16 Things You Always Wanted to Know About Promiscuity

September 14, 2012

Promiscuity is an endlessly fascinating topic, at least around here. Who is promiscuous? Why are they? Are there any men who don’t want to be promiscuous? Are there many women who enjoy promiscuity? Do people switch back and forth between promiscuous and chaste lifestyles? Do promiscuous people want to get with other promiscuous people? How does male promiscuity differ from female promiscuity? Are promiscuous people better looking?

The controversy is predictable and constant, depending on who’s speaking. Female virgins, male virgins, sluts, manwhores, and everyone in between has their view of what promiscuity is and how it affects themselves and others’ perceptions of them. 

This subject has been studied very thoroughly. Primarily, the debate is between Genetic Theory (nature) and Social Theory (nurture). The jury’s still out – both appear to play a large role – but there have been many interesting findings along the way. 

In a recent post I introduced the Sociosexuality Orientation Index. Nine questions generate an SOI score that reliably and validly predicts sexual behavior and number of partners.

1. Number of sexual partners in the past year

2. Number of sexual partners in the next 5 years

3. Number of one time sexual partners

4. Number of partners used condom with

5. Number of times fantasized about someone other than partner

6. Sex without love is OK

7. Enjoy casual sex with different partners

8. Need to be attached to partner to enjoy sex (reversed) 

People vary on a spectrum of restricted (long-term mating strategy) to unrestricted (short-term mating strategy). The results are equally valid for males and females.

Who is promiscuous?

1. “While men in general are more unrestricted in sociosexual orientation than women, the variance within each sex is much greater than variance between the sexes.”

2. “Women in the top female quintile of the SOI were nearly as elevated in their relevant sexual experiences as men in the top male quintile, even though the 80th female percentile was equivalent to only the 39th male percentile.” 

(IOW, there are similar numbers of very unrestricted men and women.)

What do unrestricted people do?

3. They:

  • engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships
  • engage in sex with more than one partner at a time
  • be involved in sexual relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency.
4. “Sociosexuality is strongly related to a history of “double matings,” or a woman’s having sex with two men during a short enough time period that she could be simultaneously inseminated by both.”
 
5. “Half of the men and women in the top (withinsex) quintiles of sociosexuality had been sexually unfaithful to a steady partner; this was more than a tenfold increase over the corresponding rate for people in the bottom quintiles.”
 
6. “Sociosexually unrestricted individuals are far more likely to experience divorce than sociosexually restricted individuals because they are more likely to engage in extramarital affairs…Children of divorce face a greater likelihood of divorce themselves than children of intact marriages.  It appears that the most of the inheritance of divorce occurs through genetic transmission.””

How is sociosexual orientation acquired?

7. 

  • 49% of sociosexual orientation is heritable, i.e. determined by genes.
  • 2% is attributable to shared environment, i.e. parenting.
  • 47% is attributable to unshared environment, e.g. peer pressure, popular culture.  
  • 2% is attributable to the respondent’s age, so it appears that sociosexual orientation changes very slightly over the life course.

Is it static or variable?

8. “Sociosexual orientation (just like all other personality traits) is a relatively stable trait of individuals over the life course; in other words, people are either sociosexually restricted or unrestricted most of their lives.

9. “In a study of over 14,000 people in over 48 countries, researchers found the SOI to be reliable and predictive across a wide range of cultures and populations. Furthermore:

Sex differences in sociosexuality were significantly larger when reproductive environments were demanding but were reduced to more moderate levels in cultures with more political and economic gender equality.

Sex ratios also predict sociosexuality. Nations with a low ratio of men to women had higher SOI scores. The U.S. is pretty much smack in the middle.”

Are people with unrestricted sexuality more attractive?

10. “Although men had trouble knowing which women were unrestricted, they preferred those female faces. Unrestricted female composite faces were seen as more attractive than restricted female composites by both sexes, suggesting that attractive women’s unrestricted scores may be the result of more attractive women having greater sexual opportunities and thus developing a less restricted outlook.”

11.  “Self-perceived attractiveness was a significant positive predictor of SOI score. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that women’s mating strategy is facultatively linked to their self-perceived mate value: Women who perceive themselves as more attractive score higher on the SOI scale. Behaving in a sociosexually unrestricted manner may lead to self-perceptions of attractiveness.

12. “In contrast to men judging female faces, women consistently preferred the restricted male faces. Despite having no particular preference between the unrestricted and restricted male composites for short-term relationships, women significantly preferred the restricted males for long-term relationships.

13. Furthermore, these patterns of results do not appear to be due to differences in theinherent attractiveness of the faces (as judged by male observers); indeed, contrary to expectation, any greater symmetry which may have existed in the real faces did not translate into greater attractiveness. This suggests that when seeking a partner, women may be attracted to males more likely to engage in long-term relationships, and, furthermore, that women have been subject to stronger selection in this regard than men (who have potentially more to gain from short-term matings).”

14. “The link between sociosexuality and perceived masculinity in male composites [shows] that more masculine looking males report more sexual partners and suggests that unrestricted sociosexuality may be related to increased testosterone levels.  Testosterone is thought to increase facial masculinity and may be associated with less investment in relationships, as indexed by time men spent with their partner.

Furthermore, men and women perceive more masculine male faces as being poorer parents and possessing less of the characteristics important in a long-term partner.”

How does sociosexuality orientation influence what women want?

15. “For women only, sociosexual orientation was related to preferences with respect to sexual experience in a potential date or mate. Specifically, women with an unrestricted orientation to sex (i.e., those who have more positive attitudes toward casual, uncommitted sexual activity) gave higher desirability ratings to moderate or considerable sexual experience in a partner than did women with a restricted sociosexual orientation.

Conversely, the restricted women rated chastity in a partner as more desirable than did unrestricted women. Women with extensive sexual experience (one dimension tapped by the SOI) should be more willing to consider a sexually experienced person as a partner. More specifically, they would be unlikely to have negative impressions of a sexually active (hence, similar) other), would assume that they (and others like them) are “uniquely invulnerable” to sexually transmitted diseases (Brehm, 1992), and may be guided by a specific, adaptive mating strategy.”

How does sociosexuality orientation influence what men want?

16. Preferences of the Lady Wooers:

The results of the study indicate that sociosexuality influences male perception of female breast attractiveness and confirm that accentuation of female-specific physical traits produces a stronger response in unrestricted than in restricted men.

Translation: Guys who want to shag around prefer bigger tits.

Obviously, you can’t use the word tits in a scientific article so you’d have to say ‘Gentleman who want to woo more ladies prefer larger hooters’.

And they say science isn’t relevant to the man in the street.

Bottom line:

Promiscuous people are born and made. They don’t change. They cheat and get divorced more. Women don’t like the faces of unrestricted guys. Unrestricted men like big boobs.

Best way to spot one in the wild? Find a way to ask questions 6 – 8.

 

Sources:

https://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/CV262Bailey_UQ_Copy.pdf

http://seis.bris.ac.uk/~psapc/pdfs/Clark%282004%29.pdf

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/the-50-0-50-rule-in-action-sociosexual-orientation-and-ris

http://www.dur.ac.uk/l.g.boothroyd/papers/boothroyd_2008_soi.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16201459

Preferences of the lady wooers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Passer_By

    I’m having trouble figuring out when you are quoting (and what source you are quoting), and when it’s you. Is the line about prefering big tits yours? Or from a source?

    I haven’t noticed that men prefer big tits any less in a long term mate (I certainly haven’t). In fact, the general theory is that smaller titted girls within any racial group or ethnic group tend to be hornier (hard to make such comparisons accross racial groups, since some racial and ethnic groups just tend to have bigger boobs), so you are better off going for them for the quickie.

    On the other hand, there is the notion that body matters more than face for the short term, whereas face matters more for the long term. So, maybe that’s where it come from.

    • @ Passer By

      The big tits bit is from the mindhacks link. That was their writing – that’s why I put it in a quote box.

      I tried to put everything from studies in quotes – which is all 16 items. I did insert one italicized comment in parentheses.

      Because of the organization of the post, it wasn’t practical to link by finding. Hence the list of sources.

  • Passer_By

    Ok, nevermind, I eventually clicked through and figured that out.

    One the about the internet that drives me crazy is that people regularly link something to support a proposition, but the linked article rarely actually supports that proposition, or at most tangentially (manospherians do this a lot, feminists are even worse). In this case, the mindhacks thing said what you said, but when I read the full excerpt they are quoting, it doesn’t support their claim.

    The actual study shows that high SOI-R men rated ALL of the boobs higher (in other words, they just like lady parts more than the low SOI-R men like lady parts). The difference was highest for the big boobs (showing that, as compared to low SOI-R types, accentuated lady parts are more acceptable), however BOTH LOW AND HIGH SOI-R groups rated medium to large sizes were rated as the most attractive.

    This makes sense to me. Guys who are more motivated to bang a lot of women are more enthralled with their bodies.

  • Susan.

    This suggests that when seeking a partner, women may be attracted to males more likely to engage in long-term relationships, and, furthermore, that women have been subject to stronger selection in this regard than men (who have potentially more to gain from short-term matings).”

    How do you reconcile this with preselection ?

    • @Marellus

      How do you reconcile this with preselection ?

      If women prefer restricted male faces for LTRs, then LTR-oriented women will preselect those men, which will be apparent (though not as obvious) as the preselection of unrestricted males by unrestricted females. The reason the latter is more prevalent and visible is the high turnover rate, of course.

  • (R)Evoluzione

    Interesting stuff. #7 is fascinating. It looks like the manosphere, and your blog, are working on the 47% of SOI that is able to be influenced by culture. I’d be curious to see the methodologies.

    Speaking of methodological concerns, a number of these data points are influenced by the female urge to guard against discovery of hypergamic instincts, and/or the urge to avoid slut shaming.

    Remember the landmark study detailed in the NY Times, we all know which one, that shows that women are often NOT IN TOUCH at all with what arouses them, and often give conflicting reports with what actually stimulates their self-fecundating piezo-electric cleft.

    This phenomenon stands out in #12, female face preference of “restricted men’s faces.” This appears facile on its surface, and contradicts much of the known literature. I’m not doubting that this is what women report, but I doubt the accuracy of what women have reported to interviewers. Other studies have shown that women lurrrve the masculinized face, especially around ovulation. Same & similar studies also show that women also believe that the masculine-faced men would make better partners, and even more so at ovulation.

    So, ladies & gentlemen, realize there’s some interesting data here, but also, some results conflict with existing data and need further scrutiny. Realize the picture that this data paints has been run through Instagram’s Hamsterbater filter.

  • The key to happiness in the SMP then is Good girl? Avoid Cads, Good boy? Avoid Sluts. Date everyone left till you find the right combo of attractiveness, good character, compatibility and fun. Then lock it down and never let it go no matter what, easier said than done I know but at least is being said…that is something.

  • Mike M.

    Anaconda got it on the first swing at bat.

  • Plain Jane

    “the general theory is that smaller titted girls within any racial group or ethnic group tend to be hornier ”

    What nonsense.

  • tito

    most unrestricted guys i know shun big boobs for kate moss type bodies.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    “Women in the top female quintile of the SOI were nearly as elevated in their relevant sexual experiences as men in the top male quintile, even though the 80th female percentile was equivalent to only the 39th male percentile.”

    This statement appears self-contradictory and I’m wondering what it meant. Which of the sources did it come from?

    • @INTJ

      “Women in the top female quintile of the SOI were nearly as elevated in their relevant sexual experiences as men in the top male quintile, even though the 80th female percentile was equivalent to only the 39th male percentile.”

      This statement appears self-contradictory and I’m wondering what it meant. Which of the sources did it come from?

      First, I’m going to update the post to link statements to sources directly.

      Second, it means that the most unrestricted 20% of women has had as many sexual partners as the same top quintile of men. However, the 80th female percentile scores on the SOI represented the same number of sexual partners as the 39th percentile scores for males.

  • INTJ

    And I think Anacaona just got a new nickname: the anaconda. 😉

  • And I think Anacaona just got a new nickname: the anaconda.

    Is not new since Anacaona is a rare name here most people’s brain fill up the rest with something more familiar like Anaconda. I’m a Taino Princess not a Jennifer Lopez movie, people! J/K it doesn’t annoy me but is an small example of how perception and bias work, so is good to hear some new info with an open mind once in a while 😉

  • Guavaberry

    So, sluts like manwhores and shun virgins and prudes prefer fellow prudes? Would this explain the perception that PUA’s have about women since they tengo to meet and relate to sexually unrestricted woman?

    I also just wonder about the number of girls in the internet who claim to be sex-pos, explore their sexuality, feel empowered by having many partners but oh no, they can have perfectly healthy monogamous relationships. Are this stories just lies?

    • @Guavaberry

      So, sluts like manwhores and shun virgins and prudes prefer fellow prudes? Would this explain the perception that PUA’s have about women since they tend to meet and relate to sexually unrestricted woman?

      Bingo! I was wondering about PUAs, actually. Are they guys who have an unrestricted sociosexuality, but were poor at realizing their goals? Or are they guys with restricted sexuality who made a conscious choice to learn and adopt a totally incongruent set of behaviors? I suspect it’s the latter.

      I also just wonder about the number of girls in the internet who claim to be sex-pos, explore their sexuality, feel empowered by having many partners but oh no, they can have perfectly healthy monogamous relationships. Are this stories just lies?

      I think they’re lies, but more in the nature of denial than outright deception.

  • Plain Jane

    Susan, you and others were discussing David Deangelo (real name Eben Pagan). He married “life coach” Annie Lalla and here she is interviewed on Fox News if you’re interested in who one of the richest PUA/game gurus in the world married. They met at Burning Man and were married in an off beat ceremony (two best men who were a couple) and wrote their own vows which read like a motivational seminar. They took that video off line but here’s her Fox interview;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHQxwergGw&feature=plcp

  • Plain Jane

    Ahh well, here she (Annie Lalla aka Mrs. David Deangelo) is giving attraction/dating advise. Why do y’all thing of her “lay back and be a queen” technique?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXqqInspkQo&feature=context-cha

  • JutR

    PJ, Annie is physically attractive. At the risk of being ungenerous, I have the opinion that her appearance is what makes her ‘qualified’ to speak on relationships.

    Her assumptions that conflict = intimacy is very telling. Challenge the man with shit tests to make sure he’s what you want. That’s the modern woman’s approach to relationships.

    Ghosting never looked so good.

  • Escoffier

    How to they distinguish between an “unrestricted face” and a “restricted face”? Or am I reading that wrong?

    • @Escoffier

      How to they distinguish between an “unrestricted face” and a “restricted face”? Or am I reading that wrong?

      I believe it happens completely at the subconscious level. Subjects rank photos according to attractiveness, and then the correlation to the SOI score is noted.

      Similarly, studies have shown that women rate faces of men who have cheated in relationships lower than faces of men who have not.

  • Ted D

    ““the general theory is that smaller titted girls within any racial group or ethnic group tend to be hornier ”

    What nonsense.”

    So we can hazard a guess that PJ has big tits? :-p

  • SayWhaat

    Guys who are more motivated to bang a lot of women are more enthralled with their bodies.

    So a good question for girls to ask while evaluating a date is, “if you had to choose, would you prefer a pretty face, or a bangin’ bod?”

  • If women prefer restricted male faces for LTRs, then LTR-oriented women will preselect those men, which will be apparent (though not as obvious) as the preselection of unrestricted males by unrestricted females. The reason the latter is more prevalent and visible is the high turnover rate, of course.

    I think the part missing is that pre-selection is also based on the type of woman. The men here say that women don’t preselect if you sleep with the bottom barrel but they usually mean ugly women. How many good girls would preselect a man that sleeps with hot but dumb and/or slutty/crazy women?
    My guess is that this is a difference that barely registers because as demonstrated what a woman finds attractive is different what a man finds attractive, so the restricted male desired and that has paired up before with women the other women find desirable will have a different pool than the unrestricted man that sleeps with women the other women find disgusting for whatever reason, YMMV.

    • @Anacaona

      the restricted male desired and that has paired up before with women the other women find desirable will have a different pool than the unrestricted man that sleeps with women the other women find disgusting for whatever reason, YMMV.

      Exactly. It’s like concluding “all the women” want BU hockey players, because 50 women at BU party with them and have NSA sex with them. The exception bias is rampant in the ‘sphere.

