But if you deny it I will call bullshit on it all the time and then twice on Sunday.
Also primates are good models but we descend for a common ancestor of the great apes not from them directly, we are not 100% identical not even in hindbraind instinct so having this “If an Ape does it we will do it too” is also faulty science. They are useful models but no the “word of God” on human behaviors and primitive instincts without society.

Ana gets my eternal gratitude for wading in.

Glad to be of service. I’m like you trying to get a bit of light in this issue to see if next time we don’t start the war all over again, because frankly is just boring and unproductive.

Royale, please don’t do that!!!

I actually say she should try that. She is in environment were women are scarce and she cannot play any girl game. Maybe a bit of emotionality can light some lights there and say “look she is a girl!” Women can actually be too nice. Athol has a post about it. http://marriedmansexlife.com/2012/08/unleashing-your-inner-bitch/
I mean she is still single what does she has to lose at this point? I say: DO IT FOR SCIENCE!!
She can always just cut back if it doesn’t work, YMMV.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Well this is the amount of shaming we are making, making more article about it is more important than doing it personally. Like mentioned before Media is a good source of shame. I don’t think anyone here is compelled to do it on a one to one level specially because is less effective but in here is not only good is probably more effective the

Paragraph is messy and got cut.
Media is a source of change and starting articles and blog is a good way to spread the word. I don’t think Susan ever advice one on one shaming but writing about what men wants is enough shame. Women are very susceptible to this kind of resource ask Cosmo
Joe

@Ana

I actually say she should try that. She is in environment were women are scarce and she cannot play any girl game.

Oh, for Pete’s sake, why??? Especially in her environment, is there any upside at all?

Forget the testing for fitness; if she’s going to find someone who’s “fit” at all, she’s also going to incorrectly reject – and purposely drive away – several who actually are fit, but reject her attitude. Her “test” is going to give her false positives.

With the lousy results women are getting, I’m not sure why they don’t understand this.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Oh, for Pete’s sake, why??? Especially in her environment, is there any upside at all?

First read Athol’s post, he has a good point about “being too nice”
Second in here we have on record men saying that they sometimes date and bang the batshit crazy because a) she is hotter than she is crazy and b) that usually means she is very good in bed.
Some of them men that surround might see her as “nice asexual colleague” and some drama would might make them see in a different light.
Again she is single now, so she has nothing to lose and again is not like she is going to start cutting herself in front of everybody just spicing things up a bit. She should do it and observe the reactions and cut it or continue depending on the results. But she cannot continue doing the same and expect different results can she?
Abbot

“writing about what men wants is enough shame. Women are very susceptible to this kind of resource”

Exactly why at every opportunity the slut defenders, even on this site, attempt to recast men as hypocrites, shamers, cave men, weak, sheeple and on and on. They want so desperately to hold back the wall of reality and prevent the truth from reaching women – that you CAN grow and be fully self realized well-adjusted highly fulfilled WITHOUT being on the multi penis track. But most of all, these info-blockers and recasters constantly attempt to squash the consistently and universally expressed fact that the multi penis approach to growth WILL severely reduce a woman’s options for loving commitment later.
INTJ

@ Royale W. Cheese

After reading these comments about sh*t testing, I’m thinking that one of the things contributing to my perpetual single status is my lack of sh*t testing. I think that such behavior is beneath me. I prefer to keep things civil and mature.

So, adopting the sh*t testing behavior could be a good way to step up my female game. Give the guy something to battle and conquer so that he thinks he has accomplished something.

I don’t think men appreciate that behavior, though I could be wrong. Men are always complaining about such behavior, but then again women are always complaining about assholes and yet they keep going after them…
Joe

Ana, huh?
Is Sassy *really* too nice? I guess it’s possible.

But this?

Some of them men that surround might see her as “nice asexual colleague” and some drama would might make them see in a different light.

Sassy, please help me out here. Are you looking for someone who sees you as a “nice, asexual colleague?” I thought you once wrote that you’re looking for an “Alpha.” That doesn’t sound at all like the way an Alpha would look look at you.

Oh wait. I get it. You are looking for an Alpha. Please don’t be surprised, if and when you find one, that by shit-testing you find one with more of the bad side of alpha than good. You would have driven the others away pretty quickly.
Joe

Ack! Sorry. Second time today I have to apologize.
Not Sassy – I meant Royale.
I hope that still applies to you.
INTJ

@ szopen

Ok, let’s go step by step:

16 million of males today have the same Y chromosome variation.
The age of this particular variation may be estimated. Since one can estimate the ratio of mutation, then, if you ASSUME the same ratio of mutations over the time, THEN you can APPROXIMATELY date the age of this particular chromosome variation to be 1.000 years old.

Why would we have a different ratio of mutations over time? Radiation doses were increased somewhat in very recent times, but it hasn’t been that big compared to natural background radiation. Thus, it is a very valid conclusion that this particular ancestral chromosome was about 1,000 years old.

Since those males are more often in Mongolia and terrains which once belonged to Mongol empire, you can assume this variation originated from Mongolia.

Those are two first IFs — first one is assumption about correct dating of when this variation appeared, second, where it originated.

This is also a perfectly valid conclusion, as the mongols where the only group to have ruled over this area around or after that time.

There is no article I know who would say that this is 95% probability of this being descendants of Genghis Khan, The very article you probably read cites several possibilities: that this could be a chromosome already common amongst the Genghis Khan and so on. I agree that idea that it was Genghis Khan who is ancesotr of all those males is the most probable and maybe I could even agree on 95% probabilities. However, the question is whether it has anything to do with being ALPHA as in the sense (being picked by the females). ANd the answer is no, it has not.

Both Genghis and his descendants had harems, and they had not asked any female whether they want to be a part of this harem. If Genghis left so many descendants, it is because of his military prowess, not because of him being “ALPHA” as (vaguely) defined by PUAs I read. Therefore it is useless to bring his example as “the woman dig arseholes”. If you say that then maybe Genghis father was chosone by his mother because he was ALPHA, then you are simply stating, that you BELIEVE (not even that this is your hypothesis). You are simply stating that whatever are the facts, you will be always willing to bend them to fit your theory of “woman dig arseholes”.

Historically, there have been plenty of men with “beta” traits who have had military prowess. They didn’t usually force women to mate with them. At least not in Genghis Khan’s fashion. So, the bottom line is that Genghis Khan spread his genes because he was a military genius and an alpha asshole. Thus, having an alpha male descendant like Genghis Khan is a good thing to pass on your genes. How do you have such a descendant? You mate with an alpha asshole. If we accept that evolutionary psychology is valid (which Susan at least does), then we can conclude will have evolved to mate with alpha assholes.

And let me restate what I have written previously about why the fact that we descend in the patrilinear line from few males does not mean we descend from alphas. I am not native English speaker and hence I may be not clear about this.

1) The fact that we have some male ancestor, which is common to male ancestors of other people is not proof per se that this male ancestor was ALPHA. We know that such man exists, and this is a fact. Wehther he was “beta” or “alpha” is a hypothesis, and therefore stating “such male existed, therefore he was alpha and this is a proof that woman dig arseholes” is serious violation of rules of logical reasoning.
2) Such male could appear due to simple genetic drift and probabilistic differentiation of population. Imagine, that we have initially A B C D males, with different Y chromosome variation. The probability of having a son is a probabilistic function. I know decent guy, who have three daughters and he will leave no male descendants, and this is not dependendant from whether he is alpha or beta.
Also, the survival of sons is not entirely due to their own characteristics, but maybe also due to chance. As such, simply due to chance, there is non-trivial possibility, that in second generation we could have three sons of A, two of B, one of A, and zero sons of D: 3A 2B D. In another generation each of sons of A have again some probabilistic chance of having sons or not, but simply due to the fact that there is more A-descendants, there is greater chance that there will be some son, while for D and B there will be gretear chance that they will leave no male descendants solely due to chance.

What I wanted to argue here, is that the fact that we descend solely from few male ancestors may be solely due to chance, and may not even depend from ceratin qualities of those ancestors (obviously, the alternative hypothesis, that this was NOT due to chance, also is possible).

Your English is better than that of the average American.

This could occur despite population growth, but would not account for the major discrepancies that researchers have observed. Especially when you look at more robust studies (not using Y chromosomes afaik) that have shown that the male genetic population was significantly smaller than the female genetic population.

Finally, the evolution has not stopped million, or 50 thousand years ago. If you are descendant from Western Europe, then you are a product of almost a thousand year of very specific marriage patterns. Google Hajnal line, if you can. Within this area, woman and male married in later age (woman could marry as late as in their 27 or 28), and the large proportion of both males and females was NOT married (due to monogomy — in poligamy poor woman can marry wealthy husband, who can marry several poor woman — in monogamy wealthy man can have only one wife, widower cases nonwithstanding). The chance of marriage and having children was positevely correlated with the WEALTH accumulated by males. Meaning, that for at least 50 generation there was selection for choosing “dad” qualities. While this cannot undone the evolution, this is enough time to allow for alternative strategies to spread – so a strategy “prefer dad over cad” if would exists before, it could spread quite fast even over such limited (in evolutionary terms) time period (And BTW: My home land, Poland, was exactly on Hajnal line so we have somewhat a mixture: young married woman, in 22-24 y/o, and old husbands).

This is certainly true. I’m not saying asshole alpha characteristics are the only characteristics women look for. There are other characteristics that are useful too. One paper I read had a much better set of traits than the usual dad vs. cad dichotomy. The had good genes (alpha asshat and/or high status), good provider (rich and/or high status), good partner (nice to the woman), and good dad (helps raise kids). Out of these, good partner is the least relevant from an evolutionary perspective.

But, the important thing to remember is that a woman could seek to mate with good genes and then get most or all of the other traits by roping in a good dad/provider/partner for monogamy. Sure, there were risks to cuckoldry, but without genetic testing, it was a much more viable strategy than it is today. Cuckoldry (or the to this day all too common practice of mating with bad boys before settling down with nice guys) was quite clearly the most optimal strategy.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

How do you know this? Most likely, this is an assertion based entirely on personal projection.

Well, I could cite some evidence for my opinion, but since it’s already been called BS, why bother?

Susan’s holds Prof. Buss in high regard, and I’m not disputing his CV. But other psychologists have questioned the basis for his SST. The AFT (which Susan has cited, somewhere) actually corresponds to observed mating patterns IMO. Call their research BS if you like, I don’t care.
INTJ

@ Samael

Shit testing or fake bitchyness (oft referred to as “game playing”) will send the guys desire heading for the hills unless they’re really naive.

The only advice I have is if you seek a level headed guy be blunt and forward.
Not in a jump his bones way, more like a “I really enjoyed our conversation would like to get together and do this again sometime?’ sorta way.

I think the misconception about a woman’s forwardness is simply this:
Girl to guy “Hey stud, Let’s get together so I can show you my O face”
problem: masculine behavior = turn off for most guys.

Definitely cosigned. Open and honest = good. Crazily aggressive and masculine = “I’m outta here”
INTJ

* Some guys might do a pump and dump before the “I’m outta here” part though
INTJ

@ Cooper, Royale

Royale, you shouldn’t have to allow yourself to get bitchy if your boyfriend forgets you Bday.
That’s extremely level-headed to not really feel entitled to something, but that is your day.

Doesn’t really constitute a shit test.

Yeah. Not being angry if your boyfriend forgets your birthday is basically supplication. You should always demand respect.
INTJ

@ Bastiat Blogger

“I recall a female reader sharing a story that she stormed out of the apartment during a fight, expecting the guy to call her back or come after her.”

In college I was towing a car steered by my girlfriend. She kept crashing into my back of my car. When I asked why this was happening, she got out of the car and ran away.

I sat on my hood of my car until she came back. Do you know what she said?

“You were supposed to chase me.”

I told her I would never chase her under any circumstances. She never did it again.

She tried this on other guys and they did chase her.

She ended up marrying a guy who didn’t chase her.

I might pass forgive certain shit-tests, but that sort of thing would cause me to breakup on the spot.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Ack! Sorry. Second time today I have to apologize.
Not Sassy – I meant Royale.
I hope that still applies to you.

I think Royale is looking to hunt on STEM SMP and she is indeed really nice. And gain STEM guys are usually very clueless about interests. So again trying a new approach should be her next step. Again this not a bar or a normal setting and I already being in enviroments where there are few girls. Men can put women on the “brozone” and you need something to break out of it, if is some drama then so be it.
Samael

I have dated 1 woman who never shit tested me ever. We lasted about 6 years. They do exist.
Now that I know what shit tests are and have experienced them I have a zero tolerance policy towards such non sense. If you forgive this behavior you’re asking for it IMHO.
Samael

“Men can put women on the “brozone” and you need something to break out of it, if is some drama then so be it.”

I’ve had this happen to me, the result was because I wasn’t clued in to her liking me I just though the bitch was crazy after that. YMMV.
Abbot

“Some guys might do a pump and dump before the “I’m outta here” part”

No different than a pound-n-pass on the promiscuous per historical ease
Mike C

For you to claim that you are not extremely personally invested in the debate, for whatever reason, is futile.

I spend no time whatsoever discussing/debating male-female issues with Amanda Marcotte or at a place like Feministing. It would be the equivalent of me trying to have a conversation with a monkey throwing shit against the wall. I’d be a moron for having that conversation.

A long, long time ago….I don’t remember where…maybe Roissy I read a comment by this woman Susan Walsh and I was very impressed, and I clicked on her link. Ironically, having those beta tendencies, I think I pedestalized her, not sexually of course, but intellectually. I guess my “personal investment” at this point is trying to validate for myself that my initial assessment was correct.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  I think I pedestalized her, not sexually of course, but intellectually. I guess my “personal investment” at this point is trying to validate for myself that my initial assessment was correct.
  
  My candlepower is undimmed! The way I see it, I am providing a service here. I read through studies, spending considerable time on each. I even review the statistics to satisfy myself (though I’m bad at spotting design flaws, as JQ can attest).
  
  I also solicit and receive a lot of face to face feedback from women active in the SMP.
  
  I am not an ideologue with a blog. This blog is, at its best, a quest for truth.
  
  I am happy to consider any views you may have, though I will expect you to back up your theories with some kind of evidence. Anecdotal experience is valid, but any sample of 1 is going to pale in comparison to large scale studies.
  
  At the same time, you dismiss (or ignore) every single piece of supporting evidence I introduce. Instead, you cite Badger as saying that studies are worthless, as if that were a valid argument!
  
  You know what really sucks about this whole dynamic? I work my ass off to make a clear argument, and you just shoot it down. I’m tired of jumping through hoops, because I know with 100% certainty that your mind is closed.
  
  What I meant by saying you are personally invested is that it seems to be very important to you to believe that women – all women – eagerly seek opportunities to trade up, or at the very least are hyperaware of higher status males as potential replacements for their mates. I truly don’t know how a man who feels this way would choose to marry, as it would require constant game and vigilance of the Rollo variety. That sounds like hell on earth to me.
  
  Clearly, I consider this view as extremely warped and inaccurate, and I will never cosign it unless I see evidence to support it.
Mike C

After reading these comments about sh*t testing, I’m thinking that one of the things contributing to my perpetual single status is my lack of sh*t testing. I think that such behavior is beneath me. I prefer to keep things civil and mature.

So, adopting the sh*t testing behavior could be a good way to step up my female game. Give the guy something to battle and conquer so that he thinks he has accomplished something.

Royale, I am going to second many of the guy’s who already responded. Don’t do this. “Shit testing” is not a male attractor. As Escoffier pointed out somewhere, it is something a guy will just endure if attraction is already present. Susan has had some good posts on what constitutes effective female Game. Incorporating shit testing isn’t part of it.
Mike C

MikeC’s not perfect either, nor is INTJ, but when he caught the shit-test contradiction, it was still a valid catch, and we didn’t think less of you for that contradiction. You speak with authority – that’s because you’ve authored a life many of us would like to emulate. You make mistakes, you’re human. The one doesn’t detract from the other.

Right, and I’m not sure how much this is a guy thing, but when you’ve been caught in a flat out contradiction or misstatement it is important to basically do the “mea culpa” rather than try to spin/obfuscate your way out of it. Any moderately intelligent person is going to recognize the latter while the former actually boosts your respect/cred. For example, earlier in this thread Susan characterized something Escoffier said as:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/29/relationshipstrategies/hot-mean-vs-not-hot-nice-what-do-girls-want/comment-page-2/#comment-144757

“I have never bought into your claim that women are perpetually feral hypergamous creatures who seek different partners when they ovulate

Escoffier called that out, and Susan responded with correcting that misstatement of his position. That earns cred/props. The alternatives are to ignore it and simply pretend that statement wasn’t made or try to spin it a different way.
Mike C

Then I don’t understand your obsession with female hypergamy. In four years I have not encountered a single reader who is as focused on one idea as you are on this.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhh.

I don’t mean to presume for Escoffier, but I think I know exactly what it is. Because Escoffier is a philosopher. He is concerned with knowledge for its own sake, and understanding and getting at the truth of the matter. The “obsession” as you characterize it is because the process of inquiry into the discovery of truth is one of the highest virtues in and of itself. There simply DOES NOT have to be some personal motive at stake.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I don’t mean to presume for Escoffier, but I think I know exactly what it is. Because Escoffier is a philosopher. He is concerned with knowledge for its own sake, and understanding and getting at the truth of the matter.
  
  Then why would he cling to a theory with no supporting evidence? Why does he promote the views of a man with no expertise in female sexuality, and no interest in having his hypothesis tested? At the same time, he ignores or dismisses all the evidence buttressing my position.
  
  To me, that does not look like an unbiased quest for truth.
Abbot

“women like bad and disagreeable men”

If enough do, then is it natural?
Is it cultural and thus a type of self destruction as a side effect of loose family ties that really hurt women?
Or is it manifest from some old herd mentality that benefits the community at large?
Does such behavior cause struggle and conflict in a marriage to some unfortunate dude in a few years? Or what if it is with a bad and disagreeable man?
Should men be advised to detour around such women thus declaring them commitment unworthy?
Desiderius

J,

“I was over 30 when I married though. I would not attribute that to a desire to chase after man of low character as much as I would say that I was afraid to marry due to having had a rather unstable childhood. I married a man who was in a similar position. I’d say we both finally reached to point where our need to marry overcame our fears.

On an amusing note, in the video of our wedding ceremony, we both look scared shitless going down the aisle. We look relieved on our way out during the recessional. My first words to my husband as a married woman were, “Holy Christ, I can’t believe we just did that!” He replied, “We did, J we did. Let’s just hope we don’t fuck this up.” The Pachabel Canon in D played in the backgound as I wondered if anyone had heard us.

Romantic, huh?”

Heh, very. Love this comment. Great insight into your character and that of many women in my SMP. Helps me stop taking their initial skepticism personally and just chill the hell out and get to know each other. Pride and prejudice, the same old problems. Thx for the boost in getting past them.

That wedding story is absolutely classic. Two of my favorite people in the world were in an LTR throughout their twenties before finally tying the not in their early thirties. I still remember the look on the bride’s face on the way out of the chapel – never seen anyone so happy. I really didn’t get it – loved the groom, he was hilarious, but she definitely brought more to the table than he did. Now that they have two grown sons who combine the generosity and good sense of the mom with the mischievousness of the dad, I think I finally understand.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Desi
This post from Athol seems relevant to your situation and the whole issue with the 18 year old: http://marriedmansexlife.com/2012/09/young-guy-game-vs-old-guy-game/
Desiderius

On that note, NAWALT is still in the picture, she does respond to texts, but the pattern is the one I’ve learned means “need space”. Told her I was interested, wasn’t looking for someone perfect or to rush into anything, and that it would be a good idea for me to follow up on some other options.

So am doing so. Date tomorrow with well-traveled, bright, late-20’s professional. I’d say a 9, but I’m biased. First words out of her mouth were “I’m a dork”. I was in. 30% chance of flaking. Getting closer.
Desiderius

Ana,

Heh, and that’s why I’m not going under 28 no matter how many IOI’s I get. I’m not that guy and not interested in being him. I’ve got plenty to bring to the table, but it will never be that level of dominance.

As for the other stuff he brings, that is a work in progress, but progress is being made. The move was a big upgrade, and the lower cortisol temperament is already helping the career.
Desiderius

“Because Escoffier is a philosopher. He is concerned with knowledge for its own sake, and understanding and getting at the truth of the matter.”

Not sure that truth can always claim that definite article you’ve put in front of it. Susan’s not a philosopher, so she has other fish to fry. The subtext* she’s communicating is: Men, stick to your knitting, we’ve got this. I’m good with that regarding her target audience, and everything else is outside the scope of this blog.

* – I got straight text. Appreciate that.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The subtext* she’s communicating is: Men, stick to your knitting, we’ve got this. I’m good with that regarding her target audience, and everything else is outside the scope of this blog.
  
  Nope. More like: If you have an argument to make, do so intelligently and with supporting evidence. Don’t just keep barking the same emotional debating point at me, i.e. “Men were lied to, women are to blame.”
Mike C

Not sure that truth can always claim that definite article you’ve put in front of it.

Well…I agree with that to the extent that is pretty much true for all human knowledge except perhaps the hard sciences. Even then, “truth” breaks down at some point. Even Newtonian physics breaks down as an accurate descriptor once we get down to the subatomic level. I wonder if some women in response to Newtonian physics, would have retorted, but hey “Not all subatomic particles are like that”. Some models of “truth” are more valid than others.

The subtext* she’s communicating is: Men, stick to your knitting, we’ve got this.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. FWIW, I enjoy your comments as I enjoy discussing things with smart people but sometimes you are a bit more cryptic than I think you need to be if you want to get your point across clearly.

I’m good with that regarding her target audience, and everything else is outside the scope of this blog.

Well….I think Susan can be wrong about certain aspects of nature and underlying reality and still offer very good advice to young women. The 25 effective ways to make him your boyfriend post is an example of that. A post like that is 1000x more valuable than any post about female preferences, nature, what do girls want, etc.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  A post like that is 1000x more valuable than any post about female preferences, nature, what do girls want, etc.
  
  To whom? Obviously, men stand to benefit directly from posts that tell women how to please men. Why would you suggest I limit myself or my readers to those posts? They are valuable, but how many such lists do we need each week?
  
  My readers are very, very interested in why they are attracted to bad boys. I write a post about what girls want not for you, but for the women reading. One thing that is very clear from all the research is that female sexuality is very complex. Often we know what attracts us, but we’re not sure why, and we don’t know how to avoid bad decisions. Some of the posts women have found most helpful here are about players, cads and red flags.
  
  What you think is valuable as a male is very unlikely to exactly match what women in their 20s think is valuable. I would like to be able to write a post about the appeal of bad boys without the male readers getting up in arms. There’s some good information in that post re attachment styles, LTR traits, etc. All that gets lost in a thread like this.
Mike C

What I object to is the accusation that I am deliberately and dishonestly managing the debate in some way.

I’m NOT accusing you of being deliberately dishonest. You do often take contradictory positions. Escoffier recognizes this as well:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/29/relationshipstrategies/hot-mean-vs-not-hot-nice-what-do-girls-want/comment-page-2/#comment-144735

Susan seems sometimes to swing back and forth between acknowledgement and denial. This makes some of us scratch our heads and wonder what are her real views.

For example, you’ve stated a great number of times that your view of “hypergamy” is simply meeting some baseline threshold of status/dominance and once that is met it is a done deal. The woman is content with that man, and other men of higher status just are invisible to her. But then in the next breath, you made the argument that many women on their honeymoon (that movie) would sleep with a movie star. Both cannot be simultaneously true. If the hypergamic impulse is fulfilled with the man she just married than the opportunity to sleep with the movie star shouldn’t even register.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Susan seems sometimes to swing back and forth between acknowledgement and denial. This makes some of us scratch our heads and wonder what are her real views.
  
  Ha! You are quoting Escoffier? You are two peas in a pod! I have asked Escoffier on several occasions to give examples, to no avail.
  
  For example, you’ve stated a great number of times that your view of “hypergamy” is simply meeting some baseline threshold of status/dominance and once that is met it is a done deal. The woman is content with that man, and other men of higher status just are invisible to her. But then in the next breath, you made the argument that many women on their honeymoon (that movie) would sleep with a movie star. Both cannot be simultaneously true. If the hypergamic impulse is fulfilled with the man she just married than the opportunity to sleep with the movie star shouldn’t even register.
  
  Come on, do you really think, based on what I have written here, that I believe most newlywed women would cheat on their honeymoon?
  
  In any case, this was a movie. It’s very possible this woman’s hypergamic impulse was not fulfilled with the man she married. In fact, it does not appear to have been. As it happens, he has sex with Penelope Cruz (who plays a hooker) that same day. Does this mean all men can’t avoid seeking sexual variety for even a few days after marrying? It’s a Woody Allen movie, you’re taking that way too seriously.
Mike C

And I did see your response to Escoffier on the movie star thing. You dodged the question of *what* is causing that inclination to cheat in the first place with your answer that if she were inclined to cheat that is simply the logic she uses to justify it. Clearly, the motivation for cheating is the *status* of the man in question, and that plays directly into the question of what is hypergamy.

Now let me ask you a direct question that I hope you can give a clear answer to. Regarding hypergamy vis a vis marriage. Is it your position that if a man meets that woman’s baseline level, that no matter what man you put in front of her in terms of social status, dominance, position in the male hierarchy, that woman will feel ABSOLUTELY NO TINGLE OR ATTRACTION TO THAT MAN WHATSOEVER because her hypergamy impulse is completely turned off by her husband already meeting it. Do I have your position correct?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Is it your position that if a man meets that woman’s baseline level, that no matter what man you put in front of her in terms of social status, dominance, position in the male hierarchy, that woman will feel ABSOLUTELY NO TINGLE OR ATTRACTION TO THAT MAN WHATSOEVER because her hypergamy impulse is completely turned off by her husband already meeting it. Do I have your position correct?
  
  No tingle or attraction to any other man for the duration of her marriage? Are you serious? Of course not! I have found many men attractive during my marriage. My mother once told me that all women crush on their obstetricians. I didn’t but I thought our pediatrician was soooooo wonderful and attractive. I have worked for attractive men, supervised attractive men, acted in plays with attractive men, and had good friends who are married to attractive men.
  
  However. I have never for one moment considered the objectively attractive man as a potential replacement for my husband. I have never flirted with any of them or entertained fantasies of leaving my husband for any of them. By the way, most of these attractive men are of similar or lower status than my husband. Of the men I know who are of higher status than my husband, I can’t think of a single one I find attractive.
  
  The whole lifelong trading up for higher status thing is just wacked, IMO.
Mike C

You know what really sucks about this whole dynamic? I work my ass off to make a clear argument, and you just shoot it down. I’m tired of jumping through hoops, because I know with 100% certainty that your mind is closed.

This isn’t true. I didn’t just reflexively shoot down your Definitive Study post. I acknowledged the detailed work, and that I needed to study it before commenting. I’m particularly willing to consider the notion/concept that far fewer women are sleeping with the high N men as I previously thought especially within that very narrow 18-22 college group the study addressed.

The problem is that some of what you want me to believe completely flies in the face of the direct information I get on a daily basis UNLESS every single woman I am hearing about is part of this “slutty” 20%. Maybe that is true. But if I flip a coin 20 times, and it comes up heads 20 times, I have to ask myself what is more likely that I had a miraculous run of flipping, or I have a 2-headed coin.

What I meant by saying you are personally invested is that it seems to be very important to you to believe that women – all women – eagerly seek opportunities to trade up, or at the very least are hyperaware of higher status males as potential replacements for their mates.

I think “eagerly seek” and “hyperaware” are the wrong characterizations. I don’t believe either of those apply to most women.
Mike C

My readers are very, very interested in why they are attracted to bad boys. I write a post about what girls want not for you, but for the women reading. One thing that is very clear from all the research is that female sexuality is very complex. Often we know what attracts us, but we’re not sure why, and we don’t know how to avoid bad decisions. Some of the posts women have found most helpful here are about players, cads and red flags.

This is what I mean Susan. You just finished writing a ton of comments in response to Escoffier that basically can be summarized that women are naturally inclined by their base attraction triggers to select for “good guy” types who show long-term nesting instincts to pair bond with. And then you respond here with this that women are attracted to “bad boys” and don’t know why. Which is it?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  You just finished writing a ton of comments in response to Escoffier that basically can be summarized that women are naturally inclined by their base attraction triggers to select for “good guy” types who show long-term nesting instincts to pair bond with. And then you respond here with this that women are attracted to “bad boys” and don’t know why. Which is it?
  
  I really have difficulty believing you are not capable of making these connections. This has to be some willful denial going on. Let me lay this out in the simplest terms, which sum up the post, the thread, and what is known about female sexuality.
  
  1. The post clearly addresses what women find attractive about bad boys. We have evolved to find certain characteristics desirable in a mate, including confidence, strength, bravery (risk seeking), and access to resources, as signaled by status. These are generally referred to as the alpha characteristics. Bad boys often have an abundance of these traits.
  
  2. We have also evolved to select mates who will co-parent. The traits associated with this are the beta characteristics. This original adaptation resulted in the human drive to pair bond as the preferred way of mating. As Buss says, why men marry poses a puzzle, if all they want is sexual variety. He offers several possible explanations, but regardless of the reason, most men and women prefer to fall in love and reproduce as a monogamous pair.
  
  3. Both alpha traits and beta traits contribute to attraction.
  
  4. It is rare to find one individual with an abundance of all the desirable traits. Women are faced with the dilemma of knowing when to select a mate who has the best possible combination of traits. Buss lists at least a dozen traits women seek and evaluate. A woman who selects a man with too much alpha is unlikely to see him stick around. A woman who selects a man with too much beta is unlikely to sustain her attraction for him.
  
  This is the dirty little secret of female sexuality – the red pill. As I said clearly in the post, Mean & Hot wins out over Nice & Not Hot 100% of the time. We want a mix of alpha and beta, but if you give us only one, we choose alpha, as those are the traits most important and evident at first meeting. The beta traits become important in the context of commitment.
  
  When a woman feels attracted to a man, does she have a clear sense of how each the dozen traits is present and to what extent? Usually not. Much of the selection occurs at the subconscious level.
  
  In short, women are inclined to select for good character for long-term mating, i.e. pair bonding. For short-term mating, or at first meeting, confidence and status are the first hurdles a man must clear. Many bad boys make it through the first hurdles, and are then exposed as having poor relationship potential.
  
  Do you see how both are true? It’s not either/or.
Mike C

However. I have never for one moment considered the objectively attractive man as a potential replacement for my husband. I have never flirted with any of them or entertained fantasies of leaving my husband for any of them. By the way, most of these attractive men are of similar or lower status than my husband. Of the men I know who are of higher status than my husband, I can’t think of a single one I find attractive.

The whole lifelong trading up for higher status thing is just wacked, IMO.

This wasn’t my question. I didn’t ask anything about trading up or replacing your husband. Your character prevents you from considering that or acting that. Now I am going to start banging my head against the desk. Escoffier and I keep trying to distinguish between base/primal/natural impulses and actual behavior, and when you answer you keep trying to conflate the two.

And again, I wasn’t asking about you and your husband. I was asking whether my description of your position was accurate or not in a general sense. Your answer seems to say yes, women will find other men sexually attractive so there is some natural impulse there and character prevents acting on it.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  I didn’t ask anything about trading up or replacing your husband. Your character prevents you from considering that or acting that. Now I am going to start banging my head against the desk. Escoffier and I keep trying to distinguish between base/primal/natural impulses and actual behavior, and when you answer you keep trying to conflate the two.
  
  First of all, hypergamy means mating up. It means marrying a man with higher status than you have yourself. Escoffier (via Devlin) claims that hypergamy means trading up. Having impulses that go beyond attraction – a base urge to leave your mate to get a better mate with higher status. He has indicated he believes this urge is always present in women. He is wrong.
  
  Your answer seems to say yes, women will find other men sexually attractive so there is some natural impulse there and character prevents acting on it.
  
  Of course both men and women find others attractive throughout their lives. Did you really think this is what we were arguing?
  
  Personally, it is not character that prevents me from acting on attraction. I can observe how attractive a man is without feeling any urge to act on it. This is not a struggle, because I am satisfied with my mate. My hypergamy was addressed and satisfied when I married a man of high potential for future status. Therefore, I have no conscious thoughts of trading up, making a change, acting on attraction. The attraction is akin to admiring a work of art. I can enjoy it without having to own it. I think if a woman married a man of low status, she would likely stew more about attractive men of high status, and perhaps be inclined to consider trading up. But this is pathology in relationships, not normal urges.
  
  This is also demonstrated in the research on ovulation. While women like more dominance during ovulation, research shows that they do not seek dominance in other men if their partner meets their baseline need for dominance in general. In that case, they seek additional dominance from their partner. This fact is usually ignored or dismissed by Red Pillers who find it useful to omit it to better promote the idea of hypergamy.
Abbot

“female sexuality is very complex”

That is why when its activated outside the context of a committed relationship with a KNOWN caring man, the results are rarely positive for women and the effects are carried forward. Potentially caring men in the future will have a lot less motivation to care. A lot of emotional wreckage is born from the hooker up fad.
Escoffier

Susan, I will respond to this all when I am less tired (been at the stove for a while) and have less wine in the belly (Burgundy :)).

But you seem to misinterpret my point about attraction triggers. The point is not that women are powerless to resist. OF COURSE they can and do resist. The point is, what tempts them/you?

I posted a while back about what might tempt me. I go off to a conference alone, there is a beautiful babe there, similar background and interests, we get to know each other innocently, then on day four or five she grabs my crotch in the elevator and says “Let’s go to my room.” My little head would be saying “Yes yes yes!!!” The big head would say “Hell no!” and the big head would win. But the point is, my attraction triggers will have been pulled hard.

So, you are saying, I gather, that there NO analagous situation for you? Some famous, handsome, rich, charming man who came on to you in a strong, non-cloying way, would not even tempt you? Not even cause a tingle?

I find that hard to believe.

I’m not saying you would give in. I am fully confident that you would not. But you really would not even feel the slightest biological stimuli?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So, you are saying, I gather, that there NO analagous situation for you? Some famous, handsome, rich, charming man who came on to you in a strong, non-cloying way, would not even tempt you? Not even cause a tingle?
  
  Theoretically I have to say the possibility must be there. Ego gratification and validation for sure.
  
  I think the tingle gets short-circuited somehow – I can imagine feeling flattered, certainly. But I think there’s a way that when a woman is in love, or loves her partner deeply, there’s no real traction for those feelings.
  
  After business school I worked as the direct assistant to the President of American Express, and in that job had several opportunities to have affairs with some of the most powerful men in New York. I was never tempted. I do recall one very young and handsome rising star – I was engaged at the time. I knew he liked me, and I was flattered and attracted to him, but the thought of trading in my fiance for him was unthinkable. I never considered it or encouraged him. I admit I enjoyed the attention. Ultimately, he stopped pursuing it.
Mike C

In any case, this was a movie. It’s very possible this woman’s hypergamic impulse was not fulfilled with the man she married. In fact, it does not appear to have been. As it happens, he has sex with Penelope Cruz (who plays a hooker) that same day. Does this mean all men can’t avoid seeking sexual variety for even a few days after marrying? It’s a Woody Allen movie, you’re taking that way too seriously.

So I take it you are stating this movie scene is entirely implausible and unrealistic?

I’m genuinely curious. Do you literally not see or distinguish between having the core impulse to do something and not actually acting on it? In every single answer you continually conflate having a core desire for something with actually following through on it.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  For the record, I would like to clear up what I said about the scene in the new Woody Allen film.
  
  There’s a great scene in Woody Allen’s new movie To Rome With Love. By chance, a newlywed woman meets a movie star on the street while he’s filming, and he asks her to lunch then brings her to his hotel room. She goes into the bathroom, looks in the mirror and says this to herself:
  
  “If you sleep with him, you will regret it for the rest of your life. If you don’t sleep with him you will regret it for the rest of your life. Regret either way, might as well sleep with him.”
  
  I think that is a very accurate representation of the female thought process in a situation like that.
  
  In no way did I mean to imply that all or most newlywed women would go to another man’s hotel room while on her honeymoon. By “a situation like that” I mean that a woman who has placed herself in the hotel room of a man not her husband, is very likely to engage in the kind of logic seen above. Obviously, the act of going to a man’s hotel room is something very close to consent, so we may assume that she has already made her choice. The chat with herself in the mirror is just hamstering.
Desiderius

Susan,

“You and I have had several misunderstandings and miscommunications, but I have never suspected or accused you of trying to bait and switch or elude real and honest debate.”

I’ve definitely done what he was letting you know you had*, which “bait and switch” doesn’t really fit, as it implies premeditation, and that would be out of character for either one of us. This is confusing stuff, sometimes we forget what we figured out three months ago and make an argument that turned out then to not really work as we’d hoped.

As for evading real and honest debate, who hasn’t? Some of this stuff hits pretty close to home. If it were a pattern or there was a hidden agenda behind it, that would be different, but developing a healthy sense of reality or impeccable honesty is an ideal to be pursued, not something we’re born doing perfectly.

There once were Queensbury Rules of polite discourse, but the radfems abused them so badly that many are starting over from square one. That’s going to take some level of humility and trust. The tit-for-tat strategy starts with trust, not suspicion.

* – accusation is accurate but carries connotations that don’t fit his professed view of your character. I guess this gets back to the teaching thing. Good teachers create an environment of unconditional support and acceptance. Great teachers build on that to challenge students. The best help students learn to challenge themselves.

Good friends call each other out when needed – nothing is implied about the friends’ character, or there would be no friendship in the first place.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Desiderius
  
  Good friends call each other out when needed — nothing is implied about the friends’ character, or there would be no friendship in the first place.
  
  They do, and I appreciate that. I would simply point out the difference between someone respectfully inquiring about an apparent contradiction or inconsistency, and someone playing “Aha! Gotcha!” if they find any two sentences that appear to contradict each other.
  
  I certainly know the difference when I read it.
Desiderius

God, that reads SOOO condescending. NOT intended that way at all. Trying to figure out a better way to relate than what we’ve seen here. I’m perfectly willing to consider and accept your arguments and believe I have done so on many occasions, not about that.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

Susan says:

“No tingle or attraction to any other man for the duration of her marriage? Are you serious? Of course not! I have found many men attractive during my marriage.”

You say:

“So, you are saying, I gather, that there NO analagous situation for you? Some famous, handsome, rich, charming man who came on to you in a strong, non-cloying way, would not even tempt you? Not even cause a tingle?”

You’re talking past one another.
Desiderius

I never considered pursuing a student, Susan never considered trading up, because of the way we were raised. She says that’s the deal as well with her target audience. I’m willing to trust her on that.
Escoffier

missed that; burgundy
Mike C

My readers are very, very interested in why they are attracted to bad boys. I write a post about what girls want not for you, but for the women reading. One thing that is very clear from all the research is that female sexuality is very complex. Often we know what attracts us, but we’re not sure why, and we don’t know how to avoid bad decisions. Some of the posts women have found most helpful here are about players, cads and red flags.

It’s your blog…obviously you can write about whatever you want.

In the past (in this thread) you’ve told some guys to “sack up and stop whining” more or less. I agree with you on this, and I personally have zero empathy for the whiners.

When you post on certain things, you are basically inviting the discussion of the various items you then go on to say you are “sick of debating”. I think you’ve got to accept that certain posts are going to foster certain debate and responses.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  When you post on certain things, you are basically inviting the discussion of the various items you then go on to say you are “sick of debating”. I think you’ve got to accept that certain posts are going to foster certain debate and responses.
  
  That’s fine. I have no problem with having the uncomfortable conversations. What I do have a problem with is the repeated championing of a view without any corroborating evidence.
  
  In this case, it’s female hypergamy = seeking to trade up incrementally throughout life.
  
  The only source for this claim is not credible. He has offered a hypothesis, but has not sought to test it in any way. Not a single expert in mating, evo psych, evo bio or sexuality shares his view. I have never seen hypergamy define this way anywhere else. Devlin’s view is unique. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, but without any attempt to confirm it, even by the author, I see no reason why I should accept it. Particularly since it does not resonate with my own knowledge of female sexuality.
Desiderius

MikeC,

She’s sick of debating with men. I want her readers to speak up even if it means I have to go away.
Cooper

@Susan

You know, TBH, I never knew this was your opinion. I was kinda, (and I don’t know why, really), under the assumption that “lifelong trading up” was some sort of basic instinct that, under the red pill knowledge, is always to be expected from women. (and present)
Similar to middle-age men having an appreciation for a young woman’s appearance – it is always there.
Abbot

“the way we were raised. She says that’s the deal as well with her target audience”

It all comes down to how women are raised. There is no greater behavioral factor. Promiscuous women were mal nurtured. It is as simple as that. You know who you are.
Kathy

“However. I have never for one moment considered the objectively attractive man as a potential replacement for my husband. I have never flirted with any of them or entertained fantasies of leaving my husband for any of them. By the way, most of these attractive men are of similar or lower status than my husband. Of the men I know who are of higher status than my husband, I can’t think of a single one I find attractive. ”

This is exactly how it has been for me as well, Susan.

Of course I notice atractive men. Hell, I’m not dead yet!!

However, as I have said previously.. Never.. Not once have I thought to myself, that I would like to have sex with another man. Nor have I ever been tempted, either..

Status btw has never been something that’s floated my boat.
My DH had a fledgling business when we first married (and not much money) and built it up to become a very successful one over the next few years.

“The whole lifelong trading up for higher status thing is just wacked, IMO.”

I’ll co-sign that a thousand times over.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@SW

I read through studies, spending considerable time on each. I even review the statistics to satisfy myself.

You have my eternal sympathy here. It’s difficult to do, and balance a normal life and work schedule. And then have it flushed down the toilet. Hopefully your lurking readership is appreciative.
Cooper

I’ve got a semi-OT subject that recently cme to my mind. It’s something I always thought sounded wrong. Perhaps I’m jut choking on basic evo-physc here, but either way it won’t be the first time my gut turns out to be wrong. (it terms of this sexuality stuff)

So, here goes – there two statements that just don’t make any sense to me. (and I picked two, that I thought were compatible, to avoid seeming like I’m addressing one sex)
1. Men have developed a preference for casual sex to increase the chances of offspring. 2. Women have casual sex in order to access “better genes” from a alpha.

1. Men have developed a preference for casual sex into order to spread more seed.
How many men are really having more children via casual sex?
Sure, there’s a corrilation between (chances of getting pregnant via sex) and (qauntity of sex) that suggest the more sex a man has the more likely he may have children.
But, way more important than that corrilation, isn’t the length of the relationship much more associated with the chance of offspring than number of sexual partners. (considering “casual sex” is a rather, well recently more common, new thing, right?)
Especially, now-a-days where I’m almost certain that the man is going to be accountable to support the child. (or mother raising it)
So, even I’d evo-physc is right that men seek to obtain as many offspring as possible, is casual sex really the best way? (isn’t the guy going to held accountable for the first, and not continue to achieve more “spreading of his seed”?)

2. Women sleep have casual sex to obtain better genes
So, I suppose that this one is under the assumption that she will be able to bed a “higher status man” (aka better genes) by not demanding commitment, and thus gaining access to the seed that she otherwise wouldnt have.
How many women are actually have children from the casual sexual encounters? (and the ones hat do are most likely holding the biological father accountable)
Are women really having casual sex with alpha men in attempt to pregnant themselves, so they can “have his genes?”
Surely, this is more about the “fun” of sleeping with a man that, a woman, otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity to f she requested similar things, that she would of similar-value partners.

In a day n age where casual sex is, not new, but waay more prevalent than previous generations; and accountability of biological parents to support their children is, I’m not sure, but damn near certain – why are we using animal-kingdom type physcology to explain the popularity of casual sex?

My golden question, like always: am I out in left field?
INTJ

@ Abbot

A lot of emotional wreckage is born from the hooker up fad.

Pun intended?
Ramble

Read the Definitive post again slowly.

Shit, you are in a real mood.

Well, at least you did not call me a fuck twit.
Ted D

Susan – ” Whenever you and Ted D say stuff like this I feel like renting some of KC Lardo’s rabid pack”

No need for that in my case. If my presence is unwelcome simply tell me and I will leave.

And as to your statement regarding how a man can keep a successful relationship while looking over his shoulder: he can’t. IMO there are two ways to handle the knowledge that your GF/wife is to some extent always looking to trade up.
1. Do your damndest to be the best guy she can reasonably get.
2. Do your best to not give a shit if it happens.

I believe the most successful method is a combination of the two, although the mix should be mostly 1 with enough 2 in the mix to imply you have options, or at least that you are confident you can replace her without too much hassle. The rub for me so far is in order to keep #2 in play, I am at odds with my desire to be very emotionally connected. Aloofness requires a certain degree of emotional separatin that conflicts with my drive to fully bond on an emotional level. Wat I’ve found so far is this manifests for me in periods where I feel a bit emotionally distant from my wife. It scared the shit out of me the first few times it happened, but it passes and we become “lovey dovey” again. What I find interesting is usually it is my
wife’s resulting increase in emotional escalation that brings us back. Meaning, she senses a subtle pulling away on my part and responds by pulling me back. This makes perfect sense to me when viewed through a Red Pill lens. However I’m left feeling like our emotional connection may never increase because of this, and I fret over the long term implications for myself. I wonder if over time I will become numb to that feeling of loss when we hit those “off” periods, which I think would increase my aloofness factor, but may also decrease my desire to reconnect on the other side. Its too early to predict yet, but it is something I keep a mental eye on.

Of course the ideal is to choose a mate with enough integrity to stave off any desire to trade up, but since that is at best an educated guess, the only thing you can fully count on is your own behavior.
Jackie

I apologize if I am interrupting or presumptuous; I really enjoy the topics here and think the commentators are all really smart and nice. This website is such a great place!

This is Susan’s virtual living room; she is the host and we are the guests. She goes to a LOT of effort to make sure we have food for thought (multiple posts), a great looking place (logo stuff, design) and keeps everything in ship-shape. It would be great to be Emily-Post-approved guests in return.

Maybe it’s just me– I think tone can be really tricky on-line.

For example, a while back I was being mean to Evil Alpha (sorry, EA!) and said something I would not have said to him if we were really at a party in person. It was unbecoming and I apologized, Susan deleted the offending comments and Evil Alpha was gracious enough to grant me forgiveness for my faux pas.

Anyway, if we are missing the mark on tone, maybe take a minute and check this out :
http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/the-cutest-things-that-ever-happened

and come back refreshed and ready for the rest of the party.
Mike C

Ted D @945,

Shit man, that was great stuff.

And as to your statement regarding how a man can keep a successful relationship while looking over his shoulder: he can’t. IMO there are two ways to handle the knowledge that your GF/wife is to some extent always looking to trade up.
1. Do your damndest to be the best guy she can reasonably get.
2. Do your best to not give a shit if it happens.

I was struggling to think how to respond to Susan’s point on this, and you’ve captured my thoughts perfectly. Confession time, when my first wife left me in October 2004, I started to actually have some suicidal thoughts. I actually lost my job in the same week so it was compounded by that. I’m not that man anymore. He died and a new man was reborn from his ashes. If my current relationship ended for whatever reason, I don’t think I’d be able to “not give a shit”. But I’d know with certainty my world isn’t crumbling and that there are plenty of other women out there in terms of either meeting my sex and/or relationship needs.

And I think your #1 is spot on as well. There is no way to say this without bragging, but I know across a variety of metrics I am a catch. I’m pretty much 99.9% sure she isn’t going to be able to do better than me. I think for any man who is going to commit to a LTR or marriage, there is tremendous practical utility and security in either selecting for or doing your best to be a man where on some level the woman knows there is no way she is going to do better than you. That’s how you remove the fear of the “trade up”. I’d never marry a 24-25 year old Playboy Playmate going to parties surrounded by rich and famous men no matter how much she said she loved me because I know I’d be living every day with brutal competition.
Mike C

Aloofness requires a certain degree of emotional separatin that conflicts with my drive to fully bond on an emotional level. Wat I’ve found so far is this manifests for me in periods where I feel a bit emotionally distant from my wife. It scared the shit out of me the first few times it happened, but it passes and we become “lovey dovey” again. What I find interesting is usually it is my
wife’s resulting increase in emotional escalation that brings us back. Meaning, she senses a subtle pulling away on my part and responds by pulling me back.

Ted, I feel you here. I feel this myself. It is a hard thing to come to terms with. But I think it is correct. Regarding the bolded part, yes, yes, yes. I think this is the role of the woman in the relationship. I’ve pondered this alot. I think in a relationship with proper dynamics, there is always some element of the woman as “chaser” winning the “prize” of the man. I think once that dynamic gets reversed the relationship is in trouble, and the danger of the woman’s hypergamy circuitry getting activated increases. I think there is a balance because I don’t think total emotional distance works either. This is why I think something like Roissy’s 2/3-1/3 rule in terms of emotional exchange really is a good rule for a man to follow in terms of giving enough emotional energy and intimacy without becoming the “chaser”.
Ted D

Mike C – it is very fortunate for me that when my ex left we agreed the children should stay with me in the home they knew. Some days the only thing that kept me from leaving the car run after I shut the door behind me and slipping away was knowing that on the other side of the wall were two people that loved and needed me. I promised myself I would never allow my dependence on someone make me feel that hopelessness again. However this led me to the conundrum I stated above. To achieve that goal, I can never be that emotionally invested in a woman again. And frankly, it still stings.
Mike C

I promised myself I would never allow my dependence on someone make me feel that hopelessness again. However this led me to the conundrum I stated above. To achieve that goal, I can never be that emotionally invested in a woman again. And frankly, it still stings.

I know exactly where you are coming from. It would be interesting to get 100 guys or 1000 guys in a room who all went through the kind of traumatic relationship endings we did and see how common this response is. I believe men generally go through much deeper emotional turmoil than women do when a long-term LTR with a presumably deep emotional connection ends. This is actually one strength women have over men. They appear to essentially have the ability to separate themselves from the past and more quickly and effectively “move on”.

Hopefully, Susan will let this one excerpt stand, but Rollo addressed this in his War Brides post awhile back:

Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed at a moment’s notice. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women.

I think the answer as a man is to never get that emotionally invested where your very mental well-being is at stake if things go south. And yes, that really does suck.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Cooper
I will try to respond to the best of my knowlegde. The thing with evo-bio is that you always going to find conflict. Till we have a time machine and can actually observe 51% of our ancestors we are going to have to extrapolate for the info we have available. So this is just what I think it happens.

So, here goes – there two statements that just don’t make any sense to me. (and I picked two, that I thought were compatible, to avoid seeming like I’m addressing one sex)
1. Men have developed a preference for casual sex to increase the chances of offspring.

This is again I think an spectrum my guess is that there are men with tons of Alpha genes that inherited a stronger predilection for seeding than for caring of the offspring after is born and ensure his/her own reproduction. Thus in a numbers gamble The question would be what were the chances of success, human babies are very fragile the longest time in comparison with other animals and the risk of dying in childbirth was also high still surely many of this babies make it to adulthood and reproduced on their own.
Then some other men developed the lean more into the caring territory, lowering the risks of dying in childbirth by providing protein and resources to a selected woman and staying around for the kid to grow up, protecting the mother and the kid to make sure survival till they could reproduce, again is anyone’s guess how many of this kids survived in relationship with the seeders. But given that we slowly developed towards monogamy one can say that seeding had issues that forced people to replace it.
My guess is that men in modern times have a mix of this traits and some of them are going to lean more into seeding while others into caring, depending of how many of their ancestors come from one line or another. But is an spectrum, the ideal for any man is to find out where does he lies and how can he cope with it. Of course both strategies come with personality traits and probably have also periods where is stronger depending on circumstances diets and societal pressure.

2. Women have casual sex in order to access “better genes” from a alpha.

Same situation but for women. Gambling for good genes without knowing if they will have support during and after the pregnancy or counting with secondary support. They might end up winning the lottery of good genes and support from someone else or they could end up dying on childbirth or have beasts or disease taking their babies before they grow up because there was no male support during a delicate period of time. While some women selected for the caring type that will stick around and protect her and their offspring. Again this most be an spectrum, some women more leaning to gambling while some others being into the caring part more than others.
Interestingly enough cuckoldry is supposed to combine this two, One seeder and one different carer but this is another supposition of how much of it was practiced on the past. Specially when paternity certainty was important in secure the resources of the males that were using the caring strategy. Would this males leave their women during long periods of time? Or would stay around if the baby/offspring didn’t looked like him?
Hope that helps.
Mike C

Ted,

I’ll add….and I’m speculating a bit here, but I think a man experiences the “death” of a relationship/marriage to a similar magnitude as perhaps a woman experiences a “death” of a child.

I’m reading in between the lines here but there were a few comments that indicated once a woman is a mother she most certainly prioritizes her children more than her husband and I suspect the depth of her love for her children exceeds that of the husband greatly. From a purely evolutionary perspective, this seems sensible. Mother Nature sure is a bitch…haha
Mike C

Correction….second use of death in first paragraph shouldn’t have been in quotes since it is actual
INTJ

@ Cooper

It won’t be long before casual sex won’t result in children, thanks to advances in contraception. But it’ll take about at least a dozen generations for that to be reflected in the SMP.
INTJ

* I mean’t for that to be reflected in the SMP due to evolution. Currently, people are still running on mating tactics that evolved tens of thousands of years ago.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

It won’t be long before casual sex won’t result in children, thanks to advances in contraception. But it’ll take about at least a dozen generations for that to be reflected in the SMP.

Evolution is slower than that. To see the results of this SMP will take a lot longer and that is not counting that USA is just one SMP, with the possibility of mixing with other cultures and environments thing will take a lot longer.
Mike C

So, even I’d evo-physc is right that men seek to obtain as many offspring as possible, is casual sex really the best way? (isn’t the guy going to held accountable for the first, and not continue to achieve more “spreading of his seed”?)

Cooper,

I’m having some difficulty following your argument and questions but I would say this. You can’t think of how we evolved in terms of sex and reproduction with our modern society as the backdrop. We evolved as small tribes of hunter-gatherers, not a hundred million person nation with a complex network of connections, urbanization, techonology, and industrialization. And hunter-gatherers didn’t have contraception. There were no condoms or birth control. In the distant path hundreds of thousands of years ago sex = pregnancy. You have to view any evolutionary analysis of casual sex through that prism, not the modern one that casual sex may not result in children because that is an artificial result of technology.
Mike C

Evolution is slower than that.

Yes, evolution is VERY SLOW. Consider this item. We’ve been an agricultural species for something like 10,000 to 12,000 years I believe. So theoretically we’ve had that amount of time to evolve and adjust to a primarily grain/carb based diet. Yet TODAY many people experience tremendous success when they switch to the more “Paleo” diet and eat more like the hunter-gatherers that predated our switch to agricultural. So here we are 12,000 years later still genetically wired for that old dietary makeup.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

Evolution is slower than that. To see the results of this SMP will take a lot longer and that is not counting that USA is just one SMP, with the possibility of mixing with other cultures and environments thing will take a lot longer.

I was being very overoptimistic, making all sorts of assumptions like feminists not having any children and breeding themselves out of the genepool really quickly, and players being too busy fucking sluts to settle down and have children. Not to mention Sai assassinating Amanda Marcotte and being hailed the savior of the beta males.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I was being very overoptimistic, making all sorts of assumptions like feminists not having any children and breeding themselves out of the genepool really quickly, and players being too busy fucking sluts to settle down and have children. Not to mention Sai assassinating Amanda Marcotte and being hailed the savior of the beta males.

Heh I can see that. The problem with this theory is that feminists have access to sperm donors, ONS and many of them do decide to have at least one offspring and that like all ideologies it can be transmitted by propaganda, they can teach other generation that “when in doubt add more feminism” the same for players even if they don’t have official channels game is becoming widespread thus not sure if we are going to see this two types disappear anytime soon if at all.
And for Amanda I hope she doesn’t do it. Sai shouldn’t go to jail for that and the last thing feminism needs is a martyr, YMMV.
Cooper

Thanks for the explanation, Anacaona. It did help.

I guess I’m not looking at it in terms of that long ago, and just compared to the last century.

Hasn’t casual-sex significantly increased in the last 100-years? (of course, because of birth control)
I find it weird that we are explaining it with ancient evolutionary birthing trends.
Sai

I can’t kill Marcotte myself… I have to drop the crates of porn over Pakistan, remember?
modernguy

“And until you find that man that has the first traits you’ll take all the men that have the second.

Precisely, especially when the supply of the good men is very low, or appears to be.”

No, I meant you’ll take all the men that have the second. One after the other.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I guess I’m not looking at it in terms of that long ago, and just compared to the last century.

Hasn’t casual-sex significantly increased in the last 100-years? (of course, because of birth control)
I find it weird that we are explaining it with ancient evolutionary birthing trends.

Well that is part of the problem modern society stopped needing this strategies long ago. You don’t need more than one partner to successfully reproduce anymore giving that at least in the first world the chances of raising our kids till adulthood are really high, the highest they had been ever in history so we have vestigial traits that can or can’t do good depending on the environment. I mean in an emergency you want your fly or fight response to be the sharpest possible and it might save your life, but when in a job interview or doing public speaking you wish you could just be relaxed but for many people it doesn’t work that way, YMMV.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I can’t kill Marcotte myself… I have to drop the crates of porn over Pakistan, remember?

I told you it won’t work. You need to drop porn for men and Cosmo for women along with SATC and Kardashian’s and Snooki’s DVD’s if you want to destroy their culture for good.
Samael

@ Mike C 958
There’s a theory that certain blood types have an effect and digestion and were related somehow to diets in the past. One of my ex’s was interested in this because growing up she would have serious stomach pains after eating, and after zero results from doctor’s visits she found this study and her blood type suggested a mostly vegetarian diet.. so she stopped eating meat and the stomach pains disappeared.

Also there was a guy on Coast to Coast AM talking diets and he has a theory that most of the major civilizations that thrived in history lived on starches. Incas grew potatoes, Aztecs grew corn, the North american Indians grew corn, Asia has its rice, Europe had several including pasta. He even had done research on how gladiators in ancient Greece ate a vegan diet that mostly consisted of beans. His theory with America’s obesity problems is that in America it’s cheap for anyone to eat like royalty (i.e. meats, fats, sweets) so we have the bodies to reflect it.

While there are evidence of hunting in pre-historic times, there’s some thought that it was in reality something like a once a year to 18 months between kills so meat was not as readily available as one would assume.

The people that may far well on a paleo diet probably have a genetic lineage of peoples that lived in cold climate as they needed the extra fat and calories to maintain body temperatures.

Obviously there’s a lot about our past we don’t really know yet so while I think evo-psych has some merit it’s not concrete yet. I think the past few hundred years do show that with the right nurturing women can indeed feel genuine attraction to men of good character without excessive dark triad-isms. The thing is no one is doing this in our lovely feminist cesspool we refer to as the SMP. *sigh*

INTJ @ 959
“Not to mention Sai assassinating Amanda Marcotte and being hailed the savior of the beta males.” EPIC.
Joe

A new HUS bumper sticker???

SAVE THE BETA MALES!
Samael

Damn it Jackie.. that stuff you post should have a warning label!
I almost over dosed on uplifitng cuteness and positivity…….must keep death grip on nihilistic red pill bitterness…..breath..shortening….brain not feel right……ack!
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

The people that may far well on a paleo diet probably have a genetic lineage of peoples that lived in cold climate as they needed the extra fat and calories to maintain body temperatures.

This is interesting my mother had always issues with anemia and when we went vegetarian she had a great blood chemistry again, while my sister got worse during it. I also can’t handle vaccines in here in my country I never got sick from them even as an adult when I was doing the paperwork the vaccines that they gave me imported from USA make me sick like a dog for a week. According to some research people that grew up in the tropics might have different immune systems than from other parts of the globe, YMMV.
Jackie

@Samael (968)

Mission accomplished!

PS: Don’t worry– I won’t tell the Manosphere!
PPS: The baby sheep was so cute I kinda wanted to give it a hug.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Jackie
That was lovely on your part my favorite were the cats wearing sweaters and the eye seeing cat…so cute.
Jackie

Thanks, Ana! But I think it needed more pics of Dominican mini-tornado cats to be complete. Hope you and the baby are doing OK– get lots of rest while you can!
szopen

@cooper, anacaona
There is another thing to add. Even in recently modern times there were tribes, in which people didn’t knew that males have ANY role in conception of the child. There is no reason to doubt that this could be similar millions years ago.

I see it as we have many strategies and preferences. They were developed during different times of our evolution and were adaptations to different environment and situation. As such, such strategies and preferences are very often directly contradicting. For example “asshole preference” for woman and “casual sex preference” for males would be developed millions years ago, when we lived in very small tribes in which males could not even know which child was theirs.

Obviously, evolution does not require males to KNOW that they have role in procreation, just as evolution does not require females to KNOW that some looks or behaviours signal good genes of the partner. Males could care more for some children instinctively, just because that children resemble them, not even knowing why they like those children.

Then we had long transitional period in which this previous strategy would not be enough, especially in harsher climate or during some long crisis, in which access to resources became scarce. The older strategy still exist, even if it could become maladaptation -it was just supplemented by new strategy – a wish to have a longterm partner, who could provide for children.

Both desires should be considered “primal urges” and it would be therefore as correct to say “woman dig arseholes” as “woman dig good fathers” — those would be simply manifestation of two different, conflicting strategies present in woman.
VD

I confess I find it ironic that many of the guys who want to discount scientific research are STEM.

Because they know that surveys and polls aren’t real science, Susan, in the sense of the actual scientific method involving hypothesis and replicable experimentation. Surveys and polls can be useful indicators if done properly, but they’re not hard science.

Remember, a man will tell you that he’s not turned on by gay porn and a woman will tell you she isn’t stimulated by seeing bonobos mate. But the sensor ring on his penis and the electronic tampon don’t lie. All the surveys in the world about what men and women say they want are ultimately irrelevant, but they will have to do until properly objective metrics are created.
szopen

@mike C
“The problem is that some of what you want me to believe completely flies in the face of the direct information I get on a daily basis UNLESS every single woman I am hearing about is part of this “slutty” 20%.”

Not a single of my friends or from my family smokes cigarettes. Not a single of my friends watches TV, and many of them (me included) does not have tv set. About quarter of my friends is libertarian and I never knew personally anyone voting for self-defence (the worse kind of self-defence party).

Does that mean that I should not believe the statistics? Or maybe it means that simply I live in quite specific environment, whose characteristics are different from the whole country?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Does that mean that I should not believe the statistics? Or maybe it means that simply I live in quite specific environment, whose characteristics are different from the whole country?

Social bubbles here are very hard to break. I have most of my liberal friends from association with hubby but then my Toastmaster’s club is mostly conservative and is like they don’t even listen to each other. Is so weird and fascinating and I already mentioned that I know more about hook up culture than my husband and his siblings that work on colleges. Is like out if sight out of mind. So I think confirmation bias can and will affect the perception of many people in this culture, YMMV.
JustYX

@Samael
Re The Bene Gesserit Jackie

As a wise man once said, “Stay away from me! That nuclear level of sweetness scares the hell out of me! I have a reputation as teh eviiiilzz MRA to consider”

So, it’s not just you mate, we all need to stay strong together…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JustYX
  
  Re The Bene Gesserit Jackie
  
  OMG I can’t believe you said this. I started Dune this weekend, having never read it before. I’m about a third of the way through. It’s taken me a while to get into it, but now I am feeling invested.
szopen

“worse kind of self-defence party” should read “worse kind of populist party”. Duh.

@anacona
You may be interested in this:
http://dontbubble.us/
JustYX

@Bene Gesserit Jackie
(recently watched Dune & Children of Dune, sorry.)

The Bene Gesserit ‘Witches’ used manipulation and words in the voice, to achieve their aims. But even they never considered nuclear level sweetness (they had ethical standards…just sayin’)

If you’re looking for an avatar that retains anonymity, you could try
http://www.themakeupgallery.info/hair/scifi/dune.htm

Go to Gravatar.com and set up an account using the same email address that you use for here, upload and crop an image, et voila your gravatar will be retrospectively applied to all your past posts as well as your new ones…not that I’d dare tell a Bene Gesserit what to do…clearly

Oh, and welcome back, it’s been a while..
SciGuy

“I confess I find it ironic that many of the guys who want to discount scientific research are STEM.

Because they know that surveys and polls aren’t real science, Susan, in the sense of the actual scientific method involving hypothesis and replicable experimentation. Surveys and polls can be useful indicators if done properly, but they’re not hard science.”

And your point might have some validity if those guys actually discussed “real” science, but they don’t: they speak mostly of personal anecdotes and their own opinions, and nothing more. At least Susan is trying to base her opinions on the research that does exist, imperfect though it may be.

Also, I can hardly believe you chose phallometry as an alleged example of “hard science”.

All joking aside, the plethysmograph is hardly a rock-solid example (see what I did there?) of a rigorous scientific measurement. There is no agreed-upon standard for the stimuli used in the test, and the results depend on the interpretation of the testing psychologist, much like with a polygraph. Hardly the hallmark of hard science.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @SciGuy
  
  And your point might have some validity if those guys actually discussed “real” science, but they don’t: they speak mostly of personal anecdotes and their own opinions, and nothing more. At least Susan is trying to base her opinions on the research that does exist, imperfect though it may be.
  
  This is my policy. Sure, sex surveys are fallible, social science is soft. The question is, do we learn more by doing studies or by writing them off entirely? It seems pretty clear to me that we’ve learned a lot about sexuality since Kinsey came on the scene. I’m always in favor of more information rather than willful ignorance. Intelligent people can weigh the validity of a study. People who dismiss studies as useless are frightened of having their illusions destroyed.
VJ

I just want the record to reflect that the likeliest location for Both those ‘Ungrateful Bitches & Insensitive Assholes’, is of course somewhere in NJ. Naturally. And the export market remains very strong too (see ‘Jersey Shore, Chris Christie etc.) Thanks. This has been a message of the NJ Tourism, VisitNJ.org. ‘VJ’
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @VJ
  
  Haha, New Jersey does seem to spawn a lot of very low culture. OTOH, NJ gave us Bruce Springsteen.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Don’t know if someone has already made this point somewhere in the preceding 981 comments on this thread…but it strikes me that the dichotomy “hot & mean” vs “not-hot & nice” as applied to men is pretty much parallel to the “madonna” vs “whore” dichotomy as applied to women.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @david foster
  
  it strikes me that the dichotomy “hot & mean” vs “not-hot & nice” as applied to men is pretty much parallel to the “madonna” vs “whore” dichotomy as applied to women.
  
  You’re the first to make that point, and it’s a very interesting one, IMO. Do you care to elaborate?
Höllenhund

Re: #752

So they start from the notion that all guys—a diverse group that might include City or Wall Street investment bankers, arms dealers like Kashoggi and Said, professional athletes, celebrity actors, etc.—want the same basic “alpha” template in terms of look: “tall, symmetrical, comfortable mesomorph with money and good taste.”

Kashoggi was actually cuckolded by his wife. If that isn’t pure beta behavior, I don’t know what is.
Abbot

“the dichotomy “hot & mean” vs “not-hot & nice” as applied to men is pretty much parallel to the “madonna” vs “whore” dichotomy as applied to women.”

That whole contrived in anger solely by feminists and promiscuous women MvH thing is meant to get men to shame each other for avoiding commitment to naturally wife unworthy women aka prolific hot-and-mean-penis hoppers. It was created in response to the men-willing-to-marry-sluts shortage and for NO other reason as there cannot possibly be any other reason. That campaign, along with the sheeple-hypocrite-caveman campaign, is entirely ineffective, the hilarious entertaining factor notwithstanding.

One obvious difference: — men will fuck all they can as women permit and that experience brings out the natural tendency to categorize this female behavioral pattern into no-way piles and other women who do not exhibit these traits into keeper piles. — women will fuck (express, bake cookies) the erection-du-jour attached to the most desirable guy possible above their league and learn nothing from their own behavioral pattern.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

The madonna-vs-whore dichotomy can go beyond “I want to marry a virgin” to “If she enjoys sex then she’s not a virtuous woman.” Probably fairly uncommon in American culture today, but has been reported to have been fairly common in many cultures historically.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

This is interesting my mother had always issues with anemia and when we went vegetarian she had a great blood chemistry again, while my sister got worse during it. I also can’t handle vaccines in here in my country I never got sick from them even as an adult when I was doing the paperwork the vaccines that they gave me imported from USA make me sick like a dog for a week. According to some research people that grew up in the tropics might have different immune systems than from other parts of the globe, YMMV.

That’s really weird. I’m going to look into the causes of that. After all, in most cases, a vegetarian diet is a cause of anemia (due to iron deficiency).
INTJ

@ VD

Because they know that surveys and polls aren’t real science, Susan, in the sense of the actual scientific method involving hypothesis and replicable experimentation. Surveys and polls can be useful indicators if done properly, but they’re not hard science.

Remember, a man will tell you that he’s not turned on by gay porn and a woman will tell you she isn’t stimulated by seeing bonobos mate. But the sensor ring on his penis and the electronic tampon don’t lie. All the surveys in the world about what men and women say they want are ultimately irrelevant, but they will have to do until properly objective metrics are created.

Yes. We see how murky social science is and how polls and surveys barely scratch the surface, because they go for breadth of analysis instead of depth.

It should be also noted that in Physics at least, many of the important observations are not nearly as statistically formalized as the social sciences studies that we see. In fact, Physicists rely much more on qualitative judgements than quantitative observations.

I’d give far more credence to a social science study that observes several couples in detail and tries to capture as much about them as possible as opposed to a study that surveys thousands of couples.
INTJ

@ szopen

You may be interested in this:
http://dontbubble.us/

That’s cool. I’ll give it a spin. Though to be sure, there are relatively straightforward ways of maintaining privacy (and thus breaking out of the filter bubble) on other search engines. Still, it’s nice to find a search engine that does this by default.
Sai

@Anacaona
“I told you it won’t work. You need to drop porn for men and Cosmo for women along with SATC and Kardashian’s and Snooki’s DVD’s if you want to destroy their culture for good.”
You’re right, I’d forgotten that part.
Who would’ve thought Jersey Shore could be so useful to the world after all?

@Samael
I remember seeing a book on that. I think it was called “Eat Well for Your Blood Type.”
I read someplace else that only certain animals can really digest meat well because after they eat they devote hours to laying there and processing it. (I hope it’s not true, I thought about giving up meat and failed.)

@szopen
“Both desires should be considered “primal urges” and it would be therefore as correct to say “woman dig arseholes” as “woman dig good fathers” — those would be simply manifestation of two different, conflicting strategies present in woman.”
I think it’s fine to say that.

@SciGuy
“All joking aside, the plethysmograph is hardly a rock-solid example (see what I did there?) of a rigorous scientific measurement. There is no agreed-upon standard for the stimuli used in the test, and the results depend on the interpretation of the testing psychologist, much like with a polygraph. Hardly the hallmark of hard science.”
ROFL also informative. If they worked on standardizing that they might be able to learn a lot more about people’s preferences.

Also ROFL at VJ’s post.
INTJ

@ Sai

I read someplace else that only certain animals can really digest meat well because after they eat they devote hours to laying there and processing it. (I hope it’s not true, I thought about giving up meat and failed.)

Hey but I do lay about for a couple of hours to laying there and digesting meat after I eat it…

However, the Ayurvedic view is that our intestines are designed to digest vegetation, as they’re much longer than the intestines of carnivorous animals. It’s why we have to cook most meat to break up the proteins before eating it.
Abbot

Just a crazy guess – feminists and promiscuous women are going to hate all over this beginning in 5, 4, 3….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197073/The-wait-thats-worth-New-couples-delay-sex-longest-happiest.html

But why? Why is mainstream news like this ALWAYS shot down??
Höllenhund

It is not wrong for men to prioritize superficial qualities like appearance over character or intelligence.

It is not wrong for women to prioritize “genetic fitness,” as demonstrated by dominance and strength, over character or intelligence.

Both sexes make tradeoffs to maximize their reproductive potential. The imperative is biological, and is the same for both sexes. The sexes are in conflict during mating. It has ever been thus. Stop whining about it.

Well, if we accept that “the sexes are in conflict during mating” then it’s rather misleading to declare that they share the same imperative. Reproduction is a shared goal, but much more crucial is the difference in HOW the different sexes want to reach that goal.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Hollenhund
  
  Reproduction is a shared goal, but much more crucial is the difference in HOW the different sexes want to reach that goal.
  
  That’s a good point. The truth is, we are at cross purposes to some extent. We should not be trying to eliminate this conflict in mating, in my view. It produces the best compromise, or best chances of mating success. Not only that but something I learned in acting: Conflict is drama. Drama is friction. People are aroused by friction, and in fact, arousal leads to friction, i.e. sex.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

I can’t find who wrote this in this long thread, but someone made the comment they didn’t believe the Alpha Carousel to Beta Provider didn’t really exist.

I haven’t seen it either. What I have seen is Not-Too-Smart Promiscuous Lower-Class Woman gets pregnant by a Lower-Class Drug Addict, then tries to and can’t find a Beta Provider because she now has a child, no car, no job, a cheap apartment, and lives on welfare.

I have also seen Promiscuous Middle-Class Party Girl ends up Hostile Spinster on Psychiatric Drugs and Blaming Men because I Don’t Have Husband, Home and Children.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  What I have seen is Not-Too-Smart Promiscuous Lower-Class Woman gets pregnant by a Lower-Class Drug Addict, then tries to and can’t find a Beta Provider because she now has a child, no car, no job, a cheap apartment, and lives on welfare.
  
  I have also seen Promiscuous Middle-Class Party Girl ends up Hostile Spinster on Psychiatric Drugs and Blaming Men because I Don’t Have Husband, Home and Children.
  
  Hilarious and so true.
Desiderius

SciGuy,

“And your point might have some validity if those guys actually discussed “real” science, but they don’t: they speak mostly of personal anecdotes and their own opinions, and nothing more. At least Susan is trying to base her opinions on the research that does exist, imperfect though it may be.

“Real” science in many of these areas is verboten, and that effects the direction of the imperfection in the science that does exist. In this environment of great uncertainty, that direction is taken into account while employing the usual means people have relied on to make sense of the world around us, some of it more consistent with the scientific method than much that goes on in the name of science these days.

Again, the Peter Lynch investment strategy is a good expression of how this works.

One important strategy in this approach is relying on trustworthy people who have first-hand knowledge of/experience with the phenomenon in question. I have more of that with the MMC/dealing with the second wave SMP, Susan has more with her target audience.

This blog is about Susan’s target audience. I’m going with her take there. If she, and the many other people doing similar work in that area, has success with the target audience (young UMC), it will have a powerful effect on the areas I know better, so my knowledge of the facts on the ground there is of less importance.
Abbot

“Promiscuous Middle-Class Party Girl ends up Hostile Spinster ”

That is exactly the message that feminists are trying to bury or debunk. Note how they do it – by stating its a lie meant to push women backward but they NEVER EVER ask men about it although the entire scenario depends solely and directly on men.
Desiderius

Bob,

“I can’t find who wrote this in this long thread, but someone made the comment they didn’t believe the Alpha Carousel to Beta Provider didn’t really exist.”

I would add Less Than Marriage Material Boyfriend ends up Can’t Find a Husband Because I Intimidate All The Men
INTJ

@ Desiderius

I have no problem with the thesis that women in Susan’s target audience are not that attracted to asshole qualities. It’s a self-selected group of women after all.

The problem is when she generalizes that to most women, when clearly the opposite is true. That’s not to say that women all chase after assholes, anymore than I chase after multiple girls. But the innate sexual attraction certainly exists.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The problem is when she generalizes that to most women, when clearly the opposite is true. That’s not to say that women all chase after assholes, anymore than I chase after multiple girls. But the innate sexual attraction certainly exists.
  
  HELLO? Anybody home? Did you read the post? Women go for assholes.
Desiderius

Susan,

“Nope. More like: If you have an argument to make, do so intelligently and with supporting evidence. Don’t just keep barking the same emotional debating point at me, i.e. ‘Men were lied to, women are to blame.'”

The emotional debating point I prefer to bark is that Boomers were to blame but whatever. Blame leads to judgment, and judgement of either women or Boomers is a non-starter in this environment, given the power both enjoy.

There are productive things we can do together that involve neither.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@Desiderius

“would add Less Than Marriage Material Boyfriend ends up Can’t Find a Husband Because I Intimidate All The Men”

Smart, Strong, Successful Busy Woman Seeking….hello, hello, where are all the Good Men? Back where I left them in my 20? What do you mean I’m hostile and unpleasant and unfeminine?!?!
Abbot

Marcotte and the sheeple shamer are going to HATE that Cornell study and many “women of experience” will get no sympathy –

“Women particularly benefited from not leaping into bed at the first opportunity. Marriage also seemed to make them happier than co-habiting.”

“Analysis of the data clearly showed the women who had waited to have sex to be happier. And those who waited at least six months scored more highly in every category measured than those who got intimate within the first month. Even their sex lives were better. The link was weaker for men.”

Well yeah, if there is waiting going on its because the woman is demanding it and that means its extremely probable she had very few other penis experiences. This Cornell study pretty much seals it for HUS.
Desiderius

INTJ,

“The problem is when she generalizes that to most women, when clearly the opposite is true. That’s not to say that women all chase after assholes, anymore than I chase after multiple girls. But the innate sexual attraction certainly exists.”

Before the Sexual Devolution, most women faked it until they made it in developing healthy attraction triggers. The UMC let their freak flag of valuing good provider traits fly, and the rest were inspired to follow. The whole house of cards begins with Susan’s target audience getting it right.
Desiderius

Leadership (looking out for the team, not #1) works better than “provider” in the above.
Desiderius

Bob,

I think Susan’s readers have gotten the message and are sick of hearing it by now. Time to talk about, and more importantly, listen to, them.
Abbot

Its global…even in France! Marcotte must be pounding and growling at her keyboard. “Grrrr, got to do damage control and get my minions back to their regularly scheduled penis”!

http://frenchtribune.com/teneur/1213200-delay-sex-and-give-more-time-your-relation
Desiderius

MikeC,

“The subtext* she’s communicating is: Men, stick to your knitting, we’ve got this.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. FWIW, I enjoy your comments as I enjoy discussing things with smart people but sometimes you are a bit more cryptic than I think you need to be if you want to get your point across clearly.’

See comment #586

Discussing this topic was considered a female prerogative long before modern feminism was a gleam in Betty Friedan eye. Men have never been welcome here, with the exception of fathers/teachers/priests/pastors who had invested years demonstrating their good faith and building bonds of trust. We haven’t.

Susan has not been the ideal of the perfectly disinterested seeker of truth here, nor have we. By her own definition*, she’s not always argued in good faith. But as far as I’m concerned, in so doing she’s shown a far more important faith in cultural traditions that make the disinterested seeking of truth possible.

* – I don’t accept that definition, perfect enemy of the good, part MMXIII
Desiderius

Last comment, then I think I truly have summoned the courage to STFU. On topic for a change.

Hot and Mean.

There was a student in the high school at which I principally taught last year (third highest SES in a metro area of around 2 mil) who was pretty damn ugly. Short, bathed about every three days, and changed his clothes as often. Extremely slow affect, to the point where teachers would alert me to keep an eye on him sleeping in class. He was in all low-level classes, barely passed, most (teachers and students) thought there was pot involved, may have been. Most thought him “mean” if he bothered to interact at all.

The first couple times I had him, he was determined to stay disengaged, but I’m a pretty persistent son-of-a-bitch and he eventually gave in, and I discovered he was plenty bright enough to master the material if he wanted to. He didn’t. Also noticed he did have a group of friends who didn’t consider him “mean”.

About half-way through the year, he acquired a girlfriend – solid 9, bright, unusually confident, together girl – and together they delighted in getting under the skin of the Marcottes (I actually liked and enjoyed working with many of them, they have way better social skills than Amanda, but same basic frame) that run the place (administrators, teachers, students) with frequent PDA that tweaked the totally desexualized norm the Marcottes sought to enforce.

Got to talking to him one day, and the following Mencken quote came to mind:

“Youth, though it may lack knowledge, is certainly not devoid of intelligence; it sees through shams with sharp and terrible eyes.”

He had spotted all the bullshit I was aware of, and opened my eyes to a few things I had missed.

Now I wouldn’t advocate a student tanking his classes or not bathing regularly, but there was a reason that girl was attracted to him and it wasn’t a “base” or wrong reason. In times when the “rules” aren’t working very well, and this is one of those times, putting one’s head down and following those rules without challenging them is the act of a coward, not a man who can inspire the devotion of a woman, or should.
J

@BB

my personal view on the “alpha” template in terms of character would be that the “alpha” is the type of guy who you would want with you in a serious, emergency type of situation. I think masculinity is ultimately defined by performance during extreme events.

OMG, cosigned a thousand times. I’m the last woman on this blog who would say she was looking for a man to lead her, but you’ve just identified the one time even I want a man to show leadership. I like knowing that in case of emergency, DH is there on the spot to keep things on track.

I’m so glad that a MALE commenter has made this observation because, when the gals say it, we are accused of “denying the truth of game” and crap like that. Being able to attract women IS a by-product of leadership, but, as you point out, saying that attracting women in and of itself is alpha is an example of the tail wagging the dog. That is why so many of us are repulsed by phony alphas. However, female attraction to real leadership is probably the biological key to why women seem to be attracted to status and social dominance.

When I first came into this discussion two years ago, I made the assertion on Dalrocks’ blog and perhaps here as well that women love competence. I was challenged then by other commenters to explain why women don’t go nuts for STEM guys, who are by and large extremely competent men. I could find the right words, but I think the answer lies in your quote about what makes a real warrior. There can be many intelligent and competant men in any organization, but the strongest and fittest guy is the one who can make them all focus a concerted effort toward a goal and then “get them back alive.” That’s why Bill Clinton is hotter than Einstein. A leader can use the talents of other men to multiply his own influence. It doesn’t matter how competant a man is if he is socially isolated and can’t influence other men. That types of power was important long before technology cam into the picture. I’m sure when the some primitive flint knapper made the first spear, it didn’t caught on until some ur-Clinton threw it in front of the tribe and told the rest of the tribesmen that he felt their pain over their having to get in close to raging mammoths and that he had come up with the solution to their problem. The patterns continued into modern times when Gore “invented” the internet.
J

After reading these comments about sh*t testing, I’m thinking that one of the things contributing to my perpetual single status is my lack of sh*t testing. I think that such behavior is beneath me. I prefer to keep things civil and mature.

Depends on the guy, Royale. I’m sure you’ve missed out on some guys by not having better womenly wiles. I’m fairly deficient in that area myself. I did eventually happen upon a guy who was smart enough to know when he was being manipulative and didn’t like it. He proceeded to marry me for my honesty. Which was good because, while I could learn to manipulate if I really wanted to, I probably couldn’t ever learn to respect a man that I could manipulate
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

J…re leadership, it also matters how *visible* the leadership is. A man might be a superb combat commander of a small unit, or a tremendous team-builder and leader in a factory, and yet not appear as particularly dominant in social situations.
J

Because they know the debate is pointless and not in good faith. Why would anyone engage if they had a choice? Ana gets my eternal gratitude for wading in.

OK, now I feel guilty. I thought about wading in, but I decided that I’d rather hang out with DH on this last beautiful weekend of the summer then sit all day in front of the computer repeating things I’ve said a hundred times before over the past two years. Srsly, how many times can you repeat yourself until you just say, “Screw it, no one listens.”?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @J
  
  I would much rather you enjoyed your weekend than waged a futile effort here! Well done on your part, you nurtured your relationship. Life is too short to come indoors on the last weekend of summer!
Samael

@Desiderius 1006

That sure brings back memories of high school…except I showered daily and had no idea girls where interested in me. You sound like you’re a pretty cool teacher… unfortunately there aren’t too many of you guys around to keep kids like me engaged in the classroom.
J

Like maybe allowing myself to get a little b*tchy if he forgets my birthday, or Valentine’s Day, although in reality I don’t feel the least bit entitled to any gifts on those days, but I do light up with joy if I am fortunate enough to get something

There’s a way to handle this without manipulating/shit testing. You can say, honestly and without drama, that having your b’dy or V Day forgotten makes you feel as though your partner doesn’t value you/hurts your feelings. You can say that you didn’t want an expensive present, but that you did want to be remembered and that the fact that you weren’t indicates things about the relationship that you don’t like. A guy who cares for you will respond to that and, if he doesn’t, it’s time for him to hit the road.

That’s not a shit test, it’s taking care of yourself and men respect that IME.
J

I do not deny female hypergamy, which is the desire to “mate up.”

I do. Yes, we all want the best mate we can get. Women will do this in terms of selecting for things like ability to provide, social dominance, etc. Men will do this in terms of youth and beauty. But most of time, Cinderella doesn’t get the prince. She’ll go after the best peasant she can find. The Rumplestiltskin doesn’t get the beauty to weave gold for him. He only gets her if he can weave gold for her. A few of us really marry up; we just fantasize about it.

Undoubtedly some women going for charming sociopaths are doing this. However, this has nothing to do with “trading up,” moving from one mate who is higher status to a new mate because he is even higher status.

IME, second spouses are pretty similar to first in terms of looks, status, etc.
J

Escoffier’s definition of hypergamy has women feeling the urge to trade up and up and up throughout their lives. I think this theory is bogus, and I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to support it.

Even in hunter/gather societies where a break up has mininal cost to both parties and there are no social restraints on hypergamy, 50% of couples stay together for life. Clearly, we are not all driven by a constant need to “trade up.”
http://x OffTheCuff

J: “I’m so glad that a MALE commenter has made this observation because, when the gals say it, we are accused of “denying the truth of game” and crap like that. ”

Strange, a super-alpha defining alpha as himself. Who knew?

When I use alpha, I mean “male SMP-winners”, meaning those who are getting exactly what they want from the SMP, with no compromises.

Sure, a BB/J “good” alpha is usually also one by definition, unless he is one of those rare ones who don’t capitalize on it. However, since this is an SMP blog, and not elite-wordclass-leadership blog, I tend towards my definition.

We all can’t be leaders of men, or masters of the world, and so all women can’t wind up with one. I believe all men *can* get what they we want out of the SMP, with enough knowledge and self-improvement. That will involve making plenty of women very happy, but, admittedly, it will make a lot of them sad too, as many will choose the low road.

I’m not afraid to advocate for that. If women have the option and sanction to sleep around with as many men as they want and never marry, even if it is to the detriment to men or society in general, then men do too.

The ever-rising standard of alpha here is about as applicable in real life a bunch of comic book store guys taking about which supermodel is the hottest, and how all the rest are bleah.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @OTC
  
  When I use alpha, I mean “male SMP-winners”, meaning those who are getting exactly what they want from the SMP, with no compromises.
  
  The problem with this definition is that is allows each individual to determine whether he is alpha. That might well include James Holmes. I don’t think alphas can be self appointed, as some may have such low standards that getting what they want is immaterial, because it’s not something anyone else wants.
  
  If alpha is the man at the top, then he has to get there via promotion from others. It cannot be subjective.
Escoffier

That is not my definition of hypergamy.
Joe

Susan’s post (over 1000 comments ago!) was about mean boys and the attraction they seem to hold for young girls. I guess we all got to thinking about the grown-up version; hypergamy, alpha, beta, what it means and how we react to all that.

1000 comments means we react vigorously, right?

I normally don’t advise reading “The Good Man Project” – it really has very little to recommend it. But I’ll make an exception for this article. The article got me to thinking about the image boys want to live up to and the inevitable disappointment upon discovering that you’re not superman, the Alpha of all Alphas.

The article misses the mark when it says that we don’t need Superman. The heart of the matter is that all of us are still looking for him.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Thanks, Ana! But I think it needed more pics of Dominican mini-tornado cats to be complete. Hope you and the baby are doing OK– get lots of rest while you can!

Heh I might sent some of the pics of my cat hugging my belly next time we have one of this shitstorms, then
I’m doing fine just praying for the baby to stay in my belly till after my babyshower and cleaning up the house.

You may be interested in this:
http://dontbubble.us/

Thanks, very good now to convince all my friends to try and use something like it and maybe to hang out with people of different backgrounds…I’m getting a chair to wait that one out, a comfy chair.

That’s really weird. I’m going to look into the causes of that. After all, in most cases, a vegetarian diet is a cause of anemia (due to iron deficiency).

It might be the bio chemistry after all cows eat only grass and their bodies produce bodyfat we are omnivorous (this only vegetarian diet is not biologically proved we are wired to eat and digest everything) but like everything there surely people that lean to digest vegetables more than meat and the other way around. I think is common knowledge that some vegetarian pregnant women are ordered by the doctor to eat meat, not supplements but meat, because they need to break down the components for the baby’s nourishment so yeah is better to try and see what diet works the best for us.
I had done diets and some of them not only make me miserable, they make me gain weight so yeah trial and error FTW!

Who would’ve thought Jersey Shore could be so useful to the world after all?
Heh maybe it was originally designed as a mass destruction weapon and we forgot it and release it, into the unsuspecting public.

J…re leadership, it also matters how *visible* the leadership is. A man might be a superb combat commander of a small unit, or a tremendous team-builder and leader in a factory, and yet not appear as particularly dominant in social situations.

I always mentioned that I’m low or none hypergamy. Tying to this I consider myself a “power behind the throne” kind of person I have had done many things to influence the outcome for the good of the community/office/herd but I don’t have any desire for the credit I don’t get any “high” from the flash but for a better place to live, in fact I don’t like the top at all, I always felt bad when I was the only one that got the best grade on school and I worked hard to just be good not the best to avoid it. I think the only time I was happy with gaining the best grade was when I was on college and it was because all the girls in my group earned it with me…that was nice.
That is similar to my husband he could totally lead the zombieapocalypse resistance if he had to, but he would focus more on survival not getting the credit and that is how I like it. I do think there is a level of “I want a man as fabulous as me” in the ubber hypergamic women that would explain why some women nuclearly reject men that they consider out of their league this is a reflection of themselves in their minds, YMMV.

Srsly, how many times can you repeat yourself until you just say, “Screw it, no one listens.”?

Till you get bored? The thing is my sense of boringness is lower than my sense of leaving Susan and science alone in this. If it was one commenter opposing her views, this maybe I would had abstained but then you have the guys bullying her into “you have to accept my personal experience not what science say” and I couldn’t just leave both of them alone. Y
you fight personal anecdotes with personal anecdotes and science with science. So yeah Data or STFU…
Also 13 year old girls for God’s sake!?
They are probably thinking on what guy looks like Justin Bieber the must when they say hot and mean…Had you seen his new video were the poor kid gets smacked by Michael Madsen? Is adorable is like “I want to be a man so badly” He is trying so hard but even the girl he is making out in the video looks like could beat him with one hand. I kind of love him after that “Aww poor Beiber wants to be manly…here I will buy your album to help you out”
J

@Desi #908

I’m glad the story was helpful to you, and I hope that it helps others as well. Sometimes the only good we can get out of the crap that happens to us, is that we can use it to help others.
Royale W. Cheese

@ OffTheCuff
“The ever-rising standard of alpha here is about as applicable in real life a bunch of comic book store guys taking about which supermodel is the hottest, and how all the rest are bleah.”

That is a very funny analogy, but a little unfair, I think. I’ve seen ladies here integrate their own boyfriends and husbands into the discourse, and describe them with the utmost esteem.
INTJ

@ J

I do. Yes, we all want the best mate we can get. Women will do this in terms of selecting for things like ability to provide, social dominance, etc. Men will do this in terms of youth and beauty. But most of time, Cinderella doesn’t get the prince. She’ll go after the best peasant she can find. The Rumplestiltskin doesn’t get the beauty to weave gold for him. He only gets her if he can weave gold for her. A few of us really marry up; we just fantasize about it.

My mom actually hated the Rumpelstiltskin story. She loved the book,
“Rumpelstistskin’s Daughter”, though. In that book, Rumpelstiltskin is a beta male who offers to help the girl for nothing in return, and she marries him afterwards.
Ion

“Similarly, a woman with Obsidian’s romantic history might draw concern from marriage minded men.”

100%. I’d even take this a step further, Iggles. A 40+ yr old woman with many partners who is demanding, privileged, and entitled? Men aren’t just gonna be concerned, they would rightfully avoid her.

As far as whether or not Obsidian-like men have any meaningful advice to offer anyone? I dunno. Should women listen to SINGLE Relationship Gurus on how to keep a man? Probably not.
SciGuy

“Yes. We see how murky social science is and how polls and surveys barely scratch the surface, because they go for breadth of analysis instead of depth.

I’d give far more credence to a social science study that observes several couples in detail and tries to capture as much about them as possible as opposed to a study that surveys thousands of couples.”

The problem with a study like the one you describe, which I assume is what you mean when you talk about depth rather than breadth, is that it would provide no information about how generalizable the results would be with regards to the population as a whole. It would tell us a lot about only that particular couple.

“It should be also noted that in Physics at least, many of the important observations are not nearly as statistically formalized as the social sciences studies that we see. In fact, Physicists rely much more on qualitative judgements than quantitative observations.”

You know, the last criticism of social science I thought I’d ever read is that it’s too statistically formalized, and that when it comes to quantitative observations it ought to loosen up a little, like physics. Your point reminds me of the time I aced my Quantum Mechanics II final by going with my gut and ignoring all that mathematical mumbo-jumbo.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @SciGuy
  
  You know, the last criticism of social science I thought I’d ever read is that it’s too statistically formalized, and that when it comes to quantitative observations it ought to loosen up a little, like physics. Your point reminds me of the time I aced my Quantum Mechanics II final by going with my gut and ignoring all that mathematical mumbo-jumbo.
  
  Through some error on Wharton’s part, I was enrolled in Advanced Macroeconomics my first semester, a course for Econ majors. (I majored in Psych.) The prof taught almost entirely in Calculus, which was not a good vehicle for me. (The class routinely booed when he did proofs, to no avail.) In the assignments and mid-term I went with my gut and did OK (not great), but when I got to the final (all the sections were together) I saw that we had the option of responding with a qualitative argument or a calculus proof. My heart sank when I saw that my section did not have a choice – we had to do the proof. I muddled through, apparently – I passed the class. I don’t know how, though. I had zero confidence in the mathematical mumbo jumbo I wrote.
Abbot

“the speed of entry into sexual relationships was negatively associated with marital quality, but only among women”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00996.x/abstract

.
Abbot

“For women, but not men, the longer the delay between dating and sex, the better the perception of the current relationship quality. Slowing things down for women, but not men, meant paying attention to other factors that would ultimately improve the relationship such as commitment and emotional intimacy”

But how to break the cycle of men expecting his time to sex no longer then her shortest time?
JustYX

I think that in the last few days I have been called a ‘Beta’ by Susan (re. insight into woman)

But by another definition I was an ‘Alpha’, or at least ‘Regular Guy’ (CompSci Guy’s definitions)

Beyond a useful ‘handwave’ term regarding a specific piece of behaviour being supposed good by PUAs ‘Alpha’ or bad ‘Beta’, or opting out ‘Zeta’, or like Alpha GHOW ‘Sigma’ (iirc)…

do any terms really bring much to the table? why the drama in defining them, rather than just using them as rough shorthand?

It’s like saying that a girl was a 6.5 – just what does it mean? better than an eqally meaningless 6, but not as good as a ‘7’ whatever that means objectively. it’s laughable…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JustYX
  
  I think that in the last few days I have been called a ‘Beta’ by Susan (re. insight into woman)
  
  That was a compliment
Abbot

“Rapid sexual involvement may have adverse long‐term implications for relationship quality”

From “The Tempo of Sexual Activity and Later Relationship Quality”

The study applies it to how a specific relationship starts and progresses. But it can be applied to the continual habit of serial rapid bedding and the resultant affect of damaging other future relationships no matter their time to sex
HanSolo

@INTJ and SciGuy

It should be also noted that in Physics at least, many of the important observations are not nearly as statistically formalized as the social sciences studies that we see. In fact, Physicists rely much more on qualitative judgements than quantitative observations.

INTJ, I may be misunderstanding what you’re getting at but what observations are these? Do you mean literal observations and experiments? If so, then I strongly disagree. QED is the most precisely measured theory in existence. For example, the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron is measured to roughly one part in a trillion.

Plus, given the highly controlled nature of the systematics and the ability to quantitatively define variables in a rigorous way, physics is vastly superior in a statistical sense than are the surveys or observations of a few thousand people where the questions asked or behavior observed are not very precise at all, due to the complicated nature of the systems involved (e.g. people, their interactions and self perception).

Now, on the theoretical side, there are certain intuitive and mathematically non-rigorous steps taken in making certain calculations (or at least not deductively obvious that that is the only acceptable choice), but at least they’re well described so anyone else can follow and repeat them, and they do agree with measured values to very high precision, varying depending on what aspects are being measured.

I’d be curious to know if you were referring more to the experimental side of physics or to the pioneering theoretical side, that is constrained by the current experimental/observational reality and some level of mathematical and logical consistency while speculatively and imaginatively exploring into the unknown realms of trying to unify all known fundamental phenomena and in the process possibly discovering new ones?
HanSolo

I meant experiments instead of systematics in the sentence “Plus, given the highly controlled nature of the systematics and the ability to quantitatively define variables in a rigorous way, physics is vastly superior in a statistical sense.” But, controlled systematics is part of a well-controlled experiment.
J

@Desi

So am doing so. Date tomorrow with well-traveled, bright, late-20′s professional. I’d say a 9, but I’m biased. First words out of her mouth were “I’m a dork”.

This sounds hopeful! Good luck!
J

@SW #924

I cosign this. You’d have to be dead to never find another man attractive after you marry, but that doesn’t mean you’d seriously entertain leaving your husband for him.

I adored my OB too, BTW. He did all my infertility surgery, took care of me through two high risk pregnancies and two dangerous deliveries. I wouldn’t have my kids without him.
J

Confession time, when my first wife left me in October 2004, I started to actually have some suicidal thoughts. I actually lost my job in the same week so it was compounded by that.

Too much bad stuff at one time is overwhelming; your reaction was really pretty normal as long as you didn’t act on it.

If my current relationship ended for whatever reason, I don’t think I’d be able to “not give a shit”. But I’d know with certainty my world isn’t crumbling and that there are plenty of other women out there in terms of either meeting my sex and/or relationship needs./i>

That’s very heathy and good.
unigirl

Is the drama in defining terms maybe because alot of men think they can’t be successful with women unless they’re the specific type of man, the ‘alpha male?’ And then it gets changed to all men that are successful with women are alpha males, which kind of isn’t the same thing.
I can see how it’s important to clarify because I’m sure some would take from that, why bother I’ll never be an alpha male so I’ll never be successful with women so why bother trying become attractive. Sort of like how if you thought men only like supermodels so why bother trying to become more attractive because I’ll never be a supermodel. I actually used to have a similar attitude (obviously not that extreme), but I decided to make the most of my looks, it’s second nature now but in terms of attracting men it’s like the difference between night and day.

Of the men I’ve met in my life I think very few of them really be described as alpha males, I’ve met many more guys that are successful with women than I’ve met alphas, and of the men I’ve really been attracted to over my life I’d say two were probably alpha males.
I know my opinion on that might not count for much because I’ve said I’ve made a few mistakes in my time, maybe I’m more hypergamous than the regular commenters on here I don’t know, but other than that I don’t think my mindset is any different from the average girl.
There’s a world of difference as well between 13 and adult, I think the analagie’s been made before by someone else, it’s like junk food, you swap the tea your mum cooked for a maccy d’s in a hearbeat but you get older and a proper home cooked meals much nicer. Just my 2
J

All joking aside, the plethysmograph is hardly a rock-solid example (see what I did there?) of a rigorous scientific measurement. There is no agreed-upon standard for the stimuli used in the test, and the results depend on the interpretation of the testing psychologist, much like with a polygraph. Hardly the hallmark of hard science.

That is pee your pants funny!
Samael

@ Unigirl 1033

I see you point about the “people are only attracted to x”mentality and I can see how it goes for something like looks, but when it it essentially comes down to drastically changing one’s personality it all seems like a bit much.

I think the big question for men is can a woman be attracted to a man solely based on personalities that mesh well together and being a person of good character without it being wrapped up in a flashy package of hyper confidence, player like charisma, pre-selection and status?

Another question I have personally is is it possible to maintain relationship that is free of emotional turmoil, power struggles and needless conflict? The thought of being shit tested eveytime I can’t decide on what to eat or not planning the day out makes MGTOW seem a lot more sexy. Isn’t the point of being in a relationship to be together and do things together? Not just be all “I’m gonna do this and if you want to come you can if not stay at home” mentality that seems to be eaten up by most women today.

I think the $64,000 question is why are women attracted to traits that in all reality that at best are of no value to and at worst are detrimental to LTRS?
INTJ

@ JustYX

>It’s like saying that a girl was a 6.5 – just what does it mean? better than an eqally meaningless 6, but not as good as a ’7′ whatever that means objectively. it’s laughable…

Hey don’t shortchange her. She’s obviously a 6.547!
INTJ

@ SciGuy

The problem with a study like the one you describe, which I assume is what you mean when you talk about depth rather than breadth, is that it would provide no information about how generalizable the results would be with regards to the population as a whole. It would tell us a lot about only that particular couple.

You know, the last criticism of social science I thought I’d ever read is that it’s too statistically formalized, and that when it comes to quantitative observations it ought to loosen up a little, like physics. Your point reminds me of the time I aced my Quantum Mechanics II final by going with my gut and ignoring all that mathematical mumbo-jumbo.

That’s why I’d look at several couples. At least there, the limits of generalization would be more clear cut, whereas when someone publishes a study, few people think about how things like college choice would affect it. I’m happy that Susan does take this into account.

Well my Quantum Mechanics II final was a little too math involved with all sorts of crazy integrals, Pauli spin matrice, etc., so I needed a lot of mathematical mumbo jumbo for it, but wouldn’t have been able to ace it without having a good gut understanding.
INTJ

@ J

I wouldn’t have my kids without him.

You wouldn’t have your kids with him either.
INTJ

@ HanSolo

INTJ, I may be misunderstanding what you’re getting at but what observations are these? Do you mean literal observations and experiments? If so, then I strongly disagree. QED is the most precisely measured theory in existence. For example, the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron is measured to roughly one part in a trillion.

Is the measurement of the magnetic dipole moment of the electron to 12 digit precision really that useful? I think not. It’s the concepts behind QED that are the most important.

Plus, given the highly controlled nature of the systematics and the ability to quantitatively define variables in a rigorous way, physics is vastly superior in a statistical sense than are the surveys or observations of a few thousand people where the questions asked or behavior observed are not very precise at all, due to the complicated nature of the systems involved (e.g. people, their interactions and self perception).

I definitely agree about how useful the rigor in physics is. And I would argue that large scale statistical studies in social science are actually less useful than detailed small scale studies for precisely that reason. When I read a statistical study, a lot of the context and details that go into my decision as to wether the conclusions of the study are valid are missing. That’s cause the study is too high level.

Now, on the theoretical side, there are certain intuitive and mathematically non-rigorous steps taken in making certain calculations (or at least not deductively obvious that that is the only acceptable choice), but at least they’re well described so anyone else can follow and repeat them, and they do agree with measured values to very high precision, varying depending on what aspects are being measured.

I’d be curious to know if you were referring more to the experimental side of physics or to the pioneering theoretical side, that is constrained by the current experimental/observational reality and some level of mathematical and logical consistency while speculatively and imaginatively exploring into the unknown realms of trying to unify all known fundamental phenomena and in the process possibly discovering new ones?

The experimental side. In astrophysics for example (and astrophysics is where we discover most of the things we don’t know – forget all those atom smashers), a lot of the observations are pretty qualitative in nature. Rather than shy away from making qualitative judgements by muddling everything up with a bunch of quantitative analyses, researchers generally give the reader all the information (both qualitative and quantitative).
unigirl

I actually think whether your personalitys gel together plays more of a part in attraction, and I’m not just saying that either I’ve put a bit of thought into it recently, what’s attracted me to some people, what’s put me off others,
I don’t completely know the answer to your question, the super status, player charisma etc is not essesial, I reckon pre-selection especially has less and less of an effect as people get older and learn not to be sheep (I know I’m always over the moon now if I’m secretly attracted to someone none of my mates are).
I think though in a relationship with just a regular girl what would start to negate that would be if you started to be your ‘worst self’ with her all of the time, if that makes sense, like you’ve got your ‘best self’ and your ‘worst self’ and everything inbetween, like everybody has to control their personality to a certain extent, even with people close to them.
It seems to me like a lot of guys maintain a level of control at all times with their closest friends, they keep their little everyday insecurities to themselves, that kind of stuff. I think the problem might be that those same guys will literally spill all of that stuff onto their girlfriend all the time, maybe kind of mistakenly thinking it’s alright ‘cos women are all emotional and everything. Definately that was the case with my ex anyway. I’m guilty myself doing it to my girlfriends sometimes when really it wouldn’t be that much trouble to keep it to myself and I’m sure it doesn’t make me that much fun to be around!

