Sex Differences

September 17, 2012

At the end of the day….

Link.

Let’s keep talking.

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • John G

    Gosh first? I guess the whole confirmation bias thing rears it head.

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

    Most of the kerfaffle in the relationship arena stems from the fact that 95% of the female malaise comes from the upper end of the bell-shaped curve, and gets a lot, a lot of attention. After all, when this girl is dissatisfied, it’s Defcon 5 important.

    95% of the male malaise comes from the middle and lower end, so when this guy is dissatisfied, he should Suck It Up, Get Over Ot, or best of all, just Be More Attractive.

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

    There is a comedy show called “Defending the Cave Man,” which I have never seen, but did hear who the guy who created it on the radio. He said that while men consider women mysterious, women think men are always wrong. He said a women stood up in audience and yelled, “They ARE always wrong!”

    Women smile when I tell them that. Then I add, “Remember what Jack Nicholson’s character said about understanding women? ‘I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.’ And St. Paul said women are not to teach or talk back.”

    Then they yell, “You’re wrong!”

  • Just1X

    @Susan
    re the cartoon – meh

    this stuff is hilarious though
    http://www.27bslash6.com/missy.html

    It involves a man and a woman. It also describes how their male and female minds interract – so I claim that it falls within the purview of HUS…thoughts?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Just1X

      That is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time. I guess I’ve been living under a rock, because I had never heard of David Thorne.

  • Abbot

    The greatest sex difference is the value placed on sex. It became more cheap in the minds of certain women as the market supply of favored males and the artificial ease of access (via BC pills) to them increased. This left coveted women who are difficult to access and thus of high-value

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Nice image. I think it’s important to note that there are also huge differences in perceptions of “the full range of human experience and knowledge” WITHIN genders…a female INFP and a female ESTJ may experience life in ways that are almost as different as a female ESTJ and a male ESTJ.

  • INTJ

    @ Just1X

    this stuff is hilarious though
    http://www.27bslash6.com/missy.html

    It involves a man and a woman. It also describes how their male and female minds interract – so I claim that it falls within the purview of HUS…thoughts?

    Thats hilarious. Shows how women stay with assholes and try to fix them.

  • INTJ

    It’s interesting how the picture Susan found reflects societal biases. Notice how the range of human experiences for the girl is so much broader than that for the guy. It seems to be implying that the girl is more right than the guy.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB

      I LOL’d at “to Congress!”

  • J

    @Mule

    It’s certainly true that the world falls over itself trying to please good looking people. I’m not sure I understand why you say female malaise is concentrated among the most beautiful women. I was a pretty funny looking kid, and I can tell you that was hell. My looks (and life!) improved as I grew into my face. I probably have less malaise now, but people perceive it as a bigger problem and are less likely to brush it aside.

    @INTJ

    Re #7– Missy is a coworker asking for a favor, not a gf.

    Good catch in #8 though. The slice of experience available to men only is portrayed as much smaller than than available to women only (if such things really exist).

    @david

    IME, some women who belong to the more “masculine” MBTI types are nearly as different from other women are men are. I’m an INTP, and I have trouble relating to certain types of women.

    @J1X

    I love David Thorne and dislike cats. The girliest thing about piece is Missy’s love from her cat. The funniest is her anger at David. The malest thing is Thorne not caring about the cat. That’s funny all together , but I’m not sure that Thorne is demonstrating anything about M/F relationships. The same dynamic (Thorne being an asshole and frustrating other people in a witty way) is played out in the entire book that site advertises. His interactions are the same and the humor derives from just how big an ass Thorne can be and how people are sort of powerless to get im to deal with them on a serious basis. Some of the funniest pieces involve a male co-worker man named Simon, and there’s one where he goes round with a (male) lawyer that’s a scream. You keep asking yourself, “How does he get away with this shit?”

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW

    Let’s keep talking.

    If you’re seeking diversity of opinion and proportionality, then you’re short ~ 30 to 50 female regulars. :mrgreen:

  • Just1X

    @J
    “but I’m not sure that Thorne is demonstrating anything about M/F relationships. ”

    okay, you got me…I was just looking to post the link again (mea culpa)

    the snowboard one is my latest fave
    http://www.27bslash6.com/function4sports.html

    free plasma tv is pretty cute too
    http://www.27bslash6.com/plasmascreen.html

    or the party invite
    http://www.27bslash6.com/matthewsparty.html

  • Just1X

    @J
    the cute ginger cat upgrade just had me LOWOL (way out loud)

  • Deli

    Sorry, but current human society is built on scientific method – i.e. method of finding one true answer to any particular question.
    There is no room for “agree to disagree”, either one person is right or the other.

    I can accept that I am wrong in my understanding of the driving forces behind human sexual behavior … as long as the person proving me wrong can provide an alternative hypothesis, that
    a) satisfies the Popper’s criteria of scientific theories,
    b) predicts sexual behavior of human beings more reliably than my working hypothesis.

    And speaking of working hypothesis: “Game” – if viewed as a hypothesis used to predict sexual behavior of both men and women – delivers reliable results. It does not give a 100% correct forecast (I would hazard a guess that Game correctly predicts probably something like 40-50% of behaviors – in the remaining trials it recommends to cut the losses and go), but it certainly gives a forecast, which turns out to be correct with a probability higher than the probability that could have been achieved making random predictions.

    It is – without a question – incomplete.
    It is – without a question – a purely empirical method
    It does – without a question – require further study and proper scientific analysis.
    But it works.

    Now, what hypothesis can be called a female contribution to the analysis of human sexual behavior?
    What hypothesis can be called an antithesis to Game?
    And most importantly:

    Does It Work?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Deli

      I don’t think anyone here has said that Game does not work. I certainly haven’t. Game is essentially a form of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (when done right, i.e. Inner Game). How well it works is highly variable. The variables include the following:

      1. Genetic traits of male.
      2. Socialized traits of male.
      3. Genetic traits of female.
      4. Socialized traits of female.
      5. SMV of male.
      6. SMV of targeted female.
      7. Sexual history of male.
      8. Sexual history of female.
      9. Sociosexuality of female.
      10. Today’s mood.
      11. Alcohol.
      12. Venue.
      13. Weather.
      14. Random and unseen forces in the universe.

      Now, what hypothesis can be called a female contribution to the analysis of human sexual behavior?

      Oh, is this a contest?

      Mystery is not fit to wipe Helen Fisher’s stiletto heels. How’s that?

      P.S. It’s also important to clarify what you mean by works. Game as codified is strictly STR, and as such does not address the full range of human behavior, or humans who don’t engage in short-term mating.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @INTJ

    Wow. I guess that literal measurement of the graphic is your INTJness coming out. Did you use a ruler?

    I call that paranoia.

    For the record, here’s what the male artist said:

    Me though? I’m always right. -Ray

  • J

    Guys, you’ll love the book. My son found the website and loved it so I got him the book–and then swiped it from him. The whole family had read it to pieces; we read it to each other.
    This is a personal favorite: http://www.27bslash6.com/easter.html

  • Joe

    @Deli

    Sorry, but current human society is built on scientific method – i.e. method of finding one true answer to any particular question.
    There is no room for “agree to disagree”, either one person is right or the other.

    Why the complete reliance on step-by-step, black and white, right/wrong solutions? Often the analog solutions are better than the discrete ones.

    I have a quote expressly for you, one that has haunted me for years.

    “The opposite of a truth is not always a lie. Often, it is a larger truth.”

  • INTJ

    Wow. I guess that literal measurement of the graphic is your INTJness coming out. Did you use a ruler?

    I call that paranoia.

    For the record, here’s what the male artist said:

    Me though? I’m always right. -Ray

    No it’s not paranoia. Just INTJ OCD… I remember astonishing a fellow student when I kept spotting extra spaces in a poster presentation we were righting. They just look “off”. And I’m not much of a visual person either. Just a stickler for detail and patterns.

    Honestly, this image was so unsymmetric it was staring me in the face. The green line from the girl almost makes it onto the guy’s head…

  • Ted D

    Joe – “Why the complete reliance on step-by-step, black and white, right/wrong solutions? Often the analog solutions are better than the discrete ones.”

    I as an INTJ simply like it that way. If I could, I would make reality black and white and run by time tested processes without deviation. It would be boring as hell, but it would work like a grandfather clock.

    Susan – “It’s also important to clarify what you mean by works. Game as codified is strictly STR, and as such does not address the full range of human behavior, or humans who don’t engage in short-term mating.”

    Yes and no. Athol seems to be doing a fine job at making “game” fit for the long haul, and other married men (myself included although I’m yet a student) report great success integrating “game” into their marriages. As it is practiced by the typical PUA it IS indeed all STR, but, that doesn’t mean it has no application for the long term game, and so far all indications are that it DOES indeed cover that as well.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      I’m not disputing Game’s efficacy for LTRs.

      Here’s a crazy idea – how about we give credit where it’s due. The man who first hypothesized that dominance was attractive to women probably barely stood on two legs 1.5 million years ago. His female counterpart, who first hypothesized that feminine behavior and appearance signaled fertility made an important contribution as well.

  • INTJ

    * Asymmetry. Can’t believe I just said “unsymmetry”.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Susan

    Mystery is not fit to wipe Helen Fisher’s stiletto heels. How’s that?

    Really? As more engineer than scientist, which one is more likely to get me laid on Friday night?

    I’ve tried Helen Fisher’s system as implemented on Chemistry.com. I got no dates or even replies to my emails.

    I haven’t tried the Mystery Method but he cannot do worse (and the book is cheaper than one month on Chemistry).

    It might have been Einstein’s work that showed the atomic bomb and the atomic power plant were possible, but it too a lot of Oppenheimers and Rickovers to make them happen.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Herb

      Really? As more engineer than scientist, which one is more likely to get me laid on Friday night?

      That wasn’t the criteria. Deli asked for a woman who has made a contribution to science re female sexuality.

      I’ve tried Helen Fisher’s system as implemented on Chemistry.com. I got no dates or even replies to my emails.

      I am referring to Helen Fisher’s work on brain chemistry, not her efforts to make you personally appealing to women.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Susan

    Wow. I guess that literal measurement of the graphic is your INTJness coming out. Did you use a ruler?

    I call that paranoia.

    Why? If the opposite had been true we’d have a Civil Right’s Division case about it already, and the offended woman would have spoken about “the war on women” aspect at the DNC.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Why? If the opposite had been true we’d have a Civil Right’s Division case about it already, and the offended woman would have spoken about “the war on women” aspect at the DNC.

      Please, can you just lose the attitude for one day? Your tone is precisely what I want readers not to do.

      You’re choking the life out of the conversation, here, Herb. This is not group therapy.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I think the problem is that Game is the only actionable and testable strategy that’s been presented. Sure, it does have a qualifier of NAWALT, but it does seem to out forth general patterns that we can act on.

    In contrast, other suggestions that we have are often untestable because they try so hard to avoid generalizations that they contribute nothing.

    Finally, there are places such as HUS where we get good solid conclusions, but the advice we get is not rigorously defined in a solid framework the way we would like. It’s too open to interpretation and thus hard to act on. I know this is how women prefer advice, but us men, especially INTJ men, can’t use such advice.

    If you and the HUS commenters working together can come up with a well-defined framework as an alternative to game for relationship-seeking males, it would be a major breakthrough contribution for us all. It’s what I hoped to find when I first joined HUS (and I think Cooper feels the same way).

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @INTJ

    If you and the HUS commenters working together can come up with a well-defined framework as an alternative to game for relationship-seeking males, it would be a major breakthrough contribution for us all. It’s what I hoped to find when I first joined HUS (and I think Cooper feels the same way).

    This has been requested more than once. For whatever reason Susan and the female commentors have not found it worth doing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

      If you and the HUS commenters working together can come up with a well-defined framework as an alternative to game for relationship-seeking males, it would be a major breakthrough contribution for us all. It’s what I hoped to find when I first joined HUS (and I think Cooper feels the same way).

      First, I don’t think you need an alternative. There is no end run around bringing dominance to the table, though I’m not of the school that believes you need to present as an arrogant asshole. There has been lots of helpful advice given by both men and women here, IMO. “Don’t be supplicating” is a good start. Do that and then come back for the next step.

      Second, since I was female last time I checked, it’s likely that my style of advice does not resonate as well for you as a male’s might. I’m sorry there is no male equivalent that is not a sociopath. I will be happy to field specific questions and try to offer actionable advice, and we can open it up to other men here as well.

  • Ted D

    “This has been requested more than once. For whatever reason Susan and the female commentors have not found it worth doing.”

    I don’t know that this is exactly true. But, lets be honest, do you think it is something that women can do at all? I don’t mean this as a “women aren’t smart enough” comment, but instead a male vs. female viewpoint comment. Can women actually riddle out the proper way for a man to attract, acquire, and keep them? We already know that many women don’t seem to even know what their own triggers are, so they can’t even necessarily determine this for themselves, let alone something that would work for the vast majority of women.

    And, on top of that, we would have to take into consideration that the “regulars” here don’t necessarily represent the average person on the street by any leap of the imagination. Game was largely founded on interactions with the typical bar fly. So, although it may not work great on a STEM women (although I speculate that it would work to some extent on her as well) it does tend to work on the average women. As with everything related to people, YMMV.

  • INTJ

    I don’t know that this is exactly true. But, lets be honest, do you think it is something that women can do at all? I don’t mean this as a “women aren’t smart enough” comment, but instead a male vs. female viewpoint comment. Can women actually riddle out the proper way for a man to attract, acquire, and keep them? We already know that many women don’t seem to even know what their own triggers are, so they can’t even necessarily determine this for themselves, let alone something that would work for the vast majority of women.

    Yes. It’s true. Which is why we ask for field-reports from the commenters to try and figure things out ourselves. It’s the best we can make do with.

    And, on top of that, we would have to take into consideration that the “regulars” here don’t necessarily represent the average person on the street by any leap of the imagination. Game was largely founded on interactions with the typical bar fly. So, although it may not work great on a STEM women (although I speculate that it would work to some extent on her as well) it does tend to work on the average women. As with everything related to people, YMMV.

    Actually, it would work brilliantly on most non-immigrant STEM women. They’re probably second only to barflys in terms of susceptibility to game.

  • INTJ

    First, I don’t think you need an alternative. There is no end run around bringing dominance to the table, though I’m not of the school that believes you need to present as an arrogant asshole. There has been lots of helpful advice given by both men and women here, IMO. “Don’t be supplicating” is a good start. Do that and then come back for the next step.

    There’s been a lot of advice in the form of tidbits, but it does not come together as an easily actionable well-defined framework.

    “Don’t be supplicating” is certainly a requirement, but until “supplicating” is defined, it’s not very useful advice. I and most friends I know treat women with respect the same way we treat men with respect, and we do expect respect in return. According to PUAs, treating women with respect is supplication. Given the amount of success we have had with women, the PUAs appear to be correct.

    Second, since I was female last time I checked, it’s likely that my style of advice does not resonate as well for you as a male’s might. I’m sorry there is no male equivalent that is not a sociopath. I will be happy to field specific questions and try to offer actionable advice, and we can open it up to other men here as well.

    This is a good idea. I’ll try to come up with a list of specific questions that would really help.

  • Plain Jane

    Maybe we should just divide up the world and each take half and be done with it. I’ve got dibs on Hawaii.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @INTJ & Susan

    “Don’t be supplicating” is certainly a requirement, but until “supplicating” is defined, it’s not very useful advice. I and most friends I know treat women with respect the same way we treat men with respect, and we do expect respect in return. According to PUAs, treating women with respect is supplication. Given the amount of success we have had with women, the PUAs appear to be correct.

    There is no end run around bringing dominance to the table, though I’m not of the school that believes you need to present as an arrogant asshole. There has been lots of helpful advice given by both men and women here, IMO. “Don’t be supplicating” is a good start.

    I think that’s a perfect opening for the female posters.

    Other male posters have argued for the “be an asshole” stand, if not always in those words. Despite my attitude I refuse to think that’s the only path. Yet in the field it’s the one I see working.

    Let’s assume there is a broad space between supplication and asshole. Can some of the female posters describe that space? Specifically, given most of the female posters agree it is the male job to show interest first what does a non-asshole, non-supplicating approach look like?

    Examples for a woman a man knows well (friend in his social circle), knows casually (she’s in the same bowling league), and he doesn’t know at all (woman who rides the elevator with him but does not work at his company) would be helpful.

    Approaches that are non-supplicating and non-asshole for bar-flys probably wouldn’t be as useful.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Let’s assume there is a broad space between supplication and asshole. Can some of the female posters describe that space? Specifically, given most of the female posters agree it is the male job to show interest first what does a non-asshole, non-supplicating approach look like?

      Examples for a woman a man knows well (friend in his social circle), knows casually (she’s in the same bowling league), and he doesn’t know at all (woman who rides the elevator with him but does not work at his company) would be helpful.

      Approaches that are non-supplicating and non-asshole for bar-flys probably wouldn’t be as useful.

      This might work if the female posters hadn’t fled the scene or weren’t in hiding. (Hint, hint.)

      Also, if the men respond either, “You’re an outlier” or “Women don’t even understand their own desires” or “You say that, but that’s not what you do” – well, then, all incentives to be helpful have been removed. Which is pretty much what is going on here.

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

    It involves a man and a woman. It also describes how their male and female minds interract – so I claim that it falls within the purview of HUS…thoughts?

    I didn;t found it funny. Why she didn’t do the poster herself is pretty easy on word/paint and she is losing precious time that can be vital to getting her baby kitty back. Even if she tough he will do a better job after the second time at least she should had known he was not going to help and do it herself. What is funny about it, it makes no sense to me :/

    This has been requested more than once. For whatever reason Susan and the female commentors have not found it worth doing.

    You remember things to love about a Beta list? male here were insences and vitriolic about saying that Susan was sabotaging men with a list of the things that won’t get them laid. That is the answer to Susan not touching that one, IMO. She can correct me if she wants to.
    And for us, “Outliers” don’t count.
    As much as many men here praise us no of them want to do the work of weed out the bitches/sluts to find one for themselves. In fact I think most of the outliers here did found their men because they did a lot of work to show their good qualities and took the initiative. Hence why I see a woman should be more proactive about it. Men here say “You are so nice but a man should learn Game to appeal to the majority that is the only logical conclusion” so why would I advice to do the illogical thing? They won’t listen would they?

    3. Keep a diary of your vagina tingling and publish that.

    Again look for the romance heroes discussion we can talk about the Beta parts of our men we love but they don’t believe it, so I’m sure if we say that we tingle for a guy with a nice smile they would call it BS and nitpick it till they find what they believe is what we are attracted to. Maybe is the outlier effect but that is how it works they only believe it if they match whatever they believe at that point, YMMV.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anacaona

      You remember things to love about a Beta list? male here were insences and vitriolic about saying that Susan was sabotaging men with a list of the things that won’t get them laid. That is the answer to Susan not touching that one, IMO. She can correct me if she wants to.

      This is exactly right. I remember thinking that some of the very qualities that make men good partners are qualities that beta men are anxious to get rid of as them make themselves over.

      I actually wrote that post for women, who responded to it very well, but the protests from the men were loud and persistent, and drew ire from other male bloggers as well.

  • Thin-Skinned

    This gap in experience between specimens is the universal human condition. Everybody suffers from at least a little bit of solipsism.

    How hard is it for people genuinely to share basis for their values and opinions? I like to think that when I enter discussions with other people, such an exchange presents more an opportunity to gain new evidence, whether corroborating or contradicting to refine and solidify my own views rather than just a chance spread “truth” to the world and to”persuade” the other of the correctness of our own worldview. I know how Americans hate “flip-floppers” but what is wrong with refining or revising an view with new insights?

    So is it realistic to ask the kind lady in the illustration on the other end of that spectrum “So sweetheart, I know you have a different view from mine.
    I understand that you are a sensible person and maybe you could have the patience to show me how you got there. Show me those shades of magenta and pink and I’ll show the yellows and greens that I’ve seen.” How hard is that? Probably not impossible, but pretty hard nonetheless. Compassion has limits. Observe the boredom or at least indifference many have to the in reaction to the frequent updates about the latest from their child or cat….

    How much can we share? What is out of reach?

    Unfortunately it all breaks down if people acquire their perspectives more by affinity than reflection. We all acquire our opinions from sources that we trust. If we swallow the dogma hook-line-and-sinker, whether it be from Move-On, the Tea Party, Fox News, Greenpeace, the Chateau or Jezebel this kind of reflexive affinity and trust of our sources is something we can’t easily share with others in dialogue.

    This nonsense that all opinions are valid is equally absurd. If each of us really believed that other differing opinions were at least equivalent to our own, then we would hold another. Our own opinion is always the best, at least for the time being.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I like to think that when I enter discussions with other people, such an exchange presents more an opportunity to gain new evidence, whether corroborating or contradicting to refine and solidify my own views rather than just a chance spread “truth” to the world and to”persuade” the other of the correctness of our own worldview.

      Thin-Skinned, I love you.

      I do think that people are incredibly wedded to their views, and the problem is, both parties can easily quote stories, sources, statistics, etc. to further their argument. This happened to me during lunch with a friend the other day as we debated Obama’s foreign policy challenges. I was right, of course, but she was well armed with all manner of deceptive quotes and spun stories that made her seem like she knew what she was talking about. :) J/K

      That’s the consequence of highly specialized media.

  • GudEnuf

    It’s not symmetrical. Women know a lot more about being a man than men know about being a woman.

  • Ted D

    Susan – I was responding to this comment from you:

    “Game as codified is strictly STR, and as such does not address the full range of human behavior, or humans who don’t engage in short-term mating.”

    And your response to me was:

    “I’m not disputing Game’s efficacy for LTRs.”

    Call me whatever you want, but these two statements don’t match up to me. Game may have been created for STR mating, but clearly it applies to STR and LTR relationships. How it was “discovered” is irrelevant to the discussion, although I firmly agree with your “credit where credit is due” comment as well. To be honest, I think we simply forgot our true nature over time as we tried to rewrite our interactions with social programming.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      Game may have been created for STR mating, but clearly it applies to STR and LTR relationships.

      Not exactly. Game as codified makes use of such tactics as push-pull, takeaway, flirting with the target’s friend to increase her interest, “agree and amplify” (which is really just clowning around, wink wink), peacocking, refusing to pay for a woman, negging, etc.

      Most of these tactics should be used very sparingly in LTRs, if at all.

      In contrast, Athol – the LTR Game guy – considers the beta traits critical for relationship success. That is not part of Game – in fact, much of it is anathema to Game.

      The only reason that the “discovery” of Game was relevant was that Deli proposed it as a confirmed scientific hypothesis whose importance has no parallel in the field of human sexuality, as researched by women.

      Saying something “works” is really not very meaningful. It doesn’t give me very much information. What is the mechanism? What is the result? Can the experiment be repeated many times with the same result each time? How random is the sample? What other factors have been controlled for? Etc.

  • Plain Jane

    “This nonsense that all opinions are valid is equally absurd. If each of us really believed that other differing opinions were at least equivalent to our own, then we would hold another. Our own opinion is always the best, at least for the time being.”

    True! Who came up with the idea that all opinions are equally valid in the first place? Anyway, I think ultimately what they meant was that all opinions have an equal right to be voiced?

    “Women know a lot more about being a man than men know about being a woman.”

    Maybe that’s a good thing?

  • Just1X

    @Ana
    try a couple of the other links…the snowboard one is pretty cool, as is J’s Easter link…inevitably; YMMV

  • Ted D

    GudEnuf – “It’s not symmetrical. Women know a lot more about being a man than men know about being a woman.”

    that is because male’s “evil” sexual nature has been examined, scrutinized, sanitized, reframed, and shoved on boys for a few decades now. What I see coming from the ‘sphere is that same level of scrutiny directed at female sexual nature, and I don’t think women like it too much. For sure the ‘sphere has its share of jaded, angry men. But, as I’ve said many times, that doesn’t make them wrong. It simply means that their delivery sucks.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      But, as I’ve said many times, that doesn’t make them wrong. It simply means that their delivery sucks.

      Well, it sure doesn’t make them right. Bitter, jaded, angry men may be as right as anyone else, though one has to wonder about their degree of openness and intellectual curiosity. However, the issue is where their authority comes from.

      Athol openly credits Helen Fisher with his understanding of female sexuality. He also uses a lot of evo psych. Everything Game includes is covered in those two sources, and Athol has distanced himself from Game quite considerably over time.

      Roosh is a PUA and he posts his results. He is credible, especially for advice on how to pick up women in certain countries.

      Roissy is smart and witty. He is more of a “tough love” coach. His FRs are credible, and he advises men based on his current experience.

      Dalrock appears to be credible in the area of evangelical Christianity and its SMP, which may be enough to explain his rage, IDK.