  • SayWhaat

    How to they distinguish between an “unrestricted face” and a “restricted face”?

    Unrestricted = hyper-masculine

    Restricted = less masculine, perhaps tending towards effeminate (depending on the female’s preference)

  • INTJ

    @ Anacaona

    That’s weird. They sound totally different to me, since anaconda (in English at least) uses the æ sound, while Anacaona uses the ɑː sound right? (I’m using IPA notation here).

    Besides, Anacaona has a nice musical ring to it. 🙂

  • That’s weird. They sound totally different to me, since anaconda (in English at least) uses the æ sound, while Anacaona uses the ɑː sound right? (I’m using IPA notation here).

    They do sound different but they spelled very similarly and start and end almost the same way. I think you are probably are the type that sees a name/object and fits it in your brain by trying ti get the sound but the majority of people store it as visual, hence the confusion.

  • Plain Jane

    JutR September 15, 2012 at 10:40 am

    PJ, Annie is physically attractive. At the risk of being ungen
    erous, I have the opinion that her appearance is what makes her ‘qualified’ to speak on relationships.

    The PUA world disagrees. Her looks came under a lot of criticism on the PUA sites. She had super short hair and was super skinny when they got married and their wedding ceremony was really kooky. There were several unflattering photos of her floating around those sites making fun of David Deangelo for marrying a “weird woman that looks like a dude”.

    I’ll try to find their wedding video because their self created vows are a hoot!

    Ah, looks like she put it back up on youtube;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iixfj7XmOzE

  • @Ms. Plain Jane #14-15:
    “Susan, you and others were discussing David Deangelo (real name Eben Pagan).”

    O: Where do Ms. Walsh or anybody else specifically mentions D’Angelo? What does he or the wider question of the Seduction Community have to do with the current topic? Please explain?

    “He married “life coach” Annie Lalla and here she is interviewed on Fox News if you’re interested in who one of the richest PUA/game gurus in the world married. They met at Burning Man and were married in an off beat ceremony (two best men who were a couple) and wrote their own vows which read like a motivational seminar. They took that video off line but here’s her Fox interview;”

    O: Again, what does D’Angelo and his wife have to do with the topic at hand? And why are you so obsessed with them? What gives, Plain Jane? When are you going to tell us why you’re so interested with the comings and goings of the Manosphere if indeed you’ve got it all figured out along spiritual lines, etc? I really need to know what’s eating you.

    Wanna talk about it?

    “Ahh well, here she (Annie Lalla aka Mrs. David Deangelo) is giving attraction/dating advise. Why do y’all thing of her “lay back and be a queen” technique?”

    O: I think her realworld results speak for themselves as to the validity of her methods; why do you ask – are you considering trying it to see if it’ll work for you?

    O.

  • @Ms. Plain Jane #14-15 Revisited:
    I’m looking at the YouTubes now. While I don’t find D’Angelo’s wifey to be to my personal liking, in the end it’s irrelevant because what matters is what Dave thinks – and by all accounts, he’s very much in love with her, end of.

    I think I get where you’re trying to get at – that that PUAs who talk a mean game about “hot babes’ in truth only get mediocre at best, Women? If so, take a bow, I wouldn’t disagree with you – and neither would Roosh, by the way. He’s written about this quite a bit, and again, one can agree or disagree with it, but it ain’t like it’s a state secret or something.

    I’m just wanting to know why you’re so very obsessed about the PUA scene and in particular, Dave D’Angelo. Do you have the hots for him or something? Or maybe it’s his lady that turns you on? Is it that she apparently has some Desi/Indian background that does it? What’s the deal here?

    Do tell…

    O.

  • Abbot

    “I also just wonder about the number of girls in the internet who claim to be sex-pos, explore their sexuality, feel empowered by having many partners but oh no, they can have perfectly healthy monogamous relationships. Are this stories just lies?”

    What do these girls mean by –
    sex-pos?
    explore their sexuality?
    feel empowered?

    They may very well desire or oddly feel entitled to a monogamous relationship after all that prolific “positive exploration and empowerment” but shockingly run into a universal brick wall that all those friends and feminists conveniently failed to mention: the massive amount of men unwilling or unable to consider such women special and worthy of their commitment. But men being this way is harmless. Right?

  • JutR

    Old article, but possibly relevant.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4790313.stm

    “A woman’s sex drive begins to plummet once she is in a secure relationship, according to research”

    “They found 60% of 30-year-old women wanted sex “often” at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50%, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.

    In contrast, they found the proportion of men wanting regular sex remained at between 60-80%, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship.”

    “But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a “pair bond” with their partner.

    But, once this bond is sealed a woman’s sexual appetite declines, he added.”

    “The rational for why a woman’s sex drive declines may be down to supply and demand. If something is in infinite supply, the perceived value would drop.”

  • Guavaberry

    @Abbot

    I tend to visit Reddit’s r/twoxchromosomes, the women’s main community in the site. A type of comment that usually strikes me tends to be along the lines of “I’ve had many sexual partners, many of them were ONS, fuck buddies, booty calls or friends with benefits. I have sex because I enjoy it and I guess you can call me a slut but I don’t like to be called a slut just because I’m sexually liberated. Although I’ve had many partners I’ve never cheated on any of my monogamous relationships. It bothers me that people think I’m gonna cheat just because I’m sexually adventurous. I love my SO we’ve been together for X yrs and I’m glad he takes me as I am”

    The part that usually confuses me the most is: “I can completely switch from ONS to girlfriend at any given time without problems”

  • INTJ

    @ JutR

    Old article, but possibly relevant.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4790313.stm

    “A woman’s sex drive begins to plummet once she is in a secure relationship, according to research”

    “They found 60% of 30-year-old women wanted sex “often” at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50%, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.

    In contrast, they found the proportion of men wanting regular sex remained at between 60-80%, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship.”

    “But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a “pair bond” with their partner.

    But, once this bond is sealed a woman’s sexual appetite declines, he added.”

    “The rational for why a woman’s sex drive declines may be down to supply and demand. If something is in infinite supply, the perceived value would drop.”

    Women lose libido when they turn 50. Whoulda thunk…

  • @ms walsh:
    Im not getting what the focus on puas is all about; the bottomline is that by your own admission youre not focused on them anyway; so it all comes across as a bit baffling to say the least. By all accounts the puas are getting whatthey want, theyre not the kind of guys you want ladies to get with so whats the beef? Whatever their reasons for doing so the puas are doing their thing. No one is holding a gun to anyones head to get them to deal with such guys. They dont hide what they do, and theyre very easy to find. So why the fuss?

    See i have a theory as to why the socalled 80% have such a hard time finding each other-and it has little to do with “pluralistic ignorance”. Ill lay it out in a bit…

    O.

    • @Obsidian

      Call it PUA or Game – makes no difference. The truth is that it’s very clear that women vary quite a bit in their receptivity to sexually aggressive (or PUA) tactics (as do men).

      Given that sociosexuality is at least half genetic, and generally static throughout life, I find the phenomenon of people making drastic changes in their sexual behavior, whether from chaste to promiscuous or the reverse, very interesting from a psychological POV.

  • Abbot

    “I can completely switch from ONS to girlfriend at any given time without problems”

    Provided that such a woman can get past her most stubborn problem – the man who is willing to consider her special.

    Women and men have the same “switch” challenge but the man will have this challenge only if he was able to move as effortlessly through the SMP as the average woman. Thus, there is a very low probability that a commitment minded woman will run into such a man. Men have to be far more on guard and diligent if they are thinking about anything more than getting laid.

    How many times have you read such total asshole bullshit like this: “all her experiences make her the person she is today”? Take that as advice to stay away, thank her for the self-admitted slut-tell and for being up front about where is she is coming from and by all means give her one more “experience” as that is her modus expeditione

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Second, it means that the most unrestricted 20% of women has had as many sexual partners as the same top quintile of men. However, the 80th female percentile scores on the SOI represented the same number of sexual partners as the 39th percentile scores for males.

    Aren’t “most unrestricted 20%”, “top quintile”, and “80th percentile” three ways of saying the same thing? In that case, the 39th percentile bit seems to contradict what was said earlier.

  • Desiderius

    Susan,

    This is helpful (though I was already figuring it out empirically).

    My unrestricted (masculine) features have usually sparked suspicion in the minds of the LTR-focused women to whom I’ve always been attracted (see the Bolick pic I linked). Their prejudice wounded my pride and the connection usually didn’t happen.

    On the other hand, there has always been interest on the part of unrestricted women, but I had trouble maintaining my attraction for them, due to the conflict between their SOI and my own. I wasn’t worried about their N, per se, but some of the character that goes along with that makes it difficult to see them as good wives or mothers.

    I’ve ended up with somewhat of a false positive on my SOI (I’m more LTR-oriented than my numbers would show) due to efforts to try to make it work with these women, as they were the ones showing interest.

    As I learned game, I actually (unwittingly) amped up my unrestricted signals, making the problem worse as signs of obvious interest increased. That’s been a tough puzzle to solve. Thanks for the help on understanding my end.

    • @Desi

      My unrestricted (masculine) features have usually sparked suspicion in the minds of the LTR-focused women to whom I’ve always been attracted (see the Bolick pic I linked)

      This is something that I am very interested in. You’re not the only one, Mike C is extremely masculine in his appearance but obviously is LTR oriented, although he has described himself as somewhat unrestricted in his sociosexuality.

      Given the half genetics/half environment divide, I’m wondering if some of the very masculine, high T guys are unrestricted genetically, coupled with highly restricted culturally. That makes sense in cases of religiosity, or of being raised to be ultra beta in other ways after the Women’s Movement. If so, then I can imagine you feel a deep sense of conflict re your sexuality and what is “right.”

  • Deti has some very interesting things to say about female promiscuity.

    http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/cautionary/

    • @Private Man

      Deti has some very interesting things to say about female promiscuity.

      A well written letter to 10% of the female population.

  • Sai

    “A woman’s sex drive begins to plummet once she is in a secure relationship, according to research”
    NOOOOOOOOOO
    (thanks for the warning!)

  • Just1X

    @Sai

    “after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.”

    Be one of the 20% Sai, trust me…be strong, be kinky, be insatiable

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    That’s what 50 Shades of Grey is for, right? RIGHT?!

  • SayWhaat

    My unrestricted (masculine) features have usually sparked suspicion in the minds of the LTR-focused women to whom I’ve always been attracted (see the Bolick pic I linked). Their prejudice wounded my pride and the connection usually didn’t happen.

    To be fair, Desi, that “prejudice” was correct when you were in your 20s, no?

  • SayWhaat

    @ Sai:

    “A woman’s sex drive begins to plummet once she is in a secure relationship, according to research”
    NOOOOOOOOOO

    Was this source ever cited? I can believe it, though I wonder about the degree that the average woman’s libido “plummets”.

    I’ve experienced it in my own relationship, though in our case it was more like going from sex 4 times a day to only three or two times. ; )

  • SayWhaat

    PM # 41:

    Yeah I’m sure one misogynist finds another’s views on women to be very “interesting”.

    Hard to come up with original thoughts in a circlejerk, eh?

  • Madelena

    I am somewhat new here and have been perusing the archives and past articles and comments for the past week or so. Really interesting stuff. I did go to some of the more well known PUA sites mentioned here but stopped reading cause it was so corrosive to the soul.
    I was born and raised in a somewhat traditional culture (one of the most traditional in the world) even while living in North America so a lot of the sentiments that I see in the PUA world and some expressed here are things I grew up hearing.
    Having said that, what I see around me is the most promiscious, “sexually-empowered” woman always always get land a quality man for marriage and/or LTRs.
    I don’t see what you guys are talking about, re men not wanting promiscuous woman. It seems that is ONLY what they want.
    The men who go nuts after very young girls, virgins, inexperienced women are the men from traditional cultures like mine. Maybe Western men do as well, but frankly, I don’t really see it.
    Essentially, what you say does not jibe with what I see, at least not in the milieus I hang around in (professional class, liberal city).
    My friends from traditional cultures and I would sometimes talk about just going crazy and having one night stands with some random guy here and there. We have the opportunity to do so since a lot of us had to move away from home for education and careers but we don’t (or if my friends do, they would never tell a soul about it).
    Hell, I KNOW men here DON’T want virgins because it is “too much responsibility” (actual conversation a friend of mine had with a male acquaintance just after university).

    • @Madelena

      Having said that, what I see around me is the most promiscious, “sexually-empowered” woman always always get land a quality man for marriage and/or LTRs.

      Welcome, thanks so much for commenting!

      How do you define quality man? Is he promiscuous? Or is he a man who is more restricted in his sociosexual orientation?

      The way it tends to work is that promiscuous people pair off, and non-promiscuous people pair off.

      A virgin chasing a ONS with a manwhore has a 98% chance of being disappointed…

  • Plain Jane

    “A woman’s sex drive begins to plummet once she is in a secure relationship, according to research”

    “They found 60% of 30-year-old women wanted sex “often” at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50%, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.

    In contrast, they found the proportion of men wanting regular sex remained at between 60-80%, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship.”

    I keep reading over and over from various experts like the female researcher Susan always cites to many others that once in a relationship the dopamine and other exciting endorphins ebb into oxytocin and thus raw sexual explosion is lost by the 4 year mark, not just for women but for men too. Familiarity and all that. That’s when couples reach a point, often a crisis, when other people start to look very appealing to them because they are new and offer an oppurtunity for those explosive chemicals to explode in their brains and nether regions once again. This is usually when the experts will say a couple needs to reignite the passion by doing this or that.

    All of this does not mean the men, or even the women, won’t want to have regular sex with their committed partner as well, its just that a lot of the raw sexual attraction that was there in the beginning has been lost and they might start entertaining fantasies about strangers. That of course doesn’t mean they’ll automatically act upon those fantasies.

    ***”Be one of the 20% Sai, trust me…be strong, be kinky, be insatiable”***

    Its a rare man who can truly handle insatiable. Don’t forget male recovery time, which can be excruciating for insatiable women.

  • Desiderius

    SayWhaat,

    “To be fair, Desi, that “prejudice” was correct when you were in your 20s, no?”

    Not really – I was never out for casual sex. The few times I was able to overcome it led to my good relationships, a couple of which I should have put a ring on. Those were with women with very high SMV/MMV. The lower the MV, the more the suspicion lingered, and the more difficult it was for me to be sure that she was sufficiently into me for me to stay into her.

    Since my alpha on the outside, beta on the inside father had left my feminist, high-achieving mother when I was five, that was always a concern. He went on to be an outstanding husband and father (and now grandfather) in his second marriage, and my mother’s second marriage (the one that raised me) was functional and enjoyable, but not very passionate.

  • SayWhaat

    Not really – I was never out for casual sex.

    Right, because it wasn’t as socially sanctioned back then.

    The few times I was able to overcome it led to my good relationships, a couple of which I should have put a ring on. Those were with women with very high SMV/MMV.

    Right, I get it. I guess what I’m trying to point out is that prejudice was correct because of your flakiness and whatnot in your 20s.

  • Desiderius

    Madelena,

    The dynamic I was describing above also happens in the other direction. Just as LTR-seeking women tend to be suspicious of men with masculine features, so too do LTR-seeking men, including otherwise attractive ones, tend to shy away from the most feminine (and thus often those considered most attractive by men and women) women, thinking they won’t have a chance.

    That thinking in various ways then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The men who would value your LTR-orientation are not approaching you in the first place.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Madalena:

    I’m in complete agreement with you.

    Having said that, what I see around me is the most promiscious, “sexually-empowered” woman always always get land a quality man for marriage and/or LTRs.

    Yes. I’ve noticed that the “sexually-empowered” woman seems to always enjoy a “home” advantage no matter where she goes. That is, the “sexually-empowered” receive the most sexual attention in professional class/liberal cities (they’re just noticed more), and they also reap the home advantage in areas where the M/F ratios are in their favor (e.g. Tech universities).

    Hell, I KNOW men here DON’T want virgins because it is “too much responsibility” (actual conversation a friend of mine had with a male acquaintance just after university).

    I know. 🙁

    It’s a silly argument too, because what responsibility would you be taking on, exactly? Do you think virgins don’t have families, commitments, and other weighty responsibilities of their own to deal with?

  • SayWhaat

    Aand now I need to board my plane. TTYL folks.

  • Desiderius

    SayWhaat,

    “Right, because it wasn’t as socially sanctioned back then.”

