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.
Hot & Mean
- 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.
- 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.
Not Hot & Nice
| 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.”
{ 2040 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 14 »
@ unigirl
insecurities and emotional disturbance are two separate things. I think your ex suffered the latter.
@Mike C
I really have difficulty believing you are not capable of making these connections. This has to be some willful denial going on. Let me lay this out in the simplest terms, which sum up the post, the thread, and what is known about female sexuality.
1. The post clearly addresses what women find attractive about bad boys. We have evolved to find certain characteristics desirable in a mate, including confidence, strength, bravery (risk seeking), and access to resources, as signaled by status. These are generally referred to as the alpha characteristics. Bad boys often have an abundance of these traits.
2. We have also evolved to select mates who will co-parent. The traits associated with this are the beta characteristics. This original adaptation resulted in the human drive to pair bond as the preferred way of mating. As Buss says, why men marry poses a puzzle, if all they want is sexual variety. He offers several possible explanations, but regardless of the reason, most men and women prefer to fall in love and reproduce as a monogamous pair.
3. Both alpha traits and beta traits contribute to attraction.
4. It is rare to find one individual with an abundance of all the desirable traits. Women are faced with the dilemma of knowing when to select a mate who has the best possible combination of traits. Buss lists at least a dozen traits women seek and evaluate. A woman who selects a man with too much alpha is unlikely to see him stick around. A woman who selects a man with too much beta is unlikely to sustain her attraction for him.
This is the dirty little secret of female sexuality – the red pill. As I said clearly in the post, Mean & Hot wins out over Nice & Not Hot 100% of the time. We want a mix of alpha and beta, but if you give us only one, we choose alpha, as those are the traits most important and evident at first meeting. The beta traits become important in the context of commitment.
When a woman feels attracted to a man, does she have a clear sense of how each the dozen traits is present and to what extent? Usually not. Much of the selection occurs at the subconscious level.
In short, women are inclined to select for good character for long-term mating, i.e. pair bonding. For short-term mating, or at first meeting, confidence and status are the first hurdles a man must clear. Many bad boys make it through the first hurdles, and are then exposed as having poor relationship potential.
Do you see how both are true? It’s not either/or.
@Mike C
First of all, hypergamy means mating up. It means marrying a man with higher status than you have yourself. Escoffier (via Devlin) claims that hypergamy means trading up. Having impulses that go beyond attraction – a base urge to leave your mate to get a better mate with higher status. He has indicated he believes this urge is always present in women. He is wrong.
Of course both men and women find others attractive throughout their lives. Did you really think this is what we were arguing?
Personally, it is not character that prevents me from acting on attraction. I can observe how attractive a man is without feeling any urge to act on it. This is not a struggle, because I am satisfied with my mate. My hypergamy was addressed and satisfied when I married a man of high potential for future status. Therefore, I have no conscious thoughts of trading up, making a change, acting on attraction. The attraction is akin to admiring a work of art. I can enjoy it without having to own it. I think if a woman married a man of low status, she would likely stew more about attractive men of high status, and perhaps be inclined to consider trading up. But this is pathology in relationships, not normal urges.
This is also demonstrated in the research on ovulation. While women like more dominance during ovulation, research shows that they do not seek dominance in other men if their partner meets their baseline need for dominance in general. In that case, they seek additional dominance from their partner. This fact is usually ignored or dismissed by Red Pillers who find it useful to omit it to better promote the idea of hypergamy.
Actually, I think this is going to become more common in my generation, particularly because of the male-female ratios in college.
I just had a conversation with a good friend last night about her BF, who hasn’t finished college and is not currently taking classes. She said she’d just had an argument with him that morning because she felt he wasn’t putting forth enough effort into going back to school (also, you’ll remember that my own BF is in a similar situation).
Neither of us is exactly looking to trade up, but we are concerned about status indicators. I’d argue that it’s not pathological, that it’s pretty normal in cases where women have dated or married “down.”
This is true of science in it’s true definition. However, human nature often interferes: extrapolating beyond the limits of either the data or even the theory itself, tribalistically defending one’s theories or views, demonizing opponents. Luckily, in the end, the data and better theories usually prevail. Too often, the best theory at the time becomes accepted without remembering its limitations. Also, too much metaphysical reality gets attached to the model. Then when a new discovery comes along that refines, or in some cases totally changes, the previous understanding it makes the dogmatic purveyors of that previous view look foolish.
The thing I dislike the most about the red pill is ” if you give us only one, we choose alpha.”
It’s like women find the “boring” to be a greater threat to her relationship than the “danger” of being alone.
Olive—yes, it is my understanding that this “settling” issue is apparently becoming a bigger and bigger problem for young college women. They don’t find their husbands in college, generally, for a variety of reasons. Many feel that the mating environment will improve post-college, but what may happen is that the campus culture will simply migrate with them as the college-educated males in their cohort are, obviously, still going to be in short supply.
Using Susan’s model, we could see a man as an SMP product that has alpha and beta features. To keep things simple, let’s say that a stylized 50/50 alpha-beta mix is ideal, with “hot and mean” alpha being preferable if the woman is given a stark choice between 100% alpha and 100% beta.
The thing is that young women are becoming increasingly alpha/masculinized (insofar as we consider career ambition, leadership, domination of social status hierarchies, greed, and confidence as alpha-associated qualities) and this may be happening at the cost of young men becoming more beta.
So if traditional women wanted 50% alpha, the newly-minted female college grad *may* (this is just a thought experiment here) now want 60-65% alpha in her man in order to feel properly tingly, protected, respect, and so on. Alas, many men of her age will have had their alpha % dropped because of years of feminist-inspired education and conditioning that promote androgyny and vilify the destructive power of the alpha male.
I also believe that it is easier to be 90-100% alpha or 90-100% beta than it is to be 50/50; the polar points are “strange attractors” and a small nudge from the center (say, a traumatic “red pill” epiphany) can see a man move further and further towards an extreme position over time.
Susan are you accounting for post grad hookups? I don’t understand why you focus on college so much like casual sex is somehow only done when people are in college. Wouldn’t numbers pre-marriage be more relevant? Also, the focus on stats is wrong imo, they vary way too much.
Theoretically I have to say the possibility must be there. Ego gratification and validation for sure.
I think the tingle gets short-circuited somehow – I can imagine feeling flattered, certainly. But I think there’s a way that when a woman is in love, or loves her partner deeply, there’s no real traction for those feelings.
After business school I worked as the direct assistant to the President of American Express, and in that job had several opportunities to have affairs with some of the most powerful men in New York. I was never tempted. I do recall one very young and handsome rising star – I was engaged at the time. I knew he liked me, and I was flattered and attracted to him, but the thought of trading in my fiance for him was unthinkable. I never considered it or encouraged him. I admit I enjoyed the attention. Ultimately, he stopped pursuing it.
@Susan
“This is also demonstrated in the research on ovulation. While women like more dominance during ovulation, research shows that they do not seek dominance in other men if their partner meets their baseline need for dominance in general. In that case, they seek additional dominance from their partner.”
This agrees with my personal experience.
The wife doesn’t start oggling around other dudes when ovulation hits. She does tend to be a bit of a bitch which makes me draw a line. Which I realise is the point. Zen.. its only 2 days…zen. Doesn’t make it less stressful.
On the other hand shes a sweetheart two weeks later. In that regard I guess I’m lucky.
“My hypergamy was addressed and satisfied when I married a man of high potential for future status. ”
This is gonna be just a wee bit problematic for my generation. Most women will be lucky to land a guy whose income combined with hers can feed and clothe the kids.
And yes that was completely serious.
“It is rare to find one individual with an abundance of all the desirable traits. Women are faced with the dilemma of knowing when to select a mate who has the best possible combination…”
Most women don’t deserve an abundance. They’re average, they only get average. They don’t have a dilemma. If they think they deserve abundance their likely (not a guarantee) an idiot. (Reading this it sounds snide. Its not meant to be.)
Finally,
this “Both alpha traits and beta traits contribute to attraction.”
“For short-term mating, or at first meeting, confidence and status are the first hurdles a man must clear. ”
Attraction = alpha traits. Longevity = beta traits.
Attraction is short term. Love (or whatever equivalent you want to call it) is an extended form of attraction (alpha) mixed with beta traits.
This is probably what pisses guys off (when you insist beta traits are necessary for attraction). Beta behaviours don’t get you laid, in or out of relationships. Therefore beta traits do not equal attraction.
Attraction = sex.
Beta traits are important. They are not attractive in any way. No womens ever tingled when her hubby bought flowers (cheap and easy beta trait, insert your own choice).
Conclusion: beta traits are not necessary for attraction. Are necessary for relationships.
For the record, I would like to clear up what I said about the scene in the new Woody Allen film.
In no way did I mean to imply that all or most newlywed women would go to another man’s hotel room while on her honeymoon. By “a situation like that” I mean that a woman who has placed herself in the hotel room of a man not her husband, is very likely to engage in the kind of logic seen above. Obviously, the act of going to a man’s hotel room is something very close to consent, so we may assume that she has already made her choice. The chat with herself in the mirror is just hamstering.
@Desiderius
They do, and I appreciate that. I would simply point out the difference between someone respectfully inquiring about an apparent contradiction or inconsistency, and someone playing “Aha! Gotcha!” if they find any two sentences that appear to contradict each other.
I certainly know the difference when I read it.
That’s fine. I have no problem with having the uncomfortable conversations. What I do have a problem with is the repeated championing of a view without any corroborating evidence.
In this case, it’s female hypergamy = seeking to trade up incrementally throughout life.
The only source for this claim is not credible. He has offered a hypothesis, but has not sought to test it in any way. Not a single expert in mating, evo psych, evo bio or sexuality shares his view. I have never seen hypergamy define this way anywhere else. Devlin’s view is unique. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, but without any attempt to confirm it, even by the author, I see no reason why I should accept it. Particularly since it does not resonate with my own knowledge of female sexuality.
@JustYX
OMG I can’t believe you said this. I started Dune this weekend, having never read it before. I’m about a third of the way through. It’s taken me a while to get into it, but now I am feeling invested.
@SciGuy
This is my policy. Sure, sex surveys are fallible, social science is soft. The question is, do we learn more by doing studies or by writing them off entirely? It seems pretty clear to me that we’ve learned a lot about sexuality since Kinsey came on the scene. I’m always in favor of more information rather than willful ignorance. Intelligent people can weigh the validity of a study. People who dismiss studies as useless are frightened of having their illusions destroyed.
@VJ
Haha, New Jersey does seem to spawn a lot of very low culture. OTOH, NJ gave us Bruce Springsteen.
@david foster
You’re the first to make that point, and it’s a very interesting one, IMO. Do you care to elaborate?
@Hollenhund
That’s a good point. The truth is, we are at cross purposes to some extent. We should not be trying to eliminate this conflict in mating, in my view. It produces the best compromise, or best chances of mating success. Not only that but something I learned in acting: Conflict is drama. Drama is friction. People are aroused by friction, and in fact, arousal leads to friction, i.e. sex.
Hilarious and so true.
HELLO? Anybody home? Did you read the post? Women go for assholes.
@J
I would much rather you enjoyed your weekend than waged a futile effort here! Well done on your part, you nurtured your relationship. Life is too short to come indoors on the last weekend of summer!
@OTC
The problem with this definition is that is allows each individual to determine whether he is alpha. That might well include James Holmes. I don’t think alphas can be self appointed, as some may have such low standards that getting what they want is immaterial, because it’s not something anyone else wants.
If alpha is the man at the top, then he has to get there via promotion from others. It cannot be subjective.
@SciGuy
Through some error on Wharton’s part, I was enrolled in Advanced Macroeconomics my first semester, a course for Econ majors. (I majored in Psych.) The prof taught almost entirely in Calculus, which was not a good vehicle for me. (The class routinely booed when he did proofs, to no avail.) In the assignments and mid-term I went with my gut and did OK (not great), but when I got to the final (all the sections were together) I saw that we had the option of responding with a qualitative argument or a calculus proof. My heart sank when I saw that my section did not have a choice – we had to do the proof. I muddled through, apparently – I passed the class. I don’t know how, though. I had zero confidence in the mathematical mumbo jumbo I wrote.
@JustYX
That was a compliment
@Unigirl
Haha, no worries. Look, there’s a reason why most hookups occur between two drunk people. We self medicate to lose inhibition. We feel better able to be charming, free from anxiety, etc. Research shows that both guys and girls binge drink to prepare themselves to get naked with a stranger. For most people, that isn’t going to happen while sober. It’s so odd – people know they won’t do something sober, so they get drunk in order to facilitate the behavior.
@ Susan
You argued that women are attracted to both asshole and nice guy traits. I’m pointing out that that’s obviously wrong, as most women are much more attracted to asshole traits when it comes to having sex. That’s not to say they don’t like nice guys. Nice guys are great for emotional (LJBF anyone?) and parental support (reformed asshole chaser).
@Olive
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense. Women will be forced to relax their standards, but may find themselves restless in relationships as a result.
@Susan
Good evening, Susan.
Can’t help but smile and think that this reminded me of my relationship with broccoli. I *really* had to lower my standards to eat it.
Funny how I like it now. A lot.