      Rollo appears to have just made everything up to exact revenge on some woman he’s still not over. Maybe him mom, who knows. He’s a Roissy wannabe without the writing skill, humor or charm.

      It is always appropriate to consider the source, and I am always willing to have that apply to me as well.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      that is because male’s “evil” sexual nature has been examined, scrutinized, sanitized, reframed, and shoved on boys for a few decades now.

      First, I’m not sure women do know very much about being a man. What is the basis of this claim?

      Second, male sexuality is far simpler than female sexuality. It’s not so hard to understand. You’re all fond of reducing it to looks, i.e. whether a woman passes the boner test. The nature of female sexual investment means that we have many more considerations.

      Kinda like grade school t-ball vs. the New York Yankees. :)

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Ana

    Men here say “You are so nice but a man should learn Game to appeal to the majority that is the only logical conclusion” so why would I advice to do the illogical thing? They won’t listen would they?

    How many times have I openly said the thing that keeps me at HUS is the belief there is an alternative to Game.

    As for dealing with the majority, that’s what most men encounter most often. Even pointers on where to find atypical women would be good. My dad used to sell church but that doesn’t work.

    Someone a while back suggest an HUS branded on-line dating site and to be honest I thought it was a hell of an idea. Especially if it had E-Harmony/Chemistry like filters built by people here instead of scientists who haven’t been dating in a couple of decades.

    I don’t dispute Helen Fisher’s knowledge but the one attempt to build a tool out of it seems economically successful but not very romantically successful*. That’s why I made the comment about Einstein versus Oppenheimer and Rickover.

    Helen Fisher is Isaac Newton in terms of this stuff. Mystery is a medieval mason’s guild stonemason. However, it was over a century after Newton before bridge builders started to use science based design over the guild member’s rules of thumb because it took that long to develop the engineering, the application.

    Even well into the 20th century direct empirical methods were doing better in bridge building. Listen to the bridge discussion and try not to glaze over on all the software engineering stuff (except for the software geeks who following the link) to get the idea I’m after.

    So, Helen Fisher’s work is genius but in terms of a system for restoring assortive mating and helping individuals achieve their goals Mystery is still winning. The time when he’s not will not be seen by me, and I’m not betting on Susan’s intended audience (18-30 year old women who want to meet, marry, and have children unless I’ve always misunderstood her) will either. If they do, I doubt it will before the ones who didn’t get lucky or have natural abilities that countered the culture find themselves as the next Kate Bollick.

    That is the answer to Susan not touching that one, IMO.

    Not to be rude to our hostess or even our married female posters but what about the huge number of single women reading who don’t post.

    They have a vested interest is helping men their age find them and approach them properly.

    The title of this post is “Sex Differences”. One very common one I’ve noticed is men are much more likely to be pro-active, even in the field of romance. When the 70 cents stat comes up real researchers point out that when you control for things like career fields and work structure choices there is still a gap.

    The most commonly cited cause: men negotiate more for salary than women. Men are pro-active.

    Yet the women on here most successful in terms of finding a man had a plan. You cite one. Susan endorses the idea.

    Having a plan is a way to be pro-active.

    Another way to be pro-active is to seed the field. If I want dandelions in my front yard blowing the seeds off of tons of mature ones is a good first step. While I don’t know which ones will land in my yard and seed it having more out there will.

    Having more men who are clued in and have good methods that aren’t from Mystery or Roissy benefits all those female readers.

    Men have their pro-active strategy. It’s one I’ve said I don’t like. However, it meets men’s needs even if it doesn’t meet womens (and women already have a strategy that does the reverse for them).

    Maybe some attempts to show men something that hasn’t:
    1. Repeatedly failed
    2. Isn’t just telling men to be different might help both groups.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Herb

      How many times have I openly said the thing that keeps me at HUS is the belief there is an alternative to Game.

      Do you think I’m keeping this a secret? Seriously, your treasure map needs revisiting.

      So, Helen Fisher’s work is genius but in terms of a system for restoring assortive mating and helping individuals achieve their goals Mystery is still winning.

      Mystery’s intent is not to promote assortative mating, it’s to help guys punch above their weight. You need to disabuse yourself of that notion right now.

      Not to be rude to our hostess or even our married female posters but what about the huge number of single women reading who don’t post.

      They have a vested interest is helping men their age find them and approach them properly.

      Hellooooooooo! Anybody there?????

      What about them? Could it be that angry middle aged men choking on the red pill are making them think they somehow got to the wrong blog?

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Ted D

    that is because male’s “evil” sexual nature has been examined, scrutinized, sanitized, reframed, and shoved on boys for a few decades now. What I see coming from the ‘sphere is that same level of scrutiny directed at female sexual nature, and I don’t think women like it too much. For sure the ‘sphere has its share of jaded, angry men. But, as I’ve said many times, that doesn’t make them wrong. It simply means that their delivery sucks.

    Watch the attitude, man ;)

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    Oops, formating issues made that last bit look wrong.

    Maybe some attempts to show men something that hasn’t:
    1. Repeatedly failed
    2. Isn’t just telling men to be different

    might help both groups.

  • Plain Jane

    “So, Helen Fisher’s work is genius but in terms of a system for restoring assortive mating and helping individuals achieve their goals Mystery is still winning.”

    Is he? He’s a baby daddy who doesn’t even get to live with his own child. He’s attempted suicide multiple times and is frequently on psychiatric drugs. The in-field reviews of his techniques come with mixed reviews, and lets not forget that when stripped of the goggle, eyeliners and furry hats, Mystery is a conventionally good looking, tall guy with a symmetrical face and pleasant, even features which gave him an advantage in the looks-obsessed Hollywood nightclub scene.

    How about Owen Cook aka Tyler Durden who started his own method “inner game”? Has he reached his goals with women? If his goal was to get tricked into being the father of an illegal immigrant’s anchor baby via an “oops my bc pills didn’t work this time”, then sure!

    And would you believe he fell for it? He’s on youtube explaining that sometimes The Pill doesn’t work and in his case it didn’t. I thought “game” was supposed to function as a “red pill” for men? If that’s the case how come those “on top of the game” are such doofuses when it comes to conniving women?

  • Sassy6519

    @ Herb

    I think that’s a perfect opening for the female posters.

    Other male posters have argued for the “be an asshole” stand, if not always in those words. Despite my attitude I refuse to think that’s the only path. Yet in the field it’s the one I see working.

    Let’s assume there is a broad space between supplication and asshole. Can some of the female posters describe that space?

    I’d consider that space to be comprised of a healthy dose of self-esteem, confidence, and self-respect.

    A man is an asshole when he completely disregards how his actions will affect the lives and emotions of others. He puts himself ahead of everyone else.

    A man is supplicating when he completely disregards how his actions towards others affect his own life and emotions. He puts everyone else ahead of himself.

    A man in the middle of these two extremes considers the thoughts and emotions of others, when conducting himself, but also considers his own thoughts and emotions.

    In a way, the thoughts running through a man’s head when he does something shouldn’t be:

    “How will this make her happy?” or “How will this make me happy?”.

    Ideally, the man in the middle will think “How will this make us happy?”

    I would say that my boyfriend (Yay!) is smack dab in the middle of the asshole/supplication spectrum. He considers my thoughts and feelings on issues, but he also doesn’t do anything that would be to the detriment of himself. He’s not afraid of voicing his own opinions, even if they differ from mine. His sole motivation isn’t to make me happy. Sometimes, making himself happy is the best way to make me happy actually. I find joy in his joy. I find pleasure when he is pleased.

    He doesn’t mind telling me “No” sometimes, and that’s attractive. I want a man with a backbone, and I want a man with his own motivations. If a man isn’t comfortable setting healthy boundaries, how can he lead?

    My boyfriend has been able to strike that balance so far, and I’m glad.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      A man is an asshole when he completely disregards how his actions will affect the lives and emotions of others. He puts himself ahead of everyone else.

      A man is supplicating when he completely disregards how his actions towards others affect his own life and emotions. He puts everyone else ahead of himself.

      Well put, Sassy!

  • Höllenhund

    that is because male’s “evil” sexual nature has been examined, scrutinized, sanitized, reframed, and shoved on boys for a few decades now.

    Those who control whatever amounf of mainstream debate there is about “gender” relations never actually bothered to examine or scrutinize men’s sexual nature, they just concocted BS about it and shoved it down everybody’s throats.

  • Ted D

    Herb – “Watch the attitude, man ”

    LOL. I’m actually in a much better mood this week than last. I was being perhaps a little snarky, but really don’t intend to stoke any flames.

    I can’t help but observe the, well, obvious though. Men have been taking it on the chin for a few generations now in regards to how bad we are. Now that men have stopped to think on it for a second, I think we are realizing that we accepted it as gospel without a thoughr, and that no one ever pointed that same judging finger at the ladies after they got their ‘revolution’. And, since historically speaking women’s sexuality was repressed by societal expectations, it has NEVER been judged on its own merits in Western civilizations history to the best of my knowledge.

    It will be interesting to see how women react to all of their “dirty laundry” being drug out into the street for examination. From what I see now, they really don’t like it one bit.

  • Plain Jane

    Sassy, ” If a man isn’t comfortable setting healthy boundaries, how can he lead?”

    Sassy, this is curious. In what area of your life do you feel you need to be lead? Education? Career? Daily personal habits and routines? Recreation? Religion?

  • Ted D

    Hollenhund – “Those who control whatever amounf of mainstream debate there is about “gender” relations never actually bothered to examine or scrutinize men’s sexual nature, they just concocted BS about it and shoved it down everybody’s throats.”

    Well I kinda badly implied that with the “evil” added in quotes for effect. It was simply assumed that men were pigs and simply wanted women for sex. So yes, men’s sexuality may never have been fully examined. However it has been covered far better than female sexual nature no matter how you slice it.

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

    I don’t dispute Helen Fisher’s knowledge but the one attempt to build a tool out of it seems economically successful but not very romantically successful*.

    You probably didn’t read my blog but I tried a numbers of dating sites before I found the right match. Dating sites are like therapists you don’t stop needing therapy because of the therapist doesn’t work you try and try and try till you find out so I would advice you to try another one if Fisher didn’t worked out.

    As for dealing with the majority, that’s what most men encounter most often. Even pointers on where to find atypical women would be good. My dad used to sell church but that doesn’t work.

    I would be willing if Susan could declare a truce day among the genders we say whatever we think is a good way to spot a real “outlier” and men cannot bitch about it like they like. Hard to accomplish .

    Not to be rude to our hostess or even our married female posters but what about the huge number of single women reading who don’t post.

    True but Susan does her job advising women, advicing men has not being welcomed and the other manosphere bloggers used it as ammo against her wich is exhausting. Were you here when the big Ladrock meltdown happened? It was not pretty Rollo seems to wank to bashing Susan and there is a few men that out of loyalty to the Alpha’s they dream to emulate will follow suit. It just not productive, IMO. Aiming at women works better and give men less chances to go all berserk on the advice, YMMV.

    Yet the women on here most successful in terms of finding a man had a plan. You cite one. Susan endorses the idea.

    I don’t know Susan and I share the having a plan but not all the outliers did J repeats constantly how he found her husband by accident and that she already gave up by the time it happened. Hope mentioned that she disliked online dating because it was too calculated and wanted something more spontaneous and she got it. Jackie seems to be into placing herself out there but it seems that she like Sassy are really hot so their strategy is simpler: Show up, let men approach and filter in and/or out.
    So I don’t know about having a plan being so welcomed I remember Liza whose pro-activeness with the gym guy was “eyefucking” him till he will approach and couldn’t bring herself to try something more.
    So yeah women are more afraid of taking some steps with a man than to be alone I was scared shit of ending up alone having all the scenarios in my head of all the things I could had done to prevent it. My guilty glands are powerful and cruel and they would torture me till the grave so I moved and did everything I had to…I don’t think most women have the guilty gland or maybe the lack of shaming here renders it useless. ;)

    @Ted D

    Any time we mention that men should read a romance novels or a self help books written by females and aimed at females, most men proudly say “I would never read such a dreck” hence you could learn a lot about how women see the world if you decide to “lower yourself” to it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Rollo seems to wank to bashing Susan

      Oh yeah, I’ve known that for a while now. He craves attention from me. There’s a very damaged boy inside that nasty man. Unlike Roissy, though, who is “little boy lost,” Rollo is the mean bully. I wonder if he hurt small animals as a kid.

  • Höllenhund

    Women know a lot more about being a man than men know about being a woman.

    I’m sure it’s safe to say that women, on average, know absolutely nothing about being a man. This is stark contrast to minority of men who existed throughout history and offered accurate insight about women’s nature and behavior.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’m sure it’s safe to say that women, on average, know absolutely nothing about being a man. This is stark contrast to minority of men

      Invalid comparison: “on average” to “a minority.”

      I agree with the first part though. Most women I know admit openly they have no idea how men think, and vice versa.

      There are a minority of women today who know something about being a man. Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Jaclyn Friedman. :P

  • Just1X

    GudEnuf – “It’s not symmetrical. Women know a lot more about being a man than men know about being a woman.”

    Unless you are restricting that to sex (and maybe not even then), I don’t think that this is true.

    I don’t think that women understand men very well, there are very few women in the manosphere that really seem to ‘get’ what da menz are saying. They do exist, but they tend to be older and may well have sons.

    There’s a theory, I’ll put it no stronger than that, around in the manosphere that angry, butch lesbians and radfems project what they think they’d be like with more muscles and testosterone onto men; too aggressive, too pushy. Most men playing it macho tend to run into enough fists growing up that they curb their behaviour – women don’t get the same kind of feedback (shaming being more prevalent in olden days), they tend to run wilder than real men…just an opinion.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Ted D

    Well I kinda badly implied that with the “evil” added in quotes for effect. It was simply assumed that men were pigs and simply wanted women for sex.

    In way, that assumption may have been right, the whole gatekeeper theory. Then men widely got sex from women and decided it wasn’t worth as much as we used to think and now we want them for more.

    Now, I’m serious. The whole idea of chastity for marriage is based on men wanting the sex more than the marriage while women wanted the marriage. Now that sex is freely available men seem to want the marriage (as Susan likes to point out, the majority still marry although I think the tend will end that optimism by 2020).

  • INTJ

    Alright so question time.

    First some context: my target demographic is women who want committed stable relationships, and are ready to have children sooner rather than later/not at all. This is in contrast to the women who want to “play the field”, “find themselves”, seek “experiences”, or put career ahead of family. I understand that this target demographic is quite small, and thus I could use a better strategy than just throwing darts.

    1) Where do such women tend to hang out? What sorts of heuristics can I use to filter for them?

    2) Amongst those that are single, what would be the best way to approach them? It would be helpful to differentiate between the three categories that Herb provided.

    3) When is the best time to show romantic/sexual interest in such a woman? Do I do so from the get-go? Do I become friends and show interest once I’ve gotten an idea of her personality and wether there is a connection between us?

    4a) If the answer to the previous question is to show interest from the get-go, any tips for how to be confident in a social situation which is very awkward for me?

    4b) If the answer to the previous question is to seek a friendship first, how should I avoid ending up in the friend-zone?

    5) Are there any young HUS commenters whose boyfriend successfully approached them rather than vice-versa? If so, how did he do it?

    6) I want someone who isn’t promiscuous. How do I make sure someone I’m with is waiting because of her values? How do I make sure she isn’t just a slut using price-discrimination?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

      1) Where do such women tend to hang out? What sorts of heuristics can I use to filter for them?

      First, read this post: 57 Ways to Meet the Love of Your Life

      You need to have or develop some interests that you can share with women, then pursue them.

      You want to rule out women who are dressed provocatively, have a flirtatious demeanor, or seem highly extraverted.

      Focus on women who are likely to be compatible – smart, serious, etc. Seek someone whose values appear similar to your own.

      Are you interested in an Indian gf? If so, definitely go to see dance, and get involved with the South Asian cultural scene.

      2) Amongst those that are single, what would be the best way to approach them? It would be helpful to differentiate between the three categories that Herb provided.

      The best approach is always a confident hello or introduction followed by a conversation opener that is germane to the activity. With a stranger at Starbucks or on the elevator, maybe it’s a headline or the elevator news feed. If it’s a girl in your class, ask her something about that. If you feel nervous about making chit chat, think of some potential openers beforehand.

      If you know someone casually, spend time building a rapport, then take it up a level. Go for coffee, walk her to her dorm, etc. Try and get groups of friends to meet up, and get better acquainted with her in a group social setting. Do not under any circumstances go up to a woman you don’t know and ask her out for a dinner date!

      If you know her well, add a bit of flirtation to your usual interactions and see how it goes over. Is she flirtatious back? Or is it super awkward? Only proceed if it’s the former. After a bit of flirting, suggest hanging out soon. Again, this is better done in groups at first.

      When is the best time to show romantic/sexual interest in such a woman? Do I do so from the get-go? Do I become friends and show interest once I’ve gotten an idea of her personality and wether there is a connection between us?

      Don’t ever go with a strictly platonic vibe. Try to get to know her as friends with potential, at the very least. Or you can express your interest right away. Read the IOIs carefully, and expect to get blown out a lot. You are not for all markets. The normal college progression is chatting (with interest), flirting, hanging out in groups, singling each other out in groups, then pairing off to hang out alone. Adjust as necessary for different settings, e.g. classroom vs. library vs. club sport.

      If the answer to the previous question is to show interest from the get-go, any tips for how to be confident in a social situation which is very awkward for me?

      You’re very confident here, so I know that you are funny and smart and very capable of this. You need to practice this a lot IRL. The more natural the opening, the better you’ll feel. Don’t start by approaching the hottie on the shuttle bus. Start by sitting next to a cute girl in class. Make a short comment with eye contact.

      All of this is in Game, BTW. You owe it to yourself to learn Game. It’s a roadmap to what we’re talking about.

      If the answer to the previous question is to seek a friendship first, how should I avoid ending up in the friend-zone?

      I don’t advise friendship as a goal. Friendships can develop into something more but I think that’s a bad strategy. If you are trying to get to know a woman, and getting no IOIs, move on. If you make a move and she friend zones you, walk away.

      I want someone who isn’t promiscuous. How do I make sure someone I’m with is waiting because of her values? How do I make sure she isn’t just a slut using price-discrimination?

      Learn what you can via observation, reputation, etc. As you get to know her, work these questions into conversation:

      6. Sex without love is OK?

      7. Enjoy casual sex with different partners?

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

      Any yes is obviously a dealbreaker.

      We can discuss this more, these responses are just off the top of my head.

      You also want to maintain the frame that you are a prize to be won. Do not offer commitment right out of the gate. Take your time to qualify her, and let her know that.

  • INTJ

    @ Anacaona

    As much as many men here praise us no of them want to do the work of weed out the bitches/sluts to find one for themselves. In fact I think most of the outliers here did found their men because they did a lot of work to show their good qualities and took the initiative. Hence why I see a woman should be more proactive about it. Men here say “You are so nice but a man should learn Game to appeal to the majority that is the only logical conclusion” so why would I advice to do the illogical thing? They won’t listen would they?

    I fully agree with you that women should be more proactive, and that this will yield good results. The problem for me as a guy is that most women aren’t proactive. I simply can’t rely on a woman being proactive. Thus, I have to be proactive. The problem is that when I’m proactive, I’m doing all the work of putting myself on the line and approaching women, and I’m doing so to find the small percentage of women that have reciprocal interest in me and aren’t bitches/sluts. That’s a tall order for someone like me who is both sentimental and an introvert.

  • Höllenhund

    Any time we mention that men should read a romance novels or a self help books written by females and aimed at females, most men proudly say “I would never read such a dreck” hence you could learn a lot about how women see the world if you decide to “lower yourself” to it.

    I recall reading more than one Manosphere article focusing on romance novels and what they say about women. Some of Roissy’s readers even advised average men to read them for that very reason.

    Magazines directed at women also say a lot when compared to those aimed at men. The latter are normally focused on issues like politics, war, sports, economics, culture etc., with occasional pictures of nude or semi-nude women to grap attention. None of these have anything to do with men as a group. Men’s desires, problems and fantasies are not the primary issues.

    Women’s magazines are the polar opposite. They don’t focus on the outside world in any meaningful way, instead they just present fantasy worlds the reader can project herself unto. No wonder women’s magazines almost always have some “fabulous” woman on the cover. Whatever subject you present to a woman, she’ll instantly think its’s about her. For women, the entire world is nothing but a mirror, whereas for men it’s more like a window.

    Another obvious aspect of this is that men in romance novels and women’s magazines are always cartoonish, unreal figures who exist solely to facilitate women’s fantasies; they aren’t presented as autonomous human beings with self-worth, their own emotions, desires, fears, weaknesses, strengths etc.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hollenhund

      Magazines directed at women also say a lot when compared to those aimed at men. The latter are normally focused on issues like politics, war, sports, economics, culture etc., with occasional pictures of nude or semi-nude women to grap attention.

      …Women’s magazines are the polar opposite. They don’t focus on the outside world in any meaningful way, instead they just present fantasy worlds the reader can project herself unto.

      I disagree with this. There are men’s magazines that project fantasy worlds for men. Playboy, Hustler, all the porn mags, etc. Also, there’s an increase in magazines like Men’s Health, which are basically for mimbos, the equivalent of a woman’s magazine. And then there’s Sports Illustrated, which is hardly serious.

      Meanwhile, a lot of women’s magazines have sprung up that are not about men and fantasy at all. I like Real Simple, for example, and I also like Cooking Light and Bon Appetit. Some fashion magazines have become more intellectually robust – like Elle. And then there are the magazines that women read heavily that are quite intellectual, e.g. The Atlantic, The New Yorker.

      Whatever subject you present to a woman, she’ll instantly think its’s about her. For women, the entire world is nothing but a mirror, whereas for men it’s more like a window.

      Nonsense. Especially since more women are going off to college, and more men are hanging out at home. Men might be looking out a window, but women are stepping through it.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Ana

    You probably didn’t read my blog but I tried a numbers of dating sites before I found the right match. Dating sites are like therapists you don’t stop needing therapy because of the therapist doesn’t work you try and try and try till you find out so I would advice you to try another one if Fisher didn’t worked out.

    I haven’t tried them all but I’ve tried enough: Match.com (got screwed over on their “if you don’t succeed in six months the next six are free”), E-Harmony, Chemistry, Cupid, OkCupid (my picture link was to my OkCupid dating profile), PlentyOfFish…I even paid a dating coach.

    I love to say, “I don’t know what women want but I know what they don’t want, me” :) Sadly, the universe U of potential traits isn’t such that U – Herb is an exact match to what women want. Otherwise I could do a proof by contradiction, write a book, and retire to an island somewhere.

    I also forget to follow my asterisk. Back around 2002-2003 I predicted the dating industry would be to the aughts what the diet industry had been to the 90s. I wish I’d put some stock market money where my mouth was :).

    Further afield, Dave Ramsey used Weight Watchers as a model for his get out of debt classes.

    I don’t know Susan and I share the having a plan

    I don’t remember her saying she had one back in the day, but I do remember her endorsing the idea of having one when you pointed out you did.

    Were you here when the big Ladrock meltdown happened?

    I was. Still, just saying anything contrary to received feminism puts any man under fire any more so sympathy for it being tough out there in the world of relations between the sexes is hard for men to muster for women.

    *shrugs*

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Herb

      Still, just saying anything contrary to received feminism puts any man under fire any more so sympathy for it being tough out there in the world of relations between the sexes is hard for men to muster for women.

      *shrugs*

      If you can muster some empathy, stick around. I’m not interested in stoking the fire here. If you are not curious and open to learning another person’s POV, this is not the venue for you. Rants against either sex are off limits.

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

    Magazines directed at women also say a lot when compared to those aimed at men.

    Err I didn’t meant those magazines I meant writers William Gibson, Joe Haldeman, the classics like Dickens, Balzac, Shakespeare also porn…. I read a lot of those. Popular magazines aimed at women don’t have the male POV as a rule of thumb if men are buying it in droves then is a good idea of what they are thinking or want.

    Another obvious aspect of this is that men in romance novels and women’s magazines are always cartoonish, unreal figures who exist solely to facilitate women’s fantasies; they aren’t presented as autonomous human beings with self-worth, their own emotions, desires, fears, weaknesses, strengths etc.

    You mean like porn or men aimed books? ;) I already mentioned that few men’s fiction actually have a real women in them, most of them play the function of love interest and that is it, very few male authors get women. Is not the whole picture but it does shows that men and women fantasies are about what they want or fear from them and not what they actually are. Both genders are guilty of this.
    I accept it I just don’t like it and in some cases like Priscilla Hutchins is downright just too annoying to read more about it.