    No, it was because I come from a great extended family (only 4 divorces out of over 20 marriages – all from those born 1944-1950, BTW) and wanted to start my own.

    “Right, I get it. I guess what I’m trying to point out is that prejudice was correct because of your flakiness and whatnot in your 20s.”

    It wasn’t quite that simple – I was in a great LTR by 23. Had some success after that, but still a lot of situations like Susan’s pre-med student and the nanny of getting blown-out prematurely and having no idea why (unrestricted women attracted to my looks, but not my LTR-orientation). Also a lot of women in relationships with less-than-marriage material boyfriends (this was the heyday of serial monogamy), some of whom wanted to trade up, but that wasn’t something I was interested in.

  • Desiderius

    “Right, because it wasn’t as socially sanctioned back then.”

    Prime example of the prejudice.

  • Just1X

    @Madelena

    Hell, I KNOW men here DON’T want virgins because it is “too much responsibility” (actual conversation a friend of mine had with a male acquaintance just after university).

    Is a guy saying that he’s taking seriously the implications of taking the virginity of a woman who has (presumably) been saving herself, necessarily being a nasty man? He sounds like he might have a conscience – that wasn’t bad last time I checked, right?

    Or, maybe he thinks that it’ll take too long to get the chance to do the beast with two backs – so maybe, he isn’t the one that you want anyway?

    I know of no other reason that a guy would react badly to a virgin. IME men would love to be the first man that a woman, that he deeply cares about, has (and quite possibly the last as well*). If PUAs are giving virgins a miss, then hats off to them, and good luck to the girls.

    I was a virgin once, believe me that it all went pretty naturally the first time, just a little quicker than the second etc etc (TMI – right Susan?). Storing up tension over this, as a man or woman, is a waste of time. It will be fine, and it will improve. I don’t know where these crap horror stories come from – I mean monkeys do it without special training?…I guess. You, and your friends, will be just fine.

    *not anything sinister, I just mean LTR

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    I’ve experienced it in my own relationship, though in our case it was more like going from sex 4 times a day to only three or two times. ; )

    Holy crap. I thought you worked most of the day! Do you spend all the time with your boyfriend having sex? You don’t have to answer that lol.

  • Sai

    @Just1X
    Yes, sir!
    “*not anything sinister, I just mean LTR”
    That asterisk made me laugh.

    @SayWhaat
    ROFL and fly safely.

    @A Definite Beta Guy
    I shouldn’t laugh because what happened to your friend was vile, but when you mentioned 50 Shades of Grey I lost it. My dad had wanted so badly to check it out from the library and I told him he might not want to, and yesterday he turned to me and said it was kind of disappointing.

  • Plain Jane

    SayWhaat September 16, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    @ Madalena:

    I’m in complete agreement with you.

    Having said that, what I see around me is the most promiscious, “sexually-empowered” woman always always get land a quality man for marriage and/or LTRs.

    Yes. I’ve noticed that the “sexually-empowered” woman seems to always enjoy a “home” advantage no matter where she goes. That is, the “sexually-empowered” receive the most sexual attention in professional class/liberal cities (they’re just noticed more), and they also reap the home advantage in areas where the M/F ratios are in their favor (e.g. Tech universities).

    Madalene and Say Whaat,

    I also see what you see but will add those promiscuous women that are landing the best men for marriage and LTRs are most likely physically attractive (bare minimum 6’s) and have affable personalities.

    For all the heeing and hawing in the Sphere about wanting “chaste women”, what they really want is women above a certain threshold of looks and certain threshold of personality.
    Especially considering that most people in the day to day are not all that great looking, and then the obesity epidemic adds to lowering the threshold of “average looking”.

    For all the heeing and hawing about divorced women and baby mamas not being able to land good solid men, I am surrounded by divorced women and baby mamas who did just that. These men are not millionaires or movie stars or “top notch alphas” but they are decent looking, good men, and often times younger than said women.

    I think what happens in the Manosphere is these guys find THEMSELVES alone and lonely, but every time they step outside their door they find “reformed sluts”, divorcees and baby mamas coupled up with men who are most likely better than they are, and that really gets their goatee so they go online and yell at each other, “30+ divorced women, baby mamas and ex-carousel riders who want to settle down – YOU CAN’T”

    The thing is – all those ex-carousellers, divorcees and baby mamas AREN’T reading Manosphere blogs because they are too busy living their lives with the children and man. The only other people who are getting the message that these women can’t do this are………. OTHER LONELY MEN.

  • Abbot

    “Maybe Western men do as well, but frankly, I don’t really see it.”

    aka a captive audience (with national borders on lock-down), many of whom are duped and others just convince themselves they can handle wretch suppression

  • Just1X

    @Sai
    “That asterisk made me laugh.”
    – yeah, basically not a sex, murder and suicide type deal

    Well…that feedback was welcome – no tumbleweeds today.

  • I don’t know where these crap horror stories come from – I mean monkeys do it without special training?…I guess. You, and your friends, will be just fine.

    I would say that my husband wasn’t singing me praises when he find out I was a virgin. The rest of the package convinced him to give himself the chance with me but he actually doesn’t want to raise the kids into valuing virginity, he doesn’t want then to be promiscuous of course but remaining virgin for a long time is not something he find valuable male and female. The prejudice against virginity does exist in this countries and I don’t think they are exaggerating at all. Is not only PUA’s wary of it, remember when was the last time you saw a virgin positively portrayed on the media? Media and culture have a symbiotic relationship and usually a goody two shoes character ends up being really prejudiced and/or kind of crazy, YMMV.

    • @Anacaona

      I would say that my husband wasn’t singing me praises when he find out I was a virgin. The rest of the package convinced him to give himself the chance with me but he actually doesn’t want to raise the kids into valuing virginity, he doesn’t want then to be promiscuous of course but remaining virgin for a long time is not something he find valuable male and female.

      This makes me feel a bit sad, but it’s understandable 50 years after the Sexual Revolution. We’ve had plenty of stories here of how badly people feel about their own virginity.

      And yet…the number of virgins in college is going up. Whether through resolve or lack of opportunity, it’s hard to say. I suspect the latter, and that’s what I’m working on.

  • Just1X

    @Ana

    I only meant that PUAs would see virgins as a (probable) poor investment of their ‘precious’ time. Not that there would be any other issue. I would see no other issue, is the plainest that I can put it, quite the reverse.

    • I only meant that PUAs would see virgins as a (probable) poor investment of their ‘precious’ time.

      Yes, because PUAs are unrestricted in their sexuality, and virgins are highly restricted. Not a match.

  • I only meant that PUAs would see virgins as a (probable) poor investment of their ‘precious’ time. Not that there would be any other issue. I would see no other issue, is the plainest that I can put it, quite the reverse.

    But you are assuming that only a PUA’s will reject a virgin like that, most men do. Everytime we have the virginity discussion here most guys agree that its a drawback. Not the guys I would consider nice mind you, but then women also have to select from the men that find them attractive. Having a big V seems to take away from attractiveness not add to it.

  • Just1X

    @Ana
    (with added clarity)
    poor investment of time as the virginal woman would be assumed to have higher bullshit defences… (not as a bad thing *sigh* 3rd attempt).

  • pvw

    Susan, did you see this Modern Love column in the NYT? She was promiscuous in her early 20s–more partners than the future husband, found the husband in her mid 20s, and married him.

    Over the years monogamy has been a challenge for her, so they have found a middle ground which meets her needs and which she assures herself somehow benefits their marriage:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/fashion/modern-love-you-may-call-it-cheating-but-we-dont.html?_r=1&ref=modernlove

  • Plain Jane

    “I would say that my husband wasn’t singing me praises when he find out I was a virgin. The rest of the package convinced him to give himself the chance with me but he actually doesn’t want to raise the kids into valuing virginity, he doesn’t want then to be promiscuous of course but remaining virgin for a long time is not something he find valuable male and female.”

    Virginity is only a value to uber religious people or those from ultra conservative cultures. Otherwise I’ve found that some men thought “wow, she must be a loser, not be desired by other men, unsexy, unpopular” etc when I was a virgin.

    And to some extent they would have been right as I’ve never had men “hitting” on me in public. All of the 8+ men I’ve dated were because I initiated contact, covertly or overtly, and I eventually grew on them, a few to the point of marriage proposals. The only men who ever open flirted with me first were either old enough to be my father or otherwise unattractive men (for example obese – even though I’m not obese myself), or both.

    Its just not true that the average female is getting endlessly approached.

  • Just1X

    @Ana
    did you just call me a nice guy? you take that back, right now! who have you been talking to? they’re liars and/or deranged.

    To get perhaps too personal (Susan can delete if you wish, no probs)

    If I were your husband, I would be delighted that my new bride was in tact, it would not have been a deal breaker if your N was low, but N=0 would not have been an impediment at all, in fact it would have been a plus (for me alone, it seems).

    Now again, if I were your husband, I might not wish to raise my children quite as strictly (but still low N). That is not the same issue. I would be speculating what the V would do for/to them/their life (how others might see them). That perhaps they might be ‘better off’ not being virgins at marriage – IDK. With you, I would be meeting the finished goods…it would be all good. – so, not the same thing?

    The only disadvantage for a man when considering a virgin (AFAICS FWIW YMMV) is that she has demonstrated will power in the area (or has a face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle). She has demonstrated that she is probably capable of keeping him (me) waiting for a long time (most men will not like this, including me). If she insists on no sex before marriage – that to me would be a deal breaker, but others would require it. It depends on the type of man that she sets her heart on.

  • did you just call me a nice guy? you take that back, right now! who have you been talking to? they’re liars and/or deranged.

    Too late :p

    To get perhaps too personal (Susan can delete if you wish, no probs)

    If I were your husband, I would be delighted that my new bride was in tact, it would not have been a deal breaker if your N was low, but N=0 would not have been an impediment at all, in fact it would have been a plus (for me alone, it seems).

    For you alone but then you are older do you think your 20 year old self would be this enthusiastic about it?
    Also to bring context half of hubby’s girlfriends were virgins too. He was like “Another one?!” I used to joke that he whether dates virgins or bitches (my assessment of the non virgin ones he never talks bad about them) so good luck I was a virging

    Now again, if I were your husband, I might not wish to raise my children quite as strictly (but still low N). That is not the same issue. I would be speculating what the V would do for/to them/their life (how others might see them). That perhaps they might be ‘better off’ not being virgins at marriage – IDK. With you, I would be meeting the finished goods…it would be all good. – so, not the same thing?

    May be. He has explained to me that his friends had made very poor choices in women due to lack of experience (one of them even dated a stripper) so he associate lack of personal experience with naivety. I mention him that I’m not stupid and I’m inexperienced so who knows we will see when the kids start to grow up what are they going to be working against and with and made the choice. I do plan to make sure they understand male and female dynamics very clearly so they don’t end up screwed up out of feelings (girl) hornyness (boy)

    The only disadvantage for a man when considering a virgin (AFAICS FWIW YMMV) is that she has demonstrated will power in the area (or has a face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle). She has demonstrated that she is probably capable of keeping him (me) waiting for a long time (most men will not like this, including me).

    Heh I mentioned that now that I’m not a virgin I really can’t go without it for a long time like I get really cranky so that I don’t think is an accurate assessment of how it works, IME.

    If she insists on no sex before marriage – that to me would be a deal breaker, but others would require it. It depends on the type of man that she sets her heart on.

    Once I had my engagement ring I considered him my husband so technically we didn’t made it to the signing of papers but being long distance waiting seemed just stupid waste of time, but that indeed depends on the man in question.

  • Just1X

    @Ana
    “Too late :p” – I can find no forgiveness in my heart 🙂

    Maybe my culture made a virgin a great thing in a sexual partner? Mid 40s age now Southern English (suburbs). Attitudes to sex that I heard of in more ‘advanced’ regions were…slacker. But I don’t remember a virgin ever being regarded as bad, just hellishly hard to find (anecdotally). Susan’s stats suggest that the place (Uni) was generously stocked, but IDK where they were hiding, not in the STEM departments in any great numbers (women in general I mean).

    But to those affected, relax, it truly isn’t a big issue – i.e. the physical act. It’ll all sort itself out without drama. Emotionally and ethically, that’s up to you.

  • “Too late :p” – I can find no forgiveness in my heart

    I’M SHOCKED!!! You have a heart?! :p

  • Just1X

    @Ana
    yeah, I have a heart. As an MRA it’s small, shrivelled and black…laugh it up

  • yeah, I have a heart. As an MRA it’s small, shrivelled and black…laugh it up
    http://currybomb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mr-burns-heart.png

  • Just1X

    @Ana, yep that’s the one…tell those that need to know…

  • SW: “I’ve experienced it in my own relationship, though in our case it was more like going from sex 4 times a day to only three or two times. ; )”

    Nice try, as you’re not in a secure relationship, but rather under the fog of new lust. How many months has it been?

  • yep that’s the one…tell those that need to know…

    It will make a lovely neg valentine’s card “I LOVE YOU WITH ALL MY HEART” then cue to tiny black thing that barely can beat 😉

  • Mike C

    See i have a theory as to why the socalled 80% have such a hard time finding each other-and it has little to do with “pluralistic ignorance”. Ill lay it out in a bit…

    Obsidian, I’m genuinely curious what your theory is. I have a theory on this as well that I think is at least a partial explanation.

  • Mike C

    Susan,

    A number of posts now keep referencing back to this “masculine” versus “non-masculine” face concept, and then sometimes “hyper-masculine” gets thrown in as well. Honestly, I still wonder what the hell those various terms mean. You mentioned doing a post that segmented what exactly these terms mean, especially the difference between masculine and hypermasculine. Last night, I watched Snow White and the Huntsman with the fiancee so Hemsworth was on my mind. I’d classify him as masculine but not hyper-masculine:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1400&bih=688&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=c1hfmz7qfb5ulM:&imgrefurl=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1165110/&docid=AMJclp-j-SY70M&imgurl=http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTg3NDA3MTU3MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTIwNTUwNw%2540%2540._V1._SY314_CR45,0,214,314_.jpg&w=214&h=314&ei=8HVWUIeHFsiFywHDiIAg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=334&sig=106077039016368313723&page=1&tbnh=146&tbnw=99&start=0&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:155&tx=27&ty=83

    • @Mike C

      A number of posts now keep referencing back to this “masculine” versus “non-masculine” face concept, and then sometimes “hyper-masculine” gets thrown in as well. Honestly, I still wonder what the hell those various terms mean.

      That’s a fair question. I’ll look into it, I don’t know the answer offhand.

      I agree with you re Hemsworth – he’s masculine, but also “pretty” in a way. This is perhaps the contemporary ideal.

  • Desiderius

    MikeC,

    “A number of posts now keep referencing back to this “masculine” versus “non-masculine” face concept, and then sometimes “hyper-masculine” gets thrown in as well.”

    I don’t have a ruler handy, but it looks like my ring finger is almost a centimeter longer than my index finger, and I can hit a low B-flat (Bb1), so the T likely flows strong in the veins. There are facial/physique features that go with that. Maybe Susan could do a post identifying them.

    “That makes sense in cases of religiosity, or of being raised to be ultra beta in other ways after the Women’s Movement. If so, then I can imagine you feel a deep sense of conflict re your sexuality and what is ‘right.'”

    Religiousity = ultra beta is bad news for religion. Got to get that shit straightened out ASAP.

    I was literally a Beta in college, but then again we’d won the IFC trophy for best fraternity (based on grades, sports, and campus leadership) 17 years in a row when I graduated, so if we were beta we were the greatest betas around. We were known, not entirely ironically, as the “Milk and Cookie Boys.” Nearly all of us married well by 30, but our female pickings during college featured quality over quantity.

    As for feeling conflicted, I really don’t feel like banging anything that moves though, and have had trouble maintaining arousal without an emotional connection.

    I did feel an overwhelming compulsion to assure that “ten” I met last week that I wasn’t hitting on her (with raised hands) before I asked her the question about men approaching her – this in the middle of a pleasant conversation in which she was showing no discomfort at all. Now that is ultra-beta, and not in a good way.

  • Plain Jane

    “The way it tends to work is that promiscuous people pair off, and non-promiscuous people pair off. ”

    Yeah, when they’re being promiscuous.

  • Plain Jane

    From the link pvw provided;

    “My husband and I are monogamous. There has just always been a small asterisk where I am concerned: under certain circumstances, he is not disappointed if I don’t follow the letter of the law.