I’ve probably made that sound really burdensome, but I’m not talking about the big stuff here or the occassional niggle, like I did it with my ex-boyfriend for example, I was much more disciplined with him than my friends because I wanted him to be sexually attracted to me, so if i felt insecure or fat or whatever one day for example, I never brought it up, really wasn’t that difficult.
I think the majority of it is just learning how not to do things that put girls off, (not that I’m saying you personally do that, obviously) and then she’ll stick around long enough for you both to relax a bit and get to know whether you are in fact a good match.
I hope I’ve explained what I was trying to get at there well enough, although I suspect I haven’t
unigirl

As well meant to add I personally think working on your confidence is important so that so you actually have the confidence to be yourself, because sometimes it actually does take confidence and courage to just be yourself, and probably more effective than changeing your whole personality, because lets be honest how many people are successfully going to be able to do that?
I’m working on learning how to do that myself, for example I find when I’ve exercised a lot over a period of time and I feel good from that my interactions with people seem to go a lot smoother and better, so I don’t think it’s a case of completely changeing yourself.
I also when I was younger very occassionally took cocaine (I know not big not clever) but just by way of example, obviously not recommending, it doesn’t change your personality at all, not in any quantity I’ve taken anyway, just gives you loads of confidence, and its amazing how well you socialise with people when you’re on it, I think that’s why people get so addicted to it
HanSolo

@INTJ

Is the measurement of the magnetic dipole moment of the electron to 12 digit precision really that useful? I think not. It’s the concepts behind QED that are the most important.

Okay, when I read ‘observations’ I wasn’t sure if you meant ideas, conjecture, guiding principles (in which case I agree that those can often be arrived at in intuitive ways) or observations in the sense of taking data. I see it was the former.

Regarding high precision measurements, the actual value is maybe not so interesting but the deviation from what is predicted and measured is where the beyond-standard-model physics can be confirmed or refuted, often only detected at high levels of precision and accuracy. That’s what makes precision of both theoretical prediction and exp/obs measurement so important.

And I would argue that large scale statistical studies in social science are actually less useful than detailed small scale studies for precisely that reason.

Agreed.

The experimental side. In astrophysics for example (and astrophysics is where we discover most of the things we don’t know – forget all those atom smashers), a lot of the observations are pretty qualitative in nature. Rather than shy away from making qualitative judgements by muddling everything up with a bunch of quantitative analyses, researchers generally give the reader all the information (both qualitative and quantitative).

Yes, much is discovered in astrophysics and I have a certain personal investment in and love of observation astrophysics myself. The historically more-qualitative nature has been due to the difficulties in making measurements to any decent level of precision. That is gradually changing with better telescopes, more data and better ideas of how to use them. I’m a firm believer in letting the data decide because so many theoretical models have been proven wrong. For example, in astronomy it was previously thought that there were much fewer red dwarf stars than there are now known to be. Plus, previous planetary formation models predicted few earth-size planets. Now, with the Kepler and Harps spectograph and other data we know there are a lot more earth-size and super-earth size planets and that they occur fairly regularly around red dwarfs….which is pretty damn cool to think that there probably are billion of ~earth-size planets in the habitable zone of their stars in our galaxy.

Anyway, I think that we mostly agree and are probably just focusing on different sides of the same coin.
unigirl

I just read that back, so sounds like I’m raving about how great coke is, not the point I was trying to make!
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Unigirl
  
  I just read that back, so sounds like I’m raving about how great coke is, not the point I was trying to make!
  
  Haha, no worries. Look, there’s a reason why most hookups occur between two drunk people. We self medicate to lose inhibition. We feel better able to be charming, free from anxiety, etc. Research shows that both guys and girls binge drink to prepare themselves to get naked with a stranger. For most people, that isn’t going to happen while sober. It’s so odd – people know they won’t do something sober, so they get drunk in order to facilitate the behavior.
Samael

@ unigirl

I see what you are saying. On the other hand expressing your insecurities to your mate can be a good way to help get over them if the resultant actions are supportive vs throwing up shit tests.

I’m reminded of a blog about a woman how basically took pride in the fact she only slept with married men. She basically says that most of the time it starts when men opened up to her and started telling her things they couldn’t tell their wives and she was never harsh, berating or judgemental. A bit of patience and understanding can go along way especially in a day and age where it’s in short supply.
HanSolo

@INTJ No ‘the’ in front of Kepler. Not calling it a spectrograph. lol
Samael

@ unigirl

One of my best friends had the same experience with coke and meth… unfortunately while he started attracting women and being outgoing he also fucked his life up for a while.

People get addicted to coke or any other uppers because it supplies the same chemicals released during sex and pair bonding in higher doses than nature intended. I’ll never forget when my buddy was still using and he gone to shooting meth he told me he pretty much had a mini orgasm when doing so. That’s why shit can get addictive. It’s like those studies where they take a monkey and wire the pleasure centers of the brain to a button and the monkey will neglect food, water, everything else as long as it can get the fix from that button. Scary shit in some ways.
unigirl

Of course, I didn’t mean like cast iron all the time, obviously some stuff like that helps you bond, and its been quite a long time since I’ve been in a relationship but that kind of being able to talk about your day with someone is one of the benefits I think.
it’s kind of hard to explain the balance I meant, been said before but I reckon the real problems start when the balance tips too much towards the insecurities all the time for too long. For example with that ex I was talking about told me a lot of personal stuff while we were together, and I never thought any the less of him for it. When he started picking fights with me every weekend and then crying on my shoulder how sorry he was, (every week fight and cry), I did think less of him for that.
unigirl

It is great advice though, patience and understanding.
HanSolo

@INTJ

I guess that my example may confirm what you’re saying. The inaccurate stellar and planetary models were based on inaccurate concepts and assumptions, essentially qualitative ideas which then produced inaccurate numerically-modelled predictions that didn’t agree with the observed data that came once better technologies and techniques were developed.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I guess that my example may confirm what you’re saying. The inaccurate stellar and planetary models were based on inaccurate concepts and assumptions, essentially qualitative ideas which then produced inaccurate numerically-modelled predictions that didn’t agree with the observed data that came once better technologies and techniques were developed.

Science always has space to integrate new information and discard the old models if they need to, like what happened with Pluto once we discovered more about planets.
Samael

@ unigirl
insecurities and emotional disturbance are two separate things. I think your ex suffered the latter.
http://www.femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

I think if a woman married a man of low status, she would likely stew more about attractive men of high status, and perhaps be inclined to consider trading up. But this is pathology in relationships, not normal urges.

Actually, I think this is going to become more common in my generation, particularly because of the male-female ratios in college.

I just had a conversation with a good friend last night about her BF, who hasn’t finished college and is not currently taking classes. She said she’d just had an argument with him that morning because she felt he wasn’t putting forth enough effort into going back to school (also, you’ll remember that my own BF is in a similar situation).

Neither of us is exactly looking to trade up, but we are concerned about status indicators. I’d argue that it’s not pathological, that it’s pretty normal in cases where women have dated or married “down.”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Olive
  
  Actually, I think this is going to become more common in my generation, particularly because of the male-female ratios in college…Neither of us is exactly looking to trade up, but we are concerned about status indicators. I’d argue that it’s not pathological, that it’s pretty normal in cases where women have dated or married “down.”
  
  I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense. Women will be forced to relax their standards, but may find themselves restless in relationships as a result.
HanSolo

Science always has space to integrate new information and discard the old models if they need to, like what happened with Pluto once we discovered more about planets.

This is true of science in it’s true definition. However, human nature often interferes: extrapolating beyond the limits of either the data or even the theory itself, tribalistically defending one’s theories or views, demonizing opponents. Luckily, in the end, the data and better theories usually prevail. Too often, the best theory at the time becomes accepted without remembering its limitations. Also, too much metaphysical reality gets attached to the model. Then when a new discovery comes along that refines, or in some cases totally changes, the previous understanding it makes the dogmatic purveyors of that previous view look foolish.
Cooper

The thing I dislike the most about the red pill is ” if you give us only one, we choose alpha.”
It’s like women find the “boring” to be a greater threat to her relationship than the “danger” of being alone.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Olive—yes, it is my understanding that this “settling” issue is apparently becoming a bigger and bigger problem for young college women. They don’t find their husbands in college, generally, for a variety of reasons. Many feel that the mating environment will improve post-college, but what may happen is that the campus culture will simply migrate with them as the college-educated males in their cohort are, obviously, still going to be in short supply.

Using Susan’s model, we could see a man as an SMP product that has alpha and beta features. To keep things simple, let’s say that a stylized 50/50 alpha-beta mix is ideal, with “hot and mean” alpha being preferable if the woman is given a stark choice between 100% alpha and 100% beta.

The thing is that young women are becoming increasingly alpha/masculinized (insofar as we consider career ambition, leadership, domination of social status hierarchies, greed, and confidence as alpha-associated qualities) and this may be happening at the cost of young men becoming more beta.

So if traditional women wanted 50% alpha, the newly-minted female college grad *may* (this is just a thought experiment here) now want 60-65% alpha in her man in order to feel properly tingly, protected, respect, and so on. Alas, many men of her age will have had their alpha % dropped because of years of feminist-inspired education and conditioning that promote androgyny and vilify the destructive power of the alpha male.

I also believe that it is easier to be 90-100% alpha or 90-100% beta than it is to be 50/50; the polar points are “strange attractors” and a small nudge from the center (say, a traumatic “red pill” epiphany) can see a man move further and further towards an extreme position over time.
Doug

Susan are you accounting for post grad hookups? I don’t understand why you focus on college so much like casual sex is somehow only done when people are in college. Wouldn’t numbers pre-marriage be more relevant? Also, the focus on stats is wrong imo, they vary way too much.
Lokland

@Susan

“This is also demonstrated in the research on ovulation. While women like more dominance during ovulation, research shows that they do not seek dominance in other men if their partner meets their baseline need for dominance in general. In that case, they seek additional dominance from their partner.”

This agrees with my personal experience.
The wife doesn’t start oggling around other dudes when ovulation hits. She does tend to be a bit of a bitch which makes me draw a line. Which I realise is the point. Zen.. its only 2 days…zen. Doesn’t make it less stressful.

On the other hand shes a sweetheart two weeks later. In that regard I guess I’m lucky.

“My hypergamy was addressed and satisfied when I married a man of high potential for future status. ”

This is gonna be just a wee bit problematic for my generation. Most women will be lucky to land a guy whose income combined with hers can feed and clothe the kids.

And yes that was completely serious.

“It is rare to find one individual with an abundance of all the desirable traits. Women are faced with the dilemma of knowing when to select a mate who has the best possible combination…”

Most women don’t deserve an abundance. They’re average, they only get average. They don’t have a dilemma. If they think they deserve abundance their likely (not a guarantee) an idiot. (Reading this it sounds snide. Its not meant to be.)

Finally,

this “Both alpha traits and beta traits contribute to attraction.”

“For short-term mating, or at first meeting, confidence and status are the first hurdles a man must clear. ”

Attraction = alpha traits. Longevity = beta traits.

Attraction is short term. Love (or whatever equivalent you want to call it) is an extended form of attraction (alpha) mixed with beta traits.

This is probably what pisses guys off (when you insist beta traits are necessary for attraction). Beta behaviours don’t get you laid, in or out of relationships. Therefore beta traits do not equal attraction.
Attraction = sex.

Beta traits are important. They are not attractive in any way. No womens ever tingled when her hubby bought flowers (cheap and easy beta trait, insert your own choice).

Conclusion: beta traits are not necessary for attraction. Are necessary for relationships.
INTJ

@ Susan

HELLO? Anybody home? Did you read the post? Women go for assholes.

You argued that women are attracted to both asshole and nice guy traits. I’m pointing out that that’s obviously wrong, as most women are much more attracted to asshole traits when it comes to having sex. That’s not to say they don’t like nice guys. Nice guys are great for emotional (LJBF anyone?) and parental support (reformed asshole chaser).
Joe

@Susan

Women will be forced to relax their standards, but may find themselves restless in relationships as a result.

Good evening, Susan.

Can’t help but smile and think that this reminded me of my relationship with broccoli. I *really* had to lower my standards to eat it.

Funny how I like it now. A lot.

It’s not really relaxing my standards when I’m changing them in the process of growing up, now, is it?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Joe
  
  It’s not really relaxing my standards when I’m changing them in the process of growing up, now, is it?
  
  That’s the “choose attraction” argument. With female narcissism growing and a corresponding sense of entitlement often in evidence in the remarks of single women, we need to hit the reset button. The most hypergamous women are going to be the ones standing when the music stops.
Just1X

@Susan
oh, I got the compliment – no problem.

re Dune. There’s a euro-made TV series of Dune and another of Children of Dune. They have more screen time than the Lynch film to make sense. (If you know the story, then the Lynch film is great).

I read a few of the books, but found them a little heavy going…

BTW Just saw THG, not bad at all, it felt like they kept pretty close to the book that I read months ago.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@BB
I do like your concept of adding a percentage of Alphaness (and as consequence Betaness) to men. I think this is more accurate assessment than just considering a man Alpha or Beta, more like an spectrum in the same way women can be a 1 or a 10, probably men measure in similar ways. And probably we could find a better way to use the term like this.
I encourage you to try and do a scale of this and see how the manosphere reacts, think about it.

This agrees with my personal experience.

Me too, except that I get more sexually aggressive with my husband during ovulation and interestingly enough he seems to get it instinctively, this ties up with the strippers getting more tips during ovulation, men somehow still can feel the pull. One has to wonder how cuckolding could had worked if the primary partner was somehow aware of she being more sexually attractive…pondering pondering.

No womens ever tingled when her hubby bought flowers (cheap and easy beta trait, insert your own choice).

Correction no woman that finds Beta traits lame/complementary tingles over them. I still have the first flowers my husband bought for me and I was completely over him for that, YMMV.
J

re leadership, it also matters how *visible* the leadership is

Very true.

@INTJ

You wouldn’t have your kids with him either

LOL.
unigirl

Yeah I think he was a bit of an extreme case, I don’t have much more life experience for examples of how I see it really! I mean don’t get me wrong the relationship had its good points, I loved him a lot at first,
It really did take something like that that happenning regularly though for me to lose the love and respect.
J

@SW

Yeah, we had a very nice time. We took a hike at a state park, saw some deer, walked along the beach, had a nice talk about what life might hold for us after the kids go off to college, retirement, etc. We decided to take the kids’college money, buy an RV and run away from home.
Mike C

In short, women are inclined to select for good character for long-term mating, i.e. pair bonding. For short-term mating, or at first meeting, confidence and status are the first hurdles a man must clear. Many bad boys make it through the first hurdles, and are then exposed as having poor relationship potential.

Do you see how both are true? It’s not either/or.

Yes, and what you wrote is a good summary.

I really have difficulty believing you are not capable of making these connections. This has to be some willful denial going on.

No willful denial….just trying to understand EXACTLY what your position is and beliefs are. This post was actually helpful in ascertaining that.

We want a mix of alpha and beta, but if you give us only one, we choose alpha, as those are the traits most important and evident at first meeting. The beta traits become important in the context of commitment.

When a woman feels attracted to a man, does she have a clear sense of how each the dozen traits is present and to what extent? Usually not. Much of the selection occurs at the subconscious level.

I actually pretty much agree with this. Of course, the devil is in the details so to speak so when the rubber hits the road, the million dollar question is what is that optimal mix. No doubt, that varies across different women.
Mike C

By “a situation like that” I mean that a woman who has placed herself in the hotel room of a man not her husband, is very likely to engage in the kind of logic seen above. Obviously, the act of going to a man’s hotel room is something very close to consent, so we may assume that she has already made her choice. The chat with herself in the mirror is just hamstering.

Why is she in the hotel room? What motivated her to go there?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Why is she in the hotel room? What motivated her to go there?
  
  Is this a trick question?
  
  Why does any married person go to a hotel room with someone else?
  
  Obviously, the preliminaries to cheating have already occurred. As I said, it’s a movie – she goes to the hotel room of a movie star she meets on the street, and her husband spends the day with a hooker. I really don’t think Woody Allen’s message is about female sexuality, and it seems preposterous to treat this as some case study that represents women IRL.
  
  I thought of one example that can go in your and Escoffier’s column though! Jessica Seinfeld had just returned from her honeymoon when she met Jerry Seinfeld for the first time at her gym. She immediately left her husband and started dating him. I don’t know anything about her first husband, but there’s a woman who didn’t hesitate to trade up. No doubt you’ll claim that all women would have done the same.
  
  She seems a bit shady, though. She was accused of plagiarizing when she published a cookbook for feeding kids.
Samael

@ JUST1X

Crap I have yet to see Dune, but I’m a big David Lynch fan. I even managed to round up a t-shirt for Blue Velvet. Dennis Hopper’s finest role IMO.
JustYX

@Mike C

I think that Susan is saying that she (the woman) had basically decided she was up for sex, that’s why she went to his room, she just had to hamsterbate the final small hurdle…but really it was almost a done deal by the time she entered the room
JustYX

@Samael
Netflix (UK) has the Lynch movie and the euro mini-series of Children of Dune. I’ve just watched both.

I’m looking back a few years for when I watched the euro mini-series of Dune, I liked it a lot. But I remember thinking that the best solution would have been a Lynch mini-series. The movie had a bigger budget but the series had the time to tell the story.

I think that the movie really requires you to have read the book, the series (I’m guessing) you can get away without having read it.

Lynch movie
http://www.amazon.com/Dune/dp/B000ICZD5M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346746039&sr=8-2&keywords=dune

Dune miniseries
http://www.amazon.com/Dune-William-Hurt/dp/B000059H6K/ref=sr_1_8?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1346746175&sr=1-8&keywords=dune

Children of Dune (first sequel to Dune) miniseries
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Of-Dune/dp/B000JNMUX8/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1346746080&sr=1-1&keywords=dune+sarandon
JustYX

@MikeC sorry, I think that I may have missed the point that you were asking – oops
JustYX

Oops – Children of Dune is the first video sequel to Dune, but the second sequel book (after Dune Messiah)

The video Children of Dune
“The story follows on from Herbert’s stunning ‘Dune’ and the series has cleverly wrapped the two subsequent novels; ‘Dune Messiah’ and ‘The Children of Dune’ into one series.”

It’s been a couple of decades since I read the books…
Höllenhund

The truth is, we are at cross purposes to some extent.

This was summed up perfectly in one older comment here I cannot find: men are annoyed when women refuse to put up with their desire for sexual variety, and women are annoyed when the men they find attractive refuse to initiate and maintain commitment. This confrontation probably explains all the hand-wringing on this blog and others as well, and it’s perpetuated by the inability of the sexes to empathize with each other. The issue of shit-testing raised in this thread is a perfect example. The fundamental issue about it that goes unaddressed is that there’s no male equivalent of shit-testing in relationships. The idea of testing their partner’s “worthiness” simply doesn’t occur to most men, because they, on average, tend to be more satisfied with their relationships then women are. In other words, women are normally the first in and the first out in relationships. It doesn’t really matter whether we call this hypergamy or not, what is important is that this difference exists.

We should not be trying to eliminate this conflict in mating, in my view. It produces the best compromise, or best chances of mating success.

That sounds great, but it’s a curious statement considering that Western societies have erected entire legal structures to ensure that women have no difficulty abandoning their traditional “gender roles” whereas men have plenty.

Not only that but something I learned in acting: Conflict is drama. Drama is friction. People are aroused by friction, and in fact, arousal leads to friction, i.e. sex.

This seems to be a misunderstanding. Wudang explained it on another blog:

Men seek challenge, difficulty and excitment outside of relationships in work, in war, in sports etc. and are ok with and often want this to be difficult and challenging. But their personal lives they want to comfortable and not so difficult and challenging. Women are the reverse prefering work to be more comfortable and their love lives to be filled with the challenges. Men like real life risk and dislike relationship risk/emotional risk. Women dislike real life risk and like relationship/emotional risk.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Hollenhund
  
  I understand Wudang’s point, but the fact is that many men do enjoy pursuing women and “winning” them, via intrasexual competition with other males. The female’s tendency to be very choosy means that the man who gets chosen increases his status. That process of male competition creates drama, and fuels the female need for emotional engagement. He wants sex, she wants commitment, and ideally they come together after a period of anticipation and challenge, which sends them into full limerence mode.
Höllenhund

I have successfully communicated several manosphere concepts that women were heretofore entirely ignorant of, most notably the idea that only a few top males get no-strings sex, and that claims that “guys have it made” in hookup culture are false. I also have written here about family law, divorce and alimony. Many young women were surprised to learn, for example, that the recent Massachusetts alimony law included the income of a second wife. I have weighed in on the immorality of cuckoldry as confessed by Hugo Schwyzer. Many of the posts I have written are only tangentially relevant to my mission, but I write them because I believe the information needs to be disseminated.

That sounds great in theory, but the usual result is that women tend to get defensive and irritated whenever you address these issues, and it also tends to lure in male commenters who have strong opinions on them, for obvious reasons. What you want to accomplish with this, I have no idea.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  That sounds great in theory, but the usual result is that women tend to get defensive and irritated whenever you address these issues, and it also tends to lure in male commenters who have strong opinions on them, for obvious reasons. What you want to accomplish with this, I have no idea.
  
  That is not an accurate assessment of women’s responses here. It’s no doubt true for feminists, but my readers have been very open and interested to learn more about the male experience. This is hardly surprising, as it explains a lot about what they are facing in the SMP.
  
  I don’t deliberately write posts to draw in MRAs. It’s unintentional. The last one was a simple post wishing the men a happy Father’s Day. I was astounded when all the angry guys showed up. I regularly underestimate who is reading and lurking here, obviously. Dalrockgate occurred when I made a comment here – not even a post – to Doug1 that I suspected that claims re frivolous divorce are exaggerated in the manosphere. Again, it was not my intent to even engage MRAs on the topic, and wading in to the debate was a tactical error. The only good to come out of that was that now I am certain those claims are exaggerated.
VD

And your point might have some validity if those guys actually discussed “real” science, but they don’t: they speak mostly of personal anecdotes and their own opinions, and nothing more. At least Susan is trying to base her opinions on the research that does exist, imperfect though it may be.

And here we see the difference between mastering science and mastering logic. What the STEM guys actually discuss is totally irrelevant to the validity of the point, which depends upon the softness and inherent unreliability of the imperfect research. The personal anecdotes and opinions may very well be superior to the research, if the observations being made are sufficiently astute and the basis of the research is false.

Also, I can hardly believe you chose phallometry as an alleged example of “hard science”.

Why? Whether the current technological state of phallometry is hyper precise or not, the point is that the contradictions in self-reports and physical observations tended to highlight the intrinsic unreliability of self-reporting sexual stimulation in particular and self-reporting in general. Philosophical differences over the precise point of when a penis is actually hard or a vagina is formally wet don’t render the basic concept moot. When it is reported that “straight women are equally aroused by all human sexual activity, including lesbian, heterosexual and homosexual male sex” and very few straight woman admit to being aroused by homosexual male sex, this means either a) the technology simply doesn’t work, b) there is no link between sexual desire and physical phenomena conventionally understood to indicate sexual desire, or c) the entire basis for self-reporting on sex-related matters is fundamentally flawed.

I think the probabilities favor (c), given that measuring moisture is not a major technological feat. What is your opinion?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Whether the current technological state of phallometry is hyper precise or not, the point is that the contradictions in self-reports and physical observations tended to highlight the intrinsic unreliability of self-reporting sexual stimulation in particular and self-reporting in general.
  
  Just to reiterate what I said earlier, studies that ask “who would you do” or “what would you do” are not valuable. Studies that ask, “which man is more attractive” or “how many people did you hook up with this semester” are potentially very valuable.
Abbot

Mr. “Hot & Mean” and Mr. “Not Hot & Nice” will not reward and open-legs policy –

“Almost 50 years since the sexual revolution, which began, according to Philip Larkin, in 1963, the evidence suggests an open-legs policy is not so rewarding after all.”

http://wonderwoman.intoday.in/story/leaping-into-bed-on-first-date-may-harm-your-relationship/1/101399.html

.
http://x OffTheCuff

SW: ” I don’t think alphas can be self appointed, as some may have such low standards that getting what they want is immaterial, because it’s not something anyone else wants”

I’m not saying that alpha can merely define themselves at the top of the social hierarchy.

All I’m saying is that here, it’s far more useful to talk about mSMPW’s, that is, men who do well with women and analyze why, rather than restrict it to the ever-narrowing alpha standard for two reasons. Most men aren’t going to be attractive, well-hung, dominant, expert survivalist/marksman/MMA all rolled into one, and most women won’t have one. Maybe everyone can’t get exactly what they want, but they can improve their chances by looking to the winners and seeing what they do. Maybe doing so steals a bit of their thunder (zero sum) or maybe doing so pushes things back more towards assortive mating.

My buddy has n=40 and he fixes ATM’s for a living. Unmarried, and dating my divorced friend. He’s more of the class clown type, than a leader of men. Clearly he knows something, and does not fit the J/alpha definition. But he sure knows how to get laid.

BTW, having such low standards is doesn’t fit into the “no compromises” deal of mate selection. If you fool yourself out of what you really want, it doesn’t count.

Tl;dr: All alphas are attractive, but not all attractive men are alphas.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @OTC
  
  I understand your point, and that lands us right back at “what is alpha?” As I’ve said before, I think men must define it, because from a female POV it means nothing more than “top quality male.” If the alpha concept is valid, based on ancestral conditions, then men figure out alpha and women respond. I’m happy to go with whatever men decide, if they can reach consensus. I just need to know so that I can advise women whether alpha is a good or bad thing to go after in this SMP.
Ted D

Lokland – “This agrees with my personal experience.
The wife doesn’t start oggling around other dudes when ovulation hits. She does tend to be a bit of a bitch which makes me draw a line. Which I realise is the point. Zen.. its only 2 days…zen. Doesn’t make it less stressful.”

On the plus side, I’ve noticed that during her ovulation my wife does indeed “step up” her attire ever so slightly, but she also tends to wear clothes that I’ve clearly told her I find highly attractive on her. So, she DOES increase her attractiveness with clothing and perhaps a touch more make-up (which is to say she puts on eye liner and perhaps a bit of eye shadow. My wife DOES NOT do the whole make-up thing unless we are hitting some kind of major social event) but she also seems to do her best to impress me, which is hard to complain about.

“Conclusion: beta traits are not necessary for attraction. Are necessary for relationships.”

Yep. This is pretty much the point I’ve been pounding at for some time in a rather ineffective manner it seems. It is a VERY rare woman that is literally attracted to beta traits. I’m sure some exist, and perhaps we truly have a collection of them here at HUS (just like we have more than our fair share of INTJ types) but in the general populace I’d imagine they are just slightly easier to find than Big Foot. Again, I know beyond all doubt that my wife loves me mostly because of my beta traits, and I’m learning to even appreciate that fact. But what makes it hard is, I also know beyond all doubt that she is attracted to me for other things, and some of those things aren’t necessarily “good” or even “polite” traits. She “tingles” for me when I have to go into asshole mode on someone (for instance when we order something online and the order shows up wrong, and the phone call to rectify the situation gets heated), so she obviously finds it “hot” when I’m acting like an asshat, just not when it is directed AT her. She also tends to enjoy the fact that I am often sarcastic or downright snarky with people when they get on my nerves, and straight up displays of strength derived from temper get her VERY hot and bothered. (think getting pissed off trying to move some piece of heavy furniture and then cussing loudly at it, and then angrily picking the thing up and huffing it to wherever). Yeah, I get that the “show of strength” is attractive in and of itself, but I firmly believe it is the added anger part that really sets her off.

So I appreciate that some part of her loves me because I am a good father and a decent roommate, but as much as I want her love, I want her attraction even more. And the truth is, her attraction has just about NOTHING to do with my beta traits.

INTJ – “You argued that women are attracted to both asshole and nice guy traits. I’m pointing out that that’s obviously wrong, as most women are much more attracted to asshole traits when it comes to having sex. That’s not to say they don’t like nice guys. Nice guys are great for emotional (LJBF anyone?) and parental support (reformed asshole chaser).”

Cosigned and kinda what I noted above. We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM. Which means, if a man is to be successful with a woman, he has to be attractive enough to catch her attention long enough to “sell” himself on beta traits. I’m good with this, but why didn’t anyone tell me that I needed to KEEP UP with those attraction traits to keep her around long term? I think far too many guys think that it is ONLY the beta stuff that keeps a woman around, because it is all we hear regarding what women “want in a man”. Why can’t women simply say they want an asshole that is nice to her? OK, that was extreme for effect. But the concept is sound. Women by and large downplay the importance of the alpha traits when discussing what they want from a husband, when in fact they would never be attracted to that husband without those alpha traits. Do they assume we KNOW this somehow?

Susan – “I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense. Women will be forced to relax their standards, but may find themselves restless in relationships as a result.”

And with this statement you should be easily able to see why JM, I, and other guys here get SO upset when we start talking about “settling” in regards to a woman’s mate selection. If she gets at ALL bored and/or restless, the relationship is doomed unless the man recognizes it, and stimulates her interests again. I can’t speak for any other men here, but *I* was NEVER told about this little issue, and it bit me in the ass. At the end of the day, my ex-wife became bored with our life together, and I didn’t know enough to stir things up.

Can you see how this situation can easily turn up for a former carousel rider that “settles” for a nice beta provider guy in her 30’s? Can you see how that would lead to a frivolous divorce (meaning divorce of boredom)? Can you see how this can often play out to an EPL divorce? Because to me it seems glaringly obvious.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  And with this statement you should be easily able to see why JM, I, and other guys here get SO upset when we start talking about “settling” in regards to a woman’s mate selection. If she gets at ALL bored and/or restless, the relationship is doomed unless the man recognizes it, and stimulates her interests again.
  
  I don’t mean to be glib, but men shouldn’t marry selfish, entitled, hypergamous bitches. I can guarantee that her personality was on full display when you wifed her up, and there were red flags you ignored.
  
  Can you see how this situation can easily turn up for a former carousel rider that “settles” for a nice beta provider guy in her 30’s
  
  I do see that, I just don’t think carousel riders do it very often. It holds no allure for them whatsoever. Why should they settle when they can keep having STRs with the guys they like and probably out-provide the male anyway?
Ted D

Further, the confusion we seem to be having regarding hypergamy from my standpoint is: I fully believe that women getting “bored” or “restless” in a relationship and ejecting is HYPERGAMY at work. Perhaps not according to the textbook definition of hypergamy, but it seems to be very closely related at least.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I fully believe that women getting “bored” or “restless” in a relationship and ejecting is HYPERGAMY at work.
  
  I disagree. Hypergamy is about trading up to a higher status male. If a woman leaves a relationship without a higher status male in the wings, it wasn’t hypergamy unless she says it is her intent to go find a man with more status. Falling out of love with one’s husband and bailing from the marriage may not be admirable, but it isn’t hypergamy. Infidelity isn’t even hypergamy – unless she cheats with a higher status male, and was motivated by that differential to cheaet. This is precisely the problem with the ‘sphere. These terms get abused to the point where they mean everything and nothing at the same time.
  
  Hypergamy: A woman’s desire to marry up.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh: #541:
“@Hollenhund

So angry and bitter is still the preferred strategy for MRAs. How’s that working for you?”

O: It’s got you chattering about it – right?

“Feminists brilliantly solicited the active help of males in pushing their agenda through. You will not change anything as long as you view women as the enemy, recommend repealing suffrage, expound on the inferiority of the female intellect, etc. So far, MRAs are content to be unhaaaaaapppy together online. I suppose that’s a good enough strategy if a bit of comfort and a boost is all that most of those men are after.”

O: This is a most interesting series of statements. Let’s deconstruct them a bit, shall we?

First – if by “brilliantly soliciting the active help of males” you mean cajoling, shaming language, harangues and the rest of it, then yes, you’d be quite right. I’ve mentioned Bill Maher before, and it bears repeating; in fact, let’s see what he has to say about the matter in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRDUcbx9tw

Ms. Walsh, do you agree, or *disagree*, with what Mr. Maher has said? *zooms in with the camera*

Second, please see my comment directed to Ms. J at comment #776:
“The real point of the manosphere you know, isnt necessarily to play matchmaker; its about men telling their stories, *in their own voices*. Its not about “moving on”, “finding inner peace” or anything like that; to be sure, and again im a witness (as are other denizens of the sphere, like ted et al), all of those things can happen as a side benefit. But none of that is the sole purpose of the sphere youre referring to; the purpose is for men to life up their voice, and tell their stories…

For more than three decades running, women have dominated the nature, tone and style of the “discourse” between the sexes; to coin a phrase by bill maher, the only acceptable male role was to do “the oprah nod” reverentially, while women held forth with their stories, in their own voices. And for decades, again, men simply took it, no matter how true or false said “stories” were (and we know that quite a few were/are indeed false-like the bunk about “income gaps” or the bs surrounding “rape” in our time, or the socalled “war on women” et al).”

And if your blog, Hooking Up Smart, is any indication – to say nothing of Kay Hymowitiz (who got so many responses from Men on her piece in the WSJ online, *that it crashed the server – the first time in WSJ history any such thing has happened), Feministe, Feministing, Jezebel, Clarisse Thorn, etc, et al – Manosphere: Mission Accomplished.

Holla back

O.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. J #542:
“I think that the social trends we are seeing now will reversethemselves long before that happens, and I believe that female choice will be a big part of that.”

O: Evidence, please? I see very little of this in action on the ground.

Now, what I DO see, is this: a segmentation of the populace along these lines, ie, the ones doing the heavy lifting of bringing on the next generation, are NOT the Women which makes up Ms. Walsh’s target demo; it’s the Working Class (and lower) Women who are – and the Census data backs me up on this point. More on this below…

“And for Obs: I do signs of this happening among both black and white working class women. Many of these women are limiting the size of their families as they find themseles struggling to support their kids. Others do have MC longings. As many of you know, I spent a big chunk of time going in and out of the hospital last spring. Before that, I spent a lot time at the nursing home visiting my parents. I got to know a lot of these women in lower level health care jobs, and most seem to want and be working towards more stable lives.”

O: Yes, you make a very legit point here; I would highly, strongly urge you read Edin and Kafalas’ excellent work, Promises I Can Keep. I really raises some very interesting questions about what we *think* we know, about Women in the lower classes…

O.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #1096:
“@Hollenhund

I understand Wudang’s point, but the fact is that many men do enjoy pursuing women and “winning” them, via intrasexual competition with other males. The female’s tendency to be very choosy means that the man who gets chosen increases his status. That process of male competition creates drama, and fuels the female need for emotional engagement. He wants sex, she wants commitment, and ideally they come together after a period of anticipation and challenge, which sends them into full limerence mode.”

O: I don’t have any disgareement with this, for it is true, in the main; what I *will* say, is that pros *never chase*; that’s for beginners.

After a goodly bit of deep thought and meditation on these matters, I’ve come to the conclusion that a big part of your “problem” as it relates to a segment of your lady readers being “tooK” by “cads” is the fact that they’re not dealing with the Real Deal; they’re more often than not, dealing with Pretenders.

More on this, coming up…

O.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #1099:
“Just to reiterate what I said earlier, studies that ask “who would you do” or “what would you do” are not valuable. Studies that ask, “which man is more attractive” or “how many people did you hook up with this semester” are potentially very valuable.”

O: No, *any form of self-report* is considered deeply suspect in the professional researcher world. Buss talks about this extensively in his textbook, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of The Mind, 3rd Ed.

More on this point, coming up…

O.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #538:
“There are definitely double standards when it comes to expressing emotion. Crying, whining, even pouting are things women can and do get away with every day. Men are raised to be stoic (and are less naturally emotional anyway) so we penalize them for displays of emotion. It’s not just women – males don’t tolerate this in other males either.”

O: It has never been a matter of dispute that Men can and will compete against each other for access to Women (sexually); indeed, Buss discusses this fact in both his works, one of which you’re familiar with. The notion that there is a “Team Man” and “Team Woman” is in fact, a fallacy.

“In the same way, a woman who is stoic and unemotional will often be perceived as unfeminine and unattractive by males.”

O: But “males” don’t have a lock on the public (policy) discourse; Women do.

“We like our sex differences.”

O: When it suits the ladies to have them, yes, they most certainly do; which again only reinforces just how many of them are rank hypocrites.

It is a grand mistake to suggest that Feminists “hate” EvoPsych; what is more accurate to say, is that Feminists “hate” *certain aspects of EvoPsych that do not serve their interests and agenda* – and we can say the same for Women in aggregate.

I’m just sayin’…

O.
Escoffier

I don’t see how it helps to say that “men have to define alpha.” I mean, we can do that, and I suppose we try. But the response to our saying “This is guy you should like,” is simply “Thanks, but, this is the guy we actually DO like.” No matter what we say, women still get to choose.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  No matter what we say, women still get to choose.
  
  Yes, we choose the man who signals “top male.” Isn’t that the whole idea of alpha? He earned his spot from other men, and women found that attractive?
  
  Female sexual attraction is the bonus of a man’s being alpha among men. Not the other way around. The same men who rail against female nature and the state of American women today, etc. now want to appoint them to be in charge of what a good man is? That’s fine – you can define it however you want. If I were a man with the right stuff, I would not respect or acknowledge those men.
  
  I’m not going down this slippery slope again. Define alpha however you’d like.
chris

@Susan Walsh
From post #1053

This is also demonstrated in the research on ovulation. While women like more dominance during ovulation, research shows that they do not seek dominance in other men if their partner meets their baseline need for dominance in general. In that case, they seek additional dominance from their partner. This fact is usually ignored or dismissed by Red Pillers who find it useful to omit it to better promote the idea of hypergamy.

I was under the impression that ovulation did increase women’s desires to engage in extra pair mating. I remember watching a short documentary where a study was mentioned that in Austria women who went out to night clubs without their partners wound up wearing clothing that revealed more skin (presumably to attract extra-pair sex) and they danced in more a alluring manner (again presumably to attract extra-pair sex).
Do you happen to have links/references to the particular studies which state the opposite so that I may have a look at them.

But this [hypergamy] is pathology in relationships, not normal urges.

Do you also have links/references to back this assertion up.
Again, I’m not accusing you of any misrepresentations, I’m just very curious to see the scientific proof supporting the notion that men don’t have to be constantly on the lookout for hypergamy/cuckoldry, as from a purely evolutionary and game theoretic standpoint, such defections from cooperative mating when it advantages the woman, even when it’s at the man’s expense and where there are no punitive measures for doing so, make perfect sense.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Chris
  
  Do you happen to have links/references to the particular studies which state the opposite so that I may have a look at them.
  
  I. Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire.
  Pillsworth EG, Haselton MG, Buss DM.
  
  Anthropology Department, UCLA, 341 Haines Hall, Box 951553, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. pillse@ucla.edu
  
  This study demonstrated that mated women but not unmated women experience greatest sexual desire when most fertile. To our knowledge this effect had not been documented previously. The mated women in this study, nearly all of whom were highly committed to and satisfied with their partners, appeared to be pursuing an in-pair conceptive strategy. They experienced greater desire for their current partners and they did not experience elevated desire for other partners as conception probability increased.
  
  Abstract
  
  Women’s reproductive biology imposes heavy obligatory costs of parental investment, creating strong selective forces hypothesized to shape female mating psychology around critical decisions such as the choice of partner, the timing of sexual intercourse, and the timing of reproduction. We propose that female sexual desire has evolved as one adaptation among several designed to regulate these decisions. We hypothesize (a) an increase in desire as conception probability increases, but only among women who are in committed long-term relationships; and (b) a shift in the desire for a primary partner as compared with extra-pair partners as ovulation approaches, dependent upon a woman’s evaluation of her primary partner’s relative quality. We tested several predictions derived from these hypotheses in a study of 173 women who were not taking oral contraceptives. Results confirmed Hypothesis 1: An ovulatory peak in sexual desire was found only for mated women; for unmated women, conception probability and sexual desire were uncorrelated. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Among mated women, those with higher conception probability exhibited higher levels of in-pair sexual desire relative to those at lower conception probability. Conception probability and relationship length interacted significantly to predict extra-pair desires, such that women in longer relationships were more likely to experience desire for extra-pair partners during periods of high conception probability. The pursuit of an in-pair conceptive strategy (as opposed to an extra-pair conceptive strategy) was also associated with the occurrence of sexual activity in the relationship.
  
  II. Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts
  in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention
  
  According to the good genes model, a dual-mating strategy is advantageous only if a
  woman’s partner lacks cues to good genes. We therefore predicted that women with less
  sexually attractive partners (those likely to display fewer cues to good genes) would show
  ovulatory increases in extra-pair desires. The good-genes model predicts that this effect will
  be specific to sexual attractiveness and will not be observed for partners lacking investment
  cues. This differential pattern of effects is, in fact, what we found. Sexual attractiveness, but
  not investment attractiveness, interacted with fertility status to predict extra-pair desires;
  women rating their partners as least sexually attractive showed the greatest increases in extrapair desires. We predicted and found parallel results for partner mate retention. Less sexually
  attractive men—those for whom female infidelity may be of greatest concern—were reported
  to increase their mate retention efforts more at high fertility.
  
  Re the nightclub study, I believe that used single women in the sample, and found that ovulating single women were more likely to dress to attract male attention.
  
  I’m just very curious to see the scientific proof supporting the notion that men don’t have to be constantly on the lookout for hypergamy/cuckoldry, as from a purely evolutionary and game theoretic standpoint
  
  You’re asking me to prove a negative. The fact is that the Game definition was made up by someone without expertise in any field related to mating or female sexuality. AFAIK, it has never been tested. Female hypergamy is regarded throughout the scientific community as relating to marrying up – that is, a woman prefers to marry a man of higher status than her own.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
Ted D

Chris – “as from a purely evolutionary and game theoretic standpoint, such defections from cooperative mating when it advantages the woman, even when it’s at the man’s expense and where there are no punitive measures for doing so, make perfect sense.”

This is exactly the same train of thought I have on the matter as well. It makes sense to me that biologically a woman would often take the risk of “extra on the side” if she truly felt that the “other” man’s genes are better than her husbands. Surely that doesn’t mean she does not love her husband, but if she is cheating with this reasoning (even if it is unconcious) then she has decided that despite her love for him, he is a sub-standard man.

Now when we were swinging from trees, perhaps this didn’t happen as often for fear of reprisal. But our modern society has made if FAR safer for women to cheat, as in most cases the worst outcome is a divorce in which she is likely to at least keep 50% of everything she shared in her marriage. To be sure many women aren’t looking for that to happen, but when they aren’t in fear of their life, much of the pressure to “behave” is removed. All that is left is a woman’s character and the husbands level of alpha attraction over his wife to keep her from straying. So, if you aren’t very alpha and/or you married a woman with questionable character? Well, I wouldn’t be too thrilled with “girls night out” at all in that situation.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #340:
“I’m not going to debate study design with you. Everything you have read by David Buss relied on precisely the studies you are now discrediting.”

O: LOL. Why NOT, Ms. Walsh? Prof. Buss debated his study design with fellow psychologist Michael Britt on the latter’s podcast show The Psych Files, with none of the flippancy or defensiveness you evidence in your reply above.

Indeed, it is quite common for researchers to haggle over the nature of study design; one of the reasons is one I’m sure you’re quite familiar with; “Juking The Stats”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogxZxu6cjM

Researchers are known to have biases just as much, if not moreso, than anyone else; an excellent illustration of this point, was the case of Harvard scholar and bestselling author, Robert Putnam, of Bowling Alone fame. He deliberately attempted to bury and hold back his research which proved that “diversity” is NOT a good thing, because his *ideology* got out in front of his science. It happens all the time – and YES, I am saying that you are not immune from it either. In fact, in light of recent comments by you in this regard, I am more inclined to say that you are just as ideologically motivated as some of the very people you decry early and often; what’s the difference in the end?

So, yes, I am questioning the study design of the stats you present, because I know for a fact that is NOT the reality on the ground I am seeing; and before you try to discredit me based on age, or SES, again, I cite Northwestern U scholar Mary Patillo, who’s specialty is the Black Middle Class:

http://www.afam.northwestern.edu/people/mary-pattillo.html

Patillo notes the fact that, unlike White Americans, where overlap and social interaction between classes occurs much less, among African Americans it occurs at much higher rates. This is why I call BS on your notion of “towns versus gowns” theory, because it is quite common in Black America for a middle class, suburban girl going away to college to have a working class boyfriend at home. Granted, many of those couples break up; but the same happens among couples of similar SES background, too.

And since by your own admission, you do indeed have among your demo a slice of Black Women, what I’m posting is indeed important to add to the conversation…whether you like it or not…

“Based on Ted’s descriptions of Pittsburgh, it sounds to me like the two of you live in very similar communities. *Shrugs.* It’s hardly surprising that your observations would differ from a study of college students aged 20.”

O: Here’s the problem, though:

1. Based on what Ted has described, his community is in a notably worse way off than mine; I live in a heavily SWPL (and their Black equivalent) dominated area

2. You’re not the only one to have a “focus group”; my nephew, who also happens to be a STEM student, will be 22 this fall and attends one of the Philly’s biggest unis. The stuff he and his buds talks about is simply off the chain, and is virtually 180 degrees from what you’ve been banging the drum about here. Nope, he’s not a Black Greek, and nope, he doesn’t attend an HBCU (though he did transfer from one prior to his current uni; it was off the chain there, too). And no, he’s not one of the Black Nerds on the outside looking in, either; he’s STEM (smart Brothas tends to run in the family) but he’s also very good looking and a wideout on the team; in fact there’s been rumors of him possibly going pro.

So, no Ms. Walsh; that which informs my views in these matters, is a heck of a lot more, than you want to think.

Holla back

O.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@SW

People who dismiss studies as useless are frightened of having their illusions destroyed.

You have noticed a very definite script in use around here? I did, when I first started lurking. It’s one that cannot (must not) change, no matter what information anybody brings to the table.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Iggles #754:
“To weigh in here, I do see Susan’s point. If a woman wants marriage and children then an unmarried man of that age does raise questions.”

O: I do, too; Ms. Walsh is implying that I, and/or Men like me, are somehow “wasting Women’s time” by getting involved with them, knowing that we have no desire for marriage. But the fact of the matter – the truth – is that guys like me don’t string Women along like that. The simple truth is, we don’t have to.

I have never lied to a Woman as to what I did or didn’t want, and they knew that right upfront. Again, to be clear, I have turned down two proposals, precisely because I didn’t want to be married. There’s no shame, in my Game.

“From what I’ve seen most never married men in their 40s are single either because they shun marriage in general or have personal issues to work through, which prevent them from forming lasting relationships.”

O: Neither of which apply to me; I’ve had loving, deeply fulfilling relationships, WITHOUT MARRIAGE, that have lasted longer than quite a few marriages I know of; and of the couples I do know, my relationships had a better quality to them.

For example, me and Ms. Brown Sugah have been together four years now, and we enjoy each other’s company so much that we have literally talked to each other from dusk till dawn. Fun question: how many couples talk to each other for say, a half an hour? And actually enjoy it? I mean marrieds, now. Think about it.

“Case in point, I know a guy who is 39 and sounds great on paper (well paying STEM job, various interests and hobbies, rather diverse social circle of friends). He’s a good person and great friend. He has no shortage of dates and interest from women. However, the guy is a TERRIBLE bet for marriages/kids/even a LTR — he has never had a relationship that lasted more than 6 months(!)…I had set him up with a friend once and learned through her that he has a number of relationship issues to sort out. I feel for him because he is truly getting in his own way. STRs are all he truly knows because at a certain point he’s not comfortable with the relationship emotionally escalating to the level it needs for true intimacy.”

O: Yes, I am very familiar with what you’re talking about; this was among the many points I was making when I cited Tyler Perry, as you will recall. One of the dirty little secrets in Black America, is that Black Women who are educated don’t like to discuss the fact that despite many of the Brothas in their cohort looking good on paper in the ways you describe, leave a lot to be desired when it comes to things like, emotional maturity, emotional intimacy, and yea I’ll say it, just growing up. I’ve done lost count as to the number of Sistas in that cohort who’ve told me such things, to my face – which includes Ms. Brown Sugah, I might add. The college experience, extended adolescence and the like, is deliterious to MEN. NOT Women – MEN. THIS, is among the reasons why the “Blue Collar Brotha Meme” is so strong in Black popular culture; and I posit that this “meme” can and will “crossover” into White America before long. In the meantime, it’s netted Brothas like me quite a nice niche to exploit. And boy, do we.

“His situation is different from Obsidian’s, whom as I recalled mentioned in a prior post that he chose not to get married.”

O: Correct. Nor have I ever hidden this fact from any Woman I’ve been with – and it hasn’t prevented me from getting the loving, deeply fulfilling relationships I’ve wanted, on MY terms.

Nor will it.

“+1

Similarly, a woman with Obsidian’s romantic history might draw concern from marriage minded men. They would want to know if she’s looking for husband or if she’s a serial monogamist who moves on after a certain number of years.”

O: Nein. The prescribed role of any Man today, is not only that they must accept Female “freedom” and “choice” but they must NEVER question it; instead, they must do The Oprah Nod.

Like Bill Maher said…

O.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@ Susan Walsh, David Foster

” it strikes me that the dichotomy “hot & mean” vs “not-hot & nice” as applied to men is pretty much parallel to the “madonna” vs “whore” dichotomy as applied to women.”

“You’re the first to make that point, and it’s a very interesting one, IMO. Do you care to elaborate?”

I see this as based on our narcissism, which is our tendency to ideal/devalue. It’s also why for some people you see a bully on top with cowardice underneath.

It’s also why I refer to “narcissistic cads,” who are so-called Alphas. They’re got this fake confidence and charm on top covering up a lot of shame and cowardice. When one interviewer suggested that Bill Clinton was very concerned with what people thought about him, he responded.”Don’t go there.” And he was a charming man with many accusations of rape against him, which meant he was covering up his feelings of shame, humiliation, powerless and anger by trying to be controlling and dominating.

I knew one cad who when a bum asked him for a dollar threw it on the ground and ran. This is the same guy who when another guy told him his girlfriend was ugly said nothing and walked away. He used to call his guy friends to give him excuses to get away from a “girlfriend” because he didn’t have the courage to tell them he wanted to get away from them.

This is also a guy who’s had sex with about 100 and makes quite a lot of money.

I’ve also found the female versions of cads – generally referred to as sluts – are also cowards.

When people idealize “Alphas” I just smile.
VD

We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM.

This is good clarification, Ted. It’s really not a very difficult concept to understand. A woman may love her children and she may love her dog, but she is not turned on by them. She may love certain beta traits and even seek them out in Long Term Relationships, but they do not turn her on. The reason that it is hard to get women to understand this distinction between “what I love” and “what turns me on” is that for women, turning on is a delicate process that is largely a black box to them. It is a process that can be completely undermined by a man simply phrasing things in the wrong way, and without her even realizing how or why. And, in precisely the same manner, it can also be triggered without her realizing how or why. Let’s face it, none of the women whose bodies responded to video of animals mating was likely to have any idea that one zebra mounting another would turn her on. How could she possibly have known that?

This is why one of the core principles of Game has always been to ignore what women say about what turns them on and turns them off. For the most part, they genuinely don’t know because they don’t pay close attention to the process or analyze it in the way that men who are particularly interested in the process do. If you want to understand the behavioral patterns of the prey, ask the predator.

If a woman denies that she responds sexually to assholes, jerks and Dark Triadists, I would simply ask her if she is physically excited by seeing homosexual men have sex. And if she denies it, as most women would, I would simply smile and henceforth ignore her opinion on the matter because there is reasonable grounds for considering it to be unreliable. What she is actually saying is that she does not place LTR value on such men and she has sufficient self-control that she does not give in to her less rational impulses. I suspect that the confusion stems from the fact that her actions – not having sex with jerks – are in line with her claimed opinion that she is not attracted to jerks.

The logical problem here is the Converse Fallacy of Accident, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.

Argument: I must be attracted to a man to have sex with him and every man with whom I’ve had sex is not a jerk, therefore, all men to whom I am attracted are not jerks.
Problem: The men with whom she has had sex are not a representative subset of the entire set of men to whom she is attracted.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I’m inclined to disagree with Vox re attraction to beta traits, but this obviously depends on what you define as beta. However, there is reason to believe most women find at least some beta traits sexually attractive.
  
  Pair-bonding was a dramatic adaptation in female attraction cues. This was not a case of “I like ‘em mean, but boring old George is a good dad bet so I’ll have sex with him.” Women began to select smaller and less symmetrical men for sex after the evolution of pair bonding. Those beta males reproduced more than the larger, symmetrical men (thought to be the equivalent of today’s Dark Triad). Certainly, some women did choose Dark Triad males, or they couldn’t have reproduced, but increasingly women chose to have sex with men who exhibited collaborative, co-parenting traits. They also prioritize intelligence, industriousness, and the ability to demonstrate love and affection. These are indeed qualities that may make women view a man as a “catch.”
  
  This is not to say that abundant beta traits get a woman’s panties wet if no alpha traits are present. We know too well that the supplicating hard-working engineer is not going to turn women on. But there are several clear indications that women reject the most masculine men. For example, women prefer feminized faces over very masculine faces.
  
  They are also very good at singling out photographs of men who cheat and men with a short-term mating orientation, even after viewing them for only a fraction of a second. They regularly rate these men as unattractive compared to photos of men with a long-term mating orientation.
  
  And every woman can tell you about crushes she’s had that came from witnessing a man being good with children. I have felt that tug myself, even stronger than a tingle. Watching a man nurture kids is very attractive to females. Does that mean that women will cream in their jeans watching pediatricians? No, but it does mean they are more likely to say, “I want to get to know him. He seems very attractive.”
  
  Measuring bloodflow to the vagina at first meeting is not the right question we should be asking, IMO, if what the woman feels at first meeting is a desire to take a man’s measure for an LTR. (Of course, if the goal is getting beautiful women into bed within 7 hours of meeting, it is absolutely the right question, because then you’re discussing women with a STR orientation.)
INTJ

@ VD

Problem: The men with whom she has had sex are not a representative subset of the entire set of men to whom she is attracted.

Feminists keep trying to change that.
Desiderius

Samael,

“That sure brings back memories of high school…except I showered daily and had no idea girls where interested in me. You sound like you’re a pretty cool teacher… unfortunately there aren’t too many of you guys around to keep kids like me engaged in the classroom.”

Thx, it was a job I looked forward to every day. Kids like you kept me engaged in the classroom.

= )

Lots of fond memories, cards, letters. We’re still around, but the districts prefer to hire young women right out of ed school. There were over 1,000 applicants for a recent opening at the school I mentioned, so I’ve moved on.
Mike C

Just to reiterate what I said earlier, ****EMPHASIS***studies that ask “who would you do” or “what would you do” are not valuable.***EMPHASIS*** Studies that ask, “which man is more attractive” or “how many people did you hook up with this semester” are potentially very valuable.

Susan,

OK….now….so unless I have completely lost my ability to understand the English language, this is *YOU* stating that you believe surveys that try to assess what someone self-reports as hypothetical behavior are not valuable.

Now, when I first brought up Badger’s post on surveys, you were dismissive and continued to be dismissive.

http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/dont-pay-attention-to-psych-surveys-that-amount-to-self-fortune-telling/

*** I have completely stopped paying attention to these studies that query people with hypotheticals.*** Their theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, their methods are sloppy and their conclusions are highly questionable.

So, in actuality, you and he in agreement as a substantive matter that surveys on hypothetical behavior are not valuable unless you really didn’t mean what you said above.

Now you can characterize this as “Gotcha” if you want, but that isn’t the point. The point is you are being inconsistent. Many/most people won’t pick up these inconsistencies. Politicians rely on that fact that most people cannot discern these, but intelligent and observant people pick them up. In my mind, credibility demands consistency.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  The point is you are being inconsistent. Many/most people won’t pick up these inconsistencies. Politicians rely on that fact that most people cannot discern these, but intelligent and observant people pick them up. In my mind, credibility demands consistency.
  
  Are you implying that I am deliberately talking out of both sides of my mouth, hoping that readers here are not intelligent enough to pick up on that?
  I request a firm answer to this question, as it seems to be the latest in a series of questions aimed at doubting my character and intellectual honesty.
  
  In any case, you have mischaracterized my statement. There was no inconsistency, which you would have seen if you’d read Badger’s post before you went for the gotcha. Badger also rules out the following:
  
  Rational reasons why they made certain decisions which are most likely made emotionally and subconsciously and then rationalized after the fact.
  
  I think it’s extremely valuable to ask people why they made certain choices. For example, the chart highlighting the motivations for hooking up is very enlightening for both sexes:
  
  Under Badger’s guidelines, that would be bogus. In taking this position, Badger rules out any psychological study. He would say, no doubt, that women may rate cheater’s faces as unattractive, but those are the guys they want to f*ck. So we go round and round.
  
  The truth is that if any studies at all confirmed Badger’s views he’d be singing a different tune. In the same way that feminists are being embarrassed by studies showing very clear sex differences, beta males adopting asshole game are rejecting studies that show that women don’t like assholes, or that only certain kinds of women like assholes. This was apparent in the the whingeing and whining of beta males when the Definitive Survey was posted. If only 3% of guys in college get more than 6 lays, what the hell is all this about? It’s extremely threatening to their world view.
  
  In fact, this country has a rich tradition of polling people to find out what they think, and to modify policy or predict winners based on those surveys. Research about people’s attitudes is some of the most important and interesting research that’s conducted.
Höllenhund

I understand Wudang’s point, but the fact is that many men do enjoy pursuing women and “winning” them, via intrasexual competition with other males.

It seems you didn’t understand it. You’re comparing apples and oranges. As noted, men generally want to avoid challenges, drama and excitement in their relationships (“drama” as including head games, shit tests, acting out, hissy fits). That has nothing to do with pursuing women, which is also often misunderstood, I should add. The idea that men particularly enjoy pursuing women is flawed. Look no further for evidence than films, books and other cultural products traditionally directed at men. They typically involve the male protagonist who takes great risk in some heroic struggle, achieves success and some hot woman just falls into his lap as a result; she doesn’t have to be gamed, courted or cleverly wooed. James Bond movies are obvious examples. The reason is the common male fantasy, which is securing the attraction of a woman (or women) through worldly successes and achievements, by heroically beating the male competition. Female choice only plays a limited role – after all, a woman cannot choose a man who is dead or has opted out of the competition.
Escoffier

Susan, I’ve now said this more than once and you always ignore it.

How could hypergamy–allegedly a natural, biololigcal, evolved desire–amount to a woman’s desire to MARRY up, when marriage is a purely human instititution that is probably around 6,000 years old, and certainly not more than 10,000.

If one defines hypergamy as the female’s desire to MATE up, whether for the short, medium or long term, it suddenly makes much more sense. And we can still allow for all kinds of differences in what women prefer depending on whether they are seeking a man for the short, medium, or long term.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  Mate up is fine with me. Here are several examples of hypergamy:
  
  Female 6 has ONS with male 8.
  Female 6 marries male 6 with status.
  Female 6 marries slacker 5 as she approaches 30, then divorces him 10 years later.
  Female 6 dates male 6 for a year, then dumps him when male 7 declares he is crazy about her.
  
  Here are examples that are not hypergamy:
  
  Female 6 has ONS with male 6, then becomes unwilling to have ONS with a male lower than 7. After having a ONS with a male 7, refuses to hook up with any male below 8, etc.
  
  Female 6 marries male 6, but continuously mentally auditions higher status males as a potential replacement.
  
  Female 6 marries male 7, but continuously mentally auditions higher status males as a potential replacement.
  
  Female 6 marries male 8, but continuously mentally auditions higher status males as a potential replacement.
  
  Female 6 marries male 9, but continuously mentally auditions higher status males as a potential replacement.
  
  Female 6 wonders where the man she married went. He has been replaced by a spineless, boring joe who isolates himself after dinner each night in front of the TV. When she speaks to him, he offers monosyllabic responses. She divorces him.
  
  Female 6 rejects Nice Guy 6.
  
  It’s MATING UP, not TRADING UP.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #744:
“Nah, I don’t think so. I think the manosophere is a curiosity, almost a cult. It’s an interesting collection of personalities and conversations, a form of entertainment.”

O: Hmm. Why then don’t I get such an impression from say, Ms. Anacaona…or Ms. Hope…or Ms. J…or Ms. Courtley? None of these ladies seem to have an “entertainment mentality” when discussing various aspects of the Manosphere; indeed, Ms. J has recently gone on record in saying that Roissy is “hurt” and a “lost boy”; Ms. Courtley has expressed what she considers to be deep concern for some of the sphere’s commenters, and so on. At the very least this suggests more than an idle, passing interest on the part of the ladies here – especially when put together with the fact that the same group of ladies can’t seem to get through ONE discussion here, WITHOUT mentioning, or referencing, the Manosphere in some shape or form.

Curious, indeed…

“I think that my readers welcome the red pill, as it is our best hope that the number of men women find attractive will increase, and that dominance, which has eroded so dramatically from the male population since the Women’s Movement will make a comeback.”

O: No, I don’t think as many of your readers welcome the Red Pill as much as you think they do, largely because they either don’t understand what the reference means, or, they have bought into your reframing of it. Here’s the original Wiki definition of the term:

“The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are pop culture symbols representing the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

In SMP terms, the Red Pill is the reality that, for example, Women truly DO want it both ways: they want the Jane Austen treatment, when it suits them, and they want the Egalitarian thing, again, when it suits them. The illusion, for example, is the notion of “equality”, which in truth, isn’t the case at all. A Man who chooses the Red Pill, is one who eschews ALL contrivances and conventions – “pretty lies” as Roissy calls them – along these lines. It informs why, for example, I have chosen not to marry, but can still get my sexual and emotional needs met despite this. Remember what Morpheus said to Neo: The Matrix is built upon “rules” which, if one knows what they are, can be bent; even broken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12u1nA7bXzc

To continue: Red Pills – guys like me – don’t force anybody to do anything; indeed, we simply present a choice, much like Morpheus to Neo:

“Morpheus alludes to the fact that the reality that Neo is accustomed to is a lie and that Morpheus can show him the truth. He is asked to make a choice between two pills, red and blue. The blue pill will cause him to “wake up in [his] bed and believe whatever [he] want[s] to believe.” He is told that if he takes the red pill, however, he will “stay in Wonderland” and Morpheus will “show [him] how deep the rabbit hole goes,” an allusion to Alice in Wonderland.”

This is why – and here I respond to a recent question posed to me by Ms. Alias in a previous discussion – I am neutral on the question of marriage, indeed, of Game itself; it is not my place to tell any Man *what* to do with Game, or *who* he should do it with; I merely present him with the tools. He must decide form himself which way he will go, for if I am “for” anything, IT IS MALE FREEDOM AND CHOICE, WHATEVER THAT MEANS. Even if that means that others can and most likely will pay the price – for example, fewer Women marrying.

But my position is consistent; after all, for more than three decades running, Women have fought tooth and nail for the very same “freedom” and “choice”, but also for the right to do so *without judgment of any kind*, and, for the right to do these things, *regardless as to who must pay for it*. Millions of Men have been denied mates, indeed, have been denied the role of dads, *because* Women decided to make other choices – and despite occasional saber rattling by Conservative Paper Tigers, Men have gone along with it, overall. Now, it’s the ladies turn, and I’ll be the first to say upfront, that quite a few of them will not me wives or even Baby Mamas, *because* Men will have made affirmative, deliberate choices that do not include such Women in their life plans. If indeed these Women value “freedom” and “choice” as much as their lip service suggests, if they honor this, they will simply accept – quietly – that which Men have accepted. The very fact that they do not, again speaks to their rank hypocrisy…and explains at least in part, why the Manosphere, exists.

“As you know, I endorse Game, and as far as I know, that’s true of all of my female readers as well.”

O: You “endorse” Game to the extent that it serves your own freely admitted narrow interests, which is ultimately, marriage among the White UMC. I, on the other hand, endorse Game as a larger nod toward endorsing Male Freedom & Choice, whatever that may be: so, if a Man sees no value in Game, I honor that; that’s his choice. If a Man values Game and wishes to use it to strengthen his marriage or LTR, I honor that; if a Man values Game to the extent that it helps him meet his sexual variety goals, then I honor that, with the proviso that he does so honorably, which is fully in keeping with the Player’s Code. In short, the reasons *why* we “endorse Game”, are in fact, quite different.

O.
Escoffier

If you/we are just hung up on the word than we can stop using it. However, the key point is that the same impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up also causes her to want other things which are not so good.

So, to take the infidelity point, you say that infielity is not caused by hypergamy (or, let us say, “Impulse X”) UNLESS the woman ditches her husband for a higher status male.

Really? So imagine a conventionally high status male, UMC, well dressed, successful, intelligent, makes a good living, etc. But he goes totally beta in the marriage and the wife steps out with a contractor or tennis pro. By every conventional measure of status, the paramour is lower than her husband. So, “Impulse X” had nothing to do with her actions?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  However, the key point is that the same impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up also causes her to want other things which are not so good.
  
  It sounds like you think it’s “not so good” that women want to marry up. If so, why? I think it’s very good.
  
  But he goes totally beta in the marriage and the wife steps out with a contractor or tennis pro. By every conventional measure of status, the paramour is lower than her husband. So, “Impulse X” had nothing to do with her actions?
  
  No, that has nothing to do with hypergamy. As you say, those men are lower status than what she’s already got. That’s just straight cheating, which women do for reasons unrelated to trading up. Her husband is boring, he never initiates sex, or when he does it’s rote. She looks at her future life of decades spent with this man and she feels depressed. She feels unattractive and taken for granted. Suddenly the tennis pro, personal trainer, or pool man makes it clear that he finds her attractive. She feels sexual again, possibly for the first time in years. These men are perfect for an affair, because she knows she will never be tempted to actually leave her marriage for them, owing to their low status. This is a dalliance, a little something to make the long weeks, months and years bearable.
  
  This is how the female in this situation (Not all women, Mike C!) is likely to explain her behavior.
  
  This is not hypergamy. In fact, it’s hypogamy for a fling.
Ted D

Susan – “I don’t mean to be glib, but men shouldn’t marry selfish, entitled, hypergamous bitches. I can guarantee that her personality was on full display when you wifed her up, and there were red flags you ignored.”

Yes and no. The truth is, I was never taught to recognize those “red flags” and therefore wasn’t even watching for them. In hindsight you are 100% correct, and I’ve stated that to this day my ex is STILL unhappy with her life despite leaving our marriage to “find herself and become independent”. So yes, the problems in our marriage were partly baggage she had been carrying around. But, I would say that many, many women have similar baggage lately, AND most men have NO FREAKING CLUE how to spot these problems in a potential wife.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  But, I would say that many, many women have similar baggage lately, AND most men have NO FREAKING CLUE how to spot these problems in a potential wife.
  
  That is a serious problem, as you have learned first-hand. But that is one thing you can’t blame on the hypergamous bitch.
J

Conclusion: beta traits are not necessary for attraction. Are necessary for relationships.

Does Helen Fischer actually say that there are two kinds of love–dopamin-based sexual attraction and oxytocin/vasopression based attachment. People are lucky when they can feel both for the same person. I think that’s what women are looking for when they say they want a combination of alpha and beta traits. In order to participate in a modern marriage, they need a guy they can feel an initial sexual attraction to, but they also need that guy to stick around to raise a family with and to be an agreeable mate.

In some senses, we have unrealistic expectations of marriage. We expect sexual attraction to last a lifetime, even though it doesn’t for most people. We expect sexual attraction to mellow into attachment, even though it doesn’t for most people. We shouldn’t be surprised at a 50% divorce rate. It’s what most tribal people experience and presumably what our ancestors experienced.
Mike C

Back to the original subject….of “hot and mean” versus “not hot and nice”…here is an excerpt from a woman demonstrating how some women feel about “nice guys” and why they are not hot

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me. They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.

And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.

Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

Nothing new or surprising to me here, but for the blue pill nice guy reading something like this has to probably get close to causing a stroke. Because for him being the “nice guy” is real and authentic. To act “like a jerk” would be putting up a front. So one reason the “nice guy” isn’t hot for many women is they are suspicious of him, assuming the “niceness” is an act to try and get them to have sex.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  I believe that woman is talking about the Nice Guy TM, who is a bitter and angry guy who goes around bitching that nice guys like him don’t get laid. Lots of Nice Guys are not nice guys. That’s certainly true in the ‘sphere.
Ted D

Susan – “Hypergamy: A woman’s desire to marry up.”

Then I’m with Escoffier, it needs its own name. Because we keep coming back to this over and over, which tells me it IS very important to the discussion. However we keep going round and round because we aren’t calling it the same thing.

Impulse X – the tendency for women to get bored/restless/tired of a LTR/marriage and either cheat, “trade up” (that is leave for a better man), or simply EPL the marriage. It exists Susan, I’ve seen it, Escoffier has seen it, many other men here have seen it. So whether it is hypergamy or not, it IS indeed a common occurrence. And I still maintain that the two are related all the same.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Impulse X — the tendency for women to get bored/restless/tired of a LTR/marriage and either cheat, “trade up” (that is leave for a better man), or simply EPL the marriage. It exists Susan, I’ve seen it, Escoffier has seen it, many other men here have seen it. So whether it is hypergamy or not, it IS indeed a common occurrence.
  
  Men and women commit adultery at the same rates.
  
  Men might be more likely to stay in the marriage, but in the link to a study on reasons for divorce, women had specific reasons for divorcing, e.g. substance abuse, perpetual unemployment, etc. while men said they didn’t know why the divorce occurred. The researchers hypothesized that the men were pleading ignorance to deny bad behavior. Personally, I think that bad behavior in marriages is probably equally common between the sexes.
  
  I do think that women are guilty of often having unrealistic expectations of what marriage can deliver.
  
  None of this is hypergamy. Call it what you like, but don’t call it something that already exists and means something else. It just confuses the conversation, as you can see.
Escoffier

Susan, the problem is, there are too many examples of women choosing men whom the majority of men despise or hold in contempt, and of women ignoring men whom other men thing are terrific. Our seal of approval may help, but in the end it does not appear to be decisive for female attraction.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  Susan, the problem is, there are too many examples of women choosing men whom the majority of men despise or hold in contempt, and of women ignoring men whom other men thing are terrific
  
  I don’t think that’s true. The men who get the most sex in college are frat guys and athletes, who display a strong elevation among males right out of the gate. Frats are selective, athletics is very selective. We may question why these men are being rewarded, but they are.
  
  In terms of ignoring men other men think are terrific, that isn’t really the standard. It’s the leader of men, the men who may in fact inspire fear rather than suggest grabbing a beer.
deti

SW 770:

“Women want the best possible mate for conceiving, birthing and raising young.”

Doesn’t this support the view that women want men for, and see men, simply as utilities, who exist solely for the purpose of assisting women in the task of making and raising kids? Are you conceding that those who have said this very thing have been correct all along? Or is there something else going on?

What of men as human beings, as people in their own right, with wants, needs, desires and goals of their own?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @deti
  
  “Women want the best possible mate for conceiving, birthing and raising young.”
  
  Doesn’t this support the view that women want men for, and see men, simply as utilities, who exist solely for the purpose of assisting women in the task of making and raising kids?
  
  As Helen Fisher says, we are reproducing machines. We were built to reproduce, not have relationships, and the happiness we find, we make.
  
  The equivalent is: “Men want the most fertile women possible for conceiving their children.” (Fertility cues include bright eyes, lustrous hair, .7 wait to hip ratio, clear skin, strong white teeth, fit musculature, etc., IOW standards of beauty.)
  
  It’s not about the human spirit. It’s reproduction.
Ted D

Excoffier – “Our seal of approval may help, but in the end it does not appear to be decisive for female attraction.”

There is a very simple answer to this. By and large, I think most men still tend to “rank” each other based on older style traits. We respect men based on things like their ability to make sense, their ability to remain calm under stress, their knowledge, and a host of other traits largely pulled from a historical ideal of “alpha” in terms of manliness.

The problem is, almost all of that stuff falls on the beta side of the fence. So, regardless of how “good” we men may feel a particular man is, women by and large may completely ignore him if he doesn’t push those primal attraction buttons. In years past, we avoided this problem largely by:
1. teaching women to appreciate “beta” style traits in order to choose a good husband.
2. arranged marriage. or, at least a VERY involved family in the process.

Basically, we overrode women’s natural inclination for the “bad boy” with societal expectations and family stewardship.
J

We’re still around, but the districts prefer to hire young women right out of ed school

New grads are cheap hires. My school district seems to keep the sex ratio pretty balanced, but it loves young, cheap teachers. We got a Princeton grad last year for pennies. When it hires veteran teachers, they seem to either come from private schools where the pay is even worse, be the creme de la creme and get decent compensation, or come from schools in rough neighborhoods and be willing to take a pay cut in order to teach in the suburbs. For all the bitching people do about teacher salaries, the pay actually sucks as do the hours.

Both my sons do some tutoring, and both are constantly told that they’d make great teachers. Neither wants to work for peanuts, so they literally laugh at the compliment. And that’s a shame for all of us–because I’m sure that the best young people don’t want to teach for a living any more.
Mike C

Susan, the problem is, there are too many examples of women choosing men whom the majority of men despise or hold in contempt, and of women ignoring men whom other men thing are terrific. Our seal of approval may help, but in the end it does not appear to be decisive for female attraction.

Yup.

Interestingly, in distant times, perhaps this fact was well understood at least on an intuitive level as fathers played a very heavy vetting role in allowing any man to court or marry his daughter. Escoffier, you know literature probably 1000x better than me. Isn’t this theme quite common of women selecting “bad men” from the male POV. I’ll admit that of all the notions I find the most at odds with reality, it is this one that women simply respond to whoever the “victor” is in the male hierarchy of the competition amongst men. Clearly, there are men who can “short circuit” and bypass establishing rank and respect amongst men and go straight to triggering other attraction variables specific to women.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  An interesting study re cads and dads in literature:
  
  PROPER AND DARK HEROES AS DADS AND CADS:
  Alternative Mating Strategies in British Romantic Literature
  
  Empirical tests described in this article support hypotheses derived from evolutionary theory on the perceptions of literary characters. The proper and dark heroes in British Romantic literature of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries respectively represent long-term and short-term mating strategies. Recent studies indicate that for long-term relationships, women seek partners with the ability and willingness to sustain paternal investment in extended relationships. For short-term relationships, women choose partners whose features indicate high genetic quality. In hypothetical scenarios, females preferred proper heroes for long-term relationships. The shorter the relationship under consideration, the more likely women were to choose dark heroes as partners.
  
  …Draper, Harpending, and Belsky reason that, because cads are more polygynous than dads, they ought to have developed to be more highly sexually competitive. Their review of the literature on the subject supports this view. Cross-culturally, men from father-absent households favor a sexually promiscuous mating strategy and are misogynistic and reluctant to engage in parental investment; they are also violent, aggressive, rebellious, high in risk-taking, and at high risk of incarceration. Boys from father-present households are more likely than boys from father-absent households to delay sexual experience, have positive attitudes towards and develop stable pair-bonds with women, have good relations with male peers, and accept authority.
  
  …Dads attract women by showing their ability and willingness to parentally invest in children; these men are compassionate, kind, romantic, and industrious. Cads attract women by showing that they are highly competitive and will give women sons who show the same characteristics; these men are dominant, brave, aggressive, high in risk-taking, rebellious, and prone to be criminals.
  
  …Some researchers or literary scholars may claim that our results reflect stereotypes deeply rooted in patriarchal Western family systems. We consider this unlikely because anthropological research finds dad and cad morphs with distinct clusters of personality traits cross-culturally (Draper and Belsky 1990).
  
  ..it has been shown that women in postindustrial societies who hold positions of high status and economic power actually increase their preference for high status men with extensive resources (Townsend 1989; Wiederman and Allgeier 1992). This pattern is also consistent in societies where women have more economic resources than men (Ardener 1960).
  
  It’s true that cads are often not respected by other men – hence the Brooding Loner archetype. Historically, they have not been viewed as alpha males, but as rogue males, outside the boundaries of accepted society. That is true of the literary cads I’m aware of.
Sassy6519

@ Ted D

Impulse X – the tendency for women to get bored/restless/tired of a LTR/marriage and either cheat, “trade up” (that is leave for a better man), or simply EPL the marriage. It exists Susan, I’ve seen it, Escoffier has seen it, many other men here have seen it. So whether it is hypergamy or not, it IS indeed a common occurrence. And I still maintain that the two are related all the same.

Can’t that “impulse” be easily summed up as dissatisfaction? That seems to be the easiest way to describe it, in my opinion. If a woman leaves a relationship, or strays within one, it would appear that she is dissatisfied with the relationship on some level. This dissatisfaction could span a range of things, including the following:

*Hypothetical woman says: I’m dissatisfied with my relationship, and want to leave because:*

– I’m not attracted to him anymore
-The sex has become boring
-I’m tired of the constant arguments
-I’m tired of being abused
-I miss my freedom
-I like someone else
-I don’t think he appreciates me
-He cheated on me

The list is endless. There are too many reasons that a woman could leave a relationship, but the root seems to be dissatisfaction. Categorizing the exit of a relationship as a female “impulse” seems mighty far fetched. Last time I checked, men dump women too.

On another note, it’s important to keep in mind that all relationships are voluntary. Remaining in a relationship isn’t mandatory, and people do leave sometimes. That’s the risk people take in engaging in relationships in the first place.
Ted D

J – “In some senses, we have unrealistic expectations of marriage. We expect sexual attraction to last a lifetime, even though it doesn’t for most people. We expect sexual attraction to mellow into attachment, even though it doesn’t for most people. ”

Cosigned. But here is the rub: in our modern Western world, it is VERY easy to get a divorce. In the past, when people married and found themselves unhappy, for better or worse they stuck it out. Now, many people bail at the slightest hint of trouble, and anyone that has been married for more than a couple years knows that “trouble” comes with the job. We’ve simply stopped raising men and women that know how to work through those tough times, and the result is people divorcing much more.

In addition, I think it is a relatively new thing that we expect sexual attraction AND long term attachment from our marriages. It used to be assumed that marriage was for life, so no one even questioned the “long term” part if the equation. And, by and large, most marriages WERE NOT based in any way on “sexual attraction”, so it was never expected in the first place. However, once women were freed to “empower” themselves by having casual sex, they got a taste for that raw sexual attraction, and like a drug addict they can’t get enough. Men of course have the same urges, but by and large society has been doing its best to repress those urges, and has been mostly successful. Sure, there have always been cheating husbands. But, for the most part, the numbers were not extreme and even among cheaters there was at least attempts to keep such things away from public life. (meaning in some cases cheating was known but swept under the carpet and kept quiet. Not that it makes it right, but at least that acknowledges that everyone involved knew it was morally wrong.)

So, while men have been dealing with their desire for “sexual attraction” for some time now by repressing it, women seem to feel like they have no need to do the same.
Ted D

Sassy – “Can’t that “impulse” be easily summed up as dissatisfaction? ”

Sure, but I must ask this then: why is it largely a female issue? I mean, most men don’t file for divorce, and in most of these divorces the men involved seemed to be completely content up until they were served with papers.

So, why is it so hard to please women? Why does it take sometimes monumental effort on a man’s part to keep that dissatisfaction from destroying his relationship?
deti

Alpha traits are attractive.
Beta traits are desirable.

There is a difference.

The alpha attracts and draws the woman to the man. The alpha makes the woman notice him and makes her want to have sex with him. She wants him to display the alpha because it turns her on. This serves the female prime directive: Get pregnant and have strong, healthy babies.

The beta brings comfort to her, makes her feel she will be provided for, and makes her want to stay with him. She wants him to display these traits so she will feel safe and know she has the things she needs for her babies. This serves the female secondary and tertiary directives. Female secondary directive: Secure provisioning for her babies and herself, in that order. If she has no babies she reverts to the female tertiary directive: secure provisioning for herself by any means necessary.
Escoffier

Sassy, while the reasons a woman leaves/cheats may be endless, I think we can sort them all into two basic categories: 1) He did something really wrong; 2) He just became too dull.

Clearly, Impulse X has little or nothing to do with Category 1. If he’s cheating/beating/drugging, etc., any sane woman will want out (and lots of less-than-sane ones will tolerate it if they are otherwise attracted enough). But Impulse X would seem to have a great deal to do with Category 2.

Mike C, yes, that’s a fairly common meme. In Austen, for example, there are several examples of what happens when fathers are either absent or bad. Actually, now that I think about it, there are hardly any good fathers in all of Austen. Mr. Moreland in NA might be the best.

Mr. Bennett of P&P had once been a good father. But he married a ninny who got progressively sillier as she got old, and once her beauty was gone, he basically retreated into his study and never came out. The two girls whom he had a strong hand in raising, Elizabeth and Jane, turned out very well. The other three all had problems, with Lydia being the worst.

The elder daughter in Persuasion is horrible, a mirror image of her idiot father. Mansfield Park goes completely to hell when the father goes to the West Indies. The father in S&S is dead and while the girls are not bad, Marianne could certainly use his guidance. Emma is not a bad person either but she is selfish, conceited and spoiled in part because her father is so weak. The governess Miss Taylor (later Mrs. Weston) and George Knightly are around to knock sense into her, which prevents her from going completely off the rails.
Escoffier

Ted@1129: Preach!
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. J #776:
“Maybe so, Obs, but when I heard the same guys crying the same blues for years and years on end, I have to wonder how healthy, happy-making or productive that is. And lest you think I’m jst being bitchy because it’s men crying, I’ll tell you that when I have female friends IRL doing the same, I get tough and tell them to move on as well. How many years can a person do that? It’s a waste of time and life.”

O: Perhaps it is – and to be sure, I too have registered my disdain for the exact same things you’re discussing here wrt the Manosphere; additionally, you are to be commended for both being consistent and, for telling the ladies to “stop whining”.

But none of that changes the point I am making: that, one, the Manosphere is indeed doing a valuable service by allowing Men to speak in their own voices and to tell their own stories. Why? Because it’s starting a much needed conversation, to the extent that Women like you, in forums like these, can’t resist discussing them. That’s huge, in an age where Women truly have cornered the market on not only what’s discussed along gender-relations lines, but *how* it’s to be discussed, too. Again: see Bill Maher and “making Women nod”.

“I’d challenge you to find any evidence of my holding such opinions or even discussing those issues except in answer to the questions of others. These are not a part of my agenda.”

O: Nor have I ever made any such case. I won’t find any such “evidence”, not because it doesn’t exist – and I take you at your word, it doesn’t – but because *I never made any such argument against YOU*.

What I was talking about was the social ecosphere in which we live; the “Oprah Nod” thing is very real, and again, for the umpteenth time, I point to Bill Maher’s sage insights on this fact as Exhibit A in this regard. That YOU, as an individual Woman don’t do this, is again to be commended; but in the overall scheme of things, it’s meaningless against that which I am talking about.

O.
Desiderius

Well, that didn’t work.

Escoffier,

“Susan, the problem is, there are too many examples of women choosing men whom the majority of men despise or hold in contempt, and of women ignoring men whom other men thing are terrific. Our seal of approval may help, but in the end it does not appear to be decisive for female attraction.”

And Susan’s point that that is not ultimately our call to make, and mine is that it never has been. Things are currently pretty fucked up, and what is needed is men with the balls to do something about it. What is not needed is more good soldiers for the feminist army. If we’re choosing to esteem such men, the problem lies in our own choices, not that of women.
Mike C

There is a very simple answer to this. By and large, I think most men still tend to “rank” each other based on older style traits. We respect men based on things like their ability to make sense, their ability to remain calm under stress, their knowledge, and a host of other traits largely pulled from a historical ideal of “alpha” in terms of manliness.

I’ve been DVRing the reality show Stars Earn Stripes, and finally last night got around to watching the first episode. The show is made up of elite special forces men like Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc. (Bastiat’s “badasses”) and a group of celebrities. They are paired up together to complete missions. It’s funny. Ever since I first learned about this stuff, I watch everything through the analytical lens of examining frames and underlying social dynamics. There are two pairings yesterday that I found interesting to interact.

One pairing was Dean Cain (the handsome man who played Superman on the TV show) with the greatest sniper in U.S. history. This guy had something like 120 documented kills I think and wrote a book that Dean Cain pointed out he read. It is an interesting dynamic to observe. You have a celebrity with status, but Dean clearly looks up to that man. From a man’s point of view, the sniper is the superior man in the male hierarchy. Now throw the two of them in tuxes at a cocktail party to work the crowd, and I have ZERO doubt Dean Cain is going to be able to sexually attract more women. And the sniper guy wasn’t an ugly guy either. I bet he would clean up really well (he had major facial scruff going on). Watching it, I literally thought Dean Cain wanted to kiss or blow this man as much as he was sucking up to him. But that is how it works for a guy. The status comes from real, tremendous achievement, not demeanor or behavioral patterns in speech and body language.

The other pairing was Eve Torres (hot WWE wrestler) with some special forces guy. It was very interesting. I could definitely pick up an element of almost bashfulness around her. Now you would have to be nuts to say this isn’t a “confident” man. He has faced hypercritical life or death situations. Yet throw a hot woman in front of him, and some butterflies start to emerge. There is a very real difference between what I would call real confidence to deal with situations, and the sort of “confidence” on display when interacting very smoothly with a beautiful woman. I think most if not all women can’t distinguish between those two types of confidence.

Incidentally, Todd Palin was very impressive. I can easily see why Sarah Palin would look up to him from a hypergamic point of view despite the fact she is higher status in conventional metrics (ex-Governor). He is one of the least physically imposing guys, but he got the job done under pressure.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“Ted@1129: Preach!”

No! Preachers who haven’t earned the trust of their congregation do more harm than good.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Escoffier

remember, the Palins got together long before she was Governor or even in politics at all. They were both about 20, I think, maybe younger, so conventional status probably played very little role in her attraction for him.
Sassy6519

@ Ted D

why is it largely a female issue? I mean, most men don’t file for divorce, and in most of these divorces the men involved seemed to be completely content up until they were served with papers.

So, why is it so hard to please women? Why does it take sometimes monumental effort on a man’s part to keep that dissatisfaction from destroying his relationship?

This is going to be a very speculative idea, on my part, but here goes.

I think that men and women approach relationships very differently in one major area, loyalty.

Men seem to have nearly unwavering loyalty, when it comes to their relationships. They stay with women who treat them poorly out of loyalty. They remain friends with men who are despicable, for all intents and purposes, out of loyalty. I’ve heard many accounts of men who remain friends with men who have done very unsavory things. The loyalty never falters.

In a way, I think this can be attributed to 2 things.

-The beneficial properties that men gain from having relationships, in general.

-The relative difficulty, in comparison to women, that men have in establishing relationships.

There have been numerous studies that have shown that men in relationships fare much better than men who are not in relationships. Men in relationships live longer and report being happier. Men also experience much greater pain and negative effects when their relationships end, in comparison to women. This may be attributed to the smaller support system that many men have in place.

Women typically have a ton of friends/acquaintances to turn to during moments of crisis. Men may have friends/acquaintances, but those relationships typically don’t allow them to be as emotionally expressive as female relationships. The most men get is “Brush it off brah!” or “You’ll be alright”. It’s no surprise to me that men take the ending of relationships very hard.

It would appear to me that men are instinctively reticent to discard any relationship, romantic or otherwise.

Women, on the other hand, may be less loyal because their relationship bases tend to be very large. If they lose one girlfriend, they have several others to make up for it. If they are dissatisfied with one man, they may be more inclined to leave that relationship because their chances of attracting another man are fairly high. For men, attracting women is not a relatively sure thing.

Men may be more inclined to cling to one relationship because their chances of attracting and dating another woman are limited. This seems to coincide with what I have heard men discuss on here. Men have reported going several years in between relationships, sex, or any kind of intimate contact. This may be attributed to the relative difficulty men have in forming connections of any kind, in comparison to women. Evolutionarily, that makes sense to me. Women are the choosier sex. We are the initial gatekeepers, and many men simply do not make the cut.

Loyalty may have also been more fundamentally important to the survival of men instead of women. Men had to trust each other to hunt, go to war, and run civilizations. Women weren’t exposed to as much danger, so perhaps their dedication to loyalty isn’t as heavily wired in them as it is for men.

That’s all I’ve got.

Speculation over.
Desiderius

J,

“There were over 1,000 applicants for a recent opening at the school”

“For all the bitching people do about teacher salaries, the pay actually sucks as do the hours.”

I’m truly sorry things didn’t work out like your generation hoped, but expectations at some point need to adjust to reality.

“Neither wants to work for peanuts, so they literally laugh at the compliment. And that’s a shame for all of us–because I’m sure that the best young people don’t want to teach for a living any more.”

Among that 1,000 applicants were some damn good ones. Most would be better than the Boomers locked in at four times the pay.
VD

Why should they settle when they can keep having STRs with the guys they like and probably out-provide the male anyway?

Burnout. Most women, including the high-flyers, find the career lifestyle to be too much around the time they are 30 and start to look enviously at the upscale stay-at-home mothers driving nicer cars than they’ve got. The fact that a woman can outprovide a man doesn’t mean that she actually wants to continue with the office lifestyle forever. It’s a lot more glamorous in the movies, but it all gets old fast. That’s when the idea of settling down with a beta starts to look pretty good by comparison.

The first time I found myself on the Banhofstrasse in Zurich the day after a lunch meeting in Milan, I felt as if I was living in a movie. Life wasn’t just good, it was cool. Now, about the only way anyone can get me out of the house is for me to have a personal obligation to them.
INTJ

@ Escoffier

How could hypergamy–allegedly a natural, biololigcal, evolved desire–amount to a woman’s desire to MARRY up, when marriage is a purely human instititution that is probably around 6,000 years old, and certainly not more than 10,000.

Q.E.D.

If you/we are just hung up on the word than we can stop using it. However, the key point is that the same impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up also causes her to want other things which are not so good.

So, to take the infidelity point, you say that infielity is not caused by hypergamy (or, let us say, “Impulse X”) UNLESS the woman ditches her husband for a higher status male.

Really? So imagine a conventionally high status male, UMC, well dressed, successful, intelligent, makes a good living, etc. But he goes totally beta in the marriage and the wife steps out with a contractor or tennis pro. By every conventional measure of status, the paramour is lower than her husband. So, “Impulse X” had nothing to do with her actions?

I don’t see the big hangup over terminology. Call them alpha males or whatever you like, and call it hypergamy or whatever you like, but the simple truth is that women are biologically attracted to short term mates. Sure, there are plenty of conscious and cultural factors that can very easily override this preference. But in an era of feminism and EPL, the cultural factors that propped up monogamy are being taken away and we’re returning to biological sexual desire, at least for women.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Call them alpha males or whatever you like, and call it hypergamy or whatever you like, but the simple truth is that women are biologically attracted to short term mates.
  
  Some women are biologically wired for short-term mating. They are attracted to cads.
  
  Other women are biologically wired for long-term mating. They are attracted to dads.
Escoffier

D, I think you mixed up Susan’s v. my argument. She is the one saying that the preferences of men determine who are the top men, and therefore who the women will be attracted to. I’m casting doubt on that assertion. Our good opinion of other men may influence what women think but it is not decisive. The cry of “What does she see in THAT loser??” is hardly uncommon, after all.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @EScoffier
  
  She is the one saying that the preferences of men determine who are the top men, and therefore who the women will be attracted to. I’m casting doubt on that assertion
  
  I recently posted a refutation of the “PUA Alpha Male Narrative.” I’m assuming you buy into that narrative, in which case I’d like to hear your ideas about how alpha males won sexual favors from many women in prehistory.
Desiderius

Escoffier.

Apologies, the point you make does still hold. Esteem among men is definitely not the turn-on it was for Susan’s generation. I’m saying that might be a good thing, and in any case, with the exception of a few trusted men in women’s lives, it is not our call to make, and for some good reasons.
INTJ

I would argue that until about 10,000-15,000 years ago, there were few cultural restrictions on mating. However, at this point, restrictions were placed on female mating, to allow beta males to provide for a woman and her children in exchange for her sexual fidelity. This was the age of polygyny. In it, beta males would have sex with one or more women to whom they were married, and also have some sex on the side with prostitutes, town tramps, etc. (which satisfied their desire for variety). The womens’ desire for alpha mates was kept in check by penalties against infidelity, but occasionally they would be able to break out and have an affair with an alpha. While this double standard can be criticized, it should be noted that it arose out of the fact that it was far easier to figure out who the mother of a child was than who the father of a child was. You can’t “cuckold” a woman.

In the past few centuries, we have attempted to create true monogamy by creating restrictions on male mating. This was still a WIP (i.e. there was still somewhat of a double standard). At first, feminists wanted to strengthen these restrictions to create true equality between the sexes, and strengthen relationship stability by promoting healthy behavior. Was this a dream? Perhaps. But I think it was something worth pursuing.

Unfortunately, before long, a more narcissist streak of feminism came along, and decided that they would instead remove the cultural restrictions on women’s mating practices. This was embraced here because Western society is much more individualist than other societies. The result has been a weakening of monogamy and loving relationships. Even worse, it has been a near disaster for child-rearing, as marriage is delayed further and further, and no-fault divorces have become ubiquitous.
Abbot

“the idea of settling down with a beta starts to look pretty good”

par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
INTJ

@ Mike C

Nothing new or surprising to me here, but for the blue pill nice guy reading something like this has to probably get close to causing a stroke. Because for him being the “nice guy” is real and authentic. To act “like a jerk” would be putting up a front. So one reason the “nice guy” isn’t hot for many women is they are suspicious of him, assuming the “niceness” is an act to try and get them to have sex.

What really annoys me is when women accuse nice guys of being nice to get sex. Yes, we do want sex. But that’s only because we want a relationship, and sex is part of a relationship. We wouldn’t want the sex without the relationship.
Sassy6519

@ Escoffier

Sassy, while the reasons a woman leaves/cheats may be endless, I think we can sort them all into two basic categories: 1) He did something really wrong; 2) He just became too dull.

Clearly, Impulse X has little or nothing to do with Category 1. If he’s cheating/beating/drugging, etc., any sane woman will want out (and lots of less-than-sane ones will tolerate it if they are otherwise attracted enough). But Impulse X would seem to have a great deal to do with Category 2.

Maybe the men they are with really are boring or dull. If that is the case, it’s the woman’s fault for getting involved with him in the first place. She could have saved them both the trouble by being aware enough of what her wants are and going after them.

Sometimes I get flack for liking, dating, and preferring “alpha” males, but at least I’m honest with myself. I’m very adventurous, spontaneous, and a dopamine chaser. I like excitement, passion, and lots of sexual attraction. If I pursued a man who could not fulfill those desires, of course I would end up feeling bored and dissatisfied. I only want to be married once. I might as well shoot for someone who I can actually see myself with for a long time without a lot of boredom creeping in.

I think some women would cause less trouble if they they were truly honest with themselves about what they want in a man. Being introspective and acting accordingly would save a lot of heartache, in my opinion.
INTJ

@ J

For all the bitching people do about teacher salaries, the pay actually sucks as do the hours.

It enrages me to no end when people complain about teacher salaries and teachers’ unions. The teacher salaries are pitiful and the teachers’ unions so much about the quality of education that students are receiving that they don’t demand they wages they deserve.

It’s administrative people that are the big drain on the education budget, not teachers.
INTJ

@ Susan

You’re correct. Women tend to have emotional attraction to beta males, and sexual attraction to alpha males. The emotional attraction is often more powerful than the sexual attraction, and results in women preferring beta males.

There’s only one problem with this. Feminists have rather successfully decided that emotional attraction and sexual attraction should be decoupled, and each should be pursued independently. Just look at how much flak guys in the friend-zone get for thinking they’re “entitled to sex”.

You’ve got girls seeking emotional relationships by becoming best friends with betas while seeking sexual relationships by becoming girlfriends (or FWBs) of alphas.
Escoffier

Sassy, it’s not that simple, is it? We’ve all heard tales of men who are alpha enough at the beginnig but settle in and “go beta” after the marriage and slowly turn their wives off. That would be Category 2, IMO. The man would have some responsibility for the deteriorating quality of the marriage, but he would not have done anything that justifies divorce or cheating.
INTJ

@ Susan

Fair enough. From now on, let’s call trading up “impulse X”, as Ted suggested.
unigirl

I just caught Susan’s comment at 1096, I’ve got to say when I’m out it really seems like that happens a lot, I’m not saying pre-selection or anything, but maybe the competitive element, men are competetive after all.
Also I agree that dad traits are very attractive, I saw my male friend with his nephew once, really really sexy. I think it is quite alpha male in a way mind you, because he was so naturally good with him and the little boy obviously just ate it up and loved him so maybe again there’s a bit more to it. This was even going back to when I was like sixteen as well, and I wouldn’t say I’m particularly maternal, I’ve only just now started noticing cute babies, doubt they even registered then, so I would say it definately is just generally hot.
Sassy6519

@ Escoffier

Sassy, it’s not that simple, is it? We’ve all heard tales of men who are alpha enough at the beginnig but settle in and “go beta” after the marriage and slowly turn their wives off. That would be Category 2, IMO. The man would have some responsibility for the deteriorating quality of the marriage, but he would not have done anything that justifies divorce or cheating.

Whether or not that justifies divorce or cheating depends on who you ask. I’m not trying to be mean, but I am trying to look at this objectively.

If a man attracts a woman with “alpha” qualities, why would he even think of switching things up later? If the woman is attracted to the way a man presents himself initially, why on earth would he change that? If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

It’s like a “bait and switch”, in a sense. A man dropping the alpha and becoming a beta throughout the relationship does the same thing to a woman’s attraction as an in-shape woman does to a man’s attraction when she puts on a lot of weight, or significantly changes her appearance. He originally fell for what she presented herself as. If she suddenly changes her appearance, in that way, many men would be upset too.

Whether people like it or not, love is conditional. Either partner doing things, in a relationship, to sabotage their attractiveness to the other person is asking for trouble. We may not like it, and it may not be “fair”, but it is the way it is.
Escoffier

It is mystifying to me why you say that none of the examples in your second category are caused or influenced by hypergamy.

BTW, Susan, you apparently think that I believe all women, all the time, are constantly seeking to trade up. I have denied thinking that before and I may as well do so again. I don’t believe that.

What I do believe is that women’s attraction triggers are pulled by status and dominance in the same way that a man’s are pulled by youth and beauty. If she’s going to make a trade, it’s going to be for someone of higher status and dominance than her current partner. Whereas if a man is going to make a trade, it’s going to be for someone younger and prettier.

I do not believe that once a woman lands a man who satisfies her hypergamous impulse, that impulse is shut off for good. I believe that, in being satisfied, it is tamped down but she can still be attracted, and possibly even tempted, if someone high enough comes along and shows interest. The same way that, while I am happy in my job, I could be tempted to leave for a much better offer. Not just a few bucks more but a lot more and a more prominent role, etc.

And even if she is not truly tempted, her attraction triggers can still be pulled. You made a distinction earlier between recognizing that another man is attractive and actually being attracted. I find that distinction puzzling. If I recognize that a woman is attractive, I will be attracted to her. That still falls short of actual temptation, which requires some entry into the thought process of “What do I need to do to get her?” That is, active contemplation of trying to woo her, even if you never actually do act on it. You are saying that for you, that thought never enters your head. It never enters mine either. But I am still attracted.

Jimmy Stewart was famously chided for ogling Grace Kelly the first time he saw her in the set of Read Window and his response was “I’m married, not dead!” That sums it up.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  If she’s going to make a trade, it’s going to be for someone of higher status and dominance than her current partner.
  
  Agreed, that’s why she chooses the cabana boy for a fling. The reasons the second category examples are not hypergamy is because women just don’t work that way – hypergamy is not cumulative.
  
  I do not believe that once a woman lands a man who satisfies her hypergamous impulse, that impulse is shut off for good. I believe that, in being satisfied, it is tamped down but she can still be attracted, and possibly even tempted, if someone high enough comes along and shows interest.
  
  This may be true of some women, I’m sure it is. But there is no evidence that this is a hardwired feature of female sexuality. Women can be attracted without being tempted. That seems to be the idea you are having the most trouble with. We can say, “He is so handsome!” without thinking for one second about what’s in his jeans.
  
  You made a distinction earlier between recognizing that another man is attractive and actually being attracted.
  
  Well I can find women attractive and not be attracted to them. I can enter a beautiful home and not covet it.
  
  That is really the issue – covetousness.
  
  Because I feel blessed with riches, I do not covet anything more. I can observe that a man is handsome, and smart, and funny, and consider his wife a lucky woman without feeling like I need a piece of that for myself.
  
  I don’t know if this is different between the sexes, or between personality traits.
  
  I think you need to stop using the word hypergamy, that’s what I think.
Samael

This page of comments is full of information people should read and or be taught before trying to jump into relationships. Less baptism by fire would clear up a lot of emotional wreckage.

I can honestly say if I had red pill knowledge from the outset, I would have a N of 3 less because I would have never bothered mostly because of red flags I didn’t know about combined with a sex scarcity mentality that I shouldn’t have had in the first place. Ugh!
Ted D

Sassy – “Maybe the men they are with really are boring or dull. If that is the case, it’s the woman’s fault for getting involved with him in the first place. She could have saved them both the trouble by being aware enough of what her wants are and going after them.”

IMO this is one of the primary reasons for this issue. Women “settle” too often for men that they really are NOT attracted to, but they make “sense” on paper or something. After a decade or so of boredom, they eject.

Another that hasn’t’ been touched on yet is entitlement: Princess mentality. Many Western women simply feel like they deserve to “have it all”, and when they can’t “have it all” within their marriage, they assume the man isn’t worthy of them and they eject.

“Sometimes I get flack for liking, dating, and preferring “alpha” males, but at least I’m honest with myself. “

And I for one have always respected that about you Sassy. We may not agree on a lot of things (although I suspect we are closer that either of us thinks) but I always know where you stand. If I may say so, it is a rather male trait. Not a dig at all. It is meant as a compliment.

INTJ – “There’s only one problem with this. Feminists have rather successfully decided that emotional attraction and sexual attraction should be decoupled, and each should be pursued independently. “

Spot on!

Escoffier – “Sassy, it’s not that simple, is it? We’ve all heard tales of men who are alpha enough at the beginnig but settle in and “go beta” after the marriage and slowly turn their wives off. That would be Category 2, IMO. The man would have some responsibility for the deteriorating quality of the marriage, but he would not have done anything that justifies divorce or cheating.”

Yep, which is why I consider any divorce that is not initiated by some real abuse as an EPL. The ONLY reason to divorce is cheating/abuse. There is a wide variety of issues that fall into those two categories, but “unhappy” is NOT one of them.

Desiderius – “No! Preachers who haven’t earned the trust of their congregation do more harm than good.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself.”

Am I to imply that you don’t trust me from this statement? I won’t take it personally, but I can’t help but ask why?
Escoffier

Sassy, fair enough, but better than defaulting to divorce would be to try to address the issue with the spouse and fix the problem. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I would draw it short of “Divorce is OK if you bore me.” Which is what he have now, at least legally. Basically Athol’s plan works for both sides. Man goes beta/women lets herself go, then work through that plan, giving it real time (years not months) and if it never gets better, then maybe it’s time to move on.

Anyway, my point in the earlier post was that both men and women can and do change within marriage, so it’s not enough merely to say “Choose better,” though choosing wisely is essential.
Samael

@ Sassy

“I think some women would cause less trouble if they they were truly honest with themselves about what they want in a man. Being introspective and acting accordingly would save a lot of heartache, in my opinion.”

+1

I think if we removed any slut shaming and negativity concerning sex (ala Europe) there would be much less discourse in the SMP. Let the sluts be loud and proud so they can find each other, polys with polys, whatever it is you’re seeking.
Desiderius

TedD,

“Am I to imply that you don’t trust me from this statement? I won’t take it personally, but I can’t help but ask why?”

You ain’t preaching to me, I’m already in your choir. You’re trying to evangelize, and that’s not a one-way street. I’m hearing mostly crickets from the other direction.
Ted D

Sassy – “If a man attracts a woman with “alpha” qualities, why would he even think of switching things up later? If the woman is attracted to the way a man presents himself initially, why on earth would he change that? If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”

I can answer this because it is exactly what I did in my first marriage. I had NO IDEA it was my “alpha” traits that attracted her. I honestly thought she could see all my ‘good qualities’ and “fell in love” with them. Looking back what attracted her to me was clearly my gigging in bands as the lead singer, but I am being honest when I tell you I had NO IDEA that was it. Remember, I was told growing up that women wanted “nice guys” and that “bad boys” were the only ones pushing hard for sex. “nice guys” didn’t brag or boast about how good they were at anything, and instead always downplayed their successes. “bad boys” simply attracted attention from damaged girls, and if I just held out, I’d find a “good girl” that would love me for “who I am”.