It’s not really relaxing my standards when I’m changing them in the process of growing up, now, is it?
@Susan
oh, I got the compliment – no problem.
re Dune. There’s a euro-made TV series of Dune and another of Children of Dune. They have more screen time than the Lynch film to make sense. (If you know the story, then the Lynch film is great).
I read a few of the books, but found them a little heavy going…
BTW Just saw THG, not bad at all, it felt like they kept pretty close to the book that I read months ago.
@BB
I do like your concept of adding a percentage of Alphaness (and as consequence Betaness) to men. I think this is more accurate assessment than just considering a man Alpha or Beta, more like an spectrum in the same way women can be a 1 or a 10, probably men measure in similar ways. And probably we could find a better way to use the term like this.
I encourage you to try and do a scale of this and see how the manosphere reacts, think about it.
This agrees with my personal experience.
Me too, except that I get more sexually aggressive with my husband during ovulation and interestingly enough he seems to get it instinctively, this ties up with the strippers getting more tips during ovulation, men somehow still can feel the pull. One has to wonder how cuckolding could had worked if the primary partner was somehow aware of she being more sexually attractive…pondering pondering.
No womens ever tingled when her hubby bought flowers (cheap and easy beta trait, insert your own choice).
Correction no woman that finds Beta traits lame/complementary tingles over them. I still have the first flowers my husband bought for me and I was completely over him for that, YMMV.
re leadership, it also matters how *visible* the leadership is
Very true.
@INTJ
You wouldn’t have your kids with him either
LOL.
Yeah I think he was a bit of an extreme case, I don’t have much more life experience for examples of how I see it really! I mean don’t get me wrong the relationship had its good points, I loved him a lot at first,
It really did take something like that that happenning regularly though for me to lose the love and respect.
@SW
Yeah, we had a very nice time. We took a hike at a state park, saw some deer, walked along the beach, had a nice talk about what life might hold for us after the kids go off to college, retirement, etc. We decided to take the kids’college money, buy an RV and run away from home.
In short, women are inclined to select for good character for long-term mating, i.e. pair bonding. For short-term mating, or at first meeting, confidence and status are the first hurdles a man must clear. Many bad boys make it through the first hurdles, and are then exposed as having poor relationship potential.
Do you see how both are true? It’s not either/or.
Yes, and what you wrote is a good summary.
I really have difficulty believing you are not capable of making these connections. This has to be some willful denial going on.
No willful denial….just trying to understand EXACTLY what your position is and beliefs are. This post was actually helpful in ascertaining that.
We want a mix of alpha and beta, but if you give us only one, we choose alpha, as those are the traits most important and evident at first meeting. The beta traits become important in the context of commitment.
When a woman feels attracted to a man, does she have a clear sense of how each the dozen traits is present and to what extent? Usually not. Much of the selection occurs at the subconscious level.
I actually pretty much agree with this. Of course, the devil is in the details so to speak so when the rubber hits the road, the million dollar question is what is that optimal mix. No doubt, that varies across different women.
By “a situation like that” I mean that a woman who has placed herself in the hotel room of a man not her husband, is very likely to engage in the kind of logic seen above. Obviously, the act of going to a man’s hotel room is something very close to consent, so we may assume that she has already made her choice. The chat with herself in the mirror is just hamstering.
Why is she in the hotel room? What motivated her to go there?
@ JUST1X
Crap I have yet to see Dune, but I’m a big David Lynch fan. I even managed to round up a t-shirt for Blue Velvet. Dennis Hopper’s finest role IMO.
@Mike C
I think that Susan is saying that she (the woman) had basically decided she was up for sex, that’s why she went to his room, she just had to hamsterbate the final small hurdle…but really it was almost a done deal by the time she entered the room
@Samael
Netflix (UK) has the Lynch movie and the euro mini-series of Children of Dune. I’ve just watched both.
I’m looking back a few years for when I watched the euro mini-series of Dune, I liked it a lot. But I remember thinking that the best solution would have been a Lynch mini-series. The movie had a bigger budget but the series had the time to tell the story.
I think that the movie really requires you to have read the book, the series (I’m guessing) you can get away without having read it.
Lynch movie
http://www.amazon.com/Dune/dp/B000ICZD5M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346746039&sr=8-2&keywords=dune
Dune miniseries
http://www.amazon.com/Dune-William-Hurt/dp/B000059H6K/ref=sr_1_8?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1346746175&sr=1-8&keywords=dune
Children of Dune (first sequel to Dune) miniseries
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Of-Dune/dp/B000JNMUX8/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1346746080&sr=1-1&keywords=dune+sarandon
@MikeC sorry, I think that I may have missed the point that you were asking – oops
Oops – Children of Dune is the first video sequel to Dune, but the second sequel book (after Dune Messiah)
The video Children of Dune
“The story follows on from Herbert’s stunning ‘Dune’ and the series has cleverly wrapped the two subsequent novels; ‘Dune Messiah’ and ‘The Children of Dune’ into one series.”
It’s been a couple of decades since I read the books…
This was summed up perfectly in one older comment here I cannot find: men are annoyed when women refuse to put up with their desire for sexual variety, and women are annoyed when the men they find attractive refuse to initiate and maintain commitment. This confrontation probably explains all the hand-wringing on this blog and others as well, and it’s perpetuated by the inability of the sexes to empathize with each other. The issue of shit-testing raised in this thread is a perfect example. The fundamental issue about it that goes unaddressed is that there’s no male equivalent of shit-testing in relationships. The idea of testing their partner’s “worthiness” simply doesn’t occur to most men, because they, on average, tend to be more satisfied with their relationships then women are. In other words, women are normally the first in and the first out in relationships. It doesn’t really matter whether we call this hypergamy or not, what is important is that this difference exists.
That sounds great, but it’s a curious statement considering that Western societies have erected entire legal structures to ensure that women have no difficulty abandoning their traditional “gender roles” whereas men have plenty.
This seems to be a misunderstanding. Wudang explained it on another blog:
That sounds great in theory, but the usual result is that women tend to get defensive and irritated whenever you address these issues, and it also tends to lure in male commenters who have strong opinions on them, for obvious reasons. What you want to accomplish with this, I have no idea.
And your point might have some validity if those guys actually discussed “real” science, but they don’t: they speak mostly of personal anecdotes and their own opinions, and nothing more. At least Susan is trying to base her opinions on the research that does exist, imperfect though it may be.
And here we see the difference between mastering science and mastering logic. What the STEM guys actually discuss is totally irrelevant to the validity of the point, which depends upon the softness and inherent unreliability of the imperfect research. The personal anecdotes and opinions may very well be superior to the research, if the observations being made are sufficiently astute and the basis of the research is false.
Also, I can hardly believe you chose phallometry as an alleged example of “hard science”.
Why? Whether the current technological state of phallometry is hyper precise or not, the point is that the contradictions in self-reports and physical observations tended to highlight the intrinsic unreliability of self-reporting sexual stimulation in particular and self-reporting in general. Philosophical differences over the precise point of when a penis is actually hard or a vagina is formally wet don’t render the basic concept moot. When it is reported that “straight women are equally aroused by all human sexual activity, including lesbian, heterosexual and homosexual male sex” and very few straight woman admit to being aroused by homosexual male sex, this means either a) the technology simply doesn’t work, b) there is no link between sexual desire and physical phenomena conventionally understood to indicate sexual desire, or c) the entire basis for self-reporting on sex-related matters is fundamentally flawed.
I think the probabilities favor (c), given that measuring moisture is not a major technological feat. What is your opinion?
@Joe
That’s the “choose attraction” argument. With female narcissism growing and a corresponding sense of entitlement often in evidence in the remarks of single women, we need to hit the reset button. The most hypergamous women are going to be the ones standing when the music stops.
Is this a trick question?
Why does any married person go to a hotel room with someone else?
Obviously, the preliminaries to cheating have already occurred. As I said, it’s a movie – she goes to the hotel room of a movie star she meets on the street, and her husband spends the day with a hooker. I really don’t think Woody Allen’s message is about female sexuality, and it seems preposterous to treat this as some case study that represents women IRL.
I thought of one example that can go in your and Escoffier’s column though! Jessica Seinfeld had just returned from her honeymoon when she met Jerry Seinfeld for the first time at her gym. She immediately left her husband and started dating him. I don’t know anything about her first husband, but there’s a woman who didn’t hesitate to trade up. No doubt you’ll claim that all women would have done the same.
She seems a bit shady, though. She was accused of plagiarizing when she published a cookbook for feeding kids.
@Hollenhund
I understand Wudang’s point, but the fact is that many men do enjoy pursuing women and “winning” them, via intrasexual competition with other males. The female’s tendency to be very choosy means that the man who gets chosen increases his status. That process of male competition creates drama, and fuels the female need for emotional engagement. He wants sex, she wants commitment, and ideally they come together after a period of anticipation and challenge, which sends them into full limerence mode.
Mr. “Hot & Mean” and Mr. “Not Hot & Nice” will not reward and open-legs policy –
“Almost 50 years since the sexual revolution, which began, according to Philip Larkin, in 1963, the evidence suggests an open-legs policy is not so rewarding after all.”
http://wonderwoman.intoday.in/story/leaping-into-bed-on-first-date-may-harm-your-relationship/1/101399.html
.
That is not an accurate assessment of women’s responses here. It’s no doubt true for feminists, but my readers have been very open and interested to learn more about the male experience. This is hardly surprising, as it explains a lot about what they are facing in the SMP.
I don’t deliberately write posts to draw in MRAs. It’s unintentional. The last one was a simple post wishing the men a happy Father’s Day. I was astounded when all the angry guys showed up. I regularly underestimate who is reading and lurking here, obviously. Dalrockgate occurred when I made a comment here – not even a post – to Doug1 that I suspected that claims re frivolous divorce are exaggerated in the manosphere. Again, it was not my intent to even engage MRAs on the topic, and wading in to the debate was a tactical error. The only good to come out of that was that now I am certain those claims are exaggerated.
Just to reiterate what I said earlier, studies that ask “who would you do” or “what would you do” are not valuable. Studies that ask, “which man is more attractive” or “how many people did you hook up with this semester” are potentially very valuable.
SW: ” I don’t think alphas can be self appointed, as some may have such low standards that getting what they want is immaterial, because it’s not something anyone else wants”
I’m not saying that alpha can merely define themselves at the top of the social hierarchy.
All I’m saying is that here, it’s far more useful to talk about mSMPW’s, that is, men who do well with women and analyze why, rather than restrict it to the ever-narrowing alpha standard for two reasons. Most men aren’t going to be attractive, well-hung, dominant, expert survivalist/marksman/MMA all rolled into one, and most women won’t have one. Maybe everyone can’t get exactly what they want, but they can improve their chances by looking to the winners and seeing what they do. Maybe doing so steals a bit of their thunder (zero sum) or maybe doing so pushes things back more towards assortive mating.
My buddy has n=40 and he fixes ATM’s for a living. Unmarried, and dating my divorced friend. He’s more of the class clown type, than a leader of men. Clearly he knows something, and does not fit the J/alpha definition. But he sure knows how to get laid.
BTW, having such low standards is doesn’t fit into the “no compromises” deal of mate selection. If you fool yourself out of what you really want, it doesn’t count.
Tl;dr: All alphas are attractive, but not all attractive men are alphas.
@OTC
I understand your point, and that lands us right back at “what is alpha?” As I’ve said before, I think men must define it, because from a female POV it means nothing more than “top quality male.” If the alpha concept is valid, based on ancestral conditions, then men figure out alpha and women respond. I’m happy to go with whatever men decide, if they can reach consensus. I just need to know so that I can advise women whether alpha is a good or bad thing to go after in this SMP.
Lokland – “This agrees with my personal experience.
The wife doesn’t start oggling around other dudes when ovulation hits. She does tend to be a bit of a bitch which makes me draw a line. Which I realise is the point. Zen.. its only 2 days…zen. Doesn’t make it less stressful.”
On the plus side, I’ve noticed that during her ovulation my wife does indeed “step up” her attire ever so slightly, but she also tends to wear clothes that I’ve clearly told her I find highly attractive on her. So, she DOES increase her attractiveness with clothing and perhaps a touch more make-up (which is to say she puts on eye liner and perhaps a bit of eye shadow. My wife DOES NOT do the whole make-up thing unless we are hitting some kind of major social event) but she also seems to do her best to impress me, which is hard to complain about.
“Conclusion: beta traits are not necessary for attraction. Are necessary for relationships.”
Yep. This is pretty much the point I’ve been pounding at for some time in a rather ineffective manner it seems. It is a VERY rare woman that is literally attracted to beta traits. I’m sure some exist, and perhaps we truly have a collection of them here at HUS (just like we have more than our fair share of INTJ types) but in the general populace I’d imagine they are just slightly easier to find than Big Foot. Again, I know beyond all doubt that my wife loves me mostly because of my beta traits, and I’m learning to even appreciate that fact. But what makes it hard is, I also know beyond all doubt that she is attracted to me for other things, and some of those things aren’t necessarily “good” or even “polite” traits. She “tingles” for me when I have to go into asshole mode on someone (for instance when we order something online and the order shows up wrong, and the phone call to rectify the situation gets heated), so she obviously finds it “hot” when I’m acting like an asshat, just not when it is directed AT her. She also tends to enjoy the fact that I am often sarcastic or downright snarky with people when they get on my nerves, and straight up displays of strength derived from temper get her VERY hot and bothered. (think getting pissed off trying to move some piece of heavy furniture and then cussing loudly at it, and then angrily picking the thing up and huffing it to wherever). Yeah, I get that the “show of strength” is attractive in and of itself, but I firmly believe it is the added anger part that really sets her off.