    Maybe it would be different if I had taken advantage of this freedom by going further than kissing a couple of other people in the past decade, or if I had ever lied to anyone, or if I tended to develop overwhelming feelings for other men. (That did happen once before we were married; my crush on a co-worker ended up being miserable for all of us.) But as a rule, being honest about this has made us feel like more of a team, and even improved our sex life.

    It may seem eccentric that my husband has translated the common fear of being cheated on into enthusiasm for the idea, but he’s not alone. Type “cuckold” into a pornography search engine and you’ll be greeted with countless scenes in which people play out that exact fantasy.

    In an anthology edited by Susie Bright, who blogs about sex, one woman said: “It surprises me to no end that the sexual fetish of cuckoldry, once thought of as a disability, could be shared by so many people. The cuckolding fetish has an element of surprise, along with a bittersweet emotional masochism. Another key to the fetish, from the perspective of the cuckold, is that of eroticizing as a defense mechanism.”

    The M-sphere must behaving fits, and not of ecstasy. 😉

    I’ve often thought that some of them might be nurturing secret cuckold fetishes, by the way they go on and on about it and all.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Madalene

    I can’t promise you that some slutty girls aren’t going to hook up with some guys. They have lots of nice attributes: that’s how they ended up with guys in the first place. They are capable of landing A man for commitment.

    But there’s a ton of guys out there that are not comfortable with slutty girls, either. Maybe you don’t see those girls out walking the streets. But they exist. You can read the stories right here. You can ask Jason, or Jesus M, or I guess deti, or even me.

    And I am pretty sure you don’t want to end up as the girl who got rejected for being too slutty. I’m pretty sure that’s among the worst feelings in the world.

  • Plain Jane

    ” But there’s a ton of guys out there that are not comfortable with slutty girls, either. Maybe you don’t see those girls out walking the streets. But they exist. You can read the stories right here. You can ask Jason, or Jesus M, or I guess deti, or even me. ”

    She’d be getting only Jason’s, Jesus’s, M’s, Deti’s and your (all guys) points of view. Not gettting the points of view of the women you all supposedly rejected for being too slutty. Maybe all those women are currently in happy LTRs with stellar men. Just because you guys rejected them doesn’t mean they went on to become “spinsters”.

  • Abbot

    “you don’t want to end up as the girl who got rejected for being too slutty. I’m pretty sure that’s among the worst feelings in the world.”

    Slut rejection, despite its quiet execution, is the deepest most cutting type of slut shaming known to women and yet oddly the least discussed among sluts and feminists. Its barely even referenced in their rants and articles. Why is that?

  • @mike c, ms walsh:
    I was thinking the same thing about this “faces” survey as it relates to guys and to tell you the truth i think its a bunch of bunk for “robert putnam” reasons. Ill elaborate a bit further on that but for now just for kicks i want to ask ms walsh and all the other ladies reading along:

    To rate the male cast of the avengers’ faces:

    -Robert downey jr/tony stark iron man
    -chris evans/steve rogers captain america
    -mark ruffalo/bruce banner the hulk
    -chris hemsworth/thor odinson
    -clark gregg/agent phil coulson
    -jeremy renner/hawkeye
    -samuel l jackson/nick fury

    So…who among these guys have “str faces” and who has “ltr faces”-and why?

    O.

    • So…who among these guys have “str faces” and who has “ltr faces”-and why?

      It doesn’t work that way. Here’s how they do it:

      They have a pile of photos with SOI scores attached.

      Women rate them for attractiveness.

      Result: Manwhores are the least attractive, Boyfriends are the most attractive.

      Obviously, this can only happen with a random, representative sample of females.

  • Plain Jane

    Mike C September 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    See i have a theory as to why the socalled 80% have such a hard time finding each other-and it has little to do with “pluralistic ignorance”. Ill lay it out in a bit…

    Obsidian, I’m genuinely curious what your theory is. I have a theory on this as well that I think is at least a partial explanation.

    I have a theory too. They’re too picky and the culture does not promote “settling” for settling down’s sake.

  • @mike c:
    Heres my theory in a nutshell:

    The nerds/introverts have inherent blockages towards getting together. Its a “high iq” thing and as such there are tradeoffs associated with this.

    Forums/venues like these ie hus, certain parts of the manosphere etc have a tendency to attract nerds/introvert types. Put that with the fact that nerds/introverts are more prevalent in our time because of the nature of the world in which we live, ie a “dnerd/introvert friendly” world thats based more on modes of existence that are more amenable to such people than in the past and it all makes sense. The 80% have trouble getting together because they inherently arent inclined to be “realtime” sociable. Idiocracy, strikes again.

    This is why hbd plays such a powerful role, and why science will indeed break this thing wide open-and then the real fun is going to begin.

    Plain jane is right to note that guys in the sphere are quirky nerds and the like but she doesnt go far enough; their female counterparts are to be found in venues like this one. Shes one of them in fact. Just read what she says about herself.

    I remember first reading roissy years back. I got hold of a few books on game and within 60 days was seeing much better results. There are guys for whom it takes at least a year. The reason why? Hbd.

    I have a mesomorphic bodytype (5’8″, 165lbs, 44 athletic suit size) and mesos are among if not the naturals of the game world, whereas ectomorphs-the stereotypical nerdy/skinny guys-tend to be the slowest learners of the game world.

    So, ms walsh is dealing with an interesting “problem” but not the one she thinks-or wants to accept. The problem is that the people are inherently less likely to get out there to begin with-which accounts for their falling marital rates and reproductive rates to boot.

    Charles murray was right…

    O.

    • The 80% have trouble getting together because they inherently arent inclined to be “realtime” sociable. Idiocracy, strikes again.

      80% of the population is nerdy introverts? I don’t think so…

  • This makes me feel a bit sad, but it’s understandable 50 years after the Sexual Revolution. We’ve had plenty of stories here of how badly people feel about their own virginity.

    Don’t be virginity worked for me and I was wired to monogamy if I have a daughter and she takes after me she will probably be on “eggs most be protected” on her own she will be lucky because she will probably have a better pool to choose than I had so she might be able to do both marry young to her first partner and start a family like I wish I did.
    Hubby also says that being the son of nerds the boy chances of getting laid before college are slim anyway but that if he manages to do it he probably be all: “High five…wait were you safe? Okay then high five”. Yep that is about right. 😀

  • @ms plain jane:
    You make a point but its only tangential to the one im making. The root “problem. I propose, is hbd-based.

    O.

  • @ms walsh:
    80% of the population YOURE focusing on, ie, white, at least middle class college kids living on campus and who are highly likely to use forums like this?

    Hell yea…

    O.

    • 80% of the population YOURE focusing on, ie, white, at least middle class college kids living on campus and who are highly likely to use forums like this?

      That’s not who Deti was describing. He’s talking about the entire population through his usual lens, which zeroes in on the most promiscuous women like paparazzi zero in on Kate Middleton’s breasts. Deti’s problem is one of massive exception bias, seasoned with a big handful of confirmation bias.

      None of this will make sense to you unless you go back and read the link.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Just1x:

    But to those affected, relax, it truly isn’t a big issue – i.e. the physical act. It’ll all sort itself out without drama. Emotionally and ethically, that’s up to you.

    And here you are, committing the same prejudice that others have before you!

    It’s not the act itself that is preventing virgins from “de-virginizing” — it’s the lack of opportunity. All the virgins I know would be only too happy to jump in the sack!

  • SayWhaat

    Speaking of prejudice…

    @ Desi

    “Right, because it wasn’t as socially sanctioned back then.”

    Prime example of the prejudice.

    I’m just trying to figure out what the mistakes you made were, exactly. You said you were really flaky in your 20s — and then discounted that as the reason. Then you mentioned an LTR at 23 as well as others you would have wifed up — yet you didn’t. Do you mind if I ask what were your reasons those relationships didn’t work out? I’m not trying to rake you over the coals here or anything, I’m genuinely curious (and apologies if you’ve gone into detail over this subject before). But I think that other young readers here could learn from what you consider to be mistakes and glean some lessons from those experiences.

  • SayWhaat

    @ OTC:

    Going on 10 months.

    @ INTJ:

    Ha! Well, I use “per day” loosely — usually meaning “every day I get to see him”. 🙂

  • @ms walsh:
    Yea thats what i thought-like i said, im not buying it; remember what happened with putnam, lol. We all can think up all manner of examples where guys with “hard” faces not only had no trouble with the ladies, they had the (mulitple) baby mamas to prove it-i know i can easily rattle off several dozen off the top of my head.

    Self report is the most suspect method of going about collecting/conducting research. Look at what people-in this case women-do not what they say…

    O.

    • We all can think up all manner of examples where guys with “hard” faces not only had no trouble with the ladies, they had the (mulitple) baby mamas to prove it-i know i can easily rattle off several dozen off the top of my head.

      First, you’re moving the goalposts. This post references faces of unrestricted males, as evidenced by their SOI scores. They were not selected for masculinity.

      Second, you’re guilty (as per usual) of exception bias. The studies don’t claim that no one found the unrestricted faces attractive. Obviously, there wouldn’t be any if these men did not reproduce.

      The question is not “Would you have sex with this man?” The question is: rate this man’s attractiveness on a scale from one to ten. Easy to do, right? You and other guys here do it all the time. At the end of the day, the photos of the men with who are unrestricted in their orientation have statistically significant lower scores than men who are more restricted.

      It’s simple and straightforward. You may claim that women then go on to have sex with men who are perceived as less attractive, but that has not been studied here.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Slut rejection, despite its quiet execution, is the deepest most cutting type of slut shaming known to women and yet oddly the least discussed among sluts and feminists. Its barely even referenced in their rants and articles. Why is that?”

    I’m honestly not entirely sure how this feels to a woman. I searched online but I can’t find a damn thing.

    @SayWhat

    4 times a day is pretty intense. Color me envious.

  • Mike C

    I agree with you re Hemsworth – he’s masculine, but also “pretty” in a way. This is perhaps the contemporary ideal.

    Ha. If I were gay, I think he’d be my type. At least to me, the male ideal is something like Hemsworth, or Pitt in Helen of Troy:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OO1cxpaKueA/TjQKPBssRWI/AAAAAAAADHs/sTLITFL20lM/s640/brad+pitt+Troy+02.jpg

  • Mike C

    I agree with you re Hemsworth – he’s masculine, but also “pretty” in a way.

    I’m sure its hard to verbalize/articulate but could you try to expand on what makes his look simutaneously masculine but “pretty”

    • @Mike C

      I’m sure its hard to verbalize/articulate but could you try to expand on what makes his look simutaneously masculine but “pretty”

      This photo captures it well, I think:

      ch

      He started out as a femme pretty boy, then added all the muscle.

      He has piercing blue eyes with very long eyelashes. His nose is very straight and on the small side. He has heavy eyebrows and a defined jaw, but his mouth is quite feminine.

      A similar case is Taylor Kitsch:

      Now:
      tk

      and then. In this one he has the face of a Victoria’s Secret Model:

      tk

  • Plain Jane

    “Plain jane is right to note that guys in the sphere are quirky nerds and the like but she doesnt go far enough; their female counterparts are to be found in venues like this one. Shes one of them in fact. Just read what she says about herself.”

    Me, a quirky nerd? Hmm I dunno. Maybe. Doesn’t mean I’m attracted to my opposite sex counterpart, though 😉 Remember I said I dated a number of 8+ lookers?

    But what do you mean by I said the guys in the “sphere” are quirky nerds? I differentiate between the PUA-sphere and the Manosphere. The PUA-sphere may be comprised of quirky nerds but as far as I can tell by scouring their forums, they are not angry, bitter, racist, right-wing cultural chauvinists, like you get in the Manosphere which has attempted in an odd way to co-opt the PUA-sphere but which remains opposed to it because of its “liberal” and sex-possie lifestyle.

    The Manosphere is a world onto itself and quirky nerdiness is the least of its problems. Again, like I stated earlier, most women do not find racism and cultural chauvinism to be hot, what to speak of blatant sexism.

    I’d take Mystery any day over that mess; eyeliner, furry hat and all.

  • Mike C

    This is something that I am very interested in. You’re not the only one, Mike C is extremely masculine in his appearance but obviously is LTR oriented, although he has described himself as somewhat unrestricted in his sociosexuality.

    Given the half genetics/half environment divide, I’m wondering if some of the very masculine, high T guys are unrestricted genetically, coupled with highly restricted culturally.

    I’ll admit I’ve thought about this a lot. I’ve had 7 partners, 2 in monogamous LTRs (basically 12 of the last 16 years), 5 either flings, FWBs, or really short-term. My guess is my wiring is more towards unrestricted, and I base this on the fact that I really enjoyed my STR sexual activity. There was definitely a dopamine rush. I totally CANNOT relate to guys like Ted D or Desi who say they have trouble staying aroused if there is no emotional connection. I’ve had sex with women I had no emotional connection with or even didn’t really like, but found very physically attractive. My best guess is I am unrestricted genetically, but was raised to be restricted.

    I am also happy being in a LTR with a deep emotional connection. The way I see it is sex is just one component of a happy, fulfilling, content life. There is financial success, vocational success, and definitely that feeling of knowing there is someone who has your back. I had some serious health problems not too long ago that I am still kind of dealing with. No random casual sex partner is going to take care of you when you really need it.

    Just being honest, but if my sole consideration was maximizing my sexual satisfaction, I’d be single looking to rack up numbers with variety. But again, life is about SO MUCH MORE than just sexual satisfaction. We don’t get to maximize everything. Women have to choose whether to maximize career success or marriage and children. Life is about trade-offs and realizing you cannot always get everything you want as some things are mutually exclusive.

    So to me..in terms of unrestricted versus LTR….I’m giving up one thing to get something of greater long-term value. I suspect for me it is the future time orientation thing at work.

    That makes sense in cases of religiosity, or of being raised to be ultra beta in other ways after the Women’s Movement. If so, then I can imagine you feel a deep sense of conflict re your sexuality and what is “right.

  • Madelena

    Thanks for all your responses.

    When I mean that Western men don’t really care about a woman’s sexual status, i.e. virgin or not, I did not mean only PUAs – from what I read about their ways I think a lot of men can benefit from utilizing their methods but I don’t care for their end goal of sleeping with as many women as possible hence PUAs and I are not one another’s targets.

    I meant a good quality guy like Anacoana’s husband, who I assume is not a PUA, yet still has the very common Western male attitude of not caring for sexually inexperienced women.

    Growing up in a culture where a woman’s value lie greatly in her youth, virginity and beauty I actually do think it is far more humane thing to value women for more than that, don’t get me wrong. It’s just sometimes the grass is greener on the other side, lol 🙂

    Btw, I didn’t think I needed to disclose this but I am not a virgin. Haven’t been for a couple of years. Before I lost my virginity to my bf, I would actually lie about my number because the truth makes one into an oddity. I was already considered a little odd for not hooking up and having one night stands like a lot of my Western peers and co-workers were doing but they chalked it up to me coming from a different culture and not being born and raised in the West.

    • @Madelena

      Btw, I didn’t think I needed to disclose this but I am not a virgin. Haven’t been for a couple of years. Before I lost my virginity to my bf, I would actually lie about my number because the truth makes one into an oddity.

      This is not unusual. I’ve known women who were afraid their bf would find out he was the first, even after they had sex.

  • I’ve had sex with women I had no emotional connection with or even didn’t really like, but found very physically attractive. My best guess is I am unrestricted genetically, but was raised to be restricted.

    This is interesting, especially in light of something my BF said to me today. We were discussing the Hanna Rosin article (we both just read it yesterday) and I was pointing out that most women can’t really separate sex from emotions, while many guys can. He said he prefers relationships, but always had a sense that there were girls he’d never date but would have sex with based on physical attraction. He also said that if he found himself single again, he’d be a lot more sexually aggressive/forward with girls. Based on those comments, and on his physical features, I suspect he’s like you: genetically wired to be unrestricted, but raised to be restricted.

    It’s also been interesting to hear about my brother in his first romantic relationship of sorts (nothing is official, but he’s been hanging out with someone for the last two weeks). He also strikes me as fairly high T, but he is extremely hesitant to get physical with this girl because he’s afraid of making her uncomfortable. I actually almost sent him to this corner of the internet, but I don’t want to chance him stumbling on my stuff lol.