I can go on, but I think you get the idea. I was lied to, repeatedly, by many important women in my life. I wasn’t the only man that grew up with these same lies. Lots of us did. And that is really what upsets me: I could have been a happy “bad boy” all my life instead of spending half of it pretending to be a “nice guy” and miserable about it.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #1172:
“And I for one have always respected that about you Sassy. We may not agree on a lot of things (although I suspect we are closer that either of us thinks) but I always know where you stand. If I may say so, it is a rather male trait. Not a dig at all. It is meant as a compliment.”

O: 100% cosign. She Who Shall Not Be Named and I have certainly gone to loggerheads, but if it’s one thing she and anyone else should take away from my side of the fence, it’s that I do respect her stance here. She does indeed seem to be looking at life in a clear-eyed way, and is prepared to deal with the consequences of her decisions, however that may shake themselves out. Can’t get more fairer than that.

Respect.

O.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

Ooops, I meant to address that to Ted #1172, NOT Ms. Walsh.

My bad.

O.
Höllenhund

This was not a case of “I like ‘em mean, but boring old George is a good dad bet so I’ll have sex with him.” Women began to select smaller and less symmetrical men for sex after the evolution of pair bonding. Those beta males reproduced more than the larger, symmetrical men (thought to be the equivalent of today’s Dark Triad).

…or maybe the tribal chiefs decided to enforce monogamy because they realized it strengthens male cooperation.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  …or maybe the tribal chiefs decided to enforce monogamy because they realized it strengthens male cooperation.
  
  Perhaps. Get out the dart board.
Ted D

Desiderius – “You ain’t preaching to me, I’m already in your choir. You’re trying to evangelize, and that’s not a one-way street. I’m hearing mostly crickets from the other direction.”

Gotcha. I have no intention of “preaching” to those crickets. I’m honestly hoping that the vast majority of people that DO NOT post here regularly read what I post and perhaps give it some thought. Again, I don’t care if they decide I’m completely full of shit, as long as they DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES based on something other than “how they feel” about it. Most of the regular women here don’t represent the women my message would actually help, but I hope that some of them see the message all the same. And, as this site seems to be attracting more male attention, I’m hoping some of those men will see it and look elsewhere. I love HUS, but I didn’t find my answer here. In fact, this site provided FAR more questions than answers for me, and I’m hoping that perhaps some of the men lurking in readership can learn from my journey.

And I’m completely cool evangelizing. I don’t want people to follow me, I want them to choose for themselves. All I’m trying to do is wake them into action.
Sassy6519

@ Escoffier

Sassy, fair enough, but better than defaulting to divorce would be to try to address the issue with the spouse and fix the problem. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I would draw it short of “Divorce is OK if you bore me.” Which is what he have now, at least legally. Basically Athol’s plan works for both sides. Man goes beta/women lets herself go, then work through that plan, giving it real time (years not months) and if it never gets better, then maybe it’s time to move on.

I agree with this. Just so you know, in no way am I advocating that people should resort to divorce right off the bat. I think that if there are any problems in a relationship, they should be brought to the the forefront and talked about honestly. If the problem can be worked on, and even eventually resolved, then great. Perhaps some divorces do occur though because the problem was never able to be fixed, despite multiple attempts to do so.

@ Ted D

I can answer this because it is exactly what I did in my first marriage. I had NO IDEA it was my “alpha” traits that attracted her. I honestly thought she could see all my ‘good qualities’ and “fell in love” with them. Looking back what attracted her to me was clearly my gigging in bands as the lead singer, but I am being honest when I tell you I had NO IDEA that was it. Remember, I was told growing up that women wanted “nice guys” and that “bad boys” were the only ones pushing hard for sex. “nice guys” didn’t brag or boast about how good they were at anything, and instead always downplayed their successes. “bad boys” simply attracted attention from damaged girls, and if I just held out, I’d find a “good girl” that would love me for “who I am”.

It sucks that you didn’t know that. At least you know now, and you can use that knowledge to have a better marriage with your new wife. You can also pass this wisdom down to your son(s). Pay it forward, in a sense.
deti

Sassy, Samael:

“I think some women would cause less trouble if they they were truly honest with themselves about what they want in a man. Being introspective and acting accordingly would save a lot of heartache, in my opinion.”

This is true. And those women would be well served by accepting the following:

1. they might never find a man who has all the traits they want
2. they might have to compromise and accept a man who has MOST (but not all ) of the traits they want
3. if they land a man who has all the traits they want, he might be a player: a man with options who isn’t looking for anything long term

Women ought to take all this into account when going for their high status, high dominance, high excitement, high drama, dopamine fueled excursions.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Women ought to take all this into account when going for their high status, high dominance, high excitement, high drama, dopamine fueled excursions.
  
  Those women don’t need to be selective. They’re interested in short-term sex, not marriage. Men would be wise to avoid marrying women with this history, for obvious reasons.
Höllenhund

Men and women commit adultery at the same rates.

How do we know that? Female adultery is notoriously difficult to uncover.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Men and women commit adultery at the same rates.
  
  httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zqzFSW_hc
Sassy6519

@ deti

This is true. And those women would be well served by accepting the following:

1. they might never find a man who has all the traits they want
2. they might have to compromise and accept a man who has MOST (but not all ) of the traits they want
3. if they land a man who has all the traits they want, he might be a player: a man with options who isn’t looking for anything long term

Women ought to take all this into account when going for their high status, high dominance, high excitement, high drama, dopamine fueled excursions.

I definitely agree. Those are the chances that a woman takes when she pursues what she wants. There are no guarantees in the dating world. In a sense, a person has to “get in where they fit in” or end up in the dust.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

As for the topic at hand…

Look, here’s the deal as far as I’m concerned:

I have no problem whatsoever with what any Woman chooses in a Man, for whatever reason. In my view, she has every right to do that, regardless as to what I may or may not think about it.

The simple truth is that no Man can appeal to all or even most Women. Moreover, the simple truth is, that many Women most Men will like, won’t likely be attracted to said Men. It is not the fault of those Women that this is the case. Nor is there some law somewhere that says, that Men have to be afforded mates or sexual partners. History records the fact that lots of Men wentless mateless and layless. It is, what it is.

What a lot of guys – especially the Nice Guys(TM) that Ms. Walsh mentioned earlier, do not want to be honest about – is the simple fact that ther are plenty of Women available for them. But those Women don’t turn them on. And that’s perfectly OK. Nothing in the least wrong with not wanting what’s potentially on offer.

But you cannot burn everyone else’s ear off decrying the “unfairness” of the world, either. This is a real issue of concern for the Manosphere, and does indeed inform and explain a lot of what goes on over there.

Women can and will like what they like. Get over it. Accept the very real possibility that you just may not get to mate in this go around, and not entirely for the reasons you’d like everyone to believe; a goodly bit is because you do not want what you can get. That’s no one’s “fault” but your own, and it is what it is.

Game is available now, but even there, it has its limits. A 3 guy isn’t going to land a Dime piece, no matter how tight his Game is. Barring ridiculous amounts of wealth or fame or both, he has no chance. There, I’ve said it.

All I’ve been saying on this topic is the fact that, the idea that Women make a big deal about “character and integrity” as first principles if you will, in terms of mate selection? Well, that hasn’t tallied with my personal experience, nor that of the Men I personally know, nor that of the (Male, and even Female!) respondents of my own blog. To be sure, “character and integrity” matter, *after* certain other preconditions have been met; but, stand alone/decisive factor?

Nope.

And I for one, am perfectly good with that. It is, what it is.

O.
Desiderius

Susan,

“The men who get the most sex in college are frat guys and athletes, who display a strong elevation among males right out of the gate. Frats are selective, athletics is very selective. We may question why these men are being rewarded, but they are.”

The men and women running our educational institutions, media, government, research labs, and increasingly corporations harbor an esteem for athletes and frat boys that is ambivalent at best.

Are you saying that those who aspire to replace those leaders feel differently? Could be.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The men and women running our educational institutions, media, government, research labs, and increasingly corporations harbor an esteem for athletes and frat boys that is ambivalent at best.
  
  My point was that when a college woman looks at a frat member or varsity athlete, she is looking at a male who has successfully competed against other males to get membership in a selective group.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

“I definitely agree. Those are the chances that a woman takes when she pursues what she wants. There are no guarantees in the dating world. In a sense, a person has to “get in where they fit in” or end up in the dust.”

O: Yes, this is true – but it goes just a weebit deeper than that.

You see, very often, the same kinds of Women who you cite above, tend to be the kinds of Women who are part of the Chattering Classes – in other words, we all have to hear these Women bemoan their lovelorn lives, via The Atlantic, Today Show, etc et al. If these Women could just, at the risk of being crude, STFU and keep it movin’, that would be one thing. But more often than not, they don’t. And since we now live in a culture where it’s not OK to tell such Women to, again to be crude, STFU, what they wind up doing is annoying the heck out of all of us, as well as furthering muddying the SMP waters, by giving lots of people – Women and Men both – deeply misleading notions as to how real life actually is.

And yes, I think a heck of a lot of this has to do not just with the Wussification of American Men, but the whole Helicopter Mama phenomenon among America’s upper classes that we’ve seen over the past generation or two or so. It’s really starting to hurt us at this point.

O.
Escoffier

Susan, re: your #1158.

Quite the contrary. Female hypergamy, unlike male polygamy, does have a positive aspect—that is, positive for society. Male polygamy, OTOH, has no societal benefit that I can see, and that’s one reason why every successful, “advanced” society has moved to stamp out polygamy very early. The first Republican Party platform (1856) called polygamy and slavery the “twin relics of barbarism.” Utah’s admission to the union was predicated on the Mormon church’s banning polygamy.

Manosphere types bristle at the trope that “women civilize men” but the fact is, properly channeled, female hypergamy does exactly this. Or “civilize” may be too strong, but it does “regulate” men and bring out the best in them. Properly channeled, female hypergamy sets standards that men have to meet if they want sex (which nearly all of us do). Women would not marry an unworthy man, and would not put out for a man they had not married. The standards are of course different across the class levels, but the crucial thing is, they exist at every level. Historians of the Victorian era have shown that one reason for the plethora of servants and menial laborers, of both sexes, was the high standard society had for marriage. A man had to have a respectable life and decent income above a certain level otherwise he would just take himself out of the market because no woman would have him. So there were lots of unmarrieds needing work and willing to work at the worst jobs for the lowest wages. And, to make up for all those people out of the marriage market, the people who did get married tended to have very large families (also, birth control was rare).

So I am not wholly down on hypergamy. I just think we have stopped channeling it. We decoupled hypergamy from marriage, and marriage from sex, and sex from childbirth. We have unleashed hypergamy and we have found to our horror that it has a dark side that nobody in the modern era seems to have expected.

Re: the UMC woman who steps out on her beta husband. The issue here seems to me that when you see the word “hypergamy”, you insist that it must be about conventional worldly status. OK, I suppose this is an argument for ditching the word, but for the record, all the game writers (and, it seems to me, most of your male commenters), do not define hypergamy so narrowly.

We’ve said over and over that conventional status CORELLATES with women’s attraction triggers but is in the end not identical. Women sometimes go for bad boys and losers in the conventional status game. Cockiness and dominance seem to be much more reliable attraction triggers than conventional status. A cocky and dominant man who is poor and obscure will be more attractive to women than a rich and famous man who is mousy and supplicating, all other things being equal.

If you want to say that hypergamy is not a part of what makes cockiness and dominance attractive to women, then fine. I think that’s wrong, but the word is not that important. What IS important, it seems to me, is whether the impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up is the same as the impulse that makes her attracted to cockiness and dominance, or if it is not exactly the same whether the two are closely related. I think they are.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  What IS important, it seems to me, is whether the impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up is the same as the impulse that makes her attracted to cockiness and dominance, or if it is not exactly the same whether the two are closely related. I think they are.
  
  Well, Buss says the strongest predictor of the attractiveness of a man’s wife is his occupation. And I wrote about a study that separates status into dominance and prestige. Researchers found that women select much more strongly for prestige than dominant behavior. The one exception was that women enjoyed seeing male athletes dominate one another during play.
  
  Women do respond to dominance in social setting because it shows confidence, which signals that a man is happy with his place in the hierarchy of males. Clearly, some women will see a cocky, unemployed, wasted guy and assume the same is true, when in fact, he’s displaying weak correlates for real status. The fact that he will be “found out” is irrelevant, as these guys generally go for short-term mating. They actively seek and have greater numbers of sexual partners. They are relationship averse.
Ted D

“What IS important, it seems to me, is whether the impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up is the same as the impulse that makes her attracted to cockiness and dominance, or if it is not exactly the same whether the two are closely related. I think they are.”

Add me to Escoffiers team of two on this. Although he may not want me on his “side”, LOL
INTJ

@ unigirl

I just caught Susan’s comment at 1096, I’ve got to say when I’m out it really seems like that happens a lot, I’m not saying pre-selection or anything, but maybe the competitive element, men are competetive after all.
Also I agree that dad traits are very attractive, I saw my male friend with his nephew once, really really sexy. I think it is quite alpha male in a way mind you, because he was so naturally good with him and the little boy obviously just ate it up and loved him so maybe again there’s a bit more to it. This was even going back to when I was like sixteen as well, and I wouldn’t say I’m particularly maternal, I’ve only just now started noticing cute babies, doubt they even registered then, so I would say it definately is just generally hot.

My experience at my local high school (can’t comment on others) was that relationships were much healthier there because people chose based on emotional attraction rather than sexual attraction. It was pretty shocking to come into college and see the level of depravity, narcissism, and general bad choices that people were making.
Ted D

Sassy – “It sucks that you didn’t know that. At least you know now, and you can use that knowledge to have a better marriage with your new wife. You can also pass this wisdom down to your son(s). Pay it forward, in a sense.”

Water under the bridge. I fully intend to help my boys out, but I’m actually wanting to get this message out far and wide. The problem is: most ‘sphere sites are BRUTAL places to ask questions. Sure, there is a ton to learn there, but if you so much as hint that you don’t tow the party line, the commenters will chew you up and spit you out. I’m sure there are male readers here that don’t post, just as there are plenty of women that do not post. I realize HUS is a place for women, but men ARE coming here, and someone should be cluing them in. Many of the older male regulars here did it for me, but they were far more… laid back? about it. I think it was Mike C that told me to “get a male perspective”, but it was awhile ago and I forget to be honest. I remember Susan agreed. So, I’m here to share my “male perspective” in all of its glory. Right or wrong doesn’t matter. Because in the end, I sincerely hope that anyone reading my comments goes out and discovers the truth for themselves. I’m just interested in kicking them in the ass to get it started.
Ted D

LOL. By “older male regulars” I didn’t mean older as in age. But men that had been hanging around longer than I have…
Escoffier

Susan, re: frat guy and athletes, I don’t think it’s so simple. First of all, frat guys tend to be despised by guys outside the Greek system. Non-Greeks tend to view frat guys as entitled a-holes. In fact, they positively resent and envy the extent to which frat guys get easy access to pretty girls.

Athletes are more complicated, most non-star-athlete men can respect athletes for their prowess and somehow intuit that they “deserve” all the tail they are getting, or at least accept the fact that it is part of the natural order. Whereas when it comes to frat guys, they think, “All show, no substance, but they get all the tail, no fair.”

Also, althetes are like movie stars on campus, just a world apart, a totally distant “other.” I went to a school that had several very famous athletes and most students did not even consider them fellow students. They were demi gods who happened to be sitting in the same classrooms sometimes.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  First of all, frat guys tend to be despised by guys outside the Greek system.
  
  It doesn’t matter because they almost exclusively mate within the Greek system.
  
  Athletes are more complicated, most non-star-athlete men can respect athletes for their prowess and somehow intuit that they “deserve” all the tail they are getting
  
  Again, it doesn’t matter what other students actually think. The fact that those guys have “arrived” means they’ve already bested most of the competition.
  
  In fact, most frats really aren’t that hard to get into, and in my experience sorority women are far, far better looking than fraternity men. I think most guys join frats just for the access to girls, and it really is an effective shortcut.
Höllenhund

Perhaps. Get out the dart board.

Due to the lack of any historical records or other evidence, neither theory is more provable than the other. One thing is certain, though – there were few checks on male phsyical violence before organized societies existed, which meant that female sexual selection was rather limited. I can understand the allure of the theory you cited though. The idea of women collectively shutting their legs and demanding beta behavior in exchange for sex is certainly appealing to many people, for obvious reasons.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  there were few checks on male phsyical violence before organized societies existed, which meant that female sexual selection was rather limited
  
  In the link to Evolvify I left earlier, the blogger suggests that there is evidence that alpha males – the most violent men – were routinely killed by less violent men to rid the group of them.
deti

Esco:

“I do not believe that once a woman lands a man who satisfies her hypergamous impulse, that impulse is shut off for good. I believe that, in being satisfied, it is tamped down but she can still be attracted, and possibly even tempted, if someone high enough comes along and shows interest.”

Yes. My view is similar. I think all women have a constantly running subroutine that continuously evaluates her man to make sure he is high enough status/confidence/dominance to satisfy her. Hence post-marriage shit testing. If he is, and he’s passing the shit tests, all is well. If he is not and he’s failing shit tests, the subroutine sends out an alert, and her interest in other men heightens. If the alert heightens or continues for long enough, she will (consciously or subconsciously) search for a replacement.

Keep in mind she is almost never consciously aware that any of this is going on.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Yes. My view is similar. I think all women have a constantly running subroutine that continuously evaluates her man to make sure he is high enough status/confidence/dominance to satisfy her
  
  Can any one of the men who shares this view offer a source of evidence for this claim? I’m waiting, have been waiting for months now…
  
  Note: a Game blog loop is not evidence. Please find one single source of study or scholarship that supports this view. If no one can do so, please stop repeating it as if it were legit. Otherwise I’ll close the thread. It’s misinformation, as far as I’m concerned.
INTJ

@ Höllenhund

I can understand the allure of the theory you cited though. The idea of women collectively shutting their legs and demanding beta behavior in exchange for sex is certainly appealing to many people, for obvious reasons.

Lol yeah. Women reforming society through their actions as the purer sex is such a common trope throughout society (amongst feminists as well as traditionalists).
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

She seems a bit shady, though. She was accused of plagiarizing when she published a cookbook for feeding kids.

I would say a woman that abandons a fresh marriage to date, not even marry not that it make it better but it would show some equivalent trade up instead of gambling, to date a higher status man is probably cold hearted and willing to do almost anything to reach her goals.

But, I would say that many, many women have similar baggage lately, AND most men have NO FREAKING CLUE how to spot these problems in a potential wife.

But do men care to know? I mean why Playboy doesn’t have a red flag list of women to avoid? Female magazines are overflowed with them but men’s magazines don’t even try. Why would that be?

Does Helen Fischer actually say that there are two kinds of love–dopamin-based sexual attraction and oxytocin/vasopression based attachment.

I had never being attracted to a guy till he shows very Beta traits then I can get to the sexual part of the attraction. Even my crushes were with guys that looked nurturing and caring so yeah I do think the attraction is more complex than just Alpha makes me wet. In fact a guy that display dominance aggressiveness and all those Alpha traits before he shows me comfort trigger my fly or fight response not my wetness. It might be the environment, genetics or a bit of both I’m leaning for a bit of both, YMMV.

So one reason the “nice guy” isn’t hot for many women is they are suspicious of him, assuming the “niceness” is an act to try and get them to have sex.

Wouldn’t that be related to the heavy feminist campaigns saying all the bad in the world is done by men to women? Just saying this is a cultural issue not biological one. Once upon a time it was implied that a man that offered commitment upfront was showing he had “good intentions” towards you, nowadays is the other way around.

So, why is it so hard to please women? Why does it take sometimes monumental effort on a man’s part to keep that dissatisfaction from destroying his relationship?

I think in my hypergamy guest post I called it Eve’s disease. Eve like most women think things can always improve and get better, women are the eternal optimists, maybe is an important trait if you consider how risky having babies is having the hope that you will survive baby number 7 should surely be biologically ingrained. But if you happen to be on the Garden of Eden then is a terrible trait to have. I do wonder how many women can say for real “This is the best for me, forever” without regular reminders…pondering pondering…

But that is how it works for a guy. The status comes from real, tremendous achievement, not demeanor or behavioral patterns in speech and body language.

If we are still using the hunter gatherer model you need to remember that women weren’t witnesses to war or hunting parties they just saw the results. The man that came home with a big piece of mammut meat to share with his “loved ones” and probably was carrying himself with pride and accomplishment so it makes sense that they will recognize the secondary traits from the Alphaness and not the real act. This is of course for the women that were into that sort of thing. The Beta male that didn’t got the biggest piece but instead had an idea created a bird trap and brought home some meat in a different way, surely had his target audience.

@Sassy
I think your speculation is spot on. The problem is that men are very reluctant to share emotional ties with each other as a way of protection from the downsides of relationship. The sensitive guy is usually dismissed and mocked on the group and considered effeminate and that is in the best case is usually a not visceral rejection. I had this combo with Dogsquat and Danny and they both agreed that an even if they have ta good fighter finding him effeminate was something they couldn’t get past.
Continuing the speculation I think men are wired very binary about this they see a woman and their brain triggers: protect and/or mate responses they see a man and is: foe or friend? Thus anything ambiguous gives them then a bad sensation of “What I’m supposed to do?” specially if is part of the group, YMMV.
Abbot

“I’ve never seen a scrap of evidence that many men actually consider a woman’s number of partners before settling down with her.”
–Amanda Marcotte

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/09/03/anti-choicers-showing-true-colors-in-2012-campaign-season#comment-72895

What sort of evidence is missing?

As stated above –
“People who dismiss studies as useless are frightened of having their illusions destroyed.”

So then, how would Madame Marcotte advise her minions?

.
Höllenhund

Re: 1194

The flip side is that female hypergamy has been responsible for untold amounts of human misery and violence throughout history. Lots of men have died due to women playing “let’s you and him fight”, others have overworked themselves to death because their wives nagged them to do so, or engaged in bloody struggles for status because their women demanded it. None of this would have happened without female hypergamy.

One perfect example was the German officer Wilhelm Keitel. He wanted to retire and become a farmer, but his wife nagged him into staying in the army and rising through the ranks. Thus he ended up serving Hitler and was eventually hanged as a war criminal in Nuremberg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfI-80yXOD8

Female hypergamy has an immense capacity for destruction, but nobody dares to mention that – in marked contrast to the male desire for sexual variety, which many people loudly blame for the epidemic of fatherlessness and all other sorts of social ills.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Wow, I never knew nagging was a deadly weapon.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

But do men care to know? I mean why Playboy doesn’t have a red flag list of women to avoid? Female magazines are overflowed with them but men’s magazines don’t even try. Why would that be?

Those who care to know don’t read Playboy. They read stuff like Huffington Post, where they’re brainwashed with the usual feminist dogma.
Höllenhund

Re: 1208

Right on. What’s next, really? I bet feminists and tradcons will spin this theory and assert that it was actually women who were solely responsible for building civilization whereas the men were just slacking around, getting drunk and jerking off in the shade until they had to shape up because the women demanded it. The mind boggles.
Höllenhund

In the link to Evolvify I left earlier, the blogger suggests that there is evidence that alpha males – the most violent men – were routinely killed by less violent men to rid the group of them.

Yup. That’s exactly my point.
unigirl

Hey INTJ, it was definately sexual attraction in that case though, and like I said I’m not after a baby any time soon and I certainly wasn’t then! I think being good with children can be a bit masterful, mastered that baby, haha you get what I mean though.
I’m gonna think about what you said about high school for a minute though, at first I thought I’m not sure I agree, but that’s because I took you a bit too literally I think, but actually yes my relationships with boys were a lot different then, just not necessarily the ones that went to my school. Obviously you spend a lot more hours in school than you do at college/uni, it seemed like there was more access to boys then, and obviously with spending time together little flirtations develop over time. Actually even say when I got to about 15 and started looking outside of my school for boys it just seemed like there was just much more access to boys, and overall more opportunity to just spend time with them.
At college it’s more like they’re around but the only real time you spend with the opposite sex is on nights out or parties. (Plus I don’t think anyone really takes their learning thaat seriously at school, I know I used to chat my way through lessons, can’t really be doing that in lectures). I know there’s more women go to college now, but does it ever seem like you never actually get chance to get get to know them?
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #750 Part Three:
“He also frequently goes off-topic to make posts about race, and frequently links to HBD blogs. I have made it clear I have no wish to discuss those topics here, as they are irrelevant to my mission of helping people get the relationships they want.”

O: Nein. Everything I’ve said along these lines I can and have offered reputable sources to back it up. In sum: one cannot clearly understand what is happening in the White SMP, if they do not understand what did and is continuing to happen in the Black SMP in American history and life, for reasons numerous reputable pundits and scholars have already mentioned – like Andrew Hacker (who’s “Mismatch” I discussed so much on your blog you finally brokedown and read, not without a goodly bit of protest on your part first) and Ms. Kay Hymowitz, and Lionel Tiger and Charles Murray. ALL of them have discussed what is known now as a kind of “racial convergence” along these lines – that Black America truly is the SMP canary in the mine, and that as it goes, so too, does White America.

That you have “made it clear that you do not wish to discuss” these facts and issues, speaks more to your own biases and fears and discomforts more than to whether said issues are indeed germane to the topics at hand, and indeed, ironically enough, to whether they actually wind up assisting the very Women you hope to serve; for example, you’ve gone on record in saying that you didn’t like to discuss The Bell Curve, not because the arguments being made therein were wrong, inaccurate or inapplicable to that of Hooking Up SMART (read: High IQ), but simply because, “it made you feel uncomfortable”. Which is unfortunate, because Murray’s arguments – both in TBC and his followup, Coming Apart (yet another book you were “uncomfortable with” but finally accepted when cornered), deals with issues and themes that directly relate to the HUS mission here. Indeed, YOU have discussed the importance of IQ and it’s impact on breeding, in your recent “Singlemotherhood Epidemic” post; you speficially said, that Jessica Shairer wasn’t none too bright, *and*, that you simply could not see how she made it to college – to study accounting, no less. All of these arguments, Murray has made, and again, you freely admit that you don’t deny the efficacy of the arguments – only that you’re “uncomfortable” with them. You and Putnam have much in common.

Moreover, let’s examine this notion that somehow I am preventing young people from “finding each other” – how is this so? How is it that ONE Brotha online, has the power to actually prevent White, UMC college students from finding each other, falling in love, and riding off into the sunset with each other? How is this possible? What is up with that?

The truth is – as both your massive post/study on college hookup culture, AND Murray’s Coming Apart (which YOU referenced, I remind you) clearly states – if you are White, and UMC, you WILL marry by or before you are 30 years of age. Not only will you marry, your life will be quite productive, happy and contented. Not only that, but this will happen, not just if Obsidian exists or not; it will happen, whether HUS EXISTS OR NOT.

These are all irrefutable facts, that we both have agreed upon, Ms. Walsh. So, what’s *really* the problem here? Be honest with me.

Please.

“FWIW, I have received no fewer than two dozen emails complaining of Obsidian’s manner of posting here.”

O: “no fewer than two dozen emails” – out of a universe of how many emails overall that you usually receive? I mean, just how much has Obsidian hurt HUS, or its “mission”? If anything, I’ve contributed to your “mission” in numerous ways – ways that you yourself have specifically mentioned. I recall you specifically saying at one point that you blog garnered some 70K hits a month – by now that number has had to have grown. So, “two dozen emails” complaining about lil ole me, isn’t even statistically significant – surely, you know this. It just comes off as being, yes, I’ll say it, a bit disengenuous, because I am not preventing anyone here from saying whatever they want, or indeed, doing whatever they want – and for you or anyone else to suggest otherwise, is really saying that I have a heck of a lot more pull than even I had ever imagined. I feel like Bam Bam now.

“He has been banned from many manosphere blogs…”

O: Really, now? Which ones? Links or it didn’t happen. I’ve been published, numerous times, in two of the Manosphere’s biggest venues – The Spearhead and The Good Men Project. This is yet another instance of you having no qualms toward stooping to Ad Hominem (Esau), when it suits you to do so, *and it undermines any credibility on your part toward cultivating an image of being interested in dispassionate data and argument* – that was the point I was making wrt Esau, btw. You can do better than that, Ms. Walsh. And I say this, as a friend.

“and I believe I tolerate him better than anyone else.”

O: How (Nice)White(Lady)(TM) of you.

O.
Ted D

“Yes. My view is similar. ”

So Escoffier, Deti, and myself seem to be somewhat in agreement on this.

As I was doing my 3 miles over lunch, it occurred to me that the movie True Lies nicely illustrates the kind of “married hypergamy” we are discussion. The Governator (Arnold S) was a spy, but pretended to work for a computer company. His wife worked in an office (legal?) and never had a clue her husband was a real bad ass. So, he comes to find out she is starting an affair with a guy that is PRETENDING to be a spy. Of course she finds out the truth, and after lots of car chases, gun shooting, and explosions the wife (Jamie Lee Kurtis) lives happily ever after with her “bad ass” husband.

Here is the thing: she had a completely decent life with her “boring” husband, but was ready to ditch (or at least risk being caught cheating) just to get a little excitement in her life. She had NO REASON to complain other than feeling restless. The real issue is: I think most modern women wouldn’t be nearly as careful as she was in the movie. Instead they would have jumped into the affair and either hid it, divorced to marry the other man (if he proved to be the real deal), or the marriage would blow apart when the cheating was exposed. And of course the irony in the movie was: her husband was actually the “bad ass” she was looking for. So, how many “bored” wives are actually married to their “bad ass”? I know that once I settled down for marriage, I slowly stopped doing all the things that gave me an “edge” (as Sassy describes it often) because to me those things were NOT necessary and detracted me from my primary purpose which was to take care of my family. And, by cutting out those “manly” endeavors, I killed much of my wife’s attraction to me.

How many other “beta” men are in the same position? How many of them gave up the band, the motorcycle, the sky diving because it was “dangerous” or simply irrelevant to their future plans, and in doing so drove their wives to boredom?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So Escoffier, Deti, and myself seem to be somewhat in agreement on this.
  
  Shocker.
  
  How many other “beta” men are in the same position? How many of them gave up the band, the motorcycle, the sky diving because it was “dangerous” or simply irrelevant to their future plans, and in doing so drove their wives to boredom?
  
  This is actually a really good question but it’s not one we can answer here. Athol would no doubt have an answer, and I’m sure other male bloggers would as well.
  
  This is not where you get to digest the red pill.
Iggles

If a man attracts a woman with “alpha” qualities, why would he even think of switching things up later? If the woman is attracted to the way a man presents himself initially, why on earth would he change that? If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

Excellent point Sassy!!!

This is not brought up enough. It’s a matter of being authentic. When you’re playing a part, you’re not being yourself. Of course people try to be the “best version of themselves” in the early phases of dating, but when you act contrary to your true nature is it any surprise when things fall apart?

To later whine, “Women don’t love me for who I am!” when you pretended to be someone else all along isn’t rational in the slightest. There the argument, “I was acting this way because that’s what attracts women!” is flawed at best! Acting like a fake alpha a**hat will attract a certain kind of woman — and that that of woman would punish you once you reveal your true nature (i.e., shit test the hell out of you because she sees congruence.) That type of woman you got by deceit and truthfully, is not the type of woman you’d want to marry and have kids with. She doesn’t fully get or appreciate you for who you are because she was looking for someone else.

It’s like a “bait and switch”, in a sense. A man dropping the alpha and becoming a beta throughout the relationship does the same thing to a woman’s attraction as an in-shape woman does to a man’s attraction when she puts on a lot of weight, or significantly changes her appearance. He originally fell for what she presented herself as. If she suddenly changes her appearance, in that way, many men would be upset too.

Preach on, Sassy!

Whether people like it or not, love is conditional. Either partner doing things, in a relationship, to sabotage their attractiveness to the other person is asking for trouble. We may not like it, and it may not be “fair”, but it is the way it is.

Hell yes.

Honestly, this caveat is part of the red pill folks! For both men and women.

It’s all well and good to want someone to love you just for who you are, no matter what. But it’s not realistic. I may be an optimist but I am pretty damn pragmatic! Only families provide this type of unconditional love — and even then many fail in this too!

In a romantic relationship we have needs that have to be met, and if they’re not met it affects how we feel about the other person. Love can last a lifetime if you truly want it too — but it takes BOTH partners being invested and making the choice to love each other every day; every moment. You continue to nurture that love, and bond between the two of you to keep it strong and healthy. You put in the work, but it’s well worth it.

As for men acting as fake “alphas” or running false game to get chicks — that’s not the way to get a lasting relationship. You need to be yourself and find a girl who is ecstatic to be with your as you all. My advice is:

1) Find your “niche” market (i.e., target the girls who are most likely to buy what your are selling)
2) Develop inner game — All women like a man who is assertive and confident in himself. (Do not supplicant once you find a girl. It’s only a turn on for masculinized women who prefer to be the dominant partner. All other women (masculine or feminine) will want a male partner who can stand on his own!)
Ted D

Susan – “Note: a Game blog loop is not evidence. Please find one single source of study or scholarship that supports this view. If no one can do so, please stop repeating it as if it were legit. Otherwise I’ll close the thread. It’s misinformation, as far as I’m concerned.”

So because we don’t have any study to back this, it simply doesn’t exist? Has anyone sponsored such a study? I can’t find one, and I’m not in a position to make one. So, I guess I’m just blowing steam to do what, incite a riot?

It might be easier if you just asked me to leave. I usually defend you for the most part, but this is exactly the kind of thing that other bloggers call you on, and it is hard to deny it when you are so blatant about it. The outlook isn’t popular with your “target audience” so you seek to stomp it out? If it is about money, I’d respect you more if you simply said “hey, you loud mouthed assholes are costing me!” In fact, I’d happily shut my mouth if you said just that. But, I take you at your word when you say you are looking to get to the truth of this stuff. That entails not only allowing opposing views, but giving other people room to read them and decide for themselves.

Are you still finding it hard to stay angry at me?…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  So because we don’t have any study to back this, it simply doesn’t exist? Has anyone sponsored such a study? I can’t find one, and I’m not in a position to make one. So, I guess I’m just blowing steam to do what, incite a riot?
  
  A study would be good, but I tell you what. I’ll settle for a single respected expert discussing female hypergamy as you define it. The fact is, you are just blowing steam. Presumably this is based on your personal experience, but there is zero traction for this idea anywhere except on Game blogs, and those are hardly objective.
  
  There are thousands of academics and scientists who study mating and sexual behavior. Surely you can find one that agrees with you if your idea has merit!
  
  It might be easier if you just asked me to leave. I usually defend you for the most part, but this is exactly the kind of thing that other bloggers call you on, and it is hard to deny it when you are so blatant about it.
  
  Call me out for what? Not hosting a circle jerk? I don’t pimp any unfounded ideas here, so why should I let you do so? I am blatant – I don’t hide anything. WYSIWYG and I’ve always been open about that.
  
  The outlook isn’t popular with your “target audience” so you seek to stomp it out? If it is about money, I’d respect you more if you simply said “hey, you loud mouthed assholes are costing me!”
  
  I am not suppressing an idea because it might be unpopular. I won’t even suppress it if you call it a hypothesis or speculation. But I’m not going to go round and round on this nightmare carousel forever. I’ve put up a lot of evidence, you need to put up or shut up.
  
  For the record, I find your question about money offensive. I have never once taken the easy route to more money, because it would have involved some control over my content. I refuse to compromise on that, and have declined several lucrative offers to be part of syndicated networks.
  
  You have admitted on several occasions that you like debating here because it’s civil and I let people have their say. Well, guess what, even I have my limits. I am clearly doing something wrong when you and Escoffier claim that it’s more fun to trumpet these ideas here because no one says mean things to you.
Ted D

Susan – “Wow, I never knew nagging was a deadly weapon.”

ROFL. It has killed more marriages and destroyed more families than anyone can possibly count…
Rhen

Ted D…”How many of them gave up the band, the motorcycle, the sky diving because it was “dangerous” or simply irrelevant to their future plans, and in doing so drove their wives to boredom?”

Well, I’ve known several guys who gave up (or didn’t start) moderately dangerous activities like the motorcycling and sky diving BECAUSE their wives insisted on it.
Escoffier

“again, it doesn’t matter what other students actually think”

Wait, how do you square this with the claim that it is esteem of other mane that makes certain men attrative to women?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  “again, it doesn’t matter what other students actually think”
  
  Wait, how do you square this with the claim that it is esteem of other mane that makes certain men attrative to women?
  
  Because membership in the frat or team means the guy has already proven that he has the esteem of other males, having earned a spot in the organization. What anyone thinks of him after that point won’t affect women because 1) those other students have no way to make their views known, and 2) they’ve already “proven” themselves, so disrespect from other males sounds like sour grapes at that point.
Höllenhund

Not just nagging, but pushing, manipulating in general. Lots of these situations would not have become lethal without it. Just consider how many men died in bar fights, knifings, duels etc. throughout history because some woman wanted to play “let’s you and him fight” and the stupid betaboys went along.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Just consider how many men died in bar fights, knifings, duels etc. throughout history because some woman wanted to play “let’s you and him fight” and the stupid betaboys went along.
  
  It’s not as if men don’t fight when women aren’t around.
Jimmy Hendricks

I don’t think that’s true. The men who get the most sex in college are frat guys and athletes, who display a strong elevation among males right out of the gate. Frats are selective, athletics is very selective. We may question why these men are being rewarded, but they are.

I’d agree that guys in some cases have a tendency to put athletes on a pedestal they don’t necessarily deserve.

But in my experience at numerous campuses, most frat guys are generally despised by the general population of guys. I don’t see any “elevation among males” going on there.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  But in my experience at numerous campuses, most frat guys are generally despised by the general population of guys. I don’t see any “elevation among males” going on there.
  
  Sorry, I’m obviously not communicating this clearly.
  
  Assuming that fraternity membership is selective, and that it’s difficult to get into a “good frat” then the men who get into them have achieved higher status than the other males on campus. The membership itself is the marker of status, and it signals that the pledges were selected from a larger group, and were therefore successful in intrasexual competition.
Mike C

Are you implying that I am deliberately talking out of both sides of my mouth, hoping that readers here are not intelligent enough to pick up on that?

***I request a firm answer to this question****, as it seems to be the latest in a series of questions aimed at doubting my character and intellectual honesty.

The firm answer to your question is NO I do not believe you are deliberately talking out of both sides of your mouth, and I was NOT implying that.

In fact, this country has a rich tradition of polling people to find out what they think, and to modify policy or predict winners based on those surveys. Research about people’s attitudes is some of the most important and interesting research that’s conducted.

Yes….as long as we recognize the limitations and don’t accept the survey data as gospel….

Dewey beats Truman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

Conventional wisdom, ****supported by polls****, was almost unanimous that a Dewey presidency was “inevitable”, and that the New York governor would win the election handily. The first (one-star) edition of the Tribune therefore went to press with the banner headline “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN”. [1]
deti

“Can any one of the men who shares this view offer a source of evidence for this claim? I’m waiting, have been waiting for months now…

Note: a Game blog loop is not evidence. Please find one single source of study or scholarship that supports this view. If no one can do so, please stop repeating it as if it were legit.”

Mountains upon mountains of anecdotal evidence. Men coming to blogs and reporting the same phenomena, across virtually all demographics.

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, though admittedly not as good as social science studies and surveys. It’s your prerogative to assign lesser weight and credibility to that evidence. That being said, you cannot deny its existence when you have men coming in here saying it does exist because they’ve seen it and so have many, many others. It’s still evidence, though — just not evidence of a character to which you assign weight or credibility.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Mountains upon mountains of anecdotal evidence. Men coming to blogs and reporting the same phenomena, across virtually all demographics.
  
  It’s actually a very small number of men providing anecdotes. Both Ted and Mike C were married to women of weak or poor character. Escoffier has no personal dog in this fight as far as I know, so he’s not providing anecdotal evidence. In this thread the definition of hypergamy has shifted several times. Now it includes frivolous divorce, which is something else entirely.
  
  I’m not saying women don’t behave badly. I’m happy to say we’re guilty of everything that’s been alleged here. But let’s not call it hypergamy. Because these anecdotal reports have nothing to do with mating up.
Lokland

@Susan

“Yes. My view is similar. I think all women have a constantly running subroutine that continuously evaluates her man to make sure he is high enough status/confidence/dominance to satisfy her

Can any one of the men who shares this view offer a source of evidence for this claim? I’m waiting, have been waiting for months now…”

Umm.. I’m gonna skip the scholarships and journals and stuff. You yourself have made this claim.

We discussed it earlier.

Shit tests. They comeout whenever the subroutine detects an anomaly which requires verification.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Lokland
  
  Shit tests. They comeout whenever the subroutine detects an anomaly which requires verification.
  
  Agreed, they may be deployed at the first sign or vulnerability or weakness from the male. That is very different than a “constantly running subroutine” looking for weakness.
  
  And that’s not hypergamy.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Iggles 1221:
“This is not brought up enough. It’s a matter of being *authentic*. When you’re playing a part, you’re not being yourself. Of course people try to be the “best version of themselves” in the early phases of dating, but when you act contrary to your true nature is it any surprise when things fall apart?”

O: I am always fascinated by this insistence on the part of Women (in this instance, those who identify as Black – bear with me, please) that Men be “real’ – especially *when so much about said Women themselves ARE NOT REAL* – from the hair extensions, relaxers, push-up bras, makeup, heels, various body shapers, et al. Why is it so wrong for a Man to adopt a persona that is more to a Woman’s liking?

“That type of woman you got by deceit and truthfully, is not the type of woman you’d want to marry and have kids with. She doesn’t fully get or appreciate you for who you are because she was looking for someone else.”

O: Again – why is this not wrong when Women themselves engage in deceitful practices? The truth is – and here Ms. Walsh will know what I’m talking about because she’s as familiar with Buss as I am – deceit is as much of the mating dance as breathing. Not an endorsement. Just a statement of fact.

“1) Find your “niche” market (i.e., target the girls who are most likely to buy what your are selling)”

O: I think what you mean by this is “find those unsexy/not hot Women who you will settle for, some five SMP points below you who don’t inspire any wood at all in you”. Yea, good luck with “selling” that product…

“2) Develop inner game — All women like a man who is assertive and confident in himself. (Do not supplicant once you find a girl. It’s only a turn on for masculinized women who prefer to be the dominant partner. All other women (masculine or feminine) will want a male partner who can stand on his own!)”

O: That’s precisely what these guys are doing, and then ladies like you turnaround and accuse them of being “fake” – all while being “fake” in the ways I’ve mentioned above(!)

You can’t make this stuff up…

O.

P.S.: I’ve answered you on page 8…
Ted D

Rhen – “Well, I’ve known several guys who gave up (or didn’t start) moderately dangerous activities like the motorcycling and sky diving BECAUSE their wives insisted on it.”

I fell for this myself in my first failed marriage. After a few years in when we started having “problems” (which strangely enough manifested right after my son was born. Postpartum depression?…) she started complaining that I spent too much time away from home with my “silly band” (which was something I was doing when we met and she didn’t seem to mind then…) and it led to me quitting. I’m not crying that I didn’t get to be a rock star, because that was never the intent of gigging in the first place. To me it was fun, and a great outlet for a lot of the crap I hold inside and carry around. But, feeling like I owed her whatever it took to “make our marriage work” I quit, and from then on things continually slid downward for the next 7 years. Not because of the quitting per se, but it set the precedent for our marriage until she left: she made demands, I gave in. The very few times I stood my ground she made my home life such living hell that I would give in simply to be back to just miserable, instead of crazy pissed off and miserable…

J – I missed a comment from you way back about how our counselor suggested Fireproof. My ex would ONLY go to Christian based counselling. It seems when her mother died when she was 16, her father sent her to counselling and she had such a bad experience that she claims she simply doesn’t trust psychologists unless they are faith based. *shrug*

It didn’t matter. As soon as the counselor started hitting on her soft spots, she declared that it wasn’t working and moved out.
Iggles

@ Escoffier:

I do not believe that once a woman lands a man who satisfies her hypergamous impulse, that impulse is shut off for good. I believe that, in being satisfied, it is tamped down but she can still be attracted, and possibly even tempted, if someone high enough comes along and shows interest. The same way that, while I am happy in my job, I could be tempted to leave for a much better offer. Not just a few bucks more but a lot more and a more prominent role, etc.

I’m not following your logic. You’re saying that a woman can be tempted to leave her partner if someone “better” comes along?

Couldn’t the same be said of men?

This seems like a strawman argument. Under the “right” circumstances everyone is capable of murder, stealing, violence, etc. (Killing in self defense; stealing food to survive is a post-apocalyptic world; Fighting to defend your home from thugs breaking in).

What’s your point? It still doesn’t change that MOST PEOPLE won’t do so if these things conflict with their moral code.

I don’t see this as proving hypergamy.
Escoffier

Re: “studies show.” I actually have a fair bit of experience with this argument. I won’t go into it all because it will take too long and get too complex. Whole books, very profound books, are out there that deal with it. The best I can do here is a short summary, which will still make for a long post.

In grad school, I studied with a school or “sect” which called into question modern social science methodology and its underlying assumptions. Put simply, there is a school, the dominant school, which holds that social and political phenomena can be studied using the same math-based research methods as the natural sciences and can arrive at the same level of precision. The core idea was to make the social sciences finally truly “scientific” just like physics and chemistry, whereas the old social/political science of Tocqueville, Locke, Montesquieu, Aristotle, and the like was inherently imprecise. Worse, it was time-bound (“historical”), biased, and ultimately mere opinion rather than fact.

Our critique has two foundations, one theoretical, the other practical. The theoretical critique was first (and best) stated by Aristotle at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics. There, Aristotle warns readers not to expect more precision than the subject matter itself will permit. If you want mathematical results, study math. Human things are inherently imprecise, sketchy, convoluted, nuanced, gray, etc. They are best investigated through dialectic rather than what we today would term “scientific” means (though Aristotle made no distinction between “science” and “philosophy,” that distinction arose in the 19th century).

Some 2,000 years later modern philosophy introduced the “scientific” method, which is the origin of the distinction between “science” and “philosophy.” It proved to be a smashing success in certain realms. E.g., it proved decisively that Aristotle’s natural science (four elements, laws of motion, and so on) was wrong, wrong, wrong. This was not unimportant at the time because Aristotle’s natural science was still dominant at that time.

Eventually, the practitioners of the scientific method began to believe that all they had to do was apply that method to human things and they could figure out human behavior the same way they had figured out celestial mechanics and circulation of the blood. Some resisted, which lead to the cleaving off of philosophy and the “humanities” from the “real sciences.” The social sciences desperately want to be considered “real sciences” like physics et al. They crave that respectability.

However, that brings me to the practical critique. Social sciences have failed at the most decisive task. They are not predictive. That is, literally, the acid test of good science. Is it predictive? Newton’s predictions about the planet orbits were dead accurate. Ditto Harvey’s about the circulation of the blood. I could go on and on.

Whereas to this day, the most successful of the social sciences, economics, has a very hard time being predictive of anything other than vague trends. “Scientific” political science cannot produce a model that predicts even the most oft-repeated elections, in which the demographics and party compositions rarely change. Sociology is the worst of all. The best you can say about it as that it can be descriptive, but predictive, almost never. As an aside, I would say that psychometrics is actually the most predictive of the social sciences so far, but also the most disputed and dismissed, since our intellectual culture does not like the prediction it makes.

So all of these led, in the mid 20th century, some pioneering thinkers to go back and reexamine what may be called the “pre-scientific” study of politics and see if it had more explanatory power than the “scientific” study. And they concluded that it does.

Beyond all this are the things already mentioned by other commenters on the limits of studies: the bias of researchers, improper framing of questions, attempts to measure feelings as if they were facts, the tendency of studies to be quickly superseded, and so on.

In the end, if what a “study says” does not square with your observation, be skeptical. Be more skeptical still if it contradicts 2,500 years of “pre-scientific” wisdom. That’s how I look at studies. Whereas most of the academic establishment wants this to be a closed question, the scientific approach has won, hands down, if it can’t be quantified, it’s not a fact, if you can run a peer-reviewed regression analysis, then whatever comes out IS a fact.

None of that answers the theoretical critique nor has it made the practical problem any better. In fact, the partisans of the scientific side have yet to even answer the theoretical critique. They feel confident in their position of strength and influence. However, “my side,” while still quite small in the academy, is gaining influence and numbers.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @EScoffier
  
  If scientific inquiry lacks credibility, is the proper response to swallow speculative theories whole without testing them?
  
  Neither you or any other man here can say what a woman feels when she meets an attractive man other than her husband. If we’re just going to debate without any foundation for argument, I think women should have the last word, as we’re the only ones who can provide primary anecdotal evidence for hypergamous impulse.
Marie

@ deti
“they might have to compromise and accept a man who has MOST (but not all ) of the traits they want”

The choice being kind of like….this?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/The_6775cd_195726.jpg
Ted D

Iggles – “What’s your point? It still doesn’t change that MOST PEOPLE won’t do so if these things conflict with their moral code.”

the problem is: that “moral” code is quickly becoming less and less moral at all. I realize that character is at the root of partners not cheating on each other, but it seems to me that in many parts of the West, real character is damn hard to find.

But, even if your statement is true that “most people” won’t cheat, doesn’t it make sense to know WHY you might be tempted? If we better understood our own motivations, we would be MUCH better equipped to deal with hurdles like temptation when they arrive. I didn’t say if, because there is ALWAYS temptation to be found.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #744:
“I don’t think those were my exact words…”

O: YES, those were indeed your exact words.

“but from an objective standard, you are a risky bet. The fact is, a man in his mid-40s who has never been married raises a red flag. Why not?”

O: See what’s happening here? If the roles were reversed I’d be tarred and feathered. What, a Man, questioning a Woman’s right to live her life as she sees fit? Why, he’s a evil sexist/misogynist!

But, it’s perfectly OK to grill a guy as to how he chooses to live his existence – which, I last time I checked, was his right as an American. Hmm.

“Was no one good enough for you?”

O: Not necessarily.

“Did you not want children?”

O: I can do that anytime I get good and ready – without getting married. Plenty of Women will sign up for the job. Trust me, it happens all the time.

“What have you been doing for the last 15 years?”

O: Being a good American.

“Are you a reformed player?”

O: I’m not a player, I just crush a lot.

“etc.”

O: Let’s just say that I have ideological reasons as to why I’m not crazy about tying the knot; I don’t like the idea of being a second class citizen in my own house, nor do I like the idea of not having any say over life and death of my kids. The way things are structured right now, and I know you may not buy this, but its a strong *disincentive* for guys like me – and trust me, I am far from alone – from marrying.

“It may have nothing to do with character and integrity, but be more about the choices you’ve made and what that says about your priorities.”

O: I’ve decided to live a good, productive, law abiding, community-oriented life. Which is more than what I can say about the vast majority of the ladies who attempt to stand in some faux-judgment of me.

“I have no problem with anyone living on their own terms, man or woman. Just know that all choices have consequences.”

O: LOL. For one thing, I think you’ve got me confused with Ms. Kate Bolick – when have you *ever* known me to bemoan my lifestyle choices – and you’ve known me for what, three years at least, right? I’ll wait…

“A large part of what I encourage women to do is seek out “dads” instead of “cads.” For those of us who want to marry and have a family, we just don’t have time to waste on men who don’t share the same objectives.”

O: Again, another fallacy. No one is “wasting a Woman’s time” – no true player is, anyway. See my response to Ms. Iggles on page 8 for more on this point. What you’re dealing with is the pretenders, and they’re easy to spot; if a White UMC gal ain’t on the ball enough to do so, she’s got a much bigger problem than merely “trying to find a boyfriend”. Again, my sisters have NEVER run into this problem, and they had much *less* to work with than the gals in your coveted target demo do. Two of them are married today, and have been for at least a decade each, while the latter sister is happily single; you’ll never see her doing the Kate Bolick, LOL.

“It doesn’t mean we’re frightened of you, it just means you are not on the front lines for long-term mating.”

O: My personal experience, and that of the Men I’ve observed, does not tally with this statement. But it’s nice to see that guys like me don’t “frighten” ladies like you.

O.
Escoffier

Iggles, of course a man is tempted by a similar dynamic.

I think it’s a mistake to conflate sex with crime though. Clearly far more people indulge in sexual sin than ever do in murder, rape, theft, etc. The circumstances which might impel a normally empathetic (i.e., non-sociopathic) person toward the latter have to be much more extreme than circumstances which tempt people to screw around. Lots of people who would never physically hurt another person nonetheless do cheat.

The point, anyway, is about attraction triggers less than behavior. We don’t always act on our attraction triggers, which is good. But they never go away and they often push us in bad directions that we need to resist.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I think if we removed any slut shaming and negativity concerning sex (ala Europe) there would be much less discourse in the SMP. Let the sluts be loud and proud so they can find each other, polys with polys, whatever it is you’re seeking.

It wouldn’t work. Sluts crave to “win” a man as much as any other woman and male sluts want to settle for a low N partner as any other man. They would never shut down the chance to fish on other ponds when the time is right and we know a man that is attractive enough can get a
“good girl” to hamsterize that his promiscuous past is meaningless and a hot slut can get a “nice guy” that she was never that type or/and that her promiscuous past is meaningless too. Is not the shaming is that many STR orientated people eventually want the LTR too. Is a cake eating issue, IMO, YMMV.

…or maybe the tribal chiefs decided to enforce monogamy because they realized it strengthens male cooperation.

Or both genders saw the advantages of monogamy or limiting sexual choices and worked together to make it easier for both genders. I really don’t buy the enforcing of any gender over any gender, I’m sure that the results of promiscuity were obvious and fast enough (diseases, death, child mortality through the roof…) for both genders to think there had to be a better way, YMMV.

I don’t know if this is different between the sexes, or between personality traits.

Is a sex difference, for men a woman’s only measure of attractiveness is the boner so they don’t get that finding someone attractive but not being attracted to them is the normal state for us as Mike C noted we had this discussion before about celebrities and we tried to convince the guy that if you substitute Hugh Jackman for Mabelline new 24 hour lipstick you will have a similar enthusiastic answers down to I will have sex with this lipstick is just so goooood!, but it didn’t worked, not even a little…:/

Those who care to know don’t read Playboy. They read stuff like Huffington Post, where they’re brainwashed with the usual feminist dogma.

Still Playboy is a magazine for men by men and they do take enough care to publish short stories/novels and the personalities and likes of the playmates so you would think they will add a list of red flags as well with “the articles”, is odd that they don’t, IMO.
deti

@ Iggles:

“I’m not following your logic. You’re saying that a woman can be tempted to leave her partner if someone “better” comes along?

Couldn’t the same be said of men?
***

What’s your point? It still doesn’t change that MOST PEOPLE won’t do so if these things conflict with their moral code.

I don’t see this as proving hypergamy.”

The point is the existence of this phenomenon in which some men here say women consistently evaluate their men to make sure they are of high enough status; or as Esco says, the “impulse X” is tamped down unless the man falters. The point is that it exists. That’s a very different inquiry than whether a woman acts on it or not; which is irrelevant to this discussion even though we know some do.
Escoffier

Susan, re: frat guys, so, at a typical school with a large Greek community, maybe 30% of the student body might be Greek. So, at most, a minorty of the men have given these guys their approval. And that’s assuming that the whole of each Greek community has affirmed the status of every member, which is unlikely to be true.

So, really, your argument is that the attractive men have the approbation of SOME men. Which is much more plausible.

I totally agree about the sour grapes point, by the way, but I think it rather illustrates my point than the reverse.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So, really, your argument is that the attractive men have the approbation of SOME men. Which is much more plausible.
  
  Yes, but it is enough to make them almost as highly sexed as varsity athletes.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Wow this thread exploded over the weekend…

Good to see you again Olive! I hope you’re feeling better. How are things?

Susan, Dune is awesome! It’s my all time favorite.

JustYX, I still haven’t seen a screen version of the Dune series that holds a candle to the written books. Too much become lost.
Zach

@Susan 1246

Correct. And also, the frat guys could honestly care less what the independents think of them. Almost all of the men they interact with or are friends with will be Greek. I’d say in my group of friends, 90-95% of our close male friends were Greek.

My friends and I discussed this sometimes in college. In terms of hooking up, if you were a guy and not in a frat or an athlete, you might as well have been dead. I know plenty of guys who were not particularly good looking or had weak game who got girls simply because they were a member of a certain fraternity. Very, very often, the first question asked of a guy when you met him was “what house are you in?”. And if the answer was “none”, it was met by an awkward “oh”. Even the bar scene was completely dominated by the Greeks and athletes, so much so that in any given night at the main campus bar, I recognized and could tell you the affiliation of 80-90% of the customers.

With girls it was a bit different. Yes, being in a sorority conferred certain advantages, but if you were hot, no one really cared what house you were in.

@Hollenhund

Wow what an absurd statement. I’ve been in a decent number of fights, and can’t recall a single one instigated by a woman. In fact, it’s usually the girls trying to break it up or screaming at the guys to stop. The VAST majority of male fights are over far more trivial, stupid things (I once got in a fistfight over the last cookie at a bake sale, and yes, copious amounts of booze were involved).
Iggles

@ Obsidian:

@Ms. Iggles 1221:

“This is not brought up enough. It’s a matter of being *authentic*. When you’re playing a part, you’re not being yourself. Of course people try to be the “best version of themselves” in the early phases of dating, but when you act contrary to your true nature is it any surprise when things fall apart?”

O: I am always fascinated by this insistence on the part of Women (in this instance, those who identify as Black – bear with me, please) that Men be “real’ – especially *when so much about said Women themselves ARE NOT REAL* – from the hair extensions, relaxers, push-up bras, makeup, heels, various body shapers, et al. Why is it so wrong for a Man to adopt a persona that is more to a Woman’s liking?

I love how you fallback on stereotypes about (black) woman.

Let’s see:

1. “hair extensions, relaxers” — Nope! I have natural hair O. No extensions.
2. “push-up bras” — Don’t wear those, expect maybe once in a blue moon depending on the dress I’m wearing
3. “heels” — I exclusively wear flats (and I’m 5″3 so it’s has nothing to do with sensitivity about my height!)
4. “various body shapers, et al” — That’s laughable! I’m quite content with my body shape (petite and slender with curves)

So I don’t align with your stereotypical “woman” and still I can see that there’s a difference from enhancing your appearance and getting a personality transplant..

I have no problem with game per se. I think inner game is brilliant and what should be fostered, if you read that part in my post.

I do see a problem with pretending to be a guy that you’re not, then getting upset at the woman when your relationship falls apart because the “real you” showed up and she “just wasn’t that into you”!

“1) Find your “niche” market (i.e., target the girls who are most likely to buy what your are selling)”

O: I think what you mean by this is “find those unsexy/not hot Women who you will settle for, some five SMP points below you who don’t inspire any wood at all in you”. Yea, good luck with “selling” that product…

No, it means go for women who find you attractive as your are — personality wise.

If you’re a nerdy guy who likes Star Wars will you be happy dating some vapid girl who’s hot but hates sci fi, doesn’t get your humor, and prefers to shop in her free time? Probably not, once the newness wears off. For the long time, it’s better to find a girl who meshes with you!

Believe me, not all girls who like Star Wars are ugly. I have a friend who is very girl, wears make ups, love shoes and designers bags — and she is a HUGE nerd (she love sci fi, fantasy, and is a gamer!).

So find your niche. Trolling for strange at a generic bar isn’t a good strategy. Looking for venues with cute girls that share your interest IS a much better one!
Escoffier

“I’ll settle for a single respected expert discussing female hypergamy as you define it.”

This is nothing more than an appeal to authority, nonetheless, since it pertains to my point about about studies above, I want to address it (again).

OK, first, to the best of my knowledge, it was Devlin who first used the term “hypergamy” in this specific context. Before that, it was a little used term in anthropology about inter-caste marriage in India. Before he revived the term in 2006, one finds almost no intances of it, and I find it interesting that it was not in any dictionaries then, except the long version of the OED, which is a million volumes and has ever word ever used that they can track down. I am happy to be corrected on that point, but his first essay on the topic (which was incidentally before any of the game blogs went online) is the earliest instance I can find of the word in the context we are talking about. So it’s a bit inconsistent to say that hypergamy has an accepted definiting in SMP terms and then rule out Devlin as a source for its meaning.

Beyond this, you say you want “sources.” I can cite chapter and verse, starting with the Iliad. I don’t even have to leave the Greeks, I can go onto Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle. And so on and on.

We both love Austen and Tom Wolfe. I can cite their works as well. Charlotte Simmons is ALL about this and, as you know, I have authoritative confirmation that my interpretation of that book is correct.

Now, all this may be dismissed as insufficently “scientific,” about which see above.

But that aside, the truth of an idea should stand or fall on its own merits. Even we could produce some “scientific” study, that would no more prove the idea is correct. It might lend it support, but the idea still needs to be subjected to dialectical critique, which is what we are doing.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So it’s a bit inconsistent to say that hypergamy has an accepted definiting in SMP terms and then rule out Devlin as a source for its meaning.
  
  First, Tyler Cowen on Devlin’s hypergamy essay:
  
  This essay is not politically correct and at times it is misogynous and yes I believe the author is evil (seriously). The main behavioral assumption is that women are fickle. So they are monogamous at points of time but not over time; Devlin then solves for the resulting equilibrium, so to speak. The birth rate falls, for one thing. The piece also claims that the modern “abolition” of marriage strengthens the attractive at the expense of the unattractive. Some of you will hate the piece. I disagree with the central conclusion, and also the motivation, but it does seem to count as a new idea. If you’re tempted, read it.
  
  Now for references to the meaning of hypergamy as I see it:
  
  1. James Taranto at the WSJ has used the term to mean Marrying Up. He attributes the term to Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage.
  
  Coontz:
  
  From 1940 to the mid-1970s, the tendency for men to marry down educationally became more pronounced and the cultural ideal of hypergamy — that women must marry up — became more insistent.
  
  2. Education, Hypergamy and the “Success Gap”
  
  I find little evidence that the increased concentration of women at the top of the education distribution has led to a worsening of the marriage market prospects of more educated women. The success gap declined substantially in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The marriage market accommodated the shift in part through a decline in hypergamy at the upper end of the education distribution.
  
  On the other hand, it appears that the declining economic prospects of men at the bottom of the education distribution have rendered many below the threshold of marriageability. The likelihood of marriage for less educated men fell more than the likelihood of marriage for less educated women. There was no decline in hypergamy at this end of the spectrum; in fact, some measures indicate an increase in hypergamy for this group, as less educated women have increasingly been reaching upward in the education distribution for husbands, or opting out of marriage entirely.
  
  3. The reversal of the gender gap in education and its impact on union
  formation: the end of hypergamy
  
  In this paper we examine the impact that the advances in women’s education has had on gender symmetry in union formation and, more specifically, on female educational hypergamy (women’s tendency to marry men with a higher educational attainment than themselves).
  
  4. Marriage and Assortative Mating:
  How Have the Patterns Changed?
  
  Assortative mating patterns are very different when measured in terms of parents’ education. While there is hypogamy overall with respect to own education, there is hypergamy in terms of both partners’ fathers’ education, and partners’ mother’s education. The fact that the differences in
  estimates based on own education and estimates based on parents’ education are so stark suggests that the problem of the differing distributions of education of men and women in the population is important.
  
  5. Re the Chinese Sheng Nu:
  
  The Chinese media has been buzzing with stories about urban single women like Wei, so-called sheng nu, which literally translates to “leftover women.” In a country where the sex ratio at birth has increasingly skewed toward men since the 1980s, the numbers may seem to favor women; but there’s another force working against this class of ladies.* The country’s long-held tradition of marriage hypergamy, a practice in which women marry up in terms of income, education and age, means that the most highly-educated women often end up without partners.
  
  You can have the last word, I’m out. Time to write a new post.
Zach

Background information:

I went to a school (Penn) that was about 35% Greek, both male and female. To give you an idea of how insular that scene is, at senior formal (party given by the school for the whole senior class), most of my friends and I kept asking “who in god’s name ARE all these people?? They went to my school??”

Also, the sorority girls are so much better looking than the rest of the population that the reaction to meeting an attractive non-Greek girl was generally “wow she must have a really boring personality”.
Ted D

Susan – “I am clearly doing something wrong when you and Escoffier claim that it’s more fun to trumpet these ideas here because no one says mean things to you.”

A few things on this. I can go to any of the R’s blogs and “blow steam” in this manner and get all the male validation I want. I would get virtual high 5’s, and guys telling me “I’m glad you finally came to see things the way they are” crap. I”m not interested in a circle jerk, and you described it, which is why I don’t post there. And that is something you seem to be missing: I have NO DESIRE to simply hang out with people that agree with me. I don’t do this in real life, and I don’t do this on the ‘net. I have friends with very different opinions on lots of things, and we often get into spirited debates about them. But I’m not the type of person that is looking for an echo chamber. I can find that easily. I am most interested in intellectual challenge and perhaps some friendly banter. Yes, I did go to the ‘sphere for awhile because I truly needed to just bathe in it to figure out where I stood on the issues. But, it was never *my* kind of place.

My apologies for the money comment. Honestly it just strikes me as a possibility since you’ve been putting effort into a site revamp of sorts. I wasn’t being snarky though. If my comments are literally costing you, I will happily and quietly cease and desist. I’m in NO WAY interested in hurting someone’s income, but I don’t have any issue with causing a little mayhem in general.

And as far as it goes, not being “mean” to people actually means you are doing things right. You are promoting open discussion and debate, which very few ‘sphere sites can truly say.

Now as to what is and is not provable… I don’t know what to say. Am I biased? Maybe. But I would MUCH rather be able to go back to believing my Blue Pill teachings and pretend it all isn’t so. However, you and I both know it IS true, but we seem to disagree about how bad it all is, and why it is so bad in the first place. I’m as happy as I’ve been in memorable history at this point in my life, so unlike many ‘sphere posters, I am NOT coming from a place of anger and bitterness. Surely I was angry and bitter for some time, but to be honest the less angry I am about everything the MORE I find myself agreeing with other Red Pill men, some of which I honestly used to feel were misogynist pigs. They are still abrasive, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong.

Anyway, I don’t know how a a study could even be made to gather data to prove or disprove what I’ve been saying. Would we ever get people to truly admit to this? Will women gladly admit to being so petty that they left a perfectly good marriage because they were bored? Can we confidently believe any study that questions why women EPL? I honestly don’t think those women even know for themselves why they acted that way many times, so a study would be almost pointless. But, that does NOT mean that my idea is any less valid than yours, it simply means I have no credible way to gather data to prove my point.

Besides, I’m honestly not trying to “turn” you to the dark side. I genuinely want people to give it thought and come to their own conclusions. As always, I can be completely full of shit. But, the experiences of the many men I’ve known throughout my life doesn’t lead me to believe I’m wrong on this. I may not be 100% right, but I am at least barking in the right forest. Perhaps I’m just at the wrong tree.
Escoffier

“If scientific inquiry lacks credibility”

When you distort what I wrote in this way, it’s clear you’r just getting mad and not playing fair any more.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  When you distort what I wrote in this way, it’s clear you’r just getting mad and not playing fair any more.
  
  I wasn’t being snarky there. I thought that was a fair summation of your point.
INTJ

@ Susan

Assuming that fraternity membership is selective, and that it’s difficult to get into a “good frat” then the men who get into them have achieved higher status than the other males on campus. The membership itself is the marker of status, and it signals that the pledges were selected from a larger group, and were therefore successful in intrasexual competition.

So are honors STEM students. You don’t see them getting laid left and right.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So are honors STEM students. You don’t see them getting laid left and right.
  
  Being at the top of the STEM hierarchy is not the same as being at the top of the male hierarchy.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Hoellenhund #1212….No question, men are often inspired to higher levels of performance in order to gain female favor, and this performance can serve bad ends as well as good. Goethe closed Faust with the line “The eternal feminine draws us upwards,” but the resulting altitude can be used for nefarious purposes as well as beneficent ones.

Regarding General Keitel, if his wife really pressured him into following a military career instead of farming, she unintentionally did the world a real favor. From what I’ve read, Keitel was a not-too-bright man whose top talent was sycophancy (behind his back he was called “Lakeitel,” a play on the German word “Lakai” (lackey)), and his caving in to Hitler’s worst military ideas without objection was a very good thing.
Escoffier

“I am clearly doing something wrong when you and Escoffier claim that it’s more fun to trumpet these ideas here because no one says mean things to you.”

No, you are doing something right, because I regard you and your readers as reasonable and persuadable, and also able to teach me things. Dalrock is capable of teaching me things, but I would say that of very few of his readers. I would also say that he and all of his commenters (except Brendan) have minds that are 100% closed. So the conversation there has no point. In fact, there is no conversation there, it is a monologue with an “Amen chorus.” There is a real conversation here.

The unpleasantness over there is a factor, but a secondary one.
Escoffier

Susan, read it again. The point is that certain kinds of inquiries work very well to explain certain phenomena, and not so well to explain other phenomena. The “sceintific method” that works smashingly to explain physics cannot be imposed on sociology with similarly successful results.
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Ted D

ROFL. It has killed more marriages and destroyed more families than anyone can possibly count…

It may have killed (or at least injured) a few women as well and maybe killed a few men. No, I’m not joking.

@Susan

It’s actually a very small number of men providing anecdotes. Both Ted and Mike C were married to women of weak or poor character.

Well, I could say that about my trading up wife too, but isn’t that kind of a tautology and maybe even giving in on the issue.

IF women are always instinctively drive to trade up and IF society holds that you should stay married once you get THEN ISN’T the woman who trades up of poor character or weak?

Up thread I argued the problem, in my eyes, isn’t the natural impulses of women or men but that we have the potential to go beyond mere biology (somebody gave me a really good word but I’m drawing a blank). Failure to go beyond that is either weakness or poor character. However, we need to remember strength and especially good character are learned behavior and wonder how well people are taught.

We actually do that when recommending to people not to marry someone with divorced parents. We’re judging their character indirectly based on what they’ve been taught (by example).

I don’t know if a woman’s hypergamy is always on and trying to override her commitments. I don’t care. What I do care about is how little we teach women in our culture that honoring the commitment once made is important.

In fact, the more I look at it I think if you take the ‘sphere and scrap off the hyperbole, anger, and bitterness that the core issues they have are:

1. Men are told their natural sexual impulses are wrong. You claim to not see that Susan but to be honest if you don’t you’re under a rock or avoid popular culture (hell, go to a typical take back the night march to see what colleges teach about male sexuality). One reason I think the ‘sphere took to Girls is how much it didn’t judge male sexuality.
2. Men are told they must control their sexuality to be appealing to women (while many of the same women saying that head off to men who don’t…although I have a new theory on that one that actually takes women at their word to replace the cock carousel theory).
3. Women are encouraged to explore their sexuality and if they want it, it must be okay. One of Dalrock’s big complaints, that men’s preferred promiscuity of variety is condemned but women’s preferred promiscuity of serial monogamy is celebrated is a perfect example.

I think a lot of the rest is an attempt to rationally explain 1-3, although often filtered through a lens of anger and bitterness.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Herb
  
  . Men are told their natural sexual impulses are wrong. You claim to not see that Susan but to be honest if you don’t you’re under a rock or avoid popular culture (hell, go to a typical take back the night march to see what colleges teach about male sexuality). One reason I think the ‘sphere took to Girls is how much it didn’t judge male sexuality.
  
  I’ve been thinking about this claim and I’m just not seeing it. Among radfems, sure, what else is new? But in the popular culture? I think the player gets treated pretty well. Wasn’t the main character in How I Met Your Mother a player? James Bond certainly is lionized for his womanizing ways. Even Mr. Big in SATC, who’s basically a total douche, is admired and sought after, and never called to account for his behavior.
  
  The Sopranos portrayed male sexuality without judgment. The musical Grease had the bad boy win in converting the virgin to a sex kitten, and that was the happy ending.
  
  Can you give some examples of popular culture demonizing male sexuality?
INTJ

@ Escoffier

Brilliant post. Especially the part about predictive power. If it can’t make accurate predictions, it’s not science. Don’t call it that.
Lokland

@Susan

“Agreed, they may be deployed at the first sign or vulnerability or weakness from the male. That is very different than a “constantly running subroutine” looking for weakness.”

No its not. The shit tests aren’t the subroutine themeselves but what results when said routine detects a problem. Indirect evidence. (Similar to how astos detect planets.)

There is a subroutine that is constantly checking for weakness.

I agree however that that is definetly not hypergamy. (In both the traditional sense and that being argued here.)

Further, I think the idea of hypergamy as discussed here is applicable to both men and women. Trading for the richer/better husband vs. trading for the petiter/younger wife.

However these are not hypergamy in the real sense. (As you have stated.) They are trading “up” though.

What would be more useful (atleast for me) is a discussion on how to prevent or decrease the likliehood that this occurs because based on this Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire. I’m screwed.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  What would be more useful (atleast for me) is a discussion on how to prevent or decrease the likliehood that this occurs because based on this Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire. I’m screwed.
  
  Why do you say so? If your wife is attracted to you, she will not seek dominance outside the relationship. I know that you are very self-critical regarding appearance, but I also seem to remember your wife feeling otherwise, and falling head over heels for you. Trust her judgment, not yours.
Iggles

@ Ted D:

the problem is: that “moral” code is quickly becoming less and less moral at all. I realize that character is at the root of partners not cheating on each other, but it seems to me that in many parts of the West, real character is damn hard to find.

True. Morality is going to hell in a handbasket these days…

But, even if your statement is true that “most people” won’t cheat, doesn’t it make sense to know WHY you might be tempted? If we better understood our own motivations, we would be MUCH better equipped to deal with hurdles like temptation when they arrive. I didn’t say if, because there is ALWAYS temptation to be found.

I have no arguments with you here. I agree with you that learning the “why” is beneficial.

I just don’t agree with Escoffier’s assessment of what constitutes hypergamy. This whole “under the right circumstances” thought experiment could be applied to anything and to BOTH genders.

IMO, Susan’s notion of “marrying up” (i.e., a male partner of higher status) makes sense to me. It’s what I look for in a mate, even if monetarily wise it doesn’t pan out (I work in STEM) I look for other markers (for ex., my bf has more education that I have). Most women want a mate they can “look up to” in a number of ways. When they can’t then it’s hard to respect them. And, it’s a turn on to be with someone who can take the reins and is better at some things than you are. Conversely for men, they love when they can impress a woman or come to her rescue in some way. Small real life example, I’m in awe of how handy my bf is at fixing things (assembling furniture, fixing leaky faucets, fixing my broken bed frame). Just as, I know he is happy to do these things for me. It’s a win/win situation.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Iggles #1254:
“I love how you fallback on stereotypes about (black) woman.”

O: I kinda figured you would. Stereotypes persist because there’s more than a grain of truth to them.

“Let’s see:”

O: OK…

“1. “hair extensions, relaxers” — Nope! I have natural hair O. No extensions.”

O: Great!-so does Ms. Brown Sugah (she locks; how about you?). So, now there are *two* Sistas who don’t wear extensions. Fun question for ya, Ms Iggles – how many Sistas DO wear extensions, and by, pardon the pun, extension, are themselves *fake*?

I’ll wait while you get back to me with the answer…

“2. “push-up bras” — Don’t wear those, expect maybe once in a blue moon depending on the dress I’m wearing”

O: And on said “once in a blue moon” you are indeed BEING FAKE – are you not? If not – why? Please explain?

“3. “heels” — I exclusively wear flats (and I’m 5″3 so it’s has nothing to do with sensitivity about my height!)”

O: So does Ms. Brown Sugah – who’s 5’10”. Fun question for ya – what does this have to do with the price of rice? Do you deny that Women do indeed wear heels – lots and lots of them, in fact? Is this not FAKE? If not, why? Please explain?

“4. “various body shapers, et al” — That’s laughable! I’m quite content with my body shape (petite and slender with curves)”

O: Surely you’ve heard of the “Apple Bottom” brand of blue jeans? What about Lady Phat? Etc. Body shapers are nothing new – ever heard of Spanx? Again – isn’t all this FAKE – whether YOU do it or not? If not, why? How is it different from that which you are decrying? Please explain?

“So I don’t align with your stereotypical “woman” and still I can see that there’s a difference from enhancing your appearance and getting a personality transplant..”

O: Nor have I ever said that YOU “did” or “didn’t do” *anything*; what I said was, that the biggest ones whining about Men not being “authentic” are Women who are more often than not, *not authentic themselves*. You have not spoken to this fact.

Furthermore, just as you see nothin’ wrong with a lil “enhancement” here and there for a lady, I see nothin’ wrong with a lil “enhancement” along psychosexual lines for a guy to get his sealegs together. We do, however, seem to disagree on the central point – that a Woman wearing heels, or makeup, or fake hair, isn’t in fact, being fake; it’s merely “enhancing”. But when a Man adopts a more psychosexually pleasing persona, now all of a sudden it’s being “fake”.

Rubbish.

“I have no problem with game per se. I think inner game is brilliant and what should be fostered, if you read that part in my post.”

O: I have; and to that I would say, that your understanding of Game, particularly Inner Game, is at best limited; here, let me help you:

http://www.pualingo.com/pua-definitions/inner-game/

“Outer Game” and “Inner Game” are actually two sides of the same coin; one cannot exist without the other.

“I do see a problem with pretending to be a guy that you’re not, then getting upset at the woman when your relationship falls apart because the “real you” showed up and she “just wasn’t that into you”!”

O: So do I; but that has nothing to do with what I just linked to above. Take it from one who’s spent many years out on the bricks, in the field, working it out in realtime…

“No, it means go for women who find you attractive as your are — personality wise.”

O: But the deal is, that often such Women aren’t sexually attractive. Simple as that.

“If you’re a nerdy guy who likes Star Wars will you be happy dating some vapid girl who’s hot but hates sci fi, doesn’t get your humor, and prefers to shop in her free time? Probably not, once the newness wears off. For the long time, it’s better to find a girl who meshes with you!”

O: LOL. Guys really do not need their Woman to share their interests; that’s projection on your part as a gal. And in truth, it’s much better if she DOESNT share your interests; you having your life and she having hers, is a very good thing.

Moreover, you’d be hardpressed to find a bigger Star Wars guy than me; I even wrote a series on Game devoted to it:

http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62202

The above is a good starting point, and trust me, my being a “geek” hasn’t hampered my ability to get what I want in the least; there’s a powerful reason for that. And the ladies were nowhere near interested in such things, nor did I need them to be.

“Believe me, not all girls who like Star Wars are ugly. I have a friend who is very girl, wears make ups, love shoes and designers bags — and she is a HUGE nerd (she love sci fi, fantasy, and is a gamer!).”

O: Hmm. So, that recent gathering of Geeks out in Vegas – I should be able to find, what, at least 25% hotties out there, right?

“So find your niche. Trolling for strange at a generic bar isn’t a good strategy. Looking for venues with cute girls that share your interest IS a much better one!”

O: As one who actually knows what it’s like to be out in-field in real time, such “advice” is designed to help guys stay in their comfort zones – this is why Mystery’s system was so important. Nerdy guys in particular need to learn to get out of their heads and what’s familiar. Hitting the clubs and other extroverted venues are a very good way to do that – and the boner will most certainly thank him for it…

Holla back

O.
Samael

@ Ana

True but people whose hamsters overrun their thought process in the first place will get burned irregardless of shame or not. I think the core of the problem is people that hide their pasts, or even their own desires from themselves to save face combined with a lack of general operating knowledge of the sexes. I mean if more people were clued in they could recognize red flags and also make a more informed decision when it came to personality traits/past experience/possibility of relationship failure in their choices.

What irks me is when someone tries to deny and hide their past, say “I’m not like that anymore”, blah blah blah and yet gets into a relationship with a naive person that doesn’t know any better only to fuck shit up. And in these cases the naive person usually ends up burned bad, hence angry bitter beta man. If we can give both sexes better bullshit detectors it makes things easier for everone.

Also I’m thinking about this in terms of I don’t know how viable it will be to go back to the old shaming ways.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

A couple of things that came to my mind when reading this thread…

1. Alpha is expensive and perishable.
2. Familiarity breeds beta.

To continually maintain alpha requires active investment in these qualities, and this will to some extent require that the man “pedestalize” being an alpha male over appeasement-based relationship strategies. The pedestalization/cult of alpha clearly demands that the man have rules, a code, role-models, and some kind of operating definition of what “alpha” means to him. His male community should help to reinforce this construct. Boys are not getting enough of this, IMHO, and so many are becoming a bit lost.

I think the co-parenting mate search criteria is tricky because it does appear that, in prehistory, children may have been raised in a kind of communal environment, with young mothers getting a lot of support from other women, while the men were probably not what we would consider highly domesticized Dad of the Year candidates. Gender roles would have been fixed in ways that would cause modern feminists to literally go insane.

If you join this with the sister hypothesis that successful hunters brought meat pack to a collective table, figuratively speaking, then we might see less of the highly individualized protein-for-sex type exchanges between a particular male and female and a more abstract notion of pair-bonding in which male sexual access was linked to a kind of property right to a woman’s body, rather than through anything that would approximate modern dating. Female infidelity might have been punished in very, um, “old-fashioned” ways (per Taliban SOP).

I concur with Mike C’s point about notional alpha males sometimes being supplicants around hot women, and would extend this to something that I have observed: because “familiarity breeds beta”, IMHO, an alpha can frequently find that his best game or social skillset lies in the initial phases of the relationship, when he is at his best. He may have surprising issues within an LTR, because he’s a carnivore built for short, exciting, self-contained, action-oriented cycles of Find-Fix-Finish.

I’m not pretending that this is an iron law, but I think women probably should assume that the very act of domesticating an alpha male and placing him in captivity may mean that some of his more attractive traits are blunted, leading to a kind to a kind of schizo, catch-22 situation that is almost impossible for most men—I certainly include myself here—to win. The man most likely to remain alpha in the face of a progressive SMP would also be extremely resistant to domestication attempts, so he’ll present another kind of problem and women will probably complain about him being commitment-phobic and emotionally unavailable, but if he commits and becomes emotional the seesaw moves the other way and she has a complaint about that, too. It’s really hard to be 50/50 and keep that thing balanced and I admire the guys who can do it. I don’t think I can.

Not to be provocative, but it is my opinion that it is grossly unfair to men for them to be forced to entirely take on the burden of constantly adjusting the cocktail mix of alpha and beta traits in order to try to sustain a woman’s sexual attraction within an LTR.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Not to be provocative, but it is my opinion that it is grossly unfair to men for them to be forced to entirely take on the burden of constantly adjusting the cocktail mix of alpha and beta traits in order to try to sustain a woman’s sexual attraction within an LTR.
  
  I’ll go further and say it’s grossly unfair to both sexes. At the very least, a man who needs to constantly recalibrate has married a bad match. At worst, he’s a fake who must constantly use gambits to keep his partner on her toes. Women prefer a mix of alpha and beta traits – in fact, the ultimate female fantasy is finding the pure alpha and bringing out his beta side. A woman who believes she can actually perform this alchemy is going to be very difficult to live with.
Höllenhund

Re: 1261

More on the same issue:

takimag.com/article/the_estrogen_recession/

isteve.blogspot.hu/2009/03/bubbles-and-sex.html
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Up thread I argued the problem, in my eyes, isn’t the natural impulses of women or men but that we have the potential to go beyond mere biology (somebody gave me a really good word but I’m drawing a blank)

If it was me I would say transcend biology.

Brilliant post. Especially the part about predictive power. If it can’t make accurate predictions, it’s not science. Don’t call it that.

I could get behind that but then you have to admit that all the anecdotal evidence from the very self selected group of the manosphere is not science either. So what is left?

I just don’t agree with Escoffier’s assessment of what constitutes hypergamy. This whole “under the right circumstances” thought experiment could be applied to anything and to BOTH genders.

Athol had a post about this in which the cheating was a total surprise. The thing is that we are more complex than “That guy is better than my husband I should open my legs to him”
I know guys would feel more comfortable if there was a magic way to make sure your choice of mate will accept you and/or never leave/cheat but there is no magic in relationships you minimize the risks and try to pick the best mate you can with the best character and common sense of course.
In that post I mentioned that cheating is like the triangle of fire that needs: : heat, fuel, and an oxidizing agent to start one, to avoid a fire you only need to remove one ingredient.
In the case of triangle of cheating is: Spouse/mate, attraction, occasion/opportunity. I’m not single and you cannot know who is attracted to who at all times, so the only thing left to control for is occasion/opportunity and I will be damned if I don’t control for that knowing that cheating is a deal-breaker for me.
I know this is not a PC concept specially for the “I want my space” culture but I think is as good advice as any, YMMV.
Iggles

@ Escoffier:

The point, anyway, is about attraction triggers less than behavior. We don’t always act on our attraction triggers, which is good. But they never go away and they often push us in bad directions that we need to resist.

Well then, this is shaping up to be a different debate!

If the point is attraction triggers, then yes I agree with you that they never go away and we don’t always act on them.
J

I thought of one example that can go in your and Escoffier’s column though! Jessica Seinfeld had just returned from her honeymoon when she met Jerry Seinfeld for the first time at her gym. She immediately left her husband and started dating him>

Makes you wonder about Jerry, doesn’t it? I see why she’d want to trade up, but I’m puzzled as to why he’d want someone so fickle.
J

@Obs

Evidence, please? I see very little of this in action on the ground.

Jeez, I wrote that so many posts ago. I think the paragraph that you quoted and agreed with explained what I was talking about.
Escoffier

Of course it’s more complex than “That guy is better than my husband I should open my legs to him”

I would say that for a woman to cheat, first she has to be pretty thoroughly disatissfied with her husband. Unless she is VERY impulsive and/or her character very poor, she’s not going to cheat just because Clooney wanders into view.

However, the attraction for a guy like Clooney is a permanent part of human nature. Society used to regulate that better so that fewer women acted on the impulse. Now we not only don’t regulate it, we even tend to deny it exists. So, no surprise, we get more of it.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

And in these cases the naive person usually ends up burned bad, hence angry bitter beta man. If we can give both sexes better bullshit detectors it makes things easier for everone.

Oh I could write 20 books about that. But I prefer happy endings. We need both BS detectors, self-awareness sensors, and empathy generators to fix the SMP once and for all. I will be waiting…in my comfy chair.

Not to be provocative, but it is my opinion that it is grossly unfair to men for them to be forced to entirely take on the burden of constantly adjusting the cocktail mix of alpha and beta traits in order to try to sustain a woman’s sexual attraction within an LTR.

I do agree with this. But then is unfair to women not to be able to just let themselves go, being fat, unkempt and so on, specially the women that don’t past the boner test for the men they want. Mother nature is a bitch.

Makes you wonder about Jerry, doesn’t it? I see why she’d want to trade up, but I’m puzzled as to why he’d want someone so fickle.

She was hot enough to get away with this level of fickleness, as simple as that.
Escoffier

Susan, I would be careful about ascribing your views to Taranto, his are much closer to Devlins. In fact, I can’t really see any daylight.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  I like Taranto. I wasn’t ascribing my views to him, though, just citing his use of the word hypergamy. Has he agreed with Devlin somewhere? Or even spoken about hypergamy independently in addition to the quote I included?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I would say that for a woman to cheat, first she has to be pretty thoroughly disatissfied with her husband. Unless she is VERY impulsive and/or her character very poor, she’s not going to cheat just because Clooney wanders into view.

I don’t know about this being only about attraction per se. You are also forgetting the minority of women that do like sex for variety sake’s and might just want to try someone different once in a while I guess this are the ones that swing or are on polyamory relationships (Herb should know more about this)
And another issue with this “If more marriages get broken after a female cheats is because she wants to trade” hypothesis is that How many men are willing to take back a cheater in comparison? Even if the woman did it for the sex/she was drunk whatever… and loves dearly her man would the man believe her? And even if he does would he take her back? Socially speaking very few men respect a man that takes a cheating wife/girlfriend back so there is that factor to consider too.
Höllenhund

Devlin has offered a definition of hypergamy only in one of his essays.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisﬁed with the best. By deﬁnition, only one man can be the best.[…]
It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men.[…]
Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may
be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is ﬁckle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime.

dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pdf

It’s kind of late to point it out but there’s no mention of “always looking to trade up”.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Hollenhund
  
  I believe it’s this part that Escoffier has clutched to his bosom:
  
  n human terms, this means the female is ﬁckle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime.
  
  If this were true, the divorce rate would be much higher, especially among the college educated.
  
  Escoffier has been objecting to defining hypergamy as “marrying up,” but here we have Devlin himself speaking of the husband.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. J #1276:
“Jeez, I wrote that so many posts ago. I think the paragraph that you quoted and agreed with explained what I was talking about.”

O: That’s cool; look, here’s the bottomline:

From all that I’ve personally experienced, observed of other folk, and read about, Women simply do not prioritize “character and integrity” as much as we’d like to believe; and that of those Women who do, they are in the distinct minority, like you and Ms. Brown Sugah. I’m not saying that I have a problem with this in the least; I accept it as the cost of doing business. Just stating what I’ve found to be the case out there on the bricks, is all.

Also: as Edin and Kafalas’ work clearly shows, Women can and will adjust their mating criteria accordingly to fit the demands of the situation. The Women they studied clearly showed them to be able to mate in order to get babies, despite the fact that the Men they had the babies with were suboptimal mating material. As you allude to, those Women often go on to find more stable mates – the very kinds of pattern of mating that many guys in the sphere talk about (though they leave out the class aspect). Have a baby by a Bad Boy, then partner up with Mr. Working Class Beta later and try for the white picket fence life. Again, please get the book Promises I Can Keep; something tells me that we’re going to be seeing a bit more of that spreading in the near future…

O.
Escoffier

Taranto has discussed the theme several times on his blog, plus I know him and have talked to him about it.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  I found one additional quote from Taranto at the WSJ, which is actually a response to Coontz’ claim that hypergamy is cultural. (No one here has argued that.)
  
  Any evolutionary psychologist will tell you that female hypergamy–more broadly defined as the drive to mate with dominant males–is an animal instinct, not a product of human culture, which can only restrain or direct it.
  
  I agree with Taranto’s point, though he is incorrect when he says that evo psychologists equate hypergamy with dominance. That is a bit different, though it’s reasonable to assume that dominant men are high status.
  
  Here he backtracks a bit in his article about Sheng Nu:
  
  hypergamy–more broadly defined as the female tendency to mate with dominant or high-status males or to be selective about one’s choice of mate–is also widely observed in other species.
  
  Hypergamy takes different forms in different cultures, but the basic drive is a product of evolution. It’s not hard to see why it would be adaptive: Since females bear a much greater burden for sexual reproduction, it is in their “interest”–defined in evolutionary terms as the interest of propagating their genes–to mate with the strongest males, giving their offspring the best chance of survival.
  
  That’s completely consistent with my definition of hypergamy, as he says nothing about a constant state of hypergamous impulse, but rather refers to a woman’s choice of mate, and her wanting to mate up.
INTJ

@ Susan

Being at the top of the STEM hierarchy is not the same as being at the top of the male hierarchy.

Neither is being a frat member. Frat members are looked down upon by the rest of the males. And yet many women choose them.
J

I would highly, strongly urge you read Edin and Kafalas’ excellent work, Promises I Can Keep. I really raises some very interesting questions about what we *think* we know, about Women in the lower classes…

Just looked the book up on Amazon. This is recycled news. If memory serves, Allan Poussaint, the psychologist who was a technical advisor on the Bill Cosby Show, wrote a similar book on black unwed mothers back in the late 60s or early 70s. I think it is true that lower class women of all races see having a baby as an attainable goal and mark of adulthood. I also think it is true that the collapsing economy and growing number of welfare to work programs is making that choice less palatable. Where I used to welfare mothers with several kids, as a result of women making the same untenable choice over and over, I now see marginally employed single mothers with one or two kids. That’s a sort of progess, though not really what most of us would want to see.
Höllenhund

“as the female tendency to mate with dominant or high-status males OR to be selective about one’s choice of mate”? This “definition” is so broad it’s useless.
Escoffier

Susan, that only fits your definition if by “mate” Taranto means, “once, for life.” Since he’s discussing the animal kingdom and pre-historic man, that really can’t be the case.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  Not really – he goes on to discuss human hypergamy specifically, and speaks in present terms.
Sai

@Sassy
“I think some women would cause less trouble if they they were truly honest with themselves about what they want in a man. Being introspective and acting accordingly would save a lot of heartache, in my opinion.”
I agree. Introspection is never bad.

@Obsidian
“especially *when so much about said Women themselves ARE NOT REAL* – from the hair extensions, relaxers, push-up bras, makeup, heels, various body shapers, et al.”

Women who don’t use these things are often called ugly or unfeminine and do not attract men.
If they do use them and then stop/get lazy after entering a relationship, their partners don’t thank them for it.

@david foster
I will probably feel the need to read about Keitel at some point now. That’s two things I plan to look into because of you.

@Herb
“One of Dalrock’s big complaints, that men’s preferred promiscuity of variety is condemned but women’s preferred promiscuity of serial monogamy is celebrated is a perfect example.”
It makes sense… No one likes hypocrites.

@Samael
“If we can give both sexes better bullshit detectors it makes things easier for everone.”
Agreed!

@Bastiat Blogger
“Not to be provocative, but it is my opinion that it is grossly unfair to men for them to be forced to entirely take on the burden of constantly adjusting the cocktail mix of alpha and beta traits in order to try to sustain a woman’s sexual attraction within an LTR.”
I know I would snap. How do those men do it? Are they really good actors?
Höllenhund

If this were true, the divorce rate would be much higher, especially among the college educated.

Huh? It simply means that lifelong monogamy isn’t the preferred mating choice of women in natural circumstances.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Huh? It simply means that lifelong monogamy isn’t the preferred mating choice of women in natural circumstances.
  
  If women harbored a constant fickleness, we’d see a lot more divorce than we do, wouldn’t we? Some percentage of women – those with low impulse control, say, would trade up and leave their husbands. Surely some do, but it must be a very low number, since the college-educated divorce rate is only 17% after ten years. So 83% do not trade up. Of the 17% that divorce, women file two thirds, or 12% of marriages. That includes all reasons for divorce, so the number of marriages that end because women actually do trade up must be very small.
  
  If something were hardwired, i.e. evolutionarily adapted, in women, we should see much greater incidence of this behavior.
Iggles

O,

You can take apart my comment part by part but you ignored this part — and it’s bears repeating:

I can see that there’s a difference from enhancing your appearance and getting a personality transplant..

All those things you labeled a “fake” fall under enhancing appearance. Men do it too when they trim their unibrows, put gel in their hair, and wear stylish clothes that are more flattering to them. IMO, I don’t think approving one’s appearance is fake.

It’s a false dichotomy to say it’s the same thing as acting like a different person!

Using game /= getting a personality transplant

I’ll write it out to make this point plain — I don’t equate using game with “getting a personality transplant”. Pretending to be a super dominant, cocky-funny-negging “alpha” a**hat when you’re truly a beta at heart is destined to fail. You’re pulling a girl who wants that type of guy, so to keep her you have to keep playing that role. You’re not being authentic, so it’s the antithesis of “inner game” as I understand it.

Sassy is right, it’s bait-and-switch. I don’t think it’s a loss because if you’re a beta you’re not gonna be happy with alpha chaser anyway.

O: LOL. Guys really do not need their Woman to share their interests; that’s projection on your part as a gal. And in truth, it’s much better if she DOESNT share your interests; you having your life and she having hers, is a very good thing.

Spoken like single man in 40s who plays the field.. (going from LTR to LTR is serial monogamy, O, which some men on this board have defined as form of promiscuity)

It’s healthy to maintain hobbies and separate interests, but relationships where sex is the sole thing in common rarely last for the long haul!

While “friendship” may not be at the top of the list for men, the married women on this board have spoken about how sharing common interests and being “buddies” with their husbands has strengthened their relationships on the long term. People who choose to spend their lives together usually enjoy spending time together outside of the bedroom too.
Escoffier

Susan, here are some things you have said regarding female attraction in this thread that I agree with, and that I think are consistent with what I have been saying:

“they respond to the most primitive attraction triggers without any sense of future time orientation”

“there’s no denying that Hot & Mean trumps Not Hot & Nice. In fact, in a world where those are the only two choices, Hot & Mean gets all the girls”

“chicks dig jerks and reject nice guys, and of course there is some truth to that”

“women have long been attracted to the archetypical Bad Boy: the Brooding Loner or the Charming Sociopath. His appeal is multi-faceted. “

“Adolescent girls test their own sexual appeal by embracing the challenge of attracting guys who are unlikely to commit”

“Bad Boys act boldly on their desires. They are often rebellious and they take what they want. This translates into a raw sexuality that females find very arousing. All women fantasize about being “taken” by a strong, bold character overcome with desire”

“In addition to the Bad Boy archetype, we have the Effete Troubador, the Golden Boy Athlete and the Class Clown. All do extremely well with women.”
“I think that’s too simplistic. Rather, dark traits are extreme examples of what women find attractive.
Women are attracted to confidence.
Narcissists are the most confident men.
Women are attracted to calm strength rather than anxiety.
Sociopaths are the least anxious men.
Women are attracted to men who are socially dominant.
Disagreeable, even violent men are the most dominant.
Women are attracted to men who embrace risk.
Dangerous men, and men in dangerous settings are the most comfortable with risk.”
[[^^ I enthusiastically co-sign that one, by the way]].

“We all have base instincts, and we overrule them with higher order thinking.”

“Neither sex is immune to impulsive, risky, or foolish behavior, and both sexes mature cognitively to make better mating decisions over time. The sexual gluttony of most of the men who have options is evidence that many men forfeit education and professional development in hedonistic pursuit of pussy.”

“I do think a lot of girls figure they’ve got a good 5-10 years of dating ahead of them once they get to college, and they’re not averse to having a few bad boy “mulligans” in the mix. Or at least they don’t see negative consequences to taking more chances than if they were expected to find a husband by college graduation, something that was true only 50 years ago.”

“Again, I have explained that women want confident, cool, collected, strong men who do not flee from risk. Men like that may be rare today, and in fact, a woman may have go all Dark Triad to get it.”

“. Women are attracted to qualities that Bad Boys have in spades. Confidence, boldness, lack of fear, lack of anxiety, rebelliousness – courage to stand up to the herd, a challenge.
Men who have these qualities in abundance will do well with women, regardless of their character”

“these qualities are in short supply in the male population today. Why is a question for another post, but I think we can agree that *most* men (80% anyway) do not exhibit these traits. On the other hand, self-obsessed, lying sociopaths display these traits abundantly.
The man who displays these traits in abundance will earn female sexual attraction. The man who lacks these traits will be unable to stimulate female attraction or interest.”

“Women evolved to select for the best possible combination of superior genes and traits suitable for co-parenting. We want a hot guy who’s monogamous. Nothing new there, right? The usual unicorn theory. Very rarely can we get both. So we optimize, or conversely, settle”

“I did not mean to suggest that all wives would enter the bedroom of a movie star to cheat. I meant that a wife who joins a movie star in his hotel room, then goes off the the bathroom for a heart-to-heart with herself, is very likely to use that kind of logic to go ahead with the adultery.”
“Shit testing is boot camp, it’s us testing your mettle to see if you are strong. We don’t want to be in charge, so if you let us take control, we’ll kick you to the curb. We only shit test men we are attracted to, or think we could be attracted to. When it happens in LTRs or marriage, it’s because the woman perceives weakness in the man, and she’s “taking his temperature.””

“Most of the men at Athol’s confess straight out that they let themselves get too beta in the marriage. They weren’t like that when they were dating, but now they’re long-suffering and passive. The female thinks, “WTH? This is not the together guy I married.” “

“If he fails the test and continues his namby pamby ways, she will grow increasingly frustrated, and ultimately disgusted by him, losing attraction completely”

[the female challenge is] “Choosing the best male to father her children. A man of good character. Avoiding bad boys, especially during ovulation. Going for the man who is a dad instead of a cad.”

“Most* women are interested in a combination of alpha and beta traits. If we are forced to choose between pure alpha and pure beta, we will choose pure alpha.”

“The Sexual Revolution led all men to expect a lot more casual sex, and they welcomed it initially with great enthusiasm. Many were very disappointed when women failed to select them. In an unregulated market, women went for the most confident and commanding males.”

“No tingle or attraction to any other man for the duration of her marriage? Are you serious? Of course not! I have found many men attractive during my marriage.”

But you have also said these things, which seem to tell against the above:

“Women are attracted to characteristics that signal the ability and desire to father strong, healthy progeny, and to raise them for 18 years.”

“women evolved to prefer men who exhibit long-term pair-bonding traits.”

“Where there is a difference, I think, is that women don’t feel the same degree of base sexual desire.”

“Men want sexual variety and, according to you, struggle throughout their lives to repress this urge. We’re not like that. We select, and we’re damned difficult to please. If we select poorly, we could wind up married to a violent brute, or a shiftless layabout, or a man who will pursue his biological urges. We put all our energy into selecting a spouse. Once we do that, our job is done.”

“I just don’t buy that your version of hypergamy is what women need to control.”

“Women want the best possible mate for conceiving, birthing and raising young”

“What you want is a female corollary that you think is “as bad” or “as base” as your own sexuality.”

“For the record, I don’t think this post has anything to do with hypergamy. I acknowledge that women like bad and disagreeable men, and I offer several explanations as to why.”

“In short, women are inclined to select for good character for long-term mating, i.e. pair bonding.”

I gather that you see no inconsistency, but I do.

The word hypergamy has tripped us up so let’s dispense with it The original point of the original post was to say, “Yes, girls like bad boys, here’s why.” I totally agree with that. It’s really the heart of what I have been trying to say: there is a sexual desire endemic to women, mostly not present in men, to be attracted to bad types. This endemic desire can lead girls into danger and , if unchecked, is corrosive to society. Society used to have a good handle on it. It no longer does. In fact, society mostly is not even aware of the problem. To the extent that it gets discussed in mainstream intellectual culture, it is attacked by feminists.

The whole purpose of your blog is to help young women make better choices. Essential to that is to help them understand their own baseline, natural, hard-coded sexual desires. Telling them that they evolved to want to pair bond with good men is problematic because it might lull them into thinking that once they marry a good man, their problems are over. All restlessness, temptation and attraction for the other (and particularly for the bad) will forever cease.

But that really can’t be true. Something biologically hard-wired is not switched off so easily, suddenly, and finally by a mere human ceremony.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  It’s really the heart of what I have been trying to say: there is a sexual desire endemic to women, mostly not present in men, to be attracted to bad types
  
  But since I said it in the post, I’m baffled as to why you felt the need to debate the point rather than just agree with it. I expressed that bafflement early in the thread.
  
  Essential to that is to help them understand their own baseline, natural, hard-coded sexual desires.
  
  Agreed, I said that in a comment yesterday. Women want to understand their own desires. That’s why posts about female sexuality are valuable, contrary to Mike C’s claim.
  
  Telling them that they evolved to want to pair bond with good men is problematic because it might lull them into thinking that once they marry a good man, their problems are over. All restlessness, temptation and attraction for the other (and particularly for the bad) will forever cease.
  
  Oof, I wish you’d just said this at the start. I agree that it’s unwise to reduce female sexuality into soundbites to be devoured like the occasional dark chocolate truffle. I’m really trying to bake a cake here.
  
  The fact is, women have evolved to be attracted to pair bond with good men, but that doesn’t mean they find the Brooding Loner unattractive. Essentially, they don’t know he’s bad. Part of maturing is learning via experience what constitutes a good man or a good boyfriend. As I shared, I found out that the handsome drug addict’s charm wore off rather quickly. Lesson learned at the age of 16, two months wasted and no sex to regret.
  
  It also doesn’t mean that all women are the same, which is what “hardwired” or “the nature of female sexuality” implies.
  
  Personality traits play a huge role in mating. Some people of both sexes are wired for short-term mating. Others are strictly pair bonders. STR types are more hypergamous and attracted to cads. LTR types are attracted to dads. This last point is key. Women do have attraction triggers for beta traits. That’s clearly specified in the literature.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Re: fraternities and male hierarchies and stuff. Maybe the key pivot is about “why” the group is disliked…?

Example 1: “Those Pikes are elitist, arrogant dicks. I hate those guys. ”

Example 2: “Those Mathletes really are geeks. I wonder if any of them get laid?”

Both orgs may receive negative remarks from outsiders, but the accusations are different.

Maybe this illustrates the same point. I was recently reading a very good, funny, richly insightful book by an Asian-American member of Army Special Forces, and he had this to say about a certain Navy unit:

“We’ve gotten to be so good at being low-key and clandestine that in the cases that we do actually have to explain what we do, we often have to invoke a fairly universally disliked organization in special operations, the Navy SEALs, for people to understand…

“I have a problem with the (SEAL) organization and its culture. For the most part, I believe it is an underdeveloped organization and they watch too much of their own self-hype in Hollywood movies and think they are invincible. The experience of watching a group of Navy SEALs walk into your operations center was put perfectly by a veteran Special Forces warrant officer I worked with at the time: ‘It’s like watching the high school football team walk into the cafeteria.’