  • INTJ

    Oh and another question picking up on what Sassy said:

    7. Most of my friends have “a healthy dose of self-esteem, confidence, and self-respect.” But we have terrible relationship success. Why is this? The only reason I can think of (other than that women want assholes) is that we tend to be awkward around strangers, and we only open up once we get to know someone well – but by that time we’re already in the friend-zone. Thoughts?

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Ana

    Aiming at women works better and give men less chances to go all berserk on the advice, YMMV.

    So yeah women are more afraid of taking some steps with a man

    Don’t those cancel. It might be easier to advise women but they’re less likely to act on it.

    Also, women could offer alternatives. All the women here have offered advice to dump the GF (I know you don’t like the title but it is what it is) but none have offered advice on how to do better except, well, Game.

    In case you haven’t noticed I can be a dick. Hell, give up the meds and I’m enough of an asshole my own family doesn’t like me much.

    I think if I went off the meds, went bar hoping, and got lucky for the dick I was I’d shoot myself from the hopelessness of it.

    Any time we mention that men should read a romance novels or a self help books written by females and aimed at females, most men proudly say “I would never read such a dreck” hence you could learn a lot about how women see the world if you decide to “lower yourself” to it.

    Does Austen, Bridget Jones, or a wide variety of romcons help. I have the largest collection of the later owned by a straight man in America, and I love the first two.

    @Just1x

    There’s a theory, I’ll put it no stronger than that, around in the manosphere that angry, butch lesbians and radfems project what they think they’d be like with more muscles and testosterone onto men; too aggressive, too pushy.

    I don’t know. The butch lesbians I know are mostly leather dykes. I actually like them. They’re fun, they’re very guy like, and they’re just great to be with. They are often more masculine, in a good way, than a lot of men I know. It’s like being with other sailors more than anything else.

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

    I haven’t tried them all but I’ve tried enough: Match.com (got screwed over on their “if you don’t succeed in six months the next six are free”), E-Harmony, Chemistry, Cupid, OkCupid (my picture link was to my OkCupid dating profile), PlentyOfFish…I even paid a dating coach.

    I will do my best to help but I need some answers first:
    What did the dating coach said?
    It will be good to check your profile write up to see if there is any red flags or inconsistencies. Most of the time is not the product but the presentation that self sabotage people.
    Also what is the most important trait you look for in a mate top 10.
    And what are the most important things that define yourself as a person top 10.
    I will recommend as a reading falling in love for the right reasons and Dogsquat blog. You might have a case of “captain save a ho” and you are picking the women that will cook your heart and eat it as a hamburger out of boredom. Those exist too and some men are attracted to them like to the mythical sirens.

  • Jonny

    “very few male authors get women”

    Maybe that’s the problem. On the other hand, women don’t either. Best to ignore what women say they want and only give what they actually want like “50 Shades of Gray”.

    The graphic is telling. Each gender has its own version of reality. No one is particularly wrong. Each experiences the world a different way. Sometimes that is the way things are. A man like myself will never have a woman buy me a drink. Then again, these days women are not expecting such gestures. It will be nice for her to compliment me more on things that “just are” like the color of my hair and how I dress. (joking).

  • Höllenhund

    There’s a theory, I’ll put it no stronger than that, around in the manosphere that angry, butch lesbians and radfems project what they think they’d be like with more muscles and testosterone onto men; too aggressive, too pushy.

    I’d say it’s a mixture of plain old projection and the apex fallacy. Feminist women subconsciously know that under their rule the entire planet would turn into a hopeless, savage shithole of oppression, amorality and prejudice, plus they project their own natures, “morals” and intentions unto the top men. So eventually they assume that a world “ruled by men” i.e. the patriarchy cannot possibly be anything else than…a hopeless, savage shithole of oppression, amorality and prejudice, so it must be fought by all means.

  • Just1X

    @INTJ

    LJBF? – you have to walk away. Took me a while to learn that one, but it’s poison for the guy…imho. Have you seen ‘When Harry met Sally’?

    when harry met sally – men and women can’t be friends
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJz1f8hPRGc
    a later meeting
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=509-PoZdtxY&feature=related

    I think that it’s true…don’t do LJBF, it’s crap for the man

    And just for laughs…fake orgasm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-bsf2x-aeE

  • Jonny

    “The butch lesbians I know are mostly leather dykes. I actually like them. They’re fun, they’re very guy like, and they’re just great to be with. They are often more masculine, in a good way, than a lot of men I know. It’s like being with other sailors more than anything else.”

    You would think very masculine women would be fun to be around, but they are not. Masculinity does not mean LOUD and OBNOXIOUS. Women usually more developed with their communication skills. This was always true. They bring the crude level to beyond crude to nasty. Mean girls with a nasty tinge. Cutting and personal is not fun.

  • Just1X

    @H
    “Feminist women subconsciously know that under their rule the entire planet would turn into a hopeless, savage shithole of oppression, amorality and prejudice”

    ahh, so you’re a fellow optimist then? Harrison Bergeron looks like a viable model for their utopia. Never aim high and allow excellence, make sure that nobody can excel at anything.

    Based on the short story Harrison Bergeron by celebrated author Kurt Vonnegut, 2081 depicts a dystopian future in which, thanks to the 212th Amendment to the Constitution and the unceasing vigilance of the United States Handicapper General, everyone is finally equal… The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains. It is a poetic tale of triumph and tragedy about a broken family, a brutal government, and an act of defiance that changes everything.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKHzFWkH0Po

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Ana

    What did the dating coach said?
    It will be good to check your profile write up to see if there is any red flags or inconsistencies. Most of the time is not the product but the presentation that self sabotage people.

    She wrote my OkCupid profile. We worked on introduction emails to about 10 women she thought would be good matches for me based on my talks with her.

    Results were a big zero.

    Top 10 things I want in a partner? I’d have to think about it any more as most of the ones I used to list are in operative. I’m pretty much down to “nice to me”, “knows how to handle money”, and “can cook and would be willing to sometimes.”

    Top 10 things that define me? Catholic, veteran, mathematician, musician, ADHD (I wish it didn’t but it does), gamer, collector of books and Fortian stories…well, that’s six.

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

    Don’t those cancel. It might be easier to advise women but they’re less likely to act on it.
    Yep it seems like that.

    Also, women could offer alternatives. All the women here have offered advice to dump the GF (I know you don’t like the title but it is what it is) but none have offered advice on how to do better except, well, Game.

    We need more background men are more general women are more particular I already asked you some questions so I’m willing to chime in as much as I can.

    Does Austen, Bridget Jones, or a wide variety of romcons help. I have the largest collection of the later owned by a straight man in America, and I love the first two.

    Austen is good but my best advice is to find the top 10 most read books by women and read them all. I was trying to find the list but it seems that no one has actually made one: odd that…or not. ;)

    Maybe that’s the problem. On the other hand, women don’t either. Best to ignore what women say they want and only give what they actually want like “50 Shades of Gray”.

    Now that 50 mania has arrived at DR (we are slow, I know) I noticed that the things my friends are swooning about is how much Grey changes because of Anastasia and how happy they are he is not longer acting like an asshole master and this is an all girls conversation no reason to…would you buy that as part of what women want? Most men here say that the book is only successful for the asshole part and ignore the changes out of “true love” so yeah as long as we have an open mind about that that is a good rule of thumb.

  • INTJ

    @ Just1X

    I must confess to not having watched it. Guess what I’m going to do for the next 90 minutes though! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZNTzG3lHD8

  • Just1X

    @INTJ
    it has some great moments, I recently bought someone a copy of the DVD

    Enjoy…

  • Guavaberry

    Women have more experience about being a men because not all women are pretty, charming and enchanting.

    My example: I grew up in S. America, most of my life up to my later teenage years I was pretty damn quirky. I was too smart and too knowledgeable for my own good. I didn’t care much appearances, never did my hair, wore make up or knew how to walk in heels. I was essentially invisible to guys, specially the ones I considered my equals in smarts and looks (even though I needed some grooming). I saw how the girls who always showed up to school with makeup and perfect hair, who acted dumb on purpose get all the boys. I saw the ones that would flirt and tease shamelessly get the male romantic attention. I also saw how the promiscuous ones got attention based on their promiscuity.

    I had to learn girl game. I learned how to do my hair, wear makeup, dress in a flattering way, wear heels, fake being flirty and at ease and soon enough I had a boyfriend.

    I’ve partially lived the male and the female sexual experience. How many guys can say that?

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

    She wrote my OkCupid profile.We worked on introduction emails to about 10 women she thought would be good matches for me based on my talks with her.Results were a big zero.

    Only 10?! You should ask for your money back. This is like being unemployed and sent your resume to 10 companies I would say that close to one hundred is best to get one or two answers. The dating market is worst than the job market nowadays.
    Also this shouldn’t be just what you think are a good match it should be the best matches get the first messages, then second best matches, heck I would say is better to work on negative, If it doesn’t have deal breakers message her all in the same time period don’t want for responses of the best. Make it short and sweet. “I saw your profile and you seem interesting and I will like to get to know more about you”. The end, nothing that creeps out just a simple interest and then forget about it till someone responds, YMMV.

    Top 10 things that define me? Catholic, veteran, mathematician, musician, ADHD (I wish it didn’t but it does), gamer, collector of books and Fortian stories…well, that’s six.

    I will drop out the ADHD from the profile and first dates for the moment I didn’t told my husband was a terrible housekeeper right away… or maybe I did don’t remember. Not that you are lying but some people are prejudiced and will paint a mental picture of yourself that might not match the reality. Give them the chance to weight you out first and then add the rest and they will have a more accurate assessment.

    This in a five minutes Google search now mind you some of this places have a very disadvantage gender ratio against males, so it is hard, but if dating was easy we wouldn’t need so many dating sites would we?
    Catholic: http://www.catholicsingles.com/, http://www.catholicmatch.com
    Veteran: http://www.militarycupid.com, http://mingle2.com
    Mathematician: sciconnect.com, nerdpassions
    Gamer: http://www.videogamerdating.com, http://www.gamingpassions.com/,http://www.gamerdating.com/
    Booklovers and collectors: http://www.singlebooklovers.org/, http://alikewise.com/

  • Ted D

    Ana – “Any time we mention that men should read a romance novels or a self help books written by females and aimed at females, most men proudly say “I would never read such a dreck” hence you could learn a lot about how women see the world if you decide to “lower yourself” to it.”

    But, Ana, you have to admit, telling a guy to read romance novels to figure out women is like telling women to watch porn to figure out men. There is a WHOLE lot of picture being missed.

    Just1X – “Unless you are restricting that to sex (and maybe not even then), I don’t think that this is true.”

    I kinda assumed we were only talking about sex. If not, then I’m with you: women know about as much in regards to living as a man as men do about living as a woman.

  • Höllenhund

    I learned how to do my hair, wear makeup, dress in a flattering way, wear heels, fake being flirty and at ease and soon enough I had a boyfriend.

    That has nothing, zilch to do with the general male experience.

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

    But, Ana, you have to admit, telling a guy to read romance novels to figure out women is like telling women to watch porn to figure out men. There is a WHOLE lot of picture being missed.
    I watch porn remember? The message I got is that men want visually appealing women whose juices melt their panties in their presence and can’t help but kneel down and suck…well is that true or not?

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Also, if the men respond either, “You’re an outlier” or “Women don’t even understand their own desires” or “You say that, but that’s not what you do” – well, then, all incentives to be helpful have been removed. Which is pretty much what is going on here.”

    Ok. In all sincerity and without any attempt to start some flame war, I ask you this:

    The Red Pill and the ‘sphere at large teach/preach over and over to NEVER listen to what a women says, watch what she does. Now I’m not saying they are smarter than you, or any woman in particular, but, observation does tend to prove that theory out: that indeed women often DO things that go against or do not jive with what they SAY they will do/want to do.

    Can you see how guys like me that are seeing some success with ‘sphere information have a very difficult time taking your word at face value? I’m not saying it is right, but it comes down to perception once again. Perhaps you and the regular ladies here DO NOT act this way (saying one thing and doing another) but if the men here tend to be interacting with those types for whatever reason (self selection, geography, SES, etc.) how do we figure out which things you say are legit, and which ones are hamster?

    Again, not trying to poke the bear here, and not trying to call anyone a liar, cheat, slut, skank, or any other derogatory name meant to start tempers up. But it is a damn fine pickle to find yourself in. The men with success (however you want to frame that) saying one thing, and the women most willing to talk to us saying another.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      The Red Pill and the ‘sphere at large teach/preach over and over to NEVER listen to what a women says, watch what she does. Now I’m not saying they are smarter than you, or any woman in particular, but, observation does tend to prove that theory out: that indeed women often DO things that go against or do not jive with what they SAY they will do/want to do.

      Have you never realized that advice applies equally to men? Don’t listen to what a cad says, watch what he does. He says you’re special to him, but he didn’t call when he said he would. Don’t listen to what a nice guy says – that he likes hanging out as friends – because he wants to get in your pants and at some point he is going to furiously explode that you won’t give him sex.

      Or the boyfriend who tells you that he will never cheat. He has cheated on someone before, and he knows how wrong that is. Then he cheats.

      I recall sharing the story here of Tom and Jane – he played the boyfriend role with two girls in two cities at the exact same time.

      You really think guys are better about doing what they say they will?

      The men with success (however you want to frame that) saying one thing, and the women most willing to talk to us saying another.

      This is the crux of the problem right here. The men generally settle on success as being attractive to many women, i.e. # of lays. That means that the unrestricted male is the embodiment of success, and the restricted male is the SMP loser.

      Here we have restricted females who think the restricted male is more attractive. (Please see recent post.) If we had a bunch of sluts here, they’d confirm what guys like Wudang say.

      What’s interesting, though, is that most of the males here are restricted in their sociosexual orientation. They are grappling with their own orientation, and they have mostly put all women into the unrestricted pile. Take off the blinders!

  • Just1X

    @Susan
    “This might work if the female posters hadn’t fled the scene or weren’t in hiding.”

    can that happen? 8)

  • Ted D

    Ana – “The message I got is that men want visually appealing women whose juices melt their panties in their presence and can’t help but kneel down and suck…well is that true or not?”

    ROFL! Fine, you did learn everything you needed to know about men from porn. :P

    Susan – “This is exactly right. I remember thinking that some of the very qualities that make men good partners are qualities that beta men are anxious to get rid of as them make themselves over.”

    Ahhhhh. I see! I was one of the guys that got upset by this post, and I understand how we crossed wires. Your “list” was about what makes a man a great partner, which is true. However, most if not all of it DID NOT help a man be more attractive, which is primarily what MEN are concerned with. Further, all those beta qualities are terrific IF there is already a strong attraction from the women towards the man. Meaning, he has to already be “manly” enough to get her tingling, or your list is useless.
    YOU are concerned with what happens after attraction is established. I and most men are more concerned with the attraction part, even after the initial relationships starts. Of course I want a great relationship, but I won’t have that if my wife isn’t attracted to me, no matter how well I iron our linens.

    Your advice IS sabatoge to men THAT ARE ALREADY BETA! It might be great for the typical alpha “asshat” type guy, but he isn’t interested in changing anyway. So I guess I’m wondering what the point of the post was at all now, since it seems like women should know that a guy capable of housework is a better mate than a guy that can’t boil water…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      Your “list” was about what makes a man a great partner, which is true. However, most if not all of it DID NOT help a man be more attractive, which is primarily what MEN are concerned with.

      I disagree. Being a good potential partner does make a man more attractive. Just not to the women they want, apparently.

      Further, all those beta qualities are terrific IF there is already a strong attraction from the women towards the man. Meaning, he has to already be “manly” enough to get her tingling, or your list is useless.

      I think the dominance required for most women is quite low. A good dose of self-esteem and self-respect will suffice. The “good man” qualities should be visible from the start if you hope to attract good women.

      Your advice IS sabatoge to men THAT ARE ALREADY BETA! It might be great for the typical alpha “asshat” type guy, but he isn’t interested in changing anyway. So I guess I’m wondering what the point of the post was at all now, since it seems like women should know that a guy capable of housework is a better mate than a guy that can’t boil water…

      Doing housework is not a beta trait. Nor is being unable to boil water alpha.

      Most importantly:

      I wrote the post to women to point out that they will be happiest when they select men with long-term partnering strengths.

      I wasn’t even addressing men, and I stand by everything in that post as excellent advice to women.

      Beta males are dads. They are more collaborative, cooperative, caring, smart, funny, have higher EQ, faithful, stay married, want kids, are healthier, and mentally healthy.

      In contrast, alpha males (as defined by researchers) have good qualities like leadership and strength, but they’re also more likely to work poorly with others, be narcissists, be manipulative, lack empathy, cheat, divorce, are usually Type A and stressed out, are only one-third as likely to have kids, are intimidating, competitive, aggressive, arrogant, stubborn, close-minded, critical of others, impatient, see themselves as above the rules, and engage in more risky behaviors. Other than that, alphas are perfect!

  • Guavaberry

    @Höllenhund

    In my humble opinion the male sexual experience is that only a few can get what they want sexually. You can’t because you’re not good enough. You’re constantly teased by your peers about you inadequacy. You are mocked when you try to do some kind of sexual advances on someone else to whom you’re not good enough. You’re taunted by the prospect of always being alone and you have three choices:

    1) Deeply change yourself and adapt to the market needs.
    2) Settle for something that you don’t really feel attracted to.
    3)Be forever alone.

    Isn’t that the choice self-proclaimed beta males have to make?

  • Guavaberry

    As much as I disagree with a lot of Roosh’s and VK’s treatment of women, I find these two pieces very insightful about being on the two sides of the spectrum for women.

    http://www.rooshv.com/how-it-feels-like-to-be-a-hot-girl

    http://vksempireofdirt.com/?p=967

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

    This is exactly right. I remember thinking that some of the very qualities that make men good partners are qualities that beta men are anxious to get rid of as them make themselves over.

    Yep. One of the reasons I mention Athol so much is that he is not like other Game endorsers that seed the men to hate their former beta selves and kill them, and blame it on all their dating issues on it Beta = bad, bad, bad. Which I think is why men hate the Beta traits so much. Athol says “Being Beta is not bad, you just need to add equal amounts of Alpha and you got it” That is a lot more friendly and I think probably the best approach for men that actually want relationships and not a string of ONS, but what do I know I’m just a woman after all.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Most of these tactics should be used very sparingly in LTRs, if at all.”

    I really don’t know about this statement at all. To me, I’m actually putting a decent bit of “game” flavor in my marriage, based on how I acted in my prior marriage. (by that I mean, the amount of “game” type behaviors I am implementing to keep things interesting long term, like letting my facial hair “grow out” at my wife’s peak of ovulation, which so far is working extremely well.) Now, maybe you are taking a hard line at what constitutes “game behavior” and wouldn’t include my little experiment as such. However, at this point I consider any behavior or trait I am “changing” to increase my relationship satisfaction “game”, including the weight loss, my minor experiments, and even some of my actual behavior in interacting with my wife. Perhaps you underestimate just how pervasive these “behaviors” become as a man makes these changes. More and more, I’m realizing that the Red Pill IS NOT just about learning how to interact with my wife. Instead I’m finding applications for it in all facets of life. And, interestingly enough, I’m getting over the “fake it” feeling and am now starting to simply act.

    I don’t know what else to call it other than Game, but perhaps you see it more as “self improvement”. I learned it all at the same time, so for me it is all Game.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      (by that I mean, the amount of “game” type behaviors I am implementing to keep things interesting long term, like letting my facial hair “grow out” at my wife’s peak of ovulation, which so far is working extremely well.

      I specifically listed the Game behaviors that I do not believe are appropriate for LTRs. I did not say all Game behaviors are. Making yourself attractive to your wife is common sense, and so is giving her dominance when she’s ovulating.

      Neither of those tactics is emotionally dishonest.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Susan

    This is exactly right. I remember thinking that some of the very qualities that make men good partners are qualities that beta men are anxious to get rid of as them make themselves over.

    Isn’t that the attraction/relationship dichotomy. If a relationship requires attraction first that attributes that are relationship positives but attraction negatives are going to go by the wayside.

    I do think that people are incredibly wedded to their views, and the problem is, both parties can easily quote stories, sources, statistics, etc. to further their argument.

    I love how being wedding to the view PUAs and Game are long term losers for men is making me part of the problem :)

    If women cannot offer a set of attributes that can make a man attractive to the general population the PUAs can. Yes, PUA success is less than optimal for most men both in achieving STR results and the fact the successes are still STR. However, low but positive is greater than zero.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Herb

      If women cannot offer a set of attributes that can make a man attractive to the general population the PUAs can.

      You seem to think there’s some magic bullet, like the acai berry. Game has a lot of good advice within it in terms of displaying dominance. In addition to that, be fit, dress well, have interests that lend themselves to sharing with women, get out and meet people regularly. There is no easy answer, this stuff is hard work. It’s a massive effort at self-improvement.

  • Just1X

    @Guavaberry
    thanks for the roosh link, I wish he’d take these excursions off mission more often as it was interesting to hear that he didn’t like the experience very much.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Bitter, jaded, angry men may be as right as anyone else, though one has to wonder about their degree of openness and intellectual curiosity. However, the issue is where their authority comes from.”

    I agree. I don’t know how most folks do research, but I tend to try and find as many sources of information on the subject as possible, absorb as much of it as I can, and then try to find the commonalities between the sources to find the truth. That way, a lot of the built in bias and tone (angry, bitter, etc) can be removed and what is left is generally the truth. I very much like to compare notes from other ‘sphere sites to what you and the regulars here think in part for that counter-bias, so to speak.

    In terms of authority? I’ll be honest, this stuff is so new and understudied that I don’t trust any of the sources mentioned here or elsewhere in the ‘net fully. Evo-psych is very untested, and we’ve covered how/why I don’t put faith in studies that rely on polls and honest answers. For that matter, we don’t even know a whole lot about the biology of sex when it gets to the chemical level, and we have a lot left to discover about how much of all this is nature, and how much is nurture.

    Put another way, this entire field of discussion is a bit of a crap shoot, and I’m doing my best to find the most likely truth. To me, the way to find it is: listen to the most extreme on each side of the debate, moderate it with a few less extreme voices, then find the common ground. In all likely hood, THAT is will be the truth, or at least pretty damn close to it.

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


    ROFL! Fine, you did learn everything you needed to know about men from porn.

    That is what he said ;)

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Ana

    Only 10?! You should ask for your money back.

    Oh, I emailed way more than 10 but you can only mail so many a day.

    Plus, women share these things and post what they consider form emails so you have to hand craft each little snowflake her own email. I get that. They’re people as well.

    However, when your outbox contains north of 100 emails and your inbox contains south of two responses you wonder why. I can hit 10,000 email with a form email and as long as the success rate (ie, gets a response) doesn’t drop below 1 in 10,000 you’re better off.

    This was a leading indication for me that women get much picker as they get older. If less than 1 in 100 think it’s worth while to even answer you’re email to say “sorry, not interested” WTF.

    Make it short and sweet. “I saw your profile and you seem interesting and I will like to get to know more about you”. The end, nothing that creeps out just a simple interest and then forget about it till someone responds, YMMV.

    Have you seen the rants women post on online dating sites about “one liners” and “didn’t mention anything about my profile”. They expect a three paragraph letter like a cover letter for a job and then demand the right to ignore ones from unsuitable males.

    There is a theory that most women use dating sites not for dates but ego strokes. I spend 20 minutes reading your profile and writing a nice letter and you get an ego boost. I have invested time and energy into you and you don’t have to do a damned thing in return.

    I know you’re trying to give good advice but long ago I decided dating industry stuff is just that, dating industry stuff. It’s not in their interest to help me find someone. It’s in their interest to pretend to help me and keep collecting the check. It’s like the late 70s/early 80s movie psychiatrist whose answer to a break through is always, “we’ll work on that next week”. Once the patient is whole the money quits coming.

    It goes well beyond dating, but the core idea is never hire someone to help you succeed who gains more if you keep failing.

  • http://peopletobe.blogspot.com Herb

    @Susan

    What about them? Could it be that angry middle aged men choking on the red pill are making them think they somehow got to the wrong blog?

    Message received…

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Game as codified makes use of such tactics as push-pull, takeaway, flirting with the target’s friend to increase her interest, “agree and amplify” (which is really just clowning around, wink wink), peacocking, refusing to pay for a woman, negging, etc.”

    I’m going to disagree.

    push-pull- fairly normal human behaviour
    takeaway- necessary everytime a woman shit tests you
    flirting with the target’s friend to increase her interest- agreed
    agree and amplify- seriously. this is my thing. needs to be done daily.
    peacocking- homos
    refusing to pay for a woman- depends on the stage of a relationship but there are reasons to do this
    negging- agreed. Of course game states this is only for women who have already made enough money off their looks to retire comfortably to the island they buy in the bahammas. so mostly irrelevant.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      I don’t mean to suggest abandoning normal human behavior. I talking about making your wife wonder if you love her or not, keeping her guessing as to your level of interest and commitment. Obviously, this tactic is important in the beginning of a relationship, but has no place in an LTR, IMO.