  • Obsidian, I’d personally have assumed that Coulson and maybe Banner were LTR-oriented, dad types. I’d assume that the rest were either active-duty or recently-retired uberplayers (including Cap—for the point of the exercise I’m trying to imagine knowing nothing about him).

  • Abbot

    “Western men don’t really care about a woman’s sexual status, i.e. virgin or not”

    Except for a small number of men, that is true. However, men very much do prefer to avoid commitment to women with the numerically wretched pasts. It is NEVER about virginity for nearly all Western men.

    That serves to clear up any confusion regarding the irrelevant topic of virginity.

    .

  • Abbot

    “in a culture where a woman’s value lie greatly in her youth, virginity and beauty I actually do think it is far more humane thing to value women for more than that”

    How a woman is valued in the mind of a man is entirely up to the man. Its convenient to state that its “culture” influencing how he thinks. Rather than make such an unproven assumption, it may be more useful to ask men why they value women the way they do, accept what they say and conduct your life accordingly (or not).

  • Abbot

    “I was already considered a little odd for not hooking up and having one night stands like a lot of my Western peers and co-workers were doing but they chalked it up to me coming from a different culture”

    But you are in a very similar sexual “culture” (non-gluttonous) when compared to nearly all Western men and therefore the appropriate match. Certainly, you care about men and therefore would advise them to regularly bask in the glorious female bounty awaiting them in your country.

  • Sai

    Re: modern love
    So she’s OK cheating but got mad when her husband did it…

  • VD

    Given the half genetics/half environment divide, I’m wondering if some of the very masculine, high T guys are unrestricted genetically, coupled with highly restricted culturally. That makes sense in cases of religiosity, or of being raised to be ultra beta in other ways after the Women’s Movement. If so, then I can imagine you feel a deep sense of conflict re your sexuality and what is “right.”

    I think you are correct. But note that built into certain religious perspectives, including the traditional Christian one, is the idea that the conflict you’ve identified is supposed to be felt by some men and women. The genetic unrestrictions, both male and female, are the reason for the cultural/religious restrictions. The concept is laid out explicitly in a number of places, specifically 1 Corinthians 7:1-9.

    It’s an interesting thought, in that without conflict, there is no change. And with no change, there is no progress.

  • Iggles

    Wow, Susan! Awesome photos 🙂

    I had no idea Chris used to look like that. He was a handsome guy in his younger days, but I definitely prefer him as Thor!

    As for Taylor Kitch.. I have no words 😆

  • Just1X

    @Say Whaaaat

    And here you are, committing the same prejudice that others have before you!

    It’s not the act itself that is preventing virgins from “de-virginizing” — it’s the lack of opportunity. All the virgins I know would be only too happy to jump in the sack!

    Sorry, didn’t know it at the time, but I was coming down with a cold last night. This explains crap typing and lack of clarity. Feeling bleuch right now.

    I have conversed with women afraid of the act, I was intending kindness.

    When I said about ethics and emotions, I assumed that the woman still had the V-card from choice – due to ethics (save it for marriage) or emotion (not want to give it away in a P&D). In either case, if she decides to give it up, it is her decision to change her ethics or emotions. There was no judgement implied by me.

    If, as you say, these women are trapped in virginity due to men being repulsed by virgins…well, I got nothing. What reasons do the men give? That runs so contrary to my attitudes, those of my friends and my experiences that I’ll bow out. It just sounds bizarre to me. Best of luck to all.

    • @Just1X

      If, as you say, these women are trapped in virginity due to men being repulsed by virgins…well, I got nothing. What reasons do the men give?

      1. Messy, blood everywhere, no thank you.

      2. Virgins get clingy. They want to see you again, no thank you.

      Obviously, it’s sexually experienced men who feel this way.

    • @Just1X

      Sorry to hear you’re not feeling well. Hope you’re better soon. :-~|

  • INTJ

    @ Just1X

    I think it’s projection.

  • Just1X

    Oh as long as there are reasons /sarc

    One of my favourite memories is the expression on her face the first time I…tl;dr…and she wasn’t a virgin. Delicious memory…to be the very first, to leave you both with a memory that will last a lifetime…priceless.

    Sorry, just don’t get it.

  • Mike C

    This photo captures it well, I think:

    He started out as a femme pretty boy, then added all the muscle.

    He has piercing blue eyes with very long eyelashes. His nose is very straight and on the small side. He has heavy eyebrows and a defined jaw, but his mouth is quite feminine.

    Very interesting comparison. I’d be interested to know the respective ages on each of those photos. The difference is quite striking, not just in terms of muscle mass, but how is facial structure seemed to shift substantially (at least to me). FWIW, the younger (thinner) photo suggests he is naturally an ectomorph. I’m speculating here, but I’d bet he has done a number of steroid cycles. It is possible, but highly unlikely he would have been able to gain that type of muscle mass from his natural build without “assistance”. Most steroids have a combination of androgenic (masculinizing) and anabolic (muscle growth) effects and one sign of steroid use is a face that becomes more masculinized. My guess is most of the commenters here would actually prefer the thinner, less muscle, more feminine face although I’m surprised Iggles preferred the more masculine, larger muscle mass. I’m not sure there is a 100% correlation between whether a woman is restricted or unrestricted and whether she prefers a more masculine or feminine look. Just guessing, but I’d bet the “best looking guys” facially combine sort of the more masculine jaw line with a more feminine softer nose. Both Hemsworth and Brad Pitt fall into that category I think. Ashton Kutcher kind of has that look as well, and he was a male model before becoming an “actor”…ummmm cough ahem.

    • Very interesting comparison. I’d be interested to know the respective ages on each of those photos.

      Yeah, I don’t know. In both cases, though, it was the ectomorph pretty boy who became a star and then beefed up for specific superhero type roles. Taylor Kitsch was still quite feminine in the final season of FNL a year or so ago – I think he’s around 30 now.

  • Olive: “I was pointing out that most women can’t really separate sex from emotions, while many guys can. He said he prefers relationships, but always had a sense that there were girls he’d never date but would have sex with based on physical attraction. He also said that if he found himself single again, he’d be a lot more sexually aggressive/forward with girls. Based on those comments, and on his physical features, I suspect he’s like you: genetically wired to be unrestricted, but raised to be restricted.”

    I was raised just like that, too.

    Question: how do you define “emotional separation”? I’ve had some flings, and I considered myself emotionally involved with most of them. They just weren’t mongamous. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say “separate sex from monogamy”?

  • Plain Jane

    Messy, blood everywhere? An urban myth. Or should I say a village myth.

    Abbot:
    ” Certainly, you care about men and therefore would advise them to regularly bask in the glorious female bounty awaiting them in your country.”

    Not everybody believes in inter-racial or inter-cultural marriages, what to speak of inter-religious. I’m more liberal in that regard but many of my older extended family members are deadset against it, and many of the younger ones, while not entirely opposed, prefer to be with “their own” because there’s a certain threshold of understanding already crossed. That’s still how much of the world works.

  • Plain Jane

    So Desiderius is an unrestricted church minister?!?!?! I guess that’s one way to spread the faith

  • Just1X

    #126

    “to leave you both with a memory that will last a lifetime”

    I meant this in a good way BTW – no need for therapy

  • Ted D

    “1. Messy, blood everywhere, no thank you.

    2. Virgins get clingy. They want to see you again, no thank you.

    Obviously, it’s sexually experienced men who feel this way.”

    My second LTR mate was a virgin when we met. I was VERY concerned, but for these two reasons:
    1. I didn’t want to hurt her, and I had heard a few horror stories from other women about how bad their first time was. Of course, I now know that those women chose asshats to deflower them. I’m not surprised it sucked.
    2. When I was in my late teens/early 20’s, I firmly believed that “first loves” never work out. I was concerned because I figured being her “first” she would move on quickly. We were together for 4.5 years, so I got over that fear, but never ended up with another virgin.

  • Desiderius

    “So Desiderius is an unrestricted church minister?!?!?! I guess that’s one way to spread the faith”

    Susan, can you handle this, or do I need to? Can’t really just let this sit there. It’s so wrong on so many levels.

    • Susan, can you handle this, or do I need to? Can’t really just let this sit there. It’s so wrong on so many levels.

      I think you need to, as I can’t be sure exactly what response you would make. Or you could ignore her.

  • Just1X

    @TedD

    1. asshats, you say? I can see that happening in the maelstrom of emotions about losing the V-card I guess…add in a little dutch courage and Bob’s your uncle; a recipe for mixed emotions the next day.

    2. I think that the first time can work, as long as (at least) one of you is keeping a check on reality, not sure how often that happens if you’re both that young…luck may be required, or a lot of cold showers, I guess.

    There are so many (crap) comedies about guys desperate to lose their virginity, it never occurred to me that women (NAWALT) might believe that they have the same issue. Losing it wouldn’t seem to be difficult, it’s the not regretting it that I expected to be the issue for women. Ah well, you live and learn at HUS.

  • 1. asshats, you say? I can see that happening in the maelstrom of emotions about losing the V-card I guess…add in a little dutch courage and Bob’s your uncle; a recipe for mixed emotions the next day.

    I agree with this sometimes pain is unavoidable and depends on the hymen I had a friend that had to get a doctor with an scalpel because hers was so damn thick that hubby couldn’t do the job. So yeah sometimes the man is not at fault, crazy huh?

  • Just1X

    @Ana

    Surely you know the golden rule?
    It’s always the man’s fault, or did you miss feminism 101 in the DR?

    🙂

  • It’s always the man’s fault, or did you miss feminism 101 in the DR?

    We don’t have gender studies yet, back in DR women need degrees that actually allow them to eat after all no affirmative action or welfare 😉

  • OTC,

    Question: how do you define “emotional separation”? I’ve had some flings, and I considered myself emotionally involved with most of them. They just weren’t mongamous. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say “separate sex from monogamy”?

    I guess, but then the sentence would read “most women can’t really separate sex from monogamy, while many guys can”… that’s not exactly the meaning I wanted to get across.

    Perhaps attachment would be a better word?

  • @SW

    Obviously, it’s sexually experienced men who feel this way.

    That says more about such men’s disinclination for a LTR or marriage. Even serially monogamous guys would probably feel uncomfortable. But my guess is that for most all long-term oriented young men (50% or more of the population), even non-religious ones, a girl’s V-card isn’t a stigma whatsoever. This obviously doesn’t apply in environments where such men are in the minority (NYC, LA, SF, etc.) :mrgreen:

  • Sai

    @Desiderius
    Tell her what happens to people who dis preachers… Heh

    @Just1X
    “There are so many (crap) comedies about guys desperate to lose their virginity, it never occurred to me that women (NAWALT) might believe that they have the same issue.”
    I’ve been waiting for somebody to do a movie like that about a girl. I think it could make some real money just because it’s uncommon.

  • Plain Jane

    “So Desiderius is an unrestricted church minister?!?!?! I guess that’s one way to spread the faith”

    “Susan, can you handle this, or do I need to? Can’t really just let this sit there. It’s so wrong on so many levels.”

    Desi, chill. It was a joke in good humor. Did you read the comment from a male commenter the other day quoting some “experiences” you’ve had with women and saying, “this from a minister? excuse me while I open my closet and scream”.???

    Susan didn’t delete that comment and maybe you didn’t see it.

    Anyway, you’ve been pretty open here about your sexual past and it is a bit at odds with what most expect from religious clergy. Maybe all of that was before you become clergy? If so, fair enough.

  • SayWhaat

    I’ve been waiting for somebody to do a movie like that about a girl. I think it could make some real money just because it’s uncommon.

    And if they do, hopefully it won’t feature a girl who is nervous and bumbling and feeds into every stereotype of virgins.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Megaman:

    But my guess is that for most all long-term oriented young men (50% or more of the population), even non-religious ones, a girl’s V-card isn’t a stigma whatsoever. This obviously doesn’t apply in environments where such men are in the minority (NYC, LA, SF, etc.)

    In your opinion, what cities might feature long-term oriented men who don’t harbor any stigma against a girl’s V-card, while still offering enough opportunities for said girl’s career?

  • And if they do, hopefully it won’t feature a girl who is nervous and bumbling and feeds into every stereotype of virgins.

    I think this is not an stereotype most of my friends even if it was their wedding night were nervous and bumbling I don’t think is good to present it as nothing happens that only scares the boys more if they happen to have a virgin that actually acts nervous they will assume she might not be ready and bail, YMMV.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Just1X:

    2. I think that the first time can work, as long as (at least) one of you is keeping a check on reality, not sure how often that happens if you’re both that young…luck may be required, or a lot of cold showers, I guess.

    I think the thing that most (young) people don’t realize is that “keeping it real” is a function of age and maturity, not sexual experience.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Anacaona:

    I think this is not an stereotype most of my friends even if it was their wedding night were nervous and bumbling

    I meant nervous and bumbling in personality. You know, Shoshana from Girls. The kind of girl that’s afraid to do much more than kiss a guy.

    THAT stereotype. Made me want to whack people with my curling iron.

  • I meant nervous and bumbling in personality.
    Oh okay got it I see what you mean. Not in the bed department but in everything else like the stereotype of the nerd in the basement.

  • Just1X

    @Say
    That’s how the guy virgins are portrayed IME

  • Desiderius

    SayWhaat,

    Ignorance is bliss for PJ, but since you asked nicely:

    Here’s the dynamics that keep the 80% disconnected:

    (1) Restricted/LTR-seeking woman sees attractive man.
    (2) She assumes he’s out for cas/unrestricted/STR-oriented (prejudice/apex fallacy/experience whatever), especially if he has masculine features.
    (3) She puts on the stinkface/bitch shield/indifference/aloof game.
    (4) There is a strong norm taught to men since birth not to “bother” women out of his league/not interested (Brendan wrote about this I think)
    (5) The only men who approach her are men who don’t pay attention to norms (STR-oriented men – if they paid attention to norms, they’d be more LTR-oriented) or men who are unaware of norms (creeps, supplicators with stars in their eyes). Where are all the good men?
    (6) LTR-oriented attractive man only gets interest from STR-oriented women interested in his looks.
    (7) He approaches these women, but gets shot down (no sparks, not fun enough, tendency to employ “interview questions” –> Roissyism) when he shows LTR-orientation (see Susan’s example of pre-med student with nanny)
    (8) He underrates SMV, way underrates MMV, either becomes apathetic or learns to be a player to get with STR-oriented women.
    (9) Has difficulty maintaining attraction (his own or hers) with STR-woman and bails/get’s bailed on.

    That’s it in a nutshell folks. Fix the prejudice, fix the problem. For men, understand the prejudice and master it. Tit-for-tat starts with trust.

    “I’m just trying to figure out what the mistakes you made were, exactly. You said you were really flaky in your 20s — and then discounted that as the reason.”

    I would hookup every 3 months or so in college with the help of alcohol (no p-in-v) then either flake or get blown out, since it was mostly with the STR-oriented women who showed interest, and I was very LTR-oriented sober.

    I knew exactly what to do to excel in the classroom. I knew almost everything to do, and invented some new things, when it came to leadership of campus organizations. I had a pretty solid feel for doing well at sports. I had no clue what to do to get a relationship rolling.

    Didn’t like that feeling, so I didn’t.

    Had a lot of female friends I liked and often admired, but had trouble feeling attraction for, so that was where the conflict came in that Susan mentioned – wondered whether I should get with them despite not feeling attracted. Never orbited the nominally LTR-oriented Bolicks I was attracted to but who showed little interest in me – we were in different worlds.

    Had one amazing spring break fling with a smoking hot, smart, funny, possibly LTR-oriented girl, then more or less wussed out when we got back to campus. Went over to her place, and she was cool, but I was petrified. Just didn’t have the experience under my belt to pull it off.

    Only describing all this because I’ve got a pretty good idea that this is what is happening with many attractive LTR-oriented young women who nonetheless flake a lot.

    “Then you mentioned an LTR at 23 as well as others you would have wifed up — yet you didn’t. Do you mind if I ask what were your reasons those relationships didn’t work out?”

    An alpha uncle pushed me into approaching a very attractive (found out later she had been prom queen at her high school) woman who hadn’t showed much interest (usually would have considered her out of my league). Got to talking, she liked my interview questions (she was also second in her class academically), I liked hers, we started dating and hit it off.