So I appreciate that some part of her loves me because I am a good father and a decent roommate, but as much as I want her love, I want her attraction even more. And the truth is, her attraction has just about NOTHING to do with my beta traits.
INTJ – “You argued that women are attracted to both asshole and nice guy traits. I’m pointing out that that’s obviously wrong, as most women are much more attracted to asshole traits when it comes to having sex. That’s not to say they don’t like nice guys. Nice guys are great for emotional (LJBF anyone?) and parental support (reformed asshole chaser).”
Cosigned and kinda what I noted above. We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM. Which means, if a man is to be successful with a woman, he has to be attractive enough to catch her attention long enough to “sell” himself on beta traits. I’m good with this, but why didn’t anyone tell me that I needed to KEEP UP with those attraction traits to keep her around long term? I think far too many guys think that it is ONLY the beta stuff that keeps a woman around, because it is all we hear regarding what women “want in a man”. Why can’t women simply say they want an asshole that is nice to her? OK, that was extreme for effect. But the concept is sound. Women by and large downplay the importance of the alpha traits when discussing what they want from a husband, when in fact they would never be attracted to that husband without those alpha traits. Do they assume we KNOW this somehow?
Susan – “I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense. Women will be forced to relax their standards, but may find themselves restless in relationships as a result.”
And with this statement you should be easily able to see why JM, I, and other guys here get SO upset when we start talking about “settling” in regards to a woman’s mate selection. If she gets at ALL bored and/or restless, the relationship is doomed unless the man recognizes it, and stimulates her interests again. I can’t speak for any other men here, but *I* was NEVER told about this little issue, and it bit me in the ass. At the end of the day, my ex-wife became bored with our life together, and I didn’t know enough to stir things up.
Can you see how this situation can easily turn up for a former carousel rider that “settles” for a nice beta provider guy in her 30’s? Can you see how that would lead to a frivolous divorce (meaning divorce of boredom)? Can you see how this can often play out to an EPL divorce? Because to me it seems glaringly obvious.
Further, the confusion we seem to be having regarding hypergamy from my standpoint is: I fully believe that women getting “bored” or “restless” in a relationship and ejecting is HYPERGAMY at work. Perhaps not according to the textbook definition of hypergamy, but it seems to be very closely related at least.
@Ms. Walsh: #541:
“@Hollenhund
So angry and bitter is still the preferred strategy for MRAs. How’s that working for you?”
O: It’s got you chattering about it – right?
“Feminists brilliantly solicited the active help of males in pushing their agenda through. You will not change anything as long as you view women as the enemy, recommend repealing suffrage, expound on the inferiority of the female intellect, etc. So far, MRAs are content to be unhaaaaaapppy together online. I suppose that’s a good enough strategy if a bit of comfort and a boost is all that most of those men are after.”
O: This is a most interesting series of statements. Let’s deconstruct them a bit, shall we?
First – if by “brilliantly soliciting the active help of males” you mean cajoling, shaming language, harangues and the rest of it, then yes, you’d be quite right. I’ve mentioned Bill Maher before, and it bears repeating; in fact, let’s see what he has to say about the matter in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRDUcbx9tw
Ms. Walsh, do you agree, or *disagree*, with what Mr. Maher has said? *zooms in with the camera*
Second, please see my comment directed to Ms. J at comment #776:
“The real point of the manosphere you know, isnt necessarily to play matchmaker; its about men telling their stories, *in their own voices*. Its not about “moving on”, “finding inner peace” or anything like that; to be sure, and again im a witness (as are other denizens of the sphere, like ted et al), all of those things can happen as a side benefit. But none of that is the sole purpose of the sphere youre referring to; the purpose is for men to life up their voice, and tell their stories…
For more than three decades running, women have dominated the nature, tone and style of the “discourse” between the sexes; to coin a phrase by bill maher, the only acceptable male role was to do “the oprah nod” reverentially, while women held forth with their stories, in their own voices. And for decades, again, men simply took it, no matter how true or false said “stories” were (and we know that quite a few were/are indeed false-like the bunk about “income gaps” or the bs surrounding “rape” in our time, or the socalled “war on women” et al).”
And if your blog, Hooking Up Smart, is any indication – to say nothing of Kay Hymowitiz (who got so many responses from Men on her piece in the WSJ online, *that it crashed the server – the first time in WSJ history any such thing has happened), Feministe, Feministing, Jezebel, Clarisse Thorn, etc, et al – Manosphere: Mission Accomplished.
Holla back
O.
@Ms. J #542:
“I think that the social trends we are seeing now will reversethemselves long before that happens, and I believe that female choice will be a big part of that.”
O: Evidence, please? I see very little of this in action on the ground.
Now, what I DO see, is this: a segmentation of the populace along these lines, ie, the ones doing the heavy lifting of bringing on the next generation, are NOT the Women which makes up Ms. Walsh’s target demo; it’s the Working Class (and lower) Women who are – and the Census data backs me up on this point. More on this below…
“And for Obs: I do signs of this happening among both black and white working class women. Many of these women are limiting the size of their families as they find themseles struggling to support their kids. Others do have MC longings. As many of you know, I spent a big chunk of time going in and out of the hospital last spring. Before that, I spent a lot time at the nursing home visiting my parents. I got to know a lot of these women in lower level health care jobs, and most seem to want and be working towards more stable lives.”
O: Yes, you make a very legit point here; I would highly, strongly urge you read Edin and Kafalas’ excellent work, Promises I Can Keep. I really raises some very interesting questions about what we *think* we know, about Women in the lower classes…
O.
@Ms. Walsh #1096:
“@Hollenhund
I understand Wudang’s point, but the fact is that many men do enjoy pursuing women and “winning” them, via intrasexual competition with other males. The female’s tendency to be very choosy means that the man who gets chosen increases his status. That process of male competition creates drama, and fuels the female need for emotional engagement. He wants sex, she wants commitment, and ideally they come together after a period of anticipation and challenge, which sends them into full limerence mode.”
O: I don’t have any disgareement with this, for it is true, in the main; what I *will* say, is that pros *never chase*; that’s for beginners.
After a goodly bit of deep thought and meditation on these matters, I’ve come to the conclusion that a big part of your “problem” as it relates to a segment of your lady readers being “tooK” by “cads” is the fact that they’re not dealing with the Real Deal; they’re more often than not, dealing with Pretenders.
More on this, coming up…
O.
@Ms. Walsh #1099:
“Just to reiterate what I said earlier, studies that ask “who would you do” or “what would you do” are not valuable. Studies that ask, “which man is more attractive” or “how many people did you hook up with this semester” are potentially very valuable.”
O: No, *any form of self-report* is considered deeply suspect in the professional researcher world. Buss talks about this extensively in his textbook, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of The Mind, 3rd Ed.
More on this point, coming up…
O.
@Ms. Walsh #538:
“There are definitely double standards when it comes to expressing emotion. Crying, whining, even pouting are things women can and do get away with every day. Men are raised to be stoic (and are less naturally emotional anyway) so we penalize them for displays of emotion. It’s not just women – males don’t tolerate this in other males either.”
O: It has never been a matter of dispute that Men can and will compete against each other for access to Women (sexually); indeed, Buss discusses this fact in both his works, one of which you’re familiar with. The notion that there is a “Team Man” and “Team Woman” is in fact, a fallacy.
“In the same way, a woman who is stoic and unemotional will often be perceived as unfeminine and unattractive by males.”
O: But “males” don’t have a lock on the public (policy) discourse; Women do.
“We like our sex differences.”
O: When it suits the ladies to have them, yes, they most certainly do; which again only reinforces just how many of them are rank hypocrites.
It is a grand mistake to suggest that Feminists “hate” EvoPsych; what is more accurate to say, is that Feminists “hate” *certain aspects of EvoPsych that do not serve their interests and agenda* – and we can say the same for Women in aggregate.
I’m just sayin’…
O.
I don’t see how it helps to say that “men have to define alpha.” I mean, we can do that, and I suppose we try. But the response to our saying “This is guy you should like,” is simply “Thanks, but, this is the guy we actually DO like.” No matter what we say, women still get to choose.
@Susan Walsh
From post #1053
I was under the impression that ovulation did increase women’s desires to engage in extra pair mating. I remember watching a short documentary where a study was mentioned that in Austria women who went out to night clubs without their partners wound up wearing clothing that revealed more skin (presumably to attract extra-pair sex) and they danced in more a alluring manner (again presumably to attract extra-pair sex).
Do you happen to have links/references to the particular studies which state the opposite so that I may have a look at them.
Do you also have links/references to back this assertion up.
Again, I’m not accusing you of any misrepresentations, I’m just very curious to see the scientific proof supporting the notion that men don’t have to be constantly on the lookout for hypergamy/cuckoldry, as from a purely evolutionary and game theoretic standpoint, such defections from cooperative mating when it advantages the woman, even when it’s at the man’s expense and where there are no punitive measures for doing so, make perfect sense.
Chris – “as from a purely evolutionary and game theoretic standpoint, such defections from cooperative mating when it advantages the woman, even when it’s at the man’s expense and where there are no punitive measures for doing so, make perfect sense.”
This is exactly the same train of thought I have on the matter as well. It makes sense to me that biologically a woman would often take the risk of “extra on the side” if she truly felt that the “other” man’s genes are better than her husbands. Surely that doesn’t mean she does not love her husband, but if she is cheating with this reasoning (even if it is unconcious) then she has decided that despite her love for him, he is a sub-standard man.
Now when we were swinging from trees, perhaps this didn’t happen as often for fear of reprisal. But our modern society has made if FAR safer for women to cheat, as in most cases the worst outcome is a divorce in which she is likely to at least keep 50% of everything she shared in her marriage. To be sure many women aren’t looking for that to happen, but when they aren’t in fear of their life, much of the pressure to “behave” is removed. All that is left is a woman’s character and the husbands level of alpha attraction over his wife to keep her from straying. So, if you aren’t very alpha and/or you married a woman with questionable character? Well, I wouldn’t be too thrilled with “girls night out” at all in that situation.
@Ms. Walsh #340:
“I’m not going to debate study design with you. Everything you have read by David Buss relied on precisely the studies you are now discrediting.”
O: LOL. Why NOT, Ms. Walsh? Prof. Buss debated his study design with fellow psychologist Michael Britt on the latter’s podcast show The Psych Files, with none of the flippancy or defensiveness you evidence in your reply above.
Indeed, it is quite common for researchers to haggle over the nature of study design; one of the reasons is one I’m sure you’re quite familiar with; “Juking The Stats”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogxZxu6cjM
Researchers are known to have biases just as much, if not moreso, than anyone else; an excellent illustration of this point, was the case of Harvard scholar and bestselling author, Robert Putnam, of Bowling Alone fame. He deliberately attempted to bury and hold back his research which proved that “diversity” is NOT a good thing, because his *ideology* got out in front of his science. It happens all the time – and YES, I am saying that you are not immune from it either. In fact, in light of recent comments by you in this regard, I am more inclined to say that you are just as ideologically motivated as some of the very people you decry early and often; what’s the difference in the end?
So, yes, I am questioning the study design of the stats you present, because I know for a fact that is NOT the reality on the ground I am seeing; and before you try to discredit me based on age, or SES, again, I cite Northwestern U scholar Mary Patillo, who’s specialty is the Black Middle Class:
http://www.afam.northwestern.edu/people/mary-pattillo.html
Patillo notes the fact that, unlike White Americans, where overlap and social interaction between classes occurs much less, among African Americans it occurs at much higher rates. This is why I call BS on your notion of “towns versus gowns” theory, because it is quite common in Black America for a middle class, suburban girl going away to college to have a working class boyfriend at home. Granted, many of those couples break up; but the same happens among couples of similar SES background, too.
And since by your own admission, you do indeed have among your demo a slice of Black Women, what I’m posting is indeed important to add to the conversation…whether you like it or not…
“Based on Ted’s descriptions of Pittsburgh, it sounds to me like the two of you live in very similar communities. *Shrugs.* It’s hardly surprising that your observations would differ from a study of college students aged 20.”
O: Here’s the problem, though:
1. Based on what Ted has described, his community is in a notably worse way off than mine; I live in a heavily SWPL (and their Black equivalent) dominated area
2. You’re not the only one to have a “focus group”; my nephew, who also happens to be a STEM student, will be 22 this fall and attends one of the Philly’s biggest unis. The stuff he and his buds talks about is simply off the chain, and is virtually 180 degrees from what you’ve been banging the drum about here. Nope, he’s not a Black Greek, and nope, he doesn’t attend an HBCU (though he did transfer from one prior to his current uni; it was off the chain there, too). And no, he’s not one of the Black Nerds on the outside looking in, either; he’s STEM (smart Brothas tends to run in the family) but he’s also very good looking and a wideout on the team; in fact there’s been rumors of him possibly going pro.