“…A joke in Special Forces is ‘Q: How do you know a Navy SEAL is in the room? A: He’ll tell you.’ Sure, funny, and makes fun of their egos, but you know what? Navy SEALs get way more ass than Green Berets, and it shows when we have to explain ourselves as ‘Army SEALs’ for anybody to even understand what we do for a living.”
Escoffier

Yeah, Susan, “naturally” in that context really means “biologically.” I actually do think that in the Aristotelean sense of “nature,” humans are naturally monogamous. That’s a long and involved argument though.

However, even with that said, biology (low nature) is often in conflict with monogamy (high nature). Character, culture (encouragment) and sanctions are what enable us to stick with high nature and resist low nature.

My big dispute with you is your notion that low nature clicks off, goes away, or changes once a woman is well married. I know it does not for men. I don’t believe that it does for women. Though I do believe that the bar for women to cheat is a lot higher than it is for men, which is why historically men have cheated more. However, you claimed earlier that the sexes cheat at the same rate. If that’s true, it’s recent. And it suggests that loosening all these restraints has made women’s behavior worse, not better. It also suggests that I am right that low nature never gets fully switched off nor does it go away.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  Helen Fisher on cheating and temptation:
  
  data suggest that some people are biologically more prone to adultery than others. We now know some of the genetics of pairbonding. A specific gene builds receptors (or docks) that receive vasopressin in a specific brain region. It has been called the monogamy gene because it plays a role in monogamy and fidelity—in prairie voles. These little creatures, much like field mice, form a lifelong attachment to a “spouse,” a trait linked to this gene. And when this gene is planted into another species of vole that does not pair for life, these naturally promiscuous creatures begins to form a pairbond too. In fact, these males cannot be seduced away from their partner to cheat! People are likely to vary in these genetic underpinnings too.
  
  But this is not to say that biology is destiny. As Katharine Hepburn said to Humphrey Bogart in the movie, The African Queen, “Nature, Mr. Alnutt, is something we were put on this earth to rise above.” We can and we do. But some have a bigger battle with Mother Nature.
  
  And her view of monogamy in humans:
  
  In serial monogamy, a couple will remain faithful for as long as their relationship endures. But when a monogamous relationship dissolves, each person is likely to look for a new permanent partner rather than multiple romances.
  
  The popularity of serial monogamy, Fisher says, boils down to what she calls the three brain circuits in the biochemistry of love. “The first is the sex drive, the second, romantic love and the need for elation, and the third is the need for attachment, calm and unity. With this circuitry in place, we’re going to keep marrying,” she says.
VD

A study would be good, but I tell you what. I’ll settle for a single respected expert discussing female hypergamy as you define it. The fact is, you are just blowing steam. Presumably this is based on your personal experience, but there is zero traction for this idea anywhere except on Game blogs, and those are hardly objective. There are thousands of academics and scientists who study mating and sexual behavior. Surely you can find one that agrees with you if your idea has merit!

I’m afraid this is irrelevant, Susan. To a certain extent, it may even view the process backwards. People mocked me – in fact, the ignorant still mock me – when I pointed out that religion simply does not cause the vast majority of war and that there appears to be a correlation between atheism and higher than normal Asperger’s Quotients. The interesting thing is that since I published my book in 2008, there are now respected scientists publishing studies citing my arguments and supporting my hypotheses in major scientific journals, including Nature. The academic and scientific experts knew nothing and never even noticed the obvious, despite 6,000 years of warfare and 200 years of atheists behaving in a manner that led to the phrase “the village atheist”. It took a game designer with an interest in military history to point these obvious things out to them.

The Game blogs aren’t objective, to be sure, but ironically, they do tend to be fundamentally scientific, unlike the journals and professional scientists. They hypothesize, they test, and they find replicable results. That is genuine science, even if it is not what we would describe as professional science. Remember, some of the very best science performed in the history of Man was done by men whose only degrees were religious, assuming they had a degree at all. They weren’t objective either, but they were curious and methodical.

Please note that I’m not saying the Game blogs are correct. Right now, the information is too subjective and gathered in an insufficiently methodical manner. But I am pointing out that the failure of the academic world to notice what they have noticed is not necessarily indicative of anything.
J

Some women are biologically wired for short-term mating. They are attracted to cads.

About 25 years ago an anthropologist named Sarah Hrdy postulated that sluttery is in fact a highly adaptive survival strategy for some women because it puts the resources of several men at the disposal of one female. She had lived among hunter/gatherers and documented the strategy. I’ve seen a few women who really excelled at this IRL. I would also guess that this is the forte of prostitutes and strippers who provide “girlfriend experiences” to gullible men.
Höllenhund

Can you give some examples of popular culture demonizing male sexuality?

Adultery, the epidemic of fatherlessness, the spread of porn addiction, the human trafficking of prostitutes and the objectification of women (whatever that’s supposed to mean) are all blamed solely on uncontrolled male sexuality in the mainstream media, for example, while nothing is ever blamed in uncontrolled female sexuality. I should also add that “players”, as opposed to their female counterparts, are never lionized as the embodiments of human progress and enlightened norms, bravely breaking down old social prejudices.
J

@Obs

Fun question: how many couples talk to each other for say, a half an hour? And actually enjoy it? I mean marrieds, now. Think about it.

Me and every other married woman here+our respective husbands? Ted and wife? Esco and wife? Who am I leaving out?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Me and every other married woman here+our respective husbands? Ted and wife? Esco and wife? Who am I leaving out?

Me and hubby usually have a morning talk over coffee every day and then we talk in the middle of doing stuff around the house, sometimes we chat on the Google too.
Escoffier

Susan, you keep coming back to “trading up” when we’ve moved on. “trading up” is but one danger. It’s controllable by character. No one here is saying that all women are in constant “trade up” mode.

What we, or at least I, am saying is that all women have attraction triggers to “bad” traits that, if indulged, can lead them into trouble. Those triggers are not fully and finally switched off at marriage.

If you deny that, then you really are saying that women are better than men, sexually. I know you like to shun moral language, but that is tantamout to saying that biology impels women to good and productive ends, but not men.

I am saying there is a danger, a different but analagous danger, that each sex harbors and needs to learn to control. I’ve said this in pretty much the same words before, and you’ve said, “No, maybe for you men, but not for us.” Or, at least you’ve said that those dangers are there for younger women, but they go away with marriage and never come back.

If that is true, then the entire red pill theory is wrong. If that is true, then I don’t know why we have hookup culture at all. I don’t know why we have any female-initiated divorce (all divorce should be the product either of male beating or cheating). I don’t know why we have this feral SMP on campus, in the big city bars, or in the cougar precincts. I don’t know why we have divorce porn. Etc.

If that is true, then the observable reality of this SMP makes no sense.

But I doubt you would deny the fact of female sexual bad behavior. You acknowledge all the time that it exists. No point in quibbling about numbers either, because I will stipulate all your numbers. The question remaining, then, is what is the cause of this bad behavior, however much of it we actually have? Ancillary question, do you think such bad behavior has risen in recent decades, and if so, why?

You know my answers.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The question remaining, then, is what is the cause of this bad behavior, however much of it we actually have?
  Ancillary question, do you think such bad behavior has risen in recent decades, and if so, why?
  
  I think there are badly behaved women, and there is also an increase in female bad behavior across the board. In absolute terms, I do think you focus on a rather extreme “base urge” scenario – as in the negative skew I provided earlier. The truth is, the numbers of promiscuous women are just not that high. Hypergamy, cheating, psycho drama, shit testing, etc. are all going to be found most prevalently in promiscuous women, and most women are not promiscuous. That limits the bad behavior, because the degree of impulsiveness is limited in the population. That’s not to say that chaste women have no hypergamous impulse, but it is likely minimal or mitigated by other factors. I suspect that most women are like me. We can objectively view a man’s attractiveness without wanting to have sex with him. In addition, I have a definitive preference for beta types, and my attraction triggers are aligned with that, so being in the presence of what Game would call alpha is not tempting for me. And of course, beta men are less likely to be sexually aggressive. It doesn’t mean I’m not capable of great wrongdoing or have no moral flaws. I just don’t think mine tend to be sexual, for whatever reason. I believe it is because I am content.
  
  Now, regarding the rise in bad behavior, I think we can attribute it to several factors:
  
  1. The Sex Rev unleashed female hypergamy! (This one’s for you.) Women have more opportunities to have short-term sexual liaisons with men and are often able to trade up above their own SMV by offering a ONS.
  
  2. Female narcissism has sharply increased. The default female attitude towards mating is one of princess entitlement. Concern with ME has crowded concern for others, i.e. empathy.
  
  3. Since casual sex is the primary route to LTRs in college, some engage in it paradoxically to get the relationship. This is incongruent and results in all manner of personal difficulties when the relationships don’t pan out. So although most students are not promiscuous, quite a few have gone for the ONS and accompanying bad behavior a time or two.
  
  4. The lopsided sex ratio on campuses means that women will compete more aggressively for males, which often means loosening personal behavioral standards.
  
  5. Women are in no rush to marry, which gives them more years to make bad decisions as well as good.
Höllenhund

So 83% do not trade up.

I’m pretty sure a sizable segment of that 83% are nevertheless not naturally loyal to their husbands throughout their lifetime. They indeed don’t divorce within 10 years for whatever reasons – they are in a “consumption marriage” so the economic incentives simply aren’t there, they want to avoid negative reactions within the community, there’s the issue of young children – but the attraction withers away, marital sex pretty much disappears, they cheat, they become grumpy, bored wives and complain about their husbands whenever they can etc. All of these are common – and we’re only talking about the college-educated population.
J

In the link to Evolvify I left earlier, the blogger suggests that there is evidence that alpha males – the most violent men – were routinely killed by less violent men to rid the group of them.

Well, duh. Isn’t that why so many societies developed the death penalty?
J

Just consider how many men died in bar fights, knifings, duels etc. throughout history because some woman wanted to play “let’s you and him fight” and the stupid betaboys went along.

I consider those activities to be alpha thug activities, not beta activities. I find it hard to envision a beta so stupid that he allowed himself to be goaded into a fight. Perhaps they all died off. That sounds like natural selection in action.
J

Susan, Dune is awesome! It’s my all time favorite.

Cosigned.

I still haven’t seen a screen version of the Dune series that holds a candle to the written books. Too much become lost.

It can’t be done. Too much back story to explain; it slows the action. OTOH, if you don’t explain the back story, Dune becomes all action/adventure.
Höllenhund

I find it hard to envision a beta so stupid that he allowed himself to be goaded into a fight. Perhaps they all died off.

Many of them definitely did. Google “white feather campaign”. Betas are indeed easily manipulated by women. Duels used to be common for a reason, for example.
Höllenhund

It’s not as if men don’t fight when women aren’t around.

They do. But they are more likely to fight when women are around. Women easily aggravate male-on-male violence whenever they incentivize status competition.
J

Being at the top of the STEM hierarchy is not the same as being at the top of the male hierarchy. ..Neither is being a frat member. Frat members are looked down upon by the rest of the males. And yet many women choose them.

I think that there are really a lot of different subcultures and hierarchies at work here. I understand SW’s point that frat boys are attractive to some women because they had to compete to get into a frat and that is sort of a pre-selection. OTOH, I’d have never touched a frat boy with a ten foot pole. But, I’d have taken a Phi Beta Kapa any time…
Passer_By

Susan

“I’m not saying women don’t behave badly. I’m happy to say we’re guilty of everything that’s been alleged here. But let’s not call it hypergamy. Because these anecdotal reports have nothing to do with mating up.”

Yes, this is what I was trying to say in a prior comment. The ‘sphere would do well to stop conflating attraction triggers (good or bad) and/or the tendency toward serial monogamy with the concept of hypergamy. I desire a woman with the best body, face, etc. That doesn’t make me hypergamic.

But I still don’t get your beef with Devlin’s observation and his use of “hypergamy” to describe it – though I do agree that he goes too far with his “but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime.” That comment of his ignores the powerful aspect of pair bonding. But the traditional “marrying up” is really social class hypergamy. Educational hypergamy is another form. Devlin is really talking about “sex rank” hypergamy, which would encompass all things that incite the tingle (social class, looks, dominance, education, etc. etc.). I don’t see how his observation is any more controversial than the others, other than his “not naturally loyal” comment.

So, once again:

Hypergamy: the relative inability (in comparison to men) of women to be attracted to and satisfied with a mate of roughly equal sex rank (and, perhaps, their even greater relative attraction to those with much higher sex rank).

Female tendency to serial monogamy: Probably not a function of hypergamy or trading up (since it’s generally unlikely that they will be able to do so after popping out a sprog or two), but probably a function of the 4 year mating cycle and benefits of genetic diversity. This of course conflicts with the “pair bonding” concept to some degree, but there are conflicting forces at play througout nature, and (almost) undoubtedly, different women display these tendencies in varying amounts, probably on some sort of bell curve.

I will say this – the woman who finds a long term mate (husband, whatever) that largely fulfills her initial hypergamic desire seems like much less of a risk to ultimately succumb to the urge to find a new mate after the mating cycle is over, for no other reason that any new mate would likely be of much lower quality. This would generally be women who (like you) fell really hard for their ultimate mate when they first got together. This, in turn, is probably more likely to be the case for women who are on the left half of the bell curve with regard to the “hypergamy” trait.

I have noticed that many women who probably felt that they settled for a husband (and had really hoped for much better) do seem to have that module going that deti describes.

So, this gets back to a point I made way way back when their was a discussion about sex on the first date, etc. Men: make sure you feel like the woman you end up with really desires your cock above all others. If she acts like sex with you is something she needs to do “for” you (rather than for her), you could be trouble in the long term.

As an aside, I would speculate that the blogger Aunt Haley is on the far right hand side of the hypergamy bell curve. One gets the impression that the thought of sex with a guy of her equal in sex rank just sort of makes her skin crawl. She might consider becoming a sister wife to a really really attractive mormon guy. lol

I would also speculate (and this is really speculating) that a large number of women who are considered to have a really low sex drive (what used to be called “frigid”) are probably just at the far right hand of the “sex rank” hypergamy bell curve. In other words, they would probably be extremely responsive if they got a shot with a guy of high enough sex rank.

Lastly, I would speculate that the long-standing wisdom that women reach their sexual peak in their early thirties is really more of an observation that their ingrained “sex rank” hypergamy naturally lessens over time as they move beyond their peak attractiveness years and toward the end of their fertility period. This would enable them to be much more sexual with men of equal sex rank (i.e., what they probably ended up with for a husband). This just wasn’t evident back in the days when this observation was made because women tended to have a much lower N.
Abbot

“the forte of prostitutes and strippers who provide “girlfriend experiences” to gullible men”

When their youth starts to slip, are these the same ones who transfer their “skills” to another type of dupe: the TWE or True Wife Experience?
J

Many of them definitely did. Google “white feather campaign”.

Founded by Admiral Charles Fitzgerald according to Wikipedia.

Betas are indeed easily manipulated by women. Duels used to be common for a reason, for example.

Dueling was primarily a means of upholding male honor among the upper classes, though I can imagine some women goading men into one.
J

Me and hubby usually have a morning talk over coffee every day

That’s sweet. DH is a morning person and I’m not, so he doesn’t try to talk to me until I’m fully awake.
J

When their youth starts to slip, are these the same ones who transfer their “skills” to another type of dupe: the TWE or True Wife Experience?

I actually love my husband, so I can’t speak to this personally. I would think that most married women do, despite the “settling for a beta” meme. Why do you ask? Have you been a victim of this type of thing?
Passer_By

@susan from #719
“Which numbers do you refer to? What I have provided are numbers that demonstrate that 3% of both men and women have more than six partners in college. Does that mean those men are “more desired?” If so, they are more desired by promiscuous women, since we have no indication that they are desired by low N women. Meanwhile, the pyramid (with it’s apex) is a lot flatter than previously thought (by the ‘sphere). Very few men are getting lots of partners, around 20% of each sex tops three partners, 40% of both sexes are virgins, and 37% of both sexes have 1-3 sex partners in college.”

Out of curiousity, are these numbers from a survey of students as they leave college (i.e., graduating seniors)? Or are they numbers from all college students they could get to respond (in which case I would suspect that frosh and sophs are more heavily represented since my gut tells me they would be more likely to respond).

I ask because only 3% at 6 or more at the time of graduation just seems too low.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  Out of curiousity, are these numbers from a survey of students as they leave college (i.e., graduating seniors)? Or are they numbers from all college students they could get to respond (in which case I would suspect that frosh and sophs are more heavily represented since my gut tells me they would be more likely to respond).
  
  I ask because only 3% at 6 or more at the time of graduation just seems too low.
  
  It varies, but most studies are a mix, weighed more heavily to freshmen and sophomores. It’s a snapshot of the college experience, not a post-mortem at graduation. In the Definitive Survey post, I described the sample by year for each study.
J

Female tendency to serial monogamy: Probably not a function of hypergamy or trading up (since it’s generally unlikely that they will be able to do so after popping out a sprog or two), but probably a function of the 4 year mating cycle and benefits of genetic diversity.

Exactly so., but let’s bear in mind that men also are on a 4 year mating cycle.

I would also maintain that the 4 year cycle is the dopamine cycle and becomes relevant only in the absence of romance and attachment. A well attached couple can survive the end of dopamine production and can recapture romance as well.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Exactly so., but let’s bear in mind that men also are on a 4 year mating cycle.
  
  I’ve been reading up on serial monogamy among our forebears. Helen Fisher has a theory about the 4 year cycle, but this area appears to lack consensus among evolutionary experts. According to her, the 4 year dopamine cycle parallels the period of infancy, or the most critical period to ensure the survival of young. Couples who did not attach or bond were likely to separate at that point, and I haven’t seen any reference to who initiated these breakups. It is definitely not hypothesized that women left to seek better men.
  
  By the way, Fisher’s most recent research looks at brain activity among people in love, and she has studied married people in their 50s who still experience that dopamine rush. They are still in love.
Passer_By

@J
“Exactly so., but let’s bear in mind that men also are on a 4 year mating cycle. ”

Maybe, maybe not. But, either way, as previously pointed out, getting a new mate doesn’t require the male to eject the old mate – at least not nearly to the same degree. So, logically, his impulse to rid himself of her should not be nearly as great as the female impulse to rid herself of the man (in those cases where it occurs).
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So, logically, his impulse to rid himself of her should not be nearly as great as the female impulse to rid herself of the man (in those cases where it occurs).
  
  I’ve been reading up on this as well. 56% of men who cheat describe themselves as happily married. In contrast, only a small percentage of cheating women say the same. Women tend to cheat after a period of intense loneliness, when the relationship has already failed. So it’s not surprising that females want divorces after cheating more than men do.
  
  An interesting question is, “How do the sexes differ in their response to their spouse cheating?”
Passer_By

@susan
“In the link to Evolvify I left earlier, the blogger suggests that there is evidence that alpha males – the most violent men – were routinely killed by less violent men to rid the group of them.”

Much like the term “hypergamy”, the term alpha seems to be used to apply to too many things. I think, from a mating perspective, any definition of alpha male would have to put them at the top of the mate rank heirarchy. That wouldn’t necessarily be true of the most violent. Woman may be attracted to violent men at times, but there are surely limits of that for most or nearly all women, especially if the better looking, stronger, more capable man is less violent. Perhaps they were killing the more violent out of general self preservation and group cohesion. Perhaps they also sometimes killed the guy at the top of the mating heirarcy if he got too caddish and was dipping his wick in too many of the women. What’s the expression, pigs get fat but hogs get slaughtered?
Jimmy Hendricks

@Susan

I generally agree with your list… my thoughts:

1. The Sex Rev unleashed female hypergamy! (This one’s for you.) Women have more opportunities to have short-term sexual liaisons with men and are often able to trade up above their own SMV by offering a ONS.

Agreed.

2. Female narcissism has sharply increased. The default female attitude towards mating is one of princess entitlement. Concern with ME has crowded concern for others, i.e. empathy.

Agreed.

3. Since casual sex is the primary route to LTRs in college, some engage in it paradoxically to get the relationship. This is incongruent and results in all manner of personal difficulties when the relationships don’t pan out. So although most students are not promiscuous, quite a few have gone for the ONS and accompanying bad behavior a time or two.

Again, I agree… but to me, that goes against your idea that only 20% or less are “slutty” and only get together with others from the 20%… maybe we just have different definitions of “slutty.”

4. The lopsided sex ratio on campuses means that women will compete more aggressively for males, which often means loosening personal behavioral standards.

From my view, the only guys women compete aggressively for are the ones who REQUIRE loosening personal behavioral standards. The ones who don’t require it (the more traditionally minded) aren’t the object of aggressive competition.

5. Women are in no rush to marry, which gives them more years to make bad decisions as well as good.

Agreed, and I think it’s really wasted opportunity. The wait to marry strategy never made sense to me… you’re never in a better position to interact with more people of your age and social class at their peak years of attractiveness as you are in college… Definitely one of the reasons I came back to grad school.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Jimmy
  
  Again, I agree… but to me, that goes against your idea that only 20% or less are “slutty” and only get together with others from the 20%… maybe we just have different definitions of “slutty.”
  
  Yeah, we must. I’m not including the men or women who had a few hookups in hopes of getting into a relationship – after all, that represents a full 50% of both sexes. They get a few “swings and misses” in my book.
  
  From my view, the only guys women compete aggressively for are the ones who REQUIRE loosening personal behavioral standards. The ones who don’t require it (the more traditionally minded) aren’t the object of aggressive competition.
  
  Agree 100%.
J

The wait to marry strategy never made sense to me… you’re never in a better position to interact with more people of your age and social class at their peak years of attractiveness as you are in college…

I’ve made this point myself a few times on this blog.

My son anounced to me a few weeks ago that adulthood begins at 35 and that he’s in no hurry to get married. And I told him basically what’s written above.
Ion

“O: Great!-so does Ms. Brown Sugah (she locks; how about you?). So, now there are *two* Sistas who don’t wear extensions. Fun question for ya, Ms Iggles – how many Sistas DO wear extensions, and by, pardon the pun, extension, are themselves *fake*?”

Three. I never wear weaves, although I’d be willing to try them for fun. I agree with what you said before about black women being considered ugly by black men if we don’t have straight long hair. My mom who is married to a white man said that he definitely wanted her to go natural when they were engaged. I guess he didn’t understand why so many black men had made her feel ugly because of her natural hair, when they complain about racism so often. She’s worn a short natural ever since.

A big part of why half the black women I know went natural was to attract non-thugs and non-“low class” men (the kind who stand around all day for example). These women have attracted middle class men of all races including black men who do not have racist issues, by being attractive and having natural hair. For some other women (like those who cover gray hair, or try a new hair cut, or experiment with highlights) a hair style is a hair style. Is Hillary Clinton experiencing self hatred because she experiments with hair styles? No. I think that some black mens obsession with womens hair and clothes claiming “self hatred” is partially to deflect attention away from their own racist issues. Such as the fact that these women wear extensions because these men make it abundantly clear that they loooove straight hair, gladly taking fat women with light skin and straight hair, over attractive, in shape black women with natural hair.

I guess its true that when men are failures especially, women are used to indirectly compete with other men. I think that’s what’s behind the light skin obsession in the black community. I remember Cameron something or other the basketball player saying his dad told him to only date women with long hair because it represents “power” (the only way an inept man can achieve power, apparently). I guess education, accomplishments, etc., don’t hold a candle to being able to get the women they believe other men want.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@Jimmy Hendricks, Susan Walsh

“Female narcissism has sharply increased. The default female attitude towards mating is one of princess entitlement. Concern with ME has crowded concern for others, i.e. empathy.”

The biggest red flags I’ve seen are hostility to men and blaming their problems on men even if women don’t know they’re doing it.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Roissy offers a new definition of alpha male:
  
  If your girl imparts great significance to off-year anniversaries, or to any anniversary having to do with dating milestones rather than the much more onerous (and drably expected) marriage milestones, you are likely an alpha male.
  
  The weirder the reason for, and the timing of, the anniversary, the more alpha you are. So if she wants to celebrate the one month anniversary of the time you took her out on a real date, you are probably an alpha male. If she starts saying stuff like, “It’s 8:35, Wednesday evening. Remember this time? It was the first time you kissed me. And it was raining outside, just like tonight…,” you are probably an alpha male.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

That’s sweet. DH is a morning person and I’m not, so he doesn’t try to talk to me until I’m fully awake.

That is what coffee is for. Usually the first words I say to him on the morning after good morning of course is: Are you awake? Then we start talking
http://x OffTheCuff

Sue: “Some women are biologically wired for short-term mating. They are attracted to cads. Other women are biologically wired for long-term mating. They are attracted to dads.”

Way too binary. There are plenty of low-N female cheaters who are perfectly content to have both at the same time. Which way are they wired? Hubby doesn’t tweak her twignle anymore, either out of choice or necessity, so Facebook cad ekes a fling or 50 out of her, on the down low.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @OTC
  
  Way too binary. There are plenty of low-N female cheaters who are perfectly content to have both at the same time
  
  You’re right, it is not binary. It’s a spectrum, probably a bell curve. We know that there are several predictors for mating orientation, and genetics is thought to explain at least half of it.
INTJ

@ Susan

Roissy offers a new definition of alpha male:

That’s not exactly a definition. It’s just a heuristic.
INTJ

Wow that white feather campaign is crazy.

“The writer Compton Mackenzie, then a serving soldier, complained about the activities of the Order of the White Feather. He argued that these “idiotic young women were using white feathers to get rid of boyfriends of whom they were tired””
INTJ

@ J

Exactly so., but let’s bear in mind that men also are on a 4 year mating cycle.

I would also maintain that the 4 year cycle is the dopamine cycle and becomes relevant only in the absence of romance and attachment. A well attached couple can survive the end of dopamine production and can recapture romance as well.

Definitely cosigned.
chris

@ Susan Walsh

from post # 1140

Do you also have links/references to back this assertion up.
Again, I’m not accusing you of any misrepresentations, I’m just very curious to see the scientific proof supporting the notion that men don’t have to be constantly on the lookout for hypergamy/cuckoldry, as from a purely evolutionary and game theoretic standpoint, such defections from cooperative mating when it advantages the woman, even when it’s at the man’s expense and where there are no punitive measures for doing so, make perfect sense.

You’re asking me to prove a negative. The fact is that the Game definition was made up by someone without expertise in any field related to mating or female sexuality. AFAIK, it has never been tested. Female hypergamy is regarded throughout the scientific community as relating to marrying up – that is, a woman prefers to marry a man of higher status than her own.

I probably should have stated this before but when I was referring to ‘game theory’ I actually meant proper game theory, as in the scientific study of strategic decision making, as outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory.

I wasn’t referring to ‘Game/Pick-up artistry’.

So given that qualification, do you have any scientific articles that show that women don’t defect from cooperative mating when it advantages the woman, even when it’s at the man’s expense and where there are no punitive measures for doing so as would be predicated from evolutionary and strategic decision making theory (game theory), or if not that, then any scientific evidence showing that all men don’t have to constantly be on the lookout for this, i.e. studies showing that such behaviour amongst women is limited to a certain segment of easily identifiable people and so avoiding that segment of people would be easy for one to do, for instance unrestricted sociosexually oriented people?

Basically what I’m asking is do you have any scientific evidence that shows the falsity of the MRA/PUA narrative of female incentivisation to doublecross/cheat/cuckold/reproductively exploit those men who have long-term relationships with women and so men should just be pump’em dump’em cads to ensure that doesn’t happen to them?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Chris
  
  Basically what I’m asking is do you have any scientific evidence that shows the falsity of the MRA/PUA narrative of female incentivisation to doublecross/cheat/cuckold/reproductively exploit those men who have long-term relationships with women and so men should just be pump’em dump’em cads to ensure that doesn’t happen to them?
  
  You’re still asking me to prove a negative. It would be far more straightforward to seek scientific evidence for the MRA/PUA narrative. Cheating, cuckolding and exploiting males for resources are all recognized mating strategies in the female repertoire. Men have their own rather unsavory mating strategies. I guess it boils down to your feelings about AWALT. If you’re not willing to accept the risk and filter for character, that’s a valid choice.
http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

From this blog :

What Women Want In A Man…

Fuck if I know, and just shoot me if I start giving a shit.

Seriously. Get me a sandwich, blow me, take me in the shower and wash me up (with a back rub thrown in) and maybe I’ll take you to bed and send you to the moon. Or I’ll take a nap. Probably a nap.

I will not get you cards and flowers. A stupid waste of money and time. I will (maybe) buy you the chocolates that made the sales girls thighs quiver when she held the box. That’s how I judge chocolate. I don’t really like it, myself, but when the sales girl is holding the box like she just got her new dildo in the mail, bing, that’s the one.

When we are dating, I expect you to come over and cook gourmet meals for me. I’ll pick the wine. Women are no damn good at that. The few that are automatically become keepers. She will bring me lunches at work, and feed me grapes. She will dress sexy, so as to drive my male drone co-workers into fits of jealousy.

I will not put my other girlfriends in your face, but if you can’t take me having them, get lost. Until I make you the ultimate promise, you have no hold over me, but if I see you with another man, you are off the island. Zero tolerance.

The wife and I were friends, first. We were each married to someone else, and I had about half a dozen girlfriends, two of whom (at least) had decided I was going to marry them. One day, months down the road, the wife told me she loved me. I had a wild crush on her that I had kept hidden, figuring I didn’t have a chance against her millionaire husband.

That week, she moved out of her custom built luxury home and into a friends enclosed back porch, and I dumped all of my girlfriends and began looking for a nest for us. Life happened, tangled webs were woven, and eventually, we were happily married.

I still don’t take any shit from her, nor she from me. We have an agreement where when one of us pisses off the other, the other gets to get up in the others face and express their anger, and why. Sometimes it is a misunderstanding, sometimes one of us has committed a sin against the marriage. We work it out.

It is never personal. It is the third party in the relationship: The Marriage, that we have sinned against. We are able to apologize, and the cracks in the Doric Column that is the marriage heal themselves, taking strength from the both of us.

Wanna be a Feminist? Fine…no dick for you. Crow about your rights. Demand them. Men will subtly steer you into places where you think you’re relevant, but you can do little to no harm.

There is a natural order to human relationships, and any time you try to impose artificial, made-up constraints on male/female relationships, or legitimize abominations like gay marriage and other horrors, you cause a vile, pustulant boil to form, that poisons all things around it, and will eventually cause the death of the host, if not treated properly.

One final note: observe that none of these so-called ‘civil rights’ for women and minorities can be earned by them, nor are assumed by the general majority to be an ‘inalienable right’…

No, they all have to be imposed upon society at the point of a government minion’s bayonet.

Think about that…

I’m sorry Suzan, but this gentleman is oh so admirable.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I’m sorry Suzan, but this gentleman is oh so admirable.
  
  Yeah, two sociopaths make a charming couple.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“Assuredly I do not contend that the democratic nations of our time are destined to witness the extinction of the transcendent luminaries of man’s intelligence, nor even that no new lights will ever start into existence. At the age at which the world has now arrived, and amongst so many cultivated nations, perpetually excited by the fever of productive industry, the bonds which connect the different parts of science together cannot fail to strike the observation; and the taste for practical science itself, if it be enlightened, ought to lead men not to neglect theory. In the midst of such numberless attempted applications of so many experiments, repeated every day, it is almost impossible that general laws should not frequently be brought to light; so that great discoveries would be frequent, though great inventors be rare. I believe, moreover, in the high calling of scientific minds. If the democratic principle does not, on the one hand, induce men to cultivate science for its own sake, on the other it enormously increases the number of those who do cultivate it. Nor is it credible that, from amongst so great a multitude no speculative genius should from time to time arise, inflamed by the love of truth alone. Such a one, we may be sure, would dive into the deepest mysteries of nature, whatever be the spirit of his country or his age. He requires no assistance in his course-enough that he be not checked in it.”

de Tocqueville

I was perhaps too quick to check you. Have you considered starting your own blog? So much good stuff here, and if Susan is fine with it, I am too, but I do miss hearing from her readers. I learn from them and they learn from hearing their own writing and the responses to it.

If you were to start a blog, I would certainly be an enthusiastic participant.
Desiderius

Susan,

“Roissy offers a new definition of alpha male”

As always, depends on relative value. There are single moms that will celebrate the five minute anniversary of discovering you have four limbs and a job.
Desiderius

Bob,

“The biggest red flags I’ve seen are hostility to men and blaming their problems on men even if women don’t know they’re doing it.”

That’s the prejudice. The pride is on us. Takes a leap of faith to bridge the gap, and that takes courage. Man job. We’ve got to trust in our own growing awareness and the work of Susan and friends to back us up.
Desiderius

J,

“My son anounced to me a few weeks ago that adulthood begins at 35 and that he’s in no hurry to get married. And I told him basically what’s written above.”

Sooo much harder later. Potential counts for nada. In this economy, without the support of a good woman early on, there’s a good chance that’s all he’ll wind up with. Unless he wants to bring the level of dominance described in that article that Ana linked, he’ll need real prestige, and most of the men he’ll be competing with for it will have the advantage of a healthy marriage behind them.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Sooo much harder later. Potential counts for nada. In this economy, without the support of a good woman early on, there’s a good chance that’s all he’ll wind up with. Unless he wants to bring the level of dominance described in that article that Ana linked, he’ll need real prestige, and most of the men he’ll be competing with for it will have the advantage of a healthy marriage behind them.

That is a good question to ask: would a man in the peak of his sexuality aka when he craves variety the most choose a monogamous relationship if he encounters an “outlier”? Deti’s story of regret is an example that they will not. Most men here say that men don’t punch over their weight for long but how much time long entails for a young man? And if he has the option of fapping to a 9 on porn and/or orbiting a women a few points higher with the hope (probably lead on by the hottie that feels flattered or is using him for the Beta traits the jerk she wants doesn’t have) would he take a look at the less attractive girls that might be seeing it as a good prospect and will be willing to sex him up in the context of a relationship if only he will show some real interest? Too many variables at work in both sides of the fence, IMO.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Anacaona
  
  That is a good question to ask: would a man in the peak of his sexuality aka when he craves variety the most choose a monogamous relationship if he encounters an “outlier”?
  
  According to the anecdotal evidence I hear, a man who encounters an outlier runs in the other direction at 60 mph. It’s way too risky to spend time with a girl you might actually fall for. This is best exemplified in what one college male said to a wonderful girl he met:
  
  “You’re the kind of girl I want to take home to meet my mom. But not yet.”
  
  Kind of a St. Augustine vibe there.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“When you distort what I wrote in this way, it’s clear you’r just getting mad and not playing fair any more.”

A humanist needs to understand human beings, and that species will from time to time play unfairly, and not always for bad reasons. When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor*, making the world safe for democracy was not an exercise in unmitigated fair play.

Susan plays more fairly than any woman I know, and all but a few men, but when things get a little dicey, it’s a hint that a norm has been violated.
She has a somewhat conservative temperament in the best Burkean sense. She’s uncomfortable violating norms without good reason, and also, crucially, without an understanding of the rationale that led to the norm being adopted in the first place (the Burkean argument, as I understand it).

As Obsidian pointed out, she was “uncomfortable” with the findings of the Bell Curve. Good. There was a rationale behind making discussion of group differences taboo, and any argument to change that norm needs first to address that rationale. Perhaps if Ann Romney had a little better sense of this, she would not have made her nauseating appeal to female narcissism in her RNC speech (nothing against the Romneys – human like the rest of us).

In this case, the norm is against (strange) men judging female mating choices. That norm long predates feminism and some consideration of the rationale behind it would not be out of line before diving into a discussion that regularly violates it. Without that consideration, fair play is asking too much, although it seems to me that due to Susan’s generosity, we’ve gotten it without asking.

* – yep, joke

I’ll STFU when the other men do. Guidelines regarding participation would not be inappropriate.
Escoffier

No, I have not considered starting my own blog. If Susan wants to ban me, she can do that. I doubt I will turn up anywhere else.
INTJ

@ Desi

When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor*, making the world safe for democracy was not an exercise in unmitigated fair play.

I don’t get the joke. Are you joking about the fact that Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor as an excuse to attack the Germans, even though the Germans were only nominally allied with Japan?
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“No, I have not considered starting my own blog. If Susan wants to ban me, she can do that. I doubt I will turn up anywhere else.”

Not about banning. I’m likely out of line here, but when I facilitate groups/ teach classes, I basically have to set a mental timer to make sure I’m keeping my own talking to a minimum, so in that mode here. Susan’s call, not mine.

Why would you not consider starting your own blog? Dead serious.
Escoffier

The post I wrote at 1235 is, if I may be immodest, crucial to what is under discussion here. To dismiss at as, “[for you] scientific inquiry lacks credibility” is ridiculous. And misses the whole point. Actually, as far as I can tell, only one reader got it, and he might have been the only one who read it. It’s still a fringe idea, so I get that. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

RE: the joke, it’s a line from Animal House.
J

Alpha or Psychopath?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/male-and-female-psychopaths-get-more-sex_b_1845750.html
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @J
  
  How funny, that article showed up in my Google reader yesterday, though it’s from early 2012. Might have to write about that. Equal opportunity slut shaming!
Kathy

” I suspect that most women are like me. We can objectively view a man’s attractiveness without wanting to have sex with him.”

Indeed. I cosign this, Susan. And I said as much in a previous comment.

” In addition, I have a definitive preference for beta types, and my attraction triggers are aligned with that, so being in the presence of what Game would call alpha is not tempting for me. And of course, beta men are less likely to be sexually aggressive. It doesn’t mean I’m not capable of great wrongdoing or have no moral flaws. I just don’t think mine tend to be sexual, for whatever reason. I believe it is because I am content.”

That’s me to a tee.

I think, Susan, that we are sisters separated at birth.

Here is a guy that I swooned over when I was a teenager… My mother had a stack of old movie magazines, and that’s how I got to know about him. Later I watched old movie re-runs of his on the television. He often played the shy, awkward (beta) guy around women in cowboy movies. Nevertheless he was a good guy .. The strong silent type. Not a cocky asshole.
And women found him attractive.
He really got my motor running… Ha!
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Kathy
  
  I remember tingling for Gary Cooper when I was 10 years old! He was definitely alpha, but you’re right, he often did play the romantic beta, and it wasn’t just for female audiences.
  
  A modern day equivalent might be Hugh Grant.
Mike C

As Obsidian pointed out, she was “uncomfortable” with the findings of the Bell Curve. Good. There was a rationale behind making discussion of group differences taboo, and any argument to change that norm needs first to address that rationale.

IDK….when you boil this down to its essence, it sure reads to me like political correctness (different depending on the forum) trumps an honest, unbiased search for truth and accuracy no matter where it leads.

In this case, the norm is against (strange) men judging female mating choices.

Just curious, is that what you think Escoffier has been doing with his body of comments in this thread? I think myself, Escoffier, Ted D, not sure who else are expressing opinions on general matters and not judging any individual commenter’s mating choice.

Guidelines regarding participation would not be inappropriate.

There is a link up top called Rules of Engagement.
J

@Desi

Yeah, no kidding. I told him that he was welcome to extend his adolescence for as long as he pleased, but there’d be no support for that from me or his dad. At that rate, we’d be in our 70s when he decided to grow up.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“To dismiss at as, “[for you] scientific inquiry lacks credibility” is ridiculous.”

Hence my encouragement to look at the subtext.

“And misses the whole point. Actually, as far as I can tell, only one reader got it, and he might have been the only one who read it. It’s still a fringe idea, so I get that. But that doesn’t make it wrong.”

Oh, I very much read it and got it. Maybe it would help if you would internalize the fact that I’m addressing you and encouraging you to start a blog. Also that the end of the de Tocqueville quote refers to you.

“If you want mathematical results, study math. Human things are inherently imprecise, sketchy, convoluted, nuanced, gray, etc.”

Are you aware of Berlin’s attribution of this insight to Vico?

“RE: the joke, it’s a line from Animal House.”

May he rest in peace.
Mike C

I’m likely out of line here, but when I facilitate groups/ teach classes, I basically have to set a mental timer to make sure I’m keeping my own talking to a minimum, so in that mode here. Susan’s call, not mine.

The difference is in a room you cannot have a cacophony of voices simultaneously. On a comment thread anyone is free to skip over anyone’s comments or any particular commenter.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Escoffier, have you seen or heard of Jim Manzi’s book “Uncontrolled”?
Mike C

The post I wrote at 1235 is, if I may be immodest, crucial to what is under discussion here. To dismiss at as, “[for you] scientific inquiry lacks credibility” is ridiculous. And misses the whole point. Actually, as far as I can tell, only one reader got it, and he might have been the only one who read it. It’s still a fringe idea, so I get that. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

I think you are referring to VD. FWIW, I think I got it as well…and I appreciated that comment as I learned something from reading it. I have a heavy background in finance and economics so I am acutely aware of the limitations of “scientific modeling”. It was the University of Chicago that first tried to kind of emulate physics when describing economics. Prior to that the study of economics had a much more philosophical bent and a lot less bogus equations that precisely describe nonsense.

I think it was Newton (who lost a ton of money speculating) who bemoaned that he could predict the flight of planets but not the madness of crowds.

I think too many people are far too willing to put a level of credibility and certainty on quantitative models with respect to human (including sexual) behavior that gives a false sense of understanding.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I think too many people are far too willing to put a level of credibility and certainty on quantitative models with respect to human (including sexual) behavior that gives a false sense of understanding.
  
  The quest for understanding continues. Peer review determines which research is worthy or further investigation. In this way, disciplines of inquiry develop. Skepticism is always called for.
  
  Alternatively, we can just plug our ears and insist that our reality is the only one.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I think too many people are far too willing to put a level of credibility and certainty on quantitative models with respect to human (including sexual) behavior that gives a false sense of understanding.

I want to clarify that I do also have being doing some field research in both of my groups (Liberals vs Conservatives) and at work (If I have to call a number I would say around 200 people I had talked about relationships and observe their behaviours) and now that I have been here for a few years I had witnessed yes Hypergamy and Beta men being ignored but I had also seen men doing the most stupid mistakes at picking women that were obviously trouble, women being ignored and pairings that shouldn’t be possible according to the manosphere predictions of Alphaness so yeah we are missing something.
I personally think the truth lies in the middle with more pluralistic ignorance from both sides than anything else. But I think is important to not let one side or one theory color every relationship we see failing or succeeding, YMMV.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@SW

It’s not about the human spirit. It’s reproduction.

Interesting, I recall reading somewhere that David Buss was one of the few (or only?) academics to profess a belief in “true love”. From an evolutionary POV, this is certainly an unnatural, inefficient, and counterproductive state of being. Though it could explain why a tiny minority of hapless losers still marry for life, despite (over time) declining health, fertility, physical attractiveness, and mental acuity.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Megaman
  
  Obviously, human beings have evolved to be capable of falling in love, i.e. pair bond. Fisher talks about the three brain systems for mating:
  
  Lust
  
  Limerence, falling in love
  
  Attachment
  
  There are brain chemicals specific to each of these processes. Fisher says that all three systems can be at work in the same person. She describes it as “a committee meeting in your head.” You can lust after someone while being in love with someone else. You can be deeply attached to a spouse and fall in love with someone else, etc. That doesn’t mean everyone, or even most people, have that experience. But it is biologically possible, because that is, apparently, the most reproductively successful combination of mating systems.
  
  Society’s rules for civilized and ethical behavior maintain order, more or less (less these days).
Sai

@Marellus
The article seems to be about something completely different from the title. Even though I can see why a man would want a relationship like this (I don’t know what to think of his wife -she left the first guy, she can leave him)… I don’t get it. I’m not being funny, I really don’t.

@J
“Alpha or Psychopath?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/male-and-female-psychopaths-get-more-sex_b_1845750.html
From what I’ve read since coming here, it makes sense to me…

“Yeah, no kidding. I told him that he was welcome to extend his adolescence for as long as he pleased, but there’d be no support for that from me or his dad. At that rate, we’d be in our 70s when he decided to grow up.”
Sounds good to me.

@Megaman
“Though it could explain why a tiny minority of hapless losers still marry for life, despite (over time) declining health, fertility, physical attractiveness, and mental acuity.
:wink:”
And there are couples who can’t have kids anyway, so there must be another reason they’re together.
VD

Susan, here is an expert who does not support hypergamy, but does take exception to the idea that beta traits are sexy:

“The generally accepted therapeutic notion that, for women, incubating intimacy leads to better sex is, Meana told me, often misguided. “Really,” she said, “women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissistic” — it is dominated by the yearnings of “self-love,” by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. Still on the subject of narcissism, she talked about research indicating that, in comparison with men, women’s erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it. “When it comes to desire,” she added, “women may be far less relational than men.”

– Marta Meana, professor of psychology at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas
“What Do Women Want?” The New York Times, by Daniel Bergner
January 22, 2009

The key phrase being “when it comes to desire”. I suspect that what we’re seeing here is two groups talking past each other because one group distinguishes between short-term sexual desire and long-term relationship attraction, whereas the other conflates the two.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @VD
  
  I agree that there is a difference between short and long-term oriented attraction. Obviously, some traits are considered sexy and others are not. But I suspect the process is a complex web of neural activity. For example, one might argue that women find ambition sexy, as it predicts status and income. At the same time, “He’s a hard worker” is not going to be perceived as a panty wetter, even though ambition without hard work would be pointless (and grandiose).
  
  Similarly, a man displaying kindness to an old woman may stimulate a woman’s respect, but is unlikely to arouse her based on that one act. Yet I’ve witnessed women swoon as a man with a baby in a Snugli walked by. One time, a guy kissed the top of his daughter’s head and the young women I was with said, “OMG, OMG, that’s what I want.” They were practically panting, even though he was average looking. It depends on the context. These women would not look twice at him in a bar, but found his dad behavior extremely attractive. Sexy? Not exactly, but something close.
szopen

Damn, this thread is growing too fast.

Anyway, I noticed something strange. It’s like some people think that some desires evolved due to females suddenly deciding “hey, it would be a cool to have just one partner”. It’s an absurd. Females tend to be attracted to some guys not because they THINK he would provide good genes, but because in the past, females who were following this particular strategy, left more offspring than females following other strategy. The same is with preference for dads. There does not have to be formal culture preferring monogamy, in order to strategy “prefer dads over cads” to evolve. Simply, if at some point of time, by sheer chance some female had a strategy which involved to have a sex only with one male for exchange of him providing for her and her children, then she would in certain environments (for example in harsh environments where food is scarce) would left more offsprings than other. This does not require male or female to even know that children are belonging to male. And this definetely does not require any kind of culture. Preference for “providers” does not require even monogamy, and I am not sure, why some people are so sure at dating monogamy to only ten thousand years old.
Kathy

“Women tend to cheat after a period of intense loneliness, when the relationship has already failed. So it’s not surprising that females want divorces after cheating more than men do.”

Yes.. I agree.

What also is interesting is that some men cheat when their women are pregnant with child..

Because…. because… they just have to have a root..

Fat pregnant wives are very unappealing… I guess.
szopen

Here is another thing which kept me thinking recently.
Females tend to look for nice-looking males, but males can increase their attractiveness by modifying their behaviour, supposedly because it triggers female subconscious “attraction filters”. We are said that we should not think about what females say they are attracted to, but what they actually do.

NOw, could we apply the same to females? I wrote about this before: can a female “4” increase her attractiveness by simple changes in behaviour? And what changes would be necessary? In other words, is there “a game” for females?

We know what males SAY they want in females, and mrs. Susan already had many posts on that: traits like feminity, for example “avoiding conflicts” etc. But again, this is what males SAY. On the other hand, I know females, who get attention from many males, which can be sometimes very energetic and which are NOT hot.

There is a claim made, that males are attracted to such aggressive and bitchy woman DESPITE their behaviour, but becuase they are attractive. This may be, but what if this is not true? What if males also have some subconscious “attraction filters” which are triggered by some bitchy females?

I already read at least one description of alpha players who admitted of being in very hard and unusually long relations with some very bitchy woman.

I do not know whether I make any sense; but what do you think? No, that’s the wrong question. Not “what do you think” but do you know examples of people attracted to girls with attractiveness below theirs, but exposing some behaviour which is commonly said by males as such, which shoudl have exactly opposite effect? For example, have you ever noticed a pair, in which a female was a real b*tch to anyone except her current partner, who was deeply in love with her? I knew such pairs.

I am quite sure that females who tend to display a lot of energy tend to be rated as more attractive.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @szopen
  
  I think you will enjoy this post:
  
  http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/02/08/relationshipstrategies/the-female-quality-that-men-find-irresistible/
  
  It describes exactly what you are talking about, and my own personal experience with that form of “girl game.”
deti

Ana:

“would a man in the peak of his sexuality aka when he craves variety the most choose a monogamous relationship if he encounters an “outlier”? Deti’s story of regret is an example that they will not. Most men here say that men don’t punch over their weight for long but how much time long entails for a young man? And if he has the option of fapping to a 9 on porn and/or orbiting a women a few points higher with the hope (probably lead on by the hottie that feels flattered or is using him for the Beta traits the jerk she wants doesn’t have) would he take a look at the less attractive girls that might be seeing it as a good prospect and will be willing to sex him up in the context of a relationship if only he will show some real interest?”

Depends on age, maturity level and host of other factors. I had just turned 20 when that story played out. Had I to do it over again and knowing what I know now, I would have given Summer a much longer chance and more time.

A man will be happier with a 5 who truly loves him than with an 8 who does not.
INTJ

@ J

Alpha or Psychopath?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/male-and-female-psychopaths-get-more-sex_b_1845750.html

I think this is what causes a lot of miscommunication between the commentators here. Many of the male commenters (such as myself) define Alpha as the aggressive tendencies that are displayed by the men that are likely to get a lot of sex. On the other hand, some male commenters and nearly all female commenters define Alpha as the good traits such as confidence, leadership, calmness, etc., that make someone a man.
Escoffier

BB, I have heard of that book but not read it.
Escoffier

I don’t think it’s so easy to say that “confidence, leadership, calmness” are “good traits” necessarily. In the service of what? They are good or bad only in context, depending on the end they serve.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

but I had also seen men doing the most stupid mistakes at picking women that were obviously trouble, women being ignored

Any pointers as to what we should watch out for, and what sort of women get ignored? Genuinely want to know so I avoid the mistakes they did.
INTJ

@ Susan Walsh

I think you will enjoy this post:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/02/08/relationshipstrategies/the-female-quality-that-men-find-irresistible/

It describes exactly what you are talking about, and my own personal experience with that form of “girl game.”

Yes! Men definitely are attracted to “bubbly” girls. Very much so. I’m relatively exceptional that way, as I actually like shy and rational girls. Even with me though, the problem is that “bubbly” girls are also a lot more approachable. It’s hard for two introverts to meet each other…
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@ INTJ

“Many of the male commenters (such as myself) define Alpha as the aggressive tendencies that are displayed by the men that are likely to get a lot of sex. On the other hand, some male commenters and nearly all female commenters define Alpha as the good traits such as confidence, leadership, calmness, etc., that make someone a man.”

I think these Alpha/Beta, etc. categories aren’t very useful.

When it comes to Alphas (sic) I find there are two types: the narcissist Alpha (cad), and the chivalrous Alpha.

My experience with cads is that they are charming and confident on top, but it is all fake. Underneath they are consumed with feelings of shame and insecurity and humiliation. I know one in particular (but I have me several) who’s is good-looking, charming, well-to do, and a complete coward (all cads are cowards). He’s never been in love, and has had sex with 100 women. In fact, underneath all the superficial front, he’s a complete beta who allows women to abuse him. Looking at his character from an older view, he shows every one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The men I have met who devoted their lives to chasing women and sex have ruined their lives. In other words, becoming Players.

Then we have what I call the chivalrous Alpha, which is based on the better warrior virtues and evolved only from Christianity. Again, using the older view, they show the Four Cardinal Virtues. They’d be considered a mixture of Alpha and Beta traits.

Of course, all these types would really be a continuum than binary.

The bad traits you mentioned are the narcissist Alphas. The good traits are the chivalrous ones.

It’s too bad people are ignoring the older thinkers. They’ve already covered “What is a man?” and “What is a woman?”
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Iggles #1296:
“You can take apart my comment part by part but you ignored this part — and it’s bears repeating:

I can see that there’s a difference from enhancing your appearance and getting a personality transplant..”

O: Yes, I understood what you said; you didn’t stutter. I’m just saying it’s bunk.

“All those things you labeled a “fake” fall under enhancing appearance. Men do it too when they trim their unibrows, put gel in their hair, and wear stylish clothes that are more flattering to them. IMO, I don’t think approving one’s appearance is fake.”

O: Nope. The very fact that very good looking guys(Cooper, Pattinson, et al) can and will get LJBF’d, proves the point that *for Women* these things, while no doubt helpful, aren’t the dealbreakers in a psychosexual sense. Game, is a Mind Thang.

The point is, that if you’re a Woman and you wear garments that give an appearance anything other than what you actually are in reality, YES, you ARE being FAKE.

Period.

“It’s a false dichotomy to say it’s the same thing as acting like a different person!”

O: No, it is wholly consistent. Try again.

“I’ll write it out to make this point plain — I don’t equate using game with “getting a personality transplant”. Pretending to be a super dominant, cocky-funny-negging “alpha” a**hat when you’re truly a beta at heart is destined to fail. You’re pulling a girl who wants that type of guy, so to keep her you have to keep playing that role. You’re not being authentic, so it’s the antithesis of “inner game” as I understand it.”

O: Read “The Game”. We’ll pick up this point when you do.

“Sassy is right, it’s bait-and-switch. I don’t think it’s a loss because if you’re a beta you’re not gonna be happy with alpha chaser anyway.

O: LOL. Guys really do not need their Woman to share their interests; that’s projection on your part as a gal. And in truth, it’s much better if she DOESNT share your interests; you having your life and she having hers, is a very good thing.

“Spoken like single man in 40s who plays the field.. (going from LTR to LTR is serial monogamy, O, which some men on this board have defined as form of promiscuity)”

O: LOL, nice try. They are more than free to their opinion – as are you. But the fact remains that what I’ve said isn’t just true for guys like me (again: currently in an LTR four years running – which is better than the vast majority of my Single Lady detractors on this thread, I might add) but it holds true for actual married couples, too. How many marrieds consist of couples where each spouse has their own life and interests? It happens a heck of a lot more than you might like to think.

“It’s healthy to maintain hobbies and separate interests, but relationships where sex is the sole thing in common rarely last for the long haul!”

O: Perhaps; I wouldn’t know, as I’ve never made any such argument. Strawmen and projection, much?

“While “friendship” may not be at the top of the list for men, the married women on this board have spoken about how sharing common interests and being “buddies” with their husbands has strengthened their relationships on the long term. People who choose to spend their lives together usually enjoy spending time together outside of the bedroom too.”

O: I think you missed the part where I’ve noted the fact that Ms. Brown Sugah and I have literally talked to each other all night, and didn’t know it; we’ve enjoyed each other’s company that much. And while I’ve seen Ms. J’s “response” – nice try – the fact remains that there are quite a few married couples who barely sitdown and just talk to each other for a half-hour, let alone all night.

So, again…strawman/projection much? Your above statement is fallacious, as I’ve never advanced the argument you’re attempting to shootdown.

Try again?

O.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. J #1290:
“Just looked the book up on Amazon. This is recycled news. If memory serves, Allan Poussaint, the psychologist who was a technical advisor on the Bill Cosby Show, wrote a similar book on black unwed mothers back in the late 60s or early 70s.”

O: Hmm. I just ran a quick Google to see if I could find this book of Poussaint’s, and came up blank. Nothing on Amazon about it. However, there *is* a tome of his called “Single Parenthood: Implications for Society”, the publication date of which being 1997. *shrugs*?

What makes Edin & Kafalas’ work significant, is they actually *lived among the Women being clinically studied*. This is crucial, and while I highly revere Poussaint, I don’t think he did this back in the day – because Edin & Kafalas got a chance to hear in their subjects’ own words, as to *why* they did what they did, etc. I’ve had the chance to chat a bit with them, and while I got them to freely admit that their work had some conspicuous flaws (not doing the same with the Baby Daddies – think about, what do we *really* know about them? Do we talk to them? Do we even care to?), it nevertheless was an important work. Promises I Can Keep came out in 2005 – almost a full decade *after* the historic and monumental Welfare Reform Act that came to pass during the Clinton years – so we cannot point to the argument you’e attempting to make to explain what you think is happening out on the bricks. One of the dirty little secrets in Black America is the fact that the “Bright Sistas” are literally dying out, while her Ratchet counterparts are literally doing the heavy lifting of bringing on the next generation of African Americans – the future of Black America. Banks, in his work Is Marriage for Black People, notes the fact that it is the Bright Sistas who are the most celibate. They truly are, going the way of the Do-Do Bird.

“I think it is true that lower class women of all races see having a baby as an attainable goal and mark of adulthood. I also think it is true that the collapsing economy and growing number of welfare to work programs is making that choice less palatable. Where I used to welfare mothers with several kids, as a result of women making the same untenable choice over and over, I now see marginally employed single mothers with one or two kids. That’s a sort of progess, though not really what most of us would want to see.”

O: While I certainly can respect your personal anecdotal experience, I see something completely different when I take a tour of the Badlands, or say, Southwest Philly. Even in more upscale communities like say, Germantown, it is not at all hard to see Baby Mamas with easily two, and more often than not three (or more) babies in tow, at the Welfare office. It is very, very common, in my experience – and I think the data would bear me out.

O.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@SW
Kidding, I’m a firm believer in the AFT (which is contrary to Buss), and am completely on-board the pair bonding concept. But there’s no evolutionary logic behind men maintaining the pair bond after the reproductive work is done, and their mates are no longer fertile. Yet most do. Are they all unattractive losers with no options? I’m sure most of your male regulars would agree with that. But consider…

National Marriage Project (2004)
Among married men, readiness to have children does not figure prominently in their decision to marry. Only 35 percent agree that “you got married because you were ready to have children.”

And another ~25% of men (myself included) have a preference for NOT having children at all. Add to that the numerous 40-something couples that chose to adopt after working full-time for the better part of 20 years (I’ve met quite a few). I suppose we did evolve to merely eat, breed, and kill. But aren’t our personalities, emotions, dare I say preferences, also biological to some degree? Could it be that monogamous couples are more than the sum of their parts?
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Ion #1330:
“Three. I never wear weaves, although I’d be willing to try them for fun. I agree with what you said before about black women being considered ugly by black men if we don’t have straight long hair. My mom who is married to a white man said that he definitely wanted her to go natural when they were engaged. I guess he didn’t understand why so many black men had made her feel ugly because of her natural hair, when they complain about racism so often. She’s worn a short natural ever since.

“A big part of why half the black women I know went natural was to attract non-thugs and non-”low class” men (the kind who stand around all day for example).”

O: This is a very interesting statement. Per your argument, solidly middle class Black Women, who are presumably professionals, are adopting a particular hair style in an effort repel certain kinds of Black Men who, in your words, “stand around all day”.

But this line of argument doesn’t make sense; for one thing, the kinds of Black Men who “stand around all day” don’t share the same spatial areas that the kinds of Black Women you’re talking about reside in; in other words, nine times out of ten, they’re not living in the same ‘hood. Here we see Ms. Walsh’s oft-repeated notion of assortative mating bearing itself out – if you’re a Bougie Girl, your likelihood of being besieged by Brotha Ne’er Do Wells, is in fact low. You spend the bulk of your time around and among other Blacks (and indeed as you rightly point out, among other folk period) of your social class; Pookie and Ray-Ray simply don’t rate.

Allow me to propose the following, because this is a meme I’ve heard a number of Black Women attempt to float: I posit they do because it assuages some degree of pain and failure in their love lives. And believe it or not, FWIW, I do have a degree of empathy for them in this. I just don’t think it’s a winning hand to play – essentially scapegoating others to account for one’s own failures in life.

“These women have attracted middle class men of all races including black men who do not have racist issues, by being attractive and having natural hair.”

O: This too is a most interesting statement; are you attempting to suggest, that “racist issues” is the preserve of *only* those who “stand around all day”? Because if you are, I think we have all manner of evidence to prove that “racist issues” knows no class limits. To be sure, knuckleheads do exist among the lower class Brothas; no argument there. But to attempt to suggest that that’s the *only place* where knuckleheads exist, well, that’s BS, to be blunt. There are numerous examples of douchebaggery among UMC Whites (Tucker Max, anyone?), early and often documented by our Ms. Walsh right here at HUS.

By the way: I discovered that quite a few Brothas who wear their own hair in locks, *will often assidously avoid Sistas who do same as romantic mates*. They tend to date Sistas who imbibe the Creamy Crack (for our White friends reading along: hair relaxers millions of Black Women use to make their hair look more like yours). This was brought to my attention by Ms. Brown Sugah, and after spending about six months just going out on the streets and observing it for myself? Yea, there’s a “there” there…

“For some other women (like those who cover gray hair, or try a new hair cut, or experiment with highlights) a hair style is a hair style. Is Hillary Clinton experiencing self hatred because she experiments with hair styles? No. I think that some black mens obsession with womens hair and clothes claiming “self hatred” is partially to deflect attention away from their own racist issues. Such as the fact that these women wear extensions because these men make it abundantly clear that they loooove straight hair, gladly taking fat women with light skin and straight hair, over attractive, in shape black women with natural hair.”

O: While I see what you’re saying, with all due respect, it’s hard to hear many Black Men talking about “self-hate” when it comes to Black Women and their hair care regimes; this is an “internal discussion/debate” had among Black Women themselves. And I say this as one who has attended *many* “hair conferences”, discussion panels and the like, where the participants were Black Women themselves.

“I guess its true that when men are failures especially, women are used to indirectly compete with other men. I think that’s what’s behind the light skin obsession in the black community. I remember Cameron something or other the basketball player saying his dad told him to only date women with long hair because it represents “power” (the only way an inept man can achieve power, apparently). I guess education, accomplishments, etc., don’t hold a candle to being able to get the women they believe other men want.”

O: One of the most financially successful Black Men has to be Jay-Z. He recently held a mammoth two-day concert here in Philly. By all accounts, by any measure, he is a true American success story. He can literally, write his own ticket as to who he would choose to partner with.

He chose Beyonce’ – who, pe her Wikipedia entry, is of Creole, French, Irish and Native American ancestry.

Another example of a massively successful Black Man, has to be Kanye West. He was romantically involved with model Amber Rose (a Philly homegirl), who has as I recall a similar and highly visible multi-racial background as Beyonce’. Currently, Kanye’s been persuing Kim Kardashian.

These are two examples of Black Men at the top of their respective games – and neither are with, say, India.Aire, nor has there ever been any such history. Again, I am merely stating the facts. Nothing more.

So, while I hear what you’re saying, the simple facts on the ground do not bear this out.

All of that being said though – do you agree or disagree, that the very act of *any* Woman altering her hair, is indeed presenting a fake view of herself to the world? If so/not – why?

O.
Desiderius

Susan,

“He’s a hard worker” is not going to be perceived as a panty wetter, even though ambition without hard work would be pointless (and grandiose). ”

There’s enough material in this one sentence for multiple posts, for women, and men; hell, the whole internet. “Try-hard” is a term of derision among PUA’s.

“The quest for understanding continues. Peer review determines which research is worthy or further investigation. In this way, disciplines of inquiry develop. Skepticism is always called for.”

That’s the ideal. Ideals are essential – many in the rising generation are starving for credible ones. Commitment to an ideal is what drives the hard work that makes ambition non-grandiose. There is also the real, and skepticism alone isn’t much help in developing a healthy sense of it.

The sharing of experiences is not just about imposing one’s own narrow reality on another. If its that, that is abusive. It can alternatively be about reaching out to see if others are having similar experiences, and if so whether a general understanding can be reached. This is the “practical science” of which de Tocqueville spoke.

Through this process, a general understanding has spread that the ideal scientific process you describe is being blocked in some crucial areas where the need for understanding is pressing, so parallel systems of practical science have grown up around that blockage to get to that understanding.

“Alternatively, we can just plug our ears and insist that our reality is the only one.”

There are other alternatives.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The sharing of experiences is not just about imposing one’s own narrow reality on another. If its that, that is abusive. It can alternatively be about reaching out to see if others are having similar experiences, and if so whether a general understanding can be reached.
  
  +1 Well said.
Desiderius

An experience that illustrates both the process and the blockage.

Got to talking with a new Sociology professor just hired by the University around the block at the local pub. Michigan was on, we shared a hatred, and things progressed from there. He’s late 20’s, African-American, married with two kids (pretty much all, and it is in fact close to 100%, of the successful men I know under 40 are married, and they got it rolling good and early), the requisite mix of smooth and sharp.

He got to asking whether this pub could be counted on to be free of grad students, as he had to be careful about being seen with them in public. The conversation turned to the precautions male teachers have to take, the double-standards, the price paid, etc… and I asked him if, as a Sociologist, he’d ever considered studying the phenomenon.

He laughed and said flat out, as if it were of course out of the question, that there is no way he could conduct such research, because people would start asking why he cared about that particular topic.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  He got to asking whether this pub could be counted on to be free of grad students, as he had to be careful about being seen with them in public. The conversation turned to the precautions male teachers have to take, the double-standards, the price paid, etc… and I asked him if, as a Sociologist, he’d ever considered studying the phenomenon.
  
  A friend of mine is/was a 57 year old professor at Harvard Business School. Last semester she went out for a drink with a group of doctoral students. One of them was an Iranian male who complained that this was unseemly behavior for a woman. After a hearing, she has been relieved of her teaching duties for the fall semester (at least).
http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

@Sai

@Sai

@Marellus
The article seems to be about something completely different from the title. Even though I can see why a man would want a relationship like this (I don’t know what to think of his wife -she left the first guy, she can leave him)… I don’t get it. I’m not being funny, I really don’t.

Madam, keep this up and you leave me no choice but to flirt outrageously with you …

@Susan Walsh

Yeah, two sociopaths make a charming couple.

Why thank you Suzan, but my mum warned me against women like you.

Now Sai-darling, please put on yer red lipstick … so that I may start sighing
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Ion #1330:
“Three. I never wear weaves, although I’d be willing to try them for fun. I agree with what you said before about black women being considered ugly by black men if we don’t have straight long hair. My mom who is married to a white man said that he definitely wanted her to go natural when they were engaged. I guess he didn’t understand why so many black men had made her feel ugly because of her natural hair, when they complain about racism so often. She’s worn a short natural ever since.”

O: Your mom’s experience validates everything Prof. Ralph Richard Banks says in his book Is Marriage for Black People – he could have been interviewing her for the book, in fact.

Yes, it is indeed true that Black Men, taken as a group, do not consider natural Black Women’s hairstyles to be beautiful – quite the opposite, in fact. Add that to a noted preference for light(er) skin, and it is indeed quite difficult for Black Women out on the open dating market. Again, Banks documents all this, and while I have areas of strenuous disagreement with him, what he presents in this regard is difficult to deny.

My guess about your step-father’s observations about Black Men complaining about racism, had to do with issues separate from the hair thing; it is indeed possible to tease these issues apart, though I certainly can see how and why you feel as you do.

You are also correct to note that, per the aggregate Black Male preference, that they place a much higher import on skintone and hair texture, over say, weight – recall Ms. Walsh’s recent comments regarding Kim Kardashian. Now, I know that Ms. Walsh doesn’t think very highly of Ms. Kardashian, which is fascinating to me, and I am hopeful that Ms. Walsh might elaborate a bit on exactly why she feels so strongly against Ms. Kardashian as she does.

But in the meantime, that which Ms. Walsh finds “ugly” about Ms. Kardashian, Black Men find her to be the epitome of beauty; as I’ve noted in my previous comment, Kanye West, hands down one of the most successful Black Men out there today, has been noted by all manner of supermarket tabloids as being in hot pursuit of Ms. Kardashian, and this despite her marital debacle and the fact that she’s older than West’s previous squeeze, Ms. Amber Rose.

In a hyper-competitve dating market like the American SMP, there can and will be winners and losers. That doesn’t mean that I personally like or endorse this; if it means anything to you and everyone else reading along, I actually don’t. But my not liking it won’t change things. One of the very painful unintended consequences of the “rights movements” of the 60s (of which the Civil Rights movement was only one example), was that it literally opened up new romantic and sexual opportunities for Black Men who, only decades prior, could be horrifically murdered for the mere suspicion of whistling at a White Woman. Here we see the Civil Rights movement and the Sexual Revolution of the period coming together to create a situation that, to this day, foments a lot of hard feelings in many Black Women, regardless as to the veracity of those views in our time today (while it continues to retain powerul cultural force among professional class Black Women, in truth, most of their professional Brothas aren’t hooking up with White Women anywhere near the numbers many said Black Women would have us believe – and the Census data etc bears this out; they *are* however, hooking up with Ratchets – Black Women of lower social rank. It happens a heck of a lot more often than many professional class Black Women would like to admit, because this too, is quite painful to acknowledge). While their White UMC sisters are only now beginning to get an inkling of how things are likely to shake themselves out moving forward, in truth many professional Black Women have been struggling with these issues, for decades easily. I do not envy them.

What does all this have to do with Ms. Walsh’s core audience, one may ask? Well, again, if the argument that what goes down in Black America is a powerful portent for what’s coming down the pike for White America, what I’m saying has a heck of a lot to do with it. Indeed, I’m giving said audience a kind of “preview”, coming soon to a lilly White suburb near you.

O.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Obsidian
  
  What does all this have to do with Ms. Walsh’s core audience, one may ask? Well, again, if the argument that what goes down in Black America is a powerful portent for what’s coming down the pike for White America, what I’m saying has a heck of a lot to do with it. Indeed, I’m giving said audience a kind of “preview”, coming soon to a lilly White suburb near you.
  
  No sale.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Desiderius…”He got to asking whether this pub could be counted on to be free of grad students, as he had to be careful about being seen with them in public.”

It’s kind of sad, really….rumor has it that there was a time when people went into academia because they thought they would have MORE scope for individuality, quirky behavior, and convention-challenging thought than in the rest of society…but now it seems that the enforcement of conformity in academia greatly exceeds anything Mrs Grundy ever thought up.
Desiderius

TedD,

So, yeah, the open and honest sharing of experiences is crucial to creating an environment of trust, finding shared understandings (theories), etc… and you’re great at that and I’m glad you’re around.

Teaching (preaching is a fancy word for teaching) can then take place within that environment. But a focus on the self and its own experiences/concerns is inimical to the effectiveness of the teaching (and even more so the preaching) act itself. My guess is that too much of that is how preaching got its (hopefully temporary) bad name.
Desiderius

david foster,

“It’s kind of sad, really….”

The chicks ain’t digging sadness much these days. Maybe they’re trying to tell us something….
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Desi #1346:
“As Obsidian pointed out, she was “uncomfortable” with the findings of the Bell Curve. Good. There was a rationale behind making discussion of group differences taboo, and any argument to change that norm needs first to address that rationale. Perhaps if Ann Romney had a little better sense of this, she would not have made her nauseating appeal to female narcissism in her RNC speech (nothing against the Romneys – human like the rest of us).”

O: Desi, I have a heck of a lot of respect for your mind and the way you put things, but I gotta tell ya, a lot of times what you say goes right over my head, LOL.

So, lemme come at what you’ve said above this way:

My thing is this – the problem I’m personally having with the arc of these discussions, is that, at least in my case personally, *no one actually addresses WHAT I’ve said; only “how” I’ve said it*. That is extremely frsutrating and disengenuous to me, because I can literally sense the interlocutor not wanting to actually grapple with the implications of what I’ve said, and so instead stoops to taking potshots at me as a “rationale” for shutting the whole conversation down.

So, let’s indeed go back to the example you cited above: first, does the basic premise and argument of The Bell Curve, hold any water? I mean, is Murray just talkiing out the side of his neck when he discusses what he sees as a cognitive stratification of American society and life?

Now, let’s be clear here – Ms. Walsh does indeed seem to be in agreement with Murray’s premise; she’s just “uncomfortable” about it.

You, Desi, are attempting to argue, that “pretty lies” have their place; perhaps they do.

But said “pretty lies” work at cross purposes with a search for the truth; indeed, by definition, “pretty lies” are the enemy, of truth.

By her own words, HUS is a forum that seeks to determine what is the truth – not one where “pretty lies” are proffered in lieu thereof.

Ms. Walsh has accepted the premise of Murray’s arguments per TBC and Coming Apart. If I am wrong, by all means Ms. Walsh, please correct me.

Now, if that is indeed the case, the next question simply has to be: what does all this have to do with HUS?

My argument, is that it has quite a bit to do with it – because whether Ms. Walsh knows it or not, she is indeed playing a hand in sustaining a cohort of American life who are increasingly isolated from the rest of the very society for whom it makes the rules and sets the frame for the way things proceed for everyone else. This is huge – and while Ms. Walsh would be well within her right to simply say, “not my problem”, that doesn’t change the fact that she *is* indeed a participant in the very things Murray has talked about.

And that’s only the tip of the iceberg insofar as where I’m coming from in all this…and I think Ms. Walsh, indeed, others reading this, like you Desi, knows this.

This thing is a lot bigger than we may want to admit.

And the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Am I making sense?

O.
J

By the way, Fisher’s most recent research looks at brain activity among people in love, and she has studied married people in their 50s who still experience that dopamine rush. They are still in love.

Still having the dopamine rush? Huh! Maybe that’s why you can dump the kids for a weekend and feel like newlyweds again.
Desiderius

J,

“Yeah, no kidding. I told him that he was welcome to extend his adolescence for as long as he pleased, but there’d be no support for that from me or his dad. At that rate, we’d be in our 70s when he decided to grow up.”

See also.

Tough out there right now, in a way Boomers may be literally incapable of fully understanding, having grown up in such a different world. Trusting the non-financial support is still there. If Vox is right, their world is now our shared world and that old one is gone.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

According to the anecdotal evidence I hear, a man who encounters an outlier runs in the other direction at 60 mph. It’s way too risky to spend time with a girl you might actually fall for. This is best exemplified in what one college male said to a wonderful girl he met:
“You’re the kind of girl I want to take home to meet my mom. But not yet.”
Kind of a St. Augustine vibe there.

True that. Hence more data about the 80% disconnect.

The key phrase being “when it comes to desire”. I suspect that what we’re seeing here is two groups talking past each other because one group distinguishes between short-term sexual desire and long-term relationship attraction, whereas the other conflates the two.

I do agree with this, Male are gaga over looks, women are gaga over confidence. Feminism promoted women to let go of their looks and men to let go of confidence, both genders go screwed up. The men got it worst of course because of the laws. Now what?

Fat pregnant wives are very unappealing… I guess. /i>

It could be that or it could be mommy issues or the madonna/whore issue or that since she already has his genetic material he feels a pull of seeding someone else…probably a combination of all of the above.

Depends on age, maturity level and host of other factors. I had just turned 20 when that story played out. Had I to do it over again and knowing what I know now, I would have given Summer a much longer chance and more time.

That is the question the timing If the study is to be beleived men are not waking up to their real options till is too late to connect with their female peers. I don’t know if you saw A beautiful mind there is this scene in a bar where John Nash and 3 colleagues see a group of 5 girls there is the prettiest one of course that all of them want to ask, but then he realizes something that if they all ask the pretty one their chances of making it are very low and the “ugly” ones won’t dance with them because they wouldn’t want to be left overs of their pretty friend while if they ask the ugly ones first they will feel flattered and all of them will end up dancing.
I do wonder if the female cohort of the 80% sees the effort and interest their male counterparts take on trying to chase hotties by the time they are done and decide to be realistic if they just don’t accept them for similar reasons. No man want Alpha’s left overs but I’m sure most women wouldn’t want hottie’s left over either, just thinking out loud, YMMV.

On the other hand, some male commenters and nearly all female commenters define Alpha as the good traits such as confidence, leadership, calmness, etc., that make someone a man.

Hubby and I agree with one definition of Alpha = Asshole. Beta = Not Asshole the men here don’t like it, but till proven otherwise that is the first word that comes to our minds.

Any pointers as to what we should watch out for, and what sort of women get ignored? Genuinely want to know so I avoid the mistakes they did.

Dogsquat’s blog can give you a lot better advice about overcoming certain attraction triggers: http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com/ Hope that helps.

(all cads are cowards).
AMEN!

It’s too bad people are ignoring the older thinkers. They’ve already covered “What is a man?” and “What is a woman?”

Links or titles of books about this please? Interested on this definition from the past.
J

Trusting the non-financial support is still there.

Oh, absolutely. There’s still financial support as well, but it’s conditional on not fcuking around and wasting my time and money. I’ll check out the VD post, but I think that right now, because my kids hang around with kids who are second or third generation affluent, they think they’re entitled. Unfortunately, DH and I are still too working class in outlook to share that philosophy. We won’t shell out 40K a year for these guys to go out of state and party.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. J #1306:
“@Obs

Fun question: how many couples talk to each other for say, a half an hour? And actually enjoy it? I mean marrieds, now. Think about it.

Me and every other married woman here+our respective husbands? Ted and wife? Esco and wife? Who am I leaving out?”

O: Yes – and put that against the fact that marriage has and continues to decline for *all* groups in American life (albeit at differing rates, I will freely concede that fact), that half of all marriages end in divorce, et al. I freely accept the fact that you, Ms. J, have a wonderful marriage. I fully accept that about Ms. Walsh, Ms. Hope, Ms. Anacaona, and I fully wish that Ted’s second time around proves to be much better than the first.

But the fact remains, that there are scores of marrieds out there who simply do not do what me and Ms. Brown Sugah do, in that case, enjoying each other’s company so much that we can literally talk and chat the night away. That is simply a fact.

Now, let me say something else – in no way am I banging the drum for singles. For example, and this is yet another reason why I vehemently disagreed with Ms. Walsh for cosigning and giving a platform to Ms. Kate Bolick, I think the notion of a “singles movement” is beyond silly and only acts as a cover to get away from the fact that in many of those cases, said singles are, to quote Ms. Walsh “Unhaaaaaaaapy”. It’s silly and stupid, and I would never try to putdown marriage itself, if for no other reason than the fact that I respect the right of individuals to decide for themselves who and how they should partner with.

Having said that though, I’m also not a cipher. The facts on the ground is that marriage is, and has been fo quite some time now, on the noted decline in American life. For whatever reason, this is the case, and to be frank I personally don’t see a heck of a lot of evidence that this is going to turnaround in any major, scalable way. Indeed, if anything I see marriage continuing to shrink relative to marriage aged folk in the country, eventually becoming the preserve of the monied classes – and even there, it won’t be what it used to be. Where we go from there? It’s anyone’s guess; but all’s I know is that there are likely to be a lot of unhappy campers along the way.

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

Oh, absolutely. There’s still financial support as well, but it’s conditional on not fcuking around and wasting my time and money.

What?! You are not going to pay for their degrees on Marine Theology?
Mike C

Trusting the non-financial support is still there.

IMO, the financial may be more important, and arguably more warranted. One could argue that collectively the Boomers are responsible for creating the overall economic mess the Gen Yers are graduating into.

It’s funny. I’m not doing what I want professionally and vocationally, but on some level I realize I am very, very lucky to have the job I do paying what it does. We have 2 openings in my department of a Fortune 500 company. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of resumes. The vast majority get a few second look and into the trash they go. If you graduated 2 years ago into this mess, and have done odd jobs to get by, the time gap without professional employment looks bad, and into the trash your resume goes. That’s the mentality of the hiring managers. They want the perfect candidate without a single visible wart of any kind, and previous job experience directly related to the position.

I would hate to be graduating from college now looking for professional employment. It is terrible out there. When I graduated in 1995 with my electrical engineering degree, it was a foregone conclusion I’d be graduating with a well paying job in hand.

Just my opinion, but if a kid is putting in a solid effort, I think Boomer parents owe more than “hit the road kid, you are on your own”.
Escoffier

Jesus christ.

When I was in grad school, my key professor was single at the time and his classes were always Monday, 7-10. We always went out for beers after and almost always came with us. Granted, few of us were female but they did show up too. The idea that there was anything wrong with it never occured to any of us.
Iggles

O,

In regards #1386…

To be kind I could say we’re talking past each other, but I doubt it. You just want to argue for the sake of appearing right.. Interesting how you disregard the experiences of happily married and assert that you has a never married 40 something year old male know better about sustaining a happy marriage because you and your gf talk all night. SMH.. Well, I’ll take your word that it’s good conversation but apparently not enough for you to commit to her for life.

Sidenote (this is directed to no one in particular, so feel free to weigh in):
I think it’s disingenuous with unmarried couples try to assert that their relationship is “better” than “most marriages” because of A, B, or C. Yes, people get divorce and marriages fall apart but it’s a different animal than a LTR or cohabitation because of the whole ‘committing to one another for life’ component So, a marriage is a LTR but a LTR is not marriage. I feel this distinction needs to be highlighted.

Funny how some people say marriage is “just a piece a paper” but balking to marry their partners. If it truly doesn’t matter to you, than why wouldn’t you get married?
Iggles

@ O:

O: This is a very interesting statement. Per your argument, solidly middle class Black Women, who are presumably professionals, are adopting a particular hair style in an effort repel certain kinds of Black Men who, in your words, “stand around all day”. But this line of argument doesn’t make sense; for one thing, the kinds of Black Men who “stand around all day” don’t share the same spatial areas that the kinds of Black Women you’re talking about reside in; in other words, nine times out of ten, they’re not living in the same ‘hood.

This is bunk.

A good chunk of people who live the hood have jobs and go to work everyday, O.

I’d rather not get into specifics of where I’m located, but my grandma still lives in the hood and we lived there a couple of years too. And I grew up in a working class majority brown/black neighborhood. Every morning on the way to school there were plenty of black and brown professionals going to work. I’ve seen it with my own eyes and plenty of woman of color with professional jobs live in “poor”/working class neighborhoods.

Maybe the class divide is different in other places, but working in an office doesn’t mean you moved on up like the Jeffersons. Especially unmarried women, many live with family members despite having enough to get their own apartment — instead they help contribute to the household. And yes, these women get hollered at by street thugs as the walk home from the train!
Mike C

Additionally, because Boomers didn’t properly save for retirement….most have diddly squat saved up…they are and will continue to work much longer. The problem with that is them hanging around doesn’t create the openings for Gen X and Gen Y to move into. I don’t have the stats handy, but most of the job growth from 2009+ has been in the 50+ age segment.
J

I just ran a quick Google to see if I could find this book of Poussaint’s, and came up blank. Nothing on Amazon about it. However, there *is* a tome of his called “Single Parenthood: Implications for Society”, the publication date of which being 1997. *shrugs

This may have been a study, not a book. It would have come out in the early seventies.

And the difference in our anecdotal experience may rest on two things. First, we live in different arts of the country. Second, I’m seeing the working poor, not current welfare recipients. Not being on welfare does seem to force women to limit family size. There are stats that support a dropping birth rate in states that have “welfare to work” programs, but I’m reluctant to post stats from my own state as it would reveal my location. Weirdly, I just tried to google average family size of black single mothers and found no info other than the widely quoted 72% illegitimacy rate which is not what I was looking for. Maybe I’ll do more digging if I have time.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

“A friend of mine is/was a 57 year old professor at Harvard Business School. Last semester she went out for a drink with a group of doctoral students. One of them was an Iranian male who complained that this was unseemly behavior for a woman. After a hearing, she has been relieved of her teaching duties for the fall semester (at least).”

She should file an EEO complaint against the university.

The contortion of Western societies and institutions to fit unreasonable Muslim demands continues apace. Here’s a story about dog persecution in Canada:

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/08/28/islam-vs-mans-best-friend/?singlepage=true
Desiderius

“an Iranian male”

International student = non-non-person.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  International student = non-non-person.
  
  I don’t know what that means.
  
  In this case, the student’s national identity was important, as it informed his views that female professors should not consume alcohol or socialize in a bar setting with members of the opposite sex. Since his family generously donates to Harvard, the professor was asked to take one for the team, a fave expression of yours as I recall.
Jimmy Hendricks

This is best exemplified in what one college male said to a wonderful girl he met:
“You’re the kind of girl I want to take home to meet my mom. But not yet.”
Kind of a St. Augustine vibe there.

This just sounds weird… other than players, I can’t think of any guys I’ve ever known who would honestly believe that. Far more fall into the category of “wanting to take her home to mom before she’s earned it.” Maybe he was just trying to reject her gently and not hurt her feelings?

I do wonder if the female cohort of the 80% sees the effort and interest their male counterparts take on trying to chase hotties by the time they are done and decide to be realistic if they just don’t accept them for similar reasons. No man want Alpha’s left overs but I’m sure most women wouldn’t want hottie’s left over either, just thinking out loud, YMMV.

The 20%/80% theory from Susan describes promiscuity, not attractiveness.
On most college campuses, I’d guess at least 70% of girls are attractive enough…
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Ion:
After reading our exchanges, and keeping in mind the nature of this forum, I thought it would be a good idea to, as clearly and succinctly as I can, state my position with respect to what you’ve shared with me.

Many of the things you’ve said to me and others here, are quite familiar to me; many Black Women of your class, have often made the following arguments:

1. They tend to discuss lower class Black Men far more than would be usual

2. They tend to deride Black Men who, for whatever reason, select or otherwise pursue “Whiter” looking Black Women

There are other arguments, but the above two are the most often-repeated; and I think the reason why this is, is again an attempt to kind of sidestep some rather painful truths about themselves.

The fact of the matter is, that avoiding Pookie and Ray-Ray is very easy to do; indeed, while most Black Women of the class you describe live pretty much the whole of their lives in suburbia, the latter fellas tend to dwell in America’s inner cities. They simply are a non-factor, for the ladies you’re talking about.

Second, while it is true that IR couples featuing Black Men are higher than Black Women, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Black Men date and marry Black Women; the real problem is the fact – the often painful fact – that many of the Women you speak of, have found themselves “priced” out of the market – because their counterparts, for whatever reason, have not chosen to partner with them. This explains in part why so many of them are both mate and childless.

Ms. Brown Sugah comes from the same or very similar cohort as the Women you discuss. She comes from a solidly middle class, suburban background, and went to magnet schools, after which attended and graduated from top ten private unis. As you might well imagine, many of the ladies in her social circle, share her same story.

The big difference between them though, is that she is the only one who is mated; *all the rest are involuntarily single*. They are utterly miserable – and they mae no bones about reaching out to her to brn her ear off about their lovelorn woes. In fact it’s gotten so bad, that Ms. Brown Sugah’s taken to no longer answering the phone, and has actually shut some of the out of her Facebook and Twitter. You see Ms. Ion, it ain’t just Brothas like me who want these “princesses” to kindly STFU – the dirty little secret is, *that there are lots of Women who want them to kindly STFU, too*.

All of these Women are attractive – one of them was a fashion model and has founded her own “diva” business – and yet, none of them can hang on to a Man if their lives depended on it. Simply put, they are way too high maintenence to be worth it.

In cities like NYC – where you are – the dirty little secret for good looking professional Brothas is simply, that it is far and away easier to get off the island of Manhattan and go out into the boroughs for fun – the Bronx for the Latinas, or out in Jamaica Queens for the Around The Way Girls, or down to Brooklyn for same. The Bougie Girls are finding themselves increasingly being left on the shelf. What they may offer on paper, is more than outweighed by the drama they bring to the table. And for all their real problems, Ratchets still know how to get er done – you won’t hear them saying things like “thus and so is beneath me”, etc. To be sure, the Educated Brothas ain’t gonna wife any of the Ratchets up; but they will more than do for a night or a weekend of drama free fun. Men are a lot more willing to “settle” sexually than many Women understand or admit, especially the ladies you’re fond of discussing.

So again, while I hear what you’re saying, in truth, nothing could be further from it. Pookie and Emily aren’t anywhere near the big problems many Bougie Girls would like them to be.

Instead, the problem lies a lot closer to home. And it starts in the mirror.

And I predict that we’ll begin to see this play itself out among White Americans, too. For example, do not for one second think that the Zachs of the world won’t hit up Staten Island or head over to Hoboken to party it up with some Jersey Girls if the “princess” thing gets too out of hand; if you doubt me, I’ve got a great bridge to sell you just off of Lower Manhattan. As Ms. Walsh has rightly observed, the ladies in your focus group do indeed need to hit the reset button; but I say that won’t happen, at least not anytime soon. Instead, we’re much more likely to see what I’ve described here – a fierce kind of “civil war” occuring between the Bougies and the Ratchets – with the latter winning.

Hope this makes things just a weebit clearer on my side of things.

O.
Travis

@Ana,
“Hubby and I agree with one definition of Alpha = Asshole. Beta = Not Asshole the men here don’t like it, but till proven otherwise that is the first word that comes to our minds.”

Not even true. My best friend from High School is alpha as hell. Varsity athlete, REALLY good looking guy, straight A student, popular, etc. Graduated from West Point and lead a Stryker division in Iraq. Married one of the most beautiful women I’ve ever met. He’s a natural leader of men. Alpha as hell. He’s also as pious as Jackie, an incredibly good person. Treats EVERYONE with respect and kindness, as long as they show him the same courtesy. He didn’t sleep around even though he had PLENTY of opportunity to do so. His number is one. His wife.
Alpha does not equal asshole. It can, but it doesn’t always….
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Walsh #1404:
“No sale.”

O: LOL. Unlike you, I’m not “selling” a product. I got out of Sales/Marketing because I got tired of lying to people for a living, many, many Moons ago.

What I’m saying has been deeply reserached and proofed by noted professionals in their respective fields.

Ignore it at your own peril.

O.
J

@Mike C

Just my opinion, but if a kid is putting in a solid effort, I think Boomer parents owe more than “hit the road kid, you are on your own”.

Additionally, because Boomers didn’t properly save for retirement….most have diddly squat saved up…they are and will continue to work much longer.

In our case, we have both retirement and college accounts. I did get some help from my own parents and felt obligated to pay that forward. What I don’t see from my sons is a fire in the gut to achieve. My older son has been labeled a gifted underachiever at every school he’s attended. He has no learning issues; he simply doesn’t do the work because it’s “whack off.” He doesn’t respond to incentives because he has no real needs. My younger son, whom I worry about much less than the older, achieves selectively. He excels at what he loves and has a good deal of drive when interested. I think he’ll do fine once he decides to. He also has a fairly big drive to be independent.

My older kid is more laid back and a bit passive-aggressive. I want him to see the consequences of his actions while he is still young enough to recover from failure. I can’t hold his head above water for him for the next 20 years and then abruptly withdraw that support by getting sick or dying. I see young adults in my community who’ll work at crappy jobs, travel, play, and then come home to mom and dad for help. I’m simply too old and too new to relative affluence to do that. I don’t have a couple of generations of wealth behind me or the anticipation of a big inheritance when parents or grandparents die. We have want we’ve earned and we won’t be getting more, which is not the situation of my kids’ peers and their families. I’m not going to spend my retirement money on useless degrees or an extra few years of college because a kid decides to fail a semester or two because “it’s whack.”
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. J #1412:
“And the difference in our anecdotal experience may rest on two things. First, we live in different arts of the country.”

O: Yes, I think this could indeed have something to do with it.

“Second, I’m seeing the working poor, not current welfare recipients. Not being on welfare does seem to force women to limit family size. There are stats that support a dropping birth rate in states that have “welfare to work” programs, but I’m reluctant to post stats from my own state as it would reveal my location.”

O: That’s fair. I have no problem repping my hometown/state, and while I hear what you’re saying, the fact of the matter is that there is a tremendous amount of overlap between the working poor and the welfare rolls, if by that one includes food stamps and the like (daycare subsidies, etc). Again, I’ve known such working poor/working class Women, and they have easily two or more kids. The Bougie Girls – who by all accounts could afford to go it alone? Zero.

“Weirdly, I just tried to google average family size of black single mothers and found no info other than the widely quoted 72% illegitimacy rate which is not what I was looking for. Maybe I’ll do more digging if I have time.”

O: Looking forward to it. I’ll freely admit that mine is not an empirical observation, but my sense of things is that it is indeed the lower Black classes (and the same can be said for Hispanic and even Whie btw) who are doing the heavy lifting of bringing on the next generation of Black America. Both Banks and Robinson have discussed in their respective works.

O.
VD

I’ve witnessed women swoon as a man with a baby in a Snugli walked by. One time, a guy kissed the top of his daughter’s head and the young women I was with said, “OMG, OMG, that’s what I want.” They were practically panting, even though he was average looking. It depends on the context. These women would not look twice at him in a bar, but found his dad behavior extremely attractive. Sexy? Not exactly, but something close.

I understand what you mean and I have heard this from other women, but speaking as a father, a former guy on stage, and visibly fit man, I have never encountered a single woman who wanted to have sex with me because I was taking care of children in the park or anywhere else. I’ve never even been approached in that context. On the other hand, I have had many women come up to me and openly express lust while squeezing my arms or pectorals in reaction to simply seeing me in a t-shirt. I have also had women offer themselves to me when I was either going on or coming off stage.

So, I am extremely dubious that any woman, anywhere, is actually sexually stimulated by seeing a man with one or more children. I suspect that those “panting” women would have recoiled in horror had the man for whom they were nominally panting approached them and suggested sex that afternoon. Again, I suggest the “extremely attractive” aspect here is related to relationships and LTR, not sex. There is a big difference between a woman engaging in a public swooning for the benefit of other women and literally soaking through her jeans because she genuinely wants sex with a man.

A hint can be seen with “that’s what I want” comment. It’s a status and aspirational thing, not a sex thing.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  There is a big difference between a woman engaging in a public swooning for the benefit of other women and literally soaking through her jeans because she genuinely wants sex with a man.
  
  A hint can be seen with “that’s what I want” comment. It’s a status and aspirational thing, not a sex thing.
  
  Yes, that’s what I was saying. There is a difference. And yet, the status thing is also often referred to as a panty wetter. IOW, a woman can feel a strong attraction and desire to know a man without becoming sexually aroused. This is probably heresy in Game circles, but it’s true.
  
  In fact, I think it’s fair to say that women generally don’t achieve sexual arousal to that degree (wetness) without physical stimulation and foreplay. For the record and benefit of guys reading here, allow me to say that this description is extremely hyperbolic. Strong sexual attraction is possible of course, but I think it’s fair to say that only a tiny fraction of men in the world generate this response in a large number of women.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

The 20%/80% theory from Susan describes promiscuity, not attractiveness.
On most college campuses, I’d guess at least 70% of girls are attractive enough…

True I meant the proportion of virgins and young men and women that don’t have sex on college while wanting it. I don’t remember the number though but they do exist and they are not solving their problem by dating each other. I’m trying to find the reasons why is that and I used the example of average men want hot women and average women want to be treated like hot women as one of the possible explanations.

Alpha does not equal asshole. It can, but it doesn’t always….

I keep hearing about this happening I also keep hearing about UFO’s sightings… I would say that is better to assume that Alphas can get away with murder so why wouldn’t they? The same as hotties getting away with being bitches/crazy, true is not necessary but the chances are high enough to consider have it as default mode till proven otherwise, YMMV.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I keep hearing about this happening I also keep hearing about UFO’s sightings
  
  LOL
Desiderius

Obsidian,

“O: Desi, I have a heck of a lot of respect for your mind and the way you put things, but I gotta tell ya, a lot of times what you say goes right over my head, LOL. ”

Well, that’s why I like poetry, especially Dickinson. The initial experience you describe is a humbling* one, then one can come back and re-read it again later and get some good aha’s! out of it. Clarity is not the only attribute of effective communication.

“I can literally sense the interlocutor not wanting to actually grapple with the implications of what I’ve said”

Not wanting is not the same as not. A changing mind is a painful thing, and that pain will manifest in various ways. My students would sometimes got frustrated and say “this is confusing!” and I’d just say “well, that’s how the brain feels when its learning.” They REALLY liked that, not that I wasn’t also working in the back of my head on less confusing ways to help them master the material.

“You, Desi, are attempting to argue, that “pretty lies” have their place; perhaps they do. ”

No, not at all. I’m saying that the search for truth will at times encounter circuit-breakers that are there for a reason.

MikeC,

“IDK….when you boil this down to its essence, it sure reads to me like political correctness (different depending on the forum) trumps an honest, unbiased search for truth and accuracy no matter where it leads.”

A healthy society thrives on a dynamic, sympathetic interplay between liberals pushing for change and conservatives saying “Hey, hey, hey now, not so hasty, we understand that traditions are collections of changes that worked, so change is cool and all, let’s just make sure we understand why we do the old thing and whether the new thing does that better before we rush into anything, kk?”

The problem with PC is ironically that it is TOO conservative, or maybe conservatism done badly. It attempts to freeze all the norms that prevailed at a certain point in time (surprise, surprise, the Boomer heyday) for all time, no change allowed, no questions asked, dissenters will have motives interrogated.

* – “Sense shines with a double luster when it is set in humility. An able and yet humble man is a jewel worth a kingdom.”

– William Penn
J

@Obs

But in the meantime, that which Ms. Walsh finds “ugly” about Ms. Kardashian, Black Men find her to be the epitome of beauty;

Yeah, I’d someone to explain that to me. As a young woman, I looked a lot like Kim without her butt implants and the glam make-up, but I lacked her popularity. Was it the higher IQ that did me in or the lack of a sex tape? Should I have let somone pee on me? Where’s my TV show and millions of bucks?

As to your post on happy marriages, a 50% divorce rate means a 50% stay together rate. Probably more actually, because that stat is not arrived at my comparing the number of people who have ever married with those who have ever divorced. It is arrived at by comparing the number of marriages in a given year with the number of divorces. If fewer people marry and more divorce in any given year, which is an artifact of a lower birth rate and an aging population, the rate goes up. That is often misinterpreted as meaning that the chances of any given couple divorcing is 50%.

At any rate, I’d assume that a good number of people who stay together do communicate well and regularly. I also wouldn’t necessarily assume that everyone who is single is having the lovely time that you describe having with Ms. Brown Sugah. I don’t recall dating as being uniformly that way. For every guy I really hit it off with, there were many dud dates. When I found a guy I could relate to, I married him.

As to the “lily white” suburbs, my current neighborhood is the most diverse place that I’ve ever lived, even considering that I grew up in a white working class that was separated from the ‘hood by a narrow band of barrio. Loads of NAMs, loads of Jews and other white ethnics, some blacks and Hispanics, and a few WASPs. The face of affluence in American is far less lily white than you think.
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Susan

Re: Condemning male sexuality in the culture:

1. Campus take back the night events
2. College freshman orientation
3. Military sexual harassment training
4. Fortune 1000 sexual harassment training

All of the above have in my experience and that reported by others has a “men
bad” focus. Given #3 is uniform and the others are generally bought from one
of a handful of organizations I think that evidence is sufficient to read them
as generally anti-male.

James Bond is, in fact, a celebrated guy who can lay anything. However,
Barney in How I Met Your Mother is not the main character. He is,
however, an asshole lawyer as well as the perfect PUA. In the episodes I’ve
seen, however, he’s less a hero to look up to than that one friend you have
who you know isn’t a good person but you like anyway. That is hardly an
endorsement in my opinion.

Let’s look at some other guys who can get some anywhere in popular culture.
An entire plot line of season four of Buffy concerned our feminist hero being
used for a hookup by a PUA (then again, sex in the Buffyverse is alway
punished). Jordan Catalan in my so called life is a bad boy trying to push
women into sex. Although, to the credit of the writers of that show he is
written as a warning (the episode where Angela tries to get just one adult
to tell her “no, don’t have sex” (she gets variations on “it’s an important
choice and if you do use protection” instead) is, to me, still a powerful
indictment of how we are raising our children nearly 20 years later).

I guess my observations of it are more from legal and corporate culture than
popular culture, but trust me, men are taught early and often their sexuality
is evil and a threat to all women. You can say that is just the extreme
feminists talking but when they have serious gatekeeper effects on jobs and
education by their talking they matter more than milder women who lack that
power.

Female narcissism has sharply increased. The default female
attitude towards mating is one of princess entitlement. Concern with ME has
crowded concern for others, i.e. empathy.

Of the things you listed I think this is by far the most important because it
is the one most likely to also affect non-promiscuous women. Women as diverse
as Kate Bolick, Lori Gottlieb, and other authors of “where are all the good
men” articles and books as well as their less famous sisters were not betrayed
by their promiscuity (most wouldn’t be considered promiscuous except by the
strictest N > 1 = slut types) but by their princessing.

Princessing, much more than promiscuity, seems to be driven by immaturity.
Both sexes are less mature now days (see above “adulthood begins at 35″)
comment, but women seem to have regressed more for some reason.
Ted D

Desiderius – “Teaching (preaching is a fancy word for teaching) can then take place within that environment. But a focus on the self and its own experiences/concerns is inimical to the effectiveness of the teaching (and even more so the preaching) act itself. My guess is that too much of that is how preaching got its (hopefully temporary) bad name.”

I’m very aware of the fact that I am a terrible teacher 90% of the time. I can teach very effectively if it is a subject I care a great deal about, and my “student” is very smart and a quick study. I have very little patience for having to repeat myself (despite my posts here LOL) and I get very frustrated if I show someone how to do something a few times and they still need help.

I’m not trying to become the teacher, because I know I’m not the man for that job. I’m hoping guys like yourself, DogSquat, Cooper, INTJ, and others will grab that torch and run with it. I am much better at “shock and awe” were I have the most effect. I can easily be loud and/or obnoxious, but more importantly people have difficulty ignoring me because I’m so stubborn and determined. I’m not trying to change minds based 0n my own thoughts and opinions, but I am trying to get people to at least SEE that there are other ideas out there, and perhaps they should look deeper.

I hope DogSquat gets back to blogging soon. (and that everything is indeed OK for him personally) The only place I feel OK sending guys I know is MMSL because of the harshness of the regulars at the other ‘sphere sites I know of. I think the ‘sphere could use a site with the depth of knowledge and discussion as ollor’s, but without the negative attitude and harsh treatment. I’ve thought about blogging and even tried briefly, but the problem is the same in regards to why I’m a lousy teacher. Besides, I don’t feel comfortable giving advice in general, and only went down that path here with a few guys because I got the impression that we were of very similar mindset. And even then I tried my best to point out that they should find their own truths.

There are some glimmers of hope in the ‘sphere, and I’m reading a few newer sites with interest to see how they position themselves. Just one or two sites that are pro-man but NOT anti-women would be a huge boon to the cause IMO, but it is a tough place to stand as a blogger. The Feminists will hate you for misogyny, and the MRA guys will hate you for being soft on the feminists/”womynz”.

I may try to make myself sparse around these parts for awhile. I’m starting to get the impression that I’m being seen more and more as the enemy, which isn’t my intent. As Susan put it, I must be doing something wrong. I suppose it is my same old issue: expecting women in general to read what I write and think about it logically without taking it personally or getting emotional about it. I certainly never intend to hurt people personally, but I guess there is always collateral damage in a “shock and awe” campaign. It doesn’t help that my usual approach to ‘teaching a lesson’ comes from my Catholic upbringing.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  I may try to make myself sparse around these parts for awhile. I’m starting to get the impression that I’m being seen more and more as the enemy, which isn’t my intent.
  
  You could never be the enemy, you’re too good a man for that. Same with your brothers in combat, Escoffier and Mike C.
  
  I confess I am very weary of covering the same territory all the time. Add in the new commenters, who usually show up asking me what female hypergamy is or why women don’t like good guys. But I recognize that it’s part of the gig and I choose it. I have no business blaming anyone else, and I can always choose not to respond. (I resolve to do this sometimes, but can never quite pull it off.)
  
  That said, I want everyone’s voices to be heard, and Desiderius was right – this thread took place in the boys’ locker room. It’s important to recognize that the sexes have different communication styles. It was very apparent when I was genuinely repeatedly offended by some of the things you guys said, and yet you all seemed surprised I was taking things personally!
  
  Anyway, if you do take a break, don’t stay away too long, we enjoy your commentary, your intellectual curiosity and your humor.
J

I understand what you mean and I have heard this from other women, but speaking as a father, a former guy on stage, and visibly fit man, I have never encountered a single woman who wanted to have sex with me because I was taking care of children in the park or anywhere else.

Because your unavailable, not unattractive. Few women are brazen enough to approach a man who is with his kids.
J

my sense of things is that it is indeed the lower Black classes (and the same can be said for Hispanic and even White btw) who are doing the heavy lifting of bringing on the next generation of Black America

Off the top of my head, I think that the Hispanic birthrate is higher than both the black and white birthrates and that even it is dropping with assimilation and upward mobility. Hell, even the Muslim birth rate drops with assimilation and upward mobility.
Desiderius

“I don’t know what that means.”