      How does takeaway, e.g. “I’ve gotta run,” work to deflect shit tests? How about “Stop being silly, I have no intention of doing that.” Of course, when your spouse is being annoying, simply walking away is often a good idea, but that’s something a bit different.

      Agree and amplify: I think guys overdo this. It’s a very transparent tactic, very PUA. If it works for you, fine, but using it to evade questions your partners has a right to ask is dishonest. A&A can be used to give an impression of exclusivity when the opposite it true, or more often can be used to act a bit shady in order to instill dread.

      Of course game states this is only for women who have already made enough money off their looks to retire comfortably to the island they buy in the bahammas. so mostly irrelevant.

      Wow, I guess the guys at the bar didn’t get the memo. The most overused and misused Game move.

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

    Plus, women share these things and post what they consider form emails so you have to hand craft each little snowflake her own email. I get that. They’re people as well.

    You don’t want women that think like that. That is the essence of entitlement a complete stranger should be spending more time in me that I would do him just because I’m oh so awesome…no red flag right there.

    This was a leading indication for me that women get much picker as they get older

    Yes they do. This is the deal breaker part if she is old, fat and single mother or borderline spinster and is asking for his own version of Christian Grey then don’t message her. Work with the reasonable ones.

    Have you seen the rants women post on online dating sites about “one liners” and “didn’t mention anything about my profile”. They expect a three paragraph letter like a cover letter for a job and then demand the right to ignore ones from unsuitable males.

    You don’t want this women, see red flag description above.

    I know you’re trying to give good advice but long ago I decided dating industry stuff is just that, dating industry stuff.

    Am I asking you for money? Didn’t I meet my now husband and father of my unborn child online? Am I happy? Did I ever gave the impression that he is not happy as well? I’m spreading the good news.
    I’m just trying to give you what you asked an alternative to your GF so you don’t have to put up with her crap any longer than you should. See your response and tell me if this encourage women to give advice to men? I know you are in a bad place right now and totally understandable but you are projecting your past experiences with my sincere desire to help. I got nothing out of this but maybe you being happier and having that woman and child you obviously want. So what results you think closing yourself to a possibility no matter how slight to get out and find what you want, will get you?

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Did you see my questions? (#57, #62)

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    On why beta men hate beta traits.

    I’ll try and make you understand. Most of the guys I’ve known who have been dumped/cheated on etc. weren’t assholes. They were good guys (lets not use the N word). Most of the women left these good guys for assholes.

    You’re prescribing beta traits as necessary for relationships when in reality most of these guys have those traits in spades. We could argue about whether it was too much beta or too little alpha that caused the actual problem but beta traits are not enough to seal the deal.

    I suspect most beta men view their traits as not just lacking but inherently negative to their relationships. Which is somewhat sad.

    PS This is from the promiscutiy thread but I gotta go.

    ADBG mentioned his friend. Girl dumps him, fucks new guy, tries to come back.

    You called this behaviour normal (or some derivative of that, maybe typical?).

    I’m curious. Do you realise that that was likely a subconcious attempt at cuckolding?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      ADBG mentioned his friend. Girl dumps him, fucks new guy, tries to come back.

      You called this behaviour normal (or some derivative of that, maybe typical?).

      I’m curious. Do you realise that that was likely a subconcious attempt at cuckolding?

      I don’t think I called it normal, I simply stated that she was most likely never even attracted to the first guy. I don’t think this is unusual. Both sexes do it – though differently, of course. Guys agree to date a girl even though they’re aware they will never fall for her, because they get sex.

      In each case, one party got what they wanted, and the other didn’t.

  • Iggles

    @ Sassy:

    I would say that my boyfriend (Yay!) is smack dab in the middle of the asshole/supplication spectrum. He considers my thoughts and feelings on issues, but he also doesn’t do anything that would be to the detriment of himself. He’s not afraid of voicing his own opinions, even if they differ from mine. His sole motivation isn’t to make me happy.

    Aww!!!! So glad you guys are official and doing well :D

    My boyfriend falls in the middle as well! He’s assertive — not arrogant and not supplicating.

    He doesn’t mind telling me “No” sometimes, and that’s attractive. I want a man with a backbone, and I want a man with his own motivations. If a man isn’t comfortable setting healthy boundaries, how can he lead?

    Co-sign 100%

    I get what you mean. Admittedly, sometimes I get annoyed when I don’t get my way but I do love that he pushes back. I wouldn’t have it any other way!

  • Ted D

    “I suspect most beta men view their traits as not just lacking but inherently negative to their relationships. Which is somewhat sad.”

    This is a key element that I think every man experiences at some point during the Red Pill process. But, when they come out the other side, they hopefully realize that those beta traits are still their “meal ticket” if they want a successful LTR. However, they ARE NOT what will attract a woman to him, and they will not keep her around for long without some form of alpha to balance it out. It is a tricky thing to find the right mix if you are a guy that is completely unsure of himself, and new to the material.

    In some ways, finding the ‘sphere while in a LTR helped me in that respect. While single guys are learning all this and trying to apply it to as many women as possible, I only had to focus on applying it to one woman. IMO that was still a hefty process (still in the works in fact), but probably far easier than the daunting task of trying to make all women world wide attracted to you.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    that he likes hanging out as friends – because he wants to get in your pants and at some point he is going to furiously explode that you won’t give him sex.

    *Facepalm* Seriously? You really think this is how it goes?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

      *Facepalm* Seriously? You really think this is how it goes?

      That’s the Nice Guy TM meme. I didn’t invent it. That is exactly how Nice Guys are perceived. As complaining that they’re owed sex because their girl pals have spent time with them, used them for friendship and emotional support, etc.

      Full disclosure: I have seen this happen firsthand in groups where I have known both the girls and the guys. When the guys didn’t get it in, they got really, really pissed off, called the girls bitches, etc. There is at least some merit to this claim.

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

    Not about this but I’m tempted to watch this series. Anyone is a fan?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw&feature=player_embedded

  • Ted D

    Sassy – “He doesn’t mind telling me “No” sometimes, and that’s attractive.”

    The thing is, to me I shouldn’t ever have to tell my wife “NO”, because as a responsible and reasonable adult, I kinda expect her to be able to realize what she is asking for isn’t doable/proper/doesn’t make any sense without me having to be the bad guy for saying no. It is very much how I have to treat my kids when they ask for me to buy them stuff while standing in line at the store. It is the pushing of boundaries that irritates me, because to me adults shouldn’t be testing those waters out. (hence my total frustration with the concept of “shit test”, which is nothing other than a specific bump on a man’s boundaries for the intent and purpose of seeing if he will cave.) Maybe its just me, but I always feel like that kind of testing indicates a lack of respect.

    To give an example, I shouldn’t have to say “no, we cannot afford a new living room set this year” because she can see the accounts just as well as I can, and she knows our bills and what we need to save for. So, her asking in spite of all that is putting me in the position of being “dad” to explain reality to her.*

    *Note: I have not had to have this discussion with my wife, because she actually understands household fiscal responsibility. My ex did not. However, this was just one example of the many ways a situation like this can play out, and they all do not revolve around money.

  • VD

    Nonsense. Especially since more women are going off to college, and more men are hanging out at home. Men might be looking out a window, but women are stepping through it.

    I don’t think college attendance is an effective rebuttal to either solipsism or narcissism, as there are few people on the planet more observably solipsistic than American college students of either sex. I’m always amused by those who are genuinely amazed at the discovery that not everyone went to college. And no amount of exposure to the world will necessarily convince the solipsistic individual that it does not revolve around him.

    And before anyone assumes this is sour grapes, I have a degree from a fine, second-rate private university.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      I don’t think college attendance is an effective rebuttal to either solipsism or narcissism

      You’re absolutely right, it’s not. I just chose to interpret the mirror and window thing literally. Aside from college attendance, 20-something American women are doing more than American men their own age. It’s the men who are more insular. Which of course has nothing to do with solipsism or narcissism, per se.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “What’s interesting, though, is that most of the males here are restricted in their sociosexual orientation. They are grappling with their own orientation, and they have mostly put all women into the unrestricted pile. Take off the blinders!”

    I don’t know… My own personal struggle is finding the right balance to keep my wife attracted (and as attracted as possible) and yet manage to keep enough of “myself” so that I still feel like I’m being true to my nature. It may sound silly to you, but for me it really is a serious struggle. I don’t put all women in the unrestricted pile, but I do believe that the same attraction triggers those unrestricted women are drawn by are exactly the same ones the restricted women find tingle worthy. The difference is that the restricted women ALSO expect a high level of beta behind the scenes, and probably don’t need as much (or as pronounced) alpha.

    So, even if Game is designed to work on unrestricted women, it will still attract restricted types, but by itself it won’t keep them around very long. That is where the beta traits come in. The trick is, a man can never let the alpha stuff slip away, because the beta just isn’t attractive enough to work on their own. And, what constitutes alpha varies a great deal from women to woman, which to me means that “game” within a LTR is probably much easier than going the full on PUA route. You’re right that a good LTR shouldn’t need much game, but it will always need some.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      So, even if Game is designed to work on unrestricted women, it will still attract restricted types, but by itself it won’t keep them around very long. That is where the beta traits come in. The trick is, a man can never let the alpha stuff slip away, because the beta just isn’t attractive enough to work on their own. And, what constitutes alpha varies a great deal from women to woman, which to me means that “game” within a LTR is probably much easier than going the full on PUA route. You’re right that a good LTR shouldn’t need much game, but it will always need some.

      I agree.

  • Just1X

    @TedD

    I think that there are other types of shit tests in addition to “specific bump on a man’s boundaries for the intent and purpose of seeing if he will cave (on a living room set)”, which appears pretty childish to me.

    I believe that there is also the “I’m going to trust this guy a hell of a lot, and must be sure that he is the person that I believe him to be”.

    Your version pisses me off as well, but mine (if you can discriminate the different nature at the time) is the action of a sane woman.

    I suspect that there are other shit tests that the man is supposed to pass, supposed to fail, just have no explanation to a rational mind…but they’re not all of the manosphere ‘does this dress make my (fat) arse look fat?’ ilk. Where ‘yes’ = “what a bastard, I hate him” and ‘no’ = “what a liar, I hate him” YMMV

  • VD

    To give an example, I shouldn’t have to say “no, we cannot afford a new living room set this year” because she can see the accounts just as well as I can, and she knows our bills and what we need to save for. So, her asking in spite of all that is putting me in the position of being “dad” to explain reality to her.*

    You’re totally missing the point, Ted. That’s your job as head of the household and she is implicitly recognizing your authority. What you see as explaining reality is simply her wanting you to take responsibility for what she already knows. I get this from my employees, male and female, on a regular basis, who know a hell of a lot more about the details than I do.

    “We have a problem and we need to make a decision. What should we do?”

    “Okay, let’s sort this out. Fill me in. What are our options?”

    “Option A is the obviously sensible thing to do, as it won’t cost much and will solve the problem without too much trouble. Option B is incredibly stupid, will cost 10x more than Option A, and there is no guarantee it will work anyway. Only a complete idiot would go for it. So, tell me, whatever should we do?”

    Definitely Option A! I insist upon Option A. My decision is final!

    “Great idea! We’ll get right on it!”

    Now, these are smart people. They know perfectly well what to do. They simply want to be relieved of the responsibility for the decision. That is the real role of the executive, not making decisions per se, but rather relieving one’s employees of the burden of making decisions so they can focus on tactical implementation without constantly worrying about getting in trouble for the failure of the strategy. That’s basically what your wife is doing. She knows what reality is, she just doesn’t want it preying upon her mind. Remember, women can’t compartmentalize the way men can, so it’s important for you to help her out in this way.

    When she asks you something obvious, just state it in a firm, authoritative tone of voice, as if you’ve made a serious decision. That’s likely all she really wants in that situation.

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

    @ Susan,

    “I wonder if he hurt small animals as a kid.”

    Also set fires and pee the bed. That’s the real Dark Triad, the ones that almost all psychopathic serial killers have in common (and people wonder why I snicker at that “Dark Triad” nonsense).

  • http://7thseriesgongshow.blogspot.com Mr. Nervous Toes

    I think it would be helpful if we defined ‘Game’ as _anything_ that builds attraction in the opposite sex. Game can be instinctual or it can be learned behaviours. I.e., “men invented game but women were born with it.” Obviously that’s a generalization because everyone’s on a spectrum with regards to how much natural game they have. For whatever reason, evolution has found that the human race has the highest fitness when 80 % of the men aren’t born with game. If you’re a natural beta like me, time to learn.

    My experience is, alpha is the initial sales pitch, but beta is what closes the sale. If you can’t show that you’re a potential long-term partner, you’re probably not going to get a first or second date with a quality woman. When I say quality, I mean 1.) attractive, 2.) worthy of respect and admiration, i.e. she’s good at stuff, and 3.) loves herself. When a quality woman starts asking you personal questions, she’s qualifying you as a potential long-term partner. At this point, being a douchebag is going to get you no-date status. That’s why flirting is so hard for guys and why why our sexual value takes so long to peak, because it takes a lot of experience to develop the sense of ebb-and-flow.

    If you really struggle with social interaction, to the point that you could be diagnosed with social anxiety, Dr. Thomas Richards has a set of tapes that are a cognitive behavioural therapy program to deal with it. I’ve used it personally and it’s by far the most comprehensive CBT self-help system I’ve experienced. It’s not like I’ve outgrown the techniques I learned from Richards or yoga though, I still use them every day.

    This weekend I was out of town and had an opportunity to flirt with a group of women, so personal anecdote time. At one point, we’re swimming outdoors and attractive lady is making a ruckus about how cold the water in one pool is. She’s up just past her ankle, so I reached for her hand and gently started pulling her in. She resisted and did the usual little-girl behaviour of squeaking and giggling, but her nipples also became very pert and highly visible through her bikini (and she had the nicest bosom I’ve seen in awhile). She said some stuff about the cold water, but really, the soft invasion of her personal space is what turned her on. She managed to get in up to her chest later and suffered no such physiological reaction the next time. The bad thing for me is that she was embarrassed because she lost her fig-leaf of plausible deniability in front of some female friends (hence the cold water comment). She spent most of the rest of the day being girly with her BFF, so while I still got to chat, it’s hard to do much more then lightly flirt with two women at once without being over-aggressive.

    That goes to show that while game works there’s all sort of social interactions that can trip you up that you have no control over and nicely illustrates just how hard a time woman give men when the woman isn’t tipsy. Am I going to manage to get a date with her? I dunno, if I encounter her again in another social setting probably. If I have to resort to e-mail I think my chances are pretty low.

    A few years ago, I was less athletic (so I was less physically prestigious, both in terms of maintaining good posture and muscle tone) but moreover I didn’t have the confidence or game knowledge (i.e. less mentally/emotionally prestigious) to deal with such a woman and I would have been awkward and intimidated. Now I can be more open and witty without the assistance of alcohol.

  • Mike C

    This is exactly right. I remember thinking that some of the very qualities that make men good partners are qualities that beta men are anxious to get rid of as them make themselves over.

    I actually wrote that post for women, who responded to it very well, but the protests from the men were loud and persistent, and drew ire from other male bloggers as well.

    Just for the record, I do believe there are beta traits that make men good partners. That said, I think it is of utmost importance to distinguish those traits that make someone a good LTR candidate versus the traits that are more related to raw, visceral attraction. I think often these get conflated in discussion, and that is what can be confusing to guys. For example, I think being responsible with money is a good trait for a woman (AND a man) for a LTR, but that trait isn’t going to make my dick hard. Badger covered this quite well recently:

    http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-mainstream-trains-men-in-compatibility-not-in-attraction-where-most-men-need-work/

    I think a post like that is more for women because it encourages them to engage their higher level thinking in selecting men over those primal attraction triggers, but for guys who already bring enough of those solid LTR beta traits to the tables (more then a few male commenters here I think) their deficiency lies in having too little of the pure attraction traits.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    I’m beginning to realize how out of touch I am with modern game because put simply none of your defintions square with my own. I was pretty much a pure day gamer. (Four LTRs- physics class, library and two via friends.) Short guys and bars don’t mix.

    “I talking about making your wife wonder if you love her or not, keeping her guessing as to your level of interest and commitment.”

    Obv’sly. I expect the same.

    “Agree and amplify.”

    I can’t define it but I can give an example which doesn’t square with your defintion.

    When me and my wife first moved in together and she wanted something she had this habit of fluttering her lashes. Really cute, hard to say no to.

    I first called her on it, jokingly.
    Later on, she asked me for something. I stared at her and said “No babe. I’m not really feeling well. Can you get me X?” while blinking furiously. (Swear to god think I was gonna start seizing.)
    AA was always a method for funnily(this def ain’t a word) calling out a shit test.

    “Wow, I guess the guys at the bar didn’t get the memo. The most overused and misused Game move.”

    Not to be a complete douche but no shit sherlock. Bars + booze don’t necessarily preselect for intelligence or common sense.

    “Of course, when your spouse is being annoying, simply walking away is often a good idea, but that’s something a bit different.”

    This is what I recommend takeaway for and yes I view annoyance as a shit test. However, I would also define non-action as takeaway. Ex. you mentioned girlfriend shit testing and leaving bf on laptop and coming back an hour later and he is still there.

    Not giving her the rise she is looking for is a form of takeaway.

    The other method I have for dealing with shit tests is exactly as you described.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      You probably know more about agree and amplify than I do. Here’s how I’ve seen it used.

      Girl asks guy, “Are you seeing anyone else?”

      Guy: “Oh yeah, babe, I have sex with a different chick every night, isn’t in obvious?” Puts his arm around her waist and pulls her close.

      Girls laughs and kisses him.

      Guy bangs different chick the next night.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW

    What’s interesting, though, is that most of the males here are restricted in their sociosexual orientation.

    I should allow no sister of mine to accept such a situation.

  • http://7thseriesgongshow.blogspot.com Mr. Nervous Toes

    Herb,

    Just say no to online dating.

    It’s a total crap-shoot for all men. You can’t assess timing or mood, or any of the other critical body language cues. Most women can’t write a profile to save their life, so establishing hooks for a conversation or using humour is damn near impossible. It totally wrecks the casual dating vibe because there’s so many hoops to jump through before you get to the ever exciting coffee date. The whole purpose of casual dating is to have some light-hearted fun while you get to know someone. Online dating is so unsatisfactory because it forces us to try and pigeon-hole that perfect person for whom every box on the list is checked off just right. Most women online are looking for Mr. Right and don’t realize he’s just a figment of their expectations, so they disqualify _everyone_.

    My only use for online dating nowadays is to get my ass out of my chair and out of my apartment. I go online, and check through the ladies: landwhale, neurotic girl, entitled princess, party girl with herpes, seperated single-mom looking for a ‘friend’ to help her through her divorce, shy girl who’s nice when you get to know her (which is never), sarcastic bossy girl who think she’s an 8, religious girl with daddy issues. Ok, I’m done looking at woman rejected by everyone now, time to go out into the real world where the quality women are.

    Just say no to online dating.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    That’s the Nice Guy TM meme. I didn’t invent it. That is exactly how Nice Guys are perceived. As complaining that they’re owed sex because their girl pals have spent time with them, used them for friendship and emotional support, etc.

    Full disclosure: I have seen this happen firsthand in groups where I have known both the girls and the guys. When the guys didn’t get it in, they got really, really pissed off, called the girls bitches, etc. There is at least some merit to this claim.

    Fair enough. I guess it’s kinda like women claiming they just want confidence and us guys pointing out that we’ve seen firsthand that confidence isn’t good enough and asshole is what girls like.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “The men generally settle on success as being attractive to many women, i.e. # of lays. ”

    Nope. Argh, so close, yet so far away!

    Success is indeed that first half (being as attractive to many women) — but not necessarily the second half (high N).

    Having the first half is the foundation to either a) choosing from the best alternatives (low N!), or b) simply choosing them all in a smorgasbord (high N).

    High N is evidence of success, but that’s only half the story. It’s sufficient, but not necessary.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

      Success is indeed that first half (being as attractive to many women) — but not necessarily the second half (high N).

      Having the first half is the foundation to either a) choosing from the best alternatives (low N!), or b) simply choosing them all in a smorgasbord (high N).

      Seriously, this is music to my ears. I’ve been making this argument all along. The most desirable guy in the world can be a one woman man, and that doesn’t mean he’s not a “winner” in the SMP.

  • http://7thseriesgongshow.blogspot.com Mr. Nervous Toes

    MikeC,

    A lot of the men on here are showing off not their beta-ness but their omega-ness. We need a flow-chart:

    Alpha male behaviours = budding attraction in a woman

    Results in: qualifying questions (flow splits)

    Appropriate response: exhibition of beta comfort-providing potential.

    Inappropriate response: exhibition of omega-supplication.

  • Sai

    Some interesting conversations are going on here… I wish I could be more helpful (Herb, can you get your $ back?) but all I can do is list some things that I do NOT like. I know, women say one thing and chase another, but these made me feel nothing but bad toward the people who inflicted them on me:
    Insults (I honestly can’t tell if/when it’s playful -you could be smiling because you’re a prick who likes insulting people. I need to work on this)
    Bad grammar (I was raised by an English teacher and some of it rubbed off)
    B.O. (that one’s obvious, right? Haha)
    No intellectual curiosity (yes, the economy sucks but libraries are free and many bookstores will let you read too)

  • Plain Jane

    ” What’s interesting, though, is that most of the males here are restricted in their sociosexual orientation. ”

    “I should allow no sister of mine to accept such a situation.”

    And why should it be every woman’s duty to make sure no male is restricted? Sorry, Obama is not going to assign you a factory model girlfriend, no matter how many times the Manosphere calls him a “socialist”.

    The US doesn’t do Sexual Marxism. We do Sexual Venture Capitalism.

    :)

  • Plain Jane

    INTJ, “Where do such women tend to hang out? What sorts of heuristics can I use to filter for them?”

    Yoga centers. Your home state is full of ‘em. Filter out the single moms.

    Susan to INTJ, “Are you interested in an Indian gf? If so, definitely go to see dance, and get involved with the South Asian cultural scene.”

    Susan, I already told him to do that last week and he made some lame excuse about single women at in the SA cultural scene being radical right wing religious fanatics, which is NOT true, especially in uber liberal California of all places!

    One more place I’d recommend for him to meet SA women, and a wide variety of ‘em, are at the annual Yoni Ki Baats. They certainly won’t be radical religious wingers, if that’s his concern.

  • Plain Jane

    INTJ: *Facepalm* Seriously? You really think this is how it goes?

    Susan: That’s the Nice Guy TM meme. I didn’t invent it. That is exactly how Nice Guys are perceived. As complaining that they’re owed sex because their girl pals have spent time with them, used them for friendship and emotional support, etc.

    Full disclosure: I have seen this happen firsthand in groups where I have known both the girls and the guys. When the guys didn’t get it in, they got really, really pissed off, called the girls bitches, etc. There is at least some merit to this claim.

    Yeah, if a “nice guy’s” aim is not genuine friendship, don’t even go there in the first place.

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

    Guy: “Oh yeah, babe, I have sex with a different chick every night, isn’t in obvious?” Puts his arm around her waist and pulls her close.

    Experiment time!
    What if the girl doesn’t laugh look at the man in the eye and says: I’m not playing I need a serious answer to that question.
    What would be the answer of the guys here? Dump=she is too serious, Respect and real answer= she knows what she wants and she should have an honest answer…or anything else?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anacaona

      What if the girl doesn’t laugh look at the man in the eye and says: I’m not playing I need a serious answer to that question.

      From your lips to God’s ears. This is where players get away with murder. Women are eager to confirm exclusivity, so in an exchange like that, they feel reassured because to question further is to call the character of the guy into question, and most women are reluctant to do that. That’s why A&A works – it assumes most people won’t play hardball. It’s a way of finding a vulnerability in a woman and exploiting it.

      Of course, it’s only exploitation if the guy is banging other women. He might have oneitis and say that to maintain his frame as the least interested party. I don’t categorically reject the tactic.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Iggles

    Aww!!!! So glad you guys are official and doing well :D

    Thanks!! He asked me to be his girlfriend this past Friday. I accepted happily.

    @ Plain Jane

    Sassy, this is curious. In what area of your life do you feel you need to be lead? Education? Career? Daily personal habits and routines? Recreation? Religion?

    I personally don’t need to be lead in any of those areas. I simply like a guy who can lead, if the situation calls for it. I never know what kind of situation I may end up in during my lifetime. If there should ever be a time when I can’t lead, or can’t make a decision, I want to be sure that I have a man who is capable of taking the reins. I wouldn’t want a man who would crumble, in that regard.