    She’d never been out of the state in which she was born and was very close to her family. I’d been in Eastern Europe for the revolutions there while studying at the University of Manchester in England for a year, and had also traveled quite a bit in the States., so felt some disconnect there. GE said move, so I did, and she wanted to stay put so we broke up.

    BTW, when I was out with her, the preselection was overwhelming – all of a sudden the Bolicks were taking interest. Couldn’t wait to pursue them, but no girlfriend = no more interest.

    The second good chance started like the first, then 3 months in, she asked if I minded if BB clone flew her down to FL for a week on his private jet. I said sure. She ended up having a breakdown when he broke up with her. Sad story.

    Very nice summer relationship with very mature high school grad when I was 26 (we had starred in a production of R&H’s Cinderella together). I kept it in my pants, and told her to go to college and chase her dreams. Probably could have talked her into staying.

    4-month relationship with very sharp, cute woman when I was 29, she was 31, she headed to Dallas for her PhD, I to Princeton 3 months later with very high hopes.

    A couple other short ones in there with some very nice girls where she was way more into me than I was into her. I broke it off before things got serious, physically or emotionally. Also a shit ton of getting blown-out by STR-oriented women (lot of delayed IHAB’s); while the LTR-oriented women were in LTR’s or not showing interest.

    About three years ago, had a nice 4-months with a very sweet, together MILF (apologies if that’s crude, but it is an accurate description) from my church whose narcissistic husband had left her with three kids to find another narcissist. The kids always came first, which was cool, but we decided I needed to start my own family, and brought enough to the table to do so – that sort of started my road back. She’s very happy now with a much less attractive but good-hearted older man.

    Mistakes:

    Not getting more practice with relationships in way earlier. Had a girlfriend in fifth-grade, then skipped sixth and all of a sudden girls had boobs while I was still a kid. Didn’t have another girlfriend until prom queen. Didn’t keep a good balance between the romantic and the achievement parts of life. Plenty of friends, but no girlfriends.

    Not getting serious with the prom queen. Saying yes to request to go with BBClone. Encouraging Cinderella to chase her dreams (?) Letting the prejudice of LTR-oriented women at Princeton (this was at the height of second-wave feminism, so it was brutal) wound my pride instead of hanging in there.

    For those still reading, I haven’t been a minister in five years. My N is only 25-30 if you count making out back to movie-time in 5th grade. Third base N: 10-12, Oral: 5, P-in-V: 2.

    Not very unrestricted for a 42-year-old man. If I had married prom queen, we would have both been (technically) virgins.

  • @Desi
    Well I’m surprised of the self awareness you show here. You took a long time it seems to analyze what went wrong that is a HUGE step in the right direction. I think you are in a good position to find the one now. I wish you luck! 😀

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    In your opinion, what cities might feature long-term oriented men who don’t harbor any stigma against a girl’s V-card, while still offering enough opportunities for said girl’s career?

    Depends on the girl’s career. If she’s got some sort of technical ability, then Silicon Valley is the place to be. You’ve got an endless supply of intelligent, high-earning beta males who can’t find a relationship to save their life. And they are very LTR-oriented, so most wouldn’t harbor stigma against a girl’s V-card (in fact, I think a lot would value it).

  • @SW

    In your opinion, what cities might feature long-term oriented men who don’t harbor any stigma against a girl’s V-card, while still offering enough opportunities for said girl’s career?

    I’m not going to argue with you on this one. You’ve already proved me wrong by making it work, and I’m glad for you. :mrgreen:

    I don’t know what your job entails, but if it keeps you stuck where you are, then that’s a tradeoff you’ve made. Consequently, your choice of marriage-minded men was extremely limited. There are only 9 cities in the U.S. that have populations over 1 million. And in every one of those cities, single men outnumber single women. That should illustrate the priorities of young men in really big urban centers. 92% of the population lives elsewhere.

    As for San Jose, CA having “an endless supply of intelligent, high-earning beta males who can’t find a relationship to save their life”, I believe the tangible fact that single men outnumber single women by 1.5x in Silicon Valley probably has more of an effect than nerds who are clueless at dating.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    As for San Jose, CA having “an endless supply of intelligent, high-earning beta males who can’t find a relationship to save their life”, I believe the tangible fact that single men outnumber single women by 1.5x in Silicon Valley probably has more of an effect than nerds who are clueless at dating.

    That’s actually what I mean’t. I didn’t mean to imply that they’re clueless at dating. I just mean’t that the demographic realities are stacked heavily against them.

    It’s really why I want to stay in the East Bay rather than move to Silicon Valley, at least until I get a relationship.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    In your opinion, what cities might feature long-term oriented men who don’t harbor any stigma against a girl’s V-card, while still offering enough opportunities for said girl’s career?

    Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Louisville, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Kansas City, St Louis, Little Rock, Denver… all more traditionally minded than the big coastal cities.

  • Plain Jane

    OK hold up!

    After hearing Desi’s life story, pre and post clergy, what would you all think here of a WOMAN who had all the non-marital sex he had in her youth and then later made the switch to clergy? Deal or no deal?

  • JutR

    PJ, stop being silly.
    A p in v (or v on p) count of 2 is hardly going to raise eyebrows except among the promiscuous.

    And what is with this deal or no deal? That’s so vague as to be useless in responses. Commit or no commit would be a better question, but without appearance, personality, character and personal responsibility factored in, you’ll get useless responses.

  • INTJ

    @ Plain Jane

    After hearing Desi’s life story, pre and post clergy, what would you all think here of a WOMAN who had all the non-marital sex he had in her youth and then later made the switch to clergy? Deal or no deal?

    At that age? Definitely deal. N=2 would be rather exceptional amongst women his age.

  • Ted D

    PJ – “After hearing Desi’s life story, pre and post clergy, what would you all think here of a WOMAN who had all the non-marital sex he had in her youth and then later made the switch to clergy? Deal or no deal?”

    well as a Catholic, any women that went “clergy” would be celibate, so I can’t make a deal with her. But, setting that aside, if I found a woman with a count of 2 in her 30’s I probably wouldn’t care what those men where to her unless she got that count by filming porn. An N of 2 is in NO WAY a “slut tell”. Further, if I believed that the change in attitude was genuine, then yes it would be a deal, even if that N was a little higher.

    N by itself is NOT a deal breaker to me. It is N + how she got to that N that matters, and specifically if she spent a lot of time racking up that N with ONS and FWB situations.

    So, a woman with an N=2 that honestly appears to have had a change of heart and realized her mistakes?! Hell yeah deal! Just finding a woman that realized her mistakes AND learned from them is a stroke of pure luck, probably close to hitting the lottery. (OK maybe more like close to being hit by lightning.)

  • Escoffier

    N=1 is unnacceptable if that 1 was porn or a john.

  • Ted D

    “N=1 is unnacceptable if that 1 was porn or a john.”

    Any prostitution, porn, or porn-like sexual escapades (threesomes, orgies, trains, etc) is completely unacceptable for me to look past. Even if she had a genuine change of heart, I would NEVER get over the mental picture of multiple men pulling a train on her and it would eat me alive.

    I guess in the end I am far too possessive of my mates for me to get over something that extreme.

  • Desiderius

    Ana,

    “Well I’m surprised of the self awareness you show here. You took a long time it seems to analyze what went wrong that is a HUGE step in the right direction. I think you are in a good position to find the one now. I wish you luck!”

    Thanks, but I’m figuring out I’m about half-way there. Woman I mentioned playing pool with looks to be the 6th flake in a row,* and overheard two members of “interested friendzone” mentioning boyfriends in other conversations (never mentioned them to me, so that’s progress, I guess). One was just as flirty as ever and gave me a not-exactly platonic hug on the way out, so the interest is real, but serial monogamy at all costs is still the norm in my neck of the SMP (she’s 32).

    Recognizing (as Susan has all along I think) that the following applies a little too well to my case, especially since learning game:

    “A personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality and attention-seeking, including an excessive need for approval and inappropriate seductiveness, usually beginning in early adulthood. These individuals are lively, dramatic, enthusiastic, and flirtatious.

    They may be inappropriately sexually provocative, express strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and be easily influenced by others. Associated features may include egocentrism, self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, feelings that are easily hurt, and persistent manipulative behavior to achieve their own needs.”

    It’s low enough level to be tackled, but its definitely been there. Working on that now, and repairing some of the damage its done to my life.

    “We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, and straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?”

    ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters & Papers from Prison

    That’s what it going to take, for men and women. Solipsism, narcissism, whatever you want to call it, is the problem for both genders, and the tendency for men to abstract our way out of self-awareness may help identify the general problem, but it doesn’t cure the specific ones.

    * – mistake this time: sent her wall of text (7 lines) with links to choir website, email of coordinator, suggestion she join group of 30ish going out after rehearsal, since Tuesday was deadline for the concert cycle. No response/follow up from her on anything. BTW, I had already gotten the number, and not without enthusiasm, when I asked as I was leaving “You don’t happen to sing, do you?” on the way out. Her eyes lit up and she said she had in college and had been wanting to get back into it. I told her briefly about the group and told her I’d text her the details.

    Still, crickets. Better would have been one line of banter, then get the details in in the course of text back and forth. At least my mistakes keep coming later in the process, but it is a tightrope.

  • SayWhaat

    Thanks, Desiderius. That was very insightful. Best of luck with your dates!

  • Plain Jane

    OffTheCuff September 15, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Desi: “The few times I’ve had a ONS in other situations, I had trouble just keeping it up. Maybe it was just Mardi Gras whiskey dick, but I’ve had rock-hard drunk sex when I was with someone I was feeling it for.”

    This from an very astute Christian, let alone minister? Pardon me while I scream into my closet.

  • Desiderius

    Ana,

    To end on a more hopeful note, and an example of actual progress, professionally and romantically:

    There is a teacher at one of the schools at which I work (my favorite, as it happens – very good relationships with students, improving with teachers and admin) to whom I’m attracted and who has shown some interest, at times in unusual ways – the opposite of love not being hate, but indifference. I ran into her at the symphony and things definitely leaned toward the former there, the latter in what follows…

    Last year we played what could be called mutual resentment game – she would decry the lack of good men while eating lunch in a group that included me; my narcissistic pride hurt, I would mildly seethe with bewilderment as to why she seemed to have no interest in learning about the good man sitting right next to her (we shared similar interests, love of learning, and general outlook on life).

    One day I was in for a special ed teacher whose responsibilities included helping a couple down’s students in her class. I mostly focused on that, but noticed that several boys with whom I had developed good rapport were not paying attention as she offered some valuable insight into the history of Impressionism. I waited for her to pause, and spoke to the boys from across the room about what good teaching they were missing and they came to attention.

    She was not happy, and let me know in no uncertain terms that I should stick to my knitting of helping the Down’s kids. At the time I was dumbfounded that she didn’t appreciate my efforts to help her out (I will commonly team teach with teachers who know me well, but hadn’t cleared this with her ahead of time).

    A couple things have happened in the meantime. I had another sub do this to me while I was teaching a class, and it felt really weird, and reading this blog has led me to question some of my own solipsism (yes, that is the accurate term) and put myself in her shoes.

    This year, the same situation came up (I was helping a very sweet, smart kid who I believe may have had aspergers) and this time I spoke to her before class started. I said, “hey, sorry about last year. I’ll stick to helping [student’s name], let me know if there is anything I can do to help.” I could tell that she appreciated the peace offering, but the implication that she needed help still rankled.

    Instead of being upset by that, I just smiled and said, “Let me try that again – its your classroom, tell me what I need to do” That worked, and I stuck with helping my student, paying attention to her (outstanding) teaching, and enjoying her company the three times she joined us to offer us extra guidance/assistance.

    Yes, there were IOI’s. Didn’t follow up, but progress has been made.

  • Desiderius

    SayWhaat,

    “Thanks, Desiderius. That was very insightful. Best of luck with your dates!”

    Hmmm…

    Desi: Wall of text

    SayWhaat: One line sign off.

    The subtext doesn’t look good for me. Text appreciated – the more brutal, the better. Also curious for thoughts from anyone on the 80% dynamics described above.

    As for the college “hooking up”. There is a difference between p-in-v and just second/third base, but the lack of follow-up still hurts – both parties I would contend.

    I never intended to P&D. My M.O. would include getting a buzz on (never sloppy drunk), and the woman I was dancing with (it almost always involved dancing) would be at a similar level of inebriation. High-achievers tend to maintain a mask of invincibility (see the hypercompetence in movies we love – MI series, Avengers, etc…) that the alcohol allows one to remove for awhile. The “hookups” would include hours of conversation into the wee hours where we enjoyed the rare opportunity to be real for awhile.

    For an STR-oriented person (i.e. most of the women I hooked up with, since they were the only ones who showed interest), the mask has to go back up in the morning. At that point, I didn’t have enough experience to play that part of the game convincingly, nor really the willingness to do so.

    BTW, my college was 75% male, 25% female, so the competition for these women was fierce. I wasn’t up to it (sustaining STR-attraction) past one night. If one switches the genders, I believe what I describe above corresponds with some congruence to the experience of LTR-oriented (I really was that all along – if I weren’t my p-in-v would be higher, only did that in my two best LTR’s), high-achieving, attractive young women in this SMP.

    As for the colorful language that has given poor, dear PJ the vapors, our culture may have Come Apart, by I haven’t – I have feet firmly planted on both sides, and enjoy the frankness of the low (I would say deep) culture, and much as the inspiration offered by the high.

    As it happens, both situations referred to occured when I was not a part of a spiritual community, but I don’t believe either one would be grounds for excommunication.

  • Instead of being upset by that, I just smiled and said, “Let me try that again – its your classroom, tell me what I need to do” That worked, and I stuck with helping my student, paying attention to her (outstanding) teaching, and enjoying her company the three times she joined us to offer us extra guidance/assistance.

    Nice save! You paid attention and calibrated accordingly. Keep going with your eyes open and meassuring her and I think you got a good chance. But as usual take it lightly don’t over do it and don’t over invest. Let it flow naturally. Good luck! 😉

  • HanSolo

    @Desiderius

    mistake this time: sent her wall of text (7 lines) with links to choir website, email of coordinator, suggestion she join group of 30ish going out after rehearsal, since Tuesday was deadline for the concert cycle. No response/follow up from her on anything. BTW, I had already gotten the number, and not without enthusiasm, when I asked as I was leaving “You don’t happen to sing, do you?” on the way out. Her eyes lit up and she said she had in college and had been wanting to get back into it. I told her briefly about the group and told her I’d text her the details.

    That sucks that she flaked…. I often read your field reports and think back to moments where I’ve done the same thing. From a reasonable POV I don’t think you did anything wrong and in the end she’s depriving herself of your company for a foolish notion that maybe you were showing too much interest too soon….

    But that’s her.

    Now you. One question…and I’m sure you’ve thought a lot about it…but what is it in that moment that leads you to write the longer text? Is there some kind of insecurity or anxiousness that gets triggered at an emotional level that then causes you to write that much? And whether this applies to this situation or others where you may be showing too much interest. Or is there an excitement that is kind of like, “wow, she’s cool, I’m going to really jump on this and get it rolling”? Both come from a place of feeling scarcity or neediness or not being good enough. And it’s not a rational feeling. It just wells up, subtly or sometimes with greater strength. I’ve done some introspection to understand myself better and come to some key realizations of where this was all coming from.

    I wanted to put that out there because maybe you have had similar things (or not).

    Good luck.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Desi:

    Desi: Wall of text

    SayWhaat: One line sign off.

    LOL. Sorry, these past couple of weeks have been hectic so I haven’t been commenting much. I have a limited understanding of what the SMP dynamics were like in your heyday, but I’ll try to offer some thoughts.

    (7) He approaches these women, but gets shot down (no sparks, not fun enough, tendency to employ “interview questions” –> Roissyism) when he shows LTR-orientation (see Susan’s example of pre-med student with nanny)

    Ha, funny you bring that pre-med student up. I was actually wondering about that — this is a guy who clearly has a lot of prestige (if not now, then definitely later), there are girls crushing on him in med school, and yet he’s devastated because he wanted a second date with Jenna The Pill, a girl who he was clearly too good for.

    So I think one takeaway that *everyone* needs to do more of is take off your blinders and see if you can observe anyone who might be a better match around you. Who knows, they might already be orbiting. But then this is advice that has been re-hashed over and over again so really I’m just spouting a cliche. Not that helpful. Back to you specifically, Desi:

    I would hookup every 3 months or so in college with the help of alcohol (no p-in-v) then either flake or get blown out, since it was mostly with the STR-oriented women who showed interest, and I was very LTR-oriented sober.