Political correctness attempts to correct for the historical privileging of straight WASP males, and depending on the context, females (international students/minorities/non-heteros usually will outrank hetero WASP females). It has been taken to dehumanizing lengths.
Desiderius

Susan,

“Since his family generously donates to Harvard, the professor was asked to take one for the team, a fave expression of yours as I recall.”

To be clear for a change, I’m on her team. His can go straight to hell.
Travis

“Both sexes are less mature now days (see above “adulthood begins at 35″)
comment, but women seem to have regressed more for some reason.”

Just in case anyone is interested, this was an excellent book and went a long way towards explaining the extended adolescence in young adults that seems so prevalent….

http://www.amazon.com/Consumed-Markets-Children-Infantilize-Citizens/dp/0393049612

Really interesting stuff…
J

What?! You are not going to pay for their degrees on Marine Theology

An actual degree? maybe that would be OK. I’m at a point with older son that we’re trying to figure out what college he’ll drop out of. And it’s killing me. We’re talking about a kid who was literate in both English and a foreign language at 6 and who read all the available Harry Potter books by the end of first grade. All his close friends are getting huge scholarships to upper tier schools. He’s at least that bright and will probably end up at a local state school.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@VD
You are forgetting to control for “that man already is taking care of a child” effect on the attractiveness if you impregnate her, she will be competing with other woman’s kids for the resources, just a though.

Yeah, I’d someone to explain that to me. As a young woman, I looked a lot like Kim without her butt implants and the glam make-up, but I lacked her popularity. Was it the higher IQ that did me in or the lack of a sex tape? Should I have let somone pee on me? Where’s my TV show and millions of bucks?

Well first Kim is on TV it means more men are “exposed” to her beauty, second she is shown in the best possible light/make up/flattering clothes at all times and third and most important being a hottie is also feeling and thinking like one. Had you seen those old movies with the seductress? The body language, the voice, the way they move around they are alluring like a snake, the exude the promise of wonderful sex regardless if they deliver or not. Is an advanced form of girl game that not all of us can achieve hence why is so valuable when it appears, YMMV.

(then again, love in the Buffyverse is alway punished)

Fixed it for you…Damn Whedon.

I guess my observations of it are more from legal and corporate culture than popular culture, but trust me, men are taught early and often their sexuality is evil and a threat to all women. You can say that is just the extreme feminists talking but when they have serious gatekeeper effects on jobs and education by their talking they matter more than milder women who lack that power.

I have to cosign this one hubby and friends and my male coworkers get a lot of male sexuality shaming, is as bad as the “white guilt” indoctrination,YMMV.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

That is the question the timing If the study is to be beleived men are not waking up to their real options till is too late to connect with their female peers. I don’t know if you saw A beautiful mind there is this scene in a bar where John Nash and 3 colleagues see a group of 5 girls there is the prettiest one of course that all of them want to ask, but then he realizes something that if they all ask the pretty one their chances of making it are very low and the “ugly” ones won’t dance with them because they wouldn’t want to be left overs of their pretty friend while if they ask the ugly ones first they will feel flattered and all of them will end up dancing.
I do wonder if the female cohort of the 80% sees the effort and interest their male counterparts take on trying to chase hotties by the time they are done and decide to be realistic if they just don’t accept them for similar reasons. No man want Alpha’s left overs but I’m sure most women wouldn’t want hottie’s left over either, just thinking out loud, YMMV.

Or an alpha asshat (who’s also a STEM guy, which apparently need not be a contradiction) walks in: http://xkcd.com/182/
Desiderius

TedD,

“I may try to make myself sparse around these parts for awhile. I’m starting to get the impression that I’m being seen more and more as the enemy, which isn’t my intent. As Susan put it, I must be doing something wrong. I suppose it is my same old issue: expecting women in general to read what I write and think about it logically without taking it personally or getting emotional about it.”

Dude, don’t go there. You’re not the enemy, not close, nor are they ours’, but they’re not just being emotional (as if that’s always a bad thing) and taking things personally, they’re telling us something about how this conversation could work better. For what its worth, we have the same Click Here for HTMLGoodiesproblem, and I’m embarassed as hell at my inability to solve it. Cads aren’t the only flavor of coward.

On that note, way past time I got back to work.

As for preaching, I was talking to Escoffier when I said not to call what you were doing preaching. No knock on you.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Or an alpha asshat (who’s also a STEM guy, which apparently need not be a contradiction) walks in: http://xkcd.com/182/

I know that the movie dumbs down the whole theorem that is why I just mentioned the movie example as a social example of how the uglies perceive some of this situations. The comic is too funny tough, thanks for sharing.
INTJ

@ Mike C

IMO, the financial may be more important, and arguably more warranted. One could argue that collectively the Boomers are responsible for creating the overall economic mess the Gen Yers are graduating into.

It’s funny. I’m not doing what I want professionally and vocationally, but on some level I realize I am very, very lucky to have the job I do paying what it does. We have 2 openings in my department of a Fortune 500 company. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of resumes. The vast majority get a few second look and into the trash they go. If you graduated 2 years ago into this mess, and have done odd jobs to get by, the time gap without professional employment looks bad, and into the trash your resume goes. That’s the mentality of the hiring managers. They want the perfect candidate without a single visible wart of any kind, and previous job experience directly related to the position.

I would hate to be graduating from college now looking for professional employment. It is terrible out there. When I graduated in 1995 with my electrical engineering degree, it was a foregone conclusion I’d be graduating with a well paying job in hand.

Just my opinion, but if a kid is putting in a solid effort, I think Boomer parents owe more than “hit the road kid, you are on your own”.

This is why, despite being quite economically liberal, I support dismantling social security, and replacing it with support for the poor of all ages.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

I know that the movie dumbs down the whole theorem that is why I just mentioned the movie example as a social example of how the uglies perceive some of this situations. The comic is too funny tough, thanks for sharing.

Well, I’m being somewhat unfair when I describe Feynman as an alpha asshat. When talking about intellectual things, he tended to be an asshole (even compared to most INTJs). This was toned down a bit, but extended to a somewhat cocky and playful attitude when it came to everyday things.

Due to this natural game, he was always pretty successful with women. However, he did describe in one of his books how one couple once taught him asshole game (though it wasn’t called that at the time). Feynman tried it out, and saw that it worked amazingly well (even compared to Feynman’s usual success). But he didn’t like being an asshole to girls, and decided to go to the good old fashioned method of pedestalizing.
http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

@Ana

(then again, love in the Buffyverse is alway punished)

Fixed it for you…Damn Whedon.

I’m going to have to disagree.

Love is only punished AFTER sex occurs. The only exception I can remember would be Andrew and Jonathon, but that was unrequited love (Andrew for Jonathon) which even Andrew only admitted after killing Jonathon. Xander’s unrequited love for Buffy and Willow’s for Xander might also qualify (although they did make out breaking up both of their primary relationships).

Looking at the rest, thinks only go bad after sex:

Buffy/Angel (the iconic he goes bad after sex)
Buffy/Spike
Xander/Cordie
Willow/Oz
Buffy/Riley
Xander/Anya
Willow/Tara (the one thing I will never forgive Whedon for…not just her death but when it happens)

all happen post sex and to couples that were happy and trouble free pre-sex.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Love is only punished AFTER sex occurs. The only exception I can remember would be Andrew and Jonathon, but that was unrequited love (Andrew for Jonathon)

You forgot Fred and Wesley and Cordi and Angel
Also I wouldn’t consider Anya and Xander after sex because they did it a lot of times and nothing beyond their normal issues happened things went downhill after getting engaged, though. None of the kids ended up married BTW or having any kind of normal family/romantic life and Whedon did the same with Penny and Dr Horrible and I think he pulled this crap on Serenity (never watched it) but then I talk more about Whedonverse than just Buffyverse.
Even on the Avengers he makes sure for us to know that the character that died was seeing someone just to keep his trope alive…damn Whedon.
VD

The only place I feel OK sending guys I know is MMSL because of the harshness of the regulars at the other ‘sphere sites I know of.

Come, Ted, Alpha Game is all sweetness, light, and kittens. I like to think of it as a place where everyone can braid each other’s hair, metaphorically speaking. You even inspired today’s post there!

IOW, a woman can feel a strong attraction and desire to know a man without becoming sexually aroused. This is probably heresy in Game circles, but it’s true.

Sure she can. But that strong attraction and desire to know a man doesn’t mean she necessarily wants to have sex with him, which is the only thing the PUAs care about.

Strong sexual attraction is possible of course, but I think it’s fair to say that only a tiny fraction of men in the world generate this response in a large number of women.

I am a special, special snowflake.

You are forgetting to control for “that man already is taking care of a child” effect on the attractiveness if you impregnate her, she will be competing with other woman’s kids for the resources, just a thought

Not relevant. The whys and wherefores don’t matter here, the point is the one that Ted made earlier. She may think he’s the neatest, cutest thing since labradoodle puppies. She may be swooning and “awwwing” like she’s got Tourette’s. But she doesn’t want to impale herself on him. And that’s the primary point with which men are concerned.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Sure she can. But that strong attraction and desire to know a man doesn’t mean she necessarily wants to have sex with him, which is the only thing the PUAs care about.
  
  Good point, although if she feels that way early there’s a good chance she’ll want to have sex with him later. Of course, that means delayed gratification and that is definitely not PUA-approved.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Iggles #1409:
“To be kind I could say we’re talking past each other, but I doubt it. You just want to argue for the sake of appearing right..”

O: Oh, I’ve never denied being irascible.

“Interesting how you disregard the experiences of happily married and assert that you has a never married 40 something year old male know better about sustaining a happy marriage because you and your gf talk all night.”

O: What’s interesting is how you seem to delight in attempting to use my age, etc as a means of discrediting my argument. Let’s try this again:

1. Neither I nor *anyone else* needs to get married in order to get a loving, monogamous, deeply fulfilling relationship. This is a fact.

2. Marital rates has been on the steady decline for all groups in American life. Again, a fact.

3. I have never made any argument about what it took to sustain a happy marriage because
SMH.. Well, I’ll take your word that it’s good conversation but apparently not enough for you to commit to her for life.

“Sidenote (this is directed to no one in particular, so feel free to weigh in):”

O: OK…

“I think it’s disingenuous with unmarried couples try to assert that their relationship is “better” than “most marriages” because of A, B, or C.”

O: Since I’m the founder of the feast here, let me say outright that I haven’t made such an argument. What I have said was, and this was in response to those who deem me “damaged goods” as it were, that I’ve observed my relationships to be happier than several of the marriages I’ve observed. I said nothing about “most” marriages, and in truth I have no problem with anyone choosing to marry; on the other hand, there does indeed appear to be quite a few folks who have a problem with me choosing *not* to marry.

Curious.

“Yes, people get divorce and marriages fall apart but it’s a different animal than a LTR or cohabitation because of the whole ‘committing to one another for life’ component So, a marriage is a LTR but a LTR is not marriage. I feel this distinction needs to be highlighted.”

O: Given the fact that half of all marriages end in divorce to begin with? A “distinction” with not much of a difference.

“Funny how some people say marriage is “just a piece a paper” but balking to marry their partners. If it truly doesn’t matter to you, than why wouldn’t you get married?”

O: I’ve never claimed this, but what I will say is that among my reasons for not marrying, are indeed deeply ideological ones. For example, I have huge problems with the idea that I, as a husband, have NO say in whether a life I helped create makes it to see this world. Now to be sure, Women have the right to do whatever with their bodies; and I have the right to “opt in” or “opt out” of that arrangement.

I choose the latter. I will not be a second class citizen in my own home.

#1410:
“This is bunk.”

O: I see it’s starting to catch on…

“A good chunk of people who live the hood have jobs and go to work everyday, O.”

O: No doubt; but that wasn’t in dispute. What was in dispute was the notion that solidly middle to UMC Black Women were somehow forced to change their coiffes in order to disuade good-for-nothing Black Men who are the dregs of the earth from hitting on them. Such a notion is fallacious. a quick perusal of the Census data bears this out – middle class Black folk tend to live among middle class Black folk; and Pookie and Ray-Ray tend to live among, well, Pookie and Ray-Ray. A convenient scapegoat, but not quite the truth.

“I’d rather not get into specifics of where I’m located, but my grandma still lives in the hood and we lived there a couple of years too. And I grew up in a working class majority brown/black neighborhood. Every morning on the way to school there were plenty of black and brown professionals going to work. I’ve seen it with my own eyes and plenty of woman of color with professional jobs live in “poor”/working class neighborhoods.”

O: Again, simple Census data would disagree with you; remember, they don’t call it “Black Flight” for nothing…

“Maybe the class divide is different in other places, but working in an office doesn’t mean you moved on up like the Jeffersons.”

O: Actually, that’s *precisely what it means* – per the tv sitcom example you specifically cited…

“Especially unmarried women, many live with family members despite having enough to get their own apartment — instead they help contribute to the household. And yes, these women get hollered at by street thugs as the walk home from the train!”

O: No one told them to take jobs in the inner cities. They can just as easily work out in the burbs where indeed many of the corporate jobs are now located anyways. Cry me a river.

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

But she doesn’t want to impale herself on him. And that’s the primary point with which men are concerned.

I get the point, but maybe she does want to impale herself on it, but wouldn’t do it. I really think the whole “dropping panties at the drop of a hat for that special man” fantasy is as fantasy as the woman that wants the Alpha all for herself when he can bang any woman in near vicinity. If she drops her panties that fast for you is just as likely she did it before and she will do it again. Isn’t that why most men don’t want to wife up sluts?
So the good girl that is wetting her panties for a guy for whatever reason won’t open her legs to that guy just because of the wetness, YMMV.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. J #1424:
“Yeah, I’d someone to explain that to me. As a young woman, I looked a lot like Kim without her butt implants and the glam make-up, but I lacked her popularity. Was it the higher IQ that did me in or the lack of a sex tape? Should I have let somone pee on me? Where’s my TV show and millions of bucks?”

O: LOL. Well, the aforementioned “lacks” on your part would help. But the simple truth of the matter is, that *when Black Men are in a position to choose*, they tend to choose White(r) looking Black Women, ala Rhinanna, Mariah Carey, Alicia Keys, Beyonce’, that sort of thing. When they do go more straightahead “non-Black” they tend to want her to retain the one undeniable West African attribute:

The Badunkadunk. Indeed, for many Black Men, it is literally the best of both worlds, which is why, for example, Latinas from say, Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic have such appeal. Nikki Minaj, who sports a 26″ waist and 45″ hips, also comes to mind. No amount of shaming the Brothas is gonna change their minds on this, and yes, that can and will mean that a number of Sistas will be left out. But that’s how it is anywhere one goes in terms of what attributes each sex/culture finds attractive. Such is life.

“As to your post on happy marriages, a 50% divorce rate means a 50% stay together rate. Probably more actually, because that stat is not arrived at my comparing the number of people who have ever married with those who have ever divorced. It is arrived at by comparing the number of marriages in a given year with the number of divorces. If fewer people marry and more divorce in any given year, which is an artifact of a lower birth rate and an aging population, the rate goes up. That is often misinterpreted as meaning that the chances of any given couple divorcing is 50%.”

O: That’s fine; what cannot be denied, however one wishes to slice it, is the fact that marriage has changed, and not always for the better. More people are going it alone in our time, and my guess is that this trend is likely to continue for a number of reasons (among them ones you and Ms. Walsh cited about older couples not wanting to get hitched for fear of losing bennies and/or complicating probate and will issues, etc.).

“At any rate, I’d assume that a good number of people who stay together do communicate well and regularly. I also wouldn’t necessarily assume that everyone who is single is having the lovely time that you describe having with Ms. Brown Sugah. I don’t recall dating as being uniformly that way. For every guy I really hit it off with, there were many dud dates. When I found a guy I could relate to, I married him.”

O: Sure; without a doubt there are many married couples who do well together, and I’d be the first to say so. But the idea that I can’t live a fulfilling life on my terms, is ridiculous – and I notice that this always tends to come from the ladies, never the fellas. That Red Pill is a powerful drug…

“As to the “lily white” suburbs, my current neighborhood is the most diverse place that I’ve ever lived, even considering that I grew up in a white working class that was separated from the ‘hood by a narrow band of barrio. Loads of NAMs, loads of Jews and other white ethnics, some blacks and Hispanics, and a few WASPs. The face of affluence in American is far less lily white than you think.”

O: Oh, I have some idea. Sure, Indians (from the country), Asians and Jews do indeed factor into the mix, as do some Black and Hispanic folk; but let’s not fool ourselves here – when it comes to sheer out and out UMCness, White folk still do very much lead the pack, and that doesn’t look to be changing anytime soon – especially in light of the poor state of the country over the past decade or so.

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

“Since his family generously donates to Harvard, the professor was asked to take one for the team”….and Harvard’s endowment is what? (googles)….$32 billion. Probably more than the GDP of some countries. And in order to get a little more, they are willing to mistreat a (presumably) valued employee, violate their own stated principles, and arguably also to violate U.S. law.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @david foster
  
  Very few Bostonians don’t hate Harvard. (Just those who went there.) I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve heard like this one, or other shady practices they’ve indulged in. I saw their admissions process up close and concluded that Harvard is a whore.
  
  I must admit, though, that the HBS grads in my women’s group boast an alumni network and offerings that Wharton can’t begin to match.
Mike C

But she doesn’t want to impale herself on him. And that’s the primary point with which men are concerned.

Hmmmmm…..

It finally dawned on me…..we’ve been going round and round and round and round and round about female “attraction triggers”. From a male POV, for me to say I find a woman “attractive” means on some basic level “Yeah, I’d like to bang her/stick it in her”. So I naturally assumed being “attracted” to a man means on some level “Yeah, I’d like to ride his c*ck”. Clearly, attraction for many of the women means something completely different. So I think there is “attractiveness” and “sexual attractiveness”. The latter means some desire to have sex with whereas the former is the more catch-all for all this other stuff. I’d say probably 99% of the guys are primarily concerned with what are the specific triggers for just sexual attractiveness, not the more general catch-all attractiveness.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  Clearly, attraction for many of the women means something completely different. So I think there is “attractiveness” and “sexual attractiveness”. The latter means some desire to have sex with whereas the former is the more catch-all for all this other stuff. I’d say probably 99% of the guys are primarily concerned with what are the specific triggers for just sexual attractiveness, not the more general catch-all attractiveness.
  
  This sums it up beautifully, I think. I could meet a really cute guy at a party and want to talk with him, flirt, etc. without having a single thought about getting into his pants! Most women want to have sex with a “favored male” – and favor is not bestowed instantaneously. I think some women are more like males in this way – they see someone are want to jump his bones right away. But for most women the emotional intimacy piece is at least a consideration.
  
  I think it is fair to say that women are sexually attracted to alpha traits, but can still be attracted to beta traits. Additionally, as I said earlier, there are some traits that have a bit of each, e.g. ambition and industriousness.
modernguy

Let’s just set everything out clearly:

1. The first step is to be attractive. No man wants an ugly or fat girl. No girl wants a loser.

2. Once you have that, your goal determines your secondary, beta, traits.

No man worth his alpha bona fides is going to do all that work to attract a former slut, at least not to commit to her. A slut is a girl who at any time has been interested in anything other than a permanent committed relationship. If you’re fun-fucking, or have fun-fucked, you’re a slut. A girl who was looking for a permanent committed relationship, and put out thinking it would help, but got dumped later, is, or was stupid. In those cases sometimes exceptions can be made if she compensates in other ways.

Sometimes beta and alpha traits can complement each other so that if your alpha traits aren’t too good but you signal that you’re willing to commit, some girls will settle for that (and make you believe that that’s what they wanted all along, when in reality they will always take more alpha if they can get it). But in that case your position is weak and you’re probably getting a former slut who’s been burned too many times. You also risk looking like a fool every time a bigger alpha comes along and your woman starts swooning. If you’re alpha enough, you can take your pick and decide who to commit to based on who deserves it instead of hoping that a girl is going to take your weakness as quid pro quo for her sluttiness.

The bottom line is that as a man, it’s not to your advantage to follow Susan’s advice and try to become the perfect man because there’s precious little to hope for if you’re looking for a good woman.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

LOL

I made a funny again! SWEET!
Escoffier

Mike C, supposing we accept that distinction, general attractiveness v. sexual attractiveness. The underlying problem remains, doesn’t it?

There will always be a larger pool of men who are generally attractive than the pool of those who are sexually attractive. The pool of men who are both will be the smallest pool.

For men in pool #1, life can be very frustrating.
modernguy

One time, a guy kissed the top of his daughter’s head and the young women I was with said, “OMG, OMG, that’s what I want.” They were practically panting, even though he was average looking. It depends on the context. These women would not look twice at him in a bar, but found his dad behavior extremely attractive. Sexy? Not exactly, but something close.

So what? Does this inform their behaviour today? No. Tonight they’re hittin’ up the club and going home with a douche, ’cause he’s got big muscles and slaps their ass. The other thing can wait, until they’re 30 and done “having fun”.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So what? Does this inform their behaviour today? No. Tonight they’re hittin’ up the club and going home with a douche, ’cause he’s got big muscles and slaps their ass. The other thing can wait, until they’re 30 and done “having fun”.
  
  You are incorrect. I was out to brunch with three young women when this happened. Two are in LTRs with definite beta types (confident, though, so higher beta I guess) and the other is single but does not have a history of the behavior you describe. BTW, these women are 24 and 25, and they’re all prepared to commit to marriage for the right man.
Mike C

I really think the whole “dropping panties at the drop of a hat for that special man” fantasy is as fantasy as the woman that wants the Alpha all for herself when he can bang any woman in near vicinity. If she drops her panties that fast for you is just as likely she did it before and she will do it again. Isn’t that why most men don’t want to wife up sluts?

So the good girl that is wetting her panties for a guy for whatever reason won’t open her legs to that guy just because of the wetness, YMMV.

I’m a believer there is some validity to stereotypes and cliches because if there was absolutely ZERO, they wouldn’t exist in the first place. There is that old cliched expression you’ll hear from women “I knew I was going to sleep with him in the first 10 seconds, or first minute, or whatever”.

So I think there does exist something in perhaps at least *some* women where that intense SEXUAL attraction is generated pretty much instantaneously just like it would for a guy with a hot 22-year old standing in front of him with her cleavage hanging out. Perhaps different women are wired differently in this regard and only the more “sluttier” 20% have this particular wiring….I really don’t know. I’m guessing many of the female commenters here don’t have this particular wiring for sexual attractiveness.

This could make an interesting poll question for the active female commenters here. Have you ever met a man and pretty much within first meeting and a minute of interaction felt a desire to have sex with him
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Have you ever met a man and pretty much within first meeting and a minute of interaction felt a desire to have sex with him
  
  No. The first time I laid eyes on my husband I was struck by how attractive he was. I noticed his hair, his glasses, and the gentleness of his features, including the crow’s feet around his eyes. He had long, thin wrists and a vintage watch on. He looked very New Englandy to me, the antithesis of the surfer dudes I’d lived near until then. I immediately had romantic notions about him, but for a long time, they never went beyond an imagined kiss. That’s the most attracted I’ve ever been at first sighting, and there was no panty involvement whatsoever.
Travis

@Ana,
“I keep hearing about this happening I also keep hearing about UFO’s sightings”

It’s a pretty sad day when you consider someone with enough character to do the right thing, even though they would suffer no consequences for doing the wrong thing, to be as rare as a UFO sighting.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Clearly, attraction for many of the women means something completely different. So I think there is “attractiveness” and “sexual attractiveness”.

Women’s feelings are strong and we use it to relate to the world in many many ways. Is interesting how VD mentions that it doesn’t matter if she is attracted or not unless she wants to bang it when he mentioned the study of the women wetting her panties upon watching animals doing it. Can you imagine if women have to bang everything that made their panties wet? The disconnect between vagina and brain is to make sure that we need something more than moist to pick a bang. Even Mystery method asks for men to bring some comfort after the attraction is established in order to close the deal and I keep mentioning that some women can work the other way around with comfort leading the attraction, not sure how many of them and I’m sure not many are on USA but I seen it happening many times, so its not just the panty wetter effect to bed a woman unless she is a Nympho and all she need is an erect penis, YMMV.
Passer_By

@kathy
“Fat pregnant wives are very unappealing… I guess.”

A lot of guys (present company included) find their pregnant wives pretty hot. Maybe that’s the ultimate cad/dad marker, no?

Some guys are so extreme that way that they find any pregnant woman hot (there are websites for it), but so far as I can tell only a small subset of men feel that way about women that they didn’t impregnant.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. J:
Wrt your eldest son: very interesting insights there, and which goes to explain, I think, why you’re here at HUS. Thanks.

Sounds like a very, to put it mildly, interesting situation. I read your comment where he said that adulthood didn’t begin around 35 or words to that effect; while I can see what he’s saying, it’s also kinda alien too in that I’ve been on my own since I was 18.

Anyway, very thought-provoking stuff, especially in light of our recent exchanges on the real downsides – and costs – of freedom…

O.
Ted D

Susan – “That said, I want everyone’s voices to be heard, and Desiderius was right – this thread took place in the boys’ locker room. It’s important to recognize that the sexes have different communication styles. It was very apparent when I was genuinely repeatedly offended by some of the things you guys said, and yet you all seemed surprised I was taking things personally!”

My primary concern is that I offended you, and more than likely many other female readers/regulars. I know I’m rather blunt, but I still find myself wondering exactly what I said to upset someone on a regular basis. I guess I just don’t pull punches when it comes to discussing things, and since I generally don’t have good empathy, I routinely say rather insensitive things. The thing is, even when I’m examining my own behavior I follow the same mental process, which is to say I don’t sugar coat things for myself any more than I do for the rest of the world.

And honestly, I have NO IDEA what you and others mean about this taking place in the boy’s locker room. Other than getting a bit emotional in my last few posts (anger and frustration are the emotions I have the hardest time wrangling, but I’m getting better…) I don’t believe I wrote anything differently than I usually do. Maybe I was a contributor to that impression, but it wasn’t in any way shape or form something I was consciously doing. And, at the end of the day, that may very well be much of my “communication” problem in a nutshell. I don’t have different styles of communicating, I either communicate with you or I don’t. The only thing I associate with “locker room talk” is the type of trash I remember the jocks in my HS talking on the women they regularly P & D’ed, and I surely hope no one feels like I’m trying to sling that same mud.

VD – I saw that post and its no surprise I agree 100%. I read Alpha Game through Google Reader, but I haven’t been by to read the comments in some time. In fact, the last time I actually visited was during one of the roughest patches of Red Pill indigestion I had, so it is distinctly possible I have a bad memory of the atmosphere there. I have to say though, if you have kittens, I probably won’t stick around long. I am very much a dog kinda guy.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  And honestly, I have NO IDEA what you and others mean about this taking place in the boy’s locker room
  
  That’s just a lame joke to say that it was all guys, plus me and Anacaona as my wing.
Escoffier

Here’s another way to look at it. For most men, his initial impression upon meeting a new woman will be to sort her into one of three piles: 1) Attractive, would sleep with her right away and if her personality pans out, would consider for a girlfriend; 2) not attractive/I’m just not interested, but she seems cool so maybe we could be friends; 3) no interest in any relationship whatsoever.

Women sort men more similarly, with some adjustments. 1) Attractive, would welcome being purused by him, could imagine having him as a BF. 2) No initial spark but not repulsive; LJBF but who knows, something might develop. 3) No chance in hell of anything romantic.

Would the gals say that is accurate?

In any case, for men, if a woman meets some minimal standard of attractiveness, she goes in category 1. The pool in category 1 for the average man is MUCH higher than it is for the average woman. Someone said above, re: college campuses, that about 70% of the women meet that basic threshold for most guys. That sounds reasonable.

But for women the % in catagory 1 is much lower. We talked in some thread a while ago about the OK Cupid analysis which showed that women on the side rated 80% of men as unattractive. Several of the ladies here–reasonable ladies–said that, yeah, that’s about what they experience IRL, maybe 20% of the men they see pass the initial attraction test.

So you can see what a massive disadvantage this is for men generally. That’s not to say that it’s impossible for the 80% ever to get a girl. But the 20% has a massive disadvantage that outweighs, by a lot, any conceivable analagous advantage that female 8s, 9s and 10s may have. What it means for that 80% is that they have to overcome this intitial “turn off” factor, or at least the complete lack of any induced spark. They begin the game, as it were, with a five-run deficit and the bases empty.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  So you can see what a massive disadvantage this is for men generally. That’s not to say that it’s impossible for the 80% ever to get a girl. But the 20% has a massive disadvantage that outweighs, by a lot, any conceivable analagous advantage that female 8s, 9s and 10s may have
  
  Based on looks alone, yes. But don’t forget that as women, that’s all we’ve got. We’re either in the yes or no pile based on your initial assessment of our looks.
  
  As men you have many other traits you can display that trigger attraction. That’s why the OK Cupid finding is interesting but doesn’t tell the whole story. In a contest of photos, women have the advantage. Over time, it evens out. For most of us, attraction can and does develop over time.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

This could make an interesting poll question for the active female commenters here. Have you ever met a man and pretty much within first meeting and a minute of interaction felt a desire to have sex with him

You need to make it two questions. Have the desire and actually had sex with him. I don’t think I had been in this situation I felt instant attraction but is more like “This guy makes me hot I want to know more about him” than “this guy makes me hot I want him inside me” I never considered even having sex with them till I knew more about him, I can’t imagine giving it up to a perfect stranger. I don’t know any woman that has frankly and this includes America now. Even the most hypergamic woman I know here, married 7 times, never gave it up right away.

It’s a pretty sad day when you consider someone with enough character to do the right thing, even though they would suffer no consequences for doing the wrong thing, to be as rare as a UFO sighting.

It is sad. But is nevertheless the truth. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely not in all but in most cases. Sexual power is not an exception, YMMV.
Escoffier

So many stupid typos in the above, sorry.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

@ Anaconda

“It’s too bad people are ignoring the older thinkers. They’ve already covered “What is a man?” and “What is a woman?””

“What is a Man: 3000 Years of Wisdom” by Waller Newell.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Women sort men more similarly, with some adjustments. 1) Attractive, would welcome being purused by him, could imagine having him as a BF. 2) No initial spark but not repulsive; LJBF but who knows, something might develop. 3) No chance in hell of anything romantic.

Personally every person I know man and woman is a potential friend. I don’t see people in romantic interactions till we know them for a while or/if they present themselves interested. I don’t have first impressions I mostly adding layers and studying people on the “I wonder what goes on between their ears” more than “I wonder what goes on between their legs”.
Is interesting that in spite of licking sex and porn and romance I don’t obsess over it, unless I’m horny of course and marriage kinds of solved that part, thank goodness.
Iggles

O: Oh, I’ve never denied being irascible.

Fair enough. It’s good that you recognize this about yourself.

O: What’s interesting is how you seem to delight in attempting to use my age, etc as a means of discrediting my argument.

I point out that you are a 40 year old unmarried male because I think it’s bear repeating when you declare what you feel single/unmarried women are doing wrong in this SMP. I think there’s value is listening to the married folks on what makes their relationships successful and how they met/courted/dated their husbands & wives.

You’re entitled to your opinions as well (as we all are) but quite frankly I got to consider the source. Why would I listen equally to financial advice from a broke banker versus a wealthy one? I’m gonna think the the wealthy banker has a leg up since he successful put his advice into use and has obtained what I want to! This same principle works for me when considering relationship advice!

1. Neither I nor *anyone else* needs to get married in order to get a loving, monogamous, deeply fulfilling relationship. This is a fact.

Okay.

Never argued against this.

2. Marital rates has been on the steady decline for all groups in American life. Again, a fact.

Okay.

Not seeing what this have to do with #1, but again I agree. Never argued against this.

3. I have never made any argument about what it took to sustain a happy marriage because
SMH.. Well, I’ll take your word that it’s good conversation but apparently not enough for you to commit to her for life.

Not sure if you finished your full thought here..

LTRs are great. Personally I prefer LTRs over STRs and hellish feat of dating. (As an introvert I never found it fun!)
But I still contend that LTRs are a different animal than marriage. The “committing for life” thing is what sets it apart — with divorce possible — you and your spouse are building a life together. It’s simply not done in the same way in LTRs. Even with cohabitation, it’s a lesser commitment. I say this as someone who has lived with a partner before.

“I think it’s disingenuous with unmarried couples try to assert that their relationship is “better” than “most marriages” because of A, B, or C.”

O: Since I’m the founder of the feast here, let me say outright that I haven’t made such an argument. What I have said was, and this was in response to those who deem me “damaged goods” as it were, that I’ve observed my relationships to be happier than several of the marriages I’ve observed.

Wasn’t talking about you specifically, O, which is why I tried to open it up.

But I have observed many folks who say they don’t want to get married get up in arms about how their relationship is just as committed as marriage, and/or better than most etc. It seems like they have a chip on their shoulder about it. It’s too bad because it’s like they’re refuting what they see with both eyes. It’s like a feminist dismissing gender differences IMO.. There is a difference between LTRs and marriage. Full stop. Both are committed relationships, but they are not the same. The level of commitment is what separates them.

O: Given the fact that half of all marriages end in divorce to begin with? A “distinction” with not much of a difference.

The divorce rate differ along SES lines. As someone mentioned upthread the 50% statistic is not accurate… For college educated folks the divorce rate for 1st time marriage is 19%. Not bad odds at all

O: I’ve never claimed this, but what I will say is that among my reasons for not marrying, are indeed deeply ideological ones. For example, I have huge problems with the idea that I, as a husband, have NO say in whether a life I helped create makes it to see this world. Now to be sure, Women have the right to do whatever with their bodies; and I have the right to “opt in” or “opt out” of that arrangement.

I choose the latter. I will not be a second class citizen in my own home.

And that’s your right.

If that’s how you feel, go do you! It’s your life, man.

My issue is your tone when giving advice to single ladies who want marriage. Many times it sounds like you believe these women are not relationship worthy and/or unattractive and that’s the sole reason why they are without a partner. It may not be what you intend, but that’s how it comes off.

I believe it’s more complex. Yes, a number of these women are sabotaging their chances (just as plenty of single men sabotage themselves unknowingly with their awkward approach towards women), however a woman can have everything going for her and still be single. Finding the right person involves a bit of luck, and we are lucky if we’ve found real love. There’s more to picture, so I think more advice is needed than your standard line of “improve your appearance; lower your standards”.
(No doubt that will land you somebody but that’s a poor substitute a true compatible mate — and such “relationships” are usually destined to fail)
http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com/ Bellita

@MikeC
Have you ever met a man and pretty much within first meeting and a minute of interaction felt a desire to have sex with him?

Does the desire to have a romantic relationship with him count?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Thanks Bob!
Passer_By

@escoffier
“For most men, his initial impression upon meeting a new woman will be to sort her into one of three piles: 1) Attractive, would sleep with her right away and if her personality pans out, would consider for a girlfriend; 2) not attractive/I’m just not interested, but she seems cool so maybe we could be friends; 3) no interest in any relationship whatsoever.”

I disagree. For most men, there are many women they would sleep with right away but would not likely consider for a girlfriend regardless of personality. Obviously, it’s a bit of a sliding scale, and if her personality turns out out to be the greatest ever, it might change. But my point is that the threshold looks for sleeping with someone is less than that for long term commitment.
http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

Susan, that’s really sad that HBS admin would cave in to that stuff. Perhaps Wharton and Stanford should make this a case study opportunity; I know Stanford had written up an old one one called “The Woman Problem at HBS” that was about sexual harassment complaints against HBS professors who cavalierly used “provocative, sexually charged language” when describing leveraged buy-outs and the like, and against male students who were passing around sexy notes (of course, both men and women were doing it).

Here is a taste: http://www.inc.com/articles/1998/04/13053.html

These days they just use IM.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @BB
  
  There’s a Harvard cheating scandal right now, and reading between the lines, it’s clear that the professor is a bonehead who gave very unclear instructions for the take home final, declaring it “open notes, open internet, etc.” A couple of dozen students compared notes and are in deep trouble for writing similar answers. Some are recent graduates and have been told their diplomas are in jeopardy.
  
  Meanwhile, the student newspaper is protesting a long-standing tradition at Harvard called “quote review.” When professors are interviewed, then quoted, they have the right to see advance copies of the article and veto any quotes they don’t want included, even if they said them in the interview.
  
  Most of the interesting stuff these days is coming out of MIT, which has incredible momentum. Harvard will always be Harvard, but I do not admire the institution.
Escoffier

OK, but the decisive point is, the women on average find (at first sight) 20% of men attractive and 80% not attractive. Men OTOH find 70% of women attractive (enough) and 30% not. Even if we have to tweak the numbers, the disparity remains.

Men in the 80% still have to overcome that automatic five-run deficit. Women have to be borderline repulsive to have close to no shot with any guy.
Passer_By

@susan

“I’ve been reading up on this as well. 56% of men who cheat describe themselves as happily married. In contrast, only a small percentage of cheating women say the same. Women tend to cheat after a period of intense loneliness, when the relationship has already failed. So it’s not surprising that females want divorces after cheating more than men do. ”

Perhaps, but the question is then is why are they feeling those feelings that something is so wrong with the relationship when the men don’t? The standard answer is that the husband is an insensitive brute. But he’s the same insensitive dumb ass she married and, frankly, is probably trying harder now than he was then (because she’s become non-responsive). My contention would be that there is some predispoition in many women (much stronger than in men) to suddenly feel dissatisfied with the relationship and then to view everything through that prism, thereby going through long periods of perceived “loneliness and unhappiness”. A very strong initial pair bond or attraction would obviously help to negate this.

So, to say that the affair for her is simply a result of the failed marriage doesn’t really cut it. It could be that her biological inner need to find a new mate (have an affair) causes her to make the relationship fail. Whereas men don’t need to make the relationship fail in order to spread their seed (though the act of spreading the seed may, obviously, cause the relationship to fail).

The problem is that I don’t think any study could adequately capture this.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  My contention would be that there is some predispoition in many women (much stronger than in men) to suddenly feel dissatisfied with the relationship and then to view everything through that prism, thereby going through long periods of perceived “loneliness and unhappiness”
  
  I think this is right. That’s why I’ve called attention to the fact that women today expect way too much of marriage. They believe it should help them “grow as an individual.” Why should it? If they want to grow, they’ll have to do the hard work. If they do grow, their marriages will no doubt be better. Instead, they have some vague sense of entitlement – the marriage, i.e. the husband, owes them this feeling of deep satisfaction, enlightenment even.
  
  In contrast, men are pretty much happy to have their physical needs met and relax in a home without conflict. You can see why men are indeed baffled when the woman cheats. Of course, she won’t find what she’s looking for with the lover either. She’s doomed to continue searching for something that doesn’t exist, except in herself.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

OK, but the decisive point is, the women on average find (at first sight) 20% of men attractive and 80% not attractive. Men OTOH find 70% of women attractive (enough) and 30% not. Even if we have to tweak the numbers, the disparity remains.

Men in the 80% still have to overcome that automatic five-run deficit. Women have to be borderline repulsive to have close to no shot with any guy.

Shot at what? Sex or a relationship? As per Susan report women find this blog googling “Why I don’t have a boyfriend” not “Why no man wants to have sex with me?” the irony of mother Nature is that is true women can get sex very easily but they don’t crave it as much and when they do is from the top. Men crave it like air and from more than one woman but need to work really hard to get it. Again mother nature is a bitch with any fairness it would be the other way around…but who knows maybe we did had some species of homos like that and not having to work for things ended up in their disappearance, I guess we will never know. :/
Escoffier

For the bottom 30% of women, it’s difficult to get sex OR a relationship. Easier to get sex of course, but still both are going to be difficult.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

For the bottom 30% of women, it’s difficult to get sex OR a relationship. Easier to get sex of course, but still both are going to be difficult.

I’m asking for the breakdown of the attractive 70% how many of them are going to be for more than just sex? And how many for girlfriends?
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

Manly Virtue:
There’s nothing more humiliating for a genuinely real man than to betray the code of manly honor, that once consisted of a canon of ethics called; ‘manly virtue.’ In Latin, vir means man, and a man of honor controlled his bodily passions and fears with fortitude, endurance and grace. Those are not virtues which most of today’s men hope to acquire, nor their female partners promote, since a genuinely real man cannot be defined solely with female aspiration.
@Anacaona,

From an Amazon review of “What is a Man”

“Manly Virtue:
There’s nothing more humiliating for a genuinely real man than to betray the code of manly honor, that once consisted of a canon of ethics called; ‘manly virtue.’ In Latin, vir means man, and a man of honor controlled his bodily passions and fears with fortitude, endurance and grace. Those are not virtues which most of today’s men hope to acquire, nor their female partners promote, since , genuinely real man cannot be defined solely with female aspiration.

“In classical times, these virtues were Prudence, Courage; abstinence, and Justice. Being dignified, courteous, a temperate devotee to a chivalry of Justice and truth was the ultimate social aspiration for men. These virtues have no meaning unless exercised by free men and women. But it was the clear conviction of the ancients that if citizens were not raised with these virtues, to which Faith, Hope, and Charity, were added by the Christians, democracy would soon deteriorate into soft, then hard tyranny.”
Passer_By

@anacaona
“but who knows maybe we did had some species of homos like that”

LOL. Ironically, most straight guys feel like “homos” live the good life because they get all the sex they want.
INTJ

@ Travis

It’s a pretty sad day when you consider someone with enough character to do the right thing, even though they would suffer no consequences for doing the wrong thing, to be as rare as a UFO sighting.

I had mentioned this in another thread (I think it was to Jackie). In this SMP, simply doing the right thing means that it won’t be wrong before the opportunity to do the wrong thing is taken away from you. Assholes and bitches are rewarded while the principled people are punished. Before long, the principled people don’t have a chance to be an asshole anymore.
Passer_By

@anacoana
“I’m asking for the breakdown of the attractive 70% how many of them are going to be for more than just sex? And how many for girlfriends?”

I think men (young men in today’s SMP) often exhibit a bit of “relationship hypergamy”. In other words, it would take someone at least as high as them in SMV (and, for many guys higher) to make them want to have her as a girlfriend. So, to answer your question, it would depend on where the guy fell on the sex rank spectrum.

I don’t think men are as “relationship hypergamous” as women are “sexually hypergamous”, but there is a bit of that. And, of course, if a guy is getting awesome sex, warmth and all the good stuff from a woman, his relationship hypergamy is more easily satisfied. If she’s a cold fish that complains about him, probably not. In other words, although looks can be the biggest factor, those other qualities will move women around in the “70%” you mention.
Escoffier

passerby seems right to me. The hotter she is relative to him, the greater chance there is he will want to keep her as a GF. If he outranks here, the chances go significantly down.

The point is, a girl in the 70% will have zero chance getting sex and should have a decent shot at landing a BF, assuming she does not insist on a guy who outranks her.

A guy in the 80%, OTOH, will have a hell of a time getting casual sex, and can snag a GF only if he finds a way to overcome his innate “attraction defecit.”
INTJ

@ Anacaona

<blockquoteFor the bottom 30% of women, it’s difficult to get sex OR a relationship. Easier to get sex of course, but still both are going to be difficult.

I’m asking for the breakdown of the attractive 70% how many of them are going to be for more than just sex? And how many for girlfriends?

The 20% of attractive men will want them for sex. The other 80% of men will want them for girlfriends. Too bad the 80% are seen as unattractive.
Passer_By

@escoffier
“The point is, a girl in the 70% will have zero chance getting sex and should have a decent shot at landing a BF, assuming she does not insist on a guy who outranks her.”

I don’t understand what you mean by “zero chance getting sex”. Did you mean 100%? “zero chance of NOT getting sex”? or maybe “zero difficulties getting sex”?
Sai

@J
“Was it the higher IQ that did me in or the lack of a sex tape? Should I have let somone pee on me? Where’s my TV show and millions of bucks?”

I think it’s the lack of a sex tape. Also, encourage somebody to throw you into the water. Act like you’re having a swell time until you notice your expensive earrings are gone, then start whining.
I don’t know why anyone likes her. She has no talent but thinks she ought to have all this money and attention. I have much more respect for Sasha Grey, et al. because they actually admit they put bread on the table by screwing somebody on-camera.
(And then there was an article about women not having boyfriends that held this tramp up as an example to follow! I almost went and got a cat… and I’m a fish person.)

@Mike C
“Have you ever met a man and pretty much within first meeting and a minute of interaction felt a desire to have sex with him?”
No…

@Marellus
Part of me is (still) confused and part of me is flattered and part of me says I have no reason to feel that way. So… thanks, I guess.
(I still actually have to go buy some red lipstick though.)

@Obsidian
“This thing is a lot bigger than we may want to admit.

And the stakes couldn’t be higher.”
But I thought you said America was headed for decline anyway.

“Anyway, very thought-provoking stuff, especially in light of our recent exchanges on the real downsides – and costs – of freedom…”
What’s an alternative to freedom? What would the good parts of it be? Seriously, there may be a good thing no one is thinking of.

@Ted D
“I may try to make myself sparse around these parts for awhile. I’m starting to get the impression that I’m being seen more and more as the enemy, which isn’t my intent.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@Iggles
“Especially unmarried women, many live with family members despite having enough to get their own apartment — instead they help contribute to the household. And yes, these women get hollered at by street thugs as the walk home from the train!”
Are you me?
…no, wait, you said train, I’m on the bus, never mind.

@Desiderius
“To be clear for a change, I’m on her team. His can go straight to hell.”

THIS, and also if that guy was such a devout Muslim (in someone else’s country/culture) why’d he agree to go out for drinks with the others? I remember reading no pork and no booze.

@Bob Wallace
“In classical times, these virtues were Prudence, Courage; abstinence, and Justice.”
These don’t sound so bad. I am for both genders trying for these.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Sai
  
  You’ve really come into your own at HUS! Your comments are awesome!
Passer_By

@david foster

“She should file an EEO complaint against the university. ”

Maybe, but despite the fact that this guy’s objection was based in sexism, the school may (and I stress “may”) now have a policy against this for all professors to avoid sexual harrassment claims, etc. She may have thought she was immune as a woman, because, of course, they can’t be sexual harrassers. Put differently, most male professors probably wouldn’t feel safe doing that because of the potential for charges of impropriety.
Jimmy Hendricks

The 20% of attractive men will want them for sex. The other 80% of men will want them for girlfriends. Too bad the 80% are seen as unattractive.

Yeah… obviously that’s somewhat of an exaggeration (which I’m sure you did intentionally), but the general point holds up.

And keep in mind, I used this analogy for a college campus when girls are at the height of their sexual power. The numbers aren’t going to be as kind in the post-college world…

For girls in the upper 70%, even though the number of guys willing to commit to them is going to be lower than the number willing to sex them up, that number willing to commit is still likely 4x-5x higher than the number of potential partners a guy in the lower 80% is looking at (for sex or committed relationships).

Guys shouldn’t whine about it… it’s just reality. My advice to female friends and relatives is to get on while the gettin’s good. If you have an edge, use it, because it won’t last forever.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

LOL. Ironically, most straight guys feel like “homos” live the good life because they get all the sex they want.

Oops sorry I meant homos like Homo Sapiens, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homoe Denisovans and so on. Meaning that our species cannot be all that doomed when we outlived every other with similar traits. For the record I usually call Homosexuals gay and lesbians and their romantic lives are not any better than ours. I had a Lesbian friend that needed to get committed when his girlfriend left her and I have many gay friends that are always in constant fear of getting killed by a scorned lover, and many others abandoned for someone prettier consequences be damned that end up in drugs, suicide attempts and so on. They have our same problems but in stereo. They are not to be envied or imitated, IMO.

In other words, although looks can be the biggest factor, those other qualities will move women around in the “70%” you mention.

And…
The point is, a girl in the 70% will have zero chance getting sex and should have a decent shot at landing a BF, assuming she does not insist on a guy who outranks her.

And…

For girls in the upper 70%, even though the number of guys willing to commit to them is going to be lower than the number willing to sex them up, that number willing to commit is still likely 4x-5x higher than the number of potential partners a guy in the lower 80% is looking at (for sex or committed relationships).

Can anyone provide a number of men of those that find 70% of women attractive that are actually thinking on commitment and no just sex?

The 20% of attractive men will want them for sex. The other 80% of men will want them for girlfriends. Too bad the 80% are seen as unattractive.

Per the other males here, this is not accurate some of them are just for sex not girlfriends even if they have a good personality.

@Bob
I grew up with this values and I find them very important to cultivate and celebrate. I’m not perfect (Need to work on many of them still) but I strive to meet them. Thank you for post them here, is always good to have a reminder that we as species actually know what is good, this dark times are not the only thing we can produce.

I have much more respect for Sasha Grey, et al. because they actually admit they put bread on the table by screwing somebody on-camera.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Sorry skipped one…

I have much more respect for Sasha Grey, et al. because they actually admit they put bread on the table by screwing somebody on-camera.

Me too I place porn stars on top of Reality TV Stars any other day and twice on Sunday. They at least do something.
Jimmy Hendricks

@Ana

Can anyone provide a number of men of those that find 70% of women attractive that are actually thinking on commitment and no just sex?

That’s hard to say and obviously varies upon the individual… Is she a 7 or a 9? Does she display the positive feminine behaviors Susan outlined a few posts ago or take on a more masculine personality? Is there any direct competition for a particular guy? Is she looking exclusively at the top 20%? They can all swing the numbers one way or another.

What I meant to communicate, and this is a huge generalization and just my personal experience:

In college the average girl in the upper 70% still has far more individuals from the opposite sex who view her worthy of commitment than the average guy in the lower 80%.

Basically, a girl at the 50% attractiveness percentile probably has more commitment options than a guy at the 75% attractiveness percentile. I know it’s a huge generalization, but I think it illustrates the concept.

And again, that’s not meant to be whining on behalf of the lower 80% guys… really just more of an illustration to attractive girls to realize there are a lot more opportunities for them than they probably think they have, and that lack of attractiveness probably isn’t their biggest problem.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Passer_By…”Maybe, but despite the fact that this guy’s objection was based in sexism, the school may (and I stress “may”) now have a policy against this for all professors to avoid sexual harrassment claims, etc.”

The question would then be whether this policy was generally really followed, or whether it was being differentially enforced because of the student’s gender-based complaint. It’s hard to believe that there are never any social gatherings that include professors, students, and alcohol.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  It’s hard to believe that there are never any social gatherings that include professors, students, and alcohol.
  
  Like the outings Escoffier went on, this was a spontaneous gathering after class. There were half a dozen students total, and a couple invited the professor along. She never even dreamed on declining for appearances’ sake. And she was flabbergasted when this went down. She actually asked our group’s advice on how to handle it. To be clear, she has her own company, she teaches a course in Org Design for fun – she’s not full time. But still.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

And again, that’s not meant to be whining on behalf of the lower 80% guys… really just more of an illustration to attractive girls to realize there are a lot more opportunities for them than they probably think they have, and that lack of attractiveness probably isn’t their biggest problem.

I know your point and I think we all agree on that assessment, but again we found a disconnect among the 70%/80% and we are trying to address it so working with the most amount of info is key. Saying that you only need to lower your standards and it will happen is very vague and ignores things mentioned before like many men saying that it makes only sense preferring porn with a virtual 9 or/and orbiting a real life 7 out of hope that she one day takes it than the relationship with a 5. So yeah I’m just asking for more info. Even Deti admits that he did what he did because he was inexperienced but men are are not born experienced obviously so what percentage of them are rejecting their Summer’s…anyone can tell me?
Jimmy Hendricks

Purely anecdotal….

At most campuses I’ve been to the number of guys who are desperate/willing to give commitment early on vastly outweighs the guys who are picky.

I try to talk sense into guys I know, but more often than not the scarcity mentality seems to win out.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

I had a Lesbian friend that needed to get committed when his girlfriend left her

Freudian slip?
INTJ

@ Anacaona

I know your point and I think we all agree on that assessment, but again we found a disconnect among the 70%/80% and we are trying to address it so working with the most amount of info is key. Saying that you only need to lower your standards and it will happen is very vague and ignores things mentioned before like many men saying that it makes only sense preferring porn with a virtual 9 or/and orbiting a real life 7 out of hope that she one day takes it than the relationship with a 5. So yeah I’m just asking for more info. Even Deti admits that he did what he did because he was inexperienced but men are are not born experienced obviously so what percentage of them are rejecting their Summer’s…anyone can tell me?

It’s not so much lowering standards as it is not chasing the dopamine triggers. Girls should have high standards in the sense of requiring commitment. They should not have high standards in the sense of requiring very strong alpha dominance.
INTJ

@ Susan, Sai

@Sai

You’ve really come into your own at HUS! Your comments are awesome!

100% cosigned. I think I have a crush on Sai thanks to her posts.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

At most campuses I’ve been to the number of guys who are desperate/willing to give commitment early on vastly outweighs the guys who are picky.

To whom they offer commitment? To women on their same league or the the hotties they are drooling over? Again I’m trying to distill this disconnect.

Freudian slip?

Nothing that interesting I do that all the time is just the old boring “English not being my first language” I keep confusing his and her and also in and on. I will get it…eventually but is the small details that are harder to smooth.
Jackie

@Sai, Susan, INTJ

I agree– Sai rocks!!
Jimmy Hendricks

To whom they offer commitment? To women on their same league or the the hotties they are drooling over? Again I’m trying to distill this disconnect.

I think the disconnect is between the 20% and 80% of guys… the 20% has a large number of girls they’d have sex with, but a low percentage they’d commit to. For the 80%, it’s high in both categories.

Just throwing numbers out there:

Male Top 20%: 70% of girls good enough to fuck, 10% good enough to commit to.

Male Bottom 80%: 70% of girls good enough to fuck, 60% good enough to commit to.

Don’t take the numbers too seriously, I’m just trying to illustrate the big picture as I see it.
Jimmy Hendricks

When I say “good enough”, I mean “attractive enough…” there’s obviously other tests and stages beyond that.
Jackie

@J, Obs, Sai

Re: Kim Kardasian

She was on the tv screen at the house where I am staying at presently. I don’t watch the show (I’m missing NOTHING, right? ) but apparently she is some cultural phenomenon.

Anyway, there were a couple of fascinating observations about the clip and the family (based off Wikipedia, please correct me if I’m wrong!)

1) Am I the only one who saw the she-pimp matriarch (sorry, but that mom is super-duper toxic) as analogous to Mama Rose, the overbearing stage mom from “Gypsy”? She is living vicariously through her daughters in an absolutely appalling way.

In Gypsy there is a famous song, “Everything’s Coming Up Roses,” where it could be seen as as the vernacular “everything’s going to be great” but it also is seen as an alternate meaning, everything is going Rose’s way. As in, Rose becoming a star herself through her daughter.

In the musical, her daughter is a talented burlesque dancer; which isn’t exactly like winning the Nobel prize! But it trumps being urinated on in a sex tape, just about any day of the week. (OMG, saddest sentence I’ve written in quite some time.)

2) J, I think your life is way better than anything Kim has got. I perceive that she wants to Be Loved but has settled for Being Paid Attention To. You’ve got something so much better:

The tv clip showed her with her BF Kanye West. He had brought a stylist to “help” Kim get a makeover.

He and the stylist proceeded to mock and purge her entire closet, rejecting and then giving away all Kim’s clothes “to charity.” He then, as his reward for re-making her wardrobe, replaced all her clothes with ones that he had selected, so she could show the “right” style.

I would be willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that he is a narcissist (somatic), she is an inverted narcissist who is currently on the pedestal. Devaluation coming in 3…2…1…

Seriously, it was just about the biggest Pygmalion/Galatea re-creation you could ask for. He is literally re-making her, from the ground up. I would be willing to bet you money that she will exhibit body modification (my guess: dieting off her curves, to fit a more ectomorph fashion ideal) in the months to come.

So, so sad.
INTJ

@ Jimmy Hendricks

I think the disconnect is between the 20% and 80% of guys… the 20% has a large number of girls they’d have sex with, but a low percentage they’d commit to. For the 80%, it’s high in both categories.

Just throwing numbers out there:

Male Top 20%: 70% of girls good enough to fuck, 10% good enough to commit to.

Male Bottom 80%: 70% of girls good enough to fuck, 60% good enough to commit to.

Don’t take the numbers too seriously, I’m just trying to illustrate the big picture as I see it.

Yup. Of course, the numbers are exaggerated, but it doesn’t take a large difference to throw the market out of whack.
Escoffier

RE: “quote review,” that is SOP in Washington, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and all of corporate America and indeed everywhere in the Davos Archipeligo. It’s the hallmark of access journalism. You want to interview a powerful person? Fine. Guarantee that you won’t make him look like an idiot and you can have the interview.

Funny that Harvard things it’s a scandal because half the journalists who practice it are Harvard grads.

Hi, David Sanger, long time no talk!
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Escoffier
  
  Ha, it’s the young idealists who write for the Crimson who are complaining! I wonder if they realize that it is SOP – that definitely wasn’t included in the coverage of the story. They made it sound like a ridiculous, controlling request on the part of faculty.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Jimmy
Thanks for the effort I’m going to keep them in mind for future references. Not that I agree on them but I need to hang out more with the low end of the attractive curve to see how their dating life looks.
Most of my friends that according to Roissy’s site are barely 5 had not been hit on/asked out in years by anyone so I’m not so sure there is that abundance of commitment for them to pick from. I think the only one swimming on possibilities are my fellow nerdy girls, but then I think nerds are 10 to 1 in radio no surprise there. So still searching for the truth behind the disconnect.
Passer_By

@susan

With respect to your question on studies regarding hypergamy, I suddenly remembered about the time one very well-known expert did an informal study of the hypergamic behavior of women in the context of match making.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/10/26/relationshipstrategies/how-women-wind-up-alone-with-a-house-full-of-cats/
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Passer By
  
  Have we already been together almost three years?
  
  That’s precisely the kind of female entitlement I’m talking about. I still read that feature every Sunday, and I still wince as more often than not, the woman rules the guy out for “no sparks.” Every so often a couple will really hit it off.
  
  Actually, a classmate of my son’s from high school was in there. Check this out:
  
  http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/relationships/articles/2010/11/14/calling_dr_love/
  
  Here are some painful excerpts:
  
  Roy: We talked a lot about travel and cooking. It turns out that she has been to pretty much every part of the world outside of the North Pole and is a culinary genius.
  
  Jena: For the most part, I felt comfortable. Conversation flowed easily, and he was nice to talk to. I’d say I got more uncomfortable as the date went on because I was losing interest.
  
  Roy: She said she loved artichokes. Deal breaker. I’m joking. No deal breakers happened from what I can tell, although she really did say she loved artichokes.
  
  Jena: As I learned more about him, I realized we didn’t have much in common.
  
  Post-Mortem
  
  Roy: A-
  
  Jena: C
  
  A second Date?
  
  Roy: Hopefully we’ll meet up when I get back from Chicago.
  
  Jena: I’m thinking no.
  
  I’m thinking no? What a bitch!
  
  Meanwhile, her “analyst” position was as a nanny and he was in med school! I later learned that he was really upset to see it in the paper. He had believed they were definitely going out again. Meanwhile, her mother was running damage control, saying Jenna had wanted a true gourmand and world traveler (barf) and that he was a pretender – he only hoped to do those things.
  
  This is what I mean about female narcissism.
Sai

@Susan, INTJ, Jackie
Aww, you’re making my face turn colors it shouldn’t unless I work out!

“I would be willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that he is a narcissist (somatic), she is an inverted narcissist who is currently on the pedestal. Devaluation coming in 3…2…1…

Seriously, it was just about the biggest Pygmalion/Galatea re-creation you could ask for. He is literally re-making her, from the ground up.”

I’d swear on those Bibles with you, plus a Torah, a Quran and a Communist Manifesto. I guess I should be sad, but one of them is a hack and the other an egomaniac. My mother likes Taylor Swift because she writes her own stuff, so I’d be sad if it was her.
Desiderius

Susan,

“Ha, it’s the young idealists who write for the Crimson”

The reality is becoming bad enough that they might just be able to hang on to those ideals for awhile, instead of getting the two mixed up.
Desiderius

Jimmy,

“Male Top 20%: 70% of girls good enough to fuck, 10% good enough to commit to.

Male Bottom 80%: 70% of girls good enough to fuck, 60% good enough to commit to.”

Whoa, I must be a different species. There’s always been way more women I’d be willing to have a relationship with, and vice versa, than have sex with. The woman in my pic is a former teacher of mine and lifelong friend. She’d be a blast to be married to, and probably whip me into shape, but, yeah, sex isn’t happening.

Always been a problem generating (sexual) attraction for women in my friendzone. Not exactly picky on the sexual attraction front – 10%, maybe up to 25% if I were back on a college campus – but that’s not on the “top” end of the SMP scale. Lot’s of women up there I have no interest in. Has to have a mix of, I don’t know, savvy and verve? Wise eyes and wry smile? Something along those lines.
Desiderius

Susan,

“This is what I mean about female narcissism.”

Susan, I’m glad you’re addressing this. Men have a lot of work to do, but this really kills the spirit needed to do that work. I’ve been trying to figure it out, and I actually used to flake a lot in my early twenties when I was in college and there were four guys for every girl. My looks/dancing/alcohol got me a hookup every three months or so with some pretty appealing girls, but I’d usually flake after due to relative insecurity (had other things in life to serve as a more secure source of self-esteem/borderline narcissism).

Wonder if that’s what is going on here. They don’t exactly look like a couple that’s likely to make it to the long-term, unless she’s bringing something to the table that doesn’t show up here, nothing against her.
Desiderius

Link goes here.

Amazing movie.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I’m thinking no? What a bitch!

I normally don’t call women bitches this easily but cosign. I mean what she expected on a first date?! Seriously, having pleasant conversation and not big deal breakers and some light fun used to be enough to get you a second date. This the result of instant gratification addiction or something? Sheesh.

This is another problem with appealing to this “type”. Can you imagine this woman working thorough a bad patch in the relationship and not ejecting right away? Supporting her man throw depression, unemployment or whatever? One of the weak parts of this philosophy of Game is that yes, she will give you all the dates you want, and she will put out soon, but then what? If all that keeps her glued to you is the Alpha the moment something goes wrong you get cheated/abandoned or worst. Is the sex worth that?
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@BW

It’s too bad people are ignoring the older thinkers. They’ve already covered “What is a man?” and “What is a woman?”

Your comment took me back to me college days, where I recall reading this bit of wisdom from Aristotle:

Hence woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, at the same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike. She is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of more retentive memory. She is also more wakeful, more shrinking, more difficult to rouse to action, and requires a smaller quantity of nutriment.

Seems like these views have been around for thousands of years, but are still alive and well online.
Jackie

Re: Dr. Love

OMG, that girl was plain mean! And absolutely unbecoming behaviour! Emily Post would grade her an “F”!

Especially seeing how they comped the meal, as well. This could have been a blast!

The saddest part is, even if they weren’t a match, she could have still had a great and fun time, making the best of the conversation and it could have had hilarious potential (joking about Dr. Love).

Why would anyone purposely choose condescension and misery? When you can choose joy and fun, any day of the week. *thblpt* (That was my “raspberry” sound)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Why would anyone purposely choose condescension and misery?
  
  And to condescend publicly – outrageous. She was always kind of a pill, and so is her mother. In high school she had a boyfriend who was basically a criminal, and he wound up beating her. She used to sneak out in the middle of the night and drive to him a couple of towns away. Textbook. She went for the Antisocial Impulsive type – no charm needed.
Desiderius

The girl needs to get real, but it’s not just her fault. Susan, I’m sure you’re aware that before your mother’s generation, a woman in your position wouldn’t be wasting your time complaining, you’d be energetically letting all your friends know about this guy so their daughters could
mysteriously find themselves in his path wherever he went. Instead he gets to wander around getting blown out by women 2 points under him in MMV for five years until he clues in and may then become a player. Is this
some sort of bizarre hazing ritual? We all have work to do.
Jimmy Hendricks

@Ana

Not that I agree on them but I need to hang out more with the low end of the attractive curve to see how their dating life looks.
Most of my friends that according to Roissy’s site are barely 5 had not been hit on/asked out in years by anyone so I’m not so sure there is that abundance of commitment for them to pick from.

My estimates only apply to college campuses… I’d wholeheartedly agree that in the general population the numbers aren’t nearly as favorable for women, especially as they get older.
Jimmy Hendricks

@Des

Whoa, I must be a different species. There’s always been way more women I’d be willing to have a relationship with, and vice versa, than have sex with.

I was working under the assumption that no sex = no relationship.

So, if I really want to be accurate “willing to commit to” should be “willing to fuck AND willing to commit to” in my illustration.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

My estimates only apply to college campuses… I’d wholeheartedly agree that in the general population the numbers aren’t nearly as favorable for women, especially as they get older.

I don’t know I hang had some conversations with a couple of 5 that are still in college (I actually live close to many colleges) and they seem to have a very dim dating life as well, it might be the zone but I think that the only thing worst for a young woman that being plain is not advertising aka slut clothing and make up and demeanor without a huge sign that says “You are going to get laid if you approach me” it seems that they don’t even bother. The promiscuous are setting the rules of the game and is not fair at all for the rest, YMMV.
Esau

Wow, a lot of interesting stuff since I last checked in. So much to think about, but first a tiny bit of meta:

Susan, re me: I am asking him to change his way of communicating or to leave.

Interestingly, I was already contemplating these same choices. I’ve run out of material since some time, and I’m increasingly disappointed with my own performance here. So I think I’m going to retire the troll portfolio completely, and if I return it will be with a very different approach — perhaps this will count as JustXY’s third miracle?

Meanwhile I may have a few things to add on this thread, if I get time, though there’s been lot of good material to catch up on first. In particular, Susan, I thought your re-explanation at 1052 was very lucid, especially when combined with the elaboration at 1325; reading them made the original post much clearer for me. Anything further here I will try to keep as straight as possible. Now, back to your regular programming….
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Esau
  
  I’m delighted by your comment, assuming it’s not some trick.
  
  I hope you will return, because your sharp and incisive commentary keeps us honest. It would be awesome if you were also fun to have around.
J

Have you ever met a man and pretty much within first meeting and a minute of interaction felt a desire to have sex with him?

No. The first time I laid eyes on my husband I was struck by how attractive he was. I noticed his hair, his glasses, and the gentleness of his features, including the crow’s feet around his eyes. … I immediately had romantic notions about him, …That’s the most attracted I’ve ever been at first sighting, and there was no panty involvement whatsoever.

I can pretty much cosign this. I felt an immediate romantic attraction to DH, but I wouldn’t say I was ready to hop in the sack. I did turn to my friend and say, “Isn’t that the best looking guy you ever say?” She said, “No, but I believe he’s the best you’ve ever seen, J.” He was the epitome of my type.
J

Sounds like a very, to put it mildly, interesting situation. I read your comment where he said that adulthood didn’t begin around 35 or words to that effect; while I can see what he’s saying, it’s also kinda alien too in that I’ve been on my own since I was 18.

He’s actually a great kid in many ways, but the people he sees around him in their 20s really aren’t self-supporting adults. They lead interesting lives; three if the older guys in our neighborhood that he looks up to are regaling him with stories of year long trips to India, Israel and Viet Nam–all on daddy’s dime–along with I’m sure tales of international screwing. We’re not footing the bill for that.

DH ws on his own at 18; he worked to pay tuition to private high school before that as well as working his way through college. I came from a very conservative background, so I got away from home somewhat later. I was expected to work though. We both knew that if we wanted out of our situations (and for DH that included a few years of welfare), we’d need to work hard.

My kids have literally no concept of what that’s like–despite being significantly less spoiled and more responsible than their peers. They’ve never had to struggle or seen anyone struggle. I’m frustrated because I know how hard life can be…and their gonna find out the hard way.
Plain Jane

ION,
“I guess he didn’t understand why so many black men had made her feel ugly because of her natural hair”

These black men complaining about natural black hair had weaves themselves? Or did they shave themselves bald? A look that does work surprisingly well on black men, but not others. Please don’t tell me these bros were rocking fros AND making a natural black woman feel ugly for doing the same!

JIMMY HENDRICKS and Roissy’s obsession with the alpha male: I was watching a documentary about famous rock groupies. There was this one chick who was the most famous (she’s old now of course), and she went around making clay cast molds from the penises of various famous rock stars. Jimmy Hendricks bragged to her that his would be the biggest. It showed the various molds of Mick Jagger, Steve Tyler, Robert Plant, etc and Jimmy Hendricks. What struck me was how small they all were, including Jimmy’s! His was the biggest indeed but it was still small, much smaller than one would imagine. I was laughing out loud over his macho bragado and then this small mold comes out, I was shocked speechless. I thought to myself, “what an innocent (or bizarre) time when rock stars could brag and be proud of such sizes”.

They’d never get away with that today. Today’s women would just make fun of them.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Plain Jane
  
  Why would rock stars allow their small penises to be cast in clay? That makes no sense. Although Keith Richards did call Jagger “Tiny Todger” in his autiobiography.
Plain Jane

“One final note: observe that none of these so-called ‘civil rights’ for women and minorities can be earned by them, nor are assumed by the general majority to be an ‘inalienable right’…

No, they all have to be imposed upon society at the point of a government minion’s bayonet.

Think about that…”

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
Because all those slave owners were acting on “earned inalienable rights”.

I mean, who in this day and age even questions civil rights? WTF? And please don’t tell me this attitude is considered “alpha”.

Raaaarrrrrrrrr I’m an alpha who’s “earned” my “inalienable rights” while women and “minorities” haven’t.

See, this is why the Manosphere is considered whack.
http://x OffTheCuff

Sue: “One time, a guy kissed the top of his daughter’s head and the young women I was with said, “OMG, OMG, that’s what I want.” They were practically panting, even though he was average looking.”

They want THAT, not “him”. Meaning, someday, they want an attractive man of their choice to behave that way.
Plain Jane

“They want THAT, not “him”. Meaning, someday, they want an attractive man of their choice to behave that way.”

Of course, duh, that goes without saying. Are they *supposed* to want some other woman’s average looking husband?
J

@Sai

I have much more respect for Sasha Grey, et al. because they actually admit they put bread on the table by screwing somebody on-camera.

Me too. KK disgusts me.

@Ana

Me too I place porn stars on top of Reality TV Stars

Wow, you got a new job, and you forgot to tell us!
I’m not sure that’s legal though.
Plain Jane

Susan, that classmate of your son’s pictured at 1518 is cute! I love me some garam masala! If that mousey girl doesn’t want him, send him my way!
J

@Jackie

Am I the only one who saw the she-pimp matriarch (sorry, but that mom is super-duper toxic) as analogous to Mama Rose, the overbearing stage mom from “Gypsy”? She is living vicariously through her daughters in an absolutely appalling way.

Mama Rose was far more benign. Mama K is said to have had parts of Kim’s sex tape reshot because she didn’t like Kim’s make-up.

J, I think your life is way better than anything Kim has got. I perceive that she wants to Be Loved but has settled for Being Paid Attention To. You’ve got something so much better:

Oh, I know.

He and the stylist proceeded to mock and purge her entire closet, rejecting and then giving away all Kim’s clothes “to charity.”

What charity? The home for unemployed hookers? Who else would have alifestyle appropriate to Kim’s wardrobe?
J

Meanwhile, her mother was running damage control, saying Jenna had wanted a true gourmand and world traveler (barf) and that he was a pretender – he only hoped to do those things.

The girl and her mom both sound like dopes.
Plain Jane

“Am I the only one who saw the she-pimp matriarch (sorry, but that mom is super-duper toxic) as analogous to Mama Rose, the overbearing stage mom from “Gypsy”? She is living vicariously through her daughters in an absolutely appalling way.”

Todders in Tieras and Dance Moms. Especially Dance Mom. She’s morbidly obese and needs to be the one dancing the pounds off, not her little kid. If these women would work out, be healthy and stay in shape, they wouldn’t have to be jealous of and live vicariously through their daughters. They could lead a charmed life of their own.
J

@PJ

There was this one chick who was the most famous (she’s old now of course), and she went around making clay cast molds from the penises of various famous rock stars.

Cynthia Plastercaster!!!! She was a 60s icon!

Jimmy Hendricks bragged to her that his would be the biggest. It showed the various molds of Mick Jagger, Steve Tyler, Robert Plant, etc and Jimmy Hendricks. What struck me was how small they all were, including Jimmy’s! His was the biggest indeed but it was still small, much smaller than one would imagine.

Apparently staying erect as the plaster set was difficult. It went on warm, but then cooled off. She had many technical issues to cope with, but she certainly has provided us with a record of an era.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Wow, you got a new job, and you forgot to tell us!
I’m not sure that’s legal though.

It is if you have the proper permit

Apparently staying erect as the plaster set was difficult.

It is! And her official website doesn’t give advice how to work around that…not that I tried anything similar… ever *coughinnocentwhistlercough*
INTJ

@ Desi

Instead he gets to wander around getting blown out by women 2 points under him in MMV for five years until he clues in and may then become a player. Is this
some sort of bizarre hazing ritual? We all have work to do.

That’s exactly what it feels like. A hazing ritual,
Plain Jane

“Apparently staying erect as the plaster set was difficult. It went on warm, but then cooled off. She had many technical issues to cope with, but she certainly has provided us with a record of an era.”

Yeah, a very disappointing, sub-par record.

I mean, I’ve had a few fantasies of Jimmy myself (remember I said though I wasn’t around then, I hold mid-late 1960s as a sort of era I’d like to be reborn to live through) so some of my fantasies are set during that time. What a blow (heh) to my ideal when I saw his plaster.
szopen

@Susan
Thanks – i have missed it because at February I haven’t found your blog yet

@Anacaona
“Oops sorry I meant homos like Homo Sapiens, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homoe Denisovans ”

In Poland there was once a interview, in which reporter asked random people following question “What you would do if you would find out that one of your friends were homo sapiens?” The answers were hilarious.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  In Poland there was once a interview, in which reporter asked random people following question “What you would do if you would find out that one of your friends were homo sapiens?” The answers were hilarious.
  
  Once on morning radio I heard one of those stupid prank calls where the DJ phones some poor unsuspecting person and we all listen in. On this occasion, he reached a woman who clearly wasn’t very bright. He told her that he was her son’s guidance counselor and that the son had come out as a homo sapien. She became hysterical, sobbing and asking if anything could be done. The morning team laughed uproariously at this poor woman’s expense. I hate these shock jocks.
Desiderius

Jimmy,

“I was working under the assumption that no sex = no relationship.”

Oh yeah, no sexual attraction = no relationship, definitely.

“So, if I really want to be accurate “willing to commit to” should be “willing to fuck AND willing to commit to” in my illustration.”

I’m talking about the other category. 70%? Really? The little head’s never been up for that.
Sai

Re: dinner with Cupid
Er… my inexperience is showing, but where did the date go wrong? R. liked the conversation, J. liked it at first and then did not. She did something wrong, but I can’t quite put my finger on it so I’ll know to avoid it. /noob

@J
“What charity? The home for unemployed hookers? Who else would have alifestyle appropriate to Kim’s wardrobe?”
All the girls who didn’t become Paris Hilton’s new BFF.

@Plain Jane
“See, this is why the Manosphere is considered whack.”
Wait, they’ve got lots of sensible, valid things to say too.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Sai
  
  There was nothing wrong with the guy and nothing wrong with the date. The woman was just a spoiled brat.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

In Poland there was once a interview, in which reporter asked random people following question “What you would do if you would find out that one of your friends were homo sapiens?” The answers were hilarious.

Heh I can imagine that the first association is the most commonly used one. That poor people didn’t stood a chance.
Ion

Obsidian:

Sorry for any typos in advance, I’m in a rush.

I believe that the notion that the black SMP is a predictor of what’s to come for whites is a joke. Women since the beginning of time have been selecting from what’s available, and regardless of what choices they made (and the fact that marriage is universal), civilizations either formed in some places or didn’t, based on the men in that environment. If the population is gammas vs. thugs, women will select from both pools of men. If the population is gamma vs. beta, women will select beta, if the population is beta vs. alpha, women will select beta with alpha traits.

For black women, there was never a beta with alpha traits trade off. Black women have watched the men in their ethnicity be the biggest gammas any race has ever seen (not only have they been conquered by every other race, they have relied on every other race for financial support and foreign aide), when guns were created militias were formed ALL OVER THE WORLD. Did women everywhere start preferring guerillas and thugs at the same time?

If your opinion was that women were responsible for their actions, I could deal with that. But you believe they are accountable for mens actions too. Next, people will claim communism and terrorism developed because women spontaneously evolved to prefer alphas……either women were solely responsible for creating civilizations or they weren’t.

The fact that there are still black people shows that black women still selected from gammas, because that was available. To say that the white SMP will become like the black one discounts the fundamental differences in black and white men, and the selection available. As we’ve been saying here, women will chose and sex beta men with alpha traits over thuggish gammas. Again, if this wasn’t the case your common “wigger” (I know that’s an offensive term but I don’t know how else to describe), would not have so much trouble getting women. Thugs only get women based on a man shortage or if that’s all that’s available. You yourself are proof that women don’t prefer thugs, if someone like you can get so many women and marriage proposals. Now among whites, if we eliminate the middle class, and white men get conquered and have no idea how to command safety in their environments, and just play videogames all day (like in black communities), then yea…suddenly Vanilla Ice will suddenly look pretty good……..

Amber Rose, Kim K, and Beyonce are all beautiful women. My point is not that I care about the lightskin obsession black men have (regardless of looks and personality), my problem is the double standard. Whereas other men want a woman that has standards and integrity, part of the turn on for black men is knowing that lots of other “powerful” (usually meaning either white man, or successful man of another race) has been inside of the woman. Several black men have told me this themselves. Black women simply provide no ego boost for them in that way. So, if you’re a black female 10 who is natural, fit, and a sweetheart, you don’t rank as high as any lighter skinned and skanky 3 or 4 who has been pummeled by several men, because you don’t provide an ego stroke.

Lets leave crackheads and drug dealers (and rappers) off of our successful examples list shall we? They do not set trends, they follow them. Jay Z, Kanye, etc., preferences are no where near the preferences I’ve seen of middle class men I grew up with, black or otherwise.
Ted D

I’m genuinely surprised that so many women here claim they have never seen a man they immediately thought they could/would have sex with given the right circumstances. Every women I’ve known well enough to ask that question has told me that indeed they have had it occur from time to time. I would think that for a guy, finding a woman that has such a reaction to him would be a home run provided he found her attractive as well. Think about it, having a woman THAT into you physically could go a LONG WAY towards creating a good “alpha/beta” mix in a relationship, since she obviously feels like you are plenty good enough for sexing without saying a word. Of course, if she has that reaction to a lot of men, it would be a red flag instead…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  Think about it, having a woman THAT into you physically could go a LONG WAY towards creating a good “alpha/beta” mix in a relationship, since she obviously feels like you are plenty good enough for sexing without saying a word.
  
  There’s a famous experiment where researchers sent good looking people out to proposition the opposite sex for a ONS. 75% of the men said yes, and 0% of the women said yes. In fact, there’s a funny bit in the paper. The men responded by saying, “Why do we have to wait until tonight?” and “I can’t tonight, but can we do it tomorrow?” The women responded by saying, “What’s wrong with you?” and “Leave me alone.”
  
  http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf
  
  A woman who is ready to go at first sight is, um, well, you should read the new post.
Maggie

“This is what I mean about female narcissism”

The Washington Post runs a similar date column each week. The men are often good-looking and charming and I often think the couples look great together. The vast majority of the time the women “don’t feel any chemistry” and decline a second date.

I always wonder if these woman are living in a fantasy world. In DC the single women outnumber the single men by quite a bit. Why would a 28 or 29-year old woman turn down a perfectly nice guy for a second date? Do they really think scores of 8s, 9s and 10’s are waiting in the weeks? Didn’t they read Kate Bolick’s article?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Maggie
  
  I share your perplexity. In the case I highlighted, the guy is handsome, smart and very well liked by peers. (I know a young woman in med school with him. She says a lot of girls have crushed on him.)
  
  She clearly didn’t get enough of an asshole vibe from the guy.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Ted
Another dejavu comment we had this conversation before about guys fantasy of the “I never did this before with any other man but you” the woman that drops her panties at you and most of the female commenter here had said that if she is doing it for you she did it before and/or do it again from someone else.
I know men here might want to think something different but is the pure truth. Eggs are expensive and pregnancy last almost a year any woman that is wired to go for the sex offer without knowing what the man has to offer aside from a penis very likely doesn’t discriminate that much in the sex department, YMMV.
Escoffier

re: different species, for me it is different. I don’t think I’ve ever thought of a girl that I would have a relationship with her but that I didn’t want to sleep with her. OTOH, rarely (if ever) have I ever thought “would hit, but no GF.” Usually the two go together. She’s attractive AND if her personality pans out, would consider for a GF. Or else, nope, maybe as a friend but anything else is impossible, whether casual or long term.
Ted D

Susan – “A woman who is ready to go at first sight is, um, well, you should read the new post.”

I never said that I would want a woman to drop her pants at the sight of me! But, do I want her to be pretty confident that she would like a romp with me early on in our relationship? Definitely. But, like I said, a woman that finds many men THAT level of attractive is probably a bad bet for a LTR.

It is all about that sliding scale we talk about so much. I would be VERY wary of a women that was literally ready and willing to jump me at first meeting. However, I would be very happy to find out that a women I am with found me that attractive early on, and simply didn’t act on it because of her better judgment. (meaning she thought I was hot enough to sex up early on, but didn’t jump into bed with me until we established some type of relationship).

Ana – “Another dejavu comment we had this conversation before about guys fantasy of the “I never did this before with any other man but you” the woman that drops her panties at you and most of the female commenter here had said that if she is doing it for you she did it before and/or do it again from someone else.”

And like Susan, I think you are taking this to the extreme. What I’m saying is, all things being equal, I would much prefer to be with a woman that found me sexually attractive BEFORE she knew a single thing about me or my personality. If she is that physically interested in me, then I’ll have NO issue keeping at least the physical attraction part of any resulting relationship going full steam provided I don’t allow myself to get too out of shape.

The concept that a man can “grow” on a woman may be completely true, but I don’t know of a single man that wants to be the guy that did so. I think the ideal is to snag a woman by peacocking (meaning attract women that are into how you look) and then filter for compatible personalities. Of course that is probably very much projection on my part, as it is exactly how I and most men I know approach it. We look at all women, decide which ones we would have sex with, and then proceed to filter for best options. Seriously, I can’t even say it is a conscious decision on my part. I simply make the “sex check” mentally in my head and move on. Every once in awhile I’ll pay specific attention to it like when we are at the mall, and I’m amazed at the number of women that pass my “boner test” for lack of a better term. Escoffier is right I think, most men find at least 70% of the women they see physically attractive enough to have sex with them. Which is why I said no women should feel special for getting a guy turned on. It really isn’t hard.

Now, getting a man to commit? Yeah, now you are getting to bragging territory.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  However, I would be very happy to find out that a women I am with found me that attractive early on, and simply didn’t act on it because of her better judgment. (meaning she thought I was hot enough to sex up early on, but didn’t jump into bed with me until we established some type of relationship).
  
  Sure, sounds reasonable.
  
  What I’m saying is, all things being equal, I would much prefer to be with a woman that found me sexually attractive BEFORE she knew a single thing about me or my personality.
  
  This is what is more problematic. For most women, attraction cannot be separated from personality. That’s why guys get immediate (though short-lived) payback when they run asshole game.
  
  I think it is possible to get a read on a guy’s scent and be attracted – but that alone wouldn’t be enough, I don’t think.
  
  This is something (like everything else) that is probably on a spectrum.
Ted D

Escoffier – “I don’t think I’ve ever thought of a girl that I would have a relationship with her but that I didn’t want to sleep with her.”

I’m with you on this. I’ve never wanted to be in a relationship with a woman I wasn’t already sexually attracted to. Now that being said, my sexual attraction to a woman will grow as the relationship progresses, but I don’t think that is based on anything physical at all. That is my particular brand of ‘bonding attraction’ that puts me in a mode that always makes the women I’m with more attractive than the 70% of women that pass my boner test. Even if one of those 70% is MUCH physically hotter than my SO/Wife, it is the lack of that “emotional attraction” that stops me from even caring, let alone actually pursuing another women.

The women I married may objectively only be a 6-7, but as I fall in love with her, her number goes up by a point or 3. To be honest, I’ll have to give this some real thought, because I can’t even say that my wife’s number ‘went up’ for me as much as other women’s number went down? I don’t think of her in terms of comparable hotness, and despite the fact that I am constantly looking at women and deciding if they are doable, I never, ever compare a single one of them to my wife. I know before even thinking of such a comparison that my wife will win hands down. There are too many things about her other than her sex rank that makes her sexy to me for any strange women to have a shot at competing.*

Now, my hope is that my wife feels the same about me. And, that most women feel similarly about their chosen partners. To me, this is the secret to defeating hypergamy, trading-up, “Impulse X”, or whatever we want to label it. There has to be something your partner gives you that no one else can, and it has to be more important to you than physical gratification and/or status.

*Note: one has to be VERY careful about this line of thought, as it can lead to OneItus, which is bad, M’kay? I tend to think of it as this: my wife has many traits that make her far more attractive to me than other women. However, I do not assume that other women do not ALSO share those traits. I am simply content to have those traits wrapped up in the women I’m with now.
Ted D

Susan – “This is what is more problematic. For most women, attraction cannot be separated from personality. That’s why guys get immediate (though short-lived) payback when they run asshole game.”

If that were true, how do ONS even exist? Lets set aside drunken college hookups. There are plenty of ONS and FWB situations going on where the women may know very little about the guy in question other than his physical attractiveness. So, are these women simply outliers that they CAN be that physically attracted without knowing a guy better? I’m genuinely curious, because the views you expressed above are very much how I used to see women’s attraction in my blue pill days. I used to believe that a woman will NOT find a guy attractive enough to have sex with until she “gets to know him” and all that. However, there is plenty of proof to the contrary, and the Red Pill pretty much drives that point home.

And understand, I’m not asking YOU or any women here specifically, because I realize that most of you don’t seem to work this way. But, plenty of women seem to, and it really is very confusing.

Men really are much simpler creatures. Even as complicated and intricate as my attraction/relationship traits are, it still all comes back to passing that boner test. Without that, no relationship is possible.
Mike C

The concept that a man can “grow” on a woman may be completely true, but I don’t know of a single man that wants to be the guy that did so. I think the ideal is to snag a woman by peacocking (meaning attract women that are into how you look) and then filter for compatible personalities. Of course that is probably very much projection on my part, as it is exactly how I and most men I know approach it. We look at all women, decide which ones we would have sex with, and then proceed to filter for best options. Seriously, I can’t even say it is a conscious decision on my part. I simply make the “sex check” mentally in my head and move on. Every once in awhile I’ll pay specific attention to it like when we are at the mall, and I’m amazed at the number of women that pass my “boner test” for lack of a better term. Escoffier is right I think, most men find at least 70% of the women they see physically attractive enough to have sex with them. Which is why I said no women should feel special for getting a guy turned on. It really isn’t hard.

I’m sure there are outliers but I think Ted is hitting “steel on target” with exactly the way the male psyche functions on this regard.

Right or wrong, in my opinion, I would feel like an attraction that a woman felt that she needed for it to “grow” over time based on various factors was an inferior/lesser attraction to one where it was an immediate “Damn, that guy is hot”.

Reading a few of Anacoana’s comments and her describe the process for her, it is almost 180 degrees backwards of men. For us, the sexual attraction is immediate. It is either there or it isn’t with some degree of different intensity. After that, we start filtering for comfort, compatibility, etc. The way she described it, the comfort, compatibility, etc. all have to be in place before any sexual attraction can be generated. But I’m sure not all women function that way because there are women who experience that immediate “that guy is hot” effect. And then this is further complicated by this new item for me that for women attraction and sexual attraction are not equivalent in the sense that a woman can be “attracted” but it not relate to any desire to actually have sex with the man.

I think we need a system where we categorize women, and put stickers on their foreheads so we can figure out what type of woman you are. You could have As and NAs so we can right away know if you require some “assholish” behavior and then another sticker that identifies if you are capable of immediate attraction or if you are a “grower”.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I think we need a system where we categorize women, and put stickers on their foreheads so we can figure out what type of woman you are. You could have As and NAs so we can right away know if you require some “assholish” behavior and then another sticker that identifies if you are capable of immediate attraction or if you are a “grower”.
  
  I like that – showers vs. growers.
  
  As Anacaona said, sex is historically very expensive for women. It would work out very poorly if they sexually desired men strongly while knowing nothing about them. The growing is actually a form of vetting, and I do believe we’re hardwired for it. That’s not to say all women today “obey” that wiring – I think it gets overridden quite a lot.
Kathy

“No. The first time I laid eyes on my husband I was struck by how attractive he was. I noticed his hair, his glasses, and the gentleness of his features, including the crow’s feet around his eyes. He had long, thin wrists and a vintage watch on. He looked very New Englandy to me, the antithesis of the surfer dudes I’d lived near until then. I immediately had romantic notions about him, but for a long time, they never went beyond an imagined kiss. That’s the most attracted I’ve ever been at first sighting, and there was no panty involvement whatsoever.”

I like J, cosign.

I was attracted to my husband’s beautiful blue eyes and his lovely smile. He was smart and engaging.. No BS cocky stuff!
He was not a particularly handsome guy in the classic sense, but he really appealed to me. I too had romantic notions….No panty involvement either..That came later as I got to know and love him..

Didn’t take long, though..
Ted D

Mike C – “The way she described it, the comfort, compatibility, etc. all have to be in place before any sexual attraction can be generated. ”

and to be clear, I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong with that, but *I* would be very wary of a women that “grew” to find me attractive. Perhaps that is my own insecurity showing? I mean, I obviously want a woman to like me more as she gets to know me, but I want her to be at least somewhat sexually attracted first. The last thing I want is to be with a woman that ONLY finds me attractive because I’m a “good” guy. That just sucks! And to me has overtones of “settling” in the bad context of the word.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  *I* would be very wary of a women that “grew” to find me attractive.
  
  The attraction can occur without a physical sensation akin to a ladyboner. We just don’t think that way. The tingle is really a myth, the closest we get is a sort of clit twinge, and that comes later when we’ve graduated to full sexual fantasies.
  
  Sorry guys. There is no equivalent to male arousal upon sight. We’re less visual, and we have a lot more criteria.
INTJ

@ szopen

In Poland there was once a interview, in which reporter asked random people following question “What you would do if you would find out that one of your friends were homo sapiens?” The answers were hilarious.

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

“What you would do if you would find out that one of your friends were homo sapiens?”

Somebody went on a college campus and got a lot of women to to sign a petition which indignantly demanded an end to women’s sufferage.

Another had good luck obtaining a signatures for a petition which demanded the banning of dihydrogen monoxide.
Ted D

“I was attracted to my husband’s beautiful blue eyes and his lovely smile. He was smart and engaging.. No BS cocky stuff!
He was not a particularly handsome guy in the classic sense, but he really appealed to me. I too had romantic notions….No panty involvement either..That came later as I got to know and love him..”

Jeebus… Maybe I should consider myself VERY fortunate in this regard. My wife certainly loves me for all my “good” qualities, and she has made that perfectly clear. But, she wanted to FWB me up prior to “getting to know me”, so I have no fear that she isn’t physically attracted. Plus, I’ve dropped another 30-35 lbs since we first met, which means she is MORE physically attracted now. And this gives me great peace of mind, as stupid as it sounds. I am more willing to piss her off in the course of our daily activities because I know that even when she doesn’t “like” me in the moment, she still thinks I’m hot. I am not nearly as worried about supplicating because I don’t trade sex for anything: she wants to sex me up regardless. And I don’t worry so much about other men. Sure, she probably sees several guys a day that are physically hotter than me. (She works with several younger doctors in fact) But, she is physically attracted to me AND loves me for my other fine (and not so fine, LOL) qualities. So, just like I said above about not comparing other women to her, I doubt she ever compares other men to me. But, that is only because I satisfy both sides of the equation for her: I am both lovable AND sexually attractive. (to her at least…)

I suspect that a woman who selects a man that only fills one of those needs is destined to constantly wonder if she could do better. Which is perhaps EXACTLY what causes the situation Escoffier and I were so vehemently discussing: women that are constantly looking to trade up on some level. I still think even my own wife has this routine running, its just that we both know she is content with me. Is she always happy? No, shit happens. But, even when she isn’t “happy” in the moment, she is indeed content. I think the trick long term will be to keep that level of contentment without letting it get us TOO comfortable. I suspect we have some time before that becomes an issue to deal with, but I’m planning ahead.
Mike C

If that were true, how do ONS even exist? Lets set aside drunken college hookups. There are plenty of ONS and FWB situations going on where the women may know very little about the guy in question other than his physical attractiveness. So, are these women simply outliers that they CAN be that physically attracted without knowing a guy better? I’m genuinely curious, because the views you expressed above are very much how I used to see women’s attraction in my blue pill days. I used to believe that a woman will NOT find a guy attractive enough to have sex with until she “gets to know him” and all that. However, there is plenty of proof to the contrary, and the Red Pill pretty much drives that point home.

And understand, I’m not asking YOU or any women here specifically, because I realize that most of you don’t seem to work this way. But, plenty of women seem to, and it really is very confusing.

Here are my thoughts….and I am genuinely trying hard to try and integrate my views, MY OWN PERSONAL ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCES, with Susan’s positions to try and come up with something overall that makes sense.

For lack of better terms, I’m going to categorize these items as “male” and “female” sexuality.

“Male” sexuality is immediate, primary physical/visual, doesn’t require much in personality, and is OK with casual

“Female” sexuality is gradual, primarily personality based, and requires more of an emotional connection

With all things they are on a spectrum, and it may not be all or nothing. For example, you Ted are primarily “male” wired except for the casual.

So what I think happens is *most* men are wired for male sexuality and *most* women are wired for female sexuality but there is a pretty decent number of people of each sex who get wired with the opposite. So there are women who are primarily visual, immediate, etc. These are the women who are more predisposed to ONSs, FWB relationships, etc and are OK with it.

Now let’s hypothesize you are a physically attractive guy across the dimensions of face, height, build, etc. You may end up getting alot of attention and interaction from women who are wired with that “male” sexuality of it being immediate and visual. Since these are the women you primarily interact/have interacted with you naturally assume all women must be like that because you don’t experience something different. The women who are more gradual, and less visual based are entirely off your radar screen.

I’ll take that one step further. And I am speculating on this, but I’ve put this together over many comments on many threads. I think the women who are primarily gradual and less visual actually immediately screen out men who perhaps are immediately visually impressive because it does in fact set off their cad/player vibes even if it doesn’t have to be necessarily true (some guys were ugly ducklings who physically blossomed later). But I think for a good number of women, physically good looking guy = player, and they would prefer a guy who is maybe less physically good looking but where the attraction can grow gradually due to comfort and personality.

Ana, you’ve posted a great number of comments that I actually thought about quite a bit. Your comments were instrumental in kind of how I’ve shaped some of what I’ve stated above.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C, @Ted D
  
  So what I think happens is *most* men are wired for male sexuality and *most* women are wired for female sexuality but there is a pretty decent number of people of each sex who get wired with the opposite. So there are women who are primarily visual, immediate, etc. These are the women who are more predisposed to ONSs, FWB relationships, etc and are OK with it.
  
  Exactly, cosigned.
  
  For the record, many ONSs and FWBs occur without much sexual attraction on either side. We know that women only orgasm 18% of the time in casual hookups, so they can’t be all that aroused…
  
  Also, most casual sex, at least in college, happens while both parties are intoxicated. Arousal is down, but so is inhibition.
Kathy

“The way she described it, the comfort, compatibility, etc. all have to be in place before any sexual attraction can be generated. But I’m sure not all women function that way because there are women who experience that immediate “that guy is hot” effect. And then this is further complicated by this new item for me that for women attraction and sexual attraction are not equivalent in the sense that a woman can be “attracted” but it not relate to any desire to actually have sex with the man”

Well, Mike I think the immediate guy is hot thing can be rather shallow…
There has to be more to sustain a relationship than theis guy is hot!.

No common interests or similar shared values will soon erode the physical relationship.

I started off liking what I saw in my my husband. We shared similar interests and values.

After nearly 17 years of marriage we still enjoy mind blowing sex… And I have never had thoughts of sex with another man.

The key here is LOVE…and frequent sex.

The more a woman has sex with her husband, the more she wants it! She will have no time to think of any other man. So deeply will she be caught up with her husband and their frequent couplings.

There is nothing better.. It draws a couple closer..Bonds them like cement.
Ted D

Kathy – “Well, Mike I think the immediate guy is hot thing can be rather shallow…
There has to be more to sustain a relationship than theis guy is hot!.”

I don’t think Mike or any other man here has said otherwise. But, what we ARE saying is: most men would MUCH prefer that the physical attraction already be in place and working BEFORE we “grow” on a woman. I fully agree with you that there must be more than physical attraction for a relationship to last, but that does NOT mean there can’t also be some real, instant physical attraction there.

Mike C – “I think the women who are primarily gradual and less visual actually immediately screen out men who perhaps are immediately visually impressive because it does in fact set off their cad/player vibes even if it doesn’t have to be necessarily true (some guys were ugly ducklings who physically blossomed later). But I think for a good number of women, physically good looking guy = player, and they would prefer a guy who is maybe less physically good looking but where the attraction can grow gradually due to comfort and personality.”

Well damn. If this is true, it means that despite my desire for deep emotional connections with women in my relationships, I primarily attract and find attractive women that are more “male” wired, so to speak. I always say I’m my own worst enemy, but I had NO idea just how true that is.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  most men would MUCH prefer that the physical attraction already be in place and working BEFORE we “grow” on a woman
  
  Ted, what you’re missing is that for the female, physical attraction does not immediately result in a desire to f*ck. Most of us want to start with a goodnight kiss, and there are good reasons for that. We taste your saliva, and that’s another hurdle cleared before we let you in the gate.
Kathy

And, I’ll tell you something else.. I woke early this morning at 4am.
Roused DH for a quickie, then settled back into a blissful 1.5 hour sleep, wunderbar!…before getting up and preparing DH’s breakfast and making his lunch…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  And, I’ll tell you something else.. I woke early this morning at 4am.
  Roused DH for a quickie, then settled back into a blissful 1.5 hour sleep, wunderbar!…before getting up and preparing DH’s breakfast and making his lunch…
  
  OK that was TMI.
Sassy6519

@ Mike C

So what I think happens is *most* men are wired for male sexuality and *most* women are wired for female sexuality but there is a pretty decent number of people of each sex who get wired with the opposite. So there are women who are primarily visual, immediate, etc. These are the women who are more predisposed to ONSs, FWB relationships, etc and are OK with it.

Now let’s hypothesize you are a physically attractive guy across the dimensions of face, height, build, etc. You may end up getting alot of attention and interaction from women who are wired with that “male” sexuality of it being immediate and visual. Since these are the women you primarily interact/have interacted with you naturally assume all women must be like that because you don’t experience something different. The women who are more gradual, and less visual based are entirely off your radar screen.

I’ll take that one step further. And I am speculating on this, but I’ve put this together over many comments on many threads. I think the women who are primarily gradual and less visual actually immediately screen out men who perhaps are immediately visually impressive because it does in fact set off their cad/player vibes even if it doesn’t have to be necessarily true (some guys were ugly ducklings who physically blossomed later). But I think for a good number of women, physically good looking guy = player, and they would prefer a guy who is maybe less physically good looking but where the attraction can grow gradually due to comfort and personality.

This makes sense to me.
Kathy

Yes, good thoughtful comments from Mike, Sassy.
Sassy6519

@ Ted D

Well damn. If this is true, it means that despite my desire for deep emotional connections with women in my relationships, I primarily attract and find attractive women that are more “male” wired, so to speak. I always say I’m my own worst enemy, but I had NO idea just how true that is.

I think a lot of men may get tripped up in the same way. They want a female to be attracted to them in the same way that they are attracted to women, but it doesn’t always work out that way.

I would classify myself as having a more “male” sexuality, but not all women are like me. Attraction for me is pretty immediate, and I have a high visual orientation. It’s not the only way, but is suits me well.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

I’m in agreement with Mike C’s assessment of female vs. male patterns of attraction. Anacaona’s attraction triggers are very common in the rest of the world.

I didn’t even know what my husband looked like when I became attracted to him. He played an ugly orc in World of Warcraft, but I even started finding his game character attractive. The first picture of himself that he showed me was unflattering, but that didn’t matter one bit to me.

For me, attraction goes in steps: 1) intellectual -> 2) emotional -> 3) physical. The physical attraction comes last, and it does not come if the preceding attractions do not exist. This is probably why I don’t gush over random “eye candy” guys. I might as well be looking at a piece of foliage.

You want the girl who can have a ONS, she’s going to go immediately to 1) physical with her attraction trigger. I have never even kissed a guy I didn’t know for months already and liked, and only ever kissed a handful of guys. So yeah, if guys want the girl to immediately go crazy rather than build up to attraction, they’re going to run into more of the physical type.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  This is probably why I don’t gush over random “eye candy” guys. I might as well be looking at a piece of foliage.
  
  This cracked me up.
  
  Hope! Two more days! I saw your blog post, and I’m so excited! I’ll be thinking of you Saturday evening.
Mike C

Well, Mike I think the immediate guy is hot thing can be rather shallow…

Well….true enough…if that is all there is and nothing else comes after. But there is NOTHING that precludes a woman from having that “OMG, that guy is hot” effect, and then as they get to know each other early in the dating process other deeper connections form.
Ted D

Sassy – “I think a lot of men may get tripped up in the same way. They want a female to be attracted to them in the same way that they are attracted to women, but it doesn’t always work out that way.”

Well it is my own personal unicorn search. I want a woman that is very sexual, but that doesn’t share that with many men. Or, basically a female version of myself. LOL. As it turns out, women like this exist. But, they either have a pretty high N by their 30’s, or they get married/paired off early.

And it isn’t exactly that I want a woman to be attracted to me like I am to most women. In fact, like I said, pre-Red Pill I wouldn’t have even suspected there was any other way than for a man to “grow” on a woman. But, now that I know “some” men seem to trip “some” women’s physical trigger enough to get quick sex, I want that level of attraction from any women that plans to stay with me long term as well. Why would I want any less? And this is EXACTLY why “price discrimination” is such an issue for men.

Think of it this way: How would you feel if you knew the man you were with got very easily attached on an emotional level to any woman that talks to him? It would make you feel like the only reason he has sex with you is because he thinks you are hot. Well, to me woman most often “grow” to love a man based on how great a person he is. But clearly not all men inspire that immediate desire for sex, and I would feel much less desirable if my wife didn’t have that physical reaction to me. Especially knowing that somewhere out there is a man that CAN trigger that kind of response. It would leave me at a serious disadvantage if she ever met him, since I don’t have that covered.

Hope – “You want the girl who can have a ONS, she’s going to go immediately to 1) physical with her attraction trigger. I have never even kissed a guy I didn’t know for months already and liked, and only ever kissed a handful of guys. So yeah, if guys want the girl to immediately go crazy rather than build up to attraction, they’re going to run into more of the physical type”

Again, you know how I feel about ONS. That IS NOT what I’m looking for. But, I DO want a woman that has those triggers in place AND I trip them pretty early on. However, the caveat is: I want her to have enough character to NOT have acted on that impulse in the past. For the reason why, see above. I want to be not only the best man emotionally for my wife, I want to be at least ONE of the men that trigger her desire for sex just by being in her presence. It’s a damn tough role to fill though it seems, which is turning out to be the surprise of the year for me.
Ted D

Mike C – “Well….true enough…if that is all there is and nothing else comes after. But there is NOTHING that precludes a woman from having that “OMG, that guy is hot” effect, and then as they get to know each other early in the dating process other deeper connections form.”

THIS! I want a woman that has some level of physical instant attraction BUT has the character to be VERY selective in how she uses it.
J

It is if you have the proper permit

LMAO

It is! And her official website doesn’t give advice how to work around that…not that I tried anything similar… ever *coughinnocentwhistlercough*

IIRC, she had a well developed technique for getting her subjects ready to be cast, but once the plaster was on they were at the mercy of nature.
Mike C

I didn’t even know what my husband looked like when I became attracted to him. He played an ugly orc in World of Warcraft, but I even started finding his game character attractive. The first picture of himself that he showed me was unflattering, but that didn’t matter one bit to me.

For me, attraction goes in steps: 1) intellectual -> 2) emotional -> 3) physical. The physical attraction comes last, and it does not come if the preceding attractions do not exist. This is probably why I don’t gush over random “eye candy” guys. I might as well be looking at a piece of foliage.

Hope, thanks for chiming in. This is actually very helpful to get these varying views. I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is at the end of the day women really are very different. Really, the way attraction functions for you and Ana couldn’t be more radically different than Sassy. For guys, it poses somewhat of a tactical/pragmatic challenge.