    @ Ted D

    thing is, to me I shouldn’t ever have to tell my wife “NO”, because as a responsible and reasonable adult, I kinda expect her to be able to realize what she is asking for isn’t doable/proper/doesn’t make any sense without me having to be the bad guy for saying no. It is very much how I have to treat my kids when they ask for me to buy them stuff while standing in line at the store. It is the pushing of boundaries that irritates me, because to me adults shouldn’t be testing those waters out. (hence my total frustration with the concept of “shit test”, which is nothing other than a specific bump on a man’s boundaries for the intent and purpose of seeing if he will cave.) Maybe its just me, but I always feel like that kind of testing indicates a lack of respect.

    I didn’t mean saying no to me for questions or requests that are odd, irrational, or irresponsible. I meant that he doesn’t mind telling me no sometimes for minor things that concern him.

    If he is tired, he doesn’t mind telling me that he would rather stay in than go out. If he has other things on his plate, he doesn’t mind telling me that he can’t see me. He doesn’t mind asserting his needs, and he doesn’t always bend over backwards to please me. His wants are important to him too, and he doesn’t mind voicing them.

    I interact with him the same exact way. It’s about balancing the desires of others with one’s own desires.

  • Plain Jane

    Deli September 17, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Sorry, but current human society is built on scientific method – i.e. method of finding one true answer to any particular question.
    There is no room for “agree to disagree”, either one person is right or the other.
    ———-

    If that were the case religion and belief in God would be extinct. The fact remains that even the most intelligent and productive members in any society are often believers in God and even sometimes full fledged members of an organized religion.

    And there is plenty of room for “agree to disagree” wrt religious preferences and opinions.

  • Abbot

    On sex differences by ratio.

    http://drrobertepstein.com/downloads/Epstein-SEX_AND_THE_SOCIETY-DISCOVER_Oct_2012.pdf

    “Too many women: Post–World War II births led to a shortage of men and the rise of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s.”

    “Too many men: A shortage of female babies in the 1970s led to the rise of conservatism in the 1990s.”

    Does these birth patterns also impact the way women and men treat each other socially and sexually?

    .

  • J

    Hi Herb,

    I’m reading your conversation with Ana, and I feel bad that you are having such a rough patch right now. My impression in talking to you online is one of an interesting and intelligent person; I think that’s a huge positive in your favor. I don’t have much to say about succeeding at online dating, but here are some things that I think work IRL:

    1) Have a large social network. People with a lot of friends also tend to have what looks like great luck, but really they are reaping the benefits of knowing a lot of people who can hook them up. Ana mentioned that I met my husband by chance when I had just about given up and that I had no plan. All true. What I did have though was a lot of acquaintances. I got dragged to a party I didn’t want to go to and met a man who was literally a “friend of a friend.”

    2) Have a varied network of friends, young,old, male, female, married, single.

    3) Let people know that you’re looking.

    4) Project happines and completeness. I was sort of in Kate Bolick territory when I met DH. I had given up and was concentrating my efforts not on a desperate push to meet a guy, but on a steady flow of building an independent life. I was done mourning and was looking for things to be positive about. My lack of desperation was attractive; ironically not giving a damn made me hotter.

    5) Look your best. Drop weight, dress nicely, upgrade hair style, etc.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Guva
    “In my humble opinion the male sexual experience is that only a few can get what they want sexually. You can’t because you’re not good enough. You’re constantly teased by your peers about you inadequacy. You are mocked when you try to do some kind of sexual advances on someone else to whom you’re not good enough. You’re taunted by the prospect of always being alone and you have three choices:

    1) Deeply change yourself and adapt to the market needs.
    2) Settle for something that you don’t really feel attracted to.
    3)Be forever alone.

    Isn’t that the choice self-proclaimed beta males have to make?”

    Oh, it’s so much deeper than that. Guys not only cannot get what they want sexually. They also cannot get what they want emotionally. I know that the whole Beta Orbiter thing is a huge myth, but that’s because that’s what HURTS THE MOST. For the most part, if you’re a beta guy, girls will ignore you entirely. You will rarely enter a girl’s orbit, but when you do, you will become enthralled, and you will naturally want the sexual side too.

    And then you get rejected.

    Most Betas do not want to pursue unlimited sexual encounters. They want sex and cannot satisfy it, but they also want the emotional intimacy, too, and the lack of sexual intimacy betrays a lack of emotional intimacy. If she isn’t fucking you, she doesn’t really care that much about you.

    Maybe that doesn’t process to you, but it does to guys. It’s very primal.

    Also, the options we see are:

    1. Adapt and Change (which is impossible)
    2. Be settled FOR
    3. Forever Alone

    The two is the big difference. You are saying the Beta Guy is doing the settling. It’s the opposite. Beta Guy thinks the girl is settling FOR HIM. Beta Guy is convinced that the girl is much, much more interested in guys hotter than him, but can’t pull, and now he’ll do. That’s why you see all this obsession about 80% of the girls going for 20% of the guys. It’s a big statement that NO girls will find MOST guys attractive, and therefore most guys are going to be settled for.

    That’s the big Beta fear, and being settled for means not being special which means….

    No emotional intimacy.

    Betas by and large want all that Disney-crap, too. But Beta Guys don’t feel it when NONE of their sexual needs are being met, ever, and when they think girls think of them as second-rate.

    It’s not just sex.

    It’s intimacy.

  • VD

    What if the girl doesn’t laugh look at the man in the eye and says: I’m not playing I need a serious answer to that question.

    That’s a reasonable question, Ana. My answer to that was always “nothing serious, how about you?” Since any woman I’d be attracted to would always possess at least three orbiters, that would lead directly to a lengthy and tedious soliloquy on her part explaining the precise nature of each orbital relationship and why it should not interfere with our prospective relations. By the time she finished, she would invariably have forgotten all about her original intention of digging into the details of my life. Because women tend to be solipsistic, it is trivially easy to redirect them by the simple mechanism asking them to talk about themselves.

    I never once had to admit anything about anyone else or lie… and there was always someone else. Let’s face it, very few women can resist the urge to discuss their favorite subject in as much detail as their interlocutor will permit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      Because women tend to be solipsistic, it is trivially easy to redirect them by the simple mechanism asking them to talk about themselves.

      I remember Ferdinand beating this drum quite frequently. Googling “solipsism,” dictionaries lead the results:

      sol·ip·sism (slp-szm, slp-)
      n. Philosophy
      1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
      2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

      No mention of solipsism as it relates to women is found until the 9th page of Google results, where a post by Private Man is listed.

      However, when one Googles “female solipsism” the results on the first page are as follows:

      1. Alphagame
      2. Rational Male
      3. Rational Male
      4. Private Man
      5. Alphagame
      6. MGTOW forums
      7. Alphagame
      8. The Spearhead
      9. Cane Caldo

      What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?

  • Mike C

    I disagree. ***Being a good potential partner does make a man more attractive.*** Just not to the women they want, apparently.

    Susan,

    I suspect we are back to the confusion about “attractive” versus “sexually attractive”. I think it would be to your benefit and greater understanding, if EVERY SINGLE TIME you see a guy use the term “attractive” he means sexually attractive, not the more ambiguous attractive that I think you and women mean when using the term.

    This seems to be the one “sphere” guy that you’ll listen to what he says

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-logical-fallacy-of-female-attraction.html

    This is good clarification and it’s really not a very difficult concept to understand. A woman may love her children and she may love her dog, but she is not turned on by them. She may love certain BETA traits and even seek them out in Long Term Relationships, but they do not turn her on. As a general rule, anything that inspires the same “awwwww” reaction as children and puppies is something that belongs in the BETA LTR box and not the ALPHA juices like wine box.

    I believe the primary reason it is hard to get women to understand this distinction between “that which I love” and “that which turns me on” is that for women, sexually turning on is a delicate process that is largely a black box to them.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      I suspect we are back to the confusion about “attractive” versus “sexually attractive”. I think it would be to your benefit and greater understanding, if EVERY SINGLE TIME you see a guy use the term “attractive” he means sexually attractive, not the more ambiguous attractive that I think you and women mean when using the term.

      First, I do listen to Vox, but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says.

      Second, female attraction does not have two ladders. There is not a cad ladder and a dad ladder. There is simply a gate, and the man with the right mix of traits makes it through the gate.

      I have been repulsed by the traits you define as sexually attractive. Of the women in my focus groups, I’d say 2 or 3 have attraction triggers that closely track those traits – they are the women with very high N. For the other women, dad traits are essential before a man is allowed into their lives. IOW, asshole arrogance will result in rejection every time for those women. Their attraction switch is not flipped without some indication that they are dealing with a “good man.” And that means beta traits, more or less.

      Bottom line: Attractive means what is going to get you through the gate. For most women, the traits you define as ambiguous are prerequisites.

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

    That’s a reasonable question, Ana. My answer to that was always “nothing serious, how about you?”
    Let’s play this scenarion a little further if it entertains you’
    Mmm What if she says: “Define the “no serious” part.

  • Abbot

    1. Adapt and Change (which is impossible)
    2. Be settled FOR
    3. Forever Alone

    Thats about it on 9% of Earth’s land area…
    Thats it within a group that is 5% of Earth’s population…
    Thats it if you remain a captive audience volunteer…

  • Plain Jane

    1) Deeply change yourself and adapt to the market needs.
    2) Settle for something that you don’t really feel attracted to.
    3)Be forever alone.

    AND

    1. Adapt and Change (which is impossible)
    2. Be settled FOR
    3. Forever Alone

    ___

    As an average gal, I faced the same options. In fact, I was “settled for” in one very entangling relationship and I know how it feels and it sucks.

    That’s the risk I took when I shot above my weight in looks with this one particular man I did not have a lot in common with.

    He was even more unrealistic than I was. At least in the beginning I tried to veer him towards women who were more his type, but he said he was “done” with them. Later I found out he wasn’t “done” with them as much as they were done with him and he felt he couldn’t compete in that market due to a lack of status and money, so he aimed for the average not his type gal whom he had little in common with. He even hinted that I should be “proud” to show him off to my friends. Obviously the women he preferred wouldn’t feel proud to tell their friends what sort of job he had, but he figured since he was better looking than me then at least he’d have a woman who was “proud” of him in some way.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    First, read this post: 57 Ways to Meet the Love of Your Life

    You need to have or develop some interests that you can share with women, then pursue them.

    You want to rule out women who are dressed provocatively, have a flirtatious demeanor, or seem highly extraverted.

    Focus on women who are likely to be compatible – smart, serious, etc. Seek someone whose values appear similar to your own.

    Are you interested in an Indian gf? If so, definitely go to see dance, and get involved with the South Asian cultural scene.

    Already do this. :)

    I don’t prefer an Indian gf in particular, but since there’s a higher likelihood that she has matching goals/moral values, I should get involved more with the South Asian scene.

    The best approach is always a confident hello or introduction followed by a conversation opener that is germane to the activity. With a stranger at Starbucks or on the elevator, maybe it’s a headline or the elevator news feed. If it’s a girl in your class, ask her something about that. If you feel nervous about making chit chat, think of some potential openers beforehand.

    That’s already how I meet people in general (including girls). :)

    If you know someone casually, spend time building a rapport, then take it up a level. Go for coffee, walk her to her dorm, etc. Try and get groups of friends to meet up, and get better acquainted with her in a group social setting. Do not under any circumstances go up to a woman you don’t know and ask her out for a dinner date!

    If you know her well, add a bit of flirtation to your usual interactions and see how it goes over. Is she flirtatious back? Or is it super awkward? Only proceed if it’s the former. After a bit of flirting, suggest hanging out soon. Again, this is better done in groups at first.

    Don’t ever go with a strictly platonic vibe. Try to get to know her as friends with potential, at the very least. Or you can express your interest right away. Read the IOIs carefully, and expect to get blown out a lot. You are not for all markets. The normal college progression is chatting (with interest), flirting, hanging out in groups, singling each other out in groups, then pairing off to hang out alone. Adjust as necessary for different settings, e.g. classroom vs. library vs. club sport.

    Ahh this is stuff that I need to work on. I’m simply not used to subtle non-platonic communication.

    You’re very confident here, so I know that you are funny and smart and very capable of this. You need to practice this a lot IRL. The more natural the opening, the better you’ll feel. Don’t start by approaching the hottie on the shuttle bus. Start by sitting next to a cute girl in class. Make a short comment with eye contact.

    Oh I’m perfectly confident in general. It’s just that I find it awkward speaking with a stranger until I get a feel for his/her personality or communication style. It’s not the approach itself actually. I naturally have stuff to talk about for an opening. The problem is keeping the conversation going. I see people who’re naturals at this, and I just can’t do that. :( And it’s not that I get tongue-tied around hot girls or something. It happens with all strangers.

    All of this is in Game, BTW. You owe it to yourself to learn Game. It’s a roadmap to what we’re talking about.

    Yes. The problem is that Game as espoused on PUA blogs comes with a lot of other stuff I don’t care to learn, and it’s hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    I don’t advise friendship as a goal. Friendships can develop into something more but I think that’s a bad strategy. If you are trying to get to know a woman, and getting no IOIs, move on. If you make a move and she friend zones you, walk away.

    This is the something I need to keep hammering into myself. I’m probably having a hard time giving it up because it is in direct contradiction to what I was told by my mom growing up.

    Learn what you can via observation, reputation, etc. As you get to know her, work these questions into conversation:

    6. Sex without love is OK?

    7. Enjoy casual sex with different partners?

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

    Any yes is obviously a dealbreaker.

    Straightforward enough. :)

    We can discuss this more, these responses are just off the top of my head.

    It’s been really helpful. I’ll absorb it and ask for clarifications or addition answers later if I need any.

    You also want to maintain the frame that you are a prize to be won. Do not offer commitment right out of the gate. Take your time to qualify her, and let her know that.

    I’ll try. I know I’m a prize, but it’s hard to maintain that frame when it’s always the man’s job to be proactive.

  • VD

    Let’s play this scenarion a little further if it entertains you’ Mmm What if she says: “Define the “no serious” part.

    “To me, being serious is about love and commitment. I haven’t been fortunate enough to find it yet, but I’m not afraid to keep looking. I think it’s worth it, don’t you? [Oh, totally, she interjects and nods.] So, what about you? I have no doubt you’ve got an extensive fan club. How many boyfriends are you keeping on a string these days?”

    If she’s already given the orbiter list, this will prompt a denial that she is keeping anyone on a string as well as a discourse concerning her last two or three “serious” boyfriends. And by “serious” she means “nominally exclusive”.

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

    We are playing okay
    “To me, being serious is about love and commitment. I haven’t been fortunate enough to find it yet, but I’m not afraid to keep looking. I think it’s worth it, don’t you?

    Totally so are this not too serious women also sharing moments like you and I do?

    So, what about you? I have no doubt you’ve got an extensive fan club. How many boyfriends are you keeping on a string these days?”

    I like to keep my energy in one person at the time. Many people involved can get messy.

  • INTJ

    For old Star Trek fans, here’s a funny comic that George Takei (aka Sulu) just shared on Facebook. It’s amazing how much insight some kids have into relationships. http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/488250_524334560929335_328301953_n.jpg

    And here’s the more cynical manosphere type of comic that he posted: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/206311_524212187608239_1714909630_n.jpg

  • VD

    Totally so are this not too serious women also sharing moments like you and I do?

    Not at all. Not like this.

    I like to keep my energy in one person at the time. Many people involved can get messy.

    Energy? Is that what you call it? But let’s not be too quick to reject messy. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that if you’re not making a mess that requires a federal hazmat team to clean it up, you’re not really doing it right. I have this friend… [tell funny story, could be about friend or about self using friend as plausible deniability.]

  • Abbot

    “The most desirable guy in the world can be a one woman man, and that doesn’t mean he’s not a “winner” in the SMP.”

    Mainly because he had to work for it. Getting a woman to agree to go out with him and then seduce her into sex is a job skill that is transferable to other matters that require effort. If he always got it willy nilly by just saying yes over and over for years, well, he would not be so worthy for commitment

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

    Not at all. Not like this.
    I hope you don’t think I’m dumb *giggles* but exactly what you mean?

    Energy? Is that what you call it? But let’s not be too quick to reject messy. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that if you’re not making a mess that requires a federal hazmat team to clean it up, you’re not really doing it right. I have this friend… [tell funny story, could be about friend or about self using friend as plausible deniability.]

    Respond with sad story about a messy relationship ending up in suicide and murder preferably both (and you know I have those to spare VD ;)). “I guess we have different takes on messy being good for the soul…so I’m to think you are making a mess with me or those girls or both?”

  • VD

    From your lips to God’s ears. This is where players get away with murder. Women are eager to confirm exclusivity, so in an exchange like that, they feel reassured because to question further is to call the character of the guy into question, and most women are reluctant to do that. That’s why A&A works – it assumes most people won’t play hardball. It’s a way of finding a vulnerability in a woman and exploiting it.

    Keep in mind, however, it is easy for a player to turn her questions around on her. Most women have a few “platonic” BETA friends orbiting them, with whom they are always going to the shopping mall or whatever. If she’s got even one such male friend, she will very seldom be able to pin him down even if he is keeping a large stable of casual sex partners. Once she admits to having male friends with whom she goes out and socializes, it is simple to say, “hey, so you know how it is.” It is much, much easier to conceal a stable than a serious girlfriend because they don’t intrude on a man’s life, and because in casual conversation, it’s impossible to distinguish “female friend” from “female sex toy”. Of course, the converse is true; I always assumed that when a woman mentions a male “friend” she means someone who either had sex with her or wants to have sex with her.

    I have never met a woman who is bold enough to simply ask “have you had sex with anyone else in the last two weeks”. For the very good reason that it would be an obnoxious and intrusive question that no woman would want to face answering herself even if she’s a virgin. Instead, there is always dancing delicately around the subject and asking what “serious” means, the sort of thing that any man with reasonable verbal skill can adroitly avoid. Again, once she’s talking about herself, she’ll won’t go back to the subject.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I have never met a woman who is bold enough to simply ask “have you had sex with anyone else in the last two weeks”. For the very good reason that it would be an obnoxious and intrusive question that no woman would want to face answering herself even if she’s a virgin. Instead, there is always dancing delicately around the subject and asking what “serious” means, the sort of thing that any man with reasonable verbal skill can adroitly avoid.

      Yes, that’s a fair summary. Even a woman who would like to know the answer to that question wants to avoid looking like (or being called) a psycho.

  • VD

    I hope you don’t think I’m dumb *giggles* but exactly what you mean?

    What I mean is that the last time I had a conversation like this, it was with a prosecutor. What is it that you’re trying to hide? [At this point, if you're still asking questions and not answering any, I've probably mentally checked out of the conversation and begun looking to escape it.]

    I guess we have different takes on messy being good for the soul…so I’m to think you are making a mess with me or those girls or both?

    No, this is not a mess. We haven’t been arrested, have we?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ PJ

    I am terribly sorry. Really am. Getting settled for is…oh my fucking god. It’s like getting stabbed in the heart. I’ve never had a girl I care about cheat on me, but I imagine it must be something like that, because your view of the relationship is just shattered. It doesn’t seem real anymore.

    @ Susan

    Seriously, this is music to my ears. I’ve been making this argument all along. The most desirable guy in the world can be a one woman man, and that doesn’t mean he’s not a “winner” in the SMP.

    Agreed 100%. Quality over quantity for sure.

  • http://www.femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Susan,
    I actually think A & A is more “shady” when it’s practiced in a “getting to know you” setting vs. a LTR. I think it was Lokland who said he uses A & A as a way to respond to shit tests, and my BF definitely does that too. For example we’ll be watching TV and a particularly hot actress will come on, and I’ll say something silly like “I bet you want to fuck her.” In response he’ll say “Oh yeah. In fact every night when you think I’m working the night shift, I’m in Hollywood having sex with actresses.” My response: “Ohh really??” with a grin. Him: “You’re a goofball baby.”

    Basically, it’s a way to let me know I’m kind of being paranoid or too jealous (or whatever) without being direct, and it actually turns what could have been a negative interaction into a positive one.

    It’s funny, I actually think women don’t respond that well to direct confrontation and prefer to keep things light (NAWALT of course). It seems like A & A was developed to work with a very common female communication style. Not that I think it should be used as a deception technique.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Olive

      Basically, it’s a way to let me know I’m kind of being paranoid or too jealous (or whatever) without being direct, and it actually turns what could have been a negative interaction into a positive one.

      That makes sense, it can actually be a way of offering reassurance in an LTR where faithfulness really isn’t in question. I know that when I have felt paranoid, hearing that I’m being silly is very reassuring.

      Who knew A&A was so versatile? In the end, it always comes down to intent. Is someone reassuring you because they care for you, or are they misleading you to maintain a harem? :-/

  • Höllenhund

    What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?

    Yeah. It’s entirely reasonable to expect that various public and private organizations would fund scientific research focusing on something called “female solipsism” in a culture where feminism and the blank-state theory are the law of the land.

    Honestly, who are you trying to fool, Ms. Walsh? You know absolutely well that such ludicrous demands for scientific evidence are nothing but an attempt to stifle debate on female nature.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Honestly, who are you trying to fool, Ms. Walsh? You know absolutely well that such ludicrous demands for scientific evidence are nothing but an attempt to stifle debate on female nature.

      I didn’t ask for scientific evidence, but the list of Google results is very telling, IMO. The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers. Surely, a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere? As I said, there are many pages of results discussing solipsism as a philosophical concept without regard to gender. I daresay that when it was conceived, it strictly described men.

      I have made a habit of digging into the source of certain claims in the ‘sphere, and what I usually find is a complete absence of intellectual rigor. Instead, there is a sort of high-fiving among male bloggers on principles that are completely unsubstantiated.

      Unless someone can offer me some rational explanation for saying that women are especially solipsistic, I don’t accept it.

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

    What I mean is that the last time I had a conversation like this, it was with a prosecutor.

    You dated a prosecutor that is interesting

    What is it that you’re trying to hide?

    I’m just asking a question why are you so paranoid?

    [At this point, if you're still asking questions and not answering any, I've probably mentally checked out of the conversation and begun looking to escape it.]

    What a coincidence! Likewise ;)

    No, this is not a mess. We haven’t been arrested, have we?
    Not yet…the night is young. ;)

  • Mike C

    What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?

    Here is the easy to understand definition of solipsistic:

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/solipsistic

    Solipsistic describes a philosphy that nothing is real but the experiences you have. (adjective)

    An example ofsolipsistic is a belief that you can only know what you have personally experienced.

    Here is my evidence….the comments on this blog by a variety of female commenters… even intelligent ones such as yourself, Hope, Anacoana. If you really want me to dig through comments I will but hopefully you’ll recognize the accuracy. I can’t even begin to quantify how many times a discussion is going that is dealing with purely abstract, general concepts and either you, or some other female commenter has the default assumption we are speaking about your relationship, or your husband, or your boyfriend. It happens so regularly and predictably that I do assume it must be some ingrained element of female wiring. I’ve observed and remarked on this phenomenon of “personalizing” abstract points a great number of times actually.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      I can’t even begin to quantify how many times a discussion is going that is dealing with purely abstract, general concepts and either you, or some other female commenter has the default assumption we are speaking about your relationship, or your husband, or your boyfriend.

      I don’t think anyone does that. The only time I assumed anyone was talking about my marriage was when Yohami said, “Your marriage sucks, I would never want a marriage like that.”

      We may say, “that’s not my experience, here’s how it is with me.” But you do that frequently as well. Your days as a bouncer, your buddy with the N > 200, your personal experiences with your fiancee.

      Isn’t personal experience the lens through which we understand the world?

      Abstract concepts have little meaning if they don’t resonate at a personal level.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Question to the females.

    I can relate to requiring Beta Traits to experience honest sexual attraction. When I was single, I definitely required character traits for that sexual attraction to really flower.

    Since being in a relationship, I have found that more girls have become more sexually attractive. I don’t mean I want to stray, I just say that I can see a whole lot more girls as attractive. My guess-timate would have to be that this is somehow emotional, and part of my promiscuous side saying “you got something stable, now get something on the side.”

    Do any women have that mechanism? Or other guys? Or am I just weird?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ADBG

      Do any women have that mechanism? Or other guys? Or am I just weird?

      I think that’s the male desire for sexual variety. The female equivalent is probably buying Bride’s magazine long before it’s called for.

  • VD

    What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?

    Observation and superintelligence. But I’ll gladly devise a practical scientific experiment to support the hypothesis if you like. I have observed, over 20 years, that one simply cannot talk to most women about most subjects without her either a) discussing how it reflects upon her, or, b) attempting to change the subject to herself. Anyone who talks to women on a regular basis will have observed it. In college, I used to amuse myself by counting the numbers of “I” and “me” whenever a female professor was lecturing; it was usually a multiple of those utilized by the male professors.

