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

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.

  • 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… :D

  • 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. :P

  • 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. :P

    :lol:

    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
  • 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! :lol: 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. :P

    • 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. :D
    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. :D

  • 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. :D

    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. :P

  • 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. :D

  • 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.

  • 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. :-P

    “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. :-D

    “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. :-P

  • 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.

      db

  • 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!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvDMlk3kSYg

  • 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.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nqoPInNcvo

  • 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! :P

    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 :mrgreen:

    • 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
  • 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 yo