So, no Ms. Walsh; that which informs my views in these matters, is a heck of a lot more, than you want to think.
Holla back
O.
@SW
You have noticed a very definite script in use around here? I did, when I first started lurking. It’s one that cannot (must not) change, no matter what information anybody brings to the table.
@Ms. Iggles #754:
“To weigh in here, I do see Susan’s point. If a woman wants marriage and children then an unmarried man of that age does raise questions.”
O: I do, too; Ms. Walsh is implying that I, and/or Men like me, are somehow “wasting Women’s time” by getting involved with them, knowing that we have no desire for marriage. But the fact of the matter – the truth – is that guys like me don’t string Women along like that. The simple truth is, we don’t have to.
I have never lied to a Woman as to what I did or didn’t want, and they knew that right upfront. Again, to be clear, I have turned down two proposals, precisely because I didn’t want to be married. There’s no shame, in my Game.
“From what I’ve seen most never married men in their 40s are single either because they shun marriage in general or have personal issues to work through, which prevent them from forming lasting relationships.”
O: Neither of which apply to me; I’ve had loving, deeply fulfilling relationships, WITHOUT MARRIAGE, that have lasted longer than quite a few marriages I know of; and of the couples I do know, my relationships had a better quality to them.
For example, me and Ms. Brown Sugah have been together four years now, and we enjoy each other’s company so much that we have literally talked to each other from dusk till dawn. Fun question: how many couples talk to each other for say, a half an hour? And actually enjoy it? I mean marrieds, now. Think about it.
“Case in point, I know a guy who is 39 and sounds great on paper (well paying STEM job, various interests and hobbies, rather diverse social circle of friends). He’s a good person and great friend. He has no shortage of dates and interest from women. However, the guy is a TERRIBLE bet for marriages/kids/even a LTR — he has never had a relationship that lasted more than 6 months(!)…I had set him up with a friend once and learned through her that he has a number of relationship issues to sort out. I feel for him because he is truly getting in his own way. STRs are all he truly knows because at a certain point he’s not comfortable with the relationship emotionally escalating to the level it needs for true intimacy.”
O: Yes, I am very familiar with what you’re talking about; this was among the many points I was making when I cited Tyler Perry, as you will recall. One of the dirty little secrets in Black America, is that Black Women who are educated don’t like to discuss the fact that despite many of the Brothas in their cohort looking good on paper in the ways you describe, leave a lot to be desired when it comes to things like, emotional maturity, emotional intimacy, and yea I’ll say it, just growing up. I’ve done lost count as to the number of Sistas in that cohort who’ve told me such things, to my face – which includes Ms. Brown Sugah, I might add. The college experience, extended adolescence and the like, is deliterious to MEN. NOT Women – MEN. THIS, is among the reasons why the “Blue Collar Brotha Meme” is so strong in Black popular culture; and I posit that this “meme” can and will “crossover” into White America before long. In the meantime, it’s netted Brothas like me quite a nice niche to exploit. And boy, do we.
“His situation is different from Obsidian’s, whom as I recalled mentioned in a prior post that he chose not to get married.”
O: Correct. Nor have I ever hidden this fact from any Woman I’ve been with – and it hasn’t prevented me from getting the loving, deeply fulfilling relationships I’ve wanted, on MY terms.
Nor will it.
“+1
Similarly, a woman with Obsidian’s romantic history might draw concern from marriage minded men. They would want to know if she’s looking for husband or if she’s a serial monogamist who moves on after a certain number of years.”
O: Nein. The prescribed role of any Man today, is not only that they must accept Female “freedom” and “choice” but they must NEVER question it; instead, they must do The Oprah Nod.
Like Bill Maher said…
O.
@ Susan Walsh, David Foster
” it strikes me that the dichotomy “hot & mean” vs “not-hot & nice” as applied to men is pretty much parallel to the “madonna” vs “whore” dichotomy as applied to women.”
“You’re the first to make that point, and it’s a very interesting one, IMO. Do you care to elaborate?”
I see this as based on our narcissism, which is our tendency to ideal/devalue. It’s also why for some people you see a bully on top with cowardice underneath.
It’s also why I refer to “narcissistic cads,” who are so-called Alphas. They’re got this fake confidence and charm on top covering up a lot of shame and cowardice. When one interviewer suggested that Bill Clinton was very concerned with what people thought about him, he responded.”Don’t go there.” And he was a charming man with many accusations of rape against him, which meant he was covering up his feelings of shame, humiliation, powerless and anger by trying to be controlling and dominating.
I knew one cad who when a bum asked him for a dollar threw it on the ground and ran. This is the same guy who when another guy told him his girlfriend was ugly said nothing and walked away. He used to call his guy friends to give him excuses to get away from a “girlfriend” because he didn’t have the courage to tell them he wanted to get away from them.
This is also a guy who’s had sex with about 100 and makes quite a lot of money.
I’ve also found the female versions of cads – generally referred to as sluts – are also cowards.
When people idealize “Alphas” I just smile.
We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM.
This is good clarification, Ted. It’s really not a very difficult concept to understand. A woman may love her children and she may love her dog, but she is not turned on by them. She may love certain beta traits and even seek them out in Long Term Relationships, but they do not turn her on. The reason that it is hard to get women to understand this distinction between “what I love” and “what turns me on” is that for women, turning on is a delicate process that is largely a black box to them. It is a process that can be completely undermined by a man simply phrasing things in the wrong way, and without her even realizing how or why. And, in precisely the same manner, it can also be triggered without her realizing how or why. Let’s face it, none of the women whose bodies responded to video of animals mating was likely to have any idea that one zebra mounting another would turn her on. How could she possibly have known that?
This is why one of the core principles of Game has always been to ignore what women say about what turns them on and turns them off. For the most part, they genuinely don’t know because they don’t pay close attention to the process or analyze it in the way that men who are particularly interested in the process do. If you want to understand the behavioral patterns of the prey, ask the predator.
If a woman denies that she responds sexually to assholes, jerks and Dark Triadists, I would simply ask her if she is physically excited by seeing homosexual men have sex. And if she denies it, as most women would, I would simply smile and henceforth ignore her opinion on the matter because there is reasonable grounds for considering it to be unreliable. What she is actually saying is that she does not place LTR value on such men and she has sufficient self-control that she does not give in to her less rational impulses. I suspect that the confusion stems from the fact that her actions – not having sex with jerks – are in line with her claimed opinion that she is not attracted to jerks.
The logical problem here is the Converse Fallacy of Accident, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
Argument: I must be attracted to a man to have sex with him and every man with whom I’ve had sex is not a jerk, therefore, all men to whom I am attracted are not jerks.
Problem: The men with whom she has had sex are not a representative subset of the entire set of men to whom she is attracted.
@ VD
Feminists keep trying to change that.
Samael,
“That sure brings back memories of high school…except I showered daily and had no idea girls where interested in me. You sound like you’re a pretty cool teacher… unfortunately there aren’t too many of you guys around to keep kids like me engaged in the classroom.”
Thx, it was a job I looked forward to every day. Kids like you kept me engaged in the classroom.
= )
Lots of fond memories, cards, letters. We’re still around, but the districts prefer to hire young women right out of ed school. There were over 1,000 applicants for a recent opening at the school I mentioned, so I’ve moved on.
@Ted D
I don’t mean to be glib, but men shouldn’t marry selfish, entitled, hypergamous bitches. I can guarantee that her personality was on full display when you wifed her up, and there were red flags you ignored.
I do see that, I just don’t think carousel riders do it very often. It holds no allure for them whatsoever. Why should they settle when they can keep having STRs with the guys they like and probably out-provide the male anyway?
Just to reiterate what I said earlier, ****EMPHASIS***studies that ask “who would you do” or “what would you do” are not valuable.***EMPHASIS*** Studies that ask, “which man is more attractive” or “how many people did you hook up with this semester” are potentially very valuable.
Susan,
OK….now….so unless I have completely lost my ability to understand the English language, this is *YOU* stating that you believe surveys that try to assess what someone self-reports as hypothetical behavior are not valuable.
Now, when I first brought up Badger’s post on surveys, you were dismissive and continued to be dismissive.
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/dont-pay-attention-to-psych-surveys-that-amount-to-self-fortune-telling/
*** I have completely stopped paying attention to these studies that query people with hypotheticals.*** Their theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, their methods are sloppy and their conclusions are highly questionable.
So, in actuality, you and he in agreement as a substantive matter that surveys on hypothetical behavior are not valuable unless you really didn’t mean what you said above.
Now you can characterize this as “Gotcha” if you want, but that isn’t the point. The point is you are being inconsistent. Many/most people won’t pick up these inconsistencies. Politicians rely on that fact that most people cannot discern these, but intelligent and observant people pick them up. In my mind, credibility demands consistency.
I disagree. Hypergamy is about trading up to a higher status male. If a woman leaves a relationship without a higher status male in the wings, it wasn’t hypergamy unless she says it is her intent to go find a man with more status. Falling out of love with one’s husband and bailing from the marriage may not be admirable, but it isn’t hypergamy. Infidelity isn’t even hypergamy – unless she cheats with a higher status male, and was motivated by that differential to cheaet. This is precisely the problem with the ‘sphere. These terms get abused to the point where they mean everything and nothing at the same time.
Hypergamy: A woman’s desire to marry up.
It seems you didn’t understand it. You’re comparing apples and oranges. As noted, men generally want to avoid challenges, drama and excitement in their relationships (“drama” as including head games, shit tests, acting out, hissy fits). That has nothing to do with pursuing women, which is also often misunderstood, I should add. The idea that men particularly enjoy pursuing women is flawed. Look no further for evidence than films, books and other cultural products traditionally directed at men. They typically involve the male protagonist who takes great risk in some heroic struggle, achieves success and some hot woman just falls into his lap as a result; she doesn’t have to be gamed, courted or cleverly wooed. James Bond movies are obvious examples. The reason is the common male fantasy, which is securing the attraction of a woman (or women) through worldly successes and achievements, by heroically beating the male competition. Female choice only plays a limited role – after all, a woman cannot choose a man who is dead or has opted out of the competition.
Susan, I’ve now said this more than once and you always ignore it.
How could hypergamy–allegedly a natural, biololigcal, evolved desire–amount to a woman’s desire to MARRY up, when marriage is a purely human instititution that is probably around 6,000 years old, and certainly not more than 10,000.
If one defines hypergamy as the female’s desire to MATE up, whether for the short, medium or long term, it suddenly makes much more sense. And we can still allow for all kinds of differences in what women prefer depending on whether they are seeking a man for the short, medium, or long term.
@Ms. Walsh #744:
“Nah, I don’t think so. I think the manosophere is a curiosity, almost a cult. It’s an interesting collection of personalities and conversations, a form of entertainment.”
O: Hmm. Why then don’t I get such an impression from say, Ms. Anacaona…or Ms. Hope…or Ms. J…or Ms. Courtley? None of these ladies seem to have an “entertainment mentality” when discussing various aspects of the Manosphere; indeed, Ms. J has recently gone on record in saying that Roissy is “hurt” and a “lost boy”; Ms. Courtley has expressed what she considers to be deep concern for some of the sphere’s commenters, and so on. At the very least this suggests more than an idle, passing interest on the part of the ladies here – especially when put together with the fact that the same group of ladies can’t seem to get through ONE discussion here, WITHOUT mentioning, or referencing, the Manosphere in some shape or form.
Curious, indeed…
“I think that my readers welcome the red pill, as it is our best hope that the number of men women find attractive will increase, and that dominance, which has eroded so dramatically from the male population since the Women’s Movement will make a comeback.”
O: No, I don’t think as many of your readers welcome the Red Pill as much as you think they do, largely because they either don’t understand what the reference means, or, they have bought into your reframing of it. Here’s the original Wiki definition of the term:
“The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are pop culture symbols representing the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
In SMP terms, the Red Pill is the reality that, for example, Women truly DO want it both ways: they want the Jane Austen treatment, when it suits them, and they want the Egalitarian thing, again, when it suits them. The illusion, for example, is the notion of “equality”, which in truth, isn’t the case at all. A Man who chooses the Red Pill, is one who eschews ALL contrivances and conventions – “pretty lies” as Roissy calls them – along these lines. It informs why, for example, I have chosen not to marry, but can still get my sexual and emotional needs met despite this. Remember what Morpheus said to Neo: The Matrix is built upon “rules” which, if one knows what they are, can be bent; even broken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12u1nA7bXzc
To continue: Red Pills – guys like me – don’t force anybody to do anything; indeed, we simply present a choice, much like Morpheus to Neo:
“Morpheus alludes to the fact that the reality that Neo is accustomed to is a lie and that Morpheus can show him the truth. He is asked to make a choice between two pills, red and blue. The blue pill will cause him to “wake up in [his] bed and believe whatever [he] want[s] to believe.” He is told that if he takes the red pill, however, he will “stay in Wonderland” and Morpheus will “show [him] how deep the rabbit hole goes,” an allusion to Alice in Wonderland.”