    It is a concept that is no more intrinsically dubious than the observation that women prefer taller men to shorter ones or that men prefer younger women to older ones. Remember, science doesn’t create reality, it merely codifies our observations of it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I have observed, over 20 years, that one simply cannot talk to most women about most subjects without her either a) discussing how it reflects upon her, or, b) attempting to change the subject to herself. Anyone who talks to women on a regular basis will have observed it.

      I have observed the exact same behavior from male commenters here for four years, on a blog that isn’t even directed at them. A post written expressly for women, couched in language addressing females, generates a flood of response from men talking about how the post fits into their lives, and then we’re off to the races. Pages and pages of reports of being shortchanged by others.

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

    My guess-timate would have to be that this is somehow emotional, and part of my promiscuous side saying “you got something stable, now get something on the side.”

    I think Athol mentioned that humans are wired in general to have a steady monogamous partner and get opportunistic sex in the side once in a while. Not sure if he has evo-bio evidence but it seems you are experiencing that you got one down so your body might be craving for the other part. Don’t listen to it though it will only bring you problems and you might end losing out on both, YMMV

  • Mike C

    It’s funny, I actually think women don’t respond that well to direct confrontation and prefer to keep things light (NAWALT of course). It seems like A & A was developed to work with a very common female communication style. Not that I think it should be used as a deception technique.

    Olive,

    Exactly! Direct earnestness is a non-starter for most women, plus to the example you gave, there are only 3 options:

    1. Pretend you didn’t ask the question and ignore it with no response 2. Qualify yourself with a “Oh, no baby I only have eyes for you” which is at the least a subtextual DLV 3. Play up the Agree and Amplify like your boyfriend did which playfully makes fun of the question

    3 is the right move every time.

  • Mike C

    have observed, over 20 years, that one simply cannot talk to most women about most subjects without her either a) discussing how it reflects upon her, or, b) attempting to change the subject to herself. Anyone who talks to women on a regular basis will have observed it.

    Well….I don’t have 20 years, but I have seen (a) and (b) over and over and over and over in the couple years I’ve been commenting and reading here. For example Susan, when the Instill Dread subject came up the first thing you did was talk about in the context of your husband and your relationship.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Who knew A&A was so versatile? In the end, it always comes down to intent. Is someone reassuring you because they care for you, or are they misleading you to maintain a harem? :-/

    This is women should avoid those who use A&A during the “getting to know you” stage. People have a hard time making blatant lies, so one should be wary of anyone who tries to dodge the question like that. Sure, it could just be playfulness, but it could just as easily be someone misleading you about maintaining a harem.

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

    @VD
    I assume that you got bored with our play, naturally, can I say the moral of the exercise for the kids in the audience?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Ana

    I was actually thinking that myself. Which is odd. I was wondering whether this is something most people experience all the time, or if they are just “switching modes” on occasion.

    I dunno. FWIW, I have no intention on any cheating and attraction is pretty easily controlled at this point. I’m a grown-ass man

  • Plain Jane

    Mule Chewing Briars September 17, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Most of the kerfaffle in the relationship arena stems from the fact that 95% of the female malaise comes from the upper end of the bell-shaped curve, and gets a lot, a lot of attention. After all, when this girl is dissatisfied, it’s Defcon 5 important.

    95% of the male malaise comes from the middle and lower end, so when this guy is dissatisfied, he should Suck It Up, Get Over Ot, or best of all, just Be More Attractive.
    —-

    Wowzerz! That girl is probably the closest thing to a 10 possible. Love the hair!

    Funny but when I clicked on your “this guy” it said not allowed to access AverageMan.jpg on this server.

    They must’ve gotten cyber word that I’m an average gal who shoots above her weight in the SMP. LOL!

    But what about the True Forced Loneliness brigade on youtube?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xg8nek158w

    Just listen to that guy’s attitude and look at him!

  • Plain Jane

    However, when one Googles “female solipsism” the results on the first page are as follows:

    1. Alphagame
    2. Rational Male
    3. Rational Male
    4. Private Man
    5. Alphagame
    6. MGTOW forums
    7. Alphagame
    8. The Spearhead
    9. Cane Caldo

    —-

    Bwahahahahahaha! That is absolutely hilarious!

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

    your buddy with the N > 200,

    I’m curious about that guy I would guess he most be reaching 300 at this point or he is “settled” with rotating the same partners?

    And before anyone assumes I’m focusing on the players I’m curious about many people that used to come here and how their lives had turn out Aldonza, Jesus M., Dogsquat, Filrabat, Liza…I just don’t know who to ask.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anacaona

      Aldonza, Jesus M., Dogsquat, Filrabat, Liza…I just don’t know who to ask.

      I miss those commenters. Aldonza left due to the negative attitudes towards women here. She emailed me to say goodbye. Jesus M. had a similar experience – all the red pill talk was seeding doubts about his own relationship, and opening old wounds. Dogsquat is MIA at the moment in general, I hope he’s back soon. Filrabat vowed never to return to HUS after I wrote a post explaining that I support relationships and marriage. Liza – I don’t know. I had forgotten about her until she was mentioned in this thread. She was fun, I’m sorry she’s gone.

  • http://www.femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Is someone reassuring you because they care for you, or are they misleading you to maintain a harem?

    Honestly, it doesn’t seem that hard to differentiate. It’s all about context. The whole point of A & A, when used deceptively, is to avoid lying AND avoid telling the truth. So if you’ve already had a discussion and agreed to be exclusive, there’s no reason for a guy to use A & A to hide the fact that he doesn’t want to maintain exclusivity. Plus there’s the whole “player vibe” thing. Honestly, having read some harem stories around these parts, I get the sense that a lot of the girls who are part of harems are looking the other way at least a little bit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So if you’ve already had a discussion and agreed to be exclusive, there’s no reason for a guy to use A & A to hide the fact that he doesn’t want to maintain exclusivity.

      That’s why I originally said it was strictly a STR tactic.

      Honestly, having read some harem stories around these parts, I get the sense that a lot of the girls who are part of harems are looking the other way at least a little bit.

      No doubt, there is some plausible deniability.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    It’s hard for most people to relate to something they can’t personally experience. My guess is that only the NXJs can really do that.

    Plus we like to talk about ourselves. I can talk about N count in men not being the end all be all. Pull out the stats, happiness charts, etc. It’s a lot easier to talk about my personal experience, where with a 3rd base N=10, my life was an utter disaster. That feels much more personal and resonates a lot more strongly, even to my ENTJ side.

  • Mike C

    Second, female attraction does not have two ladders. There is not a cad ladder and a dad ladder. There is simply a gate, and the man with the right mix of traits makes it through the gate.

    Ehhhh……and I thought we were making some progress to a common understanding based on the previous thread discussing attraction versus sexual attraction. I didn’t say anything about two ladders or gates. I’m talking raw visceral “I’m totally turned on by that guy”. So let me get this straight. Your position is the guy patting the head of the 5-year old demonstrating Dad traits starts to get your vagina wet? Is that what you are telling me? That the guy who is gentleman and holds the door open for the old lady entering the restaurant and demonstrates politeness gets your vagina wet? Is that what you are telling me? That’s what I want to know. Which specific traits get the vagina wet thinking I want to fuck that guy,…not that he is a good guy for a LTR. I really don’t understand the confusion/conflation on this simple point/distinction.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Your position is the guy patting the head of the 5-year old demonstrating Dad traits starts to get your vagina wet? Is that what you are telling me?

      No man has ever gotten my vagina wet until we were making out, at least. And I require a mix of alpha and beta traits in order to make out with a guy. So yeah, that’s what I’m telling you.

      The whole wet panties myth is an embarrassment. If you want to hook us up to porn, sure. But no woman’s vagina every got engorged or slippery looking at a guy at the bar. It doesn’t work that way.

      Do you get it now? You’ve got to trip the switches to make it to first base, and for many women, beta trait switches are in the mix.

      For me? Guy with a baby? Oh yeah…that’s hot.

  • INTJ

    @ Olive

    Honestly, it doesn’t seem that hard to differentiate. It’s all about context. The whole point of A & A, when used deceptively, is to avoid lying AND avoid telling the truth. So if you’ve already had a discussion and agreed to be exclusive, there’s no reason for a guy to use A & A to hide the fact that he doesn’t want to maintain exclusivity. Plus there’s the whole “player vibe” thing. Honestly, having read some harem stories around these parts, I get the sense that a lot of the girls who are part of harems are looking the other way at least a little bit.

    Exactly.

  • Mike C

    Isn’t personal experience the lens through which we understand the world?

    Abstract concepts have little meaning if they don’t resonate at a personal level.

    That isn’t what we are talking about here. I’m not talking about using personal experiences as part of inductive reasoning to broad principles. I’m talking about discussing a particular point or concept and a female reader responding as if the guy was talking directly to her about her relationship or her husband. The solipsistic leap is when the assumption is made that the guy talking about some general idea is specifically referring to her personal situation. My time is too valuable to waste going through past threads looking for examples but this has happened a great number of times. If you question this, I am going to make it a point to call it out every single time I see it happen in the future. I’ll admit this is where I get frustrated because it seems like you never want to concede anything but continue to argue a point where you are demonstrably wrong.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      The solipsistic leap is when the assumption is made that the guy talking about some general idea is specifically referring to her personal situation.

      Even if true, that’s a far cry from this:

      Metaphysical solipsism is the “strongest” variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.

      Can you name a single instance where a female commenter disavowed the possibility of an experience different from her own? That her reality was the only possible reality, and that your reality did not even exist? That is what solipsism is.

      If you question this, I am going to make it a point to call it out every single time I see it happen in the future.

      You’re on. My guess is that your comments, which often come across as accusatory and confrontational, generate a defensiveness in females here. But let’s dissect it when it happens. I’m more than happy to be proved wrong.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Your position is the guy patting the head of the 5-year old demonstrating Dad traits starts to get your vagina wet? Is that what you are telling me?

    What’s she saying is that the primal sexual urges for the most part do not trigger unless a man displays some beta behavior. It’s not that the beta behavior is attractive, it’s that it lowers women’s defenses and allows sexual attraction.

    Do you play any RPGs? Think of it as a de-buff spell.

  • INTJ

    @ Mike C

    That isn’t what we are talking about here. I’m not talking about using personal experiences as part of inductive reasoning to broad principles. I’m talking about discussing a particular point or concept and a female reader responding as if the guy was talking directly to her about her relationship or her husband. The solipsistic leap is when the assumption is made that the guy talking about some general idea is specifically referring to her personal situation. My time is too valuable to waste going through past threads looking for examples but this has happened a great number of times. If you question this, I am going to make it a point to call it out every single time I see it happen in the future. I’ll admit this is where I get frustrated because it seems like you never want to concede anything but continue to argue a point where you are demonstrably wrong.

    Yes, I’ve seen plenty of female commenters do this, and don’t recall any male commenters doing this.

    However, I do not believe Susan has ever done this.

  • INTJ

    @ ADBG

    What’s she saying is that the primal sexual urges for the most part do not trigger unless a man displays some beta behavior. It’s not that the beta behavior is attractive, it’s that it lowers women’s defenses and allows sexual attraction.

    Do you play any RPGs? Think of it as a de-buff spell.

    ROFL!

  • Höllenhund

    I didn’t ask for scientific evidence, but the list of Google results is very telling, IMO. The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers. Surely, a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere?

    You want proof that female solipsism has been tested and observed. Which anyone would call, in other words, asking for scientific evidence. What are you expecting your readers to dig up, really? A 135-page peer-reviewed essay published in some obscure medical journal scientifically proving and detailing the phenomenon of female solipsism? You know very well that such issues are taboo and there’s a precise reason why only rogue academics like Devlin dare to even touch them.

    I have made a habit of digging into the source of certain claims in the ‘sphere, and what I usually find is a complete absence of intellectual rigor. Instead, there is a sort of high-fiving among male bloggers on principles that are completely unsubstantiated.

    Or maybe…just maybe…the sphere is the only place where such issues can be openly noticed, debated and examined. Have you considered that possibility?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You want proof that female solipsism has been tested and observed.

      Before I accept it as gospel truth? Yeeeaaaahhhhh.

      Or maybe…just maybe…the sphere is the only place where such issues can be openly noticed, debated and examined.

      Why would that be the case? There are many sites that are anti-feminist and even misogynist. Yet female solipsism is restricted to Game blogs in particular, and there appears to be no original source for the concept.

      In any case, I’m willing to debate and examine the concept, and I can’t find any evidence supporting it, including my own observations. I think people can be solipsistic, but I see the behavior as much from men as women.

  • Mike C

    Yes, I’ve seen plenty of female commenters do this, and don’t recall any male commenters doing this.

    Yeah, given the replies so far, I’m not sure the concept is being properly understood. If Vox is still around, maybe he can take a shot at articulating it differently with an example. So far, I seem unable to effectively communicate the point. in a manner to be understood.

    However, I do not believe Susan has ever done this.

    You haven’t been here as long as me. :) The instances have been much rarer, but it has occurred.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Solipsism.

    It does happen to some women here. I agree with Mike C.
    I am going to take notice of my interactions with women and watch for ‘I’ and ‘me’ now. Never something I watched for. Report back in a few days.

  • Höllenhund

    Can you name a single instance where a female commenter disavowed the possibility of an experience different from her own? That her reality was the only possible reality, and that your reality did not even exist?

    The subject is female solipsism, not “the ‘strongest’ variety of solipsism”, namely “metaphysical solipsism”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hollenhund

      The subject is female solipsism, not “the ‘strongest’ variety of solipsism”, namely “metaphysical solipsism”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

      I couldn’t find a definition of female solipsism! Please define it for us, if you know the origin of this concept. Why not just use the definition that it’s an inability to comprehend any reality you haven’t experienced directly? Why do you say that women do this more than men?

  • INTJ

    @ Höllenhund

    The subject is female solipsism, not “the ‘strongest’ variety of solipsism”, namely “metaphysical solipsism”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

    Yeah at this point we’re just arguing semantics.

  • Mike C

    You’re on. My guess is that your comments, which often come across as accusatory and confrontational,

    As Obsidian would say what does this have to do with the price of rice? But yeah, I’m blunt, I’m direct, and I’m not “one of the girls” and I make no attempt to ingratiate myself. I call them as I see them. That said, I don’t attack or chastise individual commenters so including this statement here was purely a rhetorical tactic. For the record, the day you tell me you no longer want me to comment here, I will gladly abide by that. But I am me, I represent my POV in my style, and I’d rather stop commenting then grab my balls and put in them in a box and try to pussyfoot around.

  • Höllenhund

    Before I accept it as gospel truth? Yeeeaaaahhhhh.

    In other words, you ask for scientific evidence.

    Yet female solipsism is restricted to Game blogs in particular, and there appears to be no original source for the concept.

    Again – what would you accept as “original source”?

    Why would that be the case?

    Because feminism, next to the blank-state theory and egalitarianism, is the law of the land, and to openly oppose it is a thoughtcrime, punished by excommunication from “polite society”, job loss, media witch hunts, ad hominem attacks, defamation and the like.

    There are many sites that are anti-feminist and even misogynist.

    Many? Compared to what? Feminist sites, pro-feminist sites, misandrist sites? I’d say they are actually rare. And again – what’s the point? Even if such sites were common and all of them discussed female solipsism, what would that prove? Only that this issue is only discussed by the outcasts of polite society and mainstream discourse.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Because feminism, next to the blank-state theory and egalitarianism, is the law of the land, and to openly oppose it is a thoughtcrime, punished by excommunication from “polite society”, job loss, media witch hunts, ad hominem attacks, defamation and the like.

      How does this apply online, where nearly everyone comments anonymously? Online conversation is hardly limited to the manosphere. How about someone overtly anti-feminist like James Taranto or the evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa?

  • Höllenhund

    Yeah at this point we’re just arguing semantics.

    No. It’s a given that different types and levels of solipsism exist. But that’s no proof against the existence of female solipsism.

  • Mike C

    No man has ever gotten my vagina wet until we were making out, at least. And I require a mix of alpha and beta traits in order to make out with a guy. So yeah, that’s what I’m telling you.

    The whole wet panties myth is an embarrassment. If you want to hook us up to porn, sure. But no woman’s vagina every got engorged or slippery looking at a guy at the bar. It doesn’t work that way.

    I think you knew I was writing figuratively…but OK…we are going to play this game. Fine. I’m done responding on this particular point, Just remember some guy reading here is going to take this to heart and actually think he is going to be able to attract some girl by patting on a 5-year old on the head, and when nothing materializes, he is going to think but Susan Walsh told me this works for attraction.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I think you knew I was writing figuratively…but OK…we are going to play this game. Fine. I’m done responding on this particular point, Just remember some guy reading here is going to take this to heart and actually think he is going to be able to attract some girl by patting on a 5-year old on the head, and when nothing materializes, he is going to think but Susan Walsh told me this works for attraction.

      I did not know you were writing figuratively, because you and others often talk here about the traits that make women wet or tingle. I’ve had men here ask me what the sensation is and when it occurs. The truth is, traits do neither at first meeting. We can be attracted certainly, but your bifurcation between sexual attraction and “other” attraction has no basis, IMO.

      Certainly evo psychologists don’t divide them. What they do divide is the time orientation – long-term mating vs. short-term mating. Short-term maters most likely have a different set of triggers from long-term maters.

      I’m not saying women feel sexual attraction for traits like honesty, though some might. I do believe that the boundaries are very ill-defined. A recent example I gave was that women like men with status and dominance, but those are probably the product of industriousness and intelligence, which are both considered beta traits.

      If you took 100 good looking men, and put half of them in situations where they were with kids, e.g. coaching a team, playing at the playground, wearing a Snugli, while posing the other half alone, I am certain that women would describe the guys with kids as hotter. And why wouldn’t we? In the reproductive sweepstakes, those are the guys who represent WINNER!!!! We’ve evolved to reject the guys who look narcissistic and likely to cheat – and that’s been clearly demonstrated in the kind of research I describe.

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

    @Mike C
    Did you noticed me asking about our N> friend? Has he reached 300 now? Just curious.

  • Plain Jane

    Susan, “Second, female attraction does not have two ladders. There is not a cad ladder and a dad ladder. There is simply a gate, and the man with the right mix of traits makes it through the gate. ”

    But you said before that women employ two different strategies, one for short-term and one for long-term.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Plain Jane

      But you said before that women employ two different strategies, one for short-term and one for long-term.

      True, but not the same women. Time orientation in mating is strongly correlated to restricted vs. unrestricted sociosexuality, and they vary little over time.

      Therefore, the promiscuous woman’s mix of traits for entry is going to look very different from the restricted woman’s mix of traits for entry.

  • Mike C

    Did you noticed me asking about our N> friend? Has he reached 300 now? Just curious.

    Not even close I think, but I’ll get the number for you if you really want. He is closing in on 30 years old, and I’m sure that number probably starts in his mid to late-teens so his pace probably wouldn’t get him to 300 until I’m guessing 40.

    FWIW, I think his current rotation is around 4 I think that he is currently banging (trying to think through the names over the past month or two). He has a 19-year old who grew up in his neighborhood and has a crush on him. She regularly walks her dog through the neighborhood. Apparently, she really wants to get good at her blowjob skills so she stops over during dog walks to blow him. I’ve seen the pic on his cell phone. Then he has a 31-32 year old single Mom that he bangs regularly who while on her period offered to let him fuck her in the ass even though she said she only did it a few times. Then there is some girl in an urban setting who he dropped a nuclear neg on and actually got (I owe him a lunch since I thought a save was impossible). FWIW, he is a pretty good looking guy. I forget how he came up in conversation but he did, and my fiancee said “X is attractive but he is a douchebag”.

  • Plain Jane

    “FWIW, I think his current rotation is around 4 I think that he is currently banging (trying to think through the names over the past month or two). He has a 19-year old who grew up in his neighborhood and has a crush on him. She regularly walks her dog through the neighborhood. Apparently, she really wants to get good at her blowjob skills so she stops over during dog walks to blow him. I’ve seen the pic on his cell phone. Then he has a 31-32 year old single Mom that he bangs regularly who while on her period offered to let him fuck her in the ass even though she said she only did it a few times. Then there is some girl in an urban setting who he dropped a nuclear neg on and actually got (I owe him a lunch since I thought a save was impossible). FWIW, he is a pretty good looking guy. I forget how he came up in conversation but he did, and my fiancee said “X is attractive but he is a douchebag”.”

    And there are people who are still under the impression that the female sex drive is any less imposing than the male’s ?!?!

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

    He is closing in on 30 years old, and I’m sure that number probably starts in his mid to late-teens so his pace probably wouldn’t get him to 300 until I’m guessing 40.

    Oh okay I was thinking he was going throw women faster. You don’t have to ask if is too intrusive and he probably doesn’t remember anyway. Thanks for the answer :D

  • Mike C

    Ana,

    FWIW, I’ve known this guy going on close to 4 years now. I’ve noticed he really doesn’t have many one-night stands, in fact, I can’t remember any. He always has a rotation of 3-4 girls and usually they are a few month flings. They are almost exclusively low SES women as far as I can tell except for maybe 15-20% more upscale, college educated professionals. He also goes for a lot of 5-6s in my estimation. I see the pics, sometimes more graphic detail then you can believe.

  • http://7thseriesgongshow.blogspot.com Mr. Nervous Toes

    DefiniteBetaGuy @ 170:
    Since being in a relationship, I have found that more girls have become more sexually attractive. I don’t mean I want to stray, I just say that I can see a whole lot more girls as attractive. My guess-timate would have to be that this is somehow emotional, and part of my promiscuous side saying “you got something stable, now get something on the side.” Do any women have that mechanism? Or other guys? Or am I just weird?

    I’m a guy, but I’m going with you weren’t happy with yourself and your life before you were in a relationship, so you were finding faults in others (and yourself). Now you’re in a relationship, and that’s filled an emotional need that you perceived, so now there’s less fault-finding. The better solution IMO is to accept that being single is ok.

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

    FWIW, I’ve known this guy going on close to 4 years now. I’ve noticed he really doesn’t have many one-night stands, in fact, I can’t remember any. He always has a rotation of 3-4 girls and usually they are a few month flings. They are almost exclusively low SES women as far as I can tell except for maybe 15-20% more upscale, college educated professionals. He also goes for a lot of 5-6s in my estimation. I see the pics, sometimes more graphic detail then you can believe.

    He obviously needs a lot of variety given his lifestyle so of course, IMO, he will have to compromise on looks and social stance to get maximum results, do women leave or he kicks them out after a few months?

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I’ve been making this argument all along. The most desirable guy in the world can be a one woman man, and that doesn’t mean he’s not a “winner” in the SMP.”

    So have I, making the same point with my “alpha” or “SMPW” definition. Success is the ability to choose polygamy, or monogamy on your own terms.

    The difference, between what I am saying, and what you *believe* the other men are saying, is that IF he is a one-woman man, then it must be out of choice & abundance; not necessity, expectations, or social pressure. His N *probably* isn’t low (unless he is a unicorn-like Tebow) but rather, his N is simply not increasing.

    I think the guys agree with me, and not that high-N is mandatory for success. Just that high N is one sure sign of it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I think the guys agree with me, and not that high-N is mandatory for success. Just that high N is one sure sign of it.

      IIRC I think some men (Escoffier?) said that while a low N guy *might* be alpha, we can’t designate him that because he generally won’t have taken the opportunities to prove it. There was consensus that high N was the safest bet to know a real alpha.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @A Definite Beta Guy

    I suspect that when you are in an LTR your confidence goes up and you relax. This shows you in a better light.
    More women become interested in you and they give you more IOIs, if only unconsciously.
    Then you pick up on their interest.

    I found that a focus on one woman made me more attractive to other womens. If I pried myself loose from the attachment the effect faded.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @OTC

    Success is the ability to choose polygamy, or monogamy on your own terms.

    So, success = options? End of story? Nothing else matters?