    I noticed that you said “mostly”. What of the girls you hooked up with who appeared to be LTR-oriented? Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but you are slightly younger than Susan, right? IIRC, in her generation hooking up was prevalent, but dating was also part of the norm. Did you flake on a girl who seemed like she was LTR-oriented, even though she hooked up (i.e. made out) with you?

    Or did you just assume that most girls who made out with you were STR-oriented?

    Only describing all this because I’ve got a pretty good idea that this is what is happening with many attractive LTR-oriented young women who nonetheless flake a lot.

    I can’t speak for all attractive LTR-oriented young women, but I think that flaking is mostly a sign of disinterest, not fear at escalation (be it physical or emotional).

    BTW, when I was out with her, the preselection was overwhelming – all of a sudden the Bolicks were taking interest. Couldn’t wait to pursue them, but no girlfriend = no more interest.

    This doesn’t make sense to me. When I was single, and I found out an attractive yet previously unavailable guy was now on the market, I would get excited. Interest doesn’t just drop off like that once a gf is no longer in the picture. It just doesn’t. (Unless the Bolicks had already gotten into LTRs of their own by that point.)

    Other than that, I think you have a pretty solid handle on how things panned out, and what you could be doing differently now. I think Han Solo is onto something, though…I think it is *possible* that you may be sending out too much interest after too few interactions. Just a possibility, not a likelihood, though.

    I think your biggest mistakes (as you already know and have said so yourself) were not locking it down with Prom Queen/PhD girl that could have ended up being long-distance relationships. You guys could have probably found a way to eventually be together again and settled down somewhere else. But I could be speaking glibly because LDRs were certainly harder back then, and my generation has Skype. 😛

    But overall, I think you’ve been very introspective and that can really only serve you well going forward. So once again, good luck. : )

    And stay away from teenagers.

  • Plain Jane

    Desi,
    “As for the colorful language that has given poor, dear PJ the vapors, our culture may have Come Apart, by I haven’t – I have feet firmly planted on both sides, and enjoy the frankness of the low (I would say deep) culture, and much as the inspiration offered by the high.”

    That comment was by Off The Cuff, Des. Just re-posted it to show you I wasn’t the only one who mistakenly thought you were expressing vibrant sexuality while being ordained clergy.

  • Desiderius

    PJ,

    “you were expressing vibrant sexuality while being ordained clergy.”

    Would that I had.

  • Desiderius

    SayWhaat, Han, Ana,

    Thx all for the replies, I’ll get to those this weekend.

    As for the latest flake – she didn’t. I called her last night and she (brace yourselves) answered the phone. As the phone was ringing I realized to my horror that I had sent the choir info to her 7 digit phone number, but that her area code was different, so she never got it in the first place.

    Texted her the info to the correct number, and she responded like a normal human being. So we’ll see. Could have used a little more faith than I had.

  • SayWhaat

    HAHA! Keep us posted, Desi! 🙂

  • Desiderius

    Ana,

    “Nice save! You paid attention and calibrated accordingly. Keep going with your eyes open and meassuring her and I think you got a good chance. But as usual take it lightly don’t over do it and don’t over invest. Let it flow naturally. Good luck!”

    This is such sage advice, I’d like to highlight what you’re saying in case anyone else is still reading along.

    “Measuring her”

    This is key to make sure one doesn’t become the supplicating male. But tit-for-tat starts with trust and I think I’m learning (maybe because my physical attributes/personality already signals the more “alpha” traits, and maybe because LTR-oriented women use beta traits as an initial screen before allowing themselves to feel attraction to the alpha) that leading with the trust/comfort-building is a more effective approach.

    There will be time to measure her after that is established. Wouldn’t be a bad idea for women to hold off a bit on “judging the performance” either, if I’m not mistaken – leading with that risks pre-judgment (prejudice).

    “But as usual take it lightly don’t over do it”

    Believe it or not, I’m actually already doing this, and maybe overdoing it a little (if I could only remember how to be a little nervous!). I’m hyperanalytical with you guys because I’m trying to solve a problem – not that way when meeting someone new, whatever the context.

    One area where I have overdone it is with the DHV’s, even when they come up in the natural flow of conversation. Too much of those (overqualifying) signals insecurity and/or can prompt anxiety in the person one is relating to. Met an otherwise attractive and appealing mid-30’s professional woman who managed to bombard me with DHV’s in the smoothest, most natural way last week. During the conversation, I was thinking – wow, she’s impressive – but after wasn’t feeling the attraction any more.

    This may be what has caused my own problem with flaking.

    “don’t over invest”

    Definitely been a problem in the past, and am now aware of it, but instincts still sometimes run that way. Han picked up on that too. Good way to guard against it is to have several irons in the fire (as far as building/investigating interest/attraction, not sexually).

    Thanks for all the help Ana!

  • Desiderius

    Han,

    Thanks for the feedback – some of the points you raised were addressed above, but as for your specific questions:

    “Now you. One question…and I’m sure you’ve thought a lot about it…but what is it in that moment that leads you to write the longer text?”

    One factor is that I’ve always been a letter writer/reader. Obv most of those with whom I’ve corresponded have been older, and people who’ve grown up with the information firehose that is our current culture are often not comfortable with that quantity of information in one chunk. The whole tl;dr thing. That’s been problematic in this comment section, and I need to be aware of it is whatever context I’m communicating.

    “Is there some kind of insecurity or anxiousness that gets triggered at an emotional level that then causes you to write that much?”

    That is what it signals (a fear that the other person won’t stick around for everything you’re saying, so you need to get your piece said in one big chunk), so where it comes from doesn’t much matter. In my recent (and unprecedented) conflict with my mom, her long e-mails also felt awfully controlling, and that’s a weakness that INFP’s are susceptible to, so I need to keep that in mind too.

    “And whether this applies to this situation or others where you may be showing too much interest. Or is there an excitement that is kind of like, “wow, she’s cool, I’m going to really jump on this and get it rolling”?”

    That’s something that women are running into, so they’re hypervigilant for it. I’m not coming from that place now, but I need to make sure my communication can’t be taken that way, or if I risk such communication, I’m reassuring her in some other way that that is not the case.

    “Both come from a place of feeling scarcity or neediness or not being good enough.”

    I think that’s a common problem in high-achieving family dynamics where the parental love expresses itself conditionally. That was/is a problem in my nuclear, but not my (very strong) extended family, so I have some healthy resources to draw on to ward against that.

    “And it’s not a rational feeling. It just wells up, subtly or sometimes with greater strength. I’ve done some introspection to understand myself better and come to some key realizations of where this was all coming from.”

    Yep. That’s where the “relative insecurity” that I mentioned before comes from. People who feel we need to always be high-achieving will gravitate toward those activities where we’re secure in being so (career-focused, usually) and away from those in which we’re not (dating/relationships).

  • Desiderius

    SayWhaat,

    “Ha, funny you bring that pre-med student up. I was actually wondering about that — this is a guy who clearly has a lot of prestige (if not now, then definitely later), there are girls crushing on him in med school, and yet he’s devastated because he wanted a second date with Jenna The Pill, a girl who he was clearly too good for.”

    The girls crushing on him – I missed that part, where was it mentioned? Did you read my take on the 80% dynamics? Actually, he’s above the 80%, so the problems I identified may be more applicable at the top with the effects damaging the rest of the SMP (slumming by both sexes).

    That was my solipsism – I assumed that women who were attractive to me were also attractive to all the other men (solipsism), and therefore out of my league. I nash equilibriumed my way out of approaching women to whom I was attracted, instead trying to build attraction with women further down the (to some extent imaginary) scale, who thus often perceived me as a player, and a bad one at that, since I was LTR-oriented. The number of attractive women I see with men well below them on any conceivable scale suggests that this may now be happening in the other direction.

    My take is that the Jenna the pills are the only one showing (initial) interest in him (and the traditional matchmaking activities of the older generations aren’t happening). PUA is all about how to sustain the interest of such women, so it’s premise is flawed to the extent my take is accurate.

    “I noticed that you said “mostly”. What of the girls you hooked up with who appeared to be LTR-oriented? Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but you are slightly younger than Susan, right? IIRC, in her generation hooking up was prevalent, but dating was also part of the norm. Did you flake on a girl who seemed like she was LTR-oriented, even though she hooked up (i.e. made out) with you?”

    I’m 13 years younger than Susan I believe, but yeah, serial monogamy was definitely part of the mix, as it still is at that level of the SMP (these women were easily in the top 1%). The spring break fling I mentioned was with a woman who was very interested in an LTR. She had been in two that I was aware of. The fact that they had both been with very impressive men was what led to my flaking as I felt that I wouldn’t measure up. As Mike said – her call, not mine. I made the wrong one.

    She actually did make the call – she invited me over after we got back but my relative insecurity made it (again, relatively) awkward and I didn’t follow up.

    “Or did you just assume that most girls who made out with you were STR-oriented?”

    No – there was one other LTR-oriented (set up by a friend), the rest were definitely STR types (usually via mixers with other schools). For an example of how these women can be real one night, then put the mask back on the next day, see the last two scenes of Young Adult.

    “I can’t speak for all attractive LTR-oriented young women, but I think that flaking is mostly a sign of disinterest, not fear at escalation (be it physical or emotional).”

    If I flaked now (that I have fewer options), it would be. At the time, I had a lot of options (even if I wasn’t consciously aware of them, I knew I would in the future), which changes the dynamics. Perfectionists tend to be notorious procrastinators. I’m aware that this risks looking like Desi’s hamster, and is thus a major DLV to even pursue this line. That I’m doing so anyway should express how strong I feel my intuition is on to something here.

    Understanding flaking this way (as opposed to the usual very negative assumptions about women’s reasons for doing so) could help alleviate some of the distrust in the SMP. Knowledge is power, and power is sexy.

    “This doesn’t make sense to me. When I was single, and I found out an attractive yet previously unavailable guy was now on the market, I would get excited. Interest doesn’t just drop off like that once a gf is no longer in the picture. It just doesn’t. (Unless the Bolicks had already gotten into LTRs of their own by that point.)”

    The reason I was on the market was that I had moved. The Bolicks were out of the picture too. I was coming across as too STR-oriented for the Bolicks. Having a girlfriend alleviated those concerns. Also preselection.

    “But I could be speaking glibly because LDRs were certainly harder back then”

    LDR’s are still hard, and social networks tied to place are likely more important than previously thought. Staying put is becoming less uncool.

  • Plain Jane

    Desi, “I’m 13 years younger than Susan I believe”

    That would place you at 42, wouldn’t it?

    Just curious, are you still clergy or you left it? Are you looking to marry and start a family? If so, what do you think about your age in relation to that aspiration?

  • Desiderius

    SayWhaat,

    One follow-up: flaking by definition implies that its not about lack of interest, unless the signals of interest given were misread/faked, or the flaker changed his/her mind after the fact.

    I’ve tried to give some details regarding signs of interest on the part of the women who’ve recently flaked on me (waiting for me at the door, touching/eye contact, etc…) but to some extent you’re going to have to trust that I’ve experienced enough interested women to know what that looks like. I take your point that I need to build more comfort/attraction initially/keep building inner game and agree.

  • There will be time to measure her after that is established. Wouldn’t be a bad idea for women to hold off a bit on “judging the performance” either, if I’m not mistaken – leading with that risks pre-judgment (prejudice).

    You are preaching to the choir (old habits die hard) I always expected first dates to be awkward, like your first time talking in front of an audience. I totally think if this was more accepted more people will be able to pair up.

    That was my solipsism – I assumed that women who were attractive to me were also attractive to all the other men (solipsism), and therefore out of my league.

    Good personal insight, I think moderation is important you shouldn’t aim for Miss Universe to avoid time wasting and heartbreak but you shouldn’t assume that your attraction might not be reciprocated. Probably the mixing company and keeping it casual helps with that.

  • Desiderius

    PJ,

    “Just curious, are you still clergy or you left it? Are you looking to marry and start a family? If so, what do you think about your age in relation to that aspiration?”

    I’d be happy to engage with you like normal human beings. That will require:

    (a) an apology
    (b) better reading comprehension

    (b) should become easier going forward as my low-level narcissism/solipsism subsides.

    Brevity is the wit of the soul.

  • Plain Jane

    Excuse me, but an apology for what? Are you asking the same of OTC? Both of us were under the impression that you were clergy and writing about your sexcapades. Forgive us for not reading every single comment of your’s here on the site. We obviously missed the ones explaining your journey in and out of clergy. Nonetheless, both of our comments were half in jest, so again I request – take a chill pill, bro. Or “father”.

    🙂

  • Desiderius

    PJ,

    “Excuse me, but an apology for what?”

    When you figure it out, I’ll answer your question.

  • Tom

    Eating popcorn and having a ball reading this stuff…….
    Should have a #17
    Sometimes promiscuious people do have a change of heart, find someone who loves them for who they are and go on to have a great relationship without such terrible judgement. Susan is a perfect example.

  • HanSolo

    @Desiderius

    Just got back from the mountains and into internet range.

    You’re an INFP. I’m an INFJ/P (the NFJ were all borderline). I feel like I can relate to many of your experiences, even if not in the exact specifics.

    As I read you’re comments (and in general) I think it’s important to keep a balance of improving ourselves in areas that we want to and that make us better people and in that sense it’s valuable to recalibrate ourselves or outright change certain unattractive things. But it’s important to remember to not make all women’s judgements sacrosanct and prostrate ourselves to the fickle whims and prejudices that some entitled souls indulge in these days. We too can and should filter and an overly prejudiced woman can just as well do without my company.

    Regarding communication, I have been thinking a lot lately about how so much of communication is in the underlying frame and things like body language and implied motivations. I feel like I have a lot to offer but since I tend to undersell myself subconsciously then I sometimes try to overtly communicate that worth which then comes across as desperate or as trying too hard. I have a friend who is the opposite. He projects much more confidence than the underlying substance (though he does have quite a bit of substance). I’m working on internalizing the value of the many positive things I have to offer so that that confidence just naturally comes across.

    Too put it crassly, I think I have an MMV of roughly 8 or so. I have a lot of 7’s and lower very interested in me and since I’m not interested in them I don’t F it up with a lot of needy anti-game. But put an 8 in front of me that I really like and I antigame myself down to about a 6. lol With several 8-9’s that I’ve dated or gf’ed somehow I was able to overcome the antigame, keep it in check, or somehow not feel so into them and thus not be so needy and they really liked me and I was the one to end it.

    I’m doing 3 things:

    1) I’m working on getting my emotional inside self to really believe that I deserve what on paper I should be able to attract and sometimes in practice have attracted (aka increase the esteem I feel for myself to a more accurate level).

    2) I am also realizing that though they’re not overflowing there has always been a new quality 8 or 9 every few or 6 months that showed reasonable to significant interest and so there is a relative abundance.

    3) Finally, evaluate more up front and be less picky later on: I am trying to withhold approval initially to keep my infatuation tendencies in check and trying to act less picky later on to give things more time to develop the emotional and conversational bond that I need to really love someone. In the past I bailed too soon on a couple of great girls (didn’t feel enough connection with one and the other criticized too much) and wish I had given it more time. No guarantee more time would have improved things but in hindsight it would have been worth trying.

  • Desiderius

    Han,

    Have you read the Ian Ironwood article? We’re among friends here, so its safe to be this introspective/share reflections and experiences, but for a man, it will be a DLV. I’ve noticed that even here when I do it, I’ll start getting one line responses and tumbleweeds from the female commenters. It’s definitely not strong and silent.

    I’ve risked it because I’ve had positive experiences in my classroom being open and honest about difficulties I’ve had in my content area, which helps students get beyond their own self-consciousness and fear of appearing imperfect.

    That said, it’s work that needs to be done, so good friends one can do it with in a high trust environment are as good as gold. I appreciate your trusting me with that. Just keep in mind that in a professional/dating environment, it will be way out of place, even if you’re just doing it in your own head.

    It’s like the difference between practice and the game, if you’ve played sports, or rehearsal and performance in the arts. Good practice/rehearsal is all about self-awareness and criticism and conscious effort. If one has done that work, once the whistle blows/the curtain goes up, one forgets oneself and just enjoys the excellence produced by that work.