It gets even further complicated when you introduce the alpha/beta personality mix into the equation because that introduces another division into the attraction matrix. I’ve paid attention to a great number of your comments, and if I’ve assessed them correctly, you actually do prefer some of the more alpha personality attributes and your husband does in fact meet them. In contrast, I think I am correct to say Ana is pretty much 100% onboard with beta comfort traits and that describes her husband.

So….3 women…3 entirely different attraction vectors:

Sassy – Must be physically attractive and mostly alpha personality traits

Hope – Physical not important but some alpha traits with good alpha-beta mix

Ana- Physical not important and basically 100% beta comfort traits

Even your physical preferences are not the same as you’ve described liking some manliness associated with muscles whereas Ana has mentioned being turned off at the slightest hint of muscular development

In contrast, guys pretty much have one universal mix- hot/pretty along with sweet and feminine.

What the heck is a guy supposed to optimize for??? Which of you 3 is closest to to average woman out there.

I think much of the disagreement we often get into here is because women really are so different, and I think the default assumption of women is to assume everyone is like them, while the default assumption of men is to think back over most of the women they’ve interacted with.

I’d still tell any guy to maximize his physical appearance to the maximum extent possible, and if you are going to err, always err on the side of more alpha/less beta. It is probably the approach that is going to be most effective over the widest possible range of women.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

“physically good looking guy = player”

This was a thought process for me, too. I also have never had desire for sex tripped by ONLY the physical. There has never been a guy who even remotely tempted me to kiss him before I’ve gotten to know him on a deeper level.

Obviously there are women who are wired differently. I suspect I’m on the far end of this spectrum.

Ted D, I don’t need to have “character” to refrain from acting on physical impulses, because I don’t have those impulses in the first place. That doesn’t mean I don’t go absolutely nuts for my husband. I’m incredibly attracted to him, and he knows I’m over the moon for him. I think he’s the most handsome guy in the world because I’m in love with him. There’s no chance of wandering eye or wanting some other guy. He prefers that to if I was just restraining myself from acting on a physical impulse with some random hot guy or gushing over a celebrity.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Ted D, I don’t need to have “character” to refrain from acting on physical impulses, because I don’t have those impulses in the first place.
  
  This seems to be the part that Escoff & Co. are having the most difficulty with. Women aren’t more noble because we have fewer sexual impulses, or are more selective about them. For example, the idea of mind f*cking someone on the way to work? “Incontheeveable!”
  
  There are good reasons why that’s the case. It is what it is.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Mike C, I’ve thought about this in regards to how I would educate our son on the subject. I think you are right that playing up the alpha, muscularity and confidence/game would net the largest pool of women, from which he could then filter and choose a good woman.

The average woman out there is probably somewhere in the middle — her attraction can be triggered quickly by physical good looks and high status men like celebrities, and she can also grow to fall for a guy over time (this is why male orbiters exist rather than completely disappear). Women on the extreme end of the spectrum are rare.
Kathy

“OK that was TMI.”

Yeah, yeah, I know.. I just get carried away sometimes.

I am just not as eloquent as you are, Susan.

“The attraction can occur without a physical sensation akin to a ladyboner. We just don’t think that way. The tingle is really a myth, the closest we get is a sort of clit twinge, and that comes later when we’ve graduated to full sexual fantasies.

Sorry guys. There is no equivalent to male arousal upon sight. We’re less visual, and we have a lot more criteria.”

Perfect summation.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Susan, thanks! I’m excited and nervous of course. I compulsively feel and check for movement.

As an aside, the “dad” qualities my husband has been showing definitely make me swoon.
http://x OffTheCuff

Sue: “We know that women only orgasm 18% of the time in casual hookups, so they can’t be all that aroused…”

Time to challenge this. You’d have to compare that to the orgasm rate to that *inside* of relationship to be meaningful. The implication is the casual is bad sex, but compared to what?

For example, if the female O rate in a relationship is 20%, then that’s only small difference. Implying casual is significantly worse sex, then, is misleading,

If, however, the rate was something like 80% (which I doubt) then your implication makes a lot more sense.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @OTC
  
  Some fun facts about female orgasm from Kinsey:
  
  About 85% of men report that their partner had an orgasm at the most recent sexual event; this compares to the 64% of women who report having had an orgasm at their most recent sexual event.
  
  Men are more likely to orgasm when sex includes vaginal intercourse; women are more likely to orgasm when they engage in a variety of sex acts and when oral sex or vaginal intercourse is included.
  
  Many women express that their most satisfying sexual experiences entail being connected to someone, rather than solely basing satisfaction on orgasm
  
  75% of men and 29% of women always have orgasms with their partner
  
  From Ian Kerner:
  
  In his book, Kerner cites a study that reports women reaching orgasm about 25% of the time with intercourse, compared with 81% of the time during oral sex.
  
  ABC News:
  
  10-15% of women never orgasm.
  
  So 19% in hookups is definitely low.
  
  By the way, I also came across a statistic that 25% of college males have difficulty achieving and maintaining an erection.
Ted D

Susan -“This seems to be the part that Escoff & Co. are having the most difficulty with. Women aren’t more noble because we have fewer sexual impulses, or are more selective about them. For example, the idea of mind f*cking someone on the way to work? “Incontheeveable!””

I ran a litte experiment at lunch today. I went to the mall to do my 3 mile walk (too damn hot outside) and while I was there, I paid greater attention to the women walking around. Or, to be more specific, I paid greater attention to the thought processes seeing those women kick started in my head. By my count, I saw 23 women that easily passed my ‘boner test’ in the hour it took me to do four laps around the mall. I would add another 3-5 that were close, meaning if I were more horny they would have passed. Now, my ‘boner test’ consists of:
1. Look at woman
2. Determine how “hot” she is
3. Ask myself “would I sex that up” given no other considerations? (no emotional attachment, etc)

So in the span of just under 1 hour, I saw 23 women I thought were plenty hot enough for sex, and another 3-5 that would “do in a pinch”. Now, that being said, I wasn’t “turned on” by a single one of them, because in order for me to actually BE turned on, I’d have to know them better. The only time I find myself turned on without deeper knowledge of the woman is when watching porn. And, to be honest, the only real draw to watching porn for me IS THAT FACT EXACTLY. It is the only time I can just get turned on by a woman’s hotness factor.

Kathy – “Sorry guys. There is no equivalent to male arousal upon sight. We’re less visual, and we have a lot more criteria.”
Perfect summation. “

Then can someone tell me why hookups even exist? You realize that saying women DO NOT get sexually excited on site means that ONS should ever happen right? I’m finding myself thinking “the Red Pill says: pay attention to what women DO, not what they SAY” right now. I’m not implying any of you are lying, but are you really representative of the “norm” for women in our modern society?

Again, the Red Pill wisdom I’ve seen mostly discounts what you guys are saying. That doesn’t mean you are wrong, or that Red Pill Wisdom sucks, but it DOES show some kind of disconnect that I can’t help but want to fill in.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Then can someone tell me why hookups even exist?
  
  Because women know they’re the only path to a relationship. And even with that, you’ve seen the numbers.
  
  There are some women who appear to enjoy being promiscuous, e.g. Karen Owen. IDK what makes them tick. High T? Alpha dad? Absent dad? No idea.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  I’m quite sure that I could go to Fenway Park and not be able to find 23 men I would even remotely consider having sex with in some imagined future. And that includes the team.
Ted D

Hope – “Ted D, I don’t need to have “character” to refrain from acting on physical impulses, because I don’t have those impulses in the first place.”

Well to be honest, this would be my ideal. A woman that simply doesn’t ever find herself physically attracted to a man without knowing him. Stop.

But, I know FAR too many women that DO get a “tingle” and DO get turned on enough for sex simply by how a man looks to completely discount it as unusual. Surely it is on a sliding scale, but I fear that you are so far to the side that you are right up there with the Yeti in terms of rareness.

And, the risk is. A woman that NEVER has raw physical desire in terms of sex may very well turn out to be frigid in the worst sense of the word.
Escoffier

Came across this online and it seemed apt:

Malfoy grew into one of the series’ most popular characters due to Felton’s performances and Felton quickly became synonymous with the character to many female fans, much to Rowling’s dismay. “I’m trying to clearly distinguish between Tom Felton, who is a good looking young boy, and Draco, who, whatever he looks like, is not a nice man. It’s a romantic, but unhealthy, and unfortunately all too common delusion of girls…it actually worried me a little bit, to see young girls swearing undying devotion to this really imperfect character… I mean, I understand the psychology of it, but it is pretty unhealthy.”
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Esco
  
  Someone here recently reported there are James Holmes fan sites for girls. Like that orange hair is really attractive.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

If that were true, how do ONS even exist? Lets set aside drunken college hookups. There are plenty of ONS and FWB situations going on where the women may know very little about the guy in question other than his physical attractiveness.

I like Mike C’s speculation but he is missing something. If women could just be completely male they wouldn’t need to be gamed the whole 7 hours only mean that a woman can decide she has enough information to have sex really quickly. The whole point of game is to attract the hypergamic women that only need to “feel” you are high value to try to and get your genes and that could happen in hours but he still need to do his job an Alpha doesn’t just say “I find you attractive and I will like to have sex with you” he needs to display. Not sure if Sassy would do that, she can elaborate on this, but this is where the “It just felt right” come from men don’t hamsterize that,YMMV.

Somebody went on a college campus and got a lot of women to to sign a petition which indignantly demanded an end to women’s sufferage.

I saw that one! It was really crazy.

I think we need a system where we categorize women, and put stickers on their foreheads so we can figure out what type of woman you are. You could have As and NAs so we can right away know if you require some “assholish” behavior and then another sticker that identifies if you are capable of immediate attraction or if you are a “grower”.

It wouldn’t work like I said before the men will pick from the slut pile till they want to settle down and the women will try to flip the bad guys or the sluts will demand commitment at some point and try to pick from the dad pile thus poisoning each side. What we need is make sure people pick on freaking mating strategy for life and stick to it.

He played an ugly orc in World of Warcraft, but I even started finding his game character attractive.

Heh that was my hubby’s character too. I picked and elf we were a funny couple. He always pick the ugliest avatars for some reason.
The first picture of himself that he showed me was unflattering, but that didn’t matter one bit to me.

Interestingly enough I think my hubby might be different on this he tells me that my first picture on my profile was awful (I was trying to be honest and I sent a pick of me at work, not a lot of make up and I was not smiling I was in “business mode” yeah I know stupid) it looks that I was not in the best light) and that he wanted to get to know me because my profile was really, really, really interesting a lot better than all the women on sciconnect. That would explain why he kept insisting on me sending new pictures and his first present to me was a webcam he wanted to see if I passed the boner test before going deep but I already won him with my personality and smart

IIRC, she had a well developed technique for getting her subjects ready to be cast, but once the plaster was on they were at the mercy of nature.

Nature probably needed a hand if you catch my drill

Even your physical preferences are not the same as you’ve described liking some manliness associated with muscles whereas Ana has mentioned being turned off at the slightest hint of muscular development

I will say that a warm face and demeanor can neutralize the muscles if the guy acts total beta (think of Clark Kent levels of Beta) but yeah I mostly think jerk the moment I see a guy showing off his muscles. Heh did you noticed that I didn’t complimented Cooper on his pic? I hate that pic why there is a strange man naked on the blog? I just didn’t wanted to be rude since I already said something similar to Desi.

He prefers that to if I was just restraining myself from acting on a physical impulse with some random hot guy or gushing over a celebrity.

I want to mention that this explains why guys here were up in arms when we were discussing celebrity crushes they assume that if their wife/girlfriend says “That guy is hot” she means “I want to see his penis” when she means probably 1001 things and she would say the same about a new dress or lipstick and I never had imagined seeing a celebrity I crush naked the worst had been kissing him and that was when I was single and young not anymore. Of course if you wife is the type that when she says “that guy is hot” she actually wants to sleep with him, that is an entirely different thing.
And if she has a picture of that celebrity naked, or has a fixation to meet him like spending hours devoted to find out where he is and spent money to meet him at premieres while dressing to the nines and doesn’t want you around, is visibly jealous of his real life wife/girlfriend, has her kids calling him dad to his pics…I will say run for the hills that woman is mentality cheating on you and looking for the chance to cheat in the real.

As an aside, the “dad” qualities my husband has been showing definitely make me swoon.

I think being pregnant with his child has actually increased the amount of love and attraction I have for my hubby I never though if was possible I’m sure things will be a lot better when the kid is around and I really hope he looks a lot like him both in looks and personality I can’t imagine a better thing in the world that having a small version of him around…Sorry the hormones are talking :p
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I think being pregnant with his child has actually increased the amount of love and attraction I have for my hubby
  
  I remember being proud to feel “marked” by pregnancy. I belonged to my husband, and I was having his child. It’s a form of dominance, I think. I found it really sexy. He also really liked my pregnant body – maybe for the same reason, IDK. I thought he was crazy.
Travis

Kathy – “Sorry guys. There is no equivalent to male arousal upon sight. We’re less visual, and we have a lot more criteria.”
Perfect summation. “

Then can someone tell me why hookups even exist? You realize that saying women DO NOT get sexually excited on site means that ONS should ever happen right?
————————–

Right. Even if you discount the ONS and hookups (or assume that women are going through with them in the hopes that something will develop) there’s still male strip clubs, chippendales dancers, and beefcake calendars. Not to mention the fact that Magic Mike did pretty well at the box office. And I doubt most of the women who went to see it were too interested in the storyline.
I’d agree that sexual arousal based on looks alone is rarer in women, but obviously it does exist to some extent.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  male strip clubs, chippendales dancers, and beefcake calendars
  
  I once went to a Chippendales for a bachelorette party, and I found the men repulsive. Truly disgusting, they seemed dirty and trashy. Women were definitely tipping them, etc. but I got the sense it was more of an adventure, a goofy thing. I don’t think women were touching themselves under the table like men do, haha.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Then can someone tell me why hookups even exist? You realize that saying women DO NOT get sexually excited on site means that ONS should ever happen right?

See above and the studies women don’t enjoy them in the end for the most part. The reasons are varied validation, peer pressure, lack of knowledge, alcohol…women make choices based on feelings not on hornyness and really Ted how many times a woman has left a perfectly good man because she lost interest? There is not any security on securing raw attraction, YMMV.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

Ted D, fair enough. However, I think I am not that rare for my upbringing. I had read from another female commenter (Alias I believe) that she also felt the same way, and she was also raised in a different cultural background.

Also, just because a girl doesn’t advertise all over town and flirt with everyone doesn’t mean she can’t be hot to trot in private. I guess that is more the case in cultures where it is frowned upon to be too sexual in public, though.

Anacaona, I agree completely with the smaller version of him thing! I really hope our boy resembles my husband more and takes after him. Plus, I am kind of comically stereotypical in my femaleness with my fear of bugs and spiders… don’t want our boy to take after me in being a scaredy cat.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I’d agree that sexual arousal based on looks alone is rarer in women, but obviously it does exist to some extent.
Two reasons female bonding experience. How many women visit chippendales alone in comparison with men visiting strippers? Women go in groups to have a laugh and yell and be unruly in a safe environment, How many private lap dances do women invest in? I will go on a limb and say a fraction of male investment.
And male competition “Men objectify us lets objectify them! You Go Grrrlll” in the One billion wicked thoughts you can see that women don’t spent the same amount of time and energy on visual stimulation but Romance novels in comparison with men spending time and money on porn.

@Hope
The only think I want my baby to have from me is my skin color I already have to cover my husband on vampire sunscreen everytime we look at the sun a bit hard, not a nice additional worry to have in life if you ask me.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Ana and I cross posted the same point about women in strip clubs. Guys don’t give lap dances, do they? If so, they’d better include some hand action.
Ted D

Ana – “I want to mention that this explains why guys here were up in arms when we were discussing celebrity crushes they assume that if their wife/girlfriend says “That guy is hot” she means “I want to see his penis” “

LOL to an extent yes, this is my issue with the whole “celebrity crush” conversation.

“See above and the studies women don’t enjoy them in the end for the most part. The reasons are varied validation, peer pressure, lack of knowledge, alcohol…women make choices based on feelings not on hornyness and really Ted how many times a woman has left a perfectly good man because she lost interest? There is not any security on securing raw attraction, YMMV.”

I’m not looking for security Ana, I’m looking for something that makes logical sense. It doesn’t matter if women enjoy hookups or not, they STILL DO THEM all the same. You seem to think I want to know something I don’t. I don’t care if women like hooking up, I want to know why they do it at all if it IS NOT about instant sexual attraction.

Hope – “Also, just because a girl doesn’t advertise all over town and flirt with everyone doesn’t mean she can’t be hot to trot in private. I guess that is more the case in cultures where it is frowned upon to be too sexual in public, though.”

Oh I wasn’t trying to imply you or any truly sexually conservative women IS frigid! Not in the least. I’m just saying that a guy would have NO WAY of knowing before they actually had sex. And, if you follow the “no sex before commitment” model, that is a huge risk for a guy to take IF sex is a primary need for him, which I am confident IS the case for most men.

Susan – “Because women know they’re the only path to a relationship. And even with that, you’ve seen the numbers.”

And I simply can’t get behind this seeing how popular things like 50 Shades and Magic Mike are. There are far TOO many women that DO INDEED appear to enjoy “being sexual” in a casual way for me to completely buy the “women don’t REALLY want sex like men” deal. Again, not saying YOU are wrong, but are you representative?

Remember: Common Red Pill wisdom says that what you are saying above is EXACTLY what men should ignore, because it is false regardless of how much any individual women believes it. Can you see why someone like me, that tried to be super logical about everything can get hung up on this?

“There are some women who appear to enjoy being promiscuous, e.g. Karen Owen. IDK what makes them tick. High T? Alpha dad? Absent dad? No idea.”

And perhaps this is the problem. Those women are not very likely to have a frank discussion about what makes them tick. We have a few sex pozzy types here, but when we get to this part of the discussion, they often fall strangely silent. I can’t help but wonder why.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  And I simply can’t get behind this seeing how popular things like 50 Shades and Magic Mike are.
  
  That’s female porn. It doesn’t say anything about promiscuity. There’s a big difference between watching and doing. Most of the women buying 50 Shades are married, and they’re taking it out on their husands, haha. The young women I know who read it based on my post thought the sex scenes were incredibly lame and stupid. It was written by a middle aged woman for middle aged women as porn.
Desiderius

“Then can someone tell me why hookups even exist?”

To test whether the man has the experience with women to pull it off convincingly (pre-selection) and the balls to make the move (confidence).

It is what it is.
Ted D

Susan – “I’m quite sure that I could go to Fenway Park and not be able to find 23 men I would even remotely consider having sex with in some imagined future. And that includes the team.”

And keep in mind, I was being rather picky. No lie! And further, of the men I know well, I’m probably the LEAST “generally horny” of the bunch. Again, no lie…

Ana – “Two reasons female bonding experience. How many women visit chippendales alone in comparison with men visiting strippers? Women go in groups to have a laugh and yell and be unruly in a safe environment, How many private lap dances do women invest in? I will go on a limb and say a fraction of male investment.”

And I’ve seen video of women giving said dancers oral IN FRONT of the women they wanted to “bond” with. I’ve heard stories of even worse. So, I’m sorry, but I find it VERY hard to believe it is all about female companionship.

Susan – “I once went to a Chippendales for a bachelorette party, and I found the men repulsive. Truly disgusting, they seemed dirty and trashy. Women were definitely tipping them, etc. but I got the sense it was more of an adventure, a goofy thing. I don’t think women were touching themselves under the table like men do, haha”

Wow. For starters, the few times I actually went to a strip club, the LAST thing I thought of doing was touching myself. In fact, I spent most of the time laughing at how utterly stupid most of the men there were acting, and how embarrassed I would be if one of those women was my daughter. In NO WAY was it at all a “sexy” thing for me to experience.

Two, see above. If what you say is true, then why are so many REALLY nasty things going on at these bachelorette parties? Are you telling me these women are peer pressured into giving head?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  If what you say is true, then why are so many REALLY nasty things going on at these bachelorette parties? Are you telling me these women are peer pressured into giving head?
  
  Women are giving head at bachelorette parties?
  
  I really do live in a bubble, I guess. Let’s hope it’s not the bride.
Ted D

Desi – “To test whether the man has the experience with women to pull it off convincingly (pre-selection) and the balls to make the move (confidence).”

and to disqualify her as any type of potential long term mate? Because to me, that is exactly what “testing” in this manner does.
JustYX

@Kathy #1574

You go girl!

(I enjoyed hearing that happy tale from you, sounds like a cool marriage to me -fwtw)
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I want to know why they do it at all if it IS NOT about instant sexual attraction.

It doesn’t make sense because is AN EMOTIONAL CHOICE can you get that? What triggers the emotion varies per day, period cycle, tides cycles, how much chocolate or alcohol there is in the system. Women are emotional creatures for the most part they use logic to make sense of the emotions not the other way around. Tell me you can get this, this is why Game focus on creating DRAMA! for many women because if you triggers her emotions logic will follow. I really don’t know how to get it across better.

And I simply can’t get behind this seeing how popular things like 50 Shades and Magic Mike are.

See above. Emotions Magic Mike is about empowering women to objetify men and 50 Shades of Grey is the fantasy of turning a man into a better one with one’s love/vagina. We discussed this too already.

Two, see above. If what you say is true, then why are so many REALLY nasty things going on at these bachelorette parties? Are you telling me these women are peer pressured into giving head?

Herd mentality is powerful had you seen the kind of crap they are sold to women like that thing to make your armpits look better? With enough shaming “How dare you to have armpits that are not perfect” enough status pressure “Kim Kardashian’s armpits are perfect and all men want her” and ways to achieve a higher status (hypergamy of sorts) “if you use this product you will have the armpits of KK and you will almost be like her in status and desirability” then you can have women do pretty much everything even if she later feels like crap if it doesn’t work or if the herd doesn’t validate her or change. Again Ted this is not a logical choice but an emotional one. Got it?
Mike C

Because women know they’re the only path to a relationship.

Susan,

This is demonstrably false. You yourself by your OWN ADMISSION AND ANALYSIS have concluded most men are sociosexually restricted. Correct? So hooking up with THEM is not necessary to get a relationship with THEM. Does a woman need to hook up with Cooper to get a relationship with him? No. He doesn’t want to hook up himself. Does a woman need to hook up with INTJ to get a relationship with him? No. He doesn’t want to hook up himself.

So “hooking up” is ONLY a path to a relationship with men with a loose sociosexuality who more than likely have a higher SMV on average, but then you’ve also said most women are not that hypergamic so they can’t all be chasing after/pining after that 20%.

I genuinely hope you see the contradictions here. There are pieces here that when you put them all together simply do not make sense as a coherent whole.

I’m still perplexed *exactly* what is preventing the 80% of sociosexually restricted from forming relationships but for women in that 80% saying hooking up is the only path to a relationship makes ZERO sense.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Mike C
  
  You yourself by your OWN ADMISSION AND ANALYSIS have concluded most men are sociosexually restricted.
  
  Where did I say that? I actually have no idea how the numbers stack up for the sociosexuality inventory. We know that most men are not having a lot of casual sex, but that’s something different.
  
  In the Definitive post, you saw that more than half of both men and women hook up to get into a relationship. It is necessary for both parties, because that is the only script they know. Even two people who don’t want casual sex are most likely to get together via casual sex. There is simply no other approach that is considered normal. Asking a woman out on a date definitely isn’t. People hang out in coed groups, start to gravitate to one another and pair off, then hook up. That’s the pathway.
  
  Once again, Pluralistic Ignorance rears its ugly head. Hookup is the only language that college students speak. They don’t speak “50s Diner milkshake date” or even “Will you go to Homecoming with me 70s date.”
  
  Do you see?
JustYX

@Ana

armpit enhancer WTF are you serious?

I though an all time low was reached with the miraculous arrival of a product for women’s dry cracked heels…because you’re worth it (or some such BS)

That’s me living too optimistically, thinking that selling heel balm as salvation was as low as it could get.

Marketing to men hit its nadir with Lynx / Axe; “Buy some, get some” (at least I pray that this is the nadir)
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Yes, there was an ad that shamed women about their ugly armpits.
  
  httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_zO94ee5s
Ted D

Ana – “Again Ted this is not a logical choice but an emotional one. Got it?”

*sigh*

Sadly no. I just cannot fathom how any human can live like this. It implies that you are basically a slave to your emotions, which to me seems so, well, primitive.

So are you saying that in general women cannot be trusted to think logically? Are you implying that the only hope I have that my wife wont cheat on me is that no other man makes her “feel” turned on enough to sex him up? That REALLY sounds pretty damn freaking scary to me, and makes me truly question if the worst of the ‘sphere isn’t right…

And to you, Susan, Kathy, Hope – Don’t get frustrated and give up on my here. I know I’m a pain in the ass, but this is the kind of stuff that can bother me for months, like a fly buzzing around your ear, I dwell on this stuff and it can make me a little batty. I often wonder if I have some form of mental OCD that I can’t simply let things slide until I’ve puzzled them out to my satisfaction.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Ted, I’m glad you didn’t stay away for too long.
JustYX

@TedD

I believe that women can think logically, but that doesn’t mean that that’s the last word in what gets decided. Emotion can override at times

they aren’t that different (NAWALT), but they aren’t the same (but SWALT).

I wouldn’t find a woman with male emotions very…attractive, maybe that’s just me – vive la differance, but shame about the accompanying pain at times.
Ted D

JustYX – “I believe that women can think logically, but that doesn’t mean that that’s the last word in what gets decided. Emotion can override at times”

I can grasp that, but you understand that to me it makes women MUCH less trustworthy across the board, right?

That would imply that they might do the wrong thing because it “feels good” DESPITE coming to the logical conclusion that it is wrong. How in the hell can a guy EVER trust a woman if this is their standard operating procedure?

NOTE: I am not trying to offend any women. I am not implying all women here are illogical or untrustworthy. I am simply writing out my mental process towards coming to a conclusion on this particular issue. It isn’t pretty, it isn’t PC, but it usually works fairly well for me.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Sadly no. I just cannot fathom how any human can live like this. It implies that you are basically a slave to your emotions, which to me seems so, well, primitive.

Not really. Women can use logic but the logic comes after the feelings. A woman that is raised to believe that all her emotions are productive and good is a pain in the neck for herself and others but a woman raised to differentiate can be very effective also don’t be so proud of pure logical are poor decision makers. People need balance.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201109/how-can-we-make-better-decisions

You need to remember that we evolved and created civilization with a combination of both.
That is one of the many reasons I particularly consider marriage the ideal state hubby’s strengths cover for my weaknesses but I do the same we complement each other in a good way and we are stronger in pair (soon family) that we could ever be alone.
Sassy6519

@ JustYX

I wouldn’t find a woman with male emotions very…attractive, maybe that’s just me – vive la differance, but shame about the accompanying pain at times.

It’s good to hear men be open about this. I know that my personality is off putting to a lot of men. That’s why I’ve been making a concerted effort to be more feminine and emotional with the guy I am currently dating. My ENTP ways still pop up, but I’ve been trying to balance them out with a more demure side of myself. So far, things have been going well between he and I.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@JustYX
Read and weep: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/hairstyles-beauty/beauty-blog/underarm-tips
Ted D

Ana – “also don’t be so proud of pure logical are poor decision makers. People need balance.”

I hope you don’t think I’m tooting my own horn here! I’m not saying pure logic is any better, but I feel it is more “trustworthy” in a sense. If I followed my emotions more than my logic, I would look to the world to be a basket case, and it might NOT just be a look. Emotions are so random and uncontrollable, how can women or anyone possibly base their life around how they feel all the time? Good Lord, there are days when I feel like work sucks, but I still drag my ass out of bed because how I feel about it doesn’t matter. Sometimes I “feel” like pounding someone’s head in, but logically it would result in me being arrested for assault, so how I feel is irrelevant. I can’t imagine feeling that level of anger and THEN trying to tamp it down with logic. It would be like constantly trying to control the flow of a river with a bendy straw.
Ted D

Ana – “A woman that is raised to believe that all her emotions are productive and good is a pain in the neck for herself and others”

I missed the importance of this statement. ARe women by and large EVER told anything other than “how they feel” is OK these days? Isn’t it mostly unPC to tell women how they “feel” is wrong? Perhaps this is at the root of what I and other men are seeing. Maybe women are NOT being taught how to curb their feelings with critical thinking skills?
Ted D

Sassy – “It’s good to hear men be open about this. I know that my personality is off putting to a lot of men.”

FWIW I think you are 100% spot on in your approach to finding a guy to pair up with. You strike me as a VERY sexual woman that realizes her sexuality is worth something more than a cheap thrill, and you are selective about who you share it with. The only reason I’ve ever said that we wouldn’t work is that your minimum threshold of alpha is FAR more than I would be able to muster long term. Otherwise, I’d say you are damn near the closest example of what I look for in a woman. It cracks me up when you talk about “climbing the walls” during ovulation, because my wife is rather similar. I guess when she was in her 20’s it was VERY tough, but now that she is in her 30’s she is mellowing out. SO, perhaps someday you won’t need to lock yourself up sans a steady guy.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I believe that women can think logically, but that doesn’t mean that that’s the last word in what gets decided. Emotion can override at times

Emotion overriding logic can be really good. Fly or fight response has stayed with us for a reason. Also divorcing a guy and stealing his money and kids for the money is a logical move right? You don’t want your a woman that thinks “I love this man but it makes more sense to screw him from a rational POV” either. Logic =/= ethics, YMMV.

That would imply that they might do the wrong thing because it “feels good” DESPITE coming to the logical conclusion that it is wrong. How in the hell can a guy EVER trust a woman if this is their standard operating procedure?

Not as simple there is also “How would I feel after doing the wrong thing? How do the consequences make me feel?” Feelings are a continuum not a switch so she can screwed you and herself but she can also feel is the wrong thing to do at the same time she feels she want it.

Emotions are so random and uncontrollable, how can women or anyone possibly base their life around how they feel all the time?

This is like me asking how man can live in a world were so many women can give you the boner, sexuality is so uncontrollable and random how can men base their life about how much sex are they having all the time?
We women are born like this for the most part we learn to master them with time with practice and the help of family and society and again is a balance first emotions then logic for you (men) should be first logic then emotions. Anyone that only has one or only uses one is not doing it right and is going to stumble upon many issues in life and love, YMMV.

PS
I’m not offended I have a similar process to come up with certain conclusions.
Ted D

Ana – “We women are born like this for the most part we learn to master them with time with practice and the help of family and society and again is a balance first emotions then logic for you (men) should be first logic then emotions. ”

OK, so does what I posted above apply in many cases? Are we simply neglecting to teach young women (and in many cases young men) how to balance these conflicting sides of their personality? Because what I see among young women especially is a very serious lack of logic, and an overabundance of chasing “good” feelings. Why aren’t these women stopping to consider those negative consequences? Why don’t they stop before they do something that will cause feelings of guilt and shame later?

This is damn close to the missing piece I’m looking for here I think. I’m finding it DAMN HARD to understand feelings using logical thinking. It isn’t that I don’t have feelings, I just never give them any importance at all, and I’m really having a hard time imagining myself basing decisions on feeling, but I can easily see how doing so could lead me to some really BAD decisions.
Ted D

Susan – “Women are giving head at bachelorette parties?

I really do live in a bubble, I guess. Let’s hope it’s not the bride.”

The videos I’ve seen “made the rounds”, so God only knows if they were real. I can tell you it looked real, and in one case the dude was even wearing a “cock sock” (I guess some states don’t allow men to have a bare penis, so they wear custom skin-tight “socks”, and I watched a women in the crowd deep throat one of these with the sock on!)

That being said, what I’ve heard from women I know and trust is MORE than enough for me make it a rule that my wife nor I will ever go to any type of strip club. I’ve been told of oral sex, and in one case the bride to be taking a shot to the face from a male performer. No, I don’t mean she got punched…

That shit just won’t fly with me, and I made it clear up front.
Plain Jane

“He also really liked my pregnant body – maybe for the same reason, IDK. I thought he was crazy.”

Pregnant women have the most feminine bodies. It is the peak of femininity.
Ted D

“Pregnant women have the most feminine bodies. It is the peak of femininity.”

I thought my ex was super hot when she was pregnant with my son. I was just concerned for her and the babies health in terms of actual sex with her.

She also seemed to be a good bit more horny for most of the pregnancy, but I imagine that has a lot to do with hormones and such.
Lokland

@Susan, Ted D

On the male stripper thing.

Couple weeks ago I was driving through a city (don’t recall which) and some lady called in with a very serious dilemma.

Her and her gfs went to see Magic Mike and then decided to do the real thing. Gf asks boyfriend, boyfriend asks if she wants to be single.

Further notice, boyfriend doesn’t go to strip clubs.

Conclusion from everyone. Boyfriends an asshole and girlfriend was totally in the right.

Just curious on yours and other opinions.

Also, Susan. If you think those shcok prank calls are bad try this. Different radio station.Has girl on phone. Asks her 10 questions about her sex life (btw this chick could have been a pornstar) then they call Dad up and reask the questions. If he hangs up or she lies no free tickets.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Lokland
  
  Personally, I think it’s totally legit for a guy to say a strip club is a dealbreaker if he doesn’t go himself. I think my husband would strenuously object if I wanted to go to one. For the record, I don’t want him going either. If he ever has, I haven’t known. And he’s not one for “boy’s night” anyway, except for Dinnermen (6 guys who cook and eat together once a month).
JustYX

@TedD

I can grasp that, but you understand that to me it makes women MUCH less trustworthy across the board, right?

That would imply that they might do the wrong thing because it “feels good” DESPITE coming to the logical conclusion that it is wrong. How in the hell can a guy EVER trust a woman if this is their standard operating procedure?

‘trustworthy’ is a bit strong, I think. And most of the time I don’t think black becomes white, or vice versa. Just the shade of grey is shifted. I’ve never hated women, but my (old) divorce has made me very shy of letting a woman into my fundamental decision making process, just as you say – a deep scar some 15 years old.

Every human is on a spectrum and the female and male ones do overlap, so NAWALT and SMALT.

But what can I say? this is giving me a lot of grief IRL right here and now (no BS, it’s why I’m a pretty intermittant poster lately, I’ve been stunningly sidetracked). But if ‘she’ wasn’t feminine, I wouldn’t have been drawn to her. I wasn’t even looking to be drawn to anybody, she blindsided me. I was MGTOW and who knows…

Many Women Are Not The Same As Men

and good for them, but boy it can cause issues.

It is what it is.
Ted D

Susan – I was only going to bug out because I appeared to be really pissing you and a few others off. If that was my goal, that would have been fine. But I really was trying to have civil (somewhat at least) conversation.

Lokland – “Conclusion from everyone. Boyfriends an asshole and girlfriend was totally in the right.”

Fine, I’m an asshole. I’m completely good with that. Girlfriend was 100% wrong by my assholean standards. If HE didn’t go to strip clubs, then she had NO moral ground to stand on.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Why don’t they stop before they do something that will cause feelings of guilt and shame later?

Didn’t you get the memo? Shaming women is bad is pretty much the worst thing you can do to them. Hence all the problems we have. I will say that most women naturally will feel guilty if society wouldn’t give them hamster’s food. See the Rosin article about how empowering should women on the hook up culture feel except they are miserable but they know the will continue for the sake of the “empowering” and the personal is political crap.
I think Susan mentioned that she realized quickly that she was not cut out for casual sex because she FELT bad about it. Don’t think feelings as bad on their own they are just tools to relate to the world. Think of feelings like Game. You can choose how to use them and how and they are not always going to lead you to bad choices, YMMV.

The videos I’ve seen “made the rounds”, so God only knows if they were real. I can tell you it looked real, and in one case the dude was even wearing a “cock sock” (I guess some states don’t allow men to have a bare penis, so they wear custom skin-tight “socks”, and I watched a women in the crowd deep throat one of these with the sock on!)

Don’t believe any video unless you know the persons involved the new “cool” thing is having realistic porn like “I asked all this men to gangbang my wife” except that she is not his wife at all the Casting Couch one is also considered staged for the most part. This is similar to the satanist hysteria of the 80’s or the UFO’s hysteria of the 90’s there is a lot of tales and witness and videos but you rarely find anyone you know in it and we live on a world where we are a youtube clip away from public exposure…so assuming all this things are happening in droves is kind of…illogical if you let me use the word, YMMV.
Plain Jane

“@Plain Jane
“See, this is why the Manosphere is considered whack.”

“Wait, they’ve got lots of sensible, valid things to say too.”

Sai, so far the only “sensible” and valid arguments they make are regarding legalities in family law.

There are strong tendencies toward racism and sexism in many of their blogs. The blogs that are not racist and want to see ALL men worldwide “unite for the cause” nevertheless always get overrun by racist commenters who say the non-racist men have “not swallowed the red pill on race”.

There is also a strong mainstream right-wing political bent, which is f*cking hilarious. They argue with the “liberal commies” because they too have not taken the “red pill regarding politics” …. as if mainstream right-wing politics are somehow “alternative”!!!!!

Its a gigantic clusterfuck of confusion.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Plain Jane
  
  HUS is not the manosphere. I was kicked out long ago, lol (except for Vox, bless his heart). Don’t come here and bitch about it.
Travis

“Also, Susan. If you think those shcok prank calls are bad try this. Different radio station.Has girl on phone. Asks her 10 questions about her sex life (btw this chick could have been a pornstar) then they call Dad up and reask the questions. If he hangs up or she lies no free tickets.”

I listened to one on Youtube recently. The DJ’s had a woman call in for free tickets to a Kanye West concert. The catch was that she had to call her husband up and tell him that she’d been cheating on him, then apologize. If the guy accepted her apology or didn’t threaten to divorce her, she won the tickets. So she calls him up, on air, and proceeds to tell him that she had cheated on him, but she was so sorry, still loved him, it didn’t mean anything, etc.
The guy says “Oh yeah? Well I’ve been fucking your sister for the last year and a half!”
She breaks into tears and says “You don’t mean that! You’re just saying that to get back at me!”
He says “Think so? Call her up and ask her…”
At that point the DJ’s were freaking out and broke in to explain that it was all a joke.
Talk about your all time backfires…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Travis
  
  OMG, why do people even sign up for those stupid jokes? I’m not surprised that a couple like that would behave badly.
JustYX

@Sassy
It had occurred to me, but was too personal to make plain, so I didn’t push it.

It is why I suggested doing things where you would need a bit of masculine aid, your femininity would be obvious, but not a handicap that would irritate you.

If that helped you, well then you just turned my day around a bit. It’s been crap so far, so I appreciate it all the more.

You go girl…hope that it all works out.

And I never said that All Men Are Like Me. I need the Yin to my Yang, or is it Yang to my Yin – but that’s me. Your welcome to the insight.
Ted D

Just YX – “Many Women Are Not The Same As Men”

First of all, best of luck! I was in no way looking for a new woman when I met my wife, and 3 years later I’m remarried. *shrug*

I guess I never thought about this particular issue as being a “men vs. women” kind of thing to be honest. I’ve known a few very logical women in my life, and they didn’t seem any less feminine to me, so perhaps this is simply not one of the traits I look for as feminine in a woman? (they still dressed attractively, still smelled good, still seemed capable of nurturing and caring for people) In fact, I very much enjoyed the time I spent with these ladies: it was very low drama and generally a positive experience. Of course, one of them was in IT, the other was in engineering. I was married when I knew them both, so unfortunately I had no chance of trying a relationship with either one, but I truly wonder what it would have been like. I imagine very laid back and low key. Little to no drama. Few power struggles.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

But what can I say? this is giving me a lot of grief IRL right here and now (no BS, it’s why I’m a pretty intermittant poster lately, I’ve been stunningly sidetracked). But if ‘she’ wasn’t feminine, I wouldn’t have been drawn to her. I wasn’t even looking to be drawn to anybody, she blindsided me. I was MGTOW and who knows…

Ohh so you have someone in your life. I recommend Athol you might have a second chance at love. You at the very least owe to yourself try the best tools you have now that you have more experience and exposure to see where it goes, IMO. Good luck!
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Travis
I heard that many of this pranks are staged with hired voice actors…So yeah don’t trust them all.

Mmm with all this I wonder if Pluralistic Ignorance is every where and not only in college? There is a reason I don’t think we should discard studies just because they don’t match what we hear. I wonder how many of our accounts will sustain if we can only count what we had been witness in real time and no hear it from a friend of a friend of a friend, YMMV.
Ted D

“Ohh so you have someone in your life. I recommend Athol you might have a second chance at love. You at the very least owe to yourself try the best tools you have now that you have more experience and exposure to see where it goes, IMO. Good luck!”

I’ll cosign this one! Now that you know all of this stuff, you are in a much better position to get a stellar relationship and keep it. It is precisely why I’m remarried today. I may be a fool for taking the chance after dodging the bullet once, but I feel like I’m much better equipped to succeed this time. And I’ve always been a supporter of marriage and family, so I figure I should put my money (literally and figuratively) where my mouth is. We had been living together very nicely for two years, but to me it always felt less than sincere, or less than legitimate. Call it my Feminist programming if you want, but simply living with her just felt like I was showing the world that she wasn’t worth the real deal, and it isn’t the example I want to set for my children.
Plain Jane

“Also, Susan. If you think those shcok prank calls are bad try this. Different radio station.Has girl on phone. Asks her 10 questions about her sex life (btw this chick could have been a pornstar) then they call Dad up and reask the questions. If he hangs up or she lies no free tickets.”

“I listened to one on Youtube recently. The DJ’s had a woman call in for free tickets to a Kanye West concert. The catch was that she had to call her husband up and tell him that she’d been cheating on him, then apologize. If the guy accepted her apology or didn’t threaten to divorce her, she won the tickets. So she calls him up, on air, and proceeds to tell him that she had cheated on him, but she was so sorry, still loved him, it didn’t mean anything, etc.
The guy says “Oh yeah? Well I’ve been fucking your sister for the last year and a half!”
She breaks into tears and says “You don’t mean that! You’re just saying that to get back at me!”
He says “Think so? Call her up and ask her…”
At that point the DJ’s were freaking out and broke in to explain that it was all a joke.
Talk about your all time backfires…”

WHAT A DEGENERATE CULTURE. And (some) Americans (like the POTUS) still call themselves “leaders of the ‘free’ world”???

The rest of the world laughs their asses off at us and does NOT want to become like us. Romney said in his convention speech that he wants to “make the rest of the world like America”. I got news for ya buddy, the rest of the world DOES NOT want to become like America. And I don’t blame them.
JustYX

@Ana – piticure

part of my soul just died, and I don’t even have one to start with (atheist + MRA). That’s on you, I just hope that you can live with it.
Desiderius

Susan and MikeC,

“It is necessary for both parties, because that is the only script they know. Even two people who don’t want casual sex are most likely to get together via casual sex. There is simply no other approach that is considered normal.”

Exactly. It was originally instituted to screen for those things that I mentioned, but it has become a screen for whether you’re normal or not (i.e. not sociopathic/socially retarded in some way) as its been adopted as a social norm.

Since its the done thing, if you don’t do it, the assumption is you don’t know your manners. Got to win some kind of irony award there.

I’m now determined to stick to my guns about not hooking up/escalating earlier than I’m comfortable with, but that means its on me to demonstrate pre-selection and confidence in other ways, while also demonstrating that I know my manners (am generally socially savvy) too.

Takes some practice, but understanding helps keep the cortisol down.
Travis

@Ana,
“I heard that many of this pranks are staged with hired voice actors…So yeah don’t trust them all.”

Yeah, that was my first thought, too. But you should have heard these people. The woman was screaming at the guy, bawling her eyes out. The husband was insanely pissed off. And the DJ’s were scared shitless. If it was fake, then ALL of those people were phenomenal actors. Better than most I see on TV.
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

Ted D, Anacaona, & others on Feeelings…..I think there’s a big difference between those who use logic to process their feelings…ie, the feeling is a starting point subject to review…and those who treat their feelings as absolutes.

Some recommended reading: “The Hour Between Dog and Wolf,” by John Coates, a securities trader who has become a neurobiology researcher. He is focused on the relationship between thinking and emotions, especially hormonal aspects. Interesting thoughts on male/female differences on Wall Street….he argues that the common argument that few women are traders because the environment is so crude makes no sense because plenty of women are salespeople, sharing that same crude environment, and goes on to say that there are far more women in investment management, where the decision timeframe is days or weeks, than in trading, where the decision timeframe is minutes or even seconds, and that this may reflect different cognitive/emotional styles.
Ted D

Plain Jane – “WHAT A DEGENERATE CULTURE. And (some) Americans (like the POTUS) still call themselves “leaders of the ‘free’ world”???”

And look at that! You and I have found some solid common ground.

Travis – “Yeah, that was my first thought, too.”

I knew a guy that did morning radio here in Pittsburgh for years. He was one of the morning DJ’s for WDVE, and although they did their fair share of scripted shtick, he told me of many such “pranks” they planned that went sour quickly.

He was a really cool guy, but surprisingly VERY quiet in person. He lived next to one of my LTR mates for a few years and had a few really nice old cars. It was difficult to get him into conversation, but as another car guy I had an advantage.
Travis

“Plain Jane – “WHAT A DEGENERATE CULTURE. And (some) Americans (like the POTUS) still call themselves “leaders of the ‘free’ world”???”

“And look at that! You and I have found some solid common ground.”

Haha. You beat me to it…
Ted D

David Foster – “I think there’s a big difference between those who use logic to process their feelings…ie, the feeling is a starting point subject to review…and those who treat their feelings as absolutes.”

Yes, this is perhaps where I’m tripping up. I just don’t see a lot of young women using logic to process their feelings at all. Most of them seem to simply live and die by how they feel in the moment. It just appears to be such an irresponsible and immature way to live that it astounds me anyone past the age of 15 acts that way at all. However, I’ve seen grown women in their 30’s acting like this.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

It’s low drama, laid back and no power struggles for us, and I’m primarily an intuitive feeler. My emotions come first, but they don’t rule me. I think I have way better reign on my feelings than a female INTJ friend of mine. I’ve also known men who can’t keep a lid on their stress/anxiety/anger and are all over the place. In my opinion it’s better to be smart with feelings than try to get all Spock about them and deny the validity of emotions.

But that’s also why I didn’t marry a Thinking type. There’d be way more arguments if I did.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

part of my soul just died, and I don’t even have one to start with (atheist + MRA). That’s on you, I just hope that you can live with it.

It was not my intention. I can ask the hubby if I can give you a piece of mind on compensation is pretty big although you might like Twilight if you take it

Yeah, that was my first thought, too. But you should have heard these people. The woman was screaming at the guy, bawling her eyes out. The husband was insanely pissed off. And the DJ’s were scared shitless. If it was fake, then ALL of those people were phenomenal actors. Better than most I see on TV.

What is more likely a woman just found out that her husband is sleeping with his sister on air… She would a) Forgetting about the stupid tickets and hang up to avoid having anyone recognizing them before he says more information and call him again in private telling him that it was a joke from a radio show and then set fire to all his clothes and find her sister and slap her senseless or continue the conversation on air with the risk of everyone she knows knowing about this?

“The Hour Between Dog and Wolf,” by John Coates,
I’m so going to go broke with all this wonderful books recommendations.
Thank you anyway. Not to herself get a new library card.
Plain Jane

Me: WHAT A DEGENERATE CULTURE

Ted D “And look at that! You and I have found some solid common ground. ;-)”

Travis – “Yeah, that was my first thought, too.”

Ted D again: “I knew a guy that did morning radio here in Pittsburgh for years. He was one of the morning DJ’s for WDVE, and although they did their fair share of scripted shtick, he told me of many such “pranks” they planned that went sour quickly.

He was a really cool guy, but surprisingly VERY quiet in person. He lived next to one of my LTR mates for a few years and had a few really nice old cars. It was difficult to get him into conversation, but as another car guy I had an advantage.”

No Ted, we obviously haven’t found “common ground” if you would befriend such a person and think he’s a “really cool guy”.

When I said “degenerate culture” I included the radio jockeys who set such a thing up thinking its “entertainment” and “fun”.

You obviously think such media slime are “cool”.
Desiderius

“Plain Jane – “WHAT A DEGENERATE CULTURE. And (some) Americans (like the POTUS) still call themselves “leaders of the ‘free’ world”???”

“And look at that! You and I have found some solid common ground.”

It’s a big culture. There are exceptions, especially in Susan’s neck of the woods. Used to be they’d keep the rest in line, by inspiration or intimidation, whichever it took. For awhile there, they became reverse hypocrites, practicing virtue while preaching vice. We’ll see what they come up with next.

Susan and Chuckie Schumer may be heading up a trend.

Now there’s a match made in heaven. You tingle just a little for him, right Susan? C’mon, you can admit it….
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Now there’s a match made in heaven. You tingle just a little for him, right Susan? C’mon, you can admit it….
  
  Ew, no! He’s smarmy. Where did he take a big role? Was it the Florida recount in 2000? I don’t like him.
  
  For tingle worthiness, I gotta go with him:
  
  BTW, that is a perfect male body, IMO. Lean and muscular.
J

I think being pregnant with his child has actually increased the amount of love and attraction I have for my hubby I never though if was possible I’m sure things will be a lot better when the kid is around…

LOL. Wait for that first post-baby argument where you want to kill your husband and then realize that you can’t because he’s so damn cute with the baby in his arms. It’s disgusting and unfair.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@Ana

One of the weak parts of this philosophy of Game is that yes, she will give you all the dates you want, and she will put out soon, but then what? …Is the sex worth that?

I wouldn’t know, and thankfully so. But there’s an interesting flipside to this that I’ve observed. Anecdote: A female friend of mine (solidly on Team R) told me about attractive co-worker who had expressed interest in her, pretty strongly in fact. She was flattered, but subsequently became aware of a particular girl (i.e. what she looked like, what her “rep” was) he had recently dated, briefly, primarily to sleep with. I’m paraphrasing her reaction: “There’s no accounting for taste, and I have no taste for him now.”

Given that even women with low N are permanently tossed on the relationship rubbish heap these days for having sex in the “wrong” context, I found this rather refreshing. I guess that’s when social proof for men turns into self-disqualification.
J

@Ana

The only think I want my baby to have from me is my skin color I already have to cover my husband on vampire sunscreen everytime we look at the sun a bit hard, not a nice additional worry to have in life if you ask me.

Your baby will probably be darker than your husband, but lighter than you. If he’s at least pale olive complected (as I am), he’ll tan beautifully. I never burn. My mom was a redhead; she both burned and freckled.

Also, you’re dead on about male strippers. It’s the rowdiness that’s fun for these women. The mere idea of a strange d*ck in my face disgusts me.
J

She also seemed to be a good bit more horny for most of the pregnancy, but I imagine that has a lot to do with hormones and such

When I was PG my OB said I was pumping out enough estrogen for three 17 year old girls.
Plain Jane

“It’s a big culture. There are exceptions”

Oh I know. But its the mainstream American media and pop culture, like the kind these “shock jocks” pimp, that is getting pimped out globabally. These lowest common denominator, unethical shock jocks and other media slime are the “face” of America to the rest of the world.

American porn is also the face of America to the rest of the world. Think about that the next time you travel abroad.
Travis

“What is more likely a woman just found out that her husband is sleeping with his sister on air… She would a) Forgetting about the stupid tickets and hang up to avoid having anyone recognizing them before he says more information and call him again in private telling him that it was a joke from a radio show and then set fire to all his clothes and find her sister and slap her senseless or continue the conversation on air with the risk of everyone she knows knowing about this?”

I think it’s entirely possible that, after having a bomb shell like that which could possibly destroy her life dropped on her, she might have gotten extremely emotional and forgotten that she was on the air. It wasn’t like they hashed out the whole situation in front of everyone. He said he was sleeping with her sister, she started crying and sobbing and calling him an asshole, and the DJ’s broke in sounding very shaken and tried to explain to him that it was all a joke. At which point he hung up. (She had already gotten cut off when the DJ’s broke in.)
IDK. I could be wrong. It’s entirely possible that it was faked. But like I said, if it was it was pretty damn convincing….
JutR

PJ, your self loathing is showing. You might want to button that back up before the entire world gets a peek.

On your assessment of America, I would agree that our culture has degenerated. That is obvious.

Why has it degenerated would be a good question to ask, but the answers will not appeal to some vocal offense takers. It wasn’t always this cheap, coarse, and vulgar. I am sure I can see some correlation with culture changes. Perhaps there is some causality as well?

We used to have morals, families, and citizens who cared about the fabric of our society. Now, we have government to solve our problems, so why would an individual take interest when we have some big faceless powerful entity that will solve our problems with a wave of a wand?

Of course, women seek security. As the you-go-girl attitude of single motherhood is destabilizing the central family, it only makes sense for them to vote for daddy government to provide them with the security they (so independently) don’t need from men.

So we have ever increasing government, destabilizing social forces, and an encouraged lack of personal responsibility.

How could that go wrong?
Ted D

Plain Jane – “No Ted, we obviously haven’t found “common ground” if you would befriend such a person and think he’s a “really cool guy”.”

Way to jump to conclusions. I never listened to his show because I thought it was trashy. And to be honest I told him so and he agreed. But, he had a wife and kids, and made a good living doing trashy shit on radio. Howard Stern seems to do the same, and I don’t personally dislike him either. People are NOT what they do to make a living.

Turns out he and I had more in common than liking old muscle cars. He was actually pretty cool, as I said. He just happened to be a doiche for a loving.

But hey, feel free to keep jumping to those conclusions. You seem to like the exercise.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Your baby will probably be darker than your husband, but lighter than you. If he’s at least pale olive complected (as I am), he’ll tan beautifully. I never burn. My mom was a redhead; she both burned and freckled.

Hubby is a ginger too and you are right he gets sunburned driving to work if he is not careful. But about the baby IME melanin is the first thing that goes away when you marry someone 100% white (evolution is funny like that) and procreate specially girls most of my female relatives and me are lighter than the males so I’m crossing the fingers since is a boy he will have some color. We will find out in a month or so
Ted D

“He just happened to be a doiche for a loving”

*sigh*

He just happened to be a douche for a living.

Stupid iPad…
Plain Jane

“Way to jump to conclusions. I never listened to his show because I thought it was trashy. And to be honest I told him so and he agreed. But, he had a wife and kids, and made a good living doing trashy shit on radio. Howard Stern seems to do the same, and I don’t personally dislike him either. People are NOT what they do to make a living.”

And here’s where I disagree. I do believe that what one chooses as a profession reflects his/her broader values in life.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I guess that’s when social proof for men turns into self-disqualification.

I’m glad you have a sighting of a female unicorn. We should keep this on this unlikely events as part of the research
JustYX

Is this where PJ jumps the shark and gets booted (again)?

I’ve never seen it before, my eyes are glued to the blog now.

I wondered what it was that got her endlessly kicked off, when her initial comments as PJ looked pretty reasonable…

*popcorn time*
Plain Jane

JutR, you’re blaming crass shock jockism on Big Gubmint?

Are their shows paid for by Uncle Sam?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

I meant keep tabs on this unlikely events.
JustYX

@Susan #1673

nah, he does nothing for me… (and neither does she FTR).
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  nah, he does nothing for me… (and neither does she FTR).
  
  There’s a case where the male has higher SMV. Maybe he grew into his looks…
Ted D

Plain Jane – “And here’s where I disagree. I do believe that what one chooses as a profession reflects his/her broader values in life.”

Yeah I can’t buy that fully. I’m not in IT because it is my life’s ambition. I’m in IT because I couldn’t make a living gigging in rock bands and expect to have a wife and family. In fact, I despise/resent my “career” more days than I like it some months, but it offers me a lifestyle I am mostly comfortable with. (I’d love to make a little more money, but wouldn’t we all?). I know lawyers that have to represent criminals they find reprehensible because it is their job to do so.

Unless you have the means to financially support everyone in the world, it might be a good idea to step off of your high horse before you pass judgement on someone based on thier job. If that were the case, I would be forced to call abortion doctors murderers.
Plain Jane

Susan, you and I have the same taste in white men.

“And here’s where I disagree. I do believe that what one chooses as a profession reflects his/her broader values in life.”

Ted D, in addition to the above I’ll add that what to speak of values, what one chooses to fill one’s head (and heart) with, even if only for “just a job”, will affect their lives in other areas. I don’t know how familiar you are with mind sciences, meditation, etc, but being very choosey with the type of media, data, info, and overall vibration that one allows oneself to be exposed to is at the very core of leading a purposeful, mindful life.

One cannot just say, “oh its my job” to say things that are totally debased, and expect that the debasement does not effect one or effect others. If someone has a certain standard of ethics/values they will not want to debase others, through the media for example, with concepts, words or visuals that are below one’s own ethical standards, and certainly not just to get paid. They will seek out jobs that are in line with their own ethics.

Howard Stern and all the other degenerate shock jocks out there have taken up that profession precisely because it reflects their own internal values system.
JutR

PJ, in the interest of humoring you, it is the breakdown of the moral fabric (enabled by the growth of large government with poor social policies) that leads people to find this type of entertainment acceptable in public broadcasts.

Maybe you can connect the dots and find some influence from women’s suffrage and feminism in the enabling of a coarser, more vulgar, and less family friendly environment here in the Western Civ based countries. I won’t hold my breath for it though.
Ted D

Plain Jane – “Howard Stern and all the other degenerate shock jocks out there have taken up that profession precisely because it reflects their own internal values system.”

We simply must agree to disagree. To me if the world were just and right, people wouldn’t get paid to be douchebags. But I can’t blame people for making a living however they are best able. And as long as people will pay to witness other people’s misery, we will have the Howard Sterns and Maury’s of the world making a living from it. I simply can’t hate the sinner for the sin.
JustYX

Dammit, PJ jumped the shark yesterday on the psycho thread, missed the party. Do the server logs confirm that Puppy is PJ too? enquiring minds etc etc
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JustYX
  
  Although I respect OTC’s Plain Jane detection skills enormously, I don’t think Puppy was PJ. It would be fun if he was, but I doubt it.
Plain Jane

Ted, your IT job, no matter how much you might hate it, is not the same as shock jocking. Its apples and oranges there. Shock jocking deals with putting extremely negative and deviant content directly into listerners’ ears, and hence brains. Its a precise moral issue at stake here. Not so with IT.

My tradition teaches me that what I verbalize out loud is a direct reflection of my thought process and my thought process is a direct reflection of my internal values system.

Some jobs are neutral (I’d put IT in that category), while other jobs are not. For example, I could in good conscience work in IT, but I would never under any circumstances work in a slaughter house or as a shock jock.

JutR, I connect the dots of shock jockism back to our consumerist, capitalistic culture. Anything for the money!
JutR

We had a consumer based, capitalist culture well before shock jocks made an appearance. Perhaps they are enabled by it, but the demand by society was not there.

Dig a little deeper?
Plain Jane

” We had a consumer based, capitalist culture well before shock jocks made an appearance. Perhaps they are enabled by it, but the demand by society was not there.

Dig a little deeper?”

Are you suggesting that the majority listeners to shock jock shows are feminist welfare recipients? Stop beating around the bush and get to your point, if you have one.
Sai

re: male strippers/bachelorette parties
… I thought those parties just involved food and racy presents for the couple, and maybe a guy would dance but I didn’t know things happened like this.

@Ion
“Whereas other men want a woman that has standards and integrity, part of the turn on for black men is knowing that lots of other “powerful” (usually meaning either white man, or successful man of another race) has been inside of the woman. Several black men have told me this themselves.”
They said THAT?!
You don’t need somebody like that anyway.

@Susan Walsh
“There was nothing wrong with the guy and nothing wrong with the date. The woman was just a spoiled brat.”
Oh… Then (bleep) her, the guy can go to someplace full of chicks in genuine competition (with each other, nor him) and not miss/need her.

“Someone here recently reported there are James Holmes fan sites for girls. Like that orange hair is really attractive.”
…
WHAT
(insert your favorite outrageous sound effect here)

@Ted D
“The concept that a man can “grow” on a woman may be completely true, but I don’t know of a single man that wants to be the guy that did so. I think the ideal is to snag a woman by peacocking (meaning attract women that are into how you look) and then filter for compatible personalities. Of course that is probably very much projection on my part, as it is exactly how I and most men I know approach it. We look at all women, decide which ones we would have sex with, and then proceed to filter for best options.”

I always thought like that too. Before checking out HUS I thought all girls did. You can’t put your arms around somebody’s personality or kiss your partner’s wit, you know?
And I am SO with you on the logic vs. emotions thing. Sometimes the family would be watching a movie or even the news, and I’d ask my mother “why’d she do that? Girls are weird.” She’d say “You’re a girl.” I’d pout “I know…” I grew up jealous of boys.

@david foster
“Somebody went on a college campus and got a lot of women to to sign a petition which indignantly demanded an end to women’s sufferage.

Another had good luck obtaining a signatures for a petition which demanded the banning of dihydrogen monoxide.”
LMAO
This is why, no matter how much flack I get for it, I like to read anything my signature goes on.

@Plain Jane
“WHAT A DEGENERATE CULTURE. And (some) Americans (like the POTUS) still call themselves “leaders of the ‘free’ world”???

The rest of the world laughs their asses off at us and does NOT want to become like us. Romney said in his convention speech that he wants to “make the rest of the world like America”. I got news for ya buddy, the rest of the world DOES NOT want to become like America. And I don’t blame them.”

There are stinkers here, but other countries have some nasty pranks too. Don’t put all the blame on the States…

@JutR
“Maybe you can connect the dots and find some influence from women’s suffrage and feminism in the enabling of a coarser, more vulgar, and less family friendly environment here in the Western Civ based countries.”
I think everybody here agrees that feminism was a bad idea, but did the problem really start as early as women getting the vote? Maybe it did, I’m still learning about all this.
Plain Jane

“There are stinkers here, but other countries have some nasty pranks too. Don’t put all the blame on the States…”

Not the point. The point is that a culture founded upon anything for a buck will naturally produce, well, people who will do anything for a buck.

“I think everybody here agrees that feminism was a bad idea”

Wait, what?

” but did the problem really start as early as women getting the vote? Maybe it did, I’m still learning about all this.”

Aw hell no! Sai, I responded to your comment about their being “some sensible and valid things in the Manosphere too” on the previous page. Susan ask that I not rant about the M-sphere here since she’s not an M-sphere blogger, but if you read that previous comment (in response to you) on the previous page you will see how these crazy ideas such as the one you are saying “maybe” to above, along with its blatant racism and increasing take-over by old uptight right-wingers is the reason why the Manosphere is considered nutty at best.

You, Sai, wrote the above in respose to JutR who is asking me to connect the dots between “anything for the money” shock jock vulgarism and feminism/the welfare state.

JutR, “Maybe you can connect the dots and find some influence from women’s suffrage and feminism in the enabling of a coarser, more vulgar, and less family friendly environment here in the Western Civ based countries.”

I connect the dots all right, but I go ALL the way back to the very founding of this country which was based on course, vulgar slavery, which was predicated on breaking up the family unit – all for the money.

Sure, there was some superficial lip service to “freedom and liberty” and “inalienable rights” LOL, all from the mouths of slave owners. I don’t know about you but if a slave owner ever waxed eloqueont to me about “freedom” I’d take with more than just a grain of salt.

What JutR does not realize is that it was only later than some people started to question slavery and the totally unethical way Native Tribes here were dealt with, both of which depended on breaking up their families and separating husbands from wives in the case of slavery, and children from parents in the case of the Natives (to go to “mission schools” and learn European Christian ways). So much for “American family values” huh?

This is what the economics of this country have always been based on – exploitation and anything goes, including breaking up families, as long as you’re making a profit. That some people questioned that and sought to change it does not erase the fact that its what the very founding of this country was based on.

To think otherwise is pure utopian fantasy. I have higher values NOT because of capitalism or the values of the founding fathers of this country, but IN SPITE of them (and in direct opposition to them).
Ion

“These black men complaining about natural black hair had weaves themselves? Or did they shave themselves bald?”

@ Plain Jane, these same black men wear “waves” . Notice very few black men wear natural afros? Usually, they are wearing waves or brushcuts. This is what the style looks like to make the hair look less “kinky” and straighter/more wavy, you’ve probably seen it a lot and hadn’t noticed:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8vAoDiJGIbBD3XJgcfOimqBasnuY-DcaiNpQuxg_NOZ51KAmmXGdeCKcvsg

http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/artists/ginuwine/835_21_320x240.jpg

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9GeYu5ufFoX9aK4p6o1Rktzk_2tsejuW38t5Vp9MXdej0GU0TXJMflnjL

A lot of effort actually goes into this style, including keeping it that short, constantly brushing it, applying pomades, and wearing a “doo rag” at night. Yes, we’re still talking about men lol. Chris Rock even wears his hair like this to make it look less kinky, yet, he devoted an entire documentary to poking at black women who do it, without acknowledging that they are responding to what the MEN around them want.

Who are black women attracted to often? Morris Chestnut. He’s very good looking, and dark skinned. I think even Obsidian will admit that black women who are natural and dark skinned will be invisible to most black men, if they are not somehow “mixed”. I don’t think these men will say “I am racist”, I think they will blame women for this preference because it is easier than saying the truth about the ego boost they get from “stealing” from other men.

A lot of men are follow-the-leaders, every woman has seen this. If a man sees a woman with blond hair, and she is masculine looking, he will think she is “hot” because he assumes other men want her, even if they don’t. That creates a halo effect that benefits some women, and not others. And it has very little to do with attractiveness, character, and femininity.

The difference is that in the black community black men are stone cold racist in these “preferences”, because they have more to prove. How masculine looking is Nona Gaye, Garcelle Beauvais, Gabrielle Union and Jessica White? The answer is that they are not. But “I’m stealing something from white men” or “look at how exotic my 1/4th asian woman is” aren’t P.C. answers. There are plenty of examples of darker skinned women (like these mentioned women) who are quite feminine looking, and feminine acting.

When men are able to implement this kind of hypergamy, they are way more ruthless and exploitative than women, because they don’t bond as easily as women. And in my opinion, in the black community, women are directly used to “prove” what men are capable of taking from other men, and not the other way around.
http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

For what it’s worth, I do judge a man by his profession. When my husband told me that he refused to go into banking industry with his STEM degree, and instead he went to Peace Corps and then became a VISTA volunteer, my respect level went up for him a ton.

He was making very little money, but it was so awesome to me that he stuck to his convictions. This was before he went to grad school, and I helped support us for a while. I would much rather spend my life with relatively meager means than marry an i-banker or someone like that.

Now he works for a biotech company as a programmer/analyst. The company develops rapid testing which can help save people’s lives.
Ted D

Hope – I guess it’s good for me that my wife didn’t count it against me that I sold out. :-p

I’ve always looked at work as a means to an end. There are jobs that I would not do based on moral grounds, but there are few people I view as “evil” for doing something to make a buck, as long as it is not made by illegal means.

And keep in mind, my “meager meens” has to support a family of 6, although my wife does work so we don’t live on my income alone. Knowing that times are tough and jobs are hard to find, I don’t begrudge anyone that makes a bundle from people willingly paying them to be obnoxious assholes. Some days I kick myself in the ass for not thinking of it myself as I am naturally an arrogant asshole and could easily do the job. I just can’t stoop to that level, and it would require me to interact with far too many people.

I admire your conviction. I guess I’m economically promiscuous because I do tend to put money before morality do a degree.
Plain Jane

Ion, but waves are still there natural hair right? Ergo they have no right to complain about black women wearing natural.

“A lot of effort actually goes into this style, including keeping it that short, constantly brushing it, applying pomades, and wearing a “doo rag” at night. Yes, we’re still talking about men lol.”

Oh I know all about black hair rituals. I dated a man (ok a few) with really long locks and he spent hundreds of dollars on them monthly getting them professionally oiled, bees waxed, twisted, braided, did up. He looked royal and I have to admit I was a bit jealous.

Morris Chestnut?! Guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurlllllll, he’s the only reason I watch BET and TV One. OK well not the only reason. Dayum there are some fooooiiiinnnne-ass men on those channels!

Black rom-coms are the only ones I can stomach, because of all the delicious eye candy. More bare-chested basketball scenes please!

Take two!
Never cut!
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Ted
I’m with you in the making an honest living is more important than the job itself. As long as you are not stealing or killing I think earning money is hard enough specially for people that wants to have a family. I mean with limits if you are working for a magazine taking pictures of Whitney Houston’s body and are not planning your way out ASAP then it obviously does means something about what kind of person are you. The same for corrupt people, specially if is not to survive but to have a new car every year and travel to Paris for clothes. Moderation on everything as I always say and there is a difference in doing things for covering the basics and doing it for luxury, YMMV.
Plain Jane

“I think it’s fair to say that most 13 year olds feel this way. Certainly the ones interested in boys do. As they mature and learn about the opposite sex, their responses become more complex and refined. This varies a great deal by individual, though.”

And that individual’s mother. My neighbor (single mom with teenage daughter) felt so proud of her 14 year old who continued to talk to her same aged boyfriend after he tried to steal something from a local drug store and knock out the employee who caught him and reprimanded him.

She said, “she’s so soft hearted she said ‘mom, I can help him. He has nobody else in his life to teach him’ and I agree. I’ve taught my daughter right. She can help these other kids.”

!!!!!!!
JuTR

Ahh, interesting. So Susan allowed you back with some stipulations. I was wondering if all the angst about these men in her living room would end up with some changes. Apparently, you are here to fight the testosterone influx.

Susan, I am not sure if this will accomplish what you hope. I came out of the woodwork, where I normally lurk, to reply to this odious voice. Let’s hope this doesn’t end up having the opposite effect from what you intended.

So, Plain Jane, can you connect the dots that 40 years of feminism have placed in front of us? I know we shouldn’t talk about the outcomes of having women compete based on their raw sexual appeal for relationships, but the reality is that when feminism made women compete in the work place like men, and made them equal to men, and allowed them to use their sexuality to select their partners, it devalued them to men as life partners?

Do you see the increase in single mothers that no man will commit to? Do you understand the damage done to children by this phenomenon? Do you see how this impacts children and their perceptions of how their fathers see their mothers? Do you see how this changes the perception of men as women as not being individually important? Many men now see women as interchangeable vaginas instead of life commitment partners. Can you not understand how this plays out in our perceptions of humor and what is acceptable to say in public?

I am in an inebriated state, and I can’t really debate well, and I won’t say much else tonight after this.

Ff you can’t see how “smashing the patriarchy” ended up with broken homes, bastard children with no male guidance, less respect for fathers, less respect for women, and a desire to have government solve the problems that it forced parents to create, without any regard to actual outcomes, then you probably can’t understand what I am saying.

And that is fine. Just keep voting for the government to solve problems by leeching money from men, penalizing them for having marriage and children. I am sure it will all work out, and people will start respecting each other, and shock jocks will no longer find an audience for humor in violence and strippers.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @JuTR
  
  Ahh, interesting. So Susan allowed you back with some stipulations. I was wondering if all the angst about these men in her living room would end up with some changes. Apparently, you are here to fight the testosterone influx.
  
  Susan, I am not sure if this will accomplish what you hope. I came out of the woodwork, where I normally lurk, to reply to this odious voice. Let’s hope this doesn’t end up having the opposite effect from what you intended.
  
  Yikes, I wouldn’t enlist the help of Plain Jane for that purpose. PJ has a history here going back to 2009 or 10, posting under a wide variety of aliases, changing genders, and generally derailing threads with talk of Desi culture and crackpot theories. I have banned her many times. This time she began posting under one name, acknowledging her real identity, and behaving herself – at first. I’ll probably have to ban her soon.
Plain Jane

“I am in an inebriated state, and I can’t really debate well”

I normally don’t engage with drunk people and it is obvious that you cannot debate well, but in the spirit of liberality I will address a few of your points.

First you started off trying to pin shock jocks on feminism and welfare. You failed to make a link and now you are on about something else.

Feminism, like ALL isms, has its pros and cons. It is not solely responsible for all the ills in this society.

You harkened back to a time (pre-feminism) when supposedly there was less crassness, materialism and more family values. I say if there was more refinement and family values, it was IN SPITE of the overarching value system this country was founded on, not because of it. You fail to realize the value system this nation was founded on was “anything for a buck” and that included breaking up families, not only of the natives they found when they got here, but of people across the sea in a completely different part of the world from either the Americas or Europe, all for profit.

And this is what immigrants come here for – profit. NOT for “family values” or “culture” or anything of the sort. Family values, if they have them, they bring with them, its not something picked up here.

The strippers, shock jocks, and any other vapid materialists who glorify debasement for money, like death metalists and gangsta rappers, are a NATURAL OUTCOME to the values this nation was founded upon – financial profit regardless of consequences.

Now, whether Feminism existed here or not, it wouldn’t change this fact.

We have been a vapidly materialistic culture from inception. The founders WANTED it that way.

And so it is.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@JuTR
I hope Susan doesn’t mind me saying this. You can take a shot at trying to make PJ see sense but do it only because you have fun and for the benefit of the audience. She made up her life mission to make sure HUS hears her opinions she is not hear to learn but to enlight us all into thinking that women are all good and pure and men are all evil and crappy and anyone saying otherwise is a threat to society or whatever her voices tell her this week. Nothing will change she will spent Susan’s patience get banned again and come back with a different name in a few weeks. OTC and Me will spot her tell to Susan and we back to the same cycle again and again.
At this point I think she masturbates to the conflict, in fact there are a few commenters that come here with similar agendas, repeating the same issues even though no one bites again and again and again, that I imagine getting off on the conflict as well. But maybe I’m just a pervert :p
I can’t imagine spending my time in a place that clearly doesn’t want me but you know I’m more or less sane, enjoy yourself but when you don’t quit it is not worth your fingertips.
Plain Jane

“She made up her life mission to make sure HUS hears her opinions she is not hear to learn but to enlight us all into thinking that women are all good and pure and men are all evil and crappy and anyone saying otherwise is a threat to society or whatever her voices tell her this week. ”

Oh puh-leeze. Don’t impose your ideas onto me and impose your angst against your mother country’s latharios onto me.

Nowhere do I say women are “pure” (pure?!) and men are “evil”.

Obviously tracing back problems to their root cause is not your strong suit if you believe, as JutR does, that America’s crass materialism is a product soley of Big Bad Evil Feminism.

Feminism is the fall guy (girl) or scape goat for those who cannot think deeply enough to see that what is taking place in this culture today is a direct manifestation of what the original architects of this nation designed.

Ever play dominoes? It goes like that.

Blaming it on Feminism or any recent ism is short sightedness and incredibly shallow.
Iggles

Wow, this thread is still going strong!!!
I’ve been following along here and there, but haven’t been able to post today (super busy as of late!).

Anyway, it’s been an entertaining read! So many comments I’ll like to co-sign but can’t quote ‘em all

JustYX – Congrats and best of luck!

@ SW:

BTW, that is a perfect male body, IMO. Lean and muscular.

Eh.. Objectively, I totally see your point. He has a nice body.

However, my attraction triggers are tied so deeply with personality that his picture does nothing for me. I see Ryan and my brain reads “douche”.

I’m the same way with actors. If I hear they’re jerks in real life, their “hotness” disappears for me. For example, when Jude Law was caught cheating with his children’s nanny he became very unattractive to me due his actions. *shrugs*

@ Plain Jane:

Ion, but waves are still there natural hair right? Ergo they have no right to complain about black women wearing natural.

It’s ironic to say the least
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@Ana

I’m glad you have a sighting of a female unicorn. We should keep this on this unlikely events as part of the research.

You ladies shouldn’t sell yourselves short. You’re neither rare nor a minority, and you marry smart.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@PJ
I’m not American but I can see your agenda miles away there is a reason Susan bans you on a regular basis. You are not making any sense or any progress here.

You ladies shouldn’t sell yourselves short. You’re neither rare nor a minority, and you marry smart.

Well this is the consensus here that we are outliers I try not to raise conflict without proof but I do agree that there are many of us out there. With different challenges of course, but they do exist.
Desiderius

Susan,

“Ew, no! He’s smarmy. Where did he take a big role? Was it the Florida recount in 2000? I don’t like him.”

Another internet joke bites the dust. Can’t believe you thought I was serious. Electronic communication blows. Meatspace is the wave of the future.

“For tingle worthiness, I gotta go with him:
BTW, that is a perfect male body, IMO. Lean and muscular.”

I’ll spare you the Cooper pic, but that’s my physique, and he’s exactly my age. I’m a little more muscular and V-shaped, he has (way) better hair. Also the slightest edge in prestige.

I’m a (big) fan of his too, and my mother will barely speak to me (and only for purposes of berating me for being one) for that reason.
Desiderius

Susan,

“There’s a case where the male has higher SMV. Maybe he grew into his looks…”

When things work out well, that usually how things end up.

One good reason many smart women still marry early. Cashing in their chips when they have the most value. Highest SMV/MMV woman to ever fall for me (salutatorian/prom queen) did so when we were both 22 and I was on the rise. Should have put a ring on it.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

Well this is the consensus here that we are outliers.

Married heterosexual women? Yeah, you must be the Fabergé eggs of the SMP. A consensus of anonymous, unverified anecdotes, from men about women, certainly trumps any alternative sources of information.
Plain Jane

“I’m not American but I can see your agenda miles away ”

And what is my “agenda”?

You have repeatedly accused me of ideas that I do not profess, such as “all women are pure/all men evil”, now and previously.

I now have to ask, what exactly is your agenda in doing so?
Desiderius

Iggles,

“However, my attraction triggers are tied so deeply with personality that his picture does nothing for me. I see Ryan and my brain reads “douche”.”

You can disagree with someone without that making them a douche. I disagree with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but she’d be fun to hang with away from politics. Different cultures produce different outlooks, it’s the American way to see past that.

“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts…

… In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection….

…I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions…

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated. “
J

There’s a case where the male has higher SMV. Maybe he grew into his looks

More likely she grew out of hers. She looks like she probably had the sort of blonde prettiness that is lovely in an 18 yer old and gone by 35.
Plain Jane

“More likely she grew out of hers. She looks like she probably had the sort of blonde prettiness that is lovely in an 18 yer old and gone by 35.”

Anyone else ever notice how natural blondes and redheads age really fast?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Anyone else ever notice how natural blondes and redheads age really fast?
  
  It’s the porcelain skin. As someone of Irish descent I have it too.
Plain Jane

@ Susan, “Why would rock stars allow their small penises to be cast in clay? That makes no sense. Although Keith Richards did call Jagger “Tiny Todger” in his autiobiography.”

That’s just it. They thought they were big!!!! Like I said, a more innocent or naive time when even rock stars didn’t know what’s what.

Nowadays, no man in his right mind and with an ounce of pride would have his penis cast in clay if it were that small. Talk about a DLV.
Desiderius

“A consensus of anonymous, unverified anecdotes, from men about women, certainly trumps any alternative sources of information.”

Kate Bolick’s complaints about the men she had dated were the shock my system required to stop blaming others for my own shortcomings and instead to do something about it. Her own failures were of secondary importance to that, and indeed gave her a front row seat to observe men making mistakes similar to my own.

I am anonymous by necessity, but would be willing and able to verify any of the anecdotes I’ve offered. Susan has my contact information. It is not a trump, but I hope to provide some useful perspective to those whose mistakes resemble my own or those I describe.

As with Ted, it’s come out in a flood because these topics are actively suppressed, not only in the research community but also in our public discourse.
Desiderius

Ted, Susan, etc…

As for the Locker Room thing, I will be employing less colorful language in a quest for SFWness, and yeah no one likes a sausage party, but the vibe I was getting from the thread was a kind of “quiet kids, the adults are talking” thing (not saying it was intentional) and, as Travis pointed out, the target audience of this blog are not kids, they’re grown women and men, so I’d like to hear more from them, as equal participants in the conversation, or more than that if necessary.

They’re the ones who will be raising the next generation.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

A consensus of anonymous, unverified anecdotes, from men about women, certainly trumps any alternative sources of information.

I wouldn’t go that far but yes there is a lot of association bias, specially if the ones screwing the SMP are the ones with the most sexual power and it seems like they are.

I am anonymous by necessity, but would be willing and able to verify any of the anecdotes I’ve offered. Susan has my contact information. It is not a trump, but I hope to provide some useful perspective to those whose mistakes resemble my own or those I describe.

I don’t think Megaman was talking about you more about how come we got so many good women here that no men ever meet, interacted, worked or was part of his family. If you read Athol’s latest post where he is surprised to find out that many women actually love practical gifts and won’t throw a fit over getting a new set of ceramic pans for their birthday you can see that the disconnect is real. There are good women out there in USA but many men that want them can’t find them. The question now is why? and how can we make them happen? Nothing else and nothing more.
INTJ

@ Anacaona

I don’t think Megaman was talking about you more about how come we got so many good women here that no men ever meet, interacted, worked or was part of his family. If you read Athol’s latest post where he is surprised to find out that many women actually love practical gifts and won’t throw a fit over getting a new set of ceramic pans for their birthday you can see that the disconnect is real. There are good women out there in USA but many men that want them can’t find them. The question now is why? and how can we make them happen? Nothing else and nothing more.

This is the big thing. That’s what I hope that HUS can figure out. How do you find these good women? And how do you distinguish them form the narcissists so you don’t get burned along the way?
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

This is the big thing. That’s what I hope that HUS can figure out. How do you find these good women? And how do you distinguish them form the narcissists so you don’t get burned along the way?

Good questions all. I don’t have the answers yet but starting to ask the questions I think is a good first step.
INTJ

Have the people here seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZRflz-93JA

So good. Those wanting to learn girl game should take note of his complaints.
Desiderius

INTJ,

“This is the big thing. That’s what I hope that HUS can figure out. How do you find these good women? And how do you distinguish them form the narcissists so you don’t get burned along the way?”

They’re all around you, but they’re having trouble developing attraction for you.

“I don’t think Megaman was talking about you more about how come we got so many good women here that no men ever meet, interacted, worked or was part of his family.”

I meet them all the time. I was raised by them, work with them, and worship with them. They by and large get married young, Susan was a little on the late side, with some now in their thirties doing the serial monogamy glide path into a comfy defacto marriage without a ring.

It’s not the case that all the good ones are married, and the younger you go, the less that is true.

But I will say this, and I think it is important.

Almost all the good ones capable of recognizing, being attracted to, and not flaking on good men are.
JustYX

Re the locker room thing

my take on it was not the language used, so much as the accusatory tone – gotcha’s galore.

We had pages of comments where multiple commenters attacked one blogger. So the blogger was in a crossfire of allegations of hypocrisy / changing stated views etc. Wouldn’t your good will for your fellow humanity take a kicking, if that was you? You wonder why tempers get frayed?

And, you wonder why the target audience might give it a miss?

Why not just ask for clarification? It’s not like there’s a problem when Susan clarifies her views, is there?

anyway, that’s my take on what went wrong in the middle of the comments on this thread (and not for the first time). FWIW
Ted D

“I don’t think Megaman was talking about you more about how come we got so many good women here that no men ever meet, interacted, worked or was part of his family. ”

Well, I find it hard to consider anyone here “normal” when you consider the amount of rare personalities we have here at HUS. Let’s face it, this place is a collection of outliers for the most part. Or, more correctly, the regular commenters are mostly outliers. NO idea about the readers, but I’d imagine they probably come from all backgrounds. For whatever reason, be it the tone, the subject matter, or cosmic rays, the only people that regularly post here tend to be the unicorns of the world. Deny it all you want, but when INTJ’s make up 3-5% of the entire population, and we have more than a handful here, you are going to have a hard time convincing me anyone here represents the norm.
Ted D

JustYX – “Wouldn’t your good will for your fellow humanity take a kicking, if that was you? You wonder why tempers get frayed?”

Nope. You forget: I have no good will for my fellow humans.
Desiderius

JustYX,

“We had pages of comments where multiple commenters attacked one blogger. So the blogger was in a crossfire of allegations of hypocrisy / changing stated views etc. Wouldn’t your good will for your fellow humanity take a kicking, if that was you? You wonder why tempers get frayed?”

My good will for my fellow humanity stands on firmer ground than its perfection.
JustYX

well that was my two pennyworth…

and Desi, you and I agree on too many issues, but I don’t think either of us changed…pity about the rocky start we had

and who do you think you’re kidding Ted?
JustYX

@Susan
“I’ll probably have to ban her soon.”

mmm, that’s my suspicion. She doesn’t seem to be able to keep things on an even keel (imho), assuming that she even tries…

Anybody believing her BS about rape and FRAs in college should try the Community Of The Wrongly Accused (successor to False Rape Society)
http://www.cotwa.info/

cotwa is not an mra site, it is about justice

for example

Read our three part series on the University of Montana’s mandatory sexual assault video series
Part I: The University of Montana deprives men of their right to a fair hearing in sex cases

Part II: The University of Montana says sex after ‘guilt tripping’ is assault, and why that is wrong

Part III: The University of Montana’s mandatory video series teaches that rape is normalized
Ted D

JustYX – “and who do you think you’re kidding Ted? ”

Mostly myself. But, I see it as my way of keeping balance. If I actually started caring about people, I could easily see myself becoming a martyr, and no one loves a martyr.

I have much respect for the folks here at HUS I chat with regularly. It is my Achilles heel that once I get to know a person, I can’t simply dismiss their concerns and feelings as easily as I can those nameless faces in the crowd. Partly why I have such a small circle of friends. I simply don’t have the energy or mental will to “know” many more people. I guess that marks me as a true introvert: interacting with people, even people I know and love, does indeed drain me of life force (or whatever you want to label it.)
Ted D

“It’s the porcelain skin. As someone of Irish descent I have it too.”

Uh oh. My wife is 50% Irish, and I mean like REALLY Irish. Her biological father was adopted directly from Ireland as an infant. She is blond haired and green eyed, and although I won’t divulge her actual age, it is near mid 30’s. Should I tell her to start using some kind of skin products now?

I’m mostly Polish*, and it seems that although we may not be the brightest bulbs in the box, we tend to be rather healthy and long lived. My grandfather used to say: Polish people are strong like bulls, but smell like Ox.

* – there is actually some debate among my extended family. It seems that several attempts to do real research on our lineage have failed due to two world wars and destroyed records, but there are some indications that we are actually of German/Austrian lineage, and at some point one of our ancestors moved to Poland and added “owski” to the end of our given name. Unfortunately, the root of our name is as common in Germany as Smith is in the U.S. so it is damn hard to nail any of it down. For the most part, I’m a mutt, but there is a good part of something in me and my family that carries with it blond hair and blue eyes. Probably northern European, but other than that it is a lot of speculation. It sucks, because I’d love to get a tattoo of whatever family crest we once flew (even if we were simply subjects of the Lord that actually owned it) but we can only narrow it down to a choice of three.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  Tell your wife to definitely start using skin care! (Just be careful how you suggest it.) Clinique is my favorite department store line, and pretty reasonably priced, but you can do very well now at any drugstore. She can google “skin care in your 30s” and she’ll find lots of great articles.
Ion

“Anyone else ever notice how natural blondes and redheads age really fast?”

I always assumed that this was in part because we’re used to seeing blonds and redheads on T.V., so we know how they age, because their ideal youth is over-represented for them specifically.

I cannot tell the difference between a 30 or 40 year old jewish woman, black, or indian or asian, these people might have some melanin that prevents aging, but at least partially it must be that we’re not used to watching these people as they progressively age. Because even though asians and blacks must differ in how quickly they “age” as a result of different levels of melanin, I STILL cannot tell the age of an asian man or black woman at age 20-30. As far as I know it, Nia Long (black girl from Friday) has not aged since that movie nearly 20 years ago. But neither has Jackie Chan or Jet Li until recently.

A good example of this subtle but effective brainwashing is that we’re not used to watching asians on T.V. for example with a range of emotions, so we think of asians as emotionless and “lacking soul”, but even as people from our own ethnicities, it is hard to see a range of emotions. A brilliant asian woman discussed this at restructure.wordpress.com. Likewise we are used to seeing blacks being violent on T.V., so we usually see black women with neutral expressions as “angry” and “hostile”, even though they are just thinking about something.

In terms of your other comment bout Morris Chestnut…LOL.
Maggie

“Should I tell her to start using some kind of skin products now”

Anyone with fair skin should use a minimum of SPF 30 everyday, absolutely no tanning and no smoking. People with Irish skin are prone to rosacea and at the first sign of it she should get to a dermatologist . If she starts now there is no reason she can’t have good skin as she ages.
INTJ

@ Ion

I always assumed that this was in part because we’re used to seeing blonds and redheads on T.V., so we know how they age, because their ideal youth is over-represented for them specifically.

I cannot tell the difference between a 30 or 40 year old jewish woman, black, or indian or asian, these people might have some melanin that prevents aging, but at least partially it must be that we’re not used to watching these people as they progressively age. Because even though asians and blacks must differ in how quickly they “age” as a result of different levels of melanin, I STILL cannot tell the age of an asian man or black woman at age 20-30. As far as I know it, Nia Long (black girl from Friday) has not aged since that movie nearly 20 years ago. But neither has Jackie Chan or Jet Li until recently.

Well I think there’s a few things going on. I think the main thing is that signs of aging are much more visible on uncolored (i.e. pink-white) skin. There are other minor issues, such as the fact that we aren’t used to seeing non-whites aging, and that whites from Northern Europe are naturally designed to store a lot of fat to survive winter. With the modern sedentary lifestyle, this causes a lot of damage to the body.

A good example of this subtle but effective brainwashing is that we’re not used to watching asians on T.V. for example with a range of emotions, so we think of asians as emotionless and “lacking soul”, but even as people from our own ethnicities, it is hard to see a range of emotions. A brilliant asian woman discussed this at restructure.wordpress.com. Likewise we are used to seeing blacks being violent on T.V., so we usually see black women with neutral expressions as “angry” and “hostile”, even though they are just thinking about something.

To be fair, I think Asian Americans are more introverted than whites, which makes us appear emotionless, even in real life. And it’s certainly the case that black women are usually much more standoffish and aggressive in the way they talk. I don’t have much trouble talking with them, because as an INTJ, it isn’t too unnatural for me, but I can imagine most people having trouble with this conversation style.
Ted D

“She can google “skin care in your 30s” and she’ll find lots of great articles.”

I’ll use this as an opportunity to get some fair turnabout for all the over 40 jokes she tosses my way. I keep telling her she can rib me all she wants, but I’ll be there on her 40th birthday to welcome her to the over the hill club.
Maggie

Check out this site: http://www.skintypesolutions.com/home

It’s a site by a dermatologist and she has recommendations for both expensive and inexpensive skin care products.
JutR

Ana, you are very sweet, and I know some of PJ’s history. I think people don’t engage because they know she has mastered grammar without mastering wisdom or humility, and she has no desire for real debate. I do not care to change her perspective, I only care to discredit her ideas in the greater marketplace. So I do engage at my own risk. Personally, the risk is minimal, although I am sure she will feel rewarded to have more outlets to rant without addressing debate points.

Susan, I apologize for impugning your intent. I went out with some friends, enjoyed some wine, oysters and lobster, and came back a little more socially lubricated than needed for message board posting.

Now, onto the very poor debate that PJ has provided.

PJ “I normally don’t engage with drunk people and it is obvious that you cannot debate well, but in the spirit of liberality I will address a few of your points.”

JutR: Lovely ad hominem. Excellent way to start a post to demonstrate your mindset and level of discourse.

PJ “First you started off trying to pin shock jocks on feminism and welfare. You failed to make a link and now you are on about something else.”

JutR: Strawman. I never mentioned welfare. That is your addition. You think it adds tone to debunk the credibility of my arguments. I see it. Now others do. I did not pin shock jocks on feminism. I implied they are a symptom of a society that has devalued relationships between men and women. I certainly tied feminism to this devaluation. There are other reasons for shock jocks including technology and market expansions. Now

Feminism, like ALL isms, has its pros and cons. It is not solely responsible for all the ills in this society.

JutR: Strawman: I never said it was soley responsible.

PJ: “You harkened back to a time (pre-feminism) when supposedly there was less crassness, materialism and more family values. I say if there was more refinement and family values, it was IN SPITE of the overarching value system this country was founded on, not because of it. You fail to realize the value system this nation was founded on was “anything for a buck” and that included breaking up families, not only of the natives they found when they got here, but of people across the sea in a completely different part of the world from either the Americas or Europe, all for profit.”

JutR: Strawman: Slavery was not unique to America or Western Civilization. The unique thing was that we ended it. Or at least we try, despite Islam’s prophet advocating it. Do some reading on the slave trade. Africans sold their own people, less than 9% came to our shores. Black slaves were exported by fellow countrymen all over the world (luckily, most of them died from their enslavement in Muslim countries), and yet the burning rage of resentment is specially reserved for those terrible Americans in your eyes. The conquering of native peoples happened wherever any new culture moved into an area. The pilgrims did not come over to make a buck, they came over to get away from religious persecution. Yes, people came over to make money, as if that was some terrible crime. People want to improve their lot in life, yet you somehow make that a bad thing.

PJ:”And this is what immigrants come here for – profit. NOT for “family values” or “culture” or anything of the sort. Family values, if they have them, they bring with them, its not something picked up here.”

JutR: You make this argument on what basis? I see no facts. You ignore freedom of religion and speech, rule of law, and many factors (family, infrastructure, education, opportunity for specialized work) in your reduction of all the immigrants who come here as greedy money grubbing capitalists.

Pj:”The strippers, shock jocks, and any other vapid materialists who glorify debasement for money, like death metalists and gangsta rappers, are a NATURAL OUTCOME to the values this nation was founded upon – financial profit regardless of consequences.”

JutR: Please prove this. I want to know how you modeled this outcome, what variables you use, what operating parameters, and how far you can forecast this. Please provide details.

PJ:”We have been a vapidly materialistic culture from inception. The founders WANTED it that way.
And so it is.”
Which founders wanted it this way? I’m not going to cheapshot by asking where they wrote about the excellent trend of shock jockeying. What documents specify that they desired a coarsening of culture, and that they hoped the pursuit of happiness turned into the pursuit of an alimony and child support payout and healthcare paid for mainly by men?

PJ:”Obviously tracing back problems to their root cause is not your strong suit if you believe, as JutR does, that America’s crass materialism is a product soley of Big Bad Evil Feminism.”

Ahh, you really want to go there? The root of America’s materialism has to be linked to who spends money, right? Who spends the money in America? WOMEN! American women drive the not just the American economy, but the world economy. We outspend the Chinese about 8 to 1 in household spending . (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.PRVT.CD ) It is estimated that women do over 80% of consumer spending. (http://www.bls.gov/cex/ ) 93% of food purchases and 65% of auto purchases are due to women. The beauty market is 10+ billion, some estimates put spending hair products at $50k over a woman’s lifetime. The housing bubble, do you think the cheap construction for men’s lairs in the garage or basement or sweeties demand for the expensive options in living areas like open spaces, exposed beams, granite countertops and top end appliances drove more of the bubble? Of course, if it wasn’t enabled by big daddy government, then people might have more reasonable expectations, but someone voted to get better nest feathering initiatives, and I’ll let you guess at who does that, primarily.Which gender drives the spending around weddings? Which gender spends money on the other gender to try to impress/court them? Whose choices are driving the consumer spending?

You can only point the finger back at females, and the enabling forces of feminism. Capitalism existed before feminism without the culture coarsening. It takes a while for the effects of a civilized society to be cannibalized away, but the outcomes are pretty obvious once it happens.
Desiderius

“and Desi, you and I agree on too many issues, but I don’t think either of us changed…pity about the rocky start we had”

Heh – now you’re being cryptic. Tell me what you mean.
Ion

“To be fair, I think Asian Americans are more introverted than whites, which makes us appear emotionless, even in real life.”

True. But have you ever listened to a conversation entirely in mandarin or korean? Seems to be lots of yelling, emotions, and gestures there…and I see yelling and hand-raising gestures from women and men in Chinatown in nyc. Visit there. That notion that Asians are docile and quiet just won’t apply anymore haha.

What you say about black women is probably true, I can be aggressive, although I hate it because I am a true introvert (INTP), and hate any kind of conflict that isn’t tied to debate. I was pushed over a lot though, professionally, and accosted by thugs on the street, etc., until I started developing a backbone, so now, when I do get angry I don’t express it well. I have heard several times “oh I thought you were so mean when I met you”, although this is a common assumption people give to introverts. I can almost deal with that. But part of what’s so hard for me in interactions with other types of women is that they can be super sweet, and fake and sabotaging right til the end. I find that when a black woman doesn’t like me, or she is sizing me up, I know it, and am better prepared. Hmmm as a matter of fact, I think this is a similar problem I’ve heard some introverts have with extroverts in general lol.
Desiderius

JutR,

“she has mastered grammar without mastering wisdom or humility”

Wow, the hits just keep on coming. That’s what Cahill argued was the condition of intellectual life at the end of the Roman Empire in the introduction to this book that Susan would likely get a kick out of.
Desiderius

J,

About your son, from my experience in the schools K-Ivy Grad, he’s likely gotten a heaping helping of Plain Jane’s ideology about our country, and a lot less than what you got of JutR’s/Washington’s take.

That is whack.
JustYX

@Desi

not much, just minor skirmishes when you arrived…don’t remember any epics…
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Almost all the good ones capable of recognizing, being attracted to, and not flaking on good men are.

This is a good point. Flakyness should be on the red flag deal breaker of men that want to take control of their dating lives.

Deny it all you want, but when INTJ’s make up 3-5% of the entire population, and we have more than a handful here, you are going to have a hard time convincing me anyone here represents the norm.

First I’m a ENt/fJ and second I’m getting the feeling that if we were to make a similar assesment of the most important manosphere bloggers, PUA’s and commenters we might find a similar cluster of personalities. Now that I had meet more people I noticed men are not as self aware of their choices of women as men here. I will talk more about this when I have more “proof” but I’m telling you Ted personality clusters come in all flavors.

I guess that marks me as a true introvert: interacting with people, even people I know and love, does indeed drain me of life force (or whatever you want to label it.)

You have four kids now right? Do your kids have the same effect?

I cannot tell the difference between a 30 or 40 year old jewish woman, black, or indian or asian, these people might have some melanin that prevents aging, but at least partially it must be that we’re not used to watching these people as they progressively age.

I think some people have age blindness too. I have a bit for no reason whatsoever people don’t age for me slowly they just one day look older I have a friend that can tell age apart without even knowing anything about the person. Not sure if this is studied phenomena but I do think some people are better telling this than others YMMV

I’ll use this as an opportunity to get some fair turnabout for all the over 40 jokes she tosses my way. I keep telling her she can rib me all she wants, but I’ll be there on her 40th birthday to welcome her to the over the hill club.

I have a similar arrangement with hubby I get four years of fun before is my turn…totally worth it!

The conquering of native peoples happened wherever any new culture moved into an area.

I don’t think there is a single individual alive today, that can claim not being descendant of some invader even natives invaded and conquered each other all the time:
THE INVASION SONG!
Plain Jane

“Capitalism existed before feminism without the culture coarsening.”

You are missing the forest for the trees, JutR.
You say the culture is coarsening and I say its been coarse from the get-go.

” It takes a while for the effects of a civilized society to be cannibalized away, but the outcomes are pretty obvious once it happens.”

Again, my point is the society was based on “cannibalizing” from the get-go.

Just XY,
“Part I: The University of Montana deprives men of their right to a fair hearing in sex cases”

Yeah, universities are doing all they can to keep alleged sexual assault victims from going to police and through proper legal channels like courts, lawyers and our justice system, in order to avoid any public controversy and save face for the school’s brand name.

They discourage alleged sexual assault victims from seeking justice and encourage them to go through the college’s own internal system which is comprised of “mediators” and “counselors”.

In this way alleged sexual assault perpetrators are not getting their day in an actual court either, of course. Instead they are being “reprimanded” by “mediators” and “counselors” and getting a slap on the wrist like “suspended from summer school” instead.

I agree with you 100% that the alleged perpetrators should get their day in a US court of law.
Ted D

Ana – “Now that I had meet more people I noticed men are not as self aware of their choices of women as men here. I will talk more about this when I have more “proof” but I’m telling you Ted personality clusters come in all flavors.”

Oh I believe you, but my point was that HUS seems to have a collection of rare birds, so to speak, that is far more than random. So, any talk of people here being “the norm” is simply difficult for me to fully believe.

“You have four kids now right? Do your kids have the same effect?”

LOL, they wear me the hell out! Some days I feel like I’m trying to herd cats while all I’m doing is trying to get them to use some common sense. I’m starting to see glimmers of hope though, as both our boys are calming down and showing signs of introspection and critical thinking. I’m not throwing any parties yet, as they still routinely miss the obvious. I honestly can’t remember ever being as unaware of the world around me as our kids appear to be, but it may be that I simply don’t remember that time in my life so well.
Plain Jane

Just one more point about missing forest for trees. Over the summer an elderly bus monitor (Karen Klein) was bullied by course kids on the bus and it was taped by one of the brats and went viral on youtube. A young man in Canada took up online donations for her so that she could retire. The end figure was something like 700k. Anyway, this TV talking head named Glenn something was railing on and on about how bad American kids have become, the loss of “values” etc, and how this would have NEVER happened in the 1950s!!!!!

I was eating something when he said that and I immediately spit out my food in a state of shocked laughter. The 50s? Really? In the 1950s elderly women were bullied to the BACK of the bus en masse if they weren’t the right skin color.

People seem to have this strong idealism about the “good ol days”. I suppose its a human trait to idealize the past but Americans got it really hard. And the thing is, the past they wish to return to is a very, very, very coarse past. Somehow they conveniently forget that.
JutR

PJ: “You are missing the forest for the trees, JutR.
You say the culture is coarsening and I say its been coarse from the get-go.”
PJ: “Again, my point is the society was based on “cannibalizing” from the get-go.”

You address none of my points. You proffer nothing here but bold assertions with no underlying explanation, proof or citation.

I think I need to address your motives here, as speculative as my interpretation might be. I can understand why you would cherry pick a few sentences out to reply to, and make very short replies with no attempt at adding foundations to your assertions. I certainly wouldn’t want to have to support the side of the argument you chose.

Perhaps waving your literary hands with a “look over there!” type of statement will allow you to escape the thread with some shreds of your cognitive dissonance intact.
Ted D

Plain Jane – “And the thing is, the past they wish to return to is a very, very, very coarse past. ”

I’m OK with course to be honest. The thing I dislike about “the good old days” was that it wasn’t equally unfair to everyone. No, that wasn’t a typo, I meant unfair. The thing is, we can’t have a world where everyone gets to do what they want, when they want, with no consideration for others. We can go round and round trying to work out compromises, or we can simply set the rules and expect everyone to follow. I’m good with following the rules, provided they are equal for everyone. What we had in the 50’s was not equal, as there were classes of people still being treated as less than human while others enjoyed increased freedom.

What I’m saying is: I’m fine with a restrictive society as long as it is equally restrictive to everyone for the betterment of all. That means I am willing to give up some of my “freedom” for the greater good. Are you?
Plain Jane

“That means I am willing to give up some of my “freedom” for the greater good. Are you?”

Freedom and greater good are both vague terms so it would depend on which freedoms and what you consider to be “good” in the greater good.

New millenium shock jocks do not reflect my values, but neither does 1950s mainstream America, or 1850s maintream America.

JutR, your point is that our present day materialistic and coarse culture with its breakdown of the family unit is a result of Feminism. Correct? My point is, again, that our history has been coarse from the inception of this nation, and the systematic breakdown of Native American and African Slave families was part of an institutionalized plan on behalf of our founding fathers and other “leaders” in order to enable the economic rise of this new country The United States of America.

The motto was anything for a buck now, which included the breakdown millions of families, and that motto has not changed.

In other words, the visionaries, the movers and shakers who originally designed and shaped this country would be very pleased to see that what they began has continued and the subsequent generations swallowed their Kool Aid without question, families be damned.
Desiderius

Ana,

“This is a good point. Flakyness should be on the red flag deal breaker of men that want to take control of their dating lives.”

I would respectfully disagree. I used to flake myself (male flaking is when you’re feeling it but don’t follow up on it) and still do in less obvious ways. I microflaked last week when I didn’t go for anything physical/or the number close with the young professional I mentioned. We enjoyed 30-40 minutes of animated banter/intellectual conversation after she had finished her meal and I was still eating. She got up when I did. I let her pay first and she waited at the door for me.

She approved when I suggested we continue the conversation, but I detected the slightest hint of disappointment when I set up a meeting for five days later instead of taking it immediately to the bar across the street. Instead of getting her number, I suggested a back-up plan of meeting the same time, same place a week later in case we missed the meeting.

She actually flaked on both, but I signaled some cowardice/lack of interest/overall DLV by not escalating on my end, and via assuming the flake with the backup plan. She also may have assumed I was a married man looking to cheat due to my reluctance to exchange personal contact information.

Note: I would not have gotten anywhere near the opportunity to make this mistake in the first place with this woman if it had not been for Susan’s work. There are 20 reasonably healthy marriages in my extended family, and some outstanding ones. Most involve women very like this young woman. I can do this. She was not mistaken to be interested.
Ted D

Plain Jane – “New millenium shock jocks do not reflect my values, but neither does 1950s mainstream America, or 1850s maintream America.”