  • Just a thought

    The first poster made a statement that 95% of the complaints come from attractive girls, that doesn’t mean non-attractive girls have no complaints, we do, but we shut up and don’t whine about it. I can’t count how many times I’ve been friendzoned by guys, but my story isn’t told because guys only pay attention to the problems of attractive girls. For example, on the fat post done by one of the manosphere bloggers, there was absolutely no sympathy for fat girls, one man commented
    “Who the fuck cares how fat chicks feel?
    They should stop complaining, stop eating Haagen-Daaz bars and get on the friggin’ treadmill.
    It’s the fault of the fat chicks and their self-removal from the dating market that actual bangable chicks have such bitch shields.”
    At least low SMV guys get to complain, low SMV girls are invisible.
    As far as why game works, um, it works because these guys are hitting on girls in bars with STR mating strategies. For example, in my college, girls might go out to bars/parties on the weekends. The girls who do go are either hot or very STR focused. However, the girls who stay home are not STR focused and less attractive. therefore when men go out, it seems like all girls respond to game, when really it’s only a few girls. The rest of us, are hiding at home, accepting the likelihood of a life with cats because being a low SMV girls isn’t fun and after a while it starts to tear away at your self-confidence and enjoyment of the other sex. So we stay home.
    I also think that men don’t want what they say they want. Most guys would rather date women with a”colorful” history who are attractive than women who aren’t and don’t have such a history. Furthermore, guys will also marry them because if you are a 6 male and you get the chance to be exclusively committed to an smv 9 woman who sleeps around, you’ll marry her and try to ignore the fact that you hate her sexual indiscretions.
    In the end of the day the question is thus: Would it be better for an SMV 5 girl to stop hooking up/having casual sex or buy new boobs and lose weight if she wants to get into a relationship. I think she should probably save some money for boobs.
    This is female game, it’s sad and cynical and I sometimes wish that looks mattered less than “inner beauty”. But we all know that “inner beauty” is just total bs.

  • Abbot

    “this issue is only discussed by the outcasts of polite society and mainstream discourse.”

    EVERY time dissent that consistently grates on feminists (aka fun stuff) slips into the mainstream media it gets pounced on and viciously attacked. As long as defiant ideas and messages remain in their repressed and proper place they are not a threat to the feminist propaganda maintenance machine and hold on society

  • INTJ

    @ Just a thought

    I felt really sad reading this. :(

    The first poster made a statement that 95% of the complaints come from attractive girls, that doesn’t mean non-attractive girls have no complaints, we do, but we shut up and don’t whine about it. I can’t count how many times I’ve been friendzoned by guys, but my story isn’t told because guys only pay attention to the problems of attractive girls. For example, on the fat post done by one of the manosphere bloggers, there was absolutely no sympathy for fat girls, one man commented
    “Who the fuck cares how fat chicks feel?
    They should stop complaining, stop eating Haagen-Daaz bars and get on the friggin’ treadmill.
    It’s the fault of the fat chicks and their self-removal from the dating market that actual bangable chicks have such bitch shields.”

    This is one of the more egregious examples as to why I refuse to enter these manosphere blogs. The amount of hate there is rivaled only by Jezebel.

    At least low SMV guys get to complain, low SMV girls are invisible.
    As far as why game works, um, it works because these guys are hitting on girls in bars with STR mating strategies. For example, in my college, girls might go out to bars/parties on the weekends. The girls who do go are either hot or very STR focused. However, the girls who stay home are not STR focused and less attractive. therefore when men go out, it seems like all girls respond to game, when really it’s only a few girls. The rest of us, are hiding at home, accepting the likelihood of a life with cats because being a low SMV girls isn’t fun and after a while it starts to tear away at your self-confidence and enjoyment of the other sex. So we stay home.

    Yup the average person – male or female – is left out by this SMP. :(

    I also think that men don’t want what they say they want. Most guys would rather date women with a”colorful” history who are attractive than women who aren’t and don’t have such a history. Furthermore, guys will also marry them because if you are a 6 male and you get the chance to be exclusively committed to an smv 9 woman who sleeps around, you’ll marry her and try to ignore the fact that you hate her sexual indiscretions.

    All the disclaimer about NAMALT (I for example would rather stay single than end up with some woman who slept around). But I think many guys do care quite a bit about looks and would overlook sexual history for it. :(

    In the end of the day the question is thus: Would it be better for an SMV 5 girl to stop hooking up/having casual sex or buy new boobs and lose weight if she wants to get into a relationship. I think she should probably save some money for boobs.

    Don’t buy new boobs. Us LTR guys don’t care for them. And don’t have casual sex. It might not do much harm, but it certainly won’t do you much good either. Preselection/confidence/least-interest-in-commitment isn’t much of a DHV for women, and doesn’t make up for the DLV of sluttiness.

    But yes, losing weight is important (and definitely where the biggest gains are to be made looks-wise). The important thing is to do things that are healthy for your body and your weight will naturally come down. This means eating foods that are low in calories and high in nutrition. Don’t eat any white flour. Whole grain only. Limit consumption of sugar and starchy foods like rice and pasta too. Don’t worry too much about fat, as foods that are naturally rich in healthy fat – such as traditional creamy thick yogurt – are still healthy for you. The important thing is to cut down on calories while consuming enough other nutrition.

    And of course, exercise. Try to find some fun sports activity or something, rather than going to the gym to workout for the sake of working out. And try to walk whenever possible rather than driving.

    Bottom line is that the first law of thermodynamics is on your side: change in energy stored = calories in – calories out. Lower the calories in and increase the calories out and things will get better.

    This is female game, it’s sad and cynical and I sometimes wish that looks mattered less than “inner beauty”. But we all know that “inner beauty” is just total bs.

    The truth is that people put far too much value to sexual attraction in their mating preferences. That’s a problem with our narcissistic culture. “Inner beauty” is total bs, just as nice guys aren’t actually valued. But it shouldn’t be bs. In other societies, people are taught to value important personality traits – and decrease the emphasis on looks.

  • VD

    I didn’t ask for scientific evidence, but the list of Google results is very telling, IMO. The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers. Surely, a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere?

    No, it’s absolutely not true that “a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere”. Game is barely beginning to percolate into the mainstream and the vast majority of its concepts are firmly and soundly resisted by most women and an awful lot of men. Have you forgotten? That’s why it’s called the Red Pill. By definition, Game concepts are not mainstream. Game began with simple observations of what worked in the field, the evo-psych justifications and explanations came afterward. It will be the same with female solipsism, which is the practical and applied version of the philosophical concept.

    I have made a habit of digging into the source of certain claims in the ‘sphere, and what I usually find is a complete absence of intellectual rigor. Instead, there is a sort of high-fiving among male bloggers on principles that are completely unsubstantiated.

    I don’t think this is the case at all. If it were, our readers would be unable to put the principles and hypotheses being discussed into successful practice. The fact that the academic world has not substantiated a concept does not mean that the principle is “completely unsubstantiated”, just as the fact that the academic world has substantiated something does not mean it is actually true.

    Unless someone can offer me some rational explanation for saying that women are especially solipsistic, I don’t accept it.

    I can certainly give you a rational explanation for why women are especially solipsistic. And I expect I will eventually be able to give your evidence as well. But I suspect what you’re actually wanting is scientific evidence backed by academic authority. That, I cannot provide. No one can.

    As for the original claim, it wasn’t me. The earliest record of me using the term “solipsism” with regards to women was in a column entitled “Winning the War Against Men”, published on June 28, 2010: “Because they want to believe that women are “the civilizing force,” their “better halves” or “the fair sex,” they are constitutionally incapable of seeing what is, from a rational male perspective, the seething cauldron of amoral solipsism behind the collective pretty face.

    I don’t think anyone does that.

    I’ll put together a post on the subject sometime this week and provide a number of illustrative examples as well as a easy R-U-Solipsistic test to which our readers can subject both men and women of their acquaintance in real life.

    I assume that you got bored with our play, naturally, can I say the moral of the exercise for the kids in the audience?

    Please feel free. But it wasn’t boredom, it was bedtime. I live in Europe.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      I don’t think this is the case at all. If it were, our readers would be unable to put the principles and hypotheses being discussed into successful practice

      How do readers put the concept of female solipsism into successful practice? I would also point out that our corner of the net is by no means representative of the population at large, so the applicability of the concept might be limited to certain populations.

      “Because they want to believe that women are “the civilizing force,” their “better halves” or “the fair sex,” they are constitutionally incapable of seeing what is, from a rational male perspective, the seething cauldron of amoral solipsism behind the collective pretty face.

      Well, amoral rather than immoral. I guess that’s a start. Can you define the phrase in bold? I don’t see the connection to an inability to grasp any reality but one’s own experience. You appear to illustrate this solipsism by citing the misandry peddled by female supremacists and ideologues. If those women are indeed solipsistic, on what basis to you generalize to all XX?

      The great theoreticians of Game, the social concept which has evolved from effective pick-up artistry to an incipient social science based on the sound principles of intelligent observation and the practical application of the scientific method, have conclusively demolished the outmoded Victorian view of women as more moral, more honorable or more high-minded than men

      Excellent. Can you give examples of the practical application of the scientific method in defining female solipsism?

      The great theoreticians of Game, the social concept which has evolved from effective pick-up artistry to an incipient social science based on the sound principles of intelligent observation and the practical application of the scientific method, have conclusively demolished the outmoded Victorian view of women as more moral, more honorable or more high-minded than men

      I love the idea of a test. I look forward to that.

  • HanSolo

    @Herb, Anacaona and INTJ (yeah, you too, what the hell?)

    On POF you can do a search as male for female or vice versa and see how many people show up in your area. In my area there’s a 3:1 man to woman ratio overall though it varied based on age. The lowest ratio I saw was 2:1 and the highest 4:1. When I used to live in Boston I looked a few times and it was about 2:1.

    Also on a Mormon dating site I used to use it was about 2:1 of people online at that moment. (Yes, I used to be Mormon, a lot of good, some bad, eventually the bad became too much for me and I left but the people tend to be very nice.)

    So, online dating should work for some women given the ratio. I met the best gf of my life on there a few years ago–great personality, beautiful (a 9 in looks in my opinion), fun, etc. Unfortunately she moved to another continent and eventually we broke up. When I lived in the Boston area it worked pretty well. Also met another gf on okcupid while living there. I was pissed that she only gave me a 3/5 rating while I gave her a 4! :D But I had the last laugh since she fell madly in love with me. She was an 8 to maybe 8.5 in looks, the sex was really good, but the conversation was lacking and I need an intellectual connection to really fall in love.

    In my current area the online dating kind of sucks but I met a cool girl and went out a couple times this last week, despite the 3:1 male-to-female ratio. A date #3 is planned. Another girl cancelled because she had met so many good guys that she wanted to focus on them. That’s fine, she was cute but kind of borderline, more of a 7, which does kind of piss me off because I’m probably better looking than she is and definitely have higher MMV, but not in her eyes or maybe I’ll just take what she said at face value and she had already gone out with a couple guys and wanted to focus on them. Anyway, that’s how it is to be a man. You get shot down a lot so don’t feel like a loser about it.

    Point to women is that by filtering out the ONS/FB/FWB dudes there should still be a lot of good guys on there. Hell, I’m on there! ;)

    I think I need to do more approaching in bars, coffee places, on the street and also try to meet more people through friends. I have a lot of female friends that want to set me up but usually their friends aren’t so cute. Online has been good to me because it allows a girl to get to know me more before we meet whereas I’m sometimes shy in bars and such.

    I did get a flight attendant’s email once and she came and visited me a couple times.

  • Plain Jane

    “Most guys would rather date women with a”colorful” history who are attractive than women who aren’t and don’t have such a history. Furthermore, guys will also marry them because if you are a 6 male and you get the chance to be exclusively committed to an smv 9 woman who sleeps around, you’ll marry her and try to ignore the fact that you hate her sexual indiscretions.”

    Bingo!

    Of course if the man is equal to or higher to the woman in SMV then he won’t ignore, but if he’s 2 or more points below and faces a life of celibacy or assortive mating without her, damn right homeboy ignore that sh*t. He knows what he’s got.

    You missed the point that rich or otherwise higher SMV men might marry women lower in SMV thinking we will be “forever indebted” to them, and not give them the grief hot babes would. In fact I even saw such a comment over at The Spermhead today. As if we’re supposed to grovel at these guys’ feet over their money or looks. What, they ain’t human? They don’t sit on a toilet and crap like the rest of us?

    Sheesh!

    Talk about a culture of entitlement!

  • Plain Jane

    INTJ, “In other societies, people are taught to value important personality traits – and decrease the emphasis on looks.”

    Which societies?

  • Höllenhund

    With all due respect, Just a thought, the notion that the complaints of low-smv men are somehow more accepted/respected socially than those of fat women is complete BS, a complete lie and an insult to human intelligence. One need not look further than the sheer amount of palpable female defensiveness and aggressive contempt generated whenever an average beta openly complains about his lack of success. Plus the amount of antipathy and contempt directed at the average fat woman by the opposite gender is negligible compared to that directed at the average low-smv man. Whatever amount of male contempt there is towards fat women is almost entirely the result of the outrageous and disgusting Fat Acceptance Movement shoved into our faces everywhere.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      One need not look further than the sheer amount of palpable female defensiveness and aggressive contempt generated whenever an average beta openly complains about his lack of success. Plus the amount of antipathy and contempt directed at the average fat woman by the opposite gender is negligible compared to that directed at the average low-smv man.

      At HUS, the truth is 180 degrees from this. There is little to no female contempt for beta guys. There is constant complaining re female obesity.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Dalrock appears to be credible in the area of evangelical Christianity and its SMP, which may be enough to explain his rage, IDK.

    You made me LMAO on this one…

    Today I banged (heads with) some Mormon feminists (yes, they do exist) on feminist mormon housewives dot org about a man in a sexless marriage and that he was being so patriarchal and out of line for wanting more intimacy than 2x in 15 months with his wife who has no health issues, etc.

  • HanSolo

    @A Definite Beta Guy 146

    Great comment about emotional intimacy and sex for men with hearts and dicks.

  • szopen

    @@A Definite Beta Guy 146
    I second the HanSolo comment

    @Just a thought
    Losing weight is A Good Thing to do, but you should not do it for increasing your chances with guys, but for yourself, for the health reasons. Working out plus proper diet will do miracles for your HEALTH, this is the attitude you should get. In addition, if you will work out, your confidence will raise, you will meet new friends. You do not have to be slim, but you can’t be overly overweight. For example, look at the vocalist of vallravn: she’s a bit overweight (you can see it more in videos), but I’d say she’s still acceptable for most guys.

    In addition, smile a lot. Many females are more attractive simply because they smile. I knew one girl (OMIGOD male solipsism), who was … well just fat. When she was laughing, she was quite pretty. When she was not, she was just ugly, fat girl. SMILE.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Meg: “So, success = options? End of story? Nothing else matters?”

    I was defining more than just generic success, bur rather being an alpha or SMPL/W (leader/winner). A male SMPW has:

    A. Options.
    B. Knows he has them.
    C. Has exercised them in the past but stopped due to his own volition, or; is exercising them now; or, has never exercised them due to strong moral reasons of his own conscious devising.

    Without all 3, he is not a SMPW. That doesn’t mean a man can’t pair off, and have a great life, just that he’s not at the top of the pack.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    JAT.

    First, I doubt you are as fat as you think you are. Is your BMI really in the obese/overweight range? Body fat % well north of 25%? If so, then lose weight. If not, work on other things.

    Two, those guys ragging on fat women, are just giving them SMV shaming, payback for being called creeps in the past. It’s revenge and not particularly attractive.

    Three, average looking people go to parties. I went to lots with my average friends and even met my wife at one.

    Four, honestly, if I were female, I’d buy boobs, and other touch-ups via surgery, and live a life of ease. That shit is an amazing investment. I’ve had female roomates and have been amazed how well they were treated and easy life was, just for being slightly above average.

    Five, young women are generally not “invisible” in the sense young men are, unless they are deformed. If men have tried hitting on you, or you catch them staring at you in public, you are not invisble. Like the case you’re making, you’re invisible to the particular men you are interested. I say this not to try to out-victim you, but for you to realize your own worth and desirability. As a young woman, you are about 100 times more desirable than most men that surround you daily.

  • Abbot

    “As a young woman, you are about 100 times more desirable than most men that surround you daily.”

    Why is that women and especially feminists abhor such statements? Perplexing indeed.

  • Travis

    Has anybody else heard this song?

    Theory of a Deadman- Gentleman
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rly8cMUqkdY

    I let the door, Hit you right in the face,
    And when the cheque comes I’ll make you pay.
    Don’t Have a car, Guess you’re picking me up,
    And in the back seat we’ll be falling in love.
    My only job is… to lie on this couch,
    And while you’re workin’ I’ll be hangin’ out.
    Now don’t get mad cause you knew from the start,
    I was an asshole who would never go far.

    Cause when you’re really good to girls,
    Give them your entire world,
    They end up walking away.
    (Hey, Hey)
    They don’t want a stand up guy, rather have you cheat and lie,
    And do something they hate…

    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They say they do but in the end,
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They want a loser like me.
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    If you want to get to them,
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They want a loser like me.

    Your parents cry when you bring me around,
    They raised you up just so I can take you down.
    There goes your life right before their eyes,
    I’ll have you bare foot pregnant, going out of your mind.

    Cause when you’re really good to girls,
    Give them your entire world,
    They end up walking away.
    (Hey, Hey)
    They don’t want a stand up guy, rather have you cheat and lie,
    And do something they hate…..

    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They say they do but in the end,
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They want a loser like me.
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    If you want to get to them,
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They want a loser like me.

    I used to be a nice guy,
    But that don’t get you anywhere.
    So now I’m just a piece of shit, idiot,
    Who’s too stupid to care.

    If you give a girl respect,
    Treat her like she’s the best,
    you’re nothing to her.
    She’d rather have you playing games,
    Piss her off and make her wait,
    If you want it to work…

    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They say they do but in the end,
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They want a loser like me.
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    If you want to get to them,
    Girls don’t want a gentleman,
    They want a loser like me. [x2]
    (They want a loser like me) [x2]

    It’s been getting played constantly on my local rock station. I usually hear it three or four times a night when I’m at work. I’m not saying their right or wrong (everybody’s already gone back and forth on that to the point of nausea) but the point is that obviously more and more guys are starting to THINK this way. My question is, if we think the SMP is screwed up now, how much worse is it going to be if this point of view becomes the accepted one among younger guys? Is the combat dating “arms race” just beginning? And how are women going to respond if this becomes the mindset of the average guy?
    I’m not trying to stir up controversy. It’s just that this is the first time I’ve really heard the PUA type stuff really being expressed this blatantly in popular culture, and I every time it gets played I wonder what the regulars here would make of it…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Travis

      That song reminds me of the movie Blue Valentine.

  • szopen

    “Two, those guys ragging on fat women, are just giving them SMV shaming,”

    But
    1) Being fat (no matter whether you are male or female) is not healthy. You should get in form, and your gender does not matter. Sure, for some it may be harder because of genes, but still, there is no excuse for not trying.
    2) Both fat guys and fat girls are judged less attractive. No matter how much wrong it is, this is the sad truth.

    Just don’t get crazy about it. Remember little overweight girls are perfectly OK, and that when you are trying to lose weight, you do it for yourself, for health reasons, not for guys (or for girls, in guys case). My advice for overweight guy would be exactly the same.

  • Travis

    @Just a thought,

    “Two, those guys ragging on fat women, are just giving them SMV shaming, payback for being called creeps in the past. It’s revenge and not particularly attractive.”

    I agree with OTC. This was my exact thought when I read your post. My advice is to not take cues on your self worth from guys in the ‘sphere. Not healthy…

  • Abbot

    Here is a comment on the song form a girl –

    “even though i’m a girl and (seriously if any guy treats a girl like this what the hell?) i have to agree with this song. every girl wants this perfect handsome sweet guy but it’s the badass idiots that get every girl going. every girl wants a gentlemen but it’s always going to be the bastards that treat them like crap that they’ll chase and never feel complete without. i really hope i do find that “gentlemen” but seriously, more girls fall for the idiot stuff guys pull.

    “Cause when you’re really good to girls, give them their entire world
    They end up walking away, hey hey
    They don’t want a stand up guy
    They’d rather have you cheat and lie
    And do something they hate”

    so true…so true”

    At least she is not in denial. Why do most women refuse to admit this? Do they hate themselves for feeling this way?

    http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858875656/

    .

  • Ted D

    Vox – “You’re totally missing the point, Ted. That’s your job as head of the household and she is implicitly recognizing your authority. What you see as explaining reality is simply her wanting you to take responsibility for what she already knows. I get this from my employees, male and female, on a regular basis, who know a hell of a lot more about the details than I do.”

    I understand this now, but I had NO clue in my blue pill days what this dynamic was all about. I am far less aggravated by it when it happens now, but I still find it to be an immature way to deal with another adult. In essence she IS making me the bad guy, and expecting me to happily fill that role. I do it because I have to, but I still don’t like it and I find it very unattractive behavior.

    “Now, these are smart people. They know perfectly well what to do. They simply want to be relieved of the responsibility for the decision.”

    And this is why I’ve passed on the opportunity to take management positions in the past. Nothing irritates me more than people who are completely able to make a decision passing it on to someone else simply because they are afraid to call the shots. I’m perfectly fine helping someone that doesn’t have all the information, or doesn’t have the experience to make a decision, but anyone capable should simply because they can. Bothering me is a waste of my time.

    “She knows what reality is, she just doesn’t want it preying upon her mind.”

    Right, so by default it comes to me. I get it, I’ll do it. I’m not happy about it.

    And before we get into a “Ted D’s wife is steering the wheel” let me simply state that I don’t deal with this type of thing very often from her. Of the women I’ve known, she is actually pretty damn straight forward and logical. But, she is also an EF combo, so I have to work very hard sometimes to communicate through her emotional haze. However this particular problem was HUGE in my last marriage, and I see that it is still a problem for my ex and her new man. I’ve been spending some time going back through my previous marriage in detail to pick apart the things I did wrong, and this entire dynamic was a very big problem for us. She relied on me far more than I was comfortable to make the decisions, and I was under the misguided idea that we were equal partners, so I pushed her to help me make those decisions. It worked out as expected I guess. :P

    Susan – “I agree.”

    LOL, you are killing me this week… So, if you agree, then you are saying that Game indeed has a place in LTRs, and that the amount of Game necessary will vary greatly from couple to couple, where some may only need the slightest amount of Push/Pull, and others may need something just short of asshole Game to keep things going?

    Sassy – “If he is tired, he doesn’t mind telling me that he would rather stay in than go out. If he has other things on his plate, he doesn’t mind telling me that he can’t see me. He doesn’t mind asserting his needs, and he doesn’t always bend over backwards to please me. His wants are important to him too, and he doesn’t mind voicing them.”

    Understood. To me that is simply normal interaction, so we weren’t talking about the same thing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So, if you agree, then you are saying that Game indeed has a place in LTRs, and that the amount of Game necessary will vary greatly from couple to couple, where some may only need the slightest amount of Push/Pull, and others may need something just short of asshole Game to keep things going?

      If a husband needs something anywhere close to asshole Game to keep things going, he married very badly. Perhaps he can salvage his relationship, but it doesn’t sound like it will ever be healthy or rewarding. If I were a man I would rather divorce, even in this legal climate. But I recognize that men may have their own reasons for remaining in the marriage. (Note: Not solipsistic!)

  • Ted D

    Travis – “I’m not saying their right or wrong (everybody’s already gone back and forth on that to the point of nausea) but the point is that obviously more and more guys are starting to THINK this way. ”

    Theory of a Dead Man is classic on woman hating. They have MANY songs about mental women, so I assume whoever writes their lyrics probably either:
    a. got screwed over super badly by some totally crazy woman
    b. is actually the asshole he claims to be in his lyrics.

    I remember reading somewhere that after they released their first CD, the record label asked them to back off the “woman hating” a little for the second one. No idea if that’s true, but they still seem to be bashing away.

  • Travis

    @Ted,
    Yeah. But my point is that the POPULARITY of the song (not to mention the band) speaks to the mindset of a whole lot of young guys out there. We all know how the ‘sphere feels, but I’d be willing to bet that 99% of the guys who listen to Theory of a Deadman have no idea the ‘sphere even exists.
    Again, I’m not trying to debate whether or not this is how girls really are. I’m just pointing out that IF a large chunk of young guys start feeling this way (which seems to be the trend), it’s gonna’ have a pretty big effect on the SMP. Even if girls don’t like those guys, it’s gonna’ become a lot harder to find the “good” (not nice) guys they want. At which point they’ll probably become a lot more cynical and mercenary. Which causes the guys to become EVEN MORE cynical and mercenary. And the SMP just gets more and more fucked up…

  • Ted D

    Travis – I yeah, I agree 100%. I actually saw ToaD live, and what I found more amazing was the number of women screaming and shaking their asses to the music. They are either completely unaware of what the lyrics are actually saying, or they aren’t intimidated by the idea that men are ‘waking up’, so to speak.

    And, as far as it goes, I wasn’t impressed with their live show at all. Music was fine, singer wasn’t as good as he sounds on the CDs. As a musician, I hate going to see a band only to find out they don’t sound as good as on their recordings. I’m OK with a little “ear candy” in the studio, but if you are a rock band and you can’t sound just as good live, don’t bother touring IMO.