This is why – and here I respond to a recent question posed to me by Ms. Alias in a previous discussion – I am neutral on the question of marriage, indeed, of Game itself; it is not my place to tell any Man *what* to do with Game, or *who* he should do it with; I merely present him with the tools. He must decide form himself which way he will go, for if I am “for” anything, IT IS MALE FREEDOM AND CHOICE, WHATEVER THAT MEANS. Even if that means that others can and most likely will pay the price – for example, fewer Women marrying.
But my position is consistent; after all, for more than three decades running, Women have fought tooth and nail for the very same “freedom” and “choice”, but also for the right to do so *without judgment of any kind*, and, for the right to do these things, *regardless as to who must pay for it*. Millions of Men have been denied mates, indeed, have been denied the role of dads, *because* Women decided to make other choices – and despite occasional saber rattling by Conservative Paper Tigers, Men have gone along with it, overall. Now, it’s the ladies turn, and I’ll be the first to say upfront, that quite a few of them will not me wives or even Baby Mamas, *because* Men will have made affirmative, deliberate choices that do not include such Women in their life plans. If indeed these Women value “freedom” and “choice” as much as their lip service suggests, if they honor this, they will simply accept – quietly – that which Men have accepted. The very fact that they do not, again speaks to their rank hypocrisy…and explains at least in part, why the Manosphere, exists.
“As you know, I endorse Game, and as far as I know, that’s true of all of my female readers as well.”
O: You “endorse” Game to the extent that it serves your own freely admitted narrow interests, which is ultimately, marriage among the White UMC. I, on the other hand, endorse Game as a larger nod toward endorsing Male Freedom & Choice, whatever that may be: so, if a Man sees no value in Game, I honor that; that’s his choice. If a Man values Game and wishes to use it to strengthen his marriage or LTR, I honor that; if a Man values Game to the extent that it helps him meet his sexual variety goals, then I honor that, with the proviso that he does so honorably, which is fully in keeping with the Player’s Code. In short, the reasons *why* we “endorse Game”, are in fact, quite different.
O.
If you/we are just hung up on the word than we can stop using it. However, the key point is that the same impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up also causes her to want other things which are not so good.
So, to take the infidelity point, you say that infielity is not caused by hypergamy (or, let us say, “Impulse X”) UNLESS the woman ditches her husband for a higher status male.
Really? So imagine a conventionally high status male, UMC, well dressed, successful, intelligent, makes a good living, etc. But he goes totally beta in the marriage and the wife steps out with a contractor or tennis pro. By every conventional measure of status, the paramour is lower than her husband. So, “Impulse X” had nothing to do with her actions?
Yes, we choose the man who signals “top male.” Isn’t that the whole idea of alpha? He earned his spot from other men, and women found that attractive?
Female sexual attraction is the bonus of a man’s being alpha among men. Not the other way around. The same men who rail against female nature and the state of American women today, etc. now want to appoint them to be in charge of what a good man is? That’s fine – you can define it however you want. If I were a man with the right stuff, I would not respect or acknowledge those men.
I’m not going down this slippery slope again. Define alpha however you’d like.
Susan – “I don’t mean to be glib, but men shouldn’t marry selfish, entitled, hypergamous bitches. I can guarantee that her personality was on full display when you wifed her up, and there were red flags you ignored.”
Yes and no. The truth is, I was never taught to recognize those “red flags” and therefore wasn’t even watching for them. In hindsight you are 100% correct, and I’ve stated that to this day my ex is STILL unhappy with her life despite leaving our marriage to “find herself and become independent”. So yes, the problems in our marriage were partly baggage she had been carrying around. But, I would say that many, many women have similar baggage lately, AND most men have NO FREAKING CLUE how to spot these problems in a potential wife.
Conclusion: beta traits are not necessary for attraction. Are necessary for relationships.
Does Helen Fischer actually say that there are two kinds of love–dopamin-based sexual attraction and oxytocin/vasopression based attachment. People are lucky when they can feel both for the same person. I think that’s what women are looking for when they say they want a combination of alpha and beta traits. In order to participate in a modern marriage, they need a guy they can feel an initial sexual attraction to, but they also need that guy to stick around to raise a family with and to be an agreeable mate.
In some senses, we have unrealistic expectations of marriage. We expect sexual attraction to last a lifetime, even though it doesn’t for most people. We expect sexual attraction to mellow into attachment, even though it doesn’t for most people. We shouldn’t be surprised at a 50% divorce rate. It’s what most tribal people experience and presumably what our ancestors experienced.
Back to the original subject….of “hot and mean” versus “not hot and nice”…here is an excerpt from a woman demonstrating how some women feel about “nice guys” and why they are not hot
“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me. They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.
And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.
Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”
Nothing new or surprising to me here, but for the blue pill nice guy reading something like this has to probably get close to causing a stroke. Because for him being the “nice guy” is real and authentic. To act “like a jerk” would be putting up a front. So one reason the “nice guy” isn’t hot for many women is they are suspicious of him, assuming the “niceness” is an act to try and get them to have sex.
Susan – “Hypergamy: A woman’s desire to marry up.”
Then I’m with Escoffier, it needs its own name. Because we keep coming back to this over and over, which tells me it IS very important to the discussion. However we keep going round and round because we aren’t calling it the same thing.
Impulse X – the tendency for women to get bored/restless/tired of a LTR/marriage and either cheat, “trade up” (that is leave for a better man), or simply EPL the marriage. It exists Susan, I’ve seen it, Escoffier has seen it, many other men here have seen it. So whether it is hypergamy or not, it IS indeed a common occurrence. And I still maintain that the two are related all the same.
Susan, the problem is, there are too many examples of women choosing men whom the majority of men despise or hold in contempt, and of women ignoring men whom other men thing are terrific. Our seal of approval may help, but in the end it does not appear to be decisive for female attraction.
SW 770:
“Women want the best possible mate for conceiving, birthing and raising young.”
Doesn’t this support the view that women want men for, and see men, simply as utilities, who exist solely for the purpose of assisting women in the task of making and raising kids? Are you conceding that those who have said this very thing have been correct all along? Or is there something else going on?
What of men as human beings, as people in their own right, with wants, needs, desires and goals of their own?
Excoffier – “Our seal of approval may help, but in the end it does not appear to be decisive for female attraction.”
There is a very simple answer to this. By and large, I think most men still tend to “rank” each other based on older style traits. We respect men based on things like their ability to make sense, their ability to remain calm under stress, their knowledge, and a host of other traits largely pulled from a historical ideal of “alpha” in terms of manliness.
The problem is, almost all of that stuff falls on the beta side of the fence. So, regardless of how “good” we men may feel a particular man is, women by and large may completely ignore him if he doesn’t push those primal attraction buttons. In years past, we avoided this problem largely by:
1. teaching women to appreciate “beta” style traits in order to choose a good husband.
2. arranged marriage. or, at least a VERY involved family in the process.
Basically, we overrode women’s natural inclination for the “bad boy” with societal expectations and family stewardship.
We’re still around, but the districts prefer to hire young women right out of ed school
New grads are cheap hires. My school district seems to keep the sex ratio pretty balanced, but it loves young, cheap teachers. We got a Princeton grad last year for pennies. When it hires veteran teachers, they seem to either come from private schools where the pay is even worse, be the creme de la creme and get decent compensation, or come from schools in rough neighborhoods and be willing to take a pay cut in order to teach in the suburbs. For all the bitching people do about teacher salaries, the pay actually sucks as do the hours.
Both my sons do some tutoring, and both are constantly told that they’d make great teachers. Neither wants to work for peanuts, so they literally laugh at the compliment. And that’s a shame for all of us–because I’m sure that the best young people don’t want to teach for a living any more.
Susan, the problem is, there are too many examples of women choosing men whom the majority of men despise or hold in contempt, and of women ignoring men whom other men thing are terrific. Our seal of approval may help, but in the end it does not appear to be decisive for female attraction.
Yup.
Interestingly, in distant times, perhaps this fact was well understood at least on an intuitive level as fathers played a very heavy vetting role in allowing any man to court or marry his daughter. Escoffier, you know literature probably 1000x better than me. Isn’t this theme quite common of women selecting “bad men” from the male POV. I’ll admit that of all the notions I find the most at odds with reality, it is this one that women simply respond to whoever the “victor” is in the male hierarchy of the competition amongst men. Clearly, there are men who can “short circuit” and bypass establishing rank and respect amongst men and go straight to triggering other attraction variables specific to women.
@ Ted D
Can’t that “impulse” be easily summed up as dissatisfaction? That seems to be the easiest way to describe it, in my opinion. If a woman leaves a relationship, or strays within one, it would appear that she is dissatisfied with the relationship on some level. This dissatisfaction could span a range of things, including the following:
*Hypothetical woman says: I’m dissatisfied with my relationship, and want to leave because:*
- I’m not attracted to him anymore
-The sex has become boring
-I’m tired of the constant arguments
-I’m tired of being abused
-I miss my freedom
-I like someone else
-I don’t think he appreciates me
-He cheated on me
The list is endless. There are too many reasons that a woman could leave a relationship, but the root seems to be dissatisfaction. Categorizing the exit of a relationship as a female “impulse” seems mighty far fetched. Last time I checked, men dump women too.
On another note, it’s important to keep in mind that all relationships are voluntary. Remaining in a relationship isn’t mandatory, and people do leave sometimes. That’s the risk people take in engaging in relationships in the first place.
J – “In some senses, we have unrealistic expectations of marriage. We expect sexual attraction to last a lifetime, even though it doesn’t for most people. We expect sexual attraction to mellow into attachment, even though it doesn’t for most people. ”
Cosigned. But here is the rub: in our modern Western world, it is VERY easy to get a divorce. In the past, when people married and found themselves unhappy, for better or worse they stuck it out. Now, many people bail at the slightest hint of trouble, and anyone that has been married for more than a couple years knows that “trouble” comes with the job. We’ve simply stopped raising men and women that know how to work through those tough times, and the result is people divorcing much more.
In addition, I think it is a relatively new thing that we expect sexual attraction AND long term attachment from our marriages. It used to be assumed that marriage was for life, so no one even questioned the “long term” part if the equation. And, by and large, most marriages WERE NOT based in any way on “sexual attraction”, so it was never expected in the first place. However, once women were freed to “empower” themselves by having casual sex, they got a taste for that raw sexual attraction, and like a drug addict they can’t get enough. Men of course have the same urges, but by and large society has been doing its best to repress those urges, and has been mostly successful. Sure, there have always been cheating husbands. But, for the most part, the numbers were not extreme and even among cheaters there was at least attempts to keep such things away from public life. (meaning in some cases cheating was known but swept under the carpet and kept quiet. Not that it makes it right, but at least that acknowledges that everyone involved knew it was morally wrong.)
So, while men have been dealing with their desire for “sexual attraction” for some time now by repressing it, women seem to feel like they have no need to do the same.
Sassy – “Can’t that “impulse” be easily summed up as dissatisfaction? ”
Sure, but I must ask this then: why is it largely a female issue? I mean, most men don’t file for divorce, and in most of these divorces the men involved seemed to be completely content up until they were served with papers.
So, why is it so hard to please women? Why does it take sometimes monumental effort on a man’s part to keep that dissatisfaction from destroying his relationship?
Alpha traits are attractive.
Beta traits are desirable.
There is a difference.
The alpha attracts and draws the woman to the man. The alpha makes the woman notice him and makes her want to have sex with him. She wants him to display the alpha because it turns her on. This serves the female prime directive: Get pregnant and have strong, healthy babies.
The beta brings comfort to her, makes her feel she will be provided for, and makes her want to stay with him. She wants him to display these traits so she will feel safe and know she has the things she needs for her babies. This serves the female secondary and tertiary directives. Female secondary directive: Secure provisioning for her babies and herself, in that order. If she has no babies she reverts to the female tertiary directive: secure provisioning for herself by any means necessary.
@Chris
Do you happen to have links/references to the particular studies which state the opposite so that I may have a look at them.
Re the nightclub study, I believe that used single women in the sample, and found that ovulating single women were more likely to dress to attract male attention.
I’m just very curious to see the scientific proof supporting the notion that men don’t have to be constantly on the lookout for hypergamy/cuckoldry, as from a purely evolutionary and game theoretic standpoint
You’re asking me to prove a negative. The fact is that the Game definition was made up by someone without expertise in any field related to mating or female sexuality. AFAIK, it has never been tested. Female hypergamy is regarded throughout the scientific community as relating to marrying up – that is, a woman prefers to marry a man of higher status than her own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
Sassy, while the reasons a woman leaves/cheats may be endless, I think we can sort them all into two basic categories: 1) He did something really wrong; 2) He just became too dull.
Clearly, Impulse X has little or nothing to do with Category 1. If he’s cheating/beating/drugging, etc., any sane woman will want out (and lots of less-than-sane ones will tolerate it if they are otherwise attracted enough). But Impulse X would seem to have a great deal to do with Category 2.
Mike C, yes, that’s a fairly common meme. In Austen, for example, there are several examples of what happens when fathers are either absent or bad. Actually, now that I think about it, there are hardly any good fathers in all of Austen. Mr. Moreland in NA might be the best.
Mr. Bennett of P&P had once been a good father. But he married a ninny who got progressively sillier as she got old, and once her beauty was gone, he basically retreated into his study and never came out. The two girls whom he had a strong hand in raising, Elizabeth and Jane, turned out very well. The other three all had problems, with Lydia being the worst.