You make a whole lot of assumptions. I never once said that “shock jocks” reflect my values. I said I knew a guy that made his living as a morning DJ, and he was a pretty cool guy. I didn’t listen to his show, but he knew a lot about muscle cars, had similar political views (which surprised me as he was in media), and was generally a friendly person. I wasn’t alive in the 1950’s, so I can’t say what about it might have fit my values and what wouldn’t, but as an economic conservative and an social libertarian (of sorts) I can’t help but note that the 50’s was much more conservative, and all else being equal I’ll side with conservative hands down.

But, it strikes me that you are very anti-capitalism and anti-free market, so we have very little common ground to meet on other than believing our current society is sick. I suppose we have totally diametric views on how to go about fixing society, but hey, at least we agreed on something.
INTJ

@ Plain Jane

Just one more point about missing forest for trees. Over the summer an elderly bus monitor (Karen Klein) was bullied by course kids on the bus and it was taped by one of the brats and went viral on youtube. A young man in Canada took up online donations for her so that she could retire. The end figure was something like 700k. Anyway, this TV talking head named Glenn something was railing on and on about how bad American kids have become, the loss of “values” etc, and how this would have NEVER happened in the 1950s!!!!!

I was eating something when he said that and I immediately spit out my food in a state of shocked laughter. The 50s? Really? In the 1950s elderly women were bullied to the BACK of the bus en masse if they weren’t the right skin color.

People seem to have this strong idealism about the “good ol days”. I suppose its a human trait to idealize the past but Americans got it really hard. And the thing is, the past they wish to return to is a very, very, very coarse past. Somehow they conveniently forget that.

Actually I remember reading how due to game theory and human sociology, cooperation exists much more strongly in xenophobic groups. Basically, the most cooperative groups were also the harshest towards those outside the group. It’s really scary that as a consequence of equality and open-mindedness, we might necessarily have to become more narcissist.
JutR

Your point is obvious. No need to reiterate it.

What I would like you to do is back it up. Give me some founding fathers that went to Africa to break up families and take only some members over here. How about one that even lauds breaking up black families in Africa as he writes from his safe comfy American home. Give me some examples of the founding fathers putting down a long term plan to prevent Native Americans from forming cohesive family units.

By 1625, 475,000 slaves had been brought to Brazil, more than had come to all of North America. Does your evil capitalist founding father theory take Brazil into account? How about the slaves that primarily went to the Caribbean to the French and British Indies?

The Arab slave trade ended in 1970. Through those efforts, black slaves were brought to China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and all over Europe and Asia. Yet, somehow, in this evil empire called the United States, we abolished slavery at a state level as early as 1777, and all through the 1800s until it hit the Federal level. Do you think the founding fathers built our society to prohibit the abolition of slaves or do you think they allowed our constitutional framework to allow such changes? You would think if they were so gung-ho about destroying blacks and native Americans, that they would have prevented such poor decision making by future generations.

How about you cite an example of this wonderful, mythical civilization that existed at this time, but yet had such enlightened citizens that rejected slavery, and treated the native culture with higher reverence than their own. I am certain that would help your side of the debate.

Perhaps you can expound upon societies that developed into utopias, where various races and religions of citizens put aside their innate self interest to focus on building a better society without the evil influence of money.

Or perhaps you can just toss out baseless assertions with no intellectual integrity in order to try to gain attention.
INTJ

I think Plain Jane’s assertion that capitalism is associated with narcissism and individualism is spot on. There’s a plethora of evidence when you compare different societies.
Tom

@ Plain Jane
The freedom we enjoy here in the United States is the best thing to happen, but will ultimately lead to our demise. Political correctness is way out of control. Even our pledge of Allegiance is under attact because it “might” offend others. What others? Do they mean illegals who are here? Do they mean people who have moved here legally? It is OUR culture, our customs, our country, adjust to them or not, I dont care.
Merry Christmas has now been replaced with Happy Holidays, Really? Sorry if I offend someone in MY country that has its own customs as do most other countries.
JutR

And socialism is associated with poverty, re-education camps, and crushing fear of the state. You can’t crush individualism unless you force conformity. Of course capitalism will show more individualism.

Human nature is predominantly self interested. People obviously run a gamut of that spectrum from altruists to greedy hoarders. Narcissism tends higher in those with runaway levels of self interest. Those with higher levels of self interest tend to seek environments that allow them to express those tendencies, so there may well be correlation and causation between more narcissism in capitalism based economies.

That being said, there is also more wealth, and better technology, and more leisure. Even our poor are better off than the average citizen in most countries. If having more free time leads to narcisissitic pursuits, then maybe the trade off is having fewer people dying due to disease and famine in the streets, but a few more self-masturbatory Facebook posts.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

LOL, they wear me the hell out! Some days I feel like I’m trying to herd cats while all I’m doing is trying to get them to use some common sense. I’m starting to see glimmers of hope though, as both our boys are calming down and showing signs of introspection and critical thinking. I’m not throwing any parties yet, as they still routinely miss the obvious. I honestly can’t remember ever being as unaware of the world around me as our kids appear to be, but it may be that I simply don’t remember that time in my life so well.

Oh I mostly meant as an introverted do having to deal with this many people around spent you? You think it would had been easier with only two kids or the fact that you are used to their “energy” helps?

I would respectfully disagree.

Just a suggestion Desi, if you critically think there are exceptions is totally reasonable to follow up. I mostly meant on general terms, YMMV.

It’s really scary that as a consequence of equality and open-mindedness, we might necessarily have to become more narcissist.

There is a trade off for everything. Finding balance is tricky, keeping that balance might be impossible. Is still worth trying, IMO.

Even our poor are better off than the average citizen in most countries.

Someone said that compared to most of the rest of the world American’s in general are the 1%…let that one sink in.
JutR

We used to have a moral system based on Christianity that helped keep narcissism in check. With the decay of those morals, oddly timed with the rise of female power, and the rejection of the mother role, it seems like narcissism is on the rise.

I can’t say I am totally surprised.
Sai

@Ion
” Likewise we are used to seeing blacks being violent on T.V., so we usually see black women with neutral expressions as “angry” and “hostile”, even though they are just thinking about something.”
I will be thinking about why JFK didn’t have Hoover put down, and my own brother will see me and think I’m mad at him.

@JutR
Facebook > gulags

(I go to church and give 10% of my paycheck and the like, but I’m wary of the entire country having a moral system strictly based on the Bible. I used to think God didn’t like girls and I still haven’t completely shaken that belief.)

How can you be so eloquent when you’re wasted???
Plain Jane

“We used to have a moral system based on Christianity that helped keep narcissism in check. With the decay of those morals, oddly timed with the rise of female power, and the rejection of the mother role, it seems like narcissism is on the rise.”

Christianity was what broke native families apart worldwide. Millions of children were taken from their parents and put in “mission schools” in order to Christianize and Europeanize them. This is all documented in great detail and much of it can be found at the tips of your fingers online.

While individual Christians may value families (such as their own), it would be erroneous to assume that Christianity as an organized theo-political institution values families, particularly families that do not subscribe to that religion.
Ted D

Plain Jane – so in your opinion, are there any good qualities in the U.S.? Do we have any redeeming traits at all? Because I can’t help but feel like you are pretty much an America basher, and although you have all the right in the world to feel that way, it certainly makes it harder for anyone to take you seriously. I mean, you seem to attack the U.S. with the same zeal the ‘sphere attacks promiscuous women. You know, all Americans are evil capitalists that are responsible for all the evils of the world and such.
Plain Jane

“Plain Jane – so in your opinion, are there any good qualities in the U.S.? ”

There are many good qualities here.

My point was, which nobody seemed to get and maybe its my fault for not articulating it well enough, is that the lack of family values, vapid materialism and anything goes for a buck attitudes that JutR traces back only to Feminism, can be traced back, not just to recent Feminism, but ALL the way back to the very purpose for which this nation was founded.

The founding fathers, explorers, leaders, movers and shakers, the ones who had a direct hand in nation building, built this country for the purpose of being an economic super power and they relied on slavery to do that because for the sake of profit they did not want to pay people for an honest day’s labor. Slavery relied on devaluing families. Christianity was used to justify all of this because afterall these Africans were “heathens”. Then you’ve got the systematic institutionalized break up of Native families, again, for the purposes of destroying their cultures (of which families are the basis), to Europeanize and Christianize the youth, all for a profit.

That this no longer takes place (here at least, to the same extent), is not a reflection of the values upon which this nation was built, but rather in opposition to those values.

Now, had this nation been founded in respect for life, humanity, families, kindness and religious pluralism, I would say that today’s rampant materialism, coarseness and lack of family values goes against the values this nation was built upon.

There are many good things about this country TODAY, however they are not a result of the original plan. The original plan depended on wiping out cultures, religions and families – for profit.

You say that because the 1950s appear to be more conservative than today’s America that you might prefer it, since you are conservative. What about Jim Crow Laws? Were they laws that reflected your “conservative values”?

I’ll guarantee you that nobody on this blog is more socially and financially conservative than me, but I do not idealize the past nor do I wish to return to it. Part of the reason is that I don’t view pre-Feminist, pre-Civil Rights America has “conservative” or “free” or “individualistic” at all.

You see, in idealizing the past we conveniently ignore the very real injustices of it that were meted out to millions of people. Just because those people may have not been our ancestors shall we gloss over it?

Why the need to pretend that this country was founded by benevolent men who believed in freedom for all? It was founded by them to enable their financially profiteering off of the slavery of one group of humans and the cultural destabalization of another group.

I hold nobody today accountable for that, I don’t believe in “white guilt”, but at the same time I see no need to reconstruct the factual history.

The US is and has always been an extremely materialistic nation that sacrificed the higher values in life for the greenback.

Feminism has nothing to do with that. If however America’s brand of Feminism has taken on a particularly materialistic bent, that wouldn’t surprise me. I mean, the Feminists here are American too, right? Why should we expect them to not have American values?
Ted D

Plain Jane – “You say that because the 1950s appear to be more conservative than today’s America that you might prefer it, since you are conservative. What about Jim Crow Laws? Were they laws that reflected your “conservative values”?”

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but when I said the 50’s were not equally unfair to all, I was speaking to Jim Crow and segregation. I certainly don’t want to see people treated unfairly based on skin color or gender, but if we are all subject to the same rules and restrictions, it is not an unfair system.

I do understand where you are coming from I think, but I honestly can’t think of a single country founded on what you seem to think is fair for people. All countries are founded on money and power. Of all the countries in the world, the U.S. by far one of the most fair and equal in regards to class and race divides. Even countries without so called “race issues” still generally have a poor class and a rich class, and the rich always profit from the misery of the poor. Until the entire world gives up on money, I don’t see how “making a buck” can be any less important. I have morals and integrity, and I do my best not to stray from them. But the bottom line is I have a family to support, and if it comes down to my integrity or my children eating, integrity loses. Would I like to live in a world where I don’t have to choose between morality and food? Sure. But it isn’t the U.S. that is solely responsible for the mess we are in now. How many countries still allow workers to be subjected to horrible conditions? How many of those countries governments are making money on the misery of thier own people while complaining that the U.S. is polluting the air? How many of them still dump waste into local rivers while calling us evil for not signing Kyoto?

The truth is, there is plenty of blame to go around, but the U.S. is a favorite target because we were the most successful at being morally corrupt and financially irresponsible. I will take your arguments seriously when China starts protecting its people from unsafe work environments. I will consider the U.S. the devil when Mexico stops allowing multinational corporations to take advantage of thier people by underpaying them for thier labors. I’m all for fixing our issues and playing nice in the global society once we are all playing on a level field. But as it stands now, what I see is other countries calling us the ruination of the world while they make dirty deals from the back of their cars.
Just1X

Want to know why it’s pointless talking to radfems (radical feminists) like Plain Jane?

They don’t share reality with humanity. They don’t argue honestly (as pointed out above in the comments). No lie is too big or small to tell. No evasion too slippery (Clinton would be proud to be in their league).

Here is a link to the research of a guy ‘Agent Orange’, who infiltrated radfemhub; http://agentorangefiles.com/

Beyond comments by child ‘carers’ saying they despised their baby boy charges as ‘future rapists’. There’s speculation on how we should genetically modify men, or just kill (90% – 100%) of them.

At the bottom of that page is a video by SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) made as a public service video in Sweden. It was on Youtube for a year before Agent Orange released his research.

A man reading a newspaper in a lounger is shot twice in the head by a woman, the female film crew then commence sticking fingers in the head wounds, licking the wounds and dancing in joy. This is the joy of a radfem.

http://counterfem.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/interesting-video-about-agent-orange.html

http://www.manwomanmyth.com/feminism/feminisms-underbelly-the-agent-orange-files/

So, I’d rather take lessons on morality from a chimp than listen to a radfem. And underneath they are all like that, nucking futs.

There’s nothing even close to that sh1t in the manosphere.

This has been a public service broadcast in defence of sanity, reality and honesty.

Don’t feed the hate filled troll
VD

Christianity was what broke native families apart worldwide. Millions of children were taken from their parents and put in “mission schools” in order to Christianize and Europeanize them.

Of course, those poor little pagan children were being raised to eat each other and live their sort lives wallowing in their own excrement. What a terrible curse, bringing them civilization, the Gospel, and the rule of law. The sad thing is that your awareness doesn’t even rise to the level of Sam Kinison’s… in 1984.

“We’ve been driving out here with your food for the last 30, 40 years. And we were driving across the desert and it occurred to us that there wouldn’t be world hunger if you people would live where the food is. YOU LIVE IN A DESERT. YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT. NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE. NOTHING’S GOING TO GROW OUT HERE. You see this? It’s sand. Yeah, it’s sand. Do you want to know what it’s going to be a hundred years from now? IT’S GOING TO BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA, WE JUST DON’T LIVE IN THEM, ASSHOLE!
JutR

Sai, I only made one post (1699) after having a couple glasses of wine with dinner. I don’t ever get wasted. I sat down to read HUS with a gray goose & soda, and was finishing it around the time I wrote the sentence about being inebriated . I wasn’t at a line most people would notice, but it is the line I set for myself.

I don’t consume during the day, so none of the posts after were ‘under the influence’.

Now, PJ, your grasp of history is pretty weak, I can see. Obviously, you aren’t producing any sort of factual rebuttal, you want to rely on some vague assertive statements with no facts to back them up.

PJ: “The founding fathers, explorers, leaders, movers and shakers, the ones who had a direct hand in nation building, built this country for the purpose of being an economic super power and they relied on slavery to do that because for the sake of profit they did not want to pay people for an honest day’s labor. ”

Let’s talk about the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and how slavery became one of the central points of disagreement. The abolition of slavery was ruled out, and southern delegates insisted on some protection of the institution. States held power, the federal government very little. To bring together a union of varied states with different economic interests took compromises, Madison noted:

“It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lay, not between the large and small but between Northern and Southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed the line of discrimination”

They had to build a framework to deal with it, because southern states refused to give them up. The founding fathers lived in their current time. No country had ever abolished slavery. You criticize them for not making leaps of civilization to 100-200 years in the future when foreseeing the creation of America. It is a silly argument, and obvious that it is easy to criticize their actions with 250 years of cultural change to give ammunition.

That being said, the decisions made to allow some states to have slaves is hardly basing the whole economic future of the US around exploiting slaves. The North barely used any, and had much greater freedom for black people, and did not rely upon slavery for industry.

From 1789 to 1865, Presidents, Congress, and the courts negotiated, accommodated, and challenged other nations’ willingness to participate in the trade of slaves. Supreme Court justices wrote opinions decrying the slave trade, calling the slave trade, “a breach of all the moral duties, of all the maxims of justice, mercy and humanity, and of the admitted rights, which independent Christian nations now hold sacred in their intercourse with each other.”

There was a great deal of disagreement on this at a time, and yes, some people were motivated by money. But there were many voices, and many humanitarian reasons offered to counter the profit and the entrenched acceptance of slavery, and institution that has existed with humanity since the beginning of time.

You’re so incredibly uniformed, it not at all surprising that you have built a cognitive framework that despises the freedoms that never would have existed had the founders not made some compromises. Those compromises eventually allowed for the abolishment of the institution of slavery. The framers didn’t exactly lock down slavery as a permanent participation event for all states.

Just as a disclaimer before we get all religious, I’m agnostic. I just firmly believe not all ideologies are created equal, and a person with a critical mind can easily start to see the benefits as well as the flaws between religions, if they have an iota of intellectual curiosity.

So as an agnostic, I would like to note your ignorance of Christianity is also tinged with resentment. Do you know how involved Christians were in pushing for abolition in England? Apparently not. The Christian concepts of free will, having a soul, and having God be the arbiter of your sins built the theological foundation for the end of slavery, and even equal rights to women.

The teachings of Christ are not the actions of man on earth. Don’t conflate the ideology with the actions of followers. A simple mistake that teachers of young minds like to use to build resentment against important social institutions that end up headed by corruptible human beings. I am sure you have seen it in action.

I wish you a pleasant day.
Plain Jane

“The truth is, there is plenty of blame to go around, but the U.S. is a favorite target because we were the most successful at being morally corrupt and financially irresponsible. ”

Part of my point ^^^

But remember, this entire convo started off with JutR trying (and failing) to trace today’s coarse, materialistic and family devaluing American culture to Feminism. He’s right in recognizing those things to be wrong, but he fails to trace it back to its origins.

In other words, the subject was this country, America, some of the things he (and we) currently find wrong with it, and its possible causes. The subject was not whats wrong with China or any other country. So why once I traced the original causes for such back to its source, is it now a matter of “well, other countries are no better off – just look at China, etc”.

There is no Utopia anywhere to be found, however, we cannot say that all cultures started off from the same point and valuing the same things. America’s problems in this regard are America’s. We can’t blame it on anyone else.

Not all cultures started off as materialistic as our’s. Remember this is a new and young country without the fetters of ancient civilizational values, which was the appeal of the “New World” for many Europeans. They could come here, wipe out whatever old cultures they found, and start afresh with a new philosophy (materialism, money is God, etc).

In looking for ways to fix this country, and we will probably have to completely uproot many of the ideas it was founded upon in order to do so, comparing and contrasting our problems to the problems of other countries probably won’t help much.

The original subject was the problems in current American culture, and what caused these problems.

I say its the inherent materialism of this nation. You cannot expect a culture to develop non-materialistic values when the culture itself is predicated on crass materialistic values at the expense of individual sovereignty, cultural and religious freedom, and family values.
JutR

PJ: I’ve explained how feminism devalued relationships through direct connections. I’ve explained how feminism makes women compete based on their sexuality. These days, women are tossing themselves, vagina first, at any relationship, and men are seeing this, and it is certainly devaluing femininity and men’s perceptions of women. Yet, for some reason, you argue this has no bearing on the crassness of society, and the obvious acceleration of the decline. You’re right there assigning blame of current events on laws written 250 years ago.

You say America started off materialistic. In fact, more materialistic than any other nation founded on this earth. And from this materialism grew the current state of affairs between men and women.

Back this up, or really, just admit you’re shooting your mouth off with nothing but feelings behind it.
Plain Jane

VD, regarding Christianity and people living in the desert. Yes, its a desert religion, a Middle Eastern religion, that grew out of a particular environment, a dry desert area where there was practically no civilization, and addressed the concerns of the Middle Eastern peoples living there at the time.

I’m not Middle Eastern nor from a desert and the Middle Eastern Abrahamic religions do not appeal to me, nor speak to my concerns. My religious culture also would not have me speaking in the obnoxious, aggressive manner that the man you qouted spoke in. Please don’t tell me he’s a religious figure?!

JutR,
“The teachings of Christ are not the actions of man on earth. Don’t conflate the ideology with the actions of followers. ”

Well, the Middle Eastern prophets and their religions are not of much interest to me, my religious culture is from an entirely different background, but are you saying that the mission to destroy indigenous cultures and religions and replace them with Christianity is a bad thing that (many, but not all) followers of Christ did and are still doing? If so I agree.

I believe in individual sovereignty and religious freedom, hence religious pluralism. What about you?
JutR

PJ:” Well, the Middle Eastern prophets and their religions are not of much interest to me, my religious culture is from an entirely different background, but are you saying that the mission to destroy indigenous cultures and religions and replace them with Christianity is a bad thing that (many, but not all) followers of Christ did and are still doing? If so I agree.”

Perhaps you should expand your learning to something outside your bubble, to give you some perspective. Islam is a very interesting religion. I encourage you to compare and contrast it to Christianity, and perhaps then you will be a little more grateful for Western Civilizations heritage. Obviously, I do not agree with your statement, it is fallacious from the start.

Can you cite me where Christ implores his followers to “destroy indigenous cultures and religions and replace them with Christianity”?

I am still learning some Old Testament, but I have the teachings of Christ down, and I don’t recall those much at all.

PJ: “I believe in individual sovereignty and religious freedom, hence religious pluralism. What about you?”

Interesting question. Do you know what caused religious separation of state from Christianity? Jesus told his followers to render unto Caesar what was Caesars, and to leave the provenance of God to the afterlife. This was a very different mindset from Islam, which has it’s own totalitarian system of religious and gender suppression built right into it in the form of Sharia law.

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I also firmly believe that some political systems masquerade as religions. I am very glad that Christianity is not one of these.
Plain Jane

” Islam is a very interesting religion. ”

Not really. Like I said, the Abrahamic religions do not appeal to me. I find all 3 to be uninteresting.

“I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.”

Me too.

And gurudwar and state, and mandir and state, and masjid and state, and synagogue and state, etc.

” I also firmly believe that some political systems masquerade as religions.”

That’s the history of the Abrahamic religions, Europe, and European colonialism.

” I am very glad that Christianity is not one of these.”

Not any more, at least in the West. But it took great struggles for us to get to that point.
Plain Jane

“I’ve explained how feminism devalued relationships through direct connections.”

No, you didn’t explain that, you just made the statement.

” I’ve explained how feminism makes women compete based on their sexuality.”

Again, you made the statement but failed to explain how Feminism is “making” women do this.

” These days, women are tossing themselves, vagina first, at any relationship, and men are seeing this, and it is certainly devaluing femininity and men’s perceptions of women. ”

Again, you are describing how some women and men are choosing to behave, but have thus far failed to explain how Feminism is the cause of this behaviour.
JuTR

Hey, PJ, you obviously are picking and choosing the easy responses.

That’s fine. I just thought every one else should know.

P.S. Islam came last. Mohammed said that Islam is just like Christianity and Judaism, but better and updated. Of course, all the real important concepts of sin, free will and stuff were thrown out in Mohammed’s updated version, but he swears it is related. Perhaps you should study the differences between the three. They are not as tightly intertwined in theological underpinnings as the ignorant assume from a distance.
Plain Jane

JutR, I’m not interested in the differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I have my own religion which I am perfectly happy with and I’m not seeking to convert. Moreover, that area of the world, its cultures and the religions that sprang out of it never been a draw to me. However I have travelled extensively and spoken with Jews, Christians and Muslims who were very well versed in their religions, and I appreciated their perspectives and the efforts they took to learn their texts in the original languages, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. I had to make it very clear however to the Muslims and Christians that I was not at all interested in converting. The Jews didn’t proselytize so no issue there.

I also had a few Muslims and Christians in my extended family, and of course I respected their right to practice the religions of their choice, but I am not particularly impressed or inspired by any of the Middle Eastern religions, nor do I have to be.

I also have dated some men from all 3 Abrahamic faiths and in a few instances their lack of respect for my freedom of religion became an issue and I had to break up with them. Not the Jew of course, they don’t proselytize.

Liberal-minded, politically correct “tolerance” is a two way street. I’ll respect your right to your religion only if you respect mine. Otherwise it makes no sense to be “tolerant” toward an intolerant-exclusivisitic-my-way-or-da-high-way-missionary ideology.

I’m normally a very open minded live and let live type, but man, those zealots can really turn a gal out, and not in a good way
JuTR

So you will criticize it, but you won’t learn about it.

Excellent method for debate. I think my job is done here.
INTJ

@ JutR, VD

The level of arrogance and superiority you seem to have for Western culture is frankly shocking to me.

I have better things to do then to have a lengthy argument about your bigoted views, but I’ll throw in a couple of points:

First, if the Bible and the Quran are interpreted literally, both Islam and Christianity are absolutely horrific religions. Christianity has no right to hold the moral high ground here. The only difference between the two religions is that radical Islam is far more prevalent and powerful than radical Christianity. But this has nothing to do with religion. The only reason for this is Cold War politics. It was the American government that propped up reactionary governments like the Saudis, and it’s the America and Israel that funded jihadist groups in the Middle East to destabilize pro-Soviet governments.

Second, it is clear cut that the West as a whole is far more promiscuous than the East, reflecting a cultural legacy of individualism. This culture had its pros (such as work ethic, meritocracy) and cons (promiscuity, narcissism). But there’s no question that the West is more individualist, and in America in particular, more materialist due to the consumer society.
Plain Jane

JutR, I made it clear that I already DID learn about it. And I’m not inspired by it, ok? I have my own religion. Why should I take a special interest in a religion that is not mine? If you’re a Christian that is YOUR responsibility to learn your religion thoroughly, not mine.

See, this is what I’ve run into with Christians time and again. They just can’t accept no for an answer. They just can’t digest that there are some people out here who are not interested in their religion or who think its a special snowflake.

Why aren’t you suggesting that I learn about Theravada and how it differs from Mahayana for example, why just Christianity and Islam? I already stated the religions from that part of the world hold no interest for me philosophically, but I have no problem if you are interested in them. That’s called religious pluralism and FREEDOM of religious choice, mate.

What I criticize about Christianity are things like The Doctrine of Discovery (which was used in a US court of law as recent as 2005!), and the relentlessness of its followers that I SHOULD be interested in it more than I am.

There are millions of people on this planet JutR who are not interested in your religion, OR mine. We’ll just have to learn to live with that. I already have.
INTJ

@ Ted D

Plain Jane – so in your opinion, are there any good qualities in the U.S.? Do we have any redeeming traits at all? Because I can’t help but feel like you are pretty much an America basher, and although you have all the right in the world to feel that way, it certainly makes it harder for anyone to take you seriously. I mean, you seem to attack the U.S. with the same zeal the ‘sphere attacks promiscuous women. You know, all Americans are evil capitalists that are responsible for all the evils of the world and such.

I think that in the context of the SMP, there’s no question that America is far worse than much of the world. Thus, it’s quite reasonable to try to find out what aspects of American culture caused this SMP. Feminism certainly was one of them. But the Soviet Union had feminism, and their SMP never got into our problems. Clearly, there are other causes in addition to feminism, and it makes sense to discuss them.

In general, its weird how defensive most Americans get about this country, especially as I’m someone from Indian heritage. You never see Indians get mad when some Indian criticizes his country. In fact, Indians are constantly complaining about the government, culture, etc. there. I think being introspective and self-critical is an important thing. Otherwise you lead to extreme ideologies like feminism (women refusing to take criticism).
INTJ

@ Ted D

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but when I said the 50′s were not equally unfair to all, I was speaking to Jim Crow and segregation. I certainly don’t want to see people treated unfairly based on skin color or gender, but if we are all subject to the same rules and restrictions, it is not an unfair system.

This makes sense. We shouldn’t try to have equality by making things equally bad for everyone. Rather, we should try to make things equally good for everyone. So, when we talk about the lifestyle and position of whites in the 50s, and argue that it was a good thing, it’s a legitimate argument. Sure, blacks in the 50s didn’t enjoy the same privileges. But that’s an argument for extending the privileges to everyone, not getting rid of them altogether.

I do understand where you are coming from I think, but I honestly can’t think of a single country founded on what you seem to think is fair for people. All countries are founded on money and power. Of all the countries in the world, the U.S. by far one of the most fair and equal in regards to class and race divides. Even countries without so called “race issues” still generally have a poor class and a rich class, and the rich always profit from the misery of the poor. Until the entire world gives up on money, I don’t see how “making a buck” can be any less important. I have morals and integrity, and I do my best not to stray from them. But the bottom line is I have a family to support, and if it comes down to my integrity or my children eating, integrity loses. Would I like to live in a world where I don’t have to choose between morality and food? Sure. But it isn’t the U.S. that is solely responsible for the mess we are in now. How many countries still allow workers to be subjected to horrible conditions? How many of those countries governments are making money on the misery of thier own people while complaining that the U.S. is polluting the air? How many of them still dump waste into local rivers while calling us evil for not signing Kyoto?

Selfishness, unfairness, and money-mindedness is everywhere, as you point out. However, the United States is pretty unique in the extent to which consumerism and narcissism pervades everyday life, including relationships. People should work to live, not the other way around.

The truth is, there is plenty of blame to go around, but the U.S. is a favorite target because we were the most successful at being morally corrupt and financially irresponsible. I will take your arguments seriously when China starts protecting its people from unsafe work environments. I will consider the U.S. the devil when Mexico stops allowing multinational corporations to take advantage of thier people by underpaying them for thier labors. I’m all for fixing our issues and playing nice in the global society once we are all playing on a level field. But as it stands now, what I see is other countries calling us the ruination of the world while they make dirty deals from the back of their cars.

No, the US is the favorite target because it’s constantly invading other countries and sponsoring coups to overthrow democratic governments. No country is perfect. But most countries don’t meddle in the affairs of the entire world.
Plain Jane

“You never see Indians get mad when some Indian criticizes his country. In fact, Indians are constantly complaining about the government, culture, etc. there. ”

Yaar, for real? Indians are just as defensive when non-Indians criticize India. Its like here on these blogs Americans can criticize certain aspects of their own culture, but let a non-American notice the same stuff and try to analyze it and they go ape-shit crazy. Indians are the same way, unless they are self-hating Uncle Thomas Mallus (ha ha).

Its patriotism. What is patriotism? The narcissistic idea that a country is great because I happened to be born there.

“Second, it is clear cut that the West as a whole is far more promiscuous than the East, reflecting a cultural legacy of individualism. This culture had its pros (such as work ethic, meritocracy) and cons (promiscuity, narcissism). But there’s no question that the West is more individualist, and in America in particular, more materialist due to the consumer society.”

I kind of disagree about the individualism, INTJ. I think the problems with the US stem not from genuine individualism but from conformity masqueraded as “rugged individualism”. And I think that was a very purposeful ploy to get Americans to swallow the consumer Kool Aid.
INTJ

@ Plain Jane

Yaar, for real? Indians are just as defensive when non-Indians criticize India. Its like here on these blogs Americans can criticize certain aspects of their own culture, but let a non-American notice the same stuff and try to analyze it and they go ape-shit crazy. Indians are the same way, unless they are self-hating Uncle Thomas Mallus (ha ha).

Oh certainly if non-Indians criticize India, Indians tend to get defensive. But internal criticism (criticism of India by Indians) is extremely common (to the point of sounding like annoying whining), and people don’t get all pissed about it.

Second, even when it comes to external criticism, they aren’t nearly as overpatriotic as Americans. Just look at how well received Slumdog Millionaire was in India, even though it was a racist film filled with colonial stereotypes. Frankly, I was disappointed by how Indians tolerated that shit.

I kind of disagree about the individualism, INTJ. I think the problems with the US stem not from genuine individualism but from conformity masqueraded as “rugged individualism”. And I think that was a very purposeful ploy to get Americans to swallow the consumer Kool Aid.

Oh yes definitely. It is an illusion of individualism that has been sold, which makes it even worse. But Europeans are genuinely individualist. They don’t swallow consumer Kool Aid, and yet they also have high levels of promiscuity, divorces, and lack of children.

I don’t think ordinary individualism is nearly as bad as consumerist faux individualism, but nevertheless, the “all about me” attitude in individualism prevents people from committing to each other for the long term and trying to work through differences.
Plain Jane

“Oh yes definitely. It is an illusion of individualism that has been sold, which makes it even worse. But Europeans are genuinely individualist. They don’t swallow consumer Kool Aid, and yet they also have high levels of promiscuity, divorces, and lack of children.”

In my travels I’ve observed that people of European descent are not as family oriented as non-Europeans globally. That’s not to say that they don’t value family at all, but they value their personal freedom and space more than they value the greater good of a large family, that is evident.

On the other hand the rest of the world’s people can be too family oriented to the point of suffocation, so there needs to be a balance.

As far as the lack of children, there is a trend toward having less, and toward having none at all, and European descent people are leading it. Children used to fill the human need for connection but now it appears that need is getting filled in other ways.

The Manosphere predicts that sex-bots and 3D tactile holographic porn will fulfill the needs of sex and intimacy in the future. Let’s see. Exciting times ahead!
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  The Manosphere predicts that sex-bots and 3D tactile holographic porn will fulfill the needs of sex and intimacy in the future. Let’s see. Exciting times ahead!
  
  That’s just The Fifth Horseman, who has zero credibility outside the Spearhead and Daaaaaaalrock’s.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

That’s what I hope that HUS can figure out. How do you find these good women? And how do you distinguish them form the narcissists so you don’t get burned along the way?

Flipping the genders makes more sense here. HUS: a place where young *women* can learn how to find the good men, and distinguish them from the sociopaths so they don’t get tagged with a Scarlet Letter “S” along the way. I recall some old discussion post where Susan’s advice for men was given an asterisk (*), meaning it should be viewed as suspect, coming from a woman after all…
Plain Jane

“HUS: a place where young *women* can learn how to find the good men, and distinguish them from the sociopaths”

Since actual sociopaths are a slim minority in any culture, even this one, its not hard to find men who are not sociopaths.
Desiderius

INTJ,

“Otherwise you lead to extreme ideologies like feminism (women refusing to take criticism).”

Feminists aren’t the only ones, nor are women. The capacity to critically look at oneself or to accept accurate criticism from a trusted other is the most tragic casualty of the self-esteem movement in education.

People perfect just as we are don’t need criticism, so it is perceived as an attack if from another, us unhealthy if directed toward the self. The real became the ideal.
Desiderius

Ana,

“Just a suggestion Desi, if you critically think there are exceptions is totally reasonable to follow up. I mostly meant on general terms, YMMV.”

I’m curious to hear you say more, as I’m torn on this. I don’t want to end up like the female 7’s who can pull male 9’s for ONS but not for relationships. Its just that I know why I used to flake and its not at all because I was out of the league of those I flaked on – far from it. Maybe something similar is going on with these women? They act like women I’ve been in relationships acted when we first met, and not like women act when they’re rejecting you (all men learn what this is like), even those trying to let you down nicely.
Plain Jane

Good points Desiderius!

Just want to shout out to JutR in case he comes back, I have researched Christianity with a scholar acquaintance who studied Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so to be able to read the Old and New testaments in their original languages. She showed me over the course of several hours spread out over several months of living in the same building as her, how the originals differ greatly from the English King James Version and Catholic Bible. She gives seminars on the subject now.

I would suggest, if you are a Christian, to study your scriptures in their original languages and don’t rely upon someone else’s translation of a translation thrice or more removed.

I also suggest you do some research into the political history of the religion. The Council of Nicaea and The Doctrine of Discovery are two good places to start. Then you might understand why many people the world over, while respecting the individual rights of Christians to practice their religion of choice, nevertheless find Christianity as an organized global entity to be problematic.

As an aside, I’d also suggest you study the various schools of Buddhism since that is the fastest growing religion in your own country right now.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Its just that I know why I used to flake and its not at all because I was out of the league of those I flaked on – far from it.

Oh I didn’t meant as a sign of lower value but as a sign of low character and interest. Think of the lady on the dating show that Susan presented. Of course like I said trust your instincts but I do think that using game to pull in a woman that is showing flakiness at the very beginning it ends up a waste of time because the woman herself is showing lack of quality. The worst aspect of Game is that you end up with a woman that needs constant game and DRAMA! Even Athol says that you cannot have a committed relationship with a woman that is a shit test away from cheating/leaving. Got what I meant?
Plain Jane

@ Megaman,
“Flipping the genders makes more sense here. HUS: a place where young *women* can learn how to find the good men, and distinguish them from the sociopaths so they don’t get tagged with a Scarlet Letter “S” along the way.”

Megaman, MRI scans have shown that socipaths and psychopaths have two very different brain damage patterns;

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread873344/pg1

But both pathys are rare. We don’t have to worry so much about sorting out the sociopaths from the “good guys” as you say, but rather sorting out the men we are attracted to and compatible with from amongst the very large majority of normal and single good guys out there.

I’d say that’s even harder.
VD

The level of arrogance and superiority you seem to have for Western culture is frankly shocking to me.

I’ve spent time in enough third-world shitholes to vastly prefer Western culture to all of the alternatives, yes. I’m not excusing the USA’s insane meddling in empire and the West is now indubitably in decline, but if you’re going to defend cannibal cultures and pagan ones that couldn’t figure out the wheel, running water, or the rule of law, well, I’m simply going to laugh at you. Perhaps when the West collapses economically and you end up in a part of it dominated by non-Western cultures, you’ll learn to appreciate what was once Christendom.

First, if the Bible and the Quran are interpreted literally, both Islam and Christianity are absolutely horrific religions.

Oh, this should be amusing. By what universal moral standard are Islam and Christianity “absolutely horrific”? Your personal and subjective one? Some pagan Indian one? If you are clueless enough to try to claim they are self-condemning by their own standards, this is going to get very embarrassing for you very fast. You would appear to be unaware that Doug Wilson absolutely handed Christopher Hitchens his head on a platter when Hitchens tried to make this very argument.
Just1X

“In general, its weird how defensive most Americans get about this country”

I don’t know why you guys (Americans) are letting her frame the debate to be about the US. She wants to tie the problems to capitalism and give feminism a walk. Clearly she can’t allow consideration of less capitalist countries and succeed in letting feminism walk away. So she has to make it USA only. UK, Aus, NZ, Sweden, Norway are all deeply screwed by feminism, but the don’t fit the ebul capitalist scum ‘theory’ of PJ, so she frames it all on the USA.

These are not just American issues, you guys just fell to feminism first.

This is why it’s an utter waste of time debating feminists, they are dishonest, they have no morality (just an agenda before which all else falls), they have no ‘code’. Surely enough of you have seen her twisting, evading, strawmen, lies and flat out ignoring of any info that she doesn’t like AFALT.

GirlWritesWhat ; “me, a feminist? No way.”
Plain Jane

“Oh, this should be amusing. By what universal moral standard are Islam and Christianity “absolutely horrific”? Your personal and subjective one? Some pagan Indian one? ”

Mainstream? How about Vedantic, Yogic, and Samkhyic standards just to name a few. That’s not even touching on the lesser known Sat Darshan schools of philosophy and ethics like Mimamsa, for example, what to speak of popular Buddhist philosophical or Sikh religious standards. And lets not forget the lofty standards of Jain culture, of which I am personally privileged to have been mentored by a very advanced muni during my childhood, who’s influence has been pivotal in shaping my value system and worldview.

The New Testament is better, granted, but again, my advice to all Christians is to learn the original languages the texts were written in and you’ll gain a whole new perspective and probably get pretty pissed off over how you’ve been deceived with bad English translations.

Rather than waste your time trying to convince non-Christians to study Christianity, why not utilize that time to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and learn to read your own scriptures yourself?

If its culture, aesthetics, philosophy and ethics are so great then just by being a living, breathing example of it you will automatically inspire others to seek it out and you won’t have to shove it down our throats ala that uncultured, crass, vulgar and obnoxious Sam Kinison quote.

And if he’s what’s on offer – NO THANKS!

One of my favorite quotes that the pc peaceniks here should love;

“I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.”

That’s about as politically correct and “tolerant” as I’m willing to go. Especially when faced with intolerant ideologies.

Don’t expect me to be blown away by what you are blown away by. I have my own religious culture and I’m not in the market for a new one.

Peace.
INTJ

@ VD

I’ve spent time in enough third-world shitholes to vastly prefer Western culture to all of the alternatives, yes. I’m not excusing the USA’s insane meddling in empire and the West is now indubitably in decline, but if you’re going to defend cannibal cultures and pagan ones that couldn’t figure out the wheel, running water, or the rule of law, well, I’m simply going to laugh at you. Perhaps when the West collapses economically and you end up in a part of it dominated by non-Western cultures, you’ll learn to appreciate what was once Christendom.

Cannibal cultures? Seriously? You should at least reread what you type before you post such shit.

Oh, this should be amusing. By what universal moral standard are Islam and Christianity “absolutely horrific”? Your personal and subjective one? Some pagan Indian one? If you are clueless enough to try to claim they are self-condemning by their own standards, this is going to get very embarrassing for you very fast. You would appear to be unaware that Doug Wilson absolutely handed Christopher Hitchens his head on a platter when Hitchens tried to make this very argument.

You conveniently overlooked the conditionality of my statement: “if the Bible and the Quran are interpreted literally”.

Yes, slavery, rape, and genocide are horrific according to my own moral standard. Do you disagree with this aspect of my own moral standard? If so, feel free to fuck off.

And I frankly couldn’t care less what that fool Hitchens did…
Plain Jane

“Cannibal cultures? Seriously?”

Come now, you haven’t gotten the memo, INTJ? (or the tract/pamphlet)? ALL non-christian peoples eat other human beings. That’s right. Kashmiri Shaivites are eating human flesh! Sri Vaishnavas – you foolishly thought them to be vegetarians, but, but, but – they eat their own kids! Jains? – again, cannibals posing as vegetarians. Naamdhari Sikhs, another fraudulant group of vegetarian poseurs who eat their neighbors when no Christian missionaries are looking.

Please! Quick! Send the missionaries to convert these cannibals-posing- as-vegetarians into cultured and refined Christians like Sam Kinison!
Ion

“This is why it’s an utter waste of time debating feminists, they are dishonest, they have no morality (just an agenda before which all else falls), they have no ‘code’.”

I find this to be true of anyone arguing from a moral standpoint where they justify the power they have over others, based on something the other party can’t help (like their skin color for example, or that enemies of their ancestors sold them 3 billion years ago)…..
Ion

“but if you’re going to defend cannibal cultures ”

Cannibal cultures like this one?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Gruesome-History-of-Eating-Corpses-as-Medicine.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389142/British-royalty-dined-human-flesh-dont-worry-300-years-ago.html
http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Bushtracker

Welcome and thanks for the words of support. I also appreciate the read on S. Africa – a unique and complex culture to be sure. My son spent six months there and saw extreme beauty and ugliness both. He says it’s the most beautiful place he’s ever seen, but he was also mugged several times, including by taxi drivers. Interestingly, he hung out mostly with non-Americans and really enjoyed that.

I hope you’ll stick around and comment some more!
Sai

@JutR
Well, no matter what you do or don’t have in your system you make some good arguments.

I like my country -all the foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics say that too, but I say it because I genuinely enjoy living here and not because I look down on other countries (I don’t). I really, REALLY like my personal space and find when I’m exposed to a group for too long I feel both smothered and drained. (I know I’d be an unfit mother and it’s not because I’d spend the rent money on weed.) On the other hand, when I tried to conform in the past I usually failed horribly.

I absolutely do not like the “world police” aspect since other countries are their own sovereign nations on their own land with their own governments and capable of making their own decisions (plus all this meddling is costly). I’ve been depressed about all the reports saying the U.S. is going down the tubes, but if things really do become that lousy I’ll just move. (I know I say that a lot, but I think/worry about it a lot. People talk of having to go to another war with this or that country, and I see no reason to hang around and be part of a brutally craptastic point in somebody’s history if I don’t have to.)

Also -thanks Ion, I learned something today!
VD

Cannibal cultures? Seriously? You should at least reread what you type before you post such shit.

What, you didn’t hear about the German who got eaten earlier this year in Papua New Guinea? It’s not “shit”, it’s historical fact and it is still happening today. Do you really not know that albinos are being slaughtered across Africa and even in Europe now for “muti”? Or that the UN confirmed that pygmies were being eaten in the Congo in 2003?

You conveniently overlooked the conditionality of my statement: “if the Bible and the Quran are interpreted literally”.

I didn’t overlook it at all. In fact, the literal interpretation of both the Bible and the Koran is obviously assumed if one is going to judge their respective moralities by the standards imposed by the respective scriptures. And you call yourself an INTJ….

Yes, slavery, rape, and genocide are horrific according to my own moral standard. Do you disagree with this aspect of my own moral standard? If so, feel free to fuck off. And I frankly couldn’t care less what that fool Hitchens did…

Who cares about your stupid little personal moral standard? It is no more valid to the other seven billion people on the planet than Hitler’s, Stalin’s, or anyone else’s who doesn’t subscribe to an objective one with a universal warrant. “Fuck off if you don’t agree with me” is a borderline retarded argument, but by all means, feel free to run away crying like a little girl who can’t make a rational case for her own position if you like. And you should care what that fool Hitchens did, because he was trying to defend exactly the same position you appear to be holding.
Desiderius

“Then you might understand why many people the world over, while respecting the individual rights of Christians to practice their religion of choice, nevertheless find Christianity as an organized global entity to be problematic.”

Yeah, Christians ourselves do. That’s the whole point. We all fall short of the glory of God. Our lives are problematic, that’s human nature. What we do, together, about those problems is what matters.

“As an aside, I’d also suggest you study the various schools of Buddhism since that is the fastest growing religion in your own country right now.”

Whereas Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world. Why so parochial, PJ? You’re not one of those jingoistic America-firsters, are you?
Plain Jane

I feel fortunate that the universal standard I’ve chosen after much deliberation and comparison to other so-called “universal standards”, is one that is both rational and benevolent.

Buddha is attributed with saying;

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it,
no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.”

See, not all religions are irrational.
Plain Jane

“Why so parochial, PJ? You’re not one of those jingoistic America-firsters, are you?”

Sometimes, I am an American after all.

“Whereas Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world.”

Here’s how I’ve seen it growing in South Asia:

First the Southern Baptists will come through a village and convert some locals. A year late the Methodists will come through, say the previous version of Christianity was false or lacking in some way and then convert the same locals. A year later the Jehovah’s Witnesses will comes through, wash, rinse and repeat. A year later the Mormons (!!!) will come through, and repeat the cycle.

Finally the locals are starting to wise up and return to their own indigenous traditions (which they never give up entirely to begin with anyway), but they’re simple folk who like to appease and the missionaries exploit that.

The Pope said, “In the first 1,000 years the cross was planted across Europe. In the second 1,000 years the cross was planet across Africa. In the next 1,000 years the cross will be planted across Asia.”

HE’S WRONG.

What’s happening is that Christianity is dying in the West so efforts to pimp it in Asia have been jacked up. However Asians ain’t buying, at least not for long.

Religions and civilizations come and go. That’s samsara for you.
Just1X

But you have little reason and no common sense PJ…oops
Desiderius

Ana,

“Oh I didn’t meant as a sign of lower value but as a sign of low character and interest. Think of the lady on the dating show that Susan presented. Of course like I said trust your instincts but I do think that using game to pull in a woman that is showing flakiness at the very beginning it ends up a waste of time because the woman herself is showing lack of quality.”

I absolutely get what you mean, and I think you’re at least partially right in some cases, although flaking is usually read as a sign that the woman thinks she is of higher value (and may be correct) and is being rude about it. I’m not so sure, so tell me what you think about this take.

[She was finishing her gyro as I sat down to eat mine, we were both grabbing a late dinner (8:30) after getting off work. Never met before.]

Teasing her about working too hard (that’s where the I’m a dork! came from) did build some initial attraction, and I came back to that frame a time or two when necessary, but most of the conversation was sharing travel stories, ideas, life experiences, the challenges of being an attractive dork, etc…

98% of my game at this point is eliminating all the supplication/pedestalizing I used to do and mastering myself and the situation (via understanding produced by reflection) enough to be amused by both. Looking for the good, conversation pacing, comfort with silence, only qualifying on request and asking gently qualifying questions, that sort of thing.

There were a couple hiccups as you can imagine, and maybe with more practice, botching the close would not have mattered, or maybe I was fishing in the wrong pond, as you suggest.

But thinking about why I would flake (standing up someone on a date these days is so common among women that I don’t think they’re even thinking of it in terms of rudeness, whatever we may think of it), I don’t think its necessarily a shit test, or at least only a shit test, or a sign of low interest.

I would flake (not follow up despite high interest) due to relative insecurity. We all think of insecure people as maybe being decent friends but certainly not marriage material, but we’re all more secure about some aspects of our lives than others. I was a star student, leader of several student organizations, competitive athlete, etc… In all these areas, I had a higher comfort level than in dating.

So even though I was interested in someone, and even though I did have some good character to bring to the table, I would find excuses not to follow up on opportunities that would take me outside my comfort zone. I’m wondering if that dynamic is affecting young women who would otherwise get a lot out of and bring a lot to a relationship/eventual marriage.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Desi
Like I said trust your instincts if you really want to give a chance to someone do it. One never knows, of course also you should ask yourself “I flaked because I was not ready” so what makes you think you can make a flakey girl ready or change her mind? Just always think about it and make sure that you don’t blind yourself to other bad traits. Keeping score of red flags is a good idea too, YMMV.
JutR

If I had advice here, it would be to enjoy Friday nights with friends and social events instead of ranting on a computer late into the night.

PJ, reading comprehension would do you well. I noted twice that I was agnostic. I also started reading Siddartha at the age of 13 when I began taking martial arts. I followed it pretty close for 10 years through most of my training, but I noticed some flaws, and oddly enough, so have others.

Buddhism, the ultimate religion for blaming the victim. Purānakamma is a bitch, no?

Plus the anti-intellectualism in Buddhism would never have allowed for technological leaps like vehicles, space travel, the internet and much of science. It’s real hard to predict what the benefits of science built upon science when your goal is to looking to minimize suffering instead of maximizing profits to drive further research. Bringing people closer to the land and encouraging them to minimize their desires is a peasant religion, designed to control people.

So pimp it if you want, and criticize us from your computer, but Western Civilization brought the advances you take for granted now, and those advances wouldn’t have happened under societies policed by philosophies of minimalism and passive introspection.

INTJ, be mad all you want, the internet is a great place to vent. It appears unfair that some cultures thrive based on the fundamental underpinnings of societal interactions, and some do not. Study the root causes, and a few trends in successful societies appear. Those values that are responsible for visible life improvements for individuals and their progeny will encourage others in the adoption of those cultural values.

You can’t argue with success.
Plain Jane

“I also started reading Siddartha at the age of 13″

Unimpressed.
Siddharta is a children’s novel.

“So pimp it if you want, and criticize us from your computer, but Western Civilization brought the advances you take for granted now”

I never said anything against positive advances from Western Civ that came about inspite of irrational religious beliefs. Of course there are pros and cons to every civilization and religion.

“and those advances wouldn’t have happened under societies policed by philosophies of minimalism and passive introspection.”

I’ve never heard of or experienced such societies. Which ones are those?

“Buddhism, the ultimate religion for blaming the victim.”

Not my problem, I’m not a Buddhist. But its the fastest growing religion in your country.
INTJ

@ VD

As an INTJ, I come to my own conclusions and make sure they’re internally sound. Hitchens may or may not share my conclusions, and may or may not have sound reasons for those conclusions. Either way, I don’t care, as I do not attribute much value to Hitchens’ political/philosophical activity.

And I’m not arguing with you when I tell you to fuck off. I’m simply following my own “not very valid” moral standard, which requires me to take react aggressively to those who aren’t against slavery, rape, or genocide.

You may subscribe to the moral standard as literally expounded in the scripture of the Bible, which includes Exodus 21, Numbers 31, and Deuteronomy 20 & 21. If so, I repeat what I said earlier: feel free to fuck off.
Iggles

@ Desiderius:

Iggles,

“However, my attraction triggers are tied so deeply with personality that his picture does nothing for me. I see Ryan and my brain reads “douche”.”

You can disagree with someone without that making them a douche. I disagree with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but she’d be fun to hang with away from politics. Different cultures produce different outlooks, it’s the American way to see past that.

I don’t think someone is douche simply because we disagree on something. I think Ryan is a douche because he’s a liar and hypocrite.

His speech at the RNC was filled with lies and half truths. On the campaign trail he criticizes Obama for some of the same positions he held on issues prior to becoming the Republican candidate for VP.

He misrepresents his opponents with a cheery smile on his face, and he does it because he knows he’ll get away with it for the most part. By the time fact-checkers publish rebuttals he’s already won by “framing” the debate, knowing most average Americans won’t read them.
Plain Jane

“Either way, I don’t care, as I do not attribute much value to Hitchens’ political/philosophical activity.”

Hitchens has made some good points about Islamo-Christianity, or the Middle Eastern “god of Abraham”.
Iggles

@ VD:

What, you didn’t hear about the German who got eaten earlier this year in Papua New Guinea? It’s not “shit”, it’s historical fact and it is still happening today. Do you really not know that albinos are being slaughtered across Africa and even in Europe now for “muti”? Or that the UN confirmed that pygmies were being eaten in the Congo in 2003?

To quote O, what does this have to do with the price of rice???

Regardless of what’s going on Papua New Guinea you cannot unilaterally equate non-Western cultures with cannibalism! Especially since Western culture has instances cannibalism in their history as well.

So I don’t understand why the conversation has taken this turn and what exactly you are trying to prove…
JutR

Lies, evasions and more lies.

PJ:”Not my problem, I’m not a Buddhist. But its the fastest growing religion in your country.”

Then from this thread:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/09/07/politics-and-feminism/bu-terriers-are-brutal-on-and-off-the-ice/#comments

PJ: “Yeah, he’ll be seeing what a big deal sexual assault is, maybe from behind bars, if our justice system works.”

I don’t care where you are from, but your chameleon style of debate is pretty visible. Fade and evade, strawman and ad hom. Lie when you want to justify ignorance.

You fool only the willingly ignorant.
Plain Jane

“That’s just The Fifth Horseman, who has zero credibility outside the Spearhead and Daaaaaaalrock’s.”

You mean Dullcock’s?
VD

As an INTJ, I come to my own conclusions and make sure they’re internally sound.

An appeal to the authority of your personality type. That’s certainly a creative logical fallacy. Since you are the author of those conclusions, no doubt you are the ideal person to be certain your conclusions are internally sound.

I’m not arguing with you when I tell you to fuck off. I’m simply following my own “not very valid” moral standard, which requires me to take react aggressively to those who aren’t against slavery, rape, or genocide.

How very admirable. I suppose I must be doing the same thing, although my unique and subjective moral standard requires me to point and laugh at philosophically ignorant individuals who genuinely believe they have constructed a sound and logically consistent moral standard when they are doing little more than attempting to rationalize their feelings. Seriously, speaking as a fellow INTJ, you’re really letting the side down here. In fact, we appear to have a real conundrum here, as I can appeal to the same authority to which you are appealing in defense of a very different conclusion.

You may subscribe to the moral standard as literally expounded in the scripture of the Bible, which includes Exodus 21, Numbers 31, and Deuteronomy 20 & 21. If so, I repeat what I said earlier: feel free to fuck off.

I most certainly do. God’s Games, God’s Rules. Even Socrates couldn’t quibble philosophically with that; it solves the second horn of his false dilemma. To paraphrase the voice in the whirlwind, who do you think you are, creature, to judge your Maker? You are like an NPC on a World of Warcraft server shaking its fist at Rob Pardo, demanding to know why it has to watch orc after orc after orc die at the hands of invading parties, seeing them rise again from the dead only to die in agony once more. Slaver! Murderer! Genocidal Maniac! And then Pardo flicks a switch and that entire universe vanishes in an instant.

Feel free to tell us more about your flawlessly consistent snowflake morality. If you have truly managed to create what has eluded so many great philosophers throughout history, Daniel Dennett and I, among others, will be genuinely impressed.
VD

Regardless of what’s going on Papua New Guinea you cannot unilaterally equate non-Western cultures with cannibalism!

If you cannot distinguish rhetoric from dialectic, you probably shouldn’t attempt to enter this sort of discourse. “Cannibal cultures” is simply a term of contempt for pagan, technologically backward, short-term oriented, uncivilized or semi-civilized cultures. Only some of them actually involve eating people. It is where the post-Christian West presently appears to be headed if the present trajectory is maintained. On the plus side, Alphas should fare even better over the course of their shortened lifespans.

As for the so-called Western cannibalism, I read the linked article. Did you fail to note that “medical cannibalism” was a fad that the royals and other rich people picked up from Egyptian culture. The fact that someone in the West does something does not make it an integral aspect of Western culture. You’d have done better to go with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, not that it would have been convincing either.
Plain Jane

Re: CANNIBALISM

I was once doing “missionary work” (heh) in Nepal. I was working with a group of local young people and discussing the local legends and culture and one of the boys was looking at me like deer in headlights. I asked, “whats up?” He said, “I have been living here my whole life and had no idea of these wonderful things about my own culture!” He continued to say that his family has been “Christian” for 4 generations and that before converting to Christianity his people had been “cannibals”.

Bullshit.

That is what he was told by the lying, deceiptful missionaries and I proved it. Besides that, the missionaries made it out that Nepalis have 1 of 2 choices: convert to Christianity or be cannibals.

Now, I’m sure there have been pockets of cannibalism in South Asia but its not like those people have only one of two choices between Christianity and Cannibalism. South Asia being incredibly religiously and culturally diverse, the few cannibals that might be there have literally thousands of non-human-eating traditions to choose from.

The Jesus story might inspire some people and I respect that (their human right to be inspired, not neccessarily the story itself). But I have seen first hand the lies, deceit and cultural destruction (what to speak of family break ups) that Christianity as an organized religio-political entity has wrecked across Asia.

Back to the story. That boy and his entire family has proudly returned to their ancestral religion, and guess what? They’re vegetarians, not human flesh eaters. Whoda thunk?

Thankfully Asians are
Desiderius

Iggles,

“By the time fact-checkers publish rebuttals he’s already won by “framing” the debate, knowing most average Americans won’t read them.”

That’s because all the fact-checkers (sic) play for the same team. I’ve been to one-party states. I’ve seen people in the millions rejoice in overthrowing them. I do not want that in my country.
Desiderius

PJ,

“HE’S WRONG.”

Right or wrong, one thing is for sure: he’s confident.

Over half the world population is female.

Read the original post.

Now you know what being a beta male is like in this SMP.
Plain Jane

““Cannibal cultures” is simply a term of contempt for pagan, technologically backward, short-term oriented, uncivilized or semi-civilized cultures. Only some of them actually involve eating people. It is where the post-Christian West presently appears to be headed if the present trajectory is maintained. On the plus side, Alphas should fare even better over the course of their shortened lifespans. ”

I don’t see that. I see us evolving to greater heights than ever before imagined.

Buddhism being the fastest growing religion in the US, and yoga transitioning from just an emphasis on the physical aspects to serious study of the rest 7 levels of that South Asian school of thought, I see Americans becoming more and more refined, cultured, efficient, civilized and philosophical.

I see more and more of us turning our front yards into organic gardens to feed our families with nutrient dense vegetables. I see perma-culture and aqua-ponics on the rise. I see more and more Americans who are not living to exploit humans, animals, the environment and other countries but living to transform their small little area of the world into a sustainable environment for physically and spiritually healthy growth.

When I travel the length and breadth of Califorinia I meet serious meditators, yogis, Sanskrit scholars, Buddhist monks/community activists, Ayurvedic practicioners and more who are making huge differences in their neighborhoods.

They say California is 10 years ahead of the rest of the US so in 10 years I see all of this positive development going mainstream. In fact its already happening.

Yes, there’s a segment of the population who is devolving but devolving goes against nature. Our nature is for ever expanding awareness and good.

Read Ken Wilbur.
Sam Beckett

“Buddhism being the fastest growing religion in the US, and yoga transitioning from just an emphasis on the physical aspects to serious study of the rest 7 levels of that South Asian school of thought, I see Americans becoming more and more refined, cultured, efficient, civilized and philosophical.”

Completely agree, and I also am eagerly anticipating that day. Buddhists certainly have a far more sane and rational view of what is happening in modern American culture. Buddhists stand for peace and harmony, against strife, bigotry, homosexuality, selfishness and other unpleasant side effects of our consumer-driven culture.

We could do a lot worse than to adopt some of the Dalai Lama’s attitudes:

“”In the West, you have bigger homes, yet smaller families; you have endless conveniences – yet you never seem to have any time. You can travel anywhere in the world, yet you don’t bother to cross the road to meet your neighbors.”

“My attitude is to give everyone some of my time. If I can contribute in any way to their happiness, that makes me happy.”

“A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife – astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.”

“Fundamentalism is terrifying because it is based purely on emotion, rather than intelligence. It prevents followers from thinking as individuals and about the good of the world.”
INTJ

@ VD

An appeal to the authority of your personality type. That’s certainly a creative logical fallacy. Since you are the author of those conclusions, no doubt you are the ideal person to be certain your conclusions are internally sound.

Hahaha. You attempted to strawman me by bringing up Hitchens. I pointed out that my type precludes me from caring what happened to Hitchens’ argument, so instead you cry “appeal to authority” where there is none.

How very admirable. I suppose I must be doing the same thing, although my unique and subjective moral standard requires me to point and laugh at philosophically ignorant individuals who genuinely believe they have constructed a sound and logically consistent moral standard when they are doing little more than attempting to rationalize their feelings. Seriously, speaking as a fellow INTJ, you’re really letting the side down here. In fact, we appear to have a real conundrum here, as I can appeal to the same authority to which you are appealing in defense of a very different conclusion.

Actually, I can appeal to the highest authority there is (and the only valid authority at that): human reason. I can convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are wrong under any circumstances.

All you’ve got is a book written by a bunch of uncivilized tribal barbarians.

I most certainly do. God’s Games, God’s Rules.

If the rules condone such things, fuck the rules.

Even Socrates couldn’t quibble philosophically with that; it solves the second horn of his false dilemma. To paraphrase the voice in the whirlwind, who do you think you are, creature, to judge your Maker?
You are like an NPC on a World of Warcraft server shaking its fist at Rob Pardo, demanding to know why it has to watch orc after orc after orc die at the hands of invading parties, seeing them rise again from the dead only to die in agony once more. Slaver! Murderer! Genocidal Maniac! And then Pardo flicks a switch and that entire universe vanishes in an instant.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

Personally, I bow to no one that is morally reprehensible. Not Rob Pardo, not you, and certainly not your genocidal friend.

Feel free to tell us more about your flawlessly consistent snowflake morality. If you have truly managed to create what has eluded so many great philosophers throughout history, Daniel Dennett and I, among others, will be genuinely impressed.

Could there possibly have been more straw in this man?
Plain Jane

INTJ, you give me tingles

Sam Beckett, good qoutes!

“Fundamentalism is terrifying because it is based purely on emotion, rather than intelligence. It prevents followers from thinking as individuals and about the good of the world.”

Some religions appeal more to emotion than intelligence. Emotion is of course, good, natural, human and sometimes can even be sublime, but it must always be kept within the parameters of sound logic, ethical reasoning and life-affirming compassion. These are the traits that distinguish us from animals.
INTJ

@ Plain Jane

INTJ, you give me tingles

Uh oh I’m blushing.
VD

Hahaha. You attempted to strawman me by bringing up Hitchens. I pointed out that my type precludes me from caring what happened to Hitchens’ argument, so instead you cry “appeal to authority” where there is none.

Untrue. You didn’t point out that your type precludes you from caring what happened to Hitchen’s argument, you pointed out that your type allows you to make sure your conclusions are internally sound. You claimed that your conclusions are internally sound because you are an INTJ, but you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are, in fact, internally sound. That was the logical fallacy identified. Furthermore, you cannot reasonably claim I attempted to strawman you until you show your argument about the horrific nature of Christianity and Islam is any different than Hitchens’s argument. He makes very similar claims to yours, although he is honest enough to include Judaism. It would certainly be interesting to hear your argument that Christianity requires genocide when the only examples are Judaic.

Actually, I can appeal to the highest authority there is (and the only valid authority at that): human reason. I can convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are wrong under any circumstances. All you’ve got is a book written by a bunch of uncivilized tribal barbarians.

You are a very ignorant person. So, you consider reason more authoritative than science? How very medieval of you. More authoritative than history? How very stupid of you. And to claim that science and history are totally invalid authorities only shows that you are in well over your thick little head. Reason is not an authority at all, it is simply another tool. I can use it to convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are moral imperatives… nor would I be the first to do so.

If the rules condone such things, fuck the rules.

Profound, very profound. As I said, your whole snowflake morality boils down to “me no likee”.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night. Personally, I bow to no one that is morally reprehensible. Not Rob Pardo, not you, and certainly not your genocidal friend.

Non serviam. That’s hardly new. To whom do you bow?

Could there possibly have been more straw in this man?

Whoosh! No wonder you don’t appreciate Western culture. It would be like asking a chimpanzee for his view on Mozart.
Plain Jane

“HE’S WRONG.”

“Right or wrong, one thing is for sure: he’s confident. ”

Who, the Pope? He put the con in confidence, alright.
Mankrik

“That’s just The Fifth Horseman, who has zero credibility outside the Spearhead and Daaaaaaalrock’s.”

Willy at Spearhead would agree with you these days, as he’s got a new wench. Thus he worships women again.
RMW

@Plain Jane
” Buddhism being the fastest growing religion in the US…”
Some say it’s Mormonism, some say the Wiccans, some say the Muslims…not sure which is it.

“…and yoga transitioning from just an emphasis on the physical aspects to serious study of the rest 7 levels of that South Asian school of thought, I see Americans becoming more and more refined, cultured, efficient, civilized and philosophical.”
Are you impying that South Asian culture is the “best” in the first place?

“I see more and more of us turning our front yards into organic gardens to feed our families with nutrient dense vegetables. I see perma-culture and aqua-ponics on the rise. I see more and more Americans who are not living to exploit humans, animals, the environment and other countries but living to transform their small little area of the world into a sustainable environment for physically and spiritually healthy growth.”
What exactly this has to do with Buddhism I’m not sure. Besides, there were times in Buddhism’s history when things got violent (http://www.globalbuddhism.org/11/margolies10.pdf, http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/2158/monks_with_guns:_discovering_buddhist_violence/) so what would you say if this was to happen in America?

And evidently not everyone likes Buddhism anyway:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/12/02/why-i-dont-dig-buddhism/
Iggles

Desiderius,

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. In theory fact-checkers are “independent” but in reality I’m sure they lean left because there’s no way any logical person can support all the ridiculous playing to the “base” rhetoric that the Republican espouse on the campaign trail. They’re not on Ryan’s team in any shape or form, being that they slice through the crap he’s saying.

As for not wanting a one party system in “your” country, sorry to tell you that day has already arrive. The people may be divided politically (left, right, liberal, conservative) but the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties serve the same master. Two sides of the same coin; in reality we’re only choosing Coke or Pepsi. They’re both still colas…
Desiderius

Ana,

“Like I said trust your instincts if you really want to give a chance to someone do it. One never knows, of course also you should ask yourself “I flaked because I was not ready” so what makes you think you can make a flakey girl ready or change her mind? Just always think about it and make sure that you don’t blind yourself to other bad traits. Keeping score of red flags is a good idea too, YMMV.”

Heh, I think you missed where I was going. I’m not trying to rationalize my way into pursuing this woman – I have no contact information, and although I’m not angry with her (such a relief not to feel that any more!) since I can relate it to my own experiences now (there is some karma at work here, no doubt), she’d have a lot of ground to make up if she changed her mind and happened to run into me.

I was going back to the general case where you started. There are enough young women using men for quick validation hits and then flaking (the female P&D) that it should serve as a major red flag. But for those trying to understand the plight of young women to help them make better choices, the concept of relative insecurity might be a useful one to keep in mind. Dating/relationships are a hell of a lot less structured than the rest of the world that has been created for them.

I think this is where Safety Not Guaranteed was going as well.
Desiderius

Iggles,

“The people may be divided politically (left, right, liberal, conservative) but the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties serve the same master.”

This level of equanimity is not in evidence in your evaluation of Ryan.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

There are enough young women using men for quick validation hits and then flaking (the female P&D) that it should serve as a major red flag. But for those trying to understand the plight of young women to help them make better choices, the concept of relative insecurity might be a useful one to keep in mind. Dating/relationships are a hell of a lot less structured than the rest of the world that has been created for them.

So you mean that since is a function of the system we live nowadays it shouldn’t be a red flag?
Kathy

“The Manosphere predicts that sex-bots and 3D tactile holographic porn will fulfill the needs of sex and intimacy in the future. Let’s see. Exciting times ahead!”

Susan replies..”That’s just The Fifth Horseman, who has zero credibility outside the Spearhead and Daaaaaaalrock’s.”

You forgot PMAFT!

There ain’t no substitute for the real thing.

I am mystified how women can use a dildo.. I really am.

Having never ever used one myself.. I cannot thing of anything worse..

Okay TMI again! Can’t help myself.. Bad habits…
INTJ

@ VD

Untrue. You didn’t point out that your type precludes you from caring what happened to Hitchen’s argument, you pointed out that your type allows you to make sure your conclusions are internally sound. You claimed that your conclusions are internally sound because you are an INTJ, but you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are, in fact, internally sound. That was the logical fallacy identified.

Clearly, you have poor reading comprehension, so I’ll repeat what I said and with a lot of luck you might get it right this time.

“And I frankly couldn’t care less what that fool Hitchens did…”

“As an INTJ, I come to my own conclusions and make sure they’re internally sound. Hitchens may or may not share my conclusions, and may or may not have sound reasons for those conclusions. Either way, I don’t care, as I do not attribute much value to Hitchens’ political/philosophical activity.”

Furthermore, you cannot reasonably claim I attempted to strawman you until you show your argument about the horrific nature of Christianity and Islam is any different than Hitchens’s argument. He makes very similar claims to yours, although he is honest enough to include Judaism.

You made the claim that I make the same argument as Hitchens, and proceeded to attack Hitchens’ presentation of that argument. Given that I had not yet presented my argument, this was an obvious red herring.

It would certainly be interesting to hear your argument that Christianity requires genocide when the only examples are Judaic.

Straw man. I never claimed that Christianity requires genocide (only that it condones it in some instances), and I never claimed that Judaism does not.

You are a very ignorant person. So, you consider reason more authoritative than science? How very medieval of you. More authoritative than history? How very stupid of you. And to claim that science and history are totally invalid authorities only shows that you are in well over your thick little head. Reason is not an authority at all, it is simply another tool. I can use it to convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are moral imperatives… nor would I be the first to do so.

Science is a form of reason. It derives its authority from reason. The study of history is also a form of reason, and once again derives its authority from reason. I never claimed that “science and history are totally invalid authorities”. Yet another straw man.

Given the progress that human society has made intellectually, you’ll have a hard time today convincing the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are moral imperatives. And certainly not the average HUS commenter, which is the arena in which this debate is occurring.

Profound, very profound. As I said, your whole snowflake morality boils down to “me no likee”.

I apologize for not obscuring the issue with a plethora of straw mans and other oratory skullduggery.

Non serviam. That’s hardly new. To whom do you bow?

Whom I bow to is irrelevant.

Whoosh! No wonder you don’t appreciate Western culture. It would be like asking a chimpanzee for his view on Mozart.

If chimpanzees don’t appreciate straw men either, I must be in good company.
Sai

@Kathy
…I checked out PMAFT’s page, read a lot of articles and links and now I can’t even remember why being female is good. Yay archive binging!
(I support the use of porn. I’ve never watched any but it’s the best some people will have for a while.)
Plain Jane

“There are enough young women using men for quick validation hits and then flaking (the female P&D) that it should serve as a major red flag. ”

Is not falling in love with someone who falls in love with you a form of using, flaking and female p&d?

Listen, I’ve dated a few men before who fell in love with me and me not them. Is it my fault the love never sprouted from my side? Moreover these were men in foreign countries where I did not live and would never live but was visiting for a short period. They knew the score.
INTJ

@ Sai

…I checked out PMAFT’s page, read a lot of articles and links and now I can’t even remember why being female is good. Yay archive binging!

Don’t read that stuff. You already have a healthy dosage of the read pill. Anything more is going to push you too far into misogyny. It would be like a natural jerk learning asshole game – not a pretty result.

P.S. do you recognize my new avatar?
Desiderius

Ana,

“So you mean that since is a function of the system we live nowadays it shouldn’t be a red flag?”

Sure it should, for men, but it still helps to understand the driving cause even there as it is balanced against other factors. A couple of the young women I flaked on (we hooked up but stopped short of P in V, then I didn’t follow up romantically even though I was interested) became/remained good friends because I think they understood what it was about – there was no malice or deception intended before or after.

I think I would have appreciated someone helping me understand why I was doing it at the time. I had a couple alpha uncles who pushed/encouraged me to pursue particular women during a couple visits, and those ended up in good relationships, but understanding would have helped even more.

For those advising young women, or young women seeking to better understand their own behavior, relative insecurity is a more descriptive dynamic than just “she’s a bitch”. If a young person is given all kinds of structure career/achievement-wise and none for sex/dating, it is understandable if they find excuses to stick to what they know and avoid the unknown. Doesn’t make standing someone up right, but it might give some guidance on how to avoid doing so in the future.
Plain Jane

@ Sai

” …I checked out PMAFT’s page, read a lot of articles and links and now I can’t even remember why being female is good. Yay archive binging!”

INTJ “Don’t read that stuff. You already have a healthy dosage of the read pill. Anything more is going to push you too far into misogyny. It would be like a natural jerk learning asshole game – not a pretty result.”

Reading the manosphere has made me even more grateful I was born female. I’d never want to be those guys. They are completely lost.
Sai

@INTJ
I see a nice blue-and-white geometric arrangement.
INTJ

@ Sai

I see a nice blue-and-white geometric arrangement.

Oh that’s weird. Perhaps your cache is showing the old random avatar.
Desiderius

Plain Jane,

“There are enough young women using men for quick validation hits and then flaking (the female P&D) that it should serve as a major red flag. ”

“Is not falling in love with someone who falls in love with you a form of using, flaking and female p&d?”

You do exhibit a considerable capacity for empathy, but there seems to be a blockage. Try adding the thought “males are human beings” to your analysis. I think it might help.

Female flaking consists of exhibiting interest, setting up a time to meet, then not showing up. Could also apply to giving out one’s number, then not reply to a call or text.

BTW, you and yours have been in charge of this SMP for a generation, and its a mess. How about you step aside and let the Susan’s drive for awhile? You guys can use the free time to fight off the War on Women. What say you?
Plain Jane

“BTW, you and yours have been in charge of this SMP for a generation”

Me and mine? We have nothing to do with your SMP, Desi. That’s YOUR culture, not mine. I act within the parameters of a certain standard of morals and ethics, informed by my spiritual practice. Of course “men are human too” but I cannot be held responsible if a man I was casually dating (more like just hanging out with) while in a country for a few months becomes obsessed with me. Of course I felt bad when I had to leave the country, but I would not have allowed myself to fall in love with someone I may never see again. And it was not true love. It was just infatuation with the foreign girl.
VD

Clearly, you have poor reading comprehension, so I’ll repeat what I said and with a lot of luck you might get it right this time.

“And I frankly couldn’t care less what that fool Hitchens did…”

“As an INTJ, I come to my own conclusions and make sure they’re internally sound. Hitchens may or may not share my conclusions, and may or may not have sound reasons for those conclusions. Either way, I don’t care, as I do not attribute much value to Hitchens’ political/philosophical activity.”

It is amusing that you accuse me of poor reading comprehension when you can’t even parse your own sentences correctly. Yes, you do state that you don’t care what Hitchens thinks. I not only understood that, but addressed it. But the fact that you appealed to the authority of your INTJness in order to support the internal soundness of your conclusions is not changed by the fact that you did so in the context of not caring about Hitchens’s conclusions. Whether you intended to do something as dumb as appealing to your own personality type is irrelevant. The fact is that is precisely what you did.

Let’s break this down:

1. Do you claim your conclusions are internally sound? Yes, you do.
2. Why do you claim your conclusions are internally sound? Because you are an INTJ.

So, do you deny point 1 or point 2?

Science is a form of reason. It derives its authority from reason. The study of history is also a form of reason, and once again derives its authority from reason. I never claimed that “science and history are totally invalid authorities”. Yet another straw man.

Science is not a form of reason. You are totally wrong. Nor is history a form of reason. Now you are simply flailing about in desperation, as you specifically claimed human reason was “the only valid authority” when you wrote: “I can appeal to the highest authority there is (and the only valid authority at that): human reason.”

If chimpanzees don’t appreciate straw men either, I must be in good company.

Based on your performance here, a chimpanzee might well beat you in a debate. I have not constructed a single straw man or falsely characterized anything you have said. Mindlessly repeating “straw man” doesn’t help your case in the slightest.
INTJ

@ VD

It is amusing that you accuse me of poor reading comprehension when you can’t even parse your own sentences correctly. Yes, you do state that you don’t care what Hitchens thinks. I not only understood that, but addressed it. But the fact that you appealed to the authority of your INTJness in order to support the internal soundness of your conclusions is not changed by the fact that you did so in the context of not caring about Hitchens’s conclusions. Whether you intended to do something as dumb as appealing to your own personality type is irrelevant. The fact is that is precisely what you did.

Let’s break this down:

1. Do you claim your conclusions are internally sound? Yes, you do.
2. Why do you claim your conclusions are internally sound? Because you are an INTJ.

So, do you deny point 1 or point 2?

Context is important. Deal with it.

Science is not a form of reason. You are totally wrong. Nor is history a form of reason. Now you are simply flailing about in desperation, as you specifically claimed human reason was “the only valid authority” when you wrote: “I can appeal to the highest authority there is (and the only valid authority at that): human reason.”

At this point you’re simply delusional.

I have not constructed a single straw man or falsely characterized anything you have said.

So now you deny that you said “Feel free to tell us more about your flawlessly consistent snowflake morality. If you have truly managed to create what has eluded so many great philosophers throughout history, Daniel Dennett and I, among others, will be genuinely impressed”?

Do you also deny that you said “He makes very similar claims to yours, although he is honest enough to include Judaism. It would certainly be interesting to hear your argument that Christianity requires genocide when the only examples are Judaic”?
INTJ

@ VD

At this point you appear to have declared that slavery, rape, and genocide are condoned in some instances under the mantra “God’s Games, God’s Rules.”

I find this absolutely abhorrent, and I sincerely hope that the religious commenters that I respect here such as Desidirius, Ted D, and Jackie do not share your view.
Plain Jane

“I find this absolutely abhorrent, and I sincerely hope that the religious commenters that I respect here such as Desidirius, Ted D, and Jackie do not share your view.”

This religious commenter certainly does NOT share that view.
VD

Context is important. Deal with it.

Yes, context is certainly important. But the relevant point is that in this particular case, the context doesn’t change the fact of your specific appeal to a particular authority. It cannot. This should be obvious because your INTJ status, and therefore the internal solidity of your conclusions about anything, has absolutely nothing to do with Hitchens. How could it make sense for your conclusions about Hitchens, but no other conclusions, to be internally solid as a consequence of your being an INTJ? It can’t. Do you stop being an INTJ when Hitchens is not involved? Of course not.

I repeat the questions you did not answer.

1. Did you claim your conclusions are internally sound?
2. If so, why did you claim your conclusions are internally sound?

I will be pleased to answer your two questions as soon as you answer mine.

At this point you appear to have declared that slavery, rape, and genocide are condoned in some instances under the mantra “God’s Games, God’s Rules.”

I am merely claiming that they can be rationally condoned utilizing that concept. It is called Divine Command Theory and it is not exactly new to me as Socrates tried, and failed, to attack a version of it in the Euthyphro dialogue. But if you happen to have a critique of Thomas Aquinas’s version that involves anything more substantive than your personal feelings of abhorrence, I would certainly enjoy reading it.
Plain Jane

“It is called Divine Command Theory ”

INTJ, look it up. I’d say its a valid theory in the context of the culture and religion it sprang from and just goes to show, despite pc propaganda, that not all religions are equal, equally valid, or have the same problems.

Jai Jai Shiva Shambo!
Jackie

@INTJ

“At this point you appear to have declared that slavery, rape, and genocide are condoned in some instances under the mantra “God’s Games, God’s Rules.”

I find this absolutely abhorrent, and I sincerely hope that the religious commenters that I respect here such as Desidirius, Ted D, and Jackie do not share your view.”
=====
Hi INTJ,
Believe me, I understand your indignation in the face of injustice. The God of the Old Testament seems unbelievably bloodthirsty. How can He be reconciled with what Jesus tells us in the Gospel of John (1 John 4:8), “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love”?

INTJ, I believe that Jesus ushered in a New Testament, a New Covenant, and a New Understanding. Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount) that basically turns it all on its head.

Instead of “an eye for an eye,” Jesus says that the highest values are spirituality and mercy. In the Beatitudes, He takes the OT beliefs (“You have heard it said…”) and elevates them to a higher level, rejecting a “get even” mentality.

Jesus further rejects the superficiality of materialism, telling us instead to “seek the Kingdom of God instead” and requires that we do good not for ostentatious reasons, but for our own purity of heart. Goodness without thought to recognition or reward is how we may know God.

How is a Christian called to live and to know God?

Short answer: Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

A Christian is called to love not just their brethren, but also their enemy (Luke 6:27). I fail at this a lot, too! But I do keep trying; God’s grace is infinite and I do believe that God’s mercy will be my salvation.

Here is a commentary on the expectation of Christians, and how demanding it is:
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/6_27-36.htm

I confess I am not a theological scholar. Des and others are undoubtedly MUCH more knowledgeable. This is just my 0.02.
=======
TL;DR: God is Love. Love God, Love Others. Simple, not easy.
Desiderius

Jackie,

Heh, if INTJ were playing fair, knowledge might be helpful, but if that were the case, he would have already sought it out on his own. He isn’t, and thus he didn’t.
Mike C

This is so OT, but this thread already went way off-topic…so VD…two questions for you:

1. Do you believe the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are depicted as the same being?

2. If God created us humans with consciences that reflect at least some aspect of his morality, why would our consciences direct us to judge some of the Old Testament behavior as morally questionable?
Plain Jane

“God is Love. Love God, Love Others. Simple, not easy.”

Jackie, I appreciate what you wrote. What is your view of religious pluralism?
Jackie

@Des

“Heh, if INTJ were playing fair, knowledge might be helpful, but if that were the case, he would have already sought it out on his own. He isn’t, and thus he didn’t.”
—
Maybe I’m a weirdo hippie optimist, but I believe that sharing the Gospel (not necessarily in words) is never wasted. Peace, Des
Jackie

@PJ

Plain Jane, I can never tell if you are trolling or not! But I will answer your question in all sincerity: I am an Ecumenical Christian, which is comparable from what (little) I understand of religious pluralism.

I have met Tibetan Buddhists and practicing Hindus who I believe are living holy and sacred lives. I have known Atheists with more compassion and Christ-like tolerance than many Christians. (Gandhi’s famous quote about Christ comes to mind!)

Only God knows each of our hearts. I truly believe each of us should focus on seeking “the Kingdom” and worry less about whether other people are wrong because they believe differently.
Desiderius

INTJ,

“At this point you appear to have declared that slavery, rape, and genocide are condoned in some instances under the mantra “God’s Games, God’s Rules.”

I find this absolutely abhorrent, and I sincerely hope that the religious commenters that I respect here such as Desidirius, Ted D, and Jackie do not share your view.”

Not only do I share it, I also advocate punching babies, putting puppies in blenders, and keeping women barefoot, pregnant, chained to desks, AND riding the cock carousel. You know us Christians, we’re a nasty bunch – you’ve got us pegged.

Meanwhile, back in the real world (you should visit sometime, its not so bad; then again, there’s a reason why internet starts with INT…), we’re struggling with some real problems, like everyone else. Here’s a couple we share (based on my experience in a liberal church which I love nonetheless) with the culture we used to support:

We like to think of ourselves as good people (we don’t say perfect, but often act like it) whose job it is to help other people (we don’t call them bad, but the implication is clear enough), then wonder why those other people don’t want to join our churches. Oh, we often also never seem to quite get around to inviting them either.

We make our kids go to church until they’re 18, then worry about why they stop going, even though we never taught them much about what its for, since we’ve mostly forgotten ourselves. But there are always nice young families to recruit who want to make sure their children get the good moral values our kids did, so we don’t worry too much about it. Still, it’s strange not having any single people around.

So yeah, we’re not the threat conjured up in your fevered imagination, but we’re not doing so hot right now fulfilling our traditional role either. Over a 3,500 year tradition, you’re not always going to hit it out of the park. Shit happens.

That’s right 3,500 years (give or take 250). My take on the problem is that the current rot started in the abandonment of the Old Testament you can see in Jackie’s comment, but nobody’s perfect – one of us is wrong.

And the thing is, out of that rot is already growing some encouraging shoots. We do have a lot of Susan’s (her age, SES, and withitness) and some better men than I getting every last piece of their shit together and figuring out the problems, and it has nothing to do with feminism, even though this is a liberal church.

That’s the thing you need to understand about this tradition if you truly do want to take it on – its always been driven by strong alpha females. Back at the beginning of those 3,500 years you’ll find one who named her son laughter after the time she laughed at God.

You want to mess with women who can laugh at God (and still believe; any fool can laugh at God, as you’ve unfortunately shown), have at it. You think the SMP is bad for you….
Desiderius

“Nonetheless” refers to the problems, not the liberalism. I’ll be a liberal humanist until I die, and, I have faith, in some mysterious way after that.
Mike C

That’s right 3,500 years (give or take 250). My take on the problem is that the current rot started in the abandonment of the Old Testament you can see in Jackie’s comment, but nobody’s perfect – one of us is wrong.

I’m not particularly religious…but I was raised in the Eastern Orthodox faith.

FWIW, I tend to be an observer. I don’t know why but I like to observe various things even if it has nothing to do with my own life.

What I’ve noticed with religion, particularly Christianity and its various denominations is you do see distinct approaches based on gender…and I’m not saying one is necessarily better than the other. Women take an approach that religion and Christianity is about love and a “relationship to God”. Again, it is the core attribute that women are relationship-centric. The extreme version of this is what I think some criticize as “Churchianity”. Men on the other hand, view religion more about rules and judgement….providing the rules that both he and the rest of human society should live by and that those who do not heed the rules should be judged. It is interesting to me to compare and contrast say someone like Jackie with someone like Brendan in terms of their Christian beliefs.

Whether or not one believes in religion as the foundation I think it is probably correct to say we’ve veered too far away from rules and judgement and too much towards “love and understanding”. I think one unfortunate effect is when it seems like to many people are not following the rules, you start to ask yourself “am I patsy” if I try to live according to rules.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Men on the other hand, view religion more about rules and judgement….providing the rules that both he and the rest of human society should live by and that those who do not heed the rules should be judged.
  
  I am struck by this online – some bloggers with an evangelical bent are so judgmental and harsh they seem more like the Phaaaaaarisees Christ dealt with.
  
  In my own church, which is Jesuit (at Boston College), there is zero focus on rules or judgment. It is very much focused on Christian principles and a relationship to God. I’m not a regular churchgoer, but my husband sings there and this depiction of the male norm is completely inaccurate – at least at a liberal Catholic church.
Desiderius

MikeC,

The six antitheses after the Beatitudes are a good place to look for Jesus’s take on the rules.
Desiderius

Jackie,

“Maybe I’m a weirdo hippie optimist, but I believe that sharing the Gospel (not necessarily in words) is never wasted. Peace, Des :)”

I am of that belief as well.

Grace, Jackie =p
Plain Jane

“I think it is probably correct to say we’ve veered too far away from rules and judgement and too much towards “love and understanding”.

Not amongst the Christian missionaries in Asia.
Desiderius

MikeC,

“Whether or not one believes in religion as the foundation I think it is probably correct to say we’ve veered too far away from rules and judgement and too much towards “love and understanding”.”

Nah, we could use more of both. The problem is the same one the SMP has – the male and female need to work better together.
Desiderius

Pj,

“Not amongst the Christian missionaries in Asia.”

Crappy churches send out crappy missionaries. Welcome to the human race.

It wasn’t always that way. I know that man (Sam Moffett) well. He is the finest I’ve ever met.

Truly sorry you had a bad experience. Really am. I’ve had some tough ones too, and they didn’t always change me for the better.

But you’re defaming some people who are way better than either of us put together with your blanket statements. Please stop.
Jackie

@Mike C

Hey Mike,

I am actually undergoing a kind of… I don’t know, spiritual metamorphosis at the moment, so I am probably not the best basis for comparison at the mo’!

But I will say this: Even with all my “hippie” ways, I would bet Brendan and I outwardly appear similar in our actions. We probably are arriving at similar conclusions, even if we take very different thought-routes there.

Mike,I do see what you are saying about rules vs love aspect. To me, the life of Jesus combines both. I mean, can you imagine the kind of mental fortitude and discipline it would take to know you were going to stand trial in a completely corrupt court? And be crucified– actually nailed to a cross? And, especially knowing that you were innocent and didn’t have to do this?

Simultaneously, being able to show mercy to the woman caught in adultery, and an advocate for children– the most vulnerable of them all?

In the Book of Revelation, Jesus says, I am the Alpha and the Omega. Obviously, he wasn’t into Gaming but it strikes me that Jesus exemplifies both sides. The king of kings who was born at the stable, since there was no room at the inn. The most exalted who was crucified between two thieves. The first and the last.
Jackie

@Des (1860)

“I am of that belief as well.

Grace, Jackie =p”
=======

Des, you are awesome!!! And hilarious!

By the way, I can definitely notice a change within you– I really think good things are going to be coming your way and I am looking forward to the day that we can congratulate you on finding your true love.
Plain Jane

Desi, the concept of “mission” itself is problematic. These people seek to destabalize entire cultures because they consider them “pagan” and “evil”.

Its no mistake that global imperialism/colonialism worked hand in hand with missionaries. The mission is to complete transform cultures, some which have survived in one form or another for thousands years.

American Christians complain about immigrants changing the face of their country but don’t think twice about donating to foreign missions. What gives?

On the other hand when one of their’s converts to a foreign religion they label it a “cult”. Again, what gives here?
INTJ

@ VD

1. Did you claim your conclusions are internally sound?

Yes. I wouldn’t be making the claims if I didn’t believe them to be internally sound.

2. If so, why did you claim your conclusions are internally sound?

To explain that I come to internally sound conclusions using my own reasoning, rather than simply internalizing whatever Hitchens or some other person says.

Now I’m sure you knew that was exactly what I meant, but you chose to pretend otherwise.

I am merely claiming that they can be rationally condoned utilizing that concept. It is called Divine Command Theory and it is not exactly new to me as Socrates tried, and failed, to attack a version of it in the Euthyphro dialogue. But if you happen to have a critique of Thomas Aquinas’s version that involves anything more substantive than your personal feelings of abhorrence, I would certainly enjoy reading it.

I pointed out that they can be critiqued using human reason, which involve not just my personal feelings of abhorrence, but the feelings of abhorrence of most human beings. Mike C also has said the same thing, in the form of a question.
INTJ

@ Desi

Heh, if INTJ were playing fair, knowledge might be helpful, but if that were the case, he would have already sought it out on his own. He isn’t, and thus he didn’t.

It was not my intention to be unfair. This whole debate started with VD disparaging Islam in comparison to Christianity. In my experience, most criticisms of Islam are based on a naive literal interpretation of the Quran. I normally point out that it is no more fair to use a naive interpretation of the Quran to attack Islam than it is to use a naive interpretation of the Bible. VD took offense to my statement that both books appear horrific if interpreted literally. Frankly, this was a jarring experience. I found it shocking that a blogger as well known and seemingly well respected as VD would hold such a view.

I must confess that I was not familiar with VD’s writings, or I would have already known that VD holds this view: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
INTJ

@ Jackie, Desidirius

Thanks for the theological information. I’ll read up on it in detail.
VD

To explain that I come to internally sound conclusions using my own reasoning, rather than simply internalizing whatever Hitchens or some other person says. Now I’m sure you knew that was exactly what I meant, but you chose to pretend otherwise.

I didn’t pretend otherwise. You’re admitting precisely what I already described. You claimed that you “come to internally sound conclusions using my own reasoning” because you are an INTJ. That is an appeal to the authority of your personality type, it is a logical fallacy, and the fact that it was done so in the context of not internalizing Hitchens is irrelevant.

This whole debate started with VD disparaging Islam in comparison to Christianity.

That is simply false. I never said anything about Islam nor did I compare it to Christianity. It all started when you reacted to JutR and me asserting the superiority of Western culture, including my contemptuous disparagement of cannibal cultures and uncivilized pagan societies, and wrote: “The level of arrogance and superiority you seem to have for Western culture is frankly shocking to me.” As it happens, I wound up defending not only Christianity, but also Islam and Judaism; all three of which utilize some aspect of Divine Command Theory. Recall that you were the one who attacked Islam, not me. You wrote: “First, if the Bible and the Quran are interpreted literally, both Islam and Christianity are absolutely horrific religions.” Whereas I never said anything about Islam at all except to ask “by what universal moral standard are Islam and Christianity ‘absolutely horrific’?”

You made the claim that I make the same argument as Hitchens, and proceeded to attack Hitchens’ presentation of that argument. Given that I had not yet presented my argument, this was an obvious red herring.

We know the conclusions of your argument are the same as his. What we don’t know is if your reached those conclusions in precisely the same way as Hitchens. You seem to have missed the fact that “this very argument” refers to “if you are clueless enough to try to claim they are self-condemning by their own standards”, which is why I followed that up with “you should care what that fool Hitchens did, because he was trying to defend exactly the same position you appear to be holding.”

I have always been aware that your arguments for the horrific nature of literal Islam and Christianity may be different than the arguments Hitchens made in god is Not Great and in his debate with Doug Wilson. But you are arguing for the same conclusion. It is not a straw man to observe that or to surmise that your argument will fail if it utilizes similar logic. Now, to answer your two questions:

So now you deny that you said “Feel free to tell us more about your flawlessly consistent snowflake morality. If you have truly managed to create what has eluded so many great philosophers throughout history, Daniel Dennett and I, among others, will be genuinely impressed”?

No, not at all. I simply deny that is a strawman. You claimed to have an original and internally sound basis for condemning slavery, rape, and genocide. The description is accurate.

Do you also deny that you said “He makes very similar claims to yours, although he is honest enough to include Judaism. It would certainly be interesting to hear your argument that Christianity requires genocide when the only examples are Judaic”?

No, not at all. Again, it is not a strawman. You first stated “both Islam and Christianity are absolutely horrific religions”, then added “You conveniently overlooked the conditionality of my statement: “if the Bible and the Quran are interpreted literally”. Yes, slavery, rape, and genocide are horrific according to my own moral standard.” You said absolutely nothing about condoning slavery, rape, and genocide versus requiring slavery, rape, and genocide, but the Bible did not merely condone genocide, genocide was literally required in several cases, including most of the cities of Canaan and the Amalekites.

INTJ, you have made enough identifiable mistakes here to justify revisiting your assumption of the internal soundness of your arguments. That doesn’t mean those arguments are not sound, by all means, feel free to share them with us, and if I cannot find any flaws in them, I will be the first to congratulate you. One thing you may find useful is to know that the feeling of logical soundness in our thoughts is normal, but that feeling is not the same thing as actual soundness when those thoughts are articulated in detail. I am often surprised how flawed an argument that seemed quite sound in my head turns out to be when I put the first draft of it down on paper. In fact, the need to articulate my thoughts and allow others to test the soundness of my arguments is one of the primary reasons I have a blog in the first place.

You can, of course, ignore everything I have said on the basis of my being insufficiently warm, agreeable, and fuzzy. You would not be the first to find me cold, cruel, and arrogant. But then, dismissing information on that basis would not be very INTJ-like of you.
VD

I must confess that I was not familiar with VD’s writings, or I would have already known that VD holds this view:

I am not so well known that anyone would be expected to know my views on the matter. However, no one should really be surprised by them, as some variant of “God’s Game, God’s Rules” has been previously expressed by William Ockham of Occam’s Razor fame, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, John Calvin, and arguably, Immanuel Kant. It is not appealing to the intellectual authority of these men – I would certainly never appeal to the authority of John Calvin – to note that one should be hesitant to assume one’s command of reason is superior to this collection of formidable thinkers.
Plain Jane

The aim of both Islam and Christianity is one world religion, one world culture and by extension, one world government.

Christianity is dying in your country and being replaced by religions and traditions from South Asia.

OM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/14/we-are-all-hindus-now.html
Desiderius

PJ,

“Christianity is dying in your country”

Heh, if there is one thing Christianity knows something about, it’s coming back from the dead, better than ever.
Plain Jane

http://www.theuniversityofman.com/blog/2012/9/10/vasectomy-part-1.html

Preaching vasectomy to the Manosphere? I’m all for it!

MGTOW also has my full support.
Just1X

and while my comment at 8:11am will be deleted due to language (fair enough).

I want you to know that, without any heat whatsoever, that is truly what I think you are and what you should do.
Ted D

Susan – “at least at a liberal Catholic church.”

WTF?! Liberal. Catholic. Church?! I’m not being funny when I say: does such a thing even exist?!

Every single Catholic Church I’ve been a participant in was by and large conservative to a fault. Don’t get me wrong, I lean rather conservative myself, but I’ve never once found myself in a Catholic church thinking “wow these folks are just too liberal for me”. In fact, when I start feeling a little too stuffy and conservative, I simply go to mass on a Sunday and all my worries about being stuffy goes out the window.

I can’t even imagine what a Liberal Catholic Church would be like. To me it is a completely foreign concept.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I can’t even imagine what a Liberal Catholic Church would be like. To me it is a completely foreign concept.
  
  I don’t mean that the priests are down with abortion.
  
  I mean that the focus is on charity rather than sacrifice. Even during Lent we are encouraged to share our time and energy with others rather than “give something up.” There is a huge mission of social justice. Unlike many churches I’ve been to, St. Ignatius is packed several times on Sunday, and there’s a Family Mass that is always SRO.
  
  The sermons are extremely thought provoking and often intellectual, as they are given by Jesuit professors.
  
  It also helps that the Jesuits’ participation in archdiocesan politics is involuntary and minimal. And that very few Jesuits were implicated in the sexual abuse scandal that has rocked the church.
INTJ

@ VD

I see the whole topic of debate was started on a misunderstanding on my part.

I now know where you stand, and where others stand, so I see no benefit in continuing this debate with you.
Ted D

Susan – That all just does NOT sound very Catholic to me. I’ve been out of the Church now for well over a decade, so it is likely that I’m simply out of touch. But, from what I hear from my fellow Catholics that still practice, things haven’t changed much around here. I’ve tried attending mass here and there lately, but I’ve not seen anything like this around my neck of the woods. For the most part, the Catholic masses around here still focus on how much of a sinner I am, how badly I need Jesus to save me soul, and how I should be eternally thankful to Him and the Church for being my beacon to salvation. Don’t take this to be a statement against God, but it IS a statement against the Church. I can go on for pages about my beef with the Church, but the root of it is their desire to be my personal Holy Go-Between, as if I’m unable to have a relationship with God without their help. The real reason for it is power: they want it and the only way to get it is to convince me to GIVE it to them. Well, that isn’t happening again in this lifetime. I took my power back from them years ago, and now I’m working on taking my power back from feminism as well.

I figure if I keep it up, I might totally be my own man sometime before I die.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I can go on for pages about my beef with the Church, but the root of it is their desire to be my personal Holy Go-Between, as if I’m unable to have a relationship with God without their help.
  
  This was the primary impetus behind the Protestant Reformation, as sinful “intercessors” sold indulgences and generally behaved very badly.
  
  I share your view, and cannot even imagine going to Confession at this point. I’m one of those troublesome “a la carte” American Catholics – the Vatican doesn’t like us much. We don’t like them much either, so it’s even.
  
  I don’t doubt that St. Ignatius is a rare and special place. When the scandal happened here, the pastor spoke to the congregation about leaving the Church. I recall he said, “You have to decide whether this little place, this isolated parish, is something that justifies your staying.” At the time, it was enough for me. I still do go occasionally, and as I said, my husband sings in the choir and is quite observant.
  
  Interestingly, he was raised in a Calvinist faith. We attended services there this weekend while visiting his mother. Oh boy, that is a different experience. The sermon was on the importance of works rather than faith alone for salvation. I felt very conspicuous – a Papist!
INTJ

@ Just1X

and while my comment at 8:11am will be deleted due to language (fair enough).

I want you to know that, without any heat whatsoever, that is truly what I think you are and what you should do.

Damnit I missed the comment. I’m curious to see what you said to her.
Jonny

“Men on the other hand, view religion more about rules and judgement….providing the rules that both he and the rest of human society should live by and that those who do not heed the rules should be judged.”

Who you should fear from judging is not man, but God. A Christian should fear what constitutes “Judging”. Goodness, if you are so weak, are you weak in faith?

“I can go on for pages about my beef with the Church, but the root of it is their desire to be my personal Holy Go-Between, as if I’m unable to have a relationship with God without their help.”

The church is for fellowship for one should not live a life in faith alone.

No one should be a Christian alone. You need someone to discuss these issues of faith with. A Church is a place to find others with the same needs. Certainly, if you don’t like a Church that deviates from such tasks, then you need to find something better, but are you still calling it a Church?
VD

I now know where you stand, and where others stand, so I see no benefit in continuing this debate with you.

As you wish.
Just1X

@INTJ

oh, I dare say that you could take a wild stab at it. I doubt that I let your imagination down. The worst thing about it was that I honestly meant it, without heat, that’s what I think of her…

TL;DR? I don’t like dishonest people, or hate filled people. So, she and I were never likely to be bestest buddies TBH.
J

That’s the thing you need to understand about this tradition if you truly do want to take it on – its always been driven by strong alpha females. Back at the beginning of those 3,500 years you’ll find one who named her son laughter after the time she laughed at God.

Yes, indeed. I’m always amazed at the ‘spherian belief that that the Judeo-Christian tradition is strictly patriarchal. The OT is full of stories of strong, though family-oriented women, like Sarah, the other matriarchs, Yeal and Deborah. The woman of valor described in Proverbs 31, so often quoted in the Christian corner of the ‘sphere (Pardon my geometrically inaccurate metaphor.) sells real estate and runs her own business. The spread of early Chritianity had much to do with its appeal to Greco-Roman matrons and its history is chock full of the exemplars of female saints and, of course, of Mary. Yet the ‘sphere focuses on a couple of verses in the most literal way possible to justify stuff like spanking your wife. (Hell, if you have a kink, accept it or change it, but don’t use Scripture to justify it.)

I think a real mistake the ‘sphere makes in attempt to reinforce family values is that it confuses submission and cooperation. While I don’t necessarily object to the captian/first model of marriage, my metaphor for own marriage is that of two mules in the same harness, pulling towards the same goal. DH and I are both two fairly stubborn individuals, but the marriage, not each other, is the yoke we both submit to. We both put the marriage and kids ahead of ourselves and that keeps us moving in the same direction with the same goals.
J

Whether or not one believes in religion as the foundation I think it is probably correct to say we’ve veered too far away from rules and judgement and too much towards “love and understanding”. I think one unfortunate effect is when it seems like to many people are not following the rules, you start to ask yourself “am I patsy” if I try to live according to rules.

Scripture describes God as sitting in both the judgment and the mercy seat. I think both true religion and sound personal judgement demand both attributes. As I answered in regard to your question about what I teach my sons, the keyis not to be a prick and not to be chump. As Jesus said, “Be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves.” There’s a sweet spot between being a pushover and a nasty bastard that I’m tempted to call “Godliness.”
J

By the way, I can definitely notice a change within you– I really think good things are going to be coming your way and I am looking forward to the day that we can congratulate you on finding your true love

I tend to be reluctant to make personal comments on these blogs and try to stick to ideas and principles, but I’ll break policy to cosign this.
Ted D

Johnny – “Certainly, if you don’t like a Church that deviates from such tasks, then you need to find something better, but are you still calling it a Church?”

I discuss my faith with friends that share a similar view, but to me it is not a Church (with a capital C) even though we discuss faith. The “Church” in my view is simply another form of political power, and does not represent the people that make up the faith in many cases. I dislike organized religion in general because most of them all become political organizations in the end; another means of controlling the people, instead of focusing on growing the faith in its members. I realize this is not the case for all individual churches, but I find it hard to support any individual church as long as it is affiliated with the Church.

I have several other points of disagreement that are actually about the faith itself, but I don’t even bother going into depth about those because I’m turned off by the overall stance of the Church before we even get to specifics. I’m tired of being told how big a sinner I am. I’m tired of being told that I was a sinner before I was born, and will always be one until I die. I’m tired of being forced to talk to my God through the Church that allows pedophiles within its ranks to go unpunished. I’m tired of the hypocrisy.

I cannot put my faith and and follow an organization that allows itself to be so corrupt, so selfish, and so closed minded. And that is coming from someone that has very conservative leanings. It ins’t the judgment of the Church I mind, it is that in my opinion, they are NOT fit to judge me.
J

In my experience, most criticisms of Islam are based on a naive literal interpretation of the Quran. I normally point out that it is no more fair to use a naive interpretation of the Quran to attack Islam than it is to use a naive interpretation of the Bible. …..both books appear horrific if interpreted literally.