    As for your points:

    (1) Deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it. Her call, not yours. Focus first on enjoying her company, then on whether she’s what you’re looking for once some comfort/trust/mutual affection is established.

    (2) That won’t always be the case, and don’t just wait for them to come to you, especially if you’re a man. Expand your social circle. Obv abundance mentality is essential as the outset, but once she emotionally escalates, don’t be afraid to let her know, in moderation, what sets her apart. Specifics, not general.

    (3) Good plan. When a red flag comes up, stick around to see how she handles it (obv depending on the severity). Now that you’ve got some strategies for working through your issues (we all have them – issues, alas, not strategies), see if she has some strategies of her own. If she does, that red flag may not be permanent.

    As for bailing, it’s my general experience that when a relationship/marriage between functioning adults ends, it’s usually the weaker bailing on the stronger.

  • HanSolo

    @Desiderius

    I believe I read it but if you can remind me what it’s about or send the link that would be helpful. I’ve been reading a lot lately and hard to keep everything on the tip of my tongue.

    I have learned that sharing too much of your weaknesses with women kills their attraction often…so I do it here because I’m not trying to attract anyone and also find it helpful to write out these things and hope it may help other men and women to understand the human experience. Thanks for listening and providing feedback. I still yearn to be able to really be understood and loved by a woman but am more cautious about opening up…but sometimes I’ve done so and it did bring a great deal of closeness followed by a makeout so with the niche market of women who want a deep connection I think it can be done but it’s important to pick wisely when and with whom you share stuff. It’s kind of like salt…it adds flavor but too much will ruin it.

    Good point about practice vs. the game.

    Responding to your response:
    1) Deserve was a poor word choice. A better phrasing would be to say that I like myself enough that I’m going to give her the opportunity to know me more and I her and let the chips fall where they may without pre-emptively ruling myself out. The opposite of believing I don’t warrant consideration by her. She will of course do what she will.

    2) Letting a woman know specific things that are appreciated after she has emotionally escalated is a good thing. Even mentioning one or two once I am aware of them can also be a good way to transition from friendship to exploring the possibility of more. I definitely seek out women but since I tend to be too negative sometimes it is me to remember the relative abundance I’ve had so as to help me have a more positive/realistic outlook.

    3) Good advice on seeing if she is trying or willing to work on her issues too. I haven’t liked being bailed on and so I am trying to work things out more too. With the last girl I was dating more seriously I stuck with it longer in spite of some misgivings. In the end we mutually broke up but I’m glad I stuck with it longer.

    Once again, thanks for listening and sharing your advice and experiences. Let me know if I can be of any help.

  • HanSolo

    http://theredpillroom.blogspot.ca/2012/09/the-tangled-chains-on-swing-set-of.html

    I assume that is the one you meant and I did read it. Thanks.

  • Desiderius

    HanSolo,

    “Once again, thanks for listening and sharing your advice and experiences. Let me know if I can be of any help.”

    If you could find a way to get me to stop spamming Susan’s blog, that would help. Especially when I say I’m not going to. That’s maddening.

    “A better phrasing would be to say that I like myself enough”

    No, this is what I was trying to get you out of in the first comment and in the recommendation that you read the Ironwood article. You’re not Stuart Smalley. Whether you like or dislike yourself is beside the point. It’s a category error. Do you like the alphabet? The fact that the sun rises in the morning? That 2 + 2 = 4?

    Liking/disliking people is about deciding how much of one’s life to invest with them, including how much time you spend. You’re stuck with yourself 24/7 whether you like yourself or not. It’s a pointless question. Make the best of what you got.

    This is actually the difference between a marriage done well and a serial-monogamy style LTR. In a truly committed marriage, you’re not always wondering if your spouse measures up. There is a mutual understanding that you’re both in it for the long haul (for better or for worse), so you can get busy making the best of it together.

    With serial monogamy, there is no such dynamic, so one (I’m intentionally not assuming that it is the female who is always doing this, but it often is since the tone is set at an age when the female has the higher SMV due to biology) is always on the look-out to trade up to a bigger better deal, and analyzing how much one “likes” one’s partner, instead of focusing on making the relationship all it can be.

    • @Desi

      If you could find a way to get me to stop spamming Susan’s blog, that would help. Especially when I say I’m not going to. That’s maddening.

      Stop that, I appreciate your commentary very much and you’ve bonded pretty strongly to several of the commenters. You’re part of the community now, like it or not.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Desi:

    With serial monogamy, there is no such dynamic, so one (I’m intentionally not assuming that it is the female who is always doing this, but it often is since the tone is set at an age when the female has the higher SMV due to biology) is always on the look-out to trade up to a bigger better deal, and analyzing how much one “likes” one’s partner, instead of focusing on making the relationship all it can be.

    I contend that this only occurs when one is not fully absorbed with his/her partner. IOW, if there is mutual oneitis in a relationship, neither partner will be on the look-out to “trade up”.

  • Desiderius

    I’m good – not insecurity. Just feeling a strong need for more brevity.

    Like my grandfather told me – the more you talk, the less people listen. Need to make every word count.

  • Just1X

    @Desi
    hav u cnsdrd txt spk?

  • Plain Jane

    “This is actually the difference between a marriage done well and a serial-monogamy style LTR. In a truly committed marriage, you’re not always wondering if your spouse measures up. There is a mutual understanding that you’re both in it for the long haul (for better or for worse), so you can get busy making the best of it together. ”

    This is the arranged marriage model of South Asia. Sorry Susan, I had to.

  • Desiderius

    xctly

    have read vowel-less Hebrew. That’s fun.

  • HanSolo

    @Desiderius

    If you could find a way to get me to stop spamming Susan’s blog

    Well, I guess I could just stop talking to you but you’re just so damn irresistible! 🙂

    I agree with your points about lifelong vs serial relationships, of making the most of it in the lifelong case and one or both eventually moving on in the serial case. I want a lifelong relationship so to me that means picking wisely and then making the best of it.

    (1) Deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it. Her call, not yours. Focus first on enjoying her company, then on whether she’s what you’re looking for once some comfort/trust/mutual affection is established.

    I agree with your point 1 above.

    I suppose, what I’m trying to get at is that how a man feels about himself and the world (self-esteem, confidence, bitterness or lack thereof, etc.) will be picked up by a woman and greatly influence whether she feels attraction. Whereas some men have more confidence and self-esteem than they “should” I have less. This is something I have dealt with my whole life–I think that I’m just naturally understated and tend to focus a bit too much on the flaws (usually, mine, not hers at first and then too much on hers later in the relationship) in a perfectionist kind of way. In addition to my nature being that way I had many years of religious nurture and self-focus on trying to be more humble, not be arrogant, turn the other cheek, and that I always had to forgive.

    In my experience, I have too little self-esteem and am far too focused on external validation from those I want it from (aka other-esteem). Hmmm, I was about to write that when I feel good about myself then I have more successful interactions with women, and that’s true…but I just realized that it’s not so much that I feel low self-esteem, it’s more that I just flat out sometimes feel sad and brooding and I’ve interpreted that as low self-esteem when often it has nothing to do with how I view myself. (Now, sometimes I feel sad or nervous or insecure because of certain things about myself so those could be low self-esteem related but many times it’s not.)

    I think my realization is that I am naturally on the sadder, more pensive side of the sadness/happiness spectrum and that’s alright, that’s who I am. In a way it’s a gift because it helps me be very empathetic to others but in terms of feeling happy in life and attracting women it hasn’t been so helpful. Once in a while that state is useful but I do have another side of me (that really is part of me) that loves to laugh, joke, is naturally happy, feels good about himself and life and there are certain things I do and can do to be in that state. That state is usually more useful in achieving my goals and living the way I like to.

    Well, I may not be understanding the point(s) you’re trying to make so please feel free to say more but I do appreciate the conversation that has helped me think more about things and realize important things about myself.

    And I did laugh at the Stuart Smalley clip.

  • Plain Jane

    “In my experience, I have too little self-esteem and am far too focused on external validation from those I want it from (aka other-esteem). ”

    Much of what the Manosphere describes as self-esteem is actually other-esteem. This is where they get their solipsism wrong too.

  • HanSolo

    @Plain Jane

    Can’t speak for OTC but I listen to my friends because I like to understand them and also help them sort out stuff going on in their lives. No ulterior motives except perhaps finding people fascinating and striving to understand human nature better. It’s hard to understand someone or get them to be honest with you or open up when you’re criticizing them.

    The Latin word for knowledge is scientia. Part of being a scientist (i.e. someone is trying to acquire knowledge via observation) is trying to remove as much bias as possible from the measuring apparatus as possible so that you don’t influence the observation or experiment.

  • J

    This is the arranged marriage model of South Asia. Sorry Susan, I had to.

    And of every other traditional society.

  • J

    Desi,

    Your post #151 shows a lot of self-knowledge. Good for you!

  • VJ

    Didn’t know where to put this, and I think it’s been already covered too. But just the same from Bloomberg comes ‘Promiscuous College Majors’ : vid w/graphs:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/which-college-major-is-the-most-promiscuous-Y0RpshCLQjinxgcqJN_Yig.html

    At number of partners, per Economics leads the field in this UK study @ 5 along with Social Work (also ~5) , with the STEM folks way down the list. SSDD. Yep. Cheers, VJ

    • @VJ

      I found the table of results from that study, and the results seem inconclusive, at best. For example, here are the average number of sex partners by major:

      Economics 4.88
      Social work 4.7
      Agriculture 4.4
      Electrical engineering 4.35
      Social Science 4.05
      Civil Engineering 3.85
      Physics 3.8
      Performing arts 3.52
      Math 3.5
      Management, marketing and HR 3.48
      Art 3.18
      Computer science 2.89

      So what does that really tell us? Comp Sci guys don’t do so well, but Art is way down there as well, and engineers and physicists are doing OK. Overall, I’d say this list violates several common assumptions.

  • Tom

    Des
    This is actually the difference between a marriage done well and a serial-monogamy style LTR. In a truly committed marriage, you’re not always wondering if your spouse measures up. There is a mutual understanding that you’re both in it for the long haul (for better or for worse), so you can get busy making the best of it together.

    With serial monogamy, there is no such dynamic, so one (I’m intentionally not assuming that it is the female who is always doing this, but it often is since the tone is set at an age when the female has the higher SMV due to biology) is always on the look-out to trade up to a bigger better deal, and analyzing how much one “likes” one’s partner, instead of focusing on making the relationship all it can be.
    _______________________
    WOW great post…
    I think sometimes ,when a person doesn`t like themselves, they unconsciously are constantly in serial monogamy mode because they just can not believe they deserve fidelity from their partner, they can not totally commit because of that thought process, and sometimes sabatage the relationship thru their actions.

    • @Desi

      This is actually the difference between a marriage done well and a serial-monogamy style LTR. In a truly committed marriage, you’re not always wondering if your spouse measures up. There is a mutual understanding that you’re both in it for the long haul (for better or for worse), so you can get busy making the best of it together.

      This is so important. I would argue that wondering, whether it’s about your spouse measuring up, or you measuring up, makes a good relationship elusive (at best). You may get along OK, you may stay together, but you’ll never have that feeling of security that is essential to true intimacy.

      If you’re wondering, you’re with the wrong person. Once you’re married, it’s too late, so never, ever walk down the aisle with even an iota of doubt, i.e. wondering.

  • Liz

    “For women only, sociosexual orientation was related to preferences with respect to sexual experience in a potential date or mate.”

    How do men feel, by comparison? Do they prefer women with a lower number of past sexual partners, even if they themselves have had a high number of past sexual partners? Thus, there’s a correlation for women but not for men? Is that it? I don’t see this clarified anywhere above, but maybe I missed it.

    • @Liz

      Do they prefer women with a lower number of past sexual partners, even if they themselves have had a high number of past sexual partners? Thus, there’s a correlation for women but not for men? Is that it? I don’t see this clarified anywhere above, but maybe I missed it.

      I think most men prefer women with a low number of past partners, but the higher a man’s own number is, the more lenient he will become. A man with 5 partners would likely not consider a woman with twice that, but a guy with 50 partners will think 10 is a minimal. It depends on where the guy himself is sitting.

  • Liz

    @Ted D:

    “Any prostitution, porn, or porn-like sexual escapades (threesomes, orgies, trains, etc) is completely unacceptable for me to look past. Even if she had a genuine change of heart, I would NEVER get over the mental picture of multiple men pulling a train on her and it would eat me alive.

    I guess in the end I am far too possessive of my mates for me to get over something that extreme.”

    I’m trying to understand why some (a lot of?) men think this way. Is it about wondering if some of the other men in her past were more “alpha” than you? Or is it about wanting sexual intimacy to be special and not cheapened by casual sex or something like that? And how about men having threesomes with two women? Do you apply the same standard?

  • Liz

    “They found 60% of 30-year-old women wanted sex “often” at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50%, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.”

    Is this because their husbands aren’t acting “alpha” enough?

  • Desiderius

    Liz,

    Thanks for your questions – hope you stick around and offer some answers too.

    “How do men feel, by comparison? Do they prefer women with a lower number of past sexual partners, even if they themselves have had a high number of past sexual partners? Thus, there’s a correlation for women but not for men? Is that it? I don’t see this clarified anywhere above, but maybe I missed it.”

    In the solipsism thread, people are saying that the higher the male N, the less he’s concerned about the female N. The idea is that like attracts like. I’d also guess that high-N men are less worried about their women fooling around on them, since they’re so awesome.

    “I’m trying to understand why some (a lot of?) men think this way. Is it about wondering if some of the other men in her past were more “alpha” than you?”

    My sense is the concern is about the future, and what the past likely predicts of it. Studies back up the fact that women with a promiscuous past have difficulty pair-bonding. Framing the question as understanding male insecurities may not be optimal.

    “Or is it about wanting sexual intimacy to be special and not cheapened by casual sex or something like that?”

    I kept it in my pants because I wanted sex to be something I did with my wife, and vice versa. I became convinced that this was no longer a realistic expectation, so ended up having sex in a couple relationships because it seemed to be necessary to maintain a minimum level of compliance with contemporary mores.

    I’m beginning to suspect I may have been mistaken there.

    “And how about men having threesomes with two women? Do you apply the same standard?”

    In the abstract, sure, but gender differences are sufficiently inexorable that some double standards are inevitable, both ways.

  • Tom

    Liz
    I’m trying to understand why some (a lot of?) men think this way. Is it about wondering if some of the other men in her past were more “alpha” than you? Or is it about wanting sexual intimacy to be special and not cheapened by casual sex or something like that? And how about men having threesomes with two women? Do you apply the same standard?
    ______________
    Yes to all of the above. Some men do not their woman to have the possibility of having had a better man they they in bed, some men do want the sexual part of the relationship to be “uniquely” special and not “tarnished” by casual sex. Most men apply the double standard that it is ok for them to screw everythnig that walks, including threesomes etc, but its not ok for their perpective woman to do the same.
    That is the most popular attitude out there and women need to know that behavior is a huge turn off to the majority of men (not all men)

  • sister…it’s like you were walking into my touhtgs. I was in a relationship with a guy who used to adore me in the beginning, then abruptly he broke up with me…in my heart I kept believing that he will come back and just like in the movies we will have an happy ending. I kept waiting until it never happened so I run back to him only to realize there was nothing there it had been a lie all along and he kept telling me he didn’t want me back but I kept thinking he’s gone realized that he misses me and come back begging…the sad part is that am 33 yo. I take responsibility for not paying attention to the warning signs from the very beginning of the relationship. However, I was also under the influence of watching too many romantic movies where the guy always comes back for the girl at the end. It never happened for me…and reality sucks!!!!!

  • Josh

    Maybe a bit late to the conversation here but I just had to comment on this:

    ““The way it tends to work is that promiscuous people pair off, and non-promiscuous people pair off. ”

    Yeah, when they’re being promiscuous.”

    What does that reply even mean? How are non-promiscuous people being promiscuous, by the very definition?

    So you think the match game works well when people are drunk and horny, but then when people are ready to settle down they throw all their criteria out the window?

    Wouldn’t it be the exact opposite? I mean, when people are “being promiscuous”, doesn’t that guarantee at least one of them is the promiscuous type?

    Susan makes a strong point that when people are looking for long term partners, they’re looking for people like them. If somebody has no problem with treating sex casually they won’t mind someone else who does, but people who restrict sex to relationships or at least only have meaningful sex likely end up together. This is a good thing lol, why would this anger anyone?