The elder daughter in Persuasion is horrible, a mirror image of her idiot father. Mansfield Park goes completely to hell when the father goes to the West Indies. The father in S&S is dead and while the girls are not bad, Marianne could certainly use his guidance. Emma is not a bad person either but she is selfish, conceited and spoiled in part because her father is so weak. The governess Miss Taylor (later Mrs. Weston) and George Knightly are around to knock sense into her, which prevents her from going completely off the rails.
Ted@1129: Preach!
@Ms. J #776:
“Maybe so, Obs, but when I heard the same guys crying the same blues for years and years on end, I have to wonder how healthy, happy-making or productive that is. And lest you think I’m jst being bitchy because it’s men crying, I’ll tell you that when I have female friends IRL doing the same, I get tough and tell them to move on as well. How many years can a person do that? It’s a waste of time and life.”
O: Perhaps it is – and to be sure, I too have registered my disdain for the exact same things you’re discussing here wrt the Manosphere; additionally, you are to be commended for both being consistent and, for telling the ladies to “stop whining”.
But none of that changes the point I am making: that, one, the Manosphere is indeed doing a valuable service by allowing Men to speak in their own voices and to tell their own stories. Why? Because it’s starting a much needed conversation, to the extent that Women like you, in forums like these, can’t resist discussing them. That’s huge, in an age where Women truly have cornered the market on not only what’s discussed along gender-relations lines, but *how* it’s to be discussed, too. Again: see Bill Maher and “making Women nod”.
“I’d challenge you to find any evidence of my holding such opinions or even discussing those issues except in answer to the questions of others. These are not a part of my agenda.”
O: Nor have I ever made any such case. I won’t find any such “evidence”, not because it doesn’t exist – and I take you at your word, it doesn’t – but because *I never made any such argument against YOU*.
What I was talking about was the social ecosphere in which we live; the “Oprah Nod” thing is very real, and again, for the umpteenth time, I point to Bill Maher’s sage insights on this fact as Exhibit A in this regard. That YOU, as an individual Woman don’t do this, is again to be commended; but in the overall scheme of things, it’s meaningless against that which I am talking about.
O.
Well, that didn’t work.
Escoffier,
“Susan, the problem is, there are too many examples of women choosing men whom the majority of men despise or hold in contempt, and of women ignoring men whom other men thing are terrific. Our seal of approval may help, but in the end it does not appear to be decisive for female attraction.”
And Susan’s point that that is not ultimately our call to make, and mine is that it never has been. Things are currently pretty fucked up, and what is needed is men with the balls to do something about it. What is not needed is more good soldiers for the feminist army. If we’re choosing to esteem such men, the problem lies in our own choices, not that of women.
There is a very simple answer to this. By and large, I think most men still tend to “rank” each other based on older style traits. We respect men based on things like their ability to make sense, their ability to remain calm under stress, their knowledge, and a host of other traits largely pulled from a historical ideal of “alpha” in terms of manliness.
I’ve been DVRing the reality show Stars Earn Stripes, and finally last night got around to watching the first episode. The show is made up of elite special forces men like Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc. (Bastiat’s “badasses”) and a group of celebrities. They are paired up together to complete missions. It’s funny. Ever since I first learned about this stuff, I watch everything through the analytical lens of examining frames and underlying social dynamics. There are two pairings yesterday that I found interesting to interact.
One pairing was Dean Cain (the handsome man who played Superman on the TV show) with the greatest sniper in U.S. history. This guy had something like 120 documented kills I think and wrote a book that Dean Cain pointed out he read. It is an interesting dynamic to observe. You have a celebrity with status, but Dean clearly looks up to that man. From a man’s point of view, the sniper is the superior man in the male hierarchy. Now throw the two of them in tuxes at a cocktail party to work the crowd, and I have ZERO doubt Dean Cain is going to be able to sexually attract more women. And the sniper guy wasn’t an ugly guy either. I bet he would clean up really well (he had major facial scruff going on). Watching it, I literally thought Dean Cain wanted to kiss or blow this man as much as he was sucking up to him. But that is how it works for a guy. The status comes from real, tremendous achievement, not demeanor or behavioral patterns in speech and body language.
The other pairing was Eve Torres (hot WWE wrestler) with some special forces guy. It was very interesting. I could definitely pick up an element of almost bashfulness around her. Now you would have to be nuts to say this isn’t a “confident” man. He has faced hypercritical life or death situations. Yet throw a hot woman in front of him, and some butterflies start to emerge. There is a very real difference between what I would call real confidence to deal with situations, and the sort of “confidence” on display when interacting very smoothly with a beautiful woman. I think most if not all women can’t distinguish between those two types of confidence.
Incidentally, Todd Palin was very impressive. I can easily see why Sarah Palin would look up to him from a hypergamic point of view despite the fact she is higher status in conventional metrics (ex-Governor). He is one of the least physically imposing guys, but he got the job done under pressure.
Escoffier,
“Ted@1129: Preach!”
No! Preachers who haven’t earned the trust of their congregation do more harm than good.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
remember, the Palins got together long before she was Governor or even in politics at all. They were both about 20, I think, maybe younger, so conventional status probably played very little role in her attraction for him.
@ Ted D
This is going to be a very speculative idea, on my part, but here goes.
I think that men and women approach relationships very differently in one major area, loyalty.
Men seem to have nearly unwavering loyalty, when it comes to their relationships. They stay with women who treat them poorly out of loyalty. They remain friends with men who are despicable, for all intents and purposes, out of loyalty. I’ve heard many accounts of men who remain friends with men who have done very unsavory things. The loyalty never falters.
In a way, I think this can be attributed to 2 things.
-The beneficial properties that men gain from having relationships, in general.
-The relative difficulty, in comparison to women, that men have in establishing relationships.
There have been numerous studies that have shown that men in relationships fare much better than men who are not in relationships. Men in relationships live longer and report being happier. Men also experience much greater pain and negative effects when their relationships end, in comparison to women. This may be attributed to the smaller support system that many men have in place.
Women typically have a ton of friends/acquaintances to turn to during moments of crisis. Men may have friends/acquaintances, but those relationships typically don’t allow them to be as emotionally expressive as female relationships. The most men get is “Brush it off brah!” or “You’ll be alright”. It’s no surprise to me that men take the ending of relationships very hard.
It would appear to me that men are instinctively reticent to discard any relationship, romantic or otherwise.
Women, on the other hand, may be less loyal because their relationship bases tend to be very large. If they lose one girlfriend, they have several others to make up for it. If they are dissatisfied with one man, they may be more inclined to leave that relationship because their chances of attracting another man are fairly high. For men, attracting women is not a relatively sure thing.
Men may be more inclined to cling to one relationship because their chances of attracting and dating another woman are limited. This seems to coincide with what I have heard men discuss on here. Men have reported going several years in between relationships, sex, or any kind of intimate contact. This may be attributed to the relative difficulty men have in forming connections of any kind, in comparison to women. Evolutionarily, that makes sense to me. Women are the choosier sex. We are the initial gatekeepers, and many men simply do not make the cut.
Loyalty may have also been more fundamentally important to the survival of men instead of women. Men had to trust each other to hunt, go to war, and run civilizations. Women weren’t exposed to as much danger, so perhaps their dedication to loyalty isn’t as heavily wired in them as it is for men.
That’s all I’ve got.
Speculation over.
J,
“There were over 1,000 applicants for a recent opening at the school”
“For all the bitching people do about teacher salaries, the pay actually sucks as do the hours.”
I’m truly sorry things didn’t work out like your generation hoped, but expectations at some point need to adjust to reality.
“Neither wants to work for peanuts, so they literally laugh at the compliment. And that’s a shame for all of us–because I’m sure that the best young people don’t want to teach for a living any more.”
Among that 1,000 applicants were some damn good ones. Most would be better than the Boomers locked in at four times the pay.
Why should they settle when they can keep having STRs with the guys they like and probably out-provide the male anyway?
Burnout. Most women, including the high-flyers, find the career lifestyle to be too much around the time they are 30 and start to look enviously at the upscale stay-at-home mothers driving nicer cars than they’ve got. The fact that a woman can outprovide a man doesn’t mean that she actually wants to continue with the office lifestyle forever. It’s a lot more glamorous in the movies, but it all gets old fast. That’s when the idea of settling down with a beta starts to look pretty good by comparison.
The first time I found myself on the Banhofstrasse in Zurich the day after a lunch meeting in Milan, I felt as if I was living in a movie. Life wasn’t just good, it was cool. Now, about the only way anyone can get me out of the house is for me to have a personal obligation to them.
@ Escoffier
Q.E.D.
I don’t see the big hangup over terminology. Call them alpha males or whatever you like, and call it hypergamy or whatever you like, but the simple truth is that women are biologically attracted to short term mates. Sure, there are plenty of conscious and cultural factors that can very easily override this preference. But in an era of feminism and EPL, the cultural factors that propped up monogamy are being taken away and we’re returning to biological sexual desire, at least for women.
D, I think you mixed up Susan’s v. my argument. She is the one saying that the preferences of men determine who are the top men, and therefore who the women will be attracted to. I’m casting doubt on that assertion. Our good opinion of other men may influence what women think but it is not decisive. The cry of “What does she see in THAT loser??” is hardly uncommon, after all.
Escoffier.
Apologies, the point you make does still hold. Esteem among men is definitely not the turn-on it was for Susan’s generation. I’m saying that might be a good thing, and in any case, with the exception of a few trusted men in women’s lives, it is not our call to make, and for some good reasons.
I would argue that until about 10,000-15,000 years ago, there were few cultural restrictions on mating. However, at this point, restrictions were placed on female mating, to allow beta males to provide for a woman and her children in exchange for her sexual fidelity. This was the age of polygyny. In it, beta males would have sex with one or more women to whom they were married, and also have some sex on the side with prostitutes, town tramps, etc. (which satisfied their desire for variety). The womens’ desire for alpha mates was kept in check by penalties against infidelity, but occasionally they would be able to break out and have an affair with an alpha. While this double standard can be criticized, it should be noted that it arose out of the fact that it was far easier to figure out who the mother of a child was than who the father of a child was. You can’t “cuckold” a woman.
In the past few centuries, we have attempted to create true monogamy by creating restrictions on male mating. This was still a WIP (i.e. there was still somewhat of a double standard). At first, feminists wanted to strengthen these restrictions to create true equality between the sexes, and strengthen relationship stability by promoting healthy behavior. Was this a dream? Perhaps. But I think it was something worth pursuing.
Unfortunately, before long, a more narcissist streak of feminism came along, and decided that they would instead remove the cultural restrictions on women’s mating practices. This was embraced here because Western society is much more individualist than other societies. The result has been a weakening of monogamy and loving relationships. Even worse, it has been a near disaster for child-rearing, as marriage is delayed further and further, and no-fault divorces have become ubiquitous.
I’m inclined to disagree with Vox re attraction to beta traits, but this obviously depends on what you define as beta. However, there is reason to believe most women find at least some beta traits sexually attractive.
Pair-bonding was a dramatic adaptation in female attraction cues. This was not a case of “I like ‘em mean, but boring old George is a good dad bet so I’ll have sex with him.” Women began to select smaller and less symmetrical men for sex after the evolution of pair bonding. Those beta males reproduced more than the larger, symmetrical men (thought to be the equivalent of today’s Dark Triad). Certainly, some women did choose Dark Triad males, or they couldn’t have reproduced, but increasingly women chose to have sex with men who exhibited collaborative, co-parenting traits. They also prioritize intelligence, industriousness, and the ability to demonstrate love and affection. These are indeed qualities that may make women view a man as a “catch.”
This is not to say that abundant beta traits get a woman’s panties wet if no alpha traits are present. We know too well that the supplicating hard-working engineer is not going to turn women on. But there are several clear indications that women reject the most masculine men. For example, women prefer feminized faces over very masculine faces.
They are also very good at singling out photographs of men who cheat and men with a short-term mating orientation, even after viewing them for only a fraction of a second. They regularly rate these men as unattractive compared to photos of men with a long-term mating orientation.
And every woman can tell you about crushes she’s had that came from witnessing a man being good with children. I have felt that tug myself, even stronger than a tingle. Watching a man nurture kids is very attractive to females. Does that mean that women will cream in their jeans watching pediatricians? No, but it does mean they are more likely to say, “I want to get to know him. He seems very attractive.”
Measuring bloodflow to the vagina at first meeting is not the right question we should be asking, IMO, if what the woman feels at first meeting is a desire to take a man’s measure for an LTR. (Of course, if the goal is getting beautiful women into bed within 7 hours of meeting, it is absolutely the right question, because then you’re discussing women with a STR orientation.)
“the idea of settling down with a beta starts to look pretty good”
par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
@ Mike C
What really annoys me is when women accuse nice guys of being nice to get sex. Yes, we do want sex. But that’s only because we want a relationship, and sex is part of a relationship. We wouldn’t want the sex without the relationship.
@ Escoffier
Maybe the men they are with really are boring or dull. If that is the case, it’s the woman’s fault for getting involved with him in the first place. She could have saved them both the trouble by being aware enough of what her wants are and going after them.