I blame the fundies on both sides for this. If you understand your faith on a naive level, if you act on that understanding for all the world to see, and if you publicly insist that your naive understanding is the only one, then you reap what you sow.

The world world be a better place if all the fundies could be isolated from the rest of us to carry out their own Armegeddon. Then the weak truly would inherit an earth free of religious bullying.
INTJ

@ Just1X

oh, I dare say that you could take a wild stab at it. I doubt that I let your imagination down. The worst thing about it was that I honestly meant it, without heat, that’s what I think of her…

That’s actually why I wanted to read the comment. I get the feeling my imagination is selling me short here.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

That all just does NOT sound very Catholic to me.

Culture colors catholic faith as much as any other one. I haven’t found a catholic church to attend here because Catholicism here is weird, at least in comparison with ours on the Caribbean but then Christianity has always being practical and adaptive. They wouldn’t had spread this fast and everywhere if they were not willing to do some concessions, which is good and bad at the same time, YMMV.
Jonny

@Ted D “I have several other points of disagreement that are actually about the faith itself, but I don’t even bother going into depth about those because I’m turned off by the overall stance of the Church before we even get to specifics.”

What follows is about your faith, not about the Church. Yet it only seems to be corroborate the disconnect and misunderstanding of Christianity.

“I’m tired of being told how big a sinner I am. I’m tired of being told that I was a sinner before I was born, and will always be one until I die.”

This would be the doctrine of most Christian denominations or non-denominated Churches. Just because you believe in God does not negate the fact that everyone had sinned and continues to sin. The sin nature continues.

“I’m tired of being forced to talk to my God through the Church that allows pedophiles within its ranks to go unpunished. I’m tired of the hypocrisy.”

Confession is part of the Catholic Church, but not of Protestant Churches. While the damage caused by pedophiles and the Catholic Church’s (and some Protestent Church’s) willingness to protect them is a horrible situation, crying hypocrisy will not do anything to resolve it. The corruption is a earth bound problem since people are still in their sinful nature.

Thus, not liking to be told about your sinful nature might appear to insulate you from the Church, but it only focuses on how far you deviated and it exposes you to being unaware of how some acts are sinful, not withstanding pedophilia.
J

In my own church, which is Jesuit (at Boston College), there is zero focus on rules or judgment. It is very much focused on Christian principles and a relationship to God. I’m not a regular churchgoer, but my husband sings there and this depiction of the male norm is completely inaccurate – at least at a liberal Catholic church.

My experience is similar to yours (though with some emphasis on the judgment of actions, not people), and I think this a function of SES and geography. When the guys at Dalrock’s go on about Churchianity I think they are referring a type of religiosity that we don’t see in our environs. When educated people, Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Gentile, Eastern or Western, go to a house of worship, they tend to be looking for an uplifting experience that will teach them principles that will enhance their lives, aid them in finding meaning, and help them work toward spiritual self-improvement.

The Churchianity criticized in the ‘sphere and the submission-oriented fundamentalism that so often counters it are both very judgmntal because they are mean to reign in the baser instincts of people who lack self-control and depend on religion to help them compensate. Bougie types like us generally have plenty of self-control, future orientation, etc. Houses of worship that cater to us generally focus on providing mutual aid and fellowship to people undergoing the normal stresses and vissisitudes of life that even stable people undergo; for example, members of my congregation brought meals to my home when my parents were sick or dying. They provide a wholesome place to meet people and socialize. They also provide an arena for spiritual growth for people who tend to already be fairly good and stable people. Houses of worship that cater to lower SES folks tend focus on rules limiting sexuality, alcohol and drug use, etc because those tend to be more problematic in those communities.
Asher

@ INTJ

First, I don’t accept the MBPT, as there is very little measurable or testable application of that schema. But even if I did accept it I find it odd that someone claiming a personality obsessed with internal consistency to make judgments on some body of thought using little more than pronouncements for which you have provided almost no argumentation. According to the MBPT an INTJ would examine a religion for internal consistency, so, either you are a poor example of an INTJ or the MBPT is crap.

Also, your bloviating insistence on the authority of human reason sounds like a child insisting on why she deserves ice cream before dinner. Human reason is an authority because … well, it’s an authority. Okay, then, explain where human reason comes from and how it even came to exist. Did human reason exist 100k years ago? 500k? If not, then you’re going to have to explain how we got “here” from “there”.

The problem, though, is that if you’re going to attribute the development of human reason to evolution then you’re going to have to accept that it has a specific nature and is not at all autonomous, nothing more than just another appendage. And what is the nature of human reason? To be clever, and nothing more. Human reason is not an authority on anything – it is a means to get to “there” from “here”, nothing more than a useful tool, like opposable thumbs.
J

WTF?! Liberal. Catholic. Church?! I’m not being funny when I say: does such a thing even exist?!

Of course, it does! I recall the Church you’re talking about Ted, and it still exists in working class neighborhoods. But I can also guarantee you that every UMC neighborhood has a Catholic church or two like Susan’s and similar Protestant churches, U/U or Quaker meeting houses, synagogues and, yes, even a moderate mosque in some cases. The UMC is too highly educated for fundamentalism and literal interpretations of scripture, but still feels the need for moral principles. No one wants to hear BS about the dinosaurs and the cavemen coexisting, but religion is not jsut for the poor and uneducated any more.
Ted D

Johnny – “Thus, not liking to be told about your sinful nature might appear to insulate you from the Church, but it only focuses on how far you deviated and it exposes you to being unaware of how some acts are sinful, not withstanding pedophilia”

I’m very aware that I am and will continue to be a sinner. I don’t need to be reminded of it by people that support sin. Again, the problem for me is that I truly do not believe the Church is in any position to judge me when thier own house isn’t in order. I have little respect for our government for the same reasons. I know we are all human and prone to sin, but I can’t take anyone’s opinion of my sinful nature seriously when they don’t acknowledge AND truly repent for thier own. IMO, the Church has much to repent for before they can ask me to repent through them. Instead I choose to keep my relationship with God very personal, because He is the only one truly fit to judge me.
Ted D

J- so God is only about fire and brimstone for poor folks? There actually is a kinder, gentler God, but it costs you extra?

And people are still surprised that I have NO faith in the Church at all…
Ted D

J – Do you know what this means?! I am a UMC spirit trapped in the body of a mill Hunky! I’m too smart to be this poor!
Just1X

@INTJ

it was anglo-saxon in tone

it was, like a gladius, short, sharp and to the point
(I knew it would be deleted after all (and rightly so), why waste time on an in depth analysis?)

one description and one command… ’nuff said.
INTJ

@ Asher

Where’d you come from? I’ll discuss the issue with you if you suggest another venue. It’s way off topic in this comments thread.
Just1X

@Jackie
“I really think good things are going to be coming your way and I am looking forward to the day that we can congratulate you on finding your true love.”

oh Jacky, Jacky, Jacky *sign* *shake head sadly* you sound like a damned hippy. In fact I think I’ve read that about you somewhere…

Are you sure that good things happen, just because they are deserved? Sounds (sweetly) naive to me…must be an age thing, reality has a habit of catching up with optimism after a while. I hope that YMMV
Just1X

*sigh* I meant *sigh*
Desiderius

Just1X,

“Are you sure that good things happen, just because they are deserved? Sounds (sweetly) naive to me…must be an age thing, reality has a habit of catching up with optimism after a while. I hope that YMMV”

Deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it. Good things are already happening, and the two big organizations that drive my social life fire up again for the year this week, so I’m confident I’ll be alright.

But I’ve been talking a big game for awhile now without much to show for it, so I think I’ll wait for something tangible before any more personal revelations. I can see Susan printing up the T-Shirts now: LTR or STFU.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I can see Susan printing up the T-Shirts now: LTR or STFU.
  
  That’s actually a brilliant idea.
Just1X

“Deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it.”

serious props for using a favourite quote of mine.

I hope that she’s right BTW, there’s nothing wrong with optimism, it’s just that Deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it IME
J

@Ted

so God is only about fire and brimstone for poor folks?

Yes and no. It does seem to me that the poor and uneducated (and those two attributes still correlate in our society) gravitate toward that view of God, while the educated are looking for something else. Since educated people, at least for the time being, out-earn less educated people, you are more likely to a gentler, more intellectual church in a UMC neighborhood.

There actually is a kinder, gentler God, but it costs you extra?

No, God’s God wherever He is. Finding people with an intelligent view of Him often costs money–or at least the effort to seek a church out of your neighborhood.

Do you know what this means?! I am a UMC spirit trapped in the body of a mill Hunky! I’m too smart to be this poor!

LOL. I really hated religion until I started meeting people who were both smart and religious, so I actually know what you mean. Your problem is that you are not mill Hunky and that you are not a doctor. You’re a mid-level computer jockey. DH is descended from mill Hunlkies, and I’m descended from factory and construction workers. My dad carried hod when I was a kid; then he worked in a factory. When I was working class, ignorant religiosity was all I ever saw of Catholocism and other some faiths as well. I thought it was pretty stupid too. When I started to move away from that, I was truly surprised that there was more to it. If you feel a need to be part of a congregation, start shopping for one. Go listen to sermons until you find a church with a philosphy you can agree with. You’d be surprised at how different it can be.
http://x OffTheCuff

J, the problem as I see it is if you put a person with decent self-control into a typical church, it simply becomes a chump factory. Churches aren’t really about building up beta boys to be stronger, they’re about damage control from the alphas. I won’t let my boys near one (unless, they choose it for themselves) since they are natural beta.
Ted D

” I can see Susan printing up the T-Shirts now: LTR or STFU.”

I’ll take one!
INTJ

” I can see Susan printing up the T-Shirts now: LTR or STFU.”

I’ll take one!

I’d take one too. However, I’m worried that the content itself signals DLV, even though it does have a strong DHV tone to it.
Sai

…I looked at the link Just1X posted because I was curious, and I looked at other links in that page, and after some time I think I did what INTJ warned me not to and overdosed on the red pill, because now my train of thought is something like:

oh poop I hate being a girl; I am hideous and can only have a relationship with a repulsive loser who nobody myself included actually wants to hold/kiss/fellate*; the men should just overthrow the government and put us all into concentration camps**; they may wanna vivisect me to see how girls get boyish brains; I’ll do it myself before they can get me; I’ll run the car with the garage closed and I’ll listen to “The Mikado” so I get one last laugh before I die! Haha!

*I was prepared to do all I could to be a good wife before Mother Nature showed me just how much she liked me (hündin)
**if you guys are going to rise up I respectfully request you spare my church members, mother and her huge network in North Carolina; they’re very caring and traditional and like to quote Scripture and help others

What’s the best way to detox from red pill overdose? I know I’m not the first…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Sai
  
  oh poop I hate being a girl; I am hideous and can only have a relationship with a repulsive loser who nobody myself included actually wants to hold/kiss/fellate*; the men should just overthrow the government and put us all into concentration camps**; they may wanna vivisect me to see how girls get boyish brains; I’ll do it myself before they can get me; I’ll run the car with the garage closed and I’ll listen to “The Mikado” so I get one last laugh before I die! Haha!
  
  Yup, that’s University of Man. Sorry you got to that link before I deleted it.
Lokland

@Sai

Time. Quit cold turkey, go back to normal for awhile.
I find reading here both a blessing and a curse.

Intially, it makes me aware of some of my weaknesses that can be patched up.
Eventually, it actually put a very serious strain on my relationship because I had OD’d and frankly I was just angry at the world. Sadly there was only one person availible to extract that anger upon.

My advice, come and go in waves.

“I’ll do it myself before they can get me; I’ll run the car with the garage closed and I’ll listen to “The Mikado” so I get one last laugh before I die!”

Its unnecessary. It might suck for a lil while (I was tempted to break of my wedding for a couple months) but it will pass.

“oh poop I hate being a girl”

That not necessary. Your all quite wonderful most of the time. Some womens nature is disappointing and to a degree all women have some of this nature. That doesn’t necessarily necessitate you have to succumb to your nature. That gray stuff up top is quite powerful. That plus a bit of menail labour built everything around us.

“I am hideous and can only have a relationship with a repulsive loser who nobody myself included actually wants to hold/kiss/fellate—–I was prepared to do all I could to be a good wife before Mother Nature showed me just how much she liked me (hündin)”

I assume this means your ugly. In which case your just going to have to live with it and find yourself an ugly hubby, buy cats or off yourself. If you can manage the first of my three suggestions (and trust me I’m an ugly SOB, I know this one) then theres nothing that precludes you from doing your starred point.

Of course you’ll also have to learn to love your hubby, if your not able/willing to do that you might as well skip to options two or three.

And might I suggest option three is rather poor. Shit tends to happen on a fairly regular basis and theres no telling what will happen. It might end up being good.

If my intial assumption is wrong. Ignore my crazy outburst.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Lokland
  
  Eventually, it actually put a very serious strain on my relationship because I had OD’d and frankly I was just angry at the world. Sadly there was only one person availible to extract that anger upon.
  
  This is exactly how Jesus Mahoney felt!
  
  HUS should not be a place where men find out how evil the wimmenz are. This is not where you come to digest the red pill.
  
  How can I make this blog a place that doesn’t bum people out?
Jackie

@Susan, Ted, J
Re: Religion

This thread is intensely interesting to me, as I mentioned I am going through a bit of a spiritual metamorphosis earlier upthread. Ted, many of your complaints of the charge of “SINNER!” resonate with me:

Recently I went to my mentor’s monastery to assist with something for a special event. It required me to set aside all weekend plans, a huge chunk of time, effort and talent. And money, too! Plus I did it in honor of my mentor, so it wasn’t like I was expecting anything beyond “Thank you” in return.

To be frank, the people involved in the event were *beyond* disorganized, and I had to pick up a lot of slack that was totally not my responsibility. That’s okay– everybody makes mistakes! Anyway, it was 95+ degrees that day, with high humidity; the heat index was absolutely *stifling*. So I wore a sundress to the knee.

Later I found out from my mentor that there were complaints and “concerns” due to my attire. The dismay and judgmental tone of my mentor wounded me to the core; I felt my heart crumple under the weight of her disapproval and couldn’t stop crying. The fact that the hem of my garment completely outweighed my time, effort and devotion hurt *so* much.

I will be the first to say that I am weak, that I am a sinner.

But if a stupid sundress is going to trump devotion– daily Rosaries, weekly Mass and Reconciliation, Lenten fasting (even of the internet– oh man!) and adherence to super-strict morality, freely given time and money… Denying myself for SO MANY THINGS, but to be judged by the length of my dress (knee) instead of the devotion of my heart… To never, ever be good enough or accepted… Well, even Jesus got angry, sometimes!

I told my mentor that they could save their concern: I was never setting foot in that monastery or church again, and I was *through* with helping that packs of nuns. Someone from the anti-sundress brigade could work for them for free!

I am someone who hates to disagree, someone who gets headaches and stomach pains from actual confrontation. But this needed to be said.

Even if am on the outs with my mentor, I still want to be BFFs with God. So I found the most liberal church in my city (I mean, less penguins, more acceptance) and so far, so good! There are a lot of interfaith lectures and the focus is on social justice. No one has mentioned my attire except to say nice things.

I am spending my time in devotion and it is not always easy. Not necessarily bad, just not easy. I am seeking the same Christ who granted absolution to a thief at the Crucifixion and who dined with tax collectors and prostitutes. I believe He would be able to love and accept someone who wore a sundress on a hot day.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Jackie
  
  Even if am on the outs with my mentor, I still want to be BFFs with God. So I found the most liberal church in my city (I mean, less penguins, more acceptance) and so far, so good! There are a lot of interfaith lectures and the focus is on social justice. No one has mentioned my attire except to say nice things.
  
  I am spending my time in devotion and it is not always easy. Not necessarily bad, just not easy. I am seeking the same Christ who granted absolution to a thief at the Crucifixion and who dined with tax collectors and prostitutes. I believe He would be able to love and accept someone who wore a sundress on a hot day.
  
  I am so glad to hear this! One thing I have loved about St. Iggy’s is the interfaith stuff. Every spring there is a Passover seder with the Jewish community, and at Jewish holidays, there are always Prayers of the Faithful for our Jewish brothers and sisters. There has also been plenty of discussion of the role of the church during the Holocaust and the role of the Boston archdiocese during the sexual abuse scandal.
  
  I’m sure that parishes like your new one and my “sometimes” one are a thorn in the side of the Vatican. To which I say, “Good!”
  
  Best wishes in your spiritual journey!
Desiderius

Jackie,

“To be frank, the people involved in the event were *beyond* disorganized, and I had to pick up a lot of slack that was totally not my responsibility. That’s okay– everybody makes mistakes!”

No. Its not ok. This is a sign of pretty serious dysfunction. I’m encouraged to say I’ve seen a lot less of it in the liberal church than I did 10-15 years ago. Things are improving on our end. Also a lot less politics and a lot more fellowship, humility, and getting the basics right.
Desiderius

J,

“Yes and no. It does seem to me that the poor and uneducated (and those two attributes still correlate in our society) gravitate toward that view of God, while the educated are looking for something else. Since educated people, at least for the time being, out-earn less educated people, you are more likely to a gentler, more intellectual church in a UMC neighborhood.”

Well, if the value of those educations stays underwater much longer, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the younger educated folk started taking a little more liking to the old fire and brimstone. Religion speaks to different generations in different ways.
Desiderius

OTC,

“J, the problem as I see it is if you put a person with decent self-control into a typical church, it simply becomes a chump factory. Churches aren’t really about building up beta boys to be stronger, they’re about damage control from the alphas. I won’t let my boys near one (unless, they choose it for themselves) since they are natural beta.”

That’s just because the alpha females have been out to lunch chasing second/third-wave feminist nonsense. As they come back to their senses, they’ll get their alpha husbands to whip the betas into shape.
Desiderius

Susan,

“That’s actually a brilliant idea.”

Well yeah. Do I have any other kind? Don’t answer that.

I have to get up for work at 5 tomorrow, then I’ll be out with the YPCC crew until the wee hours after work, and I’ve already carpet-bombed your comment section, so the serious discussion on the role of judgement in character development (a significant chunk of my life’s work) will have to wait until at least Wednesday.

As you may have guessed, I was once a Presbyterian minister.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Desiderius
  
  As you may have guessed, I was once a Presbyterian minister.
  
  Is this true?
Asher

@ INTJ

I’m too busy for anything but my droid, so, forums are pretty much out. I suppose email works, as you’re not in this for the audience.
VD

Later I found out from my mentor that there were complaints and “concerns” due to my attire. The dismay and judgmental tone of my mentor wounded me to the core; I felt my heart crumple under the weight of her disapproval and couldn’t stop crying. The fact that the hem of my garment completely outweighed my time, effort and devotion hurt *so* much.

Come on now. Have you ever worked in an office? Imagine wearing your little sundress there and consider how wonderfully accepting and non-judgmental people would be of your attire. And they won’t be so polite as to simply mention complaints and concerns in private, HR will just give you a warning, then fire your little sundress-covered ass if you are dumb enough to do it again. Or try wearing it to a black-tie party. See if the reaction of people there is better or worse than you experienced at the monastery.

You dressed inappropriately in a bloody MONASTERY, for crying out loud! Around people sworn to lifelong celibacy! Then you were politely told, correctly, that your attire was inappropriate. And you’re going to try to blame this on your mentor and leave the church over it? What is wrong with you? Are you that solipsistic or do you truly know nothing of basic human etiquette? I once got kicked out of a nice hotel bar in LA because my friends and I were wearing shorts, but it didn’t occur to me to cry and refuse to ever go to bars again while complaining about how bartenders are too judgemental.

Suppose you had worn a bikini instead. It was hot, after all. Do you grasp the concept that a bikini would have been inappropriate? Then you should be capable of understanding that in those particular circumstances, a sundress was too. It doesn’t matter how hard or how well you were working; if the CEO of Apple suddenly starts showing up for work wearing only a thong, he’s going to get taken aside and talked to as well, no matter how high their stock price goes.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Jackie
I didn’t say anything because is not of my business before but I never liked your mentor I think she was not good for you so I’m glad you are trying a different venues for your faith.
And yes sundressgate was overdone if this was unappropriated she could had told you in a different way or ask you why did you use it, see you were not trying to be tempting or disrespectful and trying to solve the problem better maybe helping you to get the slackers in line so as you could use a more appropriate attire, there were a million ways they could had make this better for you, they choose wrong their lost.
Good luck in your new search!
Just1X

@Sai
where did you read about concentration camps?
I’ve never seen them mentioned on UoM! I feel cheated!

Here’s the so common it’s almost a trope path to red-pill ingestion:

1) grow up as a boy being told to be a good guy and women will flock to your sensitivity and kindliness. The path to SNAG.

2) see said women flocking to bad boys and other assorted wankers (you don’t have that word, right? so it’s safe to use) far more than they do to nice guys. What’s up?

3) after a long period of waking up to this discrepency, you come across the red-pill (pre / post divorce depending on your luck). You choke it down, little by little.

4) anger at feeling betrayed – why did everyone tell you to be a good guy, when good guys get crapped on (if they get any attention at all)?

5) learn how it works (Roissy / Chateau Heartiste is a name that comes up just about every time). This is man-crack – we lurve working out how things work.

6) cool off while deciding how to use the knowledge – not everyone wants to be a PUA (by a long chalk). Come to terms with the world and take it from there. Again, quite a natural thing for a man to do – adapt to reality.

If you want to dip a toe into the manosphere, I have recommended GirlWritesWhat and TyphonBlue before. They are both Honey Badgers (the self chosen name for female MRAs – humour, always humour). They don’t hate women but they make some good points about current feminist society – basically, they’re not keen.

And finally Sai, I like you fine.

Even if you are an ebul wimminz (hat tip to Jackie).

Keep it positive!

Not all MRAs, not even most MRAs, hate women. If I hated women, I wouldn’t be here in an effort to understand their world (who cares about the lives of people that they hate?). MRAs hate the current system of family courts, FRAs, bullshit radfem hate mongering (PJ you p.o.s.) and lying stats about DV/rape etc* and blatant misandry in the lame stream media.

I swear to you if the feminist bullshit ended tonight, you’d find precious few MRAs tomorrow.

*DV is about 50/50 M/F. Child abuse is more female than male. These are the true official stats, but they’re not the ones that get trumpeted in the press are they? 1 in 4 women raped? FTBS
Just1X

@Ana #1920
time for me to give you *kissinthecheek*, brava

@Jackie, I bet someone’s already told you that Ana was a grounded, good influence, right? You take care of yourself, because you’re worth it

(yeah, so have some of that nuclear sweetness right back at you girly, with knobs on)
Sai

@Just1X
No, there weren’t any references to concentration camps, but I once heard (read) somebody elsewhere say (jokingly or not, I’m not sure) we should put Dworkin, Marcotte and the worst of their supporters into an enclosure somewhere so they can’t wreck things any more. I was amused but then thought about how prevalent this stuff already is in society -how many of their supporters are the worst ones? I wasn’t immune, I’ve had to work on myself too. So it wasn’t your fault, I just got in too deep too fast, I guess.
VD

The fact that the hem of my garment completely outweighed my time, effort and devotion hurt *so* much.

I should also mention that you’re looking at this the wrong way. The two things aren’t related. You did a good thing. And you committed a basic breach of social etiquette. Just as the latter doesn’t take away from the former, the former doesn’t justify the latter. If my VP of Sales starts wearing boxers to the office, I’ll tell him to knock it off, even if he points out that he hit his numbers last quarter. Even going well beyond the normal call of duty doesn’t give you a free pass on violating social standards concerning personal attire and cleanliness.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @VD
  
  Your illustrating your point with examples of boxers and thongs at work is over the top. You wouldn’t believe what some BC students wear to Mass. Some of them are probably walk of shaming, and they are still welcome as is.
  
  Furthermore, a sundress that covers the knee is not necessarily an immodest garment. Here are some examples that would be commonly found in a Catholic church:
  
  Here’s one called the Easter Sundress!
  
  Granted, these are not going to pass muster with the Latin Mass crowd, which is why Jackie is well advised to find a new community.
Just1X

@VD
in a free country, she gets to look at it any way that she wants.

Neither of us were there to see how they raised the subject with her, nor the reality of the dress, nor the way they’ve treated her over the preceding decade, or so.

She was, and I trust her judgement on the fairness and judgement shown on how the subject was raised.

And finally, if you’re relying on freebies from professionals, best show some sensitivity…wouldn’t you say?
Just1X

@Sai,
oh that bunch in a camp (or a mental institute) – oh hell yeah! They’ve done enough damage to men and women to deserve an extended holiday in a secure ‘happy place’.

I thought that you meant camps for all women, I’d not seen that.

There are better places to start, s’all we appear to be agreeing on.
Ted D

Sai – Take a deep breath and stop for a second. You are sounding like how I felt when I first took the MBTI and read up on my personality. I was actually a little horrified at how I “appear” to feeler types, because I’d never really thought of myself as ‘cold and calculating’ in a classic sense, because *I* know I have feelings just fine.

So you are female? Does that mean you have to stoop to the lowest form of female existence? Of course not! Don’t be ashamed of who or what you are, simply learn to maximize your positives and tone down the negatives. And, as I’ve pointed out many times, knowing about yourself is NEVER a bad thing, even if what you know IS a bad thing. Knowing your weaknesses allows you to work on them. Knowing just how crazy many women appear to be in the opinion of men will help you better position yourself to be better than the average woman.

Susan – “Yup, that’s University of Man. Sorry you got to that link before I deleted it.”

UMan is one of the newer blogs I’ve been thinking might have promise. Not that it isn’t already a decent ‘sphere site, but I thought perhaps the bloggers (I believe there are two primary writers) just might have a better attitude towards women. I have NO issue with guys talking this stuff out, I just truly don’t understand why they all do it with anger and hatred. The only guys that don’t are the hard core PUA types, and they spend most of their time simply discussing bits to use for pickup.

“This is exactly how Jesus Mahoney felt!
HUS should not be a place where men find out how evil the wimmenz are. This is not where you come to digest the red pill.
How can I make this blog a place that doesn’t bum people out?”

JM did not overdose on the Red Pill here, any more than Lokland or I did. HUS probably saved my relationship by counteracting the OD of Red Pill I got from the ‘sphere. Coming here at least allowed me to discuss my “digestion” with women that are as honest as they can be. I can see that on occasion the subject matter strikes too close to home, and in those cases feathers can get ruffled. But, I still trust you and the regular female commenters here to be as honest as possible with the guys going through this. In a way, you are offering a very useful service to new Red Pill guys, but I think it comes with a cost in terms of scaring away many female readers. (and also earns you the ire of many a ‘sphere blogger it seems…) I don’t know how to fix it, because honestly the material SHOULD bum people out. The situation we find ourselves in right now IS crappy, and if it weren’t people wouldn’t find their way here at all. For the most part I think the tone here is as positive as can be expected considering how emotional and sensitive the material is.

I would love to see a male run site that could serve this purpose, as it would possibly take some pressure off of you. But, the problem is when men lead a conversation, the tone tends to be rather harsh. I don’t have a problem with that in general, but at least for me it doesn’t help my processing of information. I much prefer to have mostly civil conversation about a topic, and most ‘sphere sites comments section loses civility quickly if any man “steps out of line”. And that is a shame, because the only way to learn about something is to look at it objectively. I think too many ‘sphere readers have already made up their mind, and civil conversation is not their goal. I would try giving it a go, but frankly I am much more comfortable commenting on other people’s blogs than writing my own. I’m not a good writer, and I don’t like people enough to put in a good effort. I prefer to snipe from the comments, although lately I’ve been doing a lot more spraying than sniping. I blame my good mood…
INTJ

@ Jackie

Later I found out from my mentor that there were complaints and “concerns” due to my attire. The dismay and judgmental tone of my mentor wounded me to the core; I felt my heart crumple under the weight of her disapproval and couldn’t stop crying. The fact that the hem of my garment completely outweighed my time, effort and devotion hurt *so* much.

Reading this literally brought tears to my eyes.

I’m so glad the new church is working out for you though.
Ted D

I’ve been discussing the search for a new church with my wife, and she agrees that IF we could find one that didn’t “offend” us, it would be a great thing. I suppose I have a dual problem though. I was raised Roman Catholic and desire a more traditional take on mass, but the old shtick (as I discussed above) just sets off my BS alarm and puts me on the defensive, and I certainly can’t be a functional member of a congregation at a church that pisses me off.

It would be awesome to find a church that practices the older traditions of mass without the older habit of always focusing on and preaching about the bad in humanity. I get it, we all suck. I believe it, and there is no need for me to hear it over and over again. I want a church with a positive outlook on life. That has an uplifting message to deliver, because unlike most of the general populace, I need that FAR MORE than I need shame and brow beating. The problem is, most people need all that and then some JUST to remain decent. I just leave feeling like I spent an hour being told how awful I am, and it does NOT make me want to be closer to my God at all.

We will keep looking, but the truth is the few churches I found that weren’t all doom and gloom were also not very traditional. In fact, they were the type of church that had a stage and band performing, which may be really cool and contemporary, but strikes me more as a concert experience than a mass. That being said, if I am unable to find exactly what I am looking for, I may try one of those churches out. they are NOT Catholic, but I really don’t care at this point. And, perhaps I could get involved in the music programs…
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Ted D
  
  Shopping around for a church makes a lot of sense. And if you can find one where you could perform, that would be great. Like you, I like the traditions and rituals of the Mass – one thing you might check out is the Episcopal church. Far more liberal and “live and let live” than the Catholic church, e.g. gay marriage, women are ordained, clergy can marry, etc. I know one Catholic priest and nun who fell in love and married. He is now the pastor at an Episcopal church in my town.
VD

How can I make this blog a place that doesn’t bum people out?

Single-handedly fix the SMP…. Susan, there are nearly 2,000 comments on this thread. It’s not broken…. If you want more case studies, solicit them and then delete any comments that are directed at the person rather than the case.

Your illustrating your point with examples of boxers and thongs at work is over the top. You wouldn’t believe what some BC students wear to Mass. Some of them are probably walk of shaming, and they are still welcome as is.

Reductio ad absurdum, to be sure. I’m sure her sundress was absolutely fine by my standards, if not a bit on the conservative side. I wasn’t suggesting it was the least bit immodest. But the point is that there was obviously some sort of dress code there. She violated it, perhaps unknowingly. What were the nuns, or monks, whatever, supposed to do? Did they actually treat her any worse than anyone else who publicly violates a dress code can expect? You’ve got an MBA, so don’t you think there would be considerable disapproval and dismay if Marissa Mayer shows up for her next Yahoo board meeting wearing one of those sundresses? I suspect it would make page one of the NYT and the WSJ, to say nothing of the Style section. And she would actually look attractive in one.

I don’t see this as an issue of modesty so much as a pedestrian dress code violation. Albeit not nearly as bad as the time my best friend’s parents showed up for a charity function for the zoo in duck costumes complete with orange leggings… and everyone else was wearing black tie.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  I don’t see this as an issue of modesty so much as a pedestrian dress code violation. Albeit not nearly as bad as the time my best friend’s parents showed up for a charity function for the zoo in duck costumes complete with orange leggings… and everyone else was wearing black tie.
  
  OK, thanks for clarifying. Obviously, there was a misunderstanding, and I imagine that it was the way that the message was communicated that was most upsetting.
  
  I confess that I’m a bit suspicious of nuns in general. I’ve known some sadistic ones, including my Great Aunt Marg (shudder).
Just1X

@VD

“my best friend’s parents showed up for a charity function for the zoo in duck costumes complete with orange leggings… and everyone else was wearing black tie.” LMAO

but that said, I want to see photographic proof, or it didn’t happen. I’d look at the pics as proof, not for enjoyment…you believe me, right?
Desiderius

Is this true?

Yes.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Desiderius
  
  Wow, that’s incredible. If you feel like sharing your story, I am very curious!
Jackie

@VD

Wow, thank you for being such a great example of Christ’s mercy to me on such a personal subject. I shall put you on my speed-dial the next time I am in an hour of need!

VD, I omitted describing a previous hour of conversation with my mentor *that had nothing to do with this*. One that had already involved a ton of a tears. I didn’t mention it as I felt it was too personal for this blog.

And you know what? I’m GLAD I didn’t. The thought of it being open for public dissection … yikes. The remark my mentor had made about the dress was right before hanging up. There were MANY other issues, over the course of 10 years, that had come up. The sundress was the proverbial last straw. You didn’t know the context *and you still don’t*.

If she had said any of the above to me with any compassion, kindness or understanding, I don’t think I would have felt so upset. If she had even acknowledged the good stuff, or said “Thank you” for the effort… It would have meant the world to me.

VD, you seem to be especially good at pointing out others’ flaws with insults and hyperbole, but less than enamored of people pointing out your own. Would you like me to address how your behaviour has not met Christian standards? Believe me, the evidence is ample.

But even if I did, I wouldn’t call you names. Maybe somebody has been damn mean to you in the past. If so, I’m truly sorry you had to go through that.

Sometimes when people are hurting, it’s okay to hold the critique until they are in a better place. Really.

Peace, VD–
Jackie

@Susan
Thanks so much, Susan! I am looking forward to making it a great new experience!

I actually joined a really awesome Church book club for women, some of whom are old enough to be my grandmother, and these ladies are so, so cool. And they aren’t afraid of criticizing the hypocrisy and institutional failures of the church, yet are still really positive and compassionate.

How do we practice the peace of Christ here on Earth, in a practical and applicable (and human) way? That is the lens through which we view and discuss the books. I will keep you posted.
Jackie

@Ana, INTJ, Just1X
Thanks for the support, you guys. I really, really appreciate it.

I wish I hadn’t mentioned it at all, though — I am just going through a lot of seeking and questioning right now. And it’s probably best to do that in private.

Meanwhile, I think my mentor has had a *really* challenging life: Her home life was beyond difficult, I wouldn’t have wished it on anyone. She went straight from there to the convent at 18 years old, and basically got married to God at 20 or 21.

In some ways, I imagine it would be very comforting: You are told what to do, when to do it, and you will never have to face the morality or competition of the outside world. You will never have to worry about money, community or being taken care of in your old age.

But you have to give up so, so much.

She was told what to study in college, was sent off to places to do work she HATED and had absolutely no say in the matter. Besides that, there was a point in her novitiate (introductory period) where she couldn’t leave, not even to attend her only brother’s wedding.

And even now, after 50 years of this life, she still gets up at 5am for prayers and basically works until sundown, and then more prayers. It is a very, very strict and demanding lifestyle.

I don’t think I would come out of it very well, for sure. She has done a lot of good; I am just seeing now that there are lots of ways to do and be good.

Thanks again.
Jackie

@ Des

*echoing Susan*

Me too! Me too!
VD

Wow, thank you for being such a great example of Christ’s mercy to me on such a personal subject. I shall put you on my speed-dial the next time I am in an hour of need!

First, Jesus Christ isn’t merely mercy, Jackie. He is also truth. Second, how would supporting you in your refusal to recognize your violation of basic dress etiquette be of any service to you in the future? I was at a monastery with Umberto Eco a while back. The female professor from Columbia had to get a special dispensation simply to enter the library to look at some medieval manuscripts with us. She had no problem abiding by the rules of the order. Why did you?

There were MANY other issues, over the course of 10 years, that had come up. The sundress was the proverbial last straw. You didn’t know the context *and you still don’t*.

How much context is needed to know that you don’t wear a sundress into a monastery? You just don’t. I’m neither Catholic nor female and even I know that. I’m glad to hear you had other unmentioned issues with your mentor, because if you were that devastated over criticism of your attire, one would have to wonder about your psychological stability.

If she had said any of the above to me with any compassion, kindness or understanding, I don’t think I would have felt so upset. If she had even acknowledged the good stuff, or said “Thank you” for the effort… It would have meant the world to me.

And she should have. She should have done so. You’re right about that.

VD, you seem to be especially good at pointing out others’ flaws with insults and hyperbole, but less than enamored of people pointing out your own. Would you like me to address how your behaviour has not met Christian standards? Believe me, the evidence is ample.

I don’t mind in the slightest. For the last nine years, I have had around eight thousand people scouring my words every single day looking for even the most minor flaw they can identify and wave in my face. That doesn’t bother me in the slightest, in fact, I actively encourage it. Why? Because it makes me a sharper and more formidable thinker. Just today, in fact, someone caught me writing “wildly inaccurate” when it would have been more appropriate to say “inaccurate” given the size of the deviation involved. Well done him. So, by all means, feel free to address how my behavior has not met Christian standards. I always welcome substantive criticism. If you don’t wish to do it here – it is a bit off topic – you can email me and I will post it on my blog in its entirety before responding to it.

But even if I did, I wouldn’t call you names. Maybe somebody has been damn mean to you in the past. If so, I’m truly sorry you had to go through that. Sometimes when people are hurting, it’s okay to hold the critique until they are in a better place. Really.

As you like. You can’t be a media figure, even a very minor one, and be bothered by the inevitable name-calling and personal attacks. It doesn’t bother me at all. But consider this question: is it crueler to criticize someone, however harshly, or to permit them to remain in ignorance and thereby make the same mistake that caused them pain again?

I’ve asked a lot of people this question. Some prefer the criticism and others prefer the ignorance. But as you clearly prefer not to be criticized, I will be pleased to henceforth observe your travails in silence, as most of the commenters here have done.
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

(who cares about the lives of people that they hate?)

Had you heard the term haters pay my bills? You would be surprised as a fangirl the whole “I Hate that bitch, I hate her so much…., let me go and check all over the internet to see what that bitch is doing now something horrible surely…” is one of the most stranger human behaviors I had ever seen and yet is real.

How can I make this blog a place that doesn’t bum people out?

How can you make people live without air? You can’t there will be always people that will get bum out because some people are more sensitive to this issues than others you can only do what you can to make it civil and the rest will follow suit or leave.
You cannot save them all Susan.
One at the time is all you can do, think of all the weddings, births,relationships and sometimes movies, TV series, books, jokes…we had done here. You have a good thing going on but is not perfect it will never be and is not meant to be. Don’t let the perfect be enemy of the good.
PS
Had you heard from Hope?
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Oops, Anacaona, I see that I cross posted with you re Hope. I think you were the one who said your hubby would let us know when you give birth. I’m just a bit nervous because of what she’s been through before.
J

@OTC

I just wrote and lost a long reply to you, so I’ll try again.

I completely understand your concerns regarding boys being betacized by religion. I didn’t until recently for two reasons. First, the Dalrockian concerns about Churchianity, seemed like much of what is said there to be completely overblown. Second, it’s not something I see happening IRL. I have to say, I really couldn’t fathom the clergy of any denomination saying, “Man up and marry those sluts.” I’ve never heard it from any pulpit, not at my house of worship or at any where I’ve been a guest. Since my neighborhood is pretty diverse, I’ve attended services at most denominations. All seem to emphasize personal responsibility. Taking responsibility is a fairly MC value, so it donesn’t surprise me that UMC Catholics, Protestant and Jews agree on it. OTOH, I do see now that every church is not like that, mostly thanks to pvw’s explanantion to me that some churches do attempt to foist their unwed mothers on hapless betas.

FWIW, I see very few unwed mothers in my environs. When I do, they tend to be over 35, with good incomes, and are not looking for a hapless beta to support them. I also don’t see a lot really sinful behavior in my neighborhood. This is not to equate goodness with SES. It’s just hard to live in a UMC neighborhod and be divorced/single. Even people who aren’t religious or still madly in love with their spouse are fairly conscious and pragmatic enough to realize that too many shenanigans will result in a loss of the combined income that allows them to afford life in the ‘burbs. I don’t see many real fcuk-ups because they go back to the city and take their problems with them. I got my own home at a bargain price because the owners were getting divorced.

My own sons are far more religious than I was as a teen and have had both volunteer and paid positions in various faith related organizations (camp, Sunday school, etc). In many cases, they have been hired in order to provide a male role model to the younger boys. (Religion–it’s not just for girls and pansies any more! ) I’m fairly greatful that my sons have a community that reinforces what my husband teaches them about constructive masculinity (solid citizen vs bad boy punk), but like most UMC types, we vote with our feet. Religious institutions in my neighborhood are fairly conscious of the fact that educated people see religions as sort of optional. It’s great to the extent that it enhances people’s lives, but no one seems to have a slavish adherence to it or fear of hellfire if they disobey. My sons have gotten a lot of coaching in leadership and in taking responsibilty from their religious community, which is helping me and DH to raise them to be strong and productive young men. If they were being brainwashed to pick up other people’s slack or to atone for the sins of the alphas, we would find different religious outlets for them. I can’t imagine that anyone would tolerate their church teaching their son to be a chump.

I’m really sorry that so many people get so much shit from the institutions that are supposed to help and support them. OTOH, you get what you sign up for. If you feel that your church doesn’t help grow spiritually, leave it.
Jackie

@VD
As I said earlier, it was a mistake for me to mention any of this at all here.

I am not a minor media figure. (Which you apparently are? Sorry, I’m unfamiliar with you.) I’m just a person who is going through personal issues who made the mistake of sharing them on a blog.

Anyway, I would prefer not to engage about either of our short-comings. You appear to greatly enjoy debating; I do not. I’m sure you’re right about the dress code and a great name-dropper.

But do you see that I wasn’t posting for those things?

Believe me, VD, I experience plenty of criticism IRL. I know that I messed up on the dress code. I just wanted to be able to write out my experience here and get support. Again, clearly a mistake.

Did you notice that after you engaged with Charm, pointing out her “narcissistic” tendencies that she just stopped posting here? I will follow her lead and take a break as well. I should keep my personal life private and off a
very public blog.

Thank you for your time and critique. Best wishes–
J

@Jackie

I’m sorry you had such a bad experience. I have two comments:

–It is extremely hypocritical and downright rude for a bunch of nuns to accept your help and then tolerate people badmouthing you or to criticize you themselves. This is why people come to hate religion.

–I would hardly call a knee-length sundress “slutwear,” but it’s good to be mindful of what’s appropriate in any given circumstance. Typical female attire for religious services in my neck of the woods is a conservative dress or skirt. New people often walk in wearing slacks or too short skirts. Most women will look around, see that they are dressed differently than the rest of the women and dress more conservatively the next time they come. It’s rare that women come inappropriately dressed more than three or four times. No one ever criticizes new people because most will catch on after a few times, and everyone realizes that people who feel criticized will not return. The nuns and church ladies behaved stupidly, and you voted with your feet. That’s good. Being good does NOT mean being stupid.
J

Well, if the value of those educations stays underwater much longer, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the younger educated folk started taking a little more liking to the old fire and brimstone. Religion speaks to different generations in different ways.

That’s worrisome. I’ve spent probably half of my life trying to escape that sort of ignorance. I’d hate to see young people, especially my own sons embrace that. My boys are more conservative than I was at their age, but they are intelligent conservatives, not “fire and brimstone” loonies. And for all the nonsense in the ‘sphere about S0-Cons, I don’t regard “Man up and marry those sluts” as real social conservatism. Everyone taking responsibility for their own actions, as opposed to painting themselves as a victim and expecting others to pick up their slack is true social conservatism.
J

I confess that I’m a bit suspicious of nuns in general. I’ve known some sadistic ones, including my Great Aunt Marg (shudder).

My grandfather’ favorite aunt back in the old country was a nun. He once brought her a box of cookies which he felt that the other’s stole from her. (I do realize that convents are sort of socialistic when it comes to personal property.) He also felt they worked her to death scrubbing stone flors when she was sick. He was the last male in my family to take the RC church seriously.

My father had many anti-clerical witticisms that I was amused by as a young woman. Unfortunately they lose a lot in translation.
Escoffier

“Man up and marry those sluts” is the most over-used meme in the sphere. Dalrock, as he gets increasingly doctrinaire in playing to his amen chorus, interprets all kinds of innocuous statements as “Man up and marry those sluts.” The connection is sometimes so non-evident I have no idea how he makes the link.
J

Sai–Remember that the net/sphere aggregates a certain sort of opinion. It does beome depressing to hear it all the time. Discard what doesn’t correlate with your real life.

Let me bragsplain–When I first started reading Roissy, I flunked SMV test and got really depressed. I couldn’t understand even what my DH might see in me because I was too old, too fat, too smart, etc. Then, I took the dog to the vet who flirted shamelessly with me. It occured to me that while the SMV test might be perfectly valid if I were trying to pick up 22 yo guys in bars, I was still tuning heads–gray or bald as those heads might be. Yes, Roissy’s partially right. I’d be foolish for me to go out clubbing in search of men, but apparently there’s still a market for me among middle-aged guys who like a slightly chubby, middle-aged woman who is bright enough to ask intelligent questions about the heartworm vaccine. I don’t have to commit purdah if DH goes and has a heart attack on me. You have to take this shit with a grain of salt.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  apparently there’s still a market for me among middle-aged guys who like a slightly chubby, middle-aged woman who is bright enough to ask intelligent questions about the heartworm vaccine.
  
  LMAO
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Oops, Anacaona, I see that I cross posted with you re Hope. I think you were the one who said your hubby would let us know when you give birth. I’m just a bit nervous because of what she’s been through before.

Yeah I was the one that said that. I tried to chat with Hope at my secret Google account but got nothing yet. Surely she is too engrossed watching little Aidan to remember us for the moment.
J

@Jackie

I should also mention that you’re looking at this the wrong way. The two things aren’t related. You did a good thing. And you committed a basic breach of social etiquette. Just as the latter doesn’t take away from the former, the former doesn’t justify the latter.

I agree with VD as far as the above goes, but Ana is correct in that there were better ways to handle “your breach” than how it was handled. Your mentor was wrong in letting people hassle you. The answer to WWJD is not that.
J

@Esco #1953

I hear you. They are really extreme with that stuff over there and unfortunately the echo chamber never calls him on his errors in logic; they just cheer him on. I used to stop in and comment there every once in a while even after D and I had our falling out. I haven’t since the religious nuttiness started, but it’s too crazy even for me. I have alluded here to having worked as a religious lay professional, and I feel I can hold my own in any intelligent discussion of religion. Nonetheless, the tenor of discussion, where even the most submissive of Christian women like Elspeth/Terri or Sunshine Mary, are “corrected” by others for “failings” in
doctrine is so bizarre to me that I don’t bother any more. There’s no dialogue. No one is going to convince anyone of anything. There’s no point.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @J
  
  Some poor girl from a religious background showed up saying she wasn’t a virgin, and she was informed she would be unable to bond to any future husband. Similar things are being said on Danny’s blog right now.
  
  There’s something really wrong with these people.
J

@Ana, SW

I posted good wishes to Hope blog yesterday. I was hoping for baby pics. Doesn’t Hope know she owes us?!?

Srsly, I hope all is well there, but the lack of pics worries me.
Escoffier

what gets me are the non sequiturs, he will write something like “The nitrates in bacon can have adverse health effects, so, in other words … man up and marry those sluts!!!!”

And I’m over here going, WTF?
Desiderius

VD,

That was a masterful comment. Appreciate your taking the time to craft it.
VD

I am not a minor media figure. (Which you apparently are? Sorry, I’m unfamiliar with you.) I’m just a person who is going through personal issues who made the mistake of sharing them on a blog.

Fair enough. I hope you get them sorted out to your satisfaction.

But do you see that I wasn’t posting for those things?

I understand that now. In general, the Internet is a great resource for substantive criticism and impartial advice… and pointless abuse, I suppose. But that very impartiality means that it is a poor medium for emotional support. As you have clearly realized.

Believe me, VD, I experience plenty of criticism IRL. I know that I messed up on the dress code. I just wanted to be able to write out my experience here and get support. Again, clearly a mistake.

The benefit to criticism on the Internet is that unless you are a public figure, it tends to be a lot more impartial than criticism IRL. That’s what I’ve found, anyhow. I’m glad to hear you’re clear on the dress code concept, as a shocking number of people are not these days.

Did you notice that after you engaged with Charm, pointing out her “narcissistic” tendencies that she just stopped posting here? I will follow her lead and take a break as well. I should keep my personal life private and off a very public blog.

No, I did not. I suppose that is one of the core challenges facing Susan. If she wants men to read and comment here, there is going to be an amount people challenging each other… which is going to cause some women to stop commenting because they simply cannot bear being challenged. On the other hand, a number of men have already stopped commenting here, and few men would see any point of reading the comments or commenting if they are expected to suffer all sorts of solipsistic nonsense in silence. It’s a difficult question and I don’t envy her the challenge. Since her primary mission is advising young women concerning the SMP, she may ultimately find it necessary to restrict male comments here.

Best wishes

Likewise.
INTJ

@ Jackie

Did you notice that after you engaged with Charm, pointing out her “narcissistic” tendencies that she just stopped posting here? I will follow her lead and take a break as well. I should keep my personal life private and off a
very public blog.

No!!!!! I hope you come back soon. You’re a wonderful person and have a positive effect on all of us at HUS (I know that’s not much consolation when everyone around you is being negative, but still).

And Susan, this is why I think you need to crack down much harsher on personal criticism in the comments. We men are used to “tough love”/”man up” type of advice, but it doesn’t create a good atmosphere, especially at a blog that’s primarily aimed at young women. It drives away too many good people.

It’s one thing to make criticisms of the choices of general women in the modern SMP a la Abbot, and it’s another thing to make direct criticisms of people.
Just1X

@VD
“I will be pleased to henceforth observe your travails in silence, as most of the commenters here have done.”

I’m pretty sure that most of the commenters are going to be on her side…just so you know.

I’m damn sure that I am. I’m not a fan of giving automatic deference to any uniform. Anybody wanting respect needs to earn it, not just put on a penguin suit…just sayin’
INTJ

@ Sai

Sorry I haven’t gotten to your post. Had a homework due today but I’ll take a read through your post and try to help with the Red Pill OD.

Hang in there, The Doctor’s on the way.
Lokland

@Susan

Two seperate issues here:

“How can I make this blog a place that doesn’t bum people out?”

How can you make a funeral happy?
I’m going to agree with Ted. The subject at hand is negative and depressing.

“HUS should not be a place where men find out how evil the wimmenz are. This is not where you come to digest the red pill.

This is the second thing which I want to further subdivide into points q and f.

q) There is no “place” to digest the red pill. There is no sitting room labelled ‘Red Pill Digestion Centre.’ Digesting the pill is a process that takes time. Its constant. The only way to not have men come here to digest the red pill is not have them come here until they’re read through the archives of the Rs and I’m quite positive this is something you would not want.

f)I don’t know why you do this. I’m only going to speak for myself here, NAMALT.

Women have a nature that was forged through 3.8 billion years of continous cell divison. (So were men and daisies btw.) Along the way many fun and interesting things happened. (Though I hear Jurassic Park wasn’t real. Just done in a production studio. Kind of depressing really.)This nature is designed to be very effective at what it does. (As are the natures of men and daisies.)

Obviously there is variance in these natures. Some women are extremely hypergamous. Others are not. Some have a ST mating orientation only. Others have a LT mating orientation only. Most are in the middle and adaptive to their surroundings.

Now lets draw this back to both sexes. Men and women both have natures that are designed to exploit the other sex. In some cases its a fair trade. In others its not.

In the cases where the exploitation is not mutual the interation is inherently bad for one individual. (BTW, this runs in both directions. I’m not so arrogant as to think only men can be used.)

I don’t think this makes the “user” evil. I place no more moral judegement on the cheater than I do a lion killing a gazelle. I think it is merely an adaptation meant for furthering ones own line. Whether that be a meal or a baby.

Women nor their natures are evil. That does not mean that their good for men.

And then, as for why I need a break sometimes,

If these natures are an adaptive strategy that can be active/inactive depending on the state of their enviroment the pressing question for men becomes whether or not they are capable of creating an enviroment that will keep this nature inactive (or active, depending on their goal). (And of course the enviroment will be dependent on the women. Some will always be active, some will always be inactive.)

Too much reading here and my mind starts analyzing the individual talents I possess and how they relate to the enviroment I am capable of creating. Then I work over to the unknown variable in the equation which is her individual nature.

From a subjective standpoint I’m good.
From an objective standpoint I see my chances of maintaining an inactive state enviroment across the general population as fairly poor. Put simply, the best I can do is likely not going to be good enough in most situations.

I’m an INTJ.

Using an objective standpoint I’m usually correct. I suck at subjective viewpoints.

Time for a coffee break.
Ted D

Lokland – “If these natures are an adaptive strategy that can be active/inactive depending on the state of their enviroment the pressing question for men becomes whether or not they are capable of creating an enviroment that will keep this nature inactive (or active, depending on their goal). (And of course the enviroment will be dependent on the women. Some will always be active, some will always be inactive.)

Too much reading here and my mind starts analyzing the individual talents I possess and how they relate to the enviroment I am capable of creating. Then I work over to the unknown variable in the equation which is her individual nature.

From a subjective standpoint I’m good.
From an objective standpoint I see my chances of maintaining an inactive state enviroment across the general population as fairly poor. Put simply, the best I can do is likely not going to be good enough in most situations.

I’m an INTJ.

Using an objective standpoint I’m usually correct. I suck at subjective viewpoints.”

Wow. You and I appear to be on the exact same “step” of the Red Pill process. Right now my own personal primary goal is to figure out how to create the right environment for my wife and our marriage to prosper and thrive, and indeed I feel like *I* am more than capable. I have some deficiencies, but I’ve been putting solid work into correcting then, or at least minimizing their influence. But, the sticking point for me is always the wild card: her agency and will.

This is partly why I get so damn frustrated at “women” and their “emotional nature” because it means I cannot count on their behavior at any given moment, since how they behave is largely influenced by how they feel AT THAT MOMENT. I can count on my male friends to react in a pretty predictable manner 9 times out of 10. (maybe 8 for a few of them) But of the women I know, I have a damn difficult time figuring out what I did to upset them 9 times out of 10. And if I don’t know what the hell I even did wrong (which most of the time is nothing at all by the way) how can I expect/predict how they will behave in ANY situation?

I guess it is my failing that I expect everyone to behave in a logical and predictable manner most of the time. It seems that for the vast majority of the population, predictability is NOT a primary attribute.
Mike C

And Susan, this is why I think you need to crack down much harsher on personal criticism in the comments. We men are used to “tough love”/”man up” type of advice,

I’m pretty sure that most of the commenters are going to be on her side…just so you know.

I like Jackie….I think she is a sweetheart. That said, I don’t think VD’s comments constituted “harsh personal criticism”. I think that is an overreaction. He gave his honest take on the “dress code violation”. IDK……I really don’t know…..but sometimes in life you’ve got to be willing to hear some unpleasant things that maybe temporarily don’t make you “feel good” so you take them, process them, and decide if a change in views or future actions are warranted. I hate to say this, but sometimes I wonder if the main purpose of female communication is just a circle jerk of emotional masturbatory let’s just jerk ourselves to make us all feel better rather then an honest analysis of behavior for actual improvement. Really, “feelings” aren’t the end all and be all. And sometimes you have to have “hurt feelings” to make progress. And this is all general commentary not specific to Jackie’s sundress just in case anyone gets confused on that.

I will take this opportunity to segue into something I thought about today. And it connects what a woman wears (especially if she is attractive) with the nature of male attraction and the appropriateness of various clothing. On another thread, we discussed and were able to get that male sexual attraction is often visual and instantaneous while for most women it simply doesn’t work that way. By its nature sexual attraction is related with tension. People don’t like feeling tension if it cannot be resolved. When women, especially attractive ones, wear clothing that has a high potential for creating that instantaneous sexual attraction in men along with the tension that follows, it creates an uncomfortable dynamic ESPECIALLY if you are in a location where any sexual feelings shouldn’t be elicited like the workplace or church. I’ve often wondered why women often appear either daft, obtuse, or unemphathetic to the effect certain outfits can have and I finally realized it is because they have no earthly conception of the immediacy and magnitude of that sexual attraction that is created when a very attractive women is dressed in a manner “showing off her goods”. I’ve been in situations where a woman is wearing something showing off way too much cleavage for that environment, and then you’ve been told “don’t look at a woman’s chest” when you are talking to her, and I think “God damn, if I’m not supposed to look at your chest and think about rubbing your tits” then why the fuck are you wearing that top. You are perhaps unknowingly creating a state of instant sexual arousal in me in a venue where that should not be taking place.

No, I did not. I suppose that is one of the core challenges facing Susan. If she wants men to read and comment here, there is going to be an amount people challenging each other… which is going to cause some women to stop commenting because they simply cannot bear being challenged.

Which is what I was getting at earlier. If you read any male oriented blog or even a pick-up forum, guys constantly challenge each other. If a guy does an approach and it sucked ass, you have to point out the mistake, not just say “Oh, don’t worry about, you’ll do better next time”. Sympathy without concrete recommendations is worthless (at least from the male POV for most men). Now I think some people maybe take it too far for this particular forum….me personally I’ve never seen an issue with say the way Obsidian repeatedly challenges but it probably is too much when Susan gets a deluge of e-mails asking her to intercede. I think there are two parts to this. Guys have to use some discretion and judgement when to pull back on the challenging….at the same time presumably grown ass adult women have to put their Big Girl pants on and not get worked up, or upset, or pouty over discussion on the Internet. FWIW, one of the top things a woman can do to earn my respect and probably many men is not be a big baby over really pretty minor stuff.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  Guys have to use some discretion and judgement when to pull back on the challenging….at the same time presumably grown ass adult women have to put their Big Girl pants on and not get worked up, or upset, or pouty over discussion on the Internet. FWIW, one of the top things a woman can do to earn my respect and probably many men is not be a big baby over really pretty minor stuff.
  
  Well said, agree 100%.
Just1X

@Mike

Jackie said that she had things going on right now, maybe (just maybe), there are times for a little leeway to be given?

There’s a difference between “circle jerk(s) of emotional masturbatory let’s just jerk ourselves to make us all feel better” and giving someone space when they need it, or just not ramming ‘truth’ down their throat consequences be damned.

I would suggest that HUS isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a sausage-fest of Vulcan let-the-chips-land-as-they-may kind of place. And Jackie has, perhaps, earned a bit of space for a while..? You know that she has a good heart…you do the math

I hate PJ for her trollery and dishonesty, nobody else here qualifies for that AFAIAA.

Can we not allow HUS to deviate from in-your-face-fork-you-if-you-don’t-like-it attitude?

I hate lies too, but there’s room in the middle for healthy, helpful debate. Again, I’m talking about tone, not content – I can’t believe that it’s so hard to see what I mean…
Mike C

@Mike

Jackie said that she had things going on right now, maybe (just maybe), there are times for a little leeway to be given?

Did you miss this part?

And this is all general commentary not specific to Jackie’s sundress just in case anyone gets confused on that.

I’m not going to go back and read the entire thread, but I don’t think VD was trying to pile on once he knew Jackie was going through stuff now….nobody is a mind reader. Honestly though, it just didn’t seem like that much. I read VD’s blog, and I’ve watched him verbally rip some guy a new asshole in the comments section where the guy will be taking painful craps for the next month.
Just1X

maybe if he tried it with just a little grace…? IDK, could be a new experience…
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

Which is what I was getting at earlier. If you read any male oriented blog or even a pick-up forum, guys constantly challenge each other. If a guy does an approach and it sucked ass, you have to point out the mistake, not just say “Oh, don’t worry about, you’ll do better next time”

Herd mentality vs pack mentality.
I don’t remember where I read it but women want to include as many women as they can in the group so the makes her feel good works if you want a big party gather the fruits and share the chores if you are going to have on of the female members watch your kids while you get some fruit or cook the mammut you need to make sure she likes you so she doesn’t drown your children or feed him less food because “Your mother is a bitch”
Men on the other hand need to know who are the weakest among them for a hunting party get organized thus challenge show their true colors and they know who is going to play bait, lead, support and so on…The thing is that both need to compromise in this different goals women need to learn to be more resilient to male criticism, with measure of course, but men needs to try and moderate their tone because if they care about the message they should take in account who is the recipient and how the delivery would work better and no on “I’m though deal with it” that doesn’t bring any results.The ideal as usual is balance, YMMV.
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

@Ms. Plain Jane aka BAG LADY #1876:
“Preaching vasectomy to the Manosphere? I’m all for it!”

O: Why?

“MGTOW also has my full support.”

O: Glad to hear it! Surely you will agree with my take on it then?

A Brotha’s Take On “Men Going Their Own Way”
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/98877

Yes?

O.
Sai

@Susan Walsh
You don’t have to change anything, because you tell the truth. The people being lied to is part of what got society into this mess. It may make me sad, but I would rather spend all day reading angry but honest opinions on how Western women should change than listen to five minutes of pleasant lies.

@J
“Everyone taking responsibility for their own actions, as opposed to painting themselves as a victim and expecting others to pick up their slack is true social conservatism.”
That sounds good.
And thanks for the advice.

@Ted D
“But of the women I know, I have a damn difficult time figuring out what I did to upset them 9 times out of 10.”
I think it would only help a relationship if the woman explained why she’s become upset. That’s better than just being gloomy and leaving her man in the dark. (non-expert disclaimer here)
Thank you for the advice too.

I’m sorry for freaking out like that. Everything I read or watched recently seemed to agree on some combination of looks matter/brains don’t/expect to be poor until you’re too old to enjoy a fortune/society has gone downhill/is hostile for men/will be dangerous for women/the West will capitulate to Islamic fundamentalists/Chinese communists/everyone kills everyone else. I have a near compulsion to keep up with the news, but I guess I’d better find something funny to look at (and maybe download a video, recordings of handsome men can’t say no).

Also, LMAO at the third-hand smoke. There’s healthy, and then there’s… I can’t really say fanaticism, it looks just like something that some group would push with profit in mind.
Just1X

@Sai

this is where humanity hangs out, s’all I’m saying…here’s where you hear reasonable voices (the majority of the time…)
INTJ

@ Sai

Everything I read or watched recently seemed to agree on some combination of looks matter/brains don’t/expect to be poor until you’re too old to enjoy a fortune/society has gone downhill/is hostile for men/will be dangerous for women/the West will capitulate to Islamic fundamentalists/Chinese communists/everyone kills everyone else. I have a near compulsion to keep up with the news, but I guess I’d better find something funny to look at (and maybe download a video, recordings of handsome men can’t say no).

Yes, looks matter, but for LTRs they come second to personality/emotional stability. Brains do matter, but not as much as the other looks and personality. I think when the manosphere complains about brains, it’s really a complaint about all the ambitious women who strive for achievement (and neglect family life or being pleasant people in general), and then complain that men are afraid of “smart” women like them. In reality, it’s not the “smart” part that men are reacting to, but the extremely high testosterone.

It’s certainly true that with the modern economy it is realistic to expect to be poor during the early life. But happiness doesn’t depend on wealth. If anything, hardship is conducive to good relationships. It’s much more romantic for a couple to buy their first car and house if it is a challenge.

Society has certainly gone downhill in many ways (become very narcissistic and materialistic), but we’ve also seen racism begin to disappear and the internet has made a great wealth of knowledge available to people of all economic backgrounds.

It’s certainly hostile for men, but we seem to be handling it okay (I think video games and pornography really help here). The male suicide rate has yet to return to historical levels, though it’s on its way.

Won’t be dangerous for women. There’s plenty of good beta males who will be happy to protect women once they stop chasing the alpha males.

And the West certainly won’t capitulate to Islamic fundamentalists or Chinese communists. If there’s anything we have to worry about, it’s ultra-nationalism (and I think the US has become too multiracial for ultra-nationalism to make much headway).
J

@Esco

what gets me are the non sequiturs, he will write something like “The nitrates in bacon can have adverse health effects, so, in other words … man up and marry those sluts!!!!”

LMAO. Yep, I here ya.

@SW

The only virgins can bond stuff is amazing. I hope the poor kid has someone else she can go to for a reality check. I think a lot of that stuff is aimied at the young and helpless as sort of vicarious revenge against women who they feel have done them wrong in the past.
J

Oooooooohhhhhh! Obs is gonna engage PJ. Excuse me while I pop some corn.
Sai

@INTJ
Thanks for that. I was still reeling from the whole “end of men” business (billions of people would have to die; Uncle Adolf and Uncle Joe would be so proud/jealous).
Desiderius

J,

“That’s worrisome. I’ve spent probably half of my life trying to escape that sort of ignorance. I’d hate to see young people, especially my own sons embrace that. My boys are more conservative than I was at their age, but they are intelligent conservatives, not “fire and brimstone” loonies.

Here’s an ignorant loonie who found himself living in times riven by a senseless party spirit that left his personal circumstances in a very real sort of hell. Fire and Brimstone appealed to him, and I for one do not blame him for feeling that appeal. I don’t quite understand how I would do so while credibly claiming to be of a non-judgmental spirit.

Fire and Brimstone have never done it for me, but it has never taken an inordinate amount of imagination for me to empathize with those in different circumstances who may feel differently.
Plain Jane

INTJ, “Yes, looks matter, but for LTRs they come second to personality/emotional stability. Brains do matter, but not as much as the other looks and personality. I think when the manosphere complains about brains, it’s really a complaint about all the ambitious women who strive for achievement (and neglect family life or being pleasant people in general), and then complain that men are afraid of “smart” women like them. In reality, it’s not the “smart” part that men are reacting to, but the extremely high testosterone.”

Its like how I always see on the mens’ blogs (and a commenter said it here too on the latest thread) that “I’m a nice, good, decent looking guy and women still hate me/go for other men”.

Truth be told there is a minimum threshold of looks for us women and these men sometimes have a tendency to over-rate themselves. “Decent looking” doesn’t mean much, its too vague. And I’ve seen some of the pix of these guys who claim “decent looks” and they do not meet the minimum looks threshold.

Then you’ve got behaviour. I know a number of “decent looking” guys who have ADD, OCD, depression, anxiety, Aspergers and other similar challenges and they come off a bit “odd” to say the least. Yet they are baffled why women don’t want to date them, despite their “decent” (there’s that word again) looks. And one of them is in fact quite a looker.

Being a “good” or “nice” guy isn’t enough. There are so many nice guys out there. But nice, good, PLUS looks and normal non-off-putting behaviour is what will get you a date. And you can’t be too shy or awkward either.

AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING POSITIVE OUTLOOK 100% !!!

“It’s certainly true that with the modern economy it is realistic to expect to be poor during the early life. But happiness doesn’t depend on wealth. If anything, hardship is conducive to good relationships. It’s much more romantic for a couple to buy their first car and house if it is a challenge.

Society has certainly gone downhill in many ways (become very narcissistic and materialistic), but we’ve also seen racism begin to disappear and the internet has made a great wealth of knowledge available to people of all economic backgrounds.

It’s certainly hostile for men, but we seem to be handling it okay (I think video games and pornography really help here). The male suicide rate has yet to return to historical levels, though it’s on its way.

Won’t be dangerous for women. There’s plenty of good beta males who will be happy to protect women once they stop chasing the alpha males.

And the West certainly won’t capitulate to Islamic fundamentalists or Chinese communists. If there’s anything we have to worry about, it’s ultra-nationalism (and I think the US has become too multiracial for ultra-nationalism to make much headway).”

……..YES! I see this country heading in a less materialistic and more spiritual direction myself.

We will be poorer, but we won’t want all the junk we currently think we “need”.
VD

I’m pretty sure that most of the commenters are going to be on her side…just so you know.

What does “on her side” mean? She already admitted that she made a mistake in violating the dress code. That was my point. I wasn’t defending the mentor’s ungratitude, I was observing that a church, like any other organization, can be expected to express disapproval of those who publicly violate its codes, whatever those codes might be and however nonsensical they are. Do you, or anyone, seriously take exception to that?

And Susan, this is why I think you need to crack down much harsher on personal criticism in the comments. We men are used to “tough love”/”man up” type of advice, but it doesn’t create a good atmosphere, especially at a blog that’s primarily aimed at young women. It drives away too many good people.

Cracking down on personal criticism when people are talking about their personal problems that stem from their personal choices and actions would be an excellent way to justify the expressed opinions of certain notorious critics of HUS. Cutting down on what people don’t want to hear is a very good way to cut down on what people need to hear. Women desperately need to hear these things because men are already thinking them and they do not know it. It is neither kind nor helpful to leave them in ignorance, much less to confirm them in their suboptimal behavioral patterns.

It’s rather like complaining about a man because HE’S CUTTING ME WITH A KNIFE! Sure, it sounds bad when you put it that way, on the other hand, it’s kind of hard for the surgeon to take out the cancer without doing so. I suspect Susan has tacitly addressed this point in her most recent post. Women need men to say the things that they will not hear from other women. And women simply aren’t inclined to tell another woman: “look, you narcissistic lunatic, the reason you can’t keep a man around for more than ten minutes is because you can’t stop talking about yourself for more than thirty seconds.”
Just1X

@VD

I guess that my points are:
1) that you are clearly immensely happy with your M.O. as preacher to your (or anybody else’s) flock – great stuff
2) your M.O. grinds here (not for everyone, I see that) without actually adding much to a productive, welcoming ambience (imho)
3) you have your own blog, where those that wish to be preached at can find you
4) why do you feel the need to hold forth on Susan’s blog where you change the tone from what she wants it to be?
5) how about you showing a little sensitivity to the local ‘dress code’ here?

there is no anger in those words, that is my humble opinion. you do what you think best.
Just1X

@VD
and a nice post on your blog – really.

In fact;
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/communication-and-la-difference.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
VD

@Just1X

1) It’s not my intention to preach per se, but I can see why it might come off that way. From my perspective, here at HUS I occasionally see people crying out from the pain in their head, not connecting it to the hammer they are holding in their hand. So, I tell them to quit hitting themselves in the head with the hammer. But I’ve read my Rhetoric, I understand the dialectic is not for everyone. This may simply be the wrong audience for it.
2) True. If a welcoming ambience is truly the prime objective here, I will go the way of Dalrock, Yohami, and other ex-commenters, sans the sniping. I doubt I’ll be the only one. We all have our gifts, unconditional emotional support isn’t one of mine.
3) True. HUS is one of a very small number of blogs upon which I directly comment. I have no need to do so. If my attempt to support it by commenting is actually detrimental, I’ll be happy to stop doing so without feeling any butthurt. I can simply support it by links, as before.
4) Again, I have no need to do so. Between WND, VP, and AG, my audience is much larger than the one here and most bloggers are pleased when I comment at their blogs. I was simply attempting to support Susan in what I consider to be her laudable mission. It’s not my intention to change the tone here. Also, I’m not sure I comment here often enough to take credit for it. Plain Jane and a few others have probably left more comments here in the last week than I have ever made.
5) Certainly. What is it? Suffer fools gladly and with open arms? Criticize not, lest ye be criticized? Whatever it is, I will respect it, one way or another.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @VD
  
  True. If a welcoming ambience is truly the prime objective here, I will go the way of Dalrock, Yohami, and other ex-commenters, sans the sniping. I doubt I’ll be the only one. We all have our gifts, unconditional emotional support isn’t one of mine.
  
  That is not the prime objective here. I’ll be completely honest and say that much of what I have learned, I have learned from men here. Much of what I have taught, I have taught to women. There is a direct line from the men to the women (and it also works in reverse sometimes). Personally, I am willing to hear even the most difficult truths provided they are expressed in a way that does not belittle my intelligence, question my integrity, or mock my objectives.
  
  You have done none of those things, and I appreciate your respect and your support.
  
  Yohami, Dalrock and Rollo have done all of those things regularly, and have mocked my readership as well. They now do so on their own blogs, and I’m told they do so regularly. They’re bullies.
Just1X

“unconditional emotional support” – who said that? That’s never been my opinion of what’s best. I just think that “unconditional kick in the nads of someone that’s already down” isn’t great either. Balance in all things…

I saw the tone of your post – cool

talk to Susan, it’s her gig.
Desiderius

“and it also works in reverse sometimes”

And how.

I think I’ll wait to fulfill your request for the weekend – teaching the first installment of my class tomorrow night (this is the book we’re discussing this year – then working another 14 hours Friday.
Desiderius

VD,

I’ll take some responsibility for sticking my dagger in when, in retrospect, silence may have been the better option. The aim was to encourage Jackie, as well as an appreciation for good literature even in unconventional forms. My marksmanship is not yet as skilled as I might like.

I hope you continue to find the time to visit here on a regular basis. Emerging from a high castle one dominates so thoroughly to engage on a field where one is at a substantial disadvantage is an act of considerable courage and good faith.
INTJ

@ VD

Cracking down on personal criticism when people are talking about their personal problems that stem from their personal choices and actions would be an excellent way to justify the expressed opinions of certain notorious critics of HUS. Cutting down on what people don’t want to hear is a very good way to cut down on what people need to hear. Women desperately need to hear these things because men are already thinking them and they do not know it. It is neither kind nor helpful to leave them in ignorance, much less to confirm them in their suboptimal behavioral patterns.

Who cares about those notorious critics of HUS? Extremely jaded members of the manosphere are not the target audience of HUS.

It’s rather like complaining about a man because HE’S CUTTING ME WITH A KNIFE! Sure, it sounds bad when you put it that way, on the other hand, it’s kind of hard for the surgeon to take out the cancer without doing so. I suspect Susan has tacitly addressed this point in her most recent post. Women need men to say the things that they will not hear from other women. And women simply aren’t inclined to tell another woman: “look, you narcissistic lunatic, the reason you can’t keep a man around for more than ten minutes is because you can’t stop talking about yourself for more than thirty seconds.”

When you perform a surgery on a woman without any anesthetic, she’s going to run away. You’d better administer some anesthetic when you want to use that knife.
J

Touche, Desi.
Desiderius

INTJ,

“When you perform a surgery on a woman without any anesthetic, she’s going to run away. You’d better administer some anesthetic when you want to use that knife.”

Think I’m going with VD on what causes women to run away, or, you know, the alternative. Nothing personal.
Desiderius

Escoffier,

“Man up and marry those sluts” is the most over-used meme in the sphere. Dalrock, as he gets increasingly doctrinaire in playing to his amen chorus, interprets all kinds of innocuous statements as “Man up and marry those sluts.” The connection is sometimes so non-evident I have no idea how he makes the link.”

Lately he’s been addressing a particular subculture (evangelical/tradcon Christians – the Promise Keepers crowd) that is currently suffering mightily (according to him) from antinomianism/cheap grace among its womenfolk. Not sure he’s correct about the severity of the problem, but the preaching/statements he highlights are in fact atrocious and do amount exactly to “man up and marry those sluts”.

Yes, the comment section is brutal.
J

Not sure he’s correct about the severity of the problem,

As a former minister, how severe is the problem in your professional estimation?
Plain Jane

Escoffier,
“Man up and marry those sluts” is the most over-used meme in the sphere. D-rock, as he gets increasingly doctrinaire in playing to his amen chorus, interprets all kinds of innocuous statements as “Man up and marry those sluts.” The connection is sometimes so non-evident I have no idea how he makes the link.”

Desiderius and Escoffier, speaking of Dullcock (sorry Susan, its just too good to pass up), did you see it when he complained about a young church woman who rejected a “nice guy” suitor for the local “bad boy”? When asked what the bad boy did that made him so bad, the answer was…… drum roll….. “he joined a RELIGIOUS commune”.

?!?!?!?!?
Zach

@VD 1987

I’ve skipped out on this post since it passed 1,500 comments, but I have to agree with you here. And @Susan, the reason I decided to post on this blog originally was that it’s a fantastic forum for reasoned debate. You’re not unduly censoring views that are not “kosher”, and do tolerate fair debate amongst the commenters. The other reason was that the advice you’re giving (by and large) is what I tend to give to the girls I’m friends with (not sleeping with). It’s smart, it’s actionable, and most of all it’s reasonable. As you may have noticed, I have very little patience for people who whine and complain (Dalrock) and then take no action to improve their situation. Whatever the shortcomings of this blog, it is by far the best place that I’ve seen for women to find concrete, realistic advice on how to work in today’s SMP. It’s also easily the most unbiased, open forum for discussion on what exactly constitutes today’s SMP. I’ve taken a look at a lot of the other sites around the “sphere”, and nothing even comes close to the evenhandedness and intelligence of this blog. Most of the others are bile-filled, bitter men with a massive confirmation bias.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Zach
  
  Thanks for the feedback. I have said that the coed dialogue here is the defining feature of HUS. I absolutely want to nurture that rather than kill it. I believe this may also be the only blog in the world where MRAs and feminists can both have their say without being silenced.
  
  I think Vox makes an excellent point. Women need to learn more about men, what they think and what they want. I don’t think there’s any way to make this a cozy, happy place – these issues cut too close to the bone for many people. All I can do is make judgment calls about what gets moderated, and for what reasons. I reserve the right to do that – always. And I need to live with the fact that sometimes people will feel that HUS is too difficult a place to hang out. I’ve had regular readers write to me to express that they would be moving on for that reason, and I respect that.
  
  All that said…
  
  We can all benefit from keeping the conversation civil. I think of HUS as my virtual living room, not a barnyard, and certainly not a firing range. Truths can be shared without personal invective.
Desiderius

J,

“As a former minister, how severe is the problem in your professional estimation?”

Well, Bill McCartney*’s own daughter was a notorious carousel rider who got knocked up by the quarterback on his football team, and we all know about the case of Karen Owen.

* – the founder of Promise Keepers

Tim Tebow has shown us how powerful faith alone is in learning NFL playbooks and correcting flaws in his throwing motion (i.e. it’s not, and he’s regressed since his last game at Florida)

cf Matthew 7:16

I’ll get into it a little more fully in response to Susan’s request.
Desiderius

BTW, the Red Pill is the doctrine of Original Sin rediscovered. AKA “we’re not born pair-bonding”, a truth also confirmed by science somewhere in these comment threads a couple weeks back.

The strife right now is due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who have (re)discovered it have only done so in the behavior of others. Original Sin for thee, but not for me.
Desiderius

Susan,

Thanks for sharing your husband’s view of your work here. That explains a lot. From my perspective, we’re all good. No doubt we’ll find something else to miscommunicate about shortly – that’s the problem with maladjusted fools.

= )
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Desi
  
  Willful misunderstanding? Here is what I said:
  
  My husband thinks it is beyond strange that men who claim to be happily married are online writing deranged tracts about female nature. I showed him a few posts, and of course he’s been aware of some controversies I’ve been embroiled in. His position is that I am wasting my time with maladjusted fools.
  
  All Court Jesters have been notified, they know who they are. The Senior Comittee is made up of Rollo Tomassi and Dalrock.
  
  As far as my husband’s view of my work here, he does not understand why such fools write the things they do, nor why they persecute his lovely and affable wife. He believes that I exercised very poor judgment in ever having deigned to address them, as they appear to be unhinged sociopaths.
J

My husband would have also advised me not to respond. There’s something about the constant need to stoke the fires with you or have the last word against you that strikes me as sort of womanish. Guys usually strike a pose of “amused mastery” as Roissy would call it and walk away.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @J
  
  There’s something about the constant need to stoke the fires with you or have the last word against you that strikes me as sort of womanish.
  
  That’s funny, one male blogger told me that these guys are worried my dick is bigger than theirs.
unigirl

I just read Desiderius’ comments about flaking higher up, I agree its not always just rudeness, I think it can be just genuine fear at times, going out on a date with someone new is out of the comfort zone and I think it can take some balls to push through the pain barrier and just go. I’m actually starting to think dates are just a bad idea in general unless you know each other/have already established a good rapport. That or one or both of you is just super confident.
https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

@SW

I’ll be completely honest and say that much of what I have learned, I have learned from men here.

You neglected to mention how much of that learning could be described as either the good, the bad, or the ugly.

It’s a ballpark estimate, but I’ve noticed perhaps 400 or more negative generalizations about women *since* Doug1 was shown the door. WRT stereotypes about men, the number is paltry by comparison. There just aren’t many female regulars, and they don’t make such generalizations very often, if at all.
Desiderius

Susan,

“That’s funny, one male blogger told me that these guys are worried my dick is bigger than theirs.”

Not worry; knowledge.

“Willful misunderstanding?”

That didn’t take long.

I am a maladjusted fool*, just a lot less so than I was when I started reading your blog. You’re doing more good than you know.

* – that’s kind of the Reformed thing – we don’t divide the world up into good people and bad people; we’re all united by the fact that we’re imperfect people working together to get better.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Desi
  
  * — that’s kind of the Reformed thing — we don’t divide the world up into good people and bad people; we’re all united by the fact that we’re imperfect people working together to get better.
  
  That’s admirable, as long as everyone recognizes their imperfections and wants to work toward perfection. But it doesn’t allow for narcissistic, manipulative sociopaths. There are bad people, and I do everything I can to keep them out of my life.
  
  I believe in evil as an energy that exists in the world (you might call it Satan). This informs my views, including my political views. Appeasement is disastrous.
Desiderius

unigirl,

Thanks for the reply. I was actually more likely to flake the more attracted I was, so reading flaking as “she’s/he’s not that into you” may be a mistake. More attraction = more pain if things don’t work out. I’m seeing very attractive young women with some pretty omega men in the trendy UMC neighborhood I just moved into, so that may be a common dynamic.

As for dating being a bad idea with someone new, low-key dating can be a way to get to know someone, but hanging out in groups is still popular for a reason. Maybe if you meet someone new while out during the day, a good first meetup would be a neutral group activity?
Desiderius

Susan,

“That’s admirable, as long as everyone recognizes their imperfections and wants to work toward perfection.”

Not really (the way you characterize it), and especially not for a man. It’s the female role generally to encourage and nurture that piece, if you’re going to break it up that way.

“But it doesn’t allow for narcissistic, manipulative sociopaths. There are bad people, and I do everything I can to keep them out of my life.”

And that’s where rules and judgment come in. Thought you said you wanted zero rules or judgment? So you want to exclude bad people, but prohibit any discussion of badness? Jesus broke bread with sinners and publicans, but wasn’t shy about calling them out either. Hmmm.

That contrast is a little harsh, but the point stands, and its a major dysfunction in the current liberal church. “Excluding bad people” AKA “protecting the community from predators” is the male role, and it takes deliberation and awareness of how that determination has been traditionally made to do it well. The castration of that deliberation and awareness by ascendant feminism has crippled the mainline church and made its message literally incredible to a rising generation all too familiar with the depredations of predators.

Here’s the thing – preaching/teaching that leaned heavily toward rules and judgment during the boomer heyday (1968-2007ish), whether coming from the pulpit of Jerry Falwell or Andrea Dworkin, was in fact ignorant, since it literally ignored the experiences of most Boomers enjoying a high-trust environment passed down to them by the Greatest Generation and being extraordinarily productive in that environment. Uplifting preaching that cheered you on and provided guidance for living the good life well was just what you needed, and so naturally appealed to you and your generation.

Different generations have different experiences. Female mating choices are telling us that men with the balls to carry out the traditional male role are once again a felt need, and religious traditions that articulate a compelling vision of how the two roles can be effectively integrated are the ones that will thrive going forward.

“We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, and straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?”

― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters & Papers from Prison

“I believe in evil as an energy that exists in the world (you might call it Satan). This informs my views, including my political views. Appeasement is disastrous.”

Agreed absolutely. I’m with Romney in his response to the nauseating apology from the embassy (as was Obama BTW, who rushed to follow his lead while the media provided cover). The Muslim world’s been shit testing us for years and we keep on supplicating.

But Hillary’s speech was also valuable (carrying on, ironically, the lovey-dovey feminine policies of the Laura Bush administration). Thanks to those policies, there were 35-40 Muslims standing on my street corner yesterday enthusiastically waving American flags.

It takes both the male and female working together.
Plain Jane

“Here’s the thing – preaching/teaching that leaned heavily toward rules and judgment during the boomer heyday (1968-2007ish), whether coming from the pulpit of Jerry Falwell or Andrea Dworkin, was in fact ignorant, since it literally ignored the experiences of most Boomers enjoying a high-trust environment passed down to them by the Greatest Generation and being extraordinarily productive in that environment. Uplifting preaching that cheered you on and provided guidance for living the good life well was just what you needed, and so naturally appealed to you and your generation.”

GREAT POINT DESI!
Just1X

“religious traditions that articulate a compelling vision of how the two roles can be effectively integrated are the ones that will thrive going forward.”

well that is great news, just a word of advice, get the marital laws sorted first. The evil MRAs and MGTOWs can point to many stats about the legal possibilities (and real world examples), and the word is spreading ever quicker. That refusal to engage what happens when marriage falls apart seems to be the (or one of them) eternal problem betwen MRAs and trad/so-cons.

Without marriage, where does this religious resurgance come from? I’ve seen stats (linked them from HUS actually) that said that the greatest predictor for kids continuing to attend church is whether their father did so regularly. If Dad isn’t even present in the post-divorce / never married home, what glorious future does church attendance (currently predominantly old and female) have…

The cons are so eager to get the godly marriage business running again, they forget to sort out the legal realities for men, and around we go again.

Never mind the 50% marriage failure rate guys (including loss of house, income, kids, FRA, DV etc), you get married. Divorced ehhh? You must have picked the wrong woman (like the rest of the 50%).

Why this eternal blind spot to the reality of marriage for men?
Why the blind refusal to address the law?
As D-he-who-shall-not-be-named-rock says, the divorce rate amongst the religious is not greatly better than that amongst the rest of the proles.
Just1X

Regarding excluding people, what happens if :

* Susan let’s in more rad-fems nutjobs? No rational discussion is possible (did you check out the Agent Orange files on radfemhub?). Barking mad with misandry.

* Susan let’s in the hardline never compromise the delivery, let rip with the in-your-face women-are-ebul-hamsterbaters brigade? HUS becomes just another MRA site, just why do we need another one of those, exactly the same as the others? The women here will mostly disappear, so what has been achieved?

Susan has to work continuously to keep HUS USP alive. The reason most of us come here, is that (mostly) intelligent debate that ventures into deep waters can happen here and frequently done without rants.

When you were trained, were you never taught to adapt the sermon to the flock that you’re lecturing at? Because that’s all Susan appears to be asking for. Hmmm
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Just1X
  
  Regarding excluding people, what happens if :
  
  * Susan let’s in more rad-fems nutjobs?
  
  … Susan let’s in the hardline never compromise the delivery, let rip with the in-your-face women-are-ebul-hamsterbaters brigade?
  
  You raise a good point. I don’t want to be Jezebel and I don’t want to be the Spearhead. I’m trying to gather a group of people who might actually communicate with one another across gender lines. This is a tall order, but it happens at HUS every day. It’s not uncommon for a feminist to come here and get a bit of perspective on Game – not all guys trying to get better with women are creepy, supplicating Nice Guys who hate women. And you are an example of an MRA-leaning guy who has engaged in productive dialogue with women here.
  
  Radical elements tend to drown out other voices. HUS is for the majority of men and women who are interested in and capable of considering the position of “the other.”
J

Never mind the 50% marriage failure rate guys (including loss of house, income, kids, FRA, DV etc), you get married. Divorced ehhh? You must have picked the wrong woman (like the rest of the 50%).

I blame the 50% divorce rate on several factors. First, the number itself may be overblown. That statisitic is based on comparing the number of people who divorce in a given year with the number who marry. It is not based on comparing the number of people who haveever married with those who have divorced. Second, if Helen Fisher is correct, 50% is the natural divorce rate. In “the wild,” half of all couples break up when the dopamine rush wears off. Judeo-Christian marriage put some artificial brakes on that until recently when people became less religious. Third, in our romance based culture, people pick a spouse based on the dopamine rush, not based on who they think they can form a lifetime attachment to. I think being aware of that can help people make better choices.

As D-he-who-shall-not-be-named-rock says, the divorce rate amongst the religious is not greatly better than that amongst the rest of the proles.

I suspect that is because, in America, the most religious people are in fact proles. There’s a lot of “drunk on Saturday night, church on Sunday morning” religiosity in America, particularly in the South (and Southwest where D lives). My guide is that if most people in an area like country western music music that go to what D calls a Churchian church, where Jesus bleeds forgiveness and doesn’t demand personal responsibility.
Desiderius

Just1X,

“Regarding excluding people”

I’m fine with excluding people and Susan’s done a great job managing the blog. She employs a fine sense of judgement here. I’m just saying that tying the church’s hands when it attempts to develop the same sense in its members has been counterproductive.

“When you were trained, were you never taught to adapt the sermon to the flock that you’re lecturing at? Because that’s all Susan appears to be asking for. Hmmm”

That wasn’t a sermon. I preached two years worth without using the word “I” more than twice in any one. Obviously my role here is vastly different than my role was there, or is in my classroom. More friendly fire.
Plain Jane

“what happens if :

* Susan let’s in more rad-fems nutjobs? No rational discussion is possible (did you check out the Agent Orange files on radfemhub?). Barking mad with misandry.”

Yeah but lets not forget that several of the male commenters here called a religious girl a “rad fem” because she thinks all on campus assaults should be tried in a court of law giving both the alleged victim and alleged perp a fair trial.
Desiderius

J,

“My guide is that if most people in an area like country western music music that go to what D calls a Churchian church, where Jesus bleeds forgiveness and doesn’t demand personal responsibility.”

Cheap grace – that’s it. In reaction to that, political correctness demands collective responsibility fueled by a steady diet of guilt with no hope of forgiveness.

There are better options.
Just1X

@J
call it whatever% you want – I don’t care about the specific odds.

If there is one chamber loaded in the revolver, or three, I still don’t favour playing Russian Roulette.

Better choices sound good, but what if the previous lower divorce rate wasn’t so much a religion thing as a lack of social state thing? We’re going to have to row the shame boat a loooong way back to get people to stay married. The USA may have the best chance of doing that due to how you do religion, but you’ve probably got the longest distance to go (not that much longer TBH. This isn’t any ya-boo to the US)

OT a little. I was recently bitten for using ‘Churchian’. I was surprised as it always seemed so easy to differentiate Churchian from Christian; Religion – is it what you say, or what you do?
Desiderius

Just,

I’m not a con. Maybe you could call me a tradlib. Since politically correct progressivism has captured the contemporary Left (sic), I’ve often had to make common cause with conservatives, but that isn’t where my heart lies. My spiritual mentor was a Freedom Rider.

At my liberal mainline church, we have a lot of men, but they’re all married (one gay-married) and over 40. We’ve (lefties, liberals, independents, and a few older conservatives gingerly trying to get a word in edgewise) been getting together every Saturday morning yelling past one another, but we’re determined to stick it out together.

They’re inching toward some of what gets discussed here, but Boomers really are disconnected from the realities of the other generations, both economically and socially, often by choice.
Desiderius

Once I do give some background, I really do need to step aside for awhile, and I would appreciate the encouragement of those here in doing so.
- http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh
  
  @Desiderius
  
  Once I do give some background, I really do need to step aside for awhile, and I would appreciate the encouragement of those here in doing so.
  
  Of course! I appreciate your revealing your personal history. We value your input and your perspective, and we’ll be happy to digest it while you take a break if you find that helpful.
Just1X

@Desi

I don’t think that we’ve got much of a gap in effective values (YMMV), but large ones in background…
Just1X

@Desi,
I’m not sure that I follow your meaning exactly, but best of luck, you seem to be a decent human being to me (FWIW)
J

In reaction to that, political correctness demands collective responsibility fueled by a steady diet of guilt with no hope of forgiveness.

That all disgusts me, Des. I don’t believe in collective responsibility. I feel guilt is only valuable to the extent that it leads to repentence and I’m a big believer in forgiveness and redemption.

but what if the previous lower divorce rate wasn’t so much a religion thing as a lack of social state thing?

Probably both, J1X.

IMHO, religion is what one does.
Just1X

@J as an atheist, I absolutely agree. I seldom have problems with Christian ethical values, but have little time for Churchians.
Desiderius

Just,

“I don’t think that we’ve got much of a gap in effective values (YMMV), but large ones in background…”

Depends how far back one goes, or how wide – I’d say we have more in common than either of us do with 90% of the world population.

This is what killed the Church of England. Assholes make lousy churchmen.
Desiderius

Michael Palin might be the most Christ-like man in popular culture.
Desiderius

Alright, I’ve been putting this off long enough.

My friends and I had all figured out we were too cool for church by 13. This despite our parents making us go to a church led by a wonderful pastor right out of Greatest Generation central casting, a good man to his bones, both on the good end and the man end. Chiseled jaw, strapping physique, and not an ounce of self-regard in him. Full of grace, great father, great husband, inspiring leader. But somehow we were still too cool for all that.

Out of my confirmation class of 42, I’m the only one who still goes to that church (I returned after a 20-year absence), and the majority of us are unchurched altogether. There may well be a generational cycle similar to Strauss and Howe’s regarding religion, with one piece being a generation that focuses on secular achievement outside the church (Churchill famously claimed to be a buttress of the church – he supported it from the outside – and Washington took a similar approach while still serving as a half-hearted deacon), whose children then rediscover (reinvent?) what religion is for. Here’s hoping.

Anyway, when I was 13 my 5-year-old brother died suddenly of meningitis, and I discovered one thing that the church is for the hard way. I still remember Martha Martin standing at our door the next day with that casserole – she was just what we needed – a functional oak among a family torn to shreds by utter grief. She didn’t say anything or have to, she was just there for us as we poured out all our misery on her. Over the following weeks, we were healed by a steady procession of church members who ministered to us just by being there and doing the things – cooking and cleaning – that we were struggling to muster the simple sanity to accomplish. The sanctuary was overflowing for the funeral – there are tears in my eyes remembering it – and our minister delivered a message that spoke right to where our hearts were and gave us the courage to carry on.

And we did carry on – I have a brother and sister now who were born after that day (my parents hadn’t planned on having any more children) and thanks to that courage that our church family gave us. Even after that, I did youth group and stayed involved, but still had difficulty taking it entirely seriously. I participated in a campus ministry program in college, though it was somewhat uncool, and the minister of that program (a Freedom Rider who had been Coretta Scott King’s accompanist while he was at Harvard, over 50 ministers who had started out as engineers had come through his program) became a dear friend and mentor – we’d go to cultural events together about once a month and have long, spirited arguments/discussions. The rest of the month fraternity/campus organizations/classes were my focus.

Even after all that, I didn’t attend church regularly while I was on the General Electric management training fast-track program. Had time for beer pong, but not church. Got tired of the management/labor strife at GE and started looking for alternatives, and through that spiritual mentor got a job working in finance for Habitat for Humanity International.

That was an eye-opener. Not all southern/conservative Christianity is dysfunctional. The Clarence Jordan flavor of Southern Baptist that led to the founding of Habitat is very healthy and spiritually powerful in a way that the intellectualized faith common in the north is not.

I got to know Millard and Linda Fuller pretty well, and a lot of great people at Habitat headquarters, but it was in working with volunteers at the affiliates around the country as I was heading up the first combined audit of Habitat and its 900 affiliates that I started stumbling on a lot of older Presbyterians who reminded me of my minister growing up.

It was curiosity about their character and where it came from that led me to Princeton to to study the Presbyterian tradition. I had also become active in a Presbyterian church and they called me to the ministry, so I went.

I don’t want to say too much about Princeton, as my experience there was likely colored by an illness that I wasn’t aware of until I almost died during my third year. There were those there who were carrying on the old traditions, but they were mostly retiring by the time I got there. Feminism and political correctness were on the ascendant, although among the student body there was a healthy resistance to it, but we were definitely dissidents. The leadership had bought in big time.

I ended up serving a small church (it’s membership had declined from 500 to 50, mostly elderly, several prominent citizens in the community) as a solo pastor for two years while I was on dialysis. A lot of good memories – got along great with the congregation – but not so well with the Presbytery (my first letter they sent me was to direct me to protest Bush’s Social Security reforms), and my dreams of evangelism in the urban community surrounding us didn’t fit well with a dialysis-sapped energy level.

So I returned home for a kidney transplant and to begin a new life as a teacher (more or less the family business), and spent a lot of time on the interwebs/continuing to read the great books as I recovered. Never owned a TV. Unfortunately, my social network atrophied as a result, so I’m now building that back up with good results so far.

The biggest difference I see between those older Presbyterians of such humble, generous, courageous character and those today is that they took confession (and the assurance of pardon – my favorite part of the service!) seriously. Keeping up with the Jones’s fell by the wayside as they strove to keep up with Christ and help the Jones’s sitting next to them do likewise.

Far as I can tell, the reason the New Testament was needed is that those in Jesus’s time had gotten stuck in a similar place to where the church/society is today. There were “good” people (Pharisees and Sanhedrin) who kept the law and felt that was good enough, so they stagnated and lost any motivation to keep learning and improving. Focusing all their attention on those who weren’t keeping the law made their lack of self-awareness even worse, and alienated those with the potential to turn their lives around from the very spiritual community that could make it happen.

By “fulfilling the law” as an ideal (see the six antitheses after the Beatitudes) that no one could actually completely reach while assuring all that nothing could separate them from the love of God (agape), Jesus both created a safe space for people to honestly come to terms with our own shortcomings, while providing the motive force to keep growing and improving together our whole lives.
Desiderius

One thing about Princeton. I served as an assistant to the Dean of Religious Life at the University for a year, during which I led evening prayer services at the Princeton Chapel.

We never had more than 10 attend. Attendance at Sunday worship was pretty sparse as well, despite the Dean being an outstanding preacher. There were nights I remember reading the Phos Hilaron by myself in that huge Chapel. Knowing the history of that place and that tradition, that tested my courage.

Light of the world in grace and beauty,
mirror of God’s eternal face,
transparent flame of love’s free duty,
you bring salvation to our race.
Now, as we see the lights of evening,
we raise our voice in hymns of praise;
worthy are you of endless blessing,
Sun of our night, Lamp of our days.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

As D-he-who-shall-not-be-named-rock says, the divorce rate amongst the religious is not greatly better than that amongst the rest of the proles.

The most religious, i.e. evangelical Christian, states in America have the highest divorce rates.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/06/13/relationshipstrategies/your-chances-of-divorce-may-be-much-lower-than-you-think/
http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

@Desi

Thank you for sharing your story. What a fascinating journey!

I’m not sure if The Anscombe Society was active at Princeton when you were there, but they’ve made a strong stand and received a lot of press in the last few years.

Mission Statement

The Anscombe Society is a student organization at Princeton University dedicated to affirming the importance of the family, marriage, and a proper understanding for the role of sex and sexuality. We aim to promote an environment that values the crucial role the intact, stable family plays in sustaining society; the definition of marriage as the exclusive, monogamous union of a man and a woman; its role as an institution which is necessary for the healthy family, and thus for a healthy society; a conception of feminism that encourages motherhood; and a chaste lifestyle which respects and appreciates human sexuality, relationships, and dignity. Therefore, we celebrate sex as unifying, beautiful, and joyful when shared in its proper context: that of marriage between a man and woman. The Anscombe Society is a proactive community that provides social support and a voice for those already committed to these values, and promotes intellectual engagement to further discussion and understanding of this ethic on Princeton’s campus and in the broader community.

Hearing your description of a low level on engagement at Princeton Chapel, I wonder what, if anything, can be done to engage young people on a spiritual level. Personally, I don’t have a preference between organized religion and a more independent spiritual journey. But I fear most young people are ignoring this dimension of the human experience entirely.
Desiderius

“I wonder what, if anything, can be done to engage young people on a spiritual level.”

Nihilism sucks ass. It’s always been fertile ground for new spiritual growth to take root. Boomers were the fruit, Xers the composting, Millenials the new plant. They’ll figure something out. I got the sense the cavalry was already getting saddled up at the Seminary (most of the students were early 20’s, while I was early 30’s).

The secular tends to follow the spiritual (see the Great Awakening -> American Revolution). Anscombe, etc… were still being looked down upon by the sex-poz cool kids at the University (this was the height of second-wave feminism so breeder-shaming was more fashionable), but your studies indicate a sea-change may be in progress.
Desiderius

Susan,

Regarding rules and judgement, I was referring to your views on the church, not the blog. Just1X missed that and I want to make sure you don’t.

“The most religious, i.e. evangelical Christian, states in America have the highest divorce rates.”

Tebow is so popular because so much of our culture suffers from a paucity of faith/trust/confidence. But faith alone isn’t any better as can be seen by his lack of progress that mirrors the poor results produced by all these evangelical churches in forming character/encouraging real achievement.

I feel like I’m repeating myself, but it takes faith and reason working together. I chose the moniker I did (as opposed to Calvin) because I think that can best be achieved through existing institutions, but pressure/competition from the outside can only help spur reform within.
Desiderius

Alright, time to tie myself to the mast and let some other people get a word in edgewise; and get back to full-time meatspace for awhile.

Y’all are the best.
J

@Desi

I still remember Martha Martin standing at our door the next day with that casserole – she was just what we needed – a functional oak among a family torn to shreds by utter grief. She didn’t say anything or have to, she was just there for us as we poured out all our misery on her.

To me, this is the heart and soul of religious behavior. That you had a clergyman capable of uplifting you, as opposed to mouthing cliches, at a horrible time in your life is also a tremendous boon.

That’s some lifestory by the way. You had alluded to being sick, but I hadn’t realized what a close call you had. Glad you’re still with us! All the best to you in meatspace too!
SayWhaat

@ Desi:

Cool story bro.

(No really. Cool story. :))
http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

@Desi
Very moving. I’m glad you have all that support and that you made it. Like we say God has plans for you if he wanted to keep you around this long.
Damien Vulaume

@Susan
“Very, very few women want an emotionless sexual encounter, or can compartmentalize sex and emotion.”
Can I raise a hand here and offer a foreigner man’s perspective?
I’m well travelled and while this statement perfectly defines say, American or French women’ approach to sex, it doesn’t so much when applying it to some other cultures. I currently leave in the Czech republic, where I also have the “back stage” perspective/experience of a foreigner and I can assure you from first hand experiences that many, many, many girls and women CAN perfectly compartmentalize sex and emotion and make love just like many one-night-stand-men do, just for the sake of the sex thrill. Do I have data backing this experience? Not really. But the Czech national statistics’ surveys on infidelity (as well as the divorce rate, but this is for later) is telling: It is sky high with married men, at 75%, but more interestingly, it’s at 34,1% with married women (both aged 25-34, if I’m not mistaken). I would both slightly decrease the male percentage and raise the female percentage by a few points, say 5, since men tend to brag about their sexual conquests (real or imaginary,) and women, IMO, tend to minimize it if it is within the moral realm of perception of the said society.
What does this all mean? The historical and cultural context of the place we live in is also a very predominant factor to take into consideration when we make assertions about how men and women are like. But I presume this is off base since this is an American blog and by writing “Women” you mostly meant “American” women…
As for all the suposedly grown up guys here thinking they’ve played it as the “nice guy” and get angry about thinking that girls like “bad guys”, this is, at best, an infantile argument. Should I flash a time mirror in their face, the one from their high school/college days? The “nice guys” (aka, the majority) I saw both in high school and college in America had almost invariably the same behavior towards the fairer sex: Awkwardness, boring conversation, trying to show they were nice and genuine, and being at worst, soappy and then, when drunk, pushy… Yet for any girl who had managed to keep her natural sensory radar, they were transparent about what they had in the back of their mind. Successful guys (an appauling minority) were also invariably nice with girls, but in a manly, self confident and natural way, and yes, seemingly adventurous. There are two sayings in France that go like this:
1- Man proposes, woman disposes.
Except in societies where young girls are forced into marrying the man that the two families selected for her, this is a universal truth. When it comes to the game of seduction, women are the artists. Why be angry about it?

2- Women don’t want to be understood, but taken away.
Oh so true. It’s all about the manner and confidence while you’re doing it. After that, what you have in mind is unfortunately an entirely different story, hence the long trail of girls getting confused…

Now, just for a good laugh (and no mean cultural nagging intended here):
I was an exchange student back then in Indianapolis, and attended two high schools there (predominantly white, middle class suburbia). Who where the “hottest” guys and girls at school? For girls, it was “Chuck”, the tall handsome quaterback seemingly friendly with everybody and flashing his smile all the time. For guys it was “Sherry”, the spoiled, quacking and slender blonde cheerleader, horrifingly aping femininity. They were of course dating each other. Now, put the both of them in any Dutch or French high school (in a Czech high school, that might be a different story) , assuming they’d speak the same language. For good or bad reasons (glad this blog is free of “moral” judgements), I’m quite convinced that most girls would dismiss Chuck and view him as the village idiot, and all the boys would view Sherry as the archetype of the fantastically dumb bimbo, although, in this case, and that’s the nasty side of men that women rightly complain about, lots of them wouldn’t mind dragging her in their bed.
Cultural perspective to get the whole picture about the men/women issue? Yes, I believe it is the first step.
I hope I didn’t offend anyone with all those metaphorical examples.

“Hot & Mean” vs. “Not Hot & Nice”: What Do Girls Want?

Hot & Mean

Not Hot & Nice

It is obviously in the best long-term interests of both men and women to develop a secure attachment style if possible, and to choose a partner who is also secure in attachment.

Search

Subscribe Now!

Free Newsletter with Exclusive Content!

Follow Hooking Up Smart

Like Us on Facebook

Latest Tweets