Sometimes I get flack for liking, dating, and preferring “alpha” males, but at least I’m honest with myself. I’m very adventurous, spontaneous, and a dopamine chaser. I like excitement, passion, and lots of sexual attraction. If I pursued a man who could not fulfill those desires, of course I would end up feeling bored and dissatisfied. I only want to be married once. I might as well shoot for someone who I can actually see myself with for a long time without a lot of boredom creeping in.
I think some women would cause less trouble if they they were truly honest with themselves about what they want in a man. Being introspective and acting accordingly would save a lot of heartache, in my opinion.
@ J
It enrages me to no end when people complain about teacher salaries and teachers’ unions. The teacher salaries are pitiful and the teachers’ unions so much about the quality of education that students are receiving that they don’t demand they wages they deserve.
It’s administrative people that are the big drain on the education budget, not teachers.
@Mike C
Are you implying that I am deliberately talking out of both sides of my mouth, hoping that readers here are not intelligent enough to pick up on that?
I request a firm answer to this question, as it seems to be the latest in a series of questions aimed at doubting my character and intellectual honesty.
In any case, you have mischaracterized my statement. There was no inconsistency, which you would have seen if you’d read Badger’s post before you went for the gotcha. Badger also rules out the following:
Rational reasons why they made certain decisions which are most likely made emotionally and subconsciously and then rationalized after the fact.
I think it’s extremely valuable to ask people why they made certain choices. For example, the chart highlighting the motivations for hooking up is very enlightening for both sexes:
Under Badger’s guidelines, that would be bogus. In taking this position, Badger rules out any psychological study. He would say, no doubt, that women may rate cheater’s faces as unattractive, but those are the guys they want to f*ck. So we go round and round.
The truth is that if any studies at all confirmed Badger’s views he’d be singing a different tune. In the same way that feminists are being embarrassed by studies showing very clear sex differences, beta males adopting asshole game are rejecting studies that show that women don’t like assholes, or that only certain kinds of women like assholes. This was apparent in the the whingeing and whining of beta males when the Definitive Survey was posted. If only 3% of guys in college get more than 6 lays, what the hell is all this about? It’s extremely threatening to their world view.
In fact, this country has a rich tradition of polling people to find out what they think, and to modify policy or predict winners based on those surveys. Research about people’s attitudes is some of the most important and interesting research that’s conducted.
@ Susan
You’re correct. Women tend to have emotional attraction to beta males, and sexual attraction to alpha males. The emotional attraction is often more powerful than the sexual attraction, and results in women preferring beta males.
There’s only one problem with this. Feminists have rather successfully decided that emotional attraction and sexual attraction should be decoupled, and each should be pursued independently. Just look at how much flak guys in the friend-zone get for thinking they’re “entitled to sex”.
You’ve got girls seeking emotional relationships by becoming best friends with betas while seeking sexual relationships by becoming girlfriends (or FWBs) of alphas.
Sassy, it’s not that simple, is it? We’ve all heard tales of men who are alpha enough at the beginnig but settle in and “go beta” after the marriage and slowly turn their wives off. That would be Category 2, IMO. The man would have some responsibility for the deteriorating quality of the marriage, but he would not have done anything that justifies divorce or cheating.
@Escoffier
Mate up is fine with me. Here are several examples of hypergamy:
Female 6 has ONS with male 8.
Female 6 marries male 6 with status.
Female 6 marries slacker 5 as she approaches 30, then divorces him 10 years later.
Female 6 dates male 6 for a year, then dumps him when male 7 declares he is crazy about her.
Here are examples that are not hypergamy:
Female 6 has ONS with male 6, then becomes unwilling to have ONS with a male lower than 7. After having a ONS with a male 7, refuses to hook up with any male below 8, etc.
Female 6 marries male 6, but continuously mentally auditions higher status males as a potential replacement.
Female 6 marries male 7, but continuously mentally auditions higher status males as a potential replacement.
Female 6 marries male 8, but continuously mentally auditions higher status males as a potential replacement.
Female 6 marries male 9, but continuously mentally auditions higher status males as a potential replacement.
Female 6 wonders where the man she married went. He has been replaced by a spineless, boring joe who isolates himself after dinner each night in front of the TV. When she speaks to him, he offers monosyllabic responses. She divorces him.
Female 6 rejects Nice Guy 6.
It’s MATING UP, not TRADING UP.
@ Susan
Fair enough. From now on, let’s call trading up “impulse X”, as Ted suggested.
I just caught Susan’s comment at 1096, I’ve got to say when I’m out it really seems like that happens a lot, I’m not saying pre-selection or anything, but maybe the competitive element, men are competetive after all.
Also I agree that dad traits are very attractive, I saw my male friend with his nephew once, really really sexy. I think it is quite alpha male in a way mind you, because he was so naturally good with him and the little boy obviously just ate it up and loved him so maybe again there’s a bit more to it. This was even going back to when I was like sixteen as well, and I wouldn’t say I’m particularly maternal, I’ve only just now started noticing cute babies, doubt they even registered then, so I would say it definately is just generally hot.
@ Escoffier
Whether or not that justifies divorce or cheating depends on who you ask. I’m not trying to be mean, but I am trying to look at this objectively.
If a man attracts a woman with “alpha” qualities, why would he even think of switching things up later? If the woman is attracted to the way a man presents himself initially, why on earth would he change that? If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.
It’s like a “bait and switch”, in a sense. A man dropping the alpha and becoming a beta throughout the relationship does the same thing to a woman’s attraction as an in-shape woman does to a man’s attraction when she puts on a lot of weight, or significantly changes her appearance. He originally fell for what she presented herself as. If she suddenly changes her appearance, in that way, many men would be upset too.
Whether people like it or not, love is conditional. Either partner doing things, in a relationship, to sabotage their attractiveness to the other person is asking for trouble. We may not like it, and it may not be “fair”, but it is the way it is.
@Escoffier
It sounds like you think it’s “not so good” that women want to marry up. If so, why? I think it’s very good.
No, that has nothing to do with hypergamy. As you say, those men are lower status than what she’s already got. That’s just straight cheating, which women do for reasons unrelated to trading up. Her husband is boring, he never initiates sex, or when he does it’s rote. She looks at her future life of decades spent with this man and she feels depressed. She feels unattractive and taken for granted. Suddenly the tennis pro, personal trainer, or pool man makes it clear that he finds her attractive. She feels sexual again, possibly for the first time in years. These men are perfect for an affair, because she knows she will never be tempted to actually leave her marriage for them, owing to their low status. This is a dalliance, a little something to make the long weeks, months and years bearable.
This is how the female in this situation (Not all women, Mike C!) is likely to explain her behavior.
This is not hypergamy. In fact, it’s hypogamy for a fling.
@Ted D
That is a serious problem, as you have learned first-hand. But that is one thing you can’t blame on the hypergamous bitch.
It is mystifying to me why you say that none of the examples in your second category are caused or influenced by hypergamy.
BTW, Susan, you apparently think that I believe all women, all the time, are constantly seeking to trade up. I have denied thinking that before and I may as well do so again. I don’t believe that.
What I do believe is that women’s attraction triggers are pulled by status and dominance in the same way that a man’s are pulled by youth and beauty. If she’s going to make a trade, it’s going to be for someone of higher status and dominance than her current partner. Whereas if a man is going to make a trade, it’s going to be for someone younger and prettier.
I do not believe that once a woman lands a man who satisfies her hypergamous impulse, that impulse is shut off for good. I believe that, in being satisfied, it is tamped down but she can still be attracted, and possibly even tempted, if someone high enough comes along and shows interest. The same way that, while I am happy in my job, I could be tempted to leave for a much better offer. Not just a few bucks more but a lot more and a more prominent role, etc.
And even if she is not truly tempted, her attraction triggers can still be pulled. You made a distinction earlier between recognizing that another man is attractive and actually being attracted. I find that distinction puzzling. If I recognize that a woman is attractive, I will be attracted to her. That still falls short of actual temptation, which requires some entry into the thought process of “What do I need to do to get her?” That is, active contemplation of trying to woo her, even if you never actually do act on it. You are saying that for you, that thought never enters your head. It never enters mine either. But I am still attracted.
Jimmy Stewart was famously chided for ogling Grace Kelly the first time he saw her in the set of Read Window and his response was “I’m married, not dead!” That sums it up.
@Mike C
I believe that woman is talking about the Nice Guy TM, who is a bitter and angry guy who goes around bitching that nice guys like him don’t get laid. Lots of Nice Guys are not nice guys. That’s certainly true in the ‘sphere.
This page of comments is full of information people should read and or be taught before trying to jump into relationships. Less baptism by fire would clear up a lot of emotional wreckage.
I can honestly say if I had red pill knowledge from the outset, I would have a N of 3 less because I would have never bothered mostly because of red flags I didn’t know about combined with a sex scarcity mentality that I shouldn’t have had in the first place. Ugh!
Sassy – “Maybe the men they are with really are boring or dull. If that is the case, it’s the woman’s fault for getting involved with him in the first place. She could have saved them both the trouble by being aware enough of what her wants are and going after them.”
IMO this is one of the primary reasons for this issue. Women “settle” too often for men that they really are NOT attracted to, but they make “sense” on paper or something. After a decade or so of boredom, they eject.
Another that hasn’t’ been touched on yet is entitlement: Princess mentality. Many Western women simply feel like they deserve to “have it all”, and when they can’t “have it all” within their marriage, they assume the man isn’t worthy of them and they eject.
“Sometimes I get flack for liking, dating, and preferring “alpha” males, but at least I’m honest with myself. “
And I for one have always respected that about you Sassy. We may not agree on a lot of things (although I suspect we are closer that either of us thinks) but I always know where you stand. If I may say so, it is a rather male trait. Not a dig at all. It is meant as a compliment.
INTJ – “There’s only one problem with this. Feminists have rather successfully decided that emotional attraction and sexual attraction should be decoupled, and each should be pursued independently. “
Spot on!
Escoffier – “Sassy, it’s not that simple, is it? We’ve all heard tales of men who are alpha enough at the beginnig but settle in and “go beta” after the marriage and slowly turn their wives off. That would be Category 2, IMO. The man would have some responsibility for the deteriorating quality of the marriage, but he would not have done anything that justifies divorce or cheating.”
Yep, which is why I consider any divorce that is not initiated by some real abuse as an EPL. The ONLY reason to divorce is cheating/abuse. There is a wide variety of issues that fall into those two categories, but “unhappy” is NOT one of them.
Desiderius – “No! Preachers who haven’t earned the trust of their congregation do more harm than good.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself.”
Am I to imply that you don’t trust me from this statement? I won’t take it personally, but I can’t help but ask why?
Men and women commit adultery at the same rates.
Men might be more likely to stay in the marriage, but in the link to a study on reasons for divorce, women had specific reasons for divorcing, e.g. substance abuse, perpetual unemployment, etc. while men said they didn’t know why the divorce occurred. The researchers hypothesized that the men were pleading ignorance to deny bad behavior. Personally, I think that bad behavior in marriages is probably equally common between the sexes.
I do think that women are guilty of often having unrealistic expectations of what marriage can deliver.
None of this is hypergamy. Call it what you like, but don’t call it something that already exists and means something else. It just confuses the conversation, as you can see.
Sassy, fair enough, but better than defaulting to divorce would be to try to address the issue with the spouse and fix the problem. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I would draw it short of “Divorce is OK if you bore me.” Which is what he have now, at least legally. Basically Athol’s plan works for both sides. Man goes beta/women lets herself go, then work through that plan, giving it real time (years not months) and if it never gets better, then maybe it’s time to move on.
Anyway, my point in the earlier post was that both men and women can and do change within marriage, so it’s not enough merely to say “Choose better,” though choosing wisely is essential.
@ Sassy
“I think some women would cause less trouble if they they were truly honest with themselves about what they want in a man. Being introspective and acting accordingly would save a lot of heartache, in my opinion.”
+1
I think if we removed any slut shaming and negativity concerning sex (ala Europe) there would be much less discourse in the SMP. Let the sluts be loud and proud so they can find each other, polys with polys, whatever it is you’re seeking.
TedD,
“Am I to imply that you don’t trust me from this statement? I won’t take it personally, but I can’t help but ask why?”
You ain’t preaching to me, I’m already in your choir. You’re trying to evangelize, and that’s not a one-way street. I’m hearing mostly crickets from the other direction.
@Escoffier
I don’t think that’s true. The men who get the most sex in college are frat guys and athletes, who display a strong elevation among males right out of the gate. Frats are selective, athletics is very selective. We may question why these men are being rewarded, but they are.
In terms of ignoring men other men think are terrific, that isn’t really the standard. It’s the leader of men, the men who may in fact inspire fear rather than suggest grabbing a beer.
Sassy – “If a man attracts a woman with “alpha” qualities, why would he even think of switching things up later? If the woman is attracted to the way a man presents himself initially, why on earth would he change that? If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”
I can answer this because it is exactly what I did in my first marriage. I had NO IDEA it was my “alpha” traits that attracted her. I honestly thought she could see all my ‘good qualities’ and “fell in love” with them. Looking back what attracted her to me was clearly my gigging in bands as the lead singer, but I am being honest when I tell you I had NO IDEA that was it. Remember, I was told growing up that women wanted “nice guys” and that “bad boys” were the only ones pushing hard for sex. “nice guys” didn’t brag or boast about how good they were at anything, and instead always downplayed their successes. “bad boys” simply attracted attention from damaged girls, and if I just held out, I’d find a “good girl” that would love me for “who I am”.
I can go on, but I think you get the idea. I was lied to, repeatedly, by many important women in my life. I wasn’t the only man that grew up with these same lies. Lots of us did. And that is really what upsets me: I could have been a happy “bad boy” all my life instead of spending half of it pretending to be a “nice guy” and miserable about it.
@Ms. Walsh #1172:
“And I for one have always respected that about you Sassy. We may not agree on a lot of things (although I suspect we are closer that either of us thinks) but I always know where you stand. If I may say so, it is a rather male trait. Not a dig at all. It is meant as a compliment.”
O: 100% cosign. She Who Shall Not Be Named and I have certainly gone to loggerheads, but if it’s one thing she and anyone else should take away from my side of the fence, it’s that I do respect her stance here. She does indeed seem to be looking at life in a clear-eyed way, and is prepared to deal with the consequences of her decisions, however that may shake themselves out. Can’t get more fairer than that.
Respect.
O.
@deti
As Helen Fisher says, we are reproducing machines. We were built to reproduce, not have relationships, and the happiness we find, we make.
The equivalent is: “Men want the most fertile women possible for conceiving their children.” (Fertility cues include bright eyes, lustrous hair, .7 wait to hip ratio, clear skin, strong white teeth, fit musculature, etc., IOW standards of beauty.)
It’s not about the human spirit. It’s reproduction.
Ooops, I meant to address that to Ted #1172, NOT Ms. Walsh.
My bad.
O.
…or maybe the tribal chiefs decided to enforce monogamy because they realized it strengthens male cooperation.
Desiderius – “You ain’t preaching to me, I’m already in your choir. You’re trying to evangelize, and that’s not a one-way street. I’m hearing mostly crickets from the other direction.”
Gotcha. I have no intention of “preaching” to those crickets. I’m honestly hoping that the vast majority of people that DO NOT post here regularly read what I post and perhaps give it some thought. Again, I don’t care if they decide I’m completely full of shit, as long as they DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES based on something other than “how they feel” about it. Most of the regular women here don’t represent the women my message would actually help, but I hope that some of them see the message all the same. And, as this site seems to be attracting more male attention, I’m hoping some of those men will see it and look elsewhere. I love HUS, but I didn’t find my answer here. In fact, this site provided FAR more questions than answers for me, and I’m hoping that perhaps some of the men lurking in readership can learn from my journey.
And I’m completely cool evangelizing. I don’t want people to follow me, I want them to choose for themselves. All I’m trying to do is wake them into action.
@ Escoffier
I agree with this. Just so you know, in no way am I advocating that people should resort to divorce right off the bat. I think that if there are any problems in a relationship, they should be brought to the the forefront and talked about honestly. If the problem can be worked on, and even eventually resolved, then great. Perhaps some divorces do occur though because the problem was never able to be fixed, despite multiple attempts to do so.
@ Ted D
It sucks that you didn’t know that. At least you know now, and you can use that knowledge to have a better marriage with your new wife. You can also pass this wisdom down to your son(s). Pay it forward, in a sense.
Sassy, Samael:
“I think some women would cause less trouble if they they were truly honest with themselves about what they want in a man. Being introspective and acting accordingly would save a lot of heartache, in my opinion.”
This is true. And those women would be well served by accepting the following:
1. they might never find a man who has all the traits they want
2. they might have to compromise and accept a man who has MOST (but not all ) of the traits they want
3. if they land a man who has all the traits they want, he might be a player: a man with options who isn’t looking for anything long term
Women ought to take all this into account when going for their high status, high dominance, high excitement, high drama, dopamine fueled excursions.
How do we know that? Female adultery is notoriously difficult to uncover.
@ deti
I definitely agree. Those are the chances that a woman takes when she pursues what she wants. There are no guarantees in the dating world. In a sense, a person has to “get in where they fit in” or end up in the dust.
As for the topic at hand…
Look, here’s the deal as far as I’m concerned:
I have no problem whatsoever with what any Woman chooses in a Man, for whatever reason. In my view, she has every right to do that, regardless as to what I may or may not think about it.
The simple truth is that no Man can appeal to all or even most Women. Moreover, the simple truth is, that many Women most Men will like, won’t likely be attracted to said Men. It is not the fault of those Women that this is the case. Nor is there some law somewhere that says, that Men have to be afforded mates or sexual partners. History records the fact that lots of Men wentless mateless and layless. It is, what it is.
What a lot of guys – especially the Nice Guys(TM) that Ms. Walsh mentioned earlier, do not want to be honest about – is the simple fact that ther are plenty of Women available for them. But those Women don’t turn them on. And that’s perfectly OK. Nothing in the least wrong with not wanting what’s potentially on offer.
But you cannot burn everyone else’s ear off decrying the “unfairness” of the world, either. This is a real issue of concern for the Manosphere, and does indeed inform and explain a lot of what goes on over there.
Women can and will like what they like. Get over it. Accept the very real possibility that you just may not get to mate in this go around, and not entirely for the reasons you’d like everyone to believe; a goodly bit is because you do not want what you can get. That’s no one’s “fault” but your own, and it is what it is.
Game is available now, but even there, it has its limits. A 3 guy isn’t going to land a Dime piece, no matter how tight his Game is. Barring ridiculous amounts of wealth or fame or both, he has no chance. There, I’ve said it.
All I’ve been saying on this topic is the fact that, the idea that Women make a big deal about “character and integrity” as first principles if you will, in terms of mate selection? Well, that hasn’t tallied with my personal experience, nor that of the Men I personally know, nor that of the (Male, and even Female!) respondents of my own blog. To be sure, “character and integrity” matter, *after* certain other preconditions have been met; but, stand alone/decisive factor?
Nope.
And I for one, am perfectly good with that. It is, what it is.
O.
An interesting study re cads and dads in literature:
PROPER AND DARK HEROES AS DADS AND CADS:
Alternative Mating Strategies in British Romantic Literature
It’s true that cads are often not respected by other men – hence the Brooding Loner archetype. Historically, they have not been viewed as alpha males, but as rogue males, outside the boundaries of accepted society. That is true of the literary cads I’m aware of.
Some women are biologically wired for short-term mating. They are attracted to cads.
Other women are biologically wired for long-term mating. They are attracted to dads.
Susan,
“The men who get the most sex in college are frat guys and athletes, who display a strong elevation among males right out of the gate. Frats are selective, athletics is very selective. We may question why these men are being rewarded, but they are.”
The men and women running our educational institutions, media, government, research labs, and increasingly corporations harbor an esteem for athletes and frat boys that is ambivalent at best.
Are you saying that those who aspire to replace those leaders feel differently? Could be.
@EScoffier
I recently posted a refutation of the “PUA Alpha Male Narrative.” I’m assuming you buy into that narrative, in which case I’d like to hear your ideas about how alpha males won sexual favors from many women in prehistory.
“I definitely agree. Those are the chances that a woman takes when she pursues what she wants. There are no guarantees in the dating world. In a sense, a person has to “get in where they fit in” or end up in the dust.”
O: Yes, this is true – but it goes just a weebit deeper than that.
You see, very often, the same kinds of Women who you cite above, tend to be the kinds of Women who are part of the Chattering Classes – in other words, we all have to hear these Women bemoan their lovelorn lives, via The Atlantic, Today Show, etc et al. If these Women could just, at the risk of being crude, STFU and keep it movin’, that would be one thing. But more often than not, they don’t. And since we now live in a culture where it’s not OK to tell such Women to, again to be crude, STFU, what they wind up doing is annoying the heck out of all of us, as well as furthering muddying the SMP waters, by giving lots of people – Women and Men both – deeply misleading notions as to how real life actually is.
And yes, I think a heck of a lot of this has to do not just with the Wussification of American Men, but the whole Helicopter Mama phenomenon among America’s upper classes that we’ve seen over the past generation or two or so. It’s really starting to hurt us at this point.
O.
Susan, re: your #1158.
Quite the contrary. Female hypergamy, unlike male polygamy, does have a positive aspect—that is, positive for society. Male polygamy, OTOH, has no societal benefit that I can see, and that’s one reason why every successful, “advanced” society has moved to stamp out polygamy very early. The first Republican Party platform (1856) called polygamy and slavery the “twin relics of barbarism.” Utah’s admission to the union was predicated on the Mormon church’s banning polygamy.
Manosphere types bristle at the trope that “women civilize men” but the fact is, properly channeled, female hypergamy does exactly this. Or “civilize” may be too strong, but it does “regulate” men and bring out the best in them. Properly channeled, female hypergamy sets standards that men have to meet if they want sex (which nearly all of us do). Women would not marry an unworthy man, and would not put out for a man they had not married. The standards are of course different across the class levels, but the crucial thing is, they exist at every level. Historians of the Victorian era have shown that one reason for the plethora of servants and menial laborers, of both sexes, was the high standard society had for marriage. A man had to have a respectable life and decent income above a certain level otherwise he would just take himself out of the market because no woman would have him. So there were lots of unmarrieds needing work and willing to work at the worst jobs for the lowest wages. And, to make up for all those people out of the marriage market, the people who did get married tended to have very large families (also, birth control was rare).
So I am not wholly down on hypergamy. I just think we have stopped channeling it. We decoupled hypergamy from marriage, and marriage from sex, and sex from childbirth. We have unleashed hypergamy and we have found to our horror that it has a dark side that nobody in the modern era seems to have expected.
Re: the UMC woman who steps out on her beta husband. The issue here seems to me that when you see the word “hypergamy”, you insist that it must be about conventional worldly status. OK, I suppose this is an argument for ditching the word, but for the record, all the game writers (and, it seems to me, most of your male commenters), do not define hypergamy so narrowly.
We’ve said over and over that conventional status CORELLATES with women’s attraction triggers but is in the end not identical. Women sometimes go for bad boys and losers in the conventional status game. Cockiness and dominance seem to be much more reliable attraction triggers than conventional status. A cocky and dominant man who is poor and obscure will be more attractive to women than a rich and famous man who is mousy and supplicating, all other things being equal.
If you want to say that hypergamy is not a part of what makes cockiness and dominance attractive to women, then fine. I think that’s wrong, but the word is not that important. What IS important, it seems to me, is whether the impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up is the same as the impulse that makes her attracted to cockiness and dominance, or if it is not exactly the same whether the two are closely related. I think they are.
“What IS important, it seems to me, is whether the impulse that causes a woman to want to marry up is the same as the impulse that makes her attracted to cockiness and dominance, or if it is not exactly the same whether the two are closely related. I think they are.”
Add me to Escoffiers team of two on this. Although he may not want me on his “side”, LOL
@Escoffier
Agreed, that’s why she chooses the cabana boy for a fling. The reasons the second category examples are not hypergamy is because women just don’t work that way – hypergamy is not cumulative.
This may be true of some women, I’m sure it is. But there is no evidence that this is a hardwired feature of female sexuality. Women can be attracted without being tempted. That seems to be the idea you are having the most trouble with. We can say, “He is so handsome!” without thinking for one second about what’s in his jeans.
Well I can find women attractive and not be attracted to them. I can enter a beautiful home and not covet it.
That is really the issue – covetousness.
Because I feel blessed with riches, I do not covet anything more. I can observe that a man is handsome, and smart, and funny, and consider his wife a lucky woman without feeling like I need a piece of that for myself.
I don’t know if this is different between the sexes, or between personality traits.
I think you need to stop using the word hypergamy, that’s what I think.
Perhaps. Get out the dart board.
@ unigirl
My experience at my local high school (can’t comment on others) was that relationships were much healthier there because people chose based on emotional attraction rather than sexual attraction. It was pretty shocking to come into college and see the level of depravity, narcissism, and general bad choices that people were making.
Sassy – “It sucks that you didn’t know that. At least you know now, and you can use that knowledge to have a better marriage with your new wife. You can also pass this wisdom down to your son(s). Pay it forward, in a sense.”
Water under the bridge. I fully intend to help my boys out, but I’m actually wanting to get this message out far and wide. The problem is: most ‘sphere sites are BRUTAL places to ask questions. Sure, there is a ton to learn there, but if you so much as hint that you don’t tow the party line, the commenters will chew you up and spit you out. I’m sure there are male readers here that don’t post, just as there are plenty of women that do not post. I realize HUS is a place for women, but men ARE coming here, and someone should be cluing them in. Many of the older male regulars here did it for me, but they were far more… laid back? about it. I think it was Mike C that told me to “get a male perspective”, but it was awhile ago and I forget to be honest. I remember Susan agreed. So, I’m here to share my “male perspective” in all of its glory. Right or wrong doesn’t matter. Because in the end, I sincerely hope that anyone reading my comments goes out and discovers the truth for themselves. I’m just interested in kicking them in the ass to get it started.
Those women don’t need to be selective. They’re interested in short-term sex, not marriage. Men would be wise to avoid marrying women with this history, for obvious reasons.
« 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 14 »