  • J

    The whole wet panties myth is an embarrassment. If you want to hook us up to porn, sure. But no woman’s vagina every got engorged or slippery looking at a guy at the bar. It doesn’t work that way.

    Thanks for saying this. I’ve gotten so used to “wet panties” as a metaphor the guys use that I’d sort of forgotton that’s it really not true that we just see a guy and get wet panties. As I recall from my fertile days, ovulation gives one wet panties, not the presence of a particular man. Other than that, women generally don’t lubricate until they actually need to.

  • Just a thought

    Thanks, INTJ,
    No, I’m not morbidly obese, or overweight at all really. What I am trying to point out is that, when I google friendzone and look at the images, 95% of them are complaints from men who have been friendzoned by girls, but women also get friendzoned by guys they really like too. Why don’t we give the advice to men, hey, you aren’t getting the girls you want? Do you have any girls who are your friends who may like you? Why not date them? I would guess because physical attraction is to girl what dominance is to men, it’s kind of a biological thing no sex can get over,and a man probably shouldn’t marry someone he’s not attracted to.
    I also was just responding to Mule Chewing Briars comment in #2, awkward, less pretty girls are also complaining, but the were ignored so they have opted out of the SMV and into radical feminism.
    Off the cuff, I agree with you about the boobs/makeup. That is analogous to a guy learning game, ( except game has fewer health risks). However, just like game, to me, getting a boob job to attract men means that men are irrational, swayed by pretty bodies over pretty minds. Similarly game working, would mean that women are irrational, swayed by fake displays of dominance over real displays of love.
    I think that it is possible for women to not get much sexual interest. I will assume that most women get some. However, say you are a 5, and the SMV men from 0-3 will be interested in you. The 4, 5 men use game to punch above their weight. Now 1/2 of the 0-3 men will be home playing video games, avoiding the SMV, while the other 1/2 are too scared to approach. Even if you date them, you’d be punching below your weight.
    The only reason I speak, is that most women will not acknowledge their plainness, because if we say, ” I’m not really that attractive,” we are told we have low self-esteem and too ” love our bodies”. Because of such less pretty women often suppress their feelings about how they are viewed on the market. As one of those women who is certainly not Helen of Troy (haha), I think that our would looks completely different.

  • Just a thought

    *world.

  • J

    As a musician, I hate going to see a band only to find out they don’t sound as good as on their recordings. I’m OK with a little “ear candy” in the studio, but if you are a rock band and you can’t sound just as good live, don’t bother touring IMO.

    HA! I though thtat was a family thing. DH and the boys are all muscial but refer to some acts as “studio bands,” ie. bands that do better in the studio than in concert. To DH, Queen was the ultimate studio band. The first time the boys saw an old Queen concert on Palladia after hearing them on CD they were extremely disappointed.

    KISS is the utimate concert band–fun to look at, mediocre music. Floyd–the perfect blend.

  • Travis

    “And, as far as it goes, I wasn’t impressed with their live show at all. Music was fine, singer wasn’t as good as he sounds on the CDs. As a musician, I hate going to see a band only to find out they don’t sound as good as on their recordings. I’m OK with a little “ear candy” in the studio, but if you are a rock band and you can’t sound just as good live, don’t bother touring IMO.”

    Felt the same way about a Tool concert I went to a couple of years ago. I don’t know if they were having a bad night or what, but it was horrible. A decent cover band doing Tool songs probably would have been more enjoyable.

  • Ted D

    J – “HA! I though thtat was a family thing.”

    IME it is a musician thing. Or, more to the point, a musicians musician thing. I like to see bands that are very technical because I actually watch them play. Not jump around, but actually PLAY the instruments. Dream Theater was one of my favorite concerts, not because they played the best music, but because they were VERY good (as in classically trained) musicians. The bass player uses a six string bass, and it was simply amazing to watch his fingers flying all over that fret board. And the drummer?! awesome. (although my favorite drummer is still Raymond Herrera formerly of Fear Factory. I always expected to see a robot behind the kit when they played.)

    But yeah, “studio band” is a derogatory term in my house. ;-)

  • Ted D

    Travis – “Felt the same way about a Tool concert I went to a couple of years ago. I don’t know if they were having a bad night or what, but it was horrible. A decent cover band doing Tool songs probably would have been more enjoyable.”

    OH Lord! Say it isn’t so?… I’ve never seen Tool live, but they’ve been one of my favorite bands since their first single Sober. I did get to see Staind cover Sober live which rocked! Aaron started by saying “now this is a song I wish I’d written” and they nailed it. So sad to hear Tool wasn’t good live. I wonder if A Perfect Circle suffers from the same problem?

  • Travis

    Ted,
    “OH Lord! Say it isn’t so?… I’ve never seen Tool live, but they’ve been one of my favorite bands since their first single Sober. I did get to see Staind cover Sober live which rocked! Aaron started by saying “now this is a song I wish I’d written” and they nailed it. So sad to hear Tool wasn’t good live. I wonder if A Perfect Circle suffers from the same problem?”

    I’m not sure what the deal was. I was talking to the guys next to me and they said that the last time Maynard came to Spokane (where I saw the concert) with A Perfect Circle, the crowd kept screaming at them to play Tool songs. According to them, it pissed him off and he’s half-assed it every time he’s come back.
    So you might have better luck somewhere else, I don’t know. I still love ‘em, but I probably won’t be shelling out any more money to see them live any time soon.

  • J

    Just remember some guy reading here is going to take this to heart and actually think he is going to be able to attract some girl by patting on a 5-year old on the head, and when nothing materializes, he is going to think but Susan Walsh told me this works for attraction.

    I think that guys often make the mistake of thinking that women are instantaneously attracted to a man based on his doing X or Y. It’s more of a gestalt for us. Fatherliness is a definitely part of that gestalt but, no, women don’t drop trou the minute they see a guy pat a kid on the head. Attraction is cumulative. We may need to see a pattern of attractive stuff before we really get into you. The first one or two things will get our attention but then there’s a decison making process based on growing (or not) attraction. Roissy is fond of saying the women know within 5 seconds if they are going to sleep with a guy. I don’t think that’s true outside of bars, and, even there, it’s the converse that’s true. Rejection is quicker than acceptence. I know I’ve changed my mind about men over time. Good-looking guys have become less attractive to me by being assholes; less attractive men have become more attractive to me because they are great guys.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    Ha, the debate about Game …

    When they walked into the VIP area of Miami’s Crobar, everyone noticed.
    They were both platinum blondes with well-tanned fake breasts and
    identical outfits—tight white tank tops and tight white pants. How could
    anyone not notice?

    They were what the PUAs would call perfect 10’s, and
    they were dressed to turn men into beasts. This was South Beach, where
    testosterone levels run high, and the pair had been whistled and hollered at all night. The girls seemed to enjoy the attention almost as much as they savored shooting down the men who gave it to them.

    I knew what to do—and that was to do what everyone else wasn’t doing.
    A pickup artist must be the exception to the rule. I had to suppress every
    evolutionary instinct inside me and pay them no attention whatsoever.

    With me were Mystery and two of our students, Outbreak and the
    Matador of Love. The rest of our pupils were sarging on the perimeter of
    the dancefloor downstairs.

    Outbreak went in first, complimenting the platinum twins on their
    outfits. They brushed him off like a gnat. Next, the Matador of Love moved
    in with the Maury Povich opener. He too crashed and burned.

    Now it was my turn. This was going to take every bit of confidence and
    self-esteem that Steve P. and Rasputin had hypnotized into me. If I showed even a flicker of weakness or doubt, they’d eat me alive.

    “That tall one isn’t a 10,” Mystery leaned in and whispered to me.
    “She’s an 11. This is going to take some hardcore negging.”

    The girls strolled to the bar, where they began talking to a transvestite
    in a black tutu. I moved in, not even glancing at them, and greeted the
    transvestite as if l knew him. I asked if he worked at the club, and he said
    no. It didn’t really matter what I said to him: I was just maneuvering into
    position, pawning him for the two-set.

    Now that I was in range, it was time to neg. “That girl over there is biting
    your style,” I said to the 10, the shorter of the two. “Look at her.” I
    pointed to another platinum blonde in a white outfit.

    “She’s just got the same hair,” the 10 replied, dismissively.
    “No, look at her outfit,” I persisted. “It’s almost the exact same.”

    They looked over, and here was the make-or-break moment. If I didn’t
    come up with something good to follow, I’d lose their interest and be
    branded just another weirdo. So I continued with the negging. “You know
    what?” I told them. “You both look like strange little snowflakes.”

    It was a bizarre, cryptic comment, but now I had their attention. I could
    sense it, and my heart began to pump faster. I continued with what I knew
    all along would be my true opener: “I have to ask you something. Is your
    hair real?”

    The 10 looked shocked, then recovered her composure. “Yes,” she said.
    “Feel it.”
    I pulled it gently. “Hey, it moved. It’s not real.”
    “Pull harder.”
    I complied, and yanked it so hard that her neck jerked back. “Okay,” I
    said. “I believe you. But how about your friend there?”

    The 11’s face reddened. She leaned over the bar and looked me hard in
    the eye. “That is really rude. What if I’m bald underneath here? That could
    really hurt someone’s feelings. It’s disrespectful. How would you feel if
    someone said that to you?”

    The pickup is a high stakes game, and to win you have to play hard. All
    I had done so far was commandeer their attention and provoke an emotional reaction. Sure, it was a negative one, but now we had a relationship.

    If I could turn her anger around, I’d be in.
    Fortunately, I happened to be trying to make a point to the students
    and was wearing a black mod wig and a fake lip piercing—just to show that
    looks don’t matter. It’s all game.

    I leaned over the bar and stared the 11 down. “Well,” I told her. “I actually
    am wearing a wig, and I am bald underneath here.”

    I paused, and she looked at me with her mouth open. She didn’t know
    how to respond. Now it was time to reel her in. “And I’ll tell you something
    else. Whether I go out totally bald, in this wig, or in some crazy longhaired
    wig, it doesn’t change the way I’m treated by other people. It’s all your attitude.Don’t you agree?”

    Everything I say in a pickup has an ulterior motive. I needed to let her
    know that unlike every other guy in the bar, I am not and will not be intimidated by her looks. Beauty to me was now a shit test: It weeded out the losers who got dumbstruck by it.

    “I live in Los Angeles,” I continued. “It’s where the most beautiful
    women in the country come to try and make it. You look around a club
    there, and everyone’s good-looking. It makes this VIP room look like a dive bar.” They were words I’d learned, almost verbatim, from Ross Jeffries.

    And they were working.
    I let her look around, then continued: “And do you know what I’ve
    learned? Beauty is common. It’s something you’re born with or you pay for. What counts is what you make of yourself. What counts is a great outlook and a great personality.”

    Now I was in. It was the girls who were dumbstruck now, not me. I had
    entered their world, as Jeffries once put it to me, and demonstrated authority over it. And, to ensure my position there, I threw in one more neg, but softened with a slight compliment, as if they were winning me over: “And you know what? You have a great smile. I can tell that underneath all that, you’re probably a good person.”

    The 10 sidled up to me and said, “We’re sisters.”
    A lesser pickup artist would have thought that his work was done, that
    he had won them over. But no, this was just one more shit test. I looked very slowly at both of them, and then took a chance. “Bullshit,” I said, smiling. “I bet a lot of guys believe you, but I’m a very intuitive person.

    When I look at you both, I can tell you’re very different. Too different.”
    The 10 broke into a guilty smile. “We never tell anyone this,” she said,
    “but you’re right. We’re just friends.”

    Now I’d broken through her programming, moved her away from the
    auto-pilot responses she gives to men, and demonstrated that I was not just another guy. I took another chance: “And I’d be willing to bet that you
    haven’t even been friends for that long. Usually, best friends start to have
    the same mannerisms, and you two don’t really.”

    “We’ve only known each other a year,” the 10 admitted.
    Now it was time to back off my game and fluff a little. However, I made
    sure never to ask questions; instead, as Juggler had taught me, I made openended statements that led them to ask me the questions.

    The 10 told me they were from San Diego, so we fluffed for a while
    about the West Coast and Miami. As we talked, I kept my back to the 11, as
    if I were less interested in her. This was classic Mystery Method: I wanted
    her thinking more about me, wondering why I wasn’t giving her the attention she was so used to. Nothing in the game is an accident.

    I think of a woman’s interest in me as a fire, and when it starts to die
    out, it’s time to turn around and stoke it. So, just when the 11 was about to
    walk away to find someone to talk to, I turned around and delivered a beautiful line: “You know what? When I look at you, I can see exactly what you looked like in middle school. And I’m willing to bet you weren’t so outgoing or popular then.”

    Sure, it was a truism. But she stared at me flabbergasted, wondering
    how I could possibly know that. To seal the victory, I laid out one last
    beauty-neutralizing cold-reading routine. “I bet a lot of people think you’re
    a bitch. But you’re not. You’re actually shy in a lot of ways.”

    She began to give me the doggy dinner-bowl look, as the PUAs call it. It
    is the look that is the goal of any approach. Her eyes glazed over, her pupils dilated, and she just watched my lips move, entranced and attracted. I noticed, however, that the more interested the 11 became, the more kino the 10 gave me.

    “You’re interesting,” the 10 gushed, pressing her breasts against me. I
    could see Mystery, Outbreak, and the Matador of Love rooting me on in the background. “We have to hang out with you in L.A.”
    She leaned in and gave me a tight hug. “Hey, that’ll be thirty dollars,” I
    told her, disentangling myself. “This shit ain’t free.”

    The more you push them away, the more they run toward you. “I love
    him,” she told her friend. Then she asked if she and her friend could stay
    with me next time they were in L.A.

    “Sure,” I said. But as the words left my mouth, I realized, too late, that I
    should have made my hospitality more of a challenge. There’s so much to
    remember and juggle during a pickup that it is hard to get everything perfect.

    But no matter. She gave me her phone number, and I gave her mine.
    You may have noticed that I haven’t been referring to these girls by
    their names. That’s because I never introduce myself during a pickup. As
    Mystery had taught me at that first workshop, I wait for the woman to introduce herself or ask for my name.

    That way, I know she’s interested. So, as we exchanged numbers, I received my first real IOIs and learned that the 10 was Rebekah and the 11 was Heather. Now it was time to separate the two of them and see if I could get enough IOIs to kiss-close Heather.

    A guy they knew suddenly showed up and bought three shots—for
    Heather, Rebekah, and himself. I held out my empty hand and looked
    around, pretending to be hurt. Heather, who I was slowly realizing was actually a sweet girl beneath that laboriously wrought exterior, took the bait.

    “Don’t mind him,” she said, pointing to their guy friend. “He’s just rude.”
    As she called the bartender over and ordered me a shot, Rebekah threw
    her a dirty look. “Remember our rule?” she whined.

    I knew what their rule was: Girls like this love it when guys buy them
    drinks. But David X had taught me better: Girls don’t respect guys who buy them drinks. A true pickup artist knows never to buy meals, drinks, or gifts for a girl he hasn’t slept with. Dating is for tools.

    “We promised not to buy any drinks on this trip,” Rebekah whined.
    “But you’re not buying a drink for yourself,” I told them. “You’re buying
    one for me. And I’m different from all the other guys.”

    I’m not really that arrogant, but in the game there are rules. And the
    rules must be obeyed, because they work.

    Suddenly, Mystery walked toward me and whispered in my ear, “Isolate!”
    “I want to show you something,” I said to Heather, as I took her by the
    hand. I led her to a nearby booth, sat her down, and performed the ESP experiment. Behind me, I saw Mystery punching his fist into his open hand in slow motion. It was a code: the signal to phase shift, to slow down and move in for the kill.

    I told her about soul-gazing and, with house music and dozens of conversations blaring around us, we stared into each other’s eyes and shared a moment together. In my head, I imagined her as the pudgy middle school student she used to be. If I’d been thinking about how beautiful she really was, I would have been too nervous to sully her with my lips, as I was about to attempt to do.

    I slowly moved my head toward hers.
    “No lips,” she said, quietly.
    I held up my index finger, placed it against her lips, and said, “Shhhh.”
    Then I kissed her—on the lips.

    Extract from The Game by Neil Strauss

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Marellus

      They were both platinum blondes with well-tanned fake breasts and
      identical outfits—tight white tank tops and tight white pants. How could
      anyone not notice?

      They were what the PUAs would call perfect 10′s

      Precisely. We have a metrics problem.

  • J

    IME it is a musician thing.

    Yeah, they’re all musical, all multi-instrumentalist.

    I like to see bands that are very technical because I actually watch them play. Not jump around, but actually PLAY the instruments.

    Yeah, they’ll all push their way up to the front of an audience to watch people actually play.

    But yeah, “studio band” is a derogatory term in my house.

    It means two different things in my house. A band that is so crappy musically that they can only play well in a studio where the engineers can fix their errors or a band that performs well musically in the studio but has no stage presence.

  • Ted D

    J – “It means two different things in my house. A band that is so crappy musically that they can only play well in a studio where the engineers can fix their errors or a band that performs well musically in the studio but has no stage presence.”

    Well when you take into consideration that my boys and I are primarily rock/metal oriented, there is no “studio only” option. I personally like some studio only projects (after all, I listen to a lot of electronica/dance/trance/dub step) but to me that type of music is more about creative use of computers than musicianship, so they get a free pass. Otherwise, if your band consists of guitars, bass, drums, singing, and filler, you have NO excuse for a bad live show.

    I’m a bit of a music snob. And, I’m even MORE opinionated about it than I am about our discussions here. I know, hard to believe I can be more stubborn than I show in my posts, right? But, if you want to ever see me in a good knock down drag out debate, get a music discussion going. LOL

  • J

    I didn’t ask for scientific evidence, but the list of Google results is very telling, IMO. The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers. Surely, a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere? As I said, there are many pages of results discussing solipsism as a philosophical concept without regard to gender. I daresay that when it was conceived, it strictly described men.

    Astute comment.

    I think men are as solipsistic as women, but they express it differently. A prime example is that when women don’t fit the evo-psych approved pattern of female behavior or behave differently than the women who have hurt the guys who post in the ‘sphere, they are labeled “outliers.” The underlying notion is “You don’t fit my experiences and preconceived notions; therefore, there is someting wrong with you.”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @J

      I think men are as solipsistic as women, but they express it differently. A prime example is that when women don’t fit the evo-psych approved pattern of female behavior or behave differently than the women who have hurt the guys who post in the ‘sphere, they are labeled “outliers.” The underlying notion is “You don’t fit my experiences and preconceived notions; therefore, there is someting wrong with you.”

      Agreed, and this is rampant here. One of the guys says that other guys at the Spearhead tore him a new one when he said his mom was cool and a good woman. Someone called Anonymous Reader became apoplectic when I said I’d observed some happily married beta dads at my neighborhood playground. He claimed that such a thing was impossible. Betas cannot be happy, apparently, as they are *Never* desired by their wives.

      Vox’s Solipsism test is going to be fun. I’m going to try and build my examples entirely from online convos.

  • J

    Otherwise, if your band consists of guitars, bass, drums, singing, and filler, you have NO excuse for a bad live show.

    That’s not exactly what I’m talking about. There’s both a visual and a musical element to a performance. I used KISS as an example of a band that is fun to watch because they do interesting stuff and Gene is a physically imposing and impressive person. A KISS concert is big fun, but few musically astute people want to sit and listen to them on the radio/CD. Their music is boring if you are older than 14. Conversely, Queen performed interesting music well, but how many times can you watch Freddie Mercury mince around the stage while the rest of the band just stands there? Nonetheless, they’re the world’s best road trip band. You want to hear them, not see them. Pink Floyd provided audiences with both powerful visuals and music.

    I get what you are saying regarding watching musicians play but that’s a musician thing, not a general audience thing. Originally, I was discussing the latter. Since I have no musical talent whatsoever, I can’t speak to the former.

    I’m really not debating what you’re saying. I’m just talking about something a bit different. DH and the boys really enjoy watching someone’s hands as they play.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @OTC

    Without all 3, he is not a SMPW. That doesn’t mean a man can’t pair off, and have a great life, just that he’s not at the top of the pack.

    Thanks for clarifying. I suppose who’s “top of the pack” is going to depend upon who one admires (and why), and how narrowly one defines “success”. Interesting… this definition seems to view 1) a guy who *could* have NSA sex but chooses not to in favor of a GF, equal to 2) a guy who only sleeps around with promiscuous women he meets in bars. They’re both “winners” of equal caliber?

    IMO this just confirms that there isn’t an objective definition. If N is the Holy Grail, whether you drink from it or not, just being able to is the measure of a man. With one exception, every guy I’ve been friends with has had the following goals post-college: wife, house, kids (optional). Most have achieved those goals. By the N-based definition, they’re losers perhaps. I like to think they’re playing a totally different game.

  • Mike C

    No, I’m not morbidly obese, or overweight at all really. What I am trying to point out is that, when I google friendzone and look at the images, 95% of them are complaints from men who have been friendzoned by girls, but women also get friendzoned by guys they really like too. Why don’t we give the advice to men, hey, you aren’t getting the girls you want? Do you have any girls who are your friends who may like you? Why not date them? I would guess because physical attraction is to girl what dominance is to men, it’s kind of a biological thing no sex can get over,and a man probably shouldn’t marry someone he’s not attracted to.

    @Just a thought,

    You are correct that both sexes get stuck in the friendzone for somewhat different reasons. A key difference though is men don’t really lie or mislead women about how to get out whereas the opposite does take place. To the extent that women are misled, it is by other women. Most men are quite honest about improving physical appearance being important. Often though, when that message is delivered, many women don’t want to hear it, or if you deliver that message you are a “bad” guy. As a side point, I’ll say there is a ton that can be done to improve appearance without having to resort to extreme things like plastic surgery.

    The 4, 5 men use game to punch above their weight.

    I see this thought process often so I want to correct it. A guy who is a 4 in looks with game is no longer a 4. Game has raised his SMV because it has made his personality more sexually attractive. If a woman is a 3-4 who is 50 pounds overweight and loses the 50 pounds to become a 6-7 she is a 6-7. She isn’t a 3-4 punching above her weight. The process of losing the weight moved her SMV up.

    The only reason I speak, is that most women will not acknowledge their plainness, because if we say, ” I’m not really that attractive,” we are told we have low self-esteem and too ” love our bodies”.

    And who are the people sending this “feel good” but ultimately misleading and counterproductive message?

  • Höllenhund

    More mainstream media fodder for female gynocentrism:

    details.com/sex-relationships/marriage-and-kids/200808/stigma-of-the-never-married-man

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hollenhund

      Gynocentrism is female supremacy, which is the opposite of androcentrism. What we see most commonly in the ‘sphere is gynophobia.

      Solipsism is also known as the Egocentric Predicament, a total self-centeredness. This hardly seems limited to the female sex.

      Other descriptions of solipsism:

      1. Self-absorption, an unawareness of the views or needs of others
      2. a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism.

      Solipsism is a philosophical position that nothing outside one’s own mind can be known to exist, or, sometimes, the position that nothing outside one’s own mind does exist. Solipsism Syndrome is, by extension, the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is a dream. Sufferers become lonely and detached from the world and eventually become completely indifferent.

  • J

    When they walked into the VIP area of Miami’s Crobar, everyone noticed. They were both platinum blondes with well-tanned fake breasts and identical outfits……

    What a smarmy scenario!

  • J

    @Travis #229

    I believe it was Ali G who said, “If you don’t treat them rough, you don’t get the muff.” There’s a certain amount of truth in that; at least, it describes a certain slice of human experience in the same sense that it’s true that “men love women who play hard to get.” It’s just not the whoile story.

  • Ted D

    J – “I’m really not debating what you’re saying. I’m just talking about something a bit different. DH and the boys really enjoy watching someone’s hands as they play.”

    OH I know. I”m just babbling for the sake of it at this point. I get your view on it, and I’ve seen many bands that fit the bill. Off the top of my head, best showmanship I’ve seen:

    Janet Jackson – saw her in the 80’s spectacular stage show
    ZZ top
    Motley Crue – NOT a fan, but they do put on a good show
    Godsmack – not only great musicians, but very good stage presence as well
    Yanni – Good Lord that show was full of great musicians, but the stage show was pretty great as well, for mellow music anyway
    311 – just a really fun show. Of course, 2/3 of the audience was probably high…
    Slipknot – O M G. Their stage show is epic, with fire and explosions and lights. I was very glad that when we saw them, we weren’t too close to the stage. The view from the grass was awesome.

    I can enjoy a show for the sake of the show, but I have to intentionally “go there” in my head before I start getting critical of the actual musicianship. LOL

  • Höllenhund

    There’s a certain amount of truth in that; at least, it describes a certain slice of human experience in the same sense that it’s true that “men love women who play hard to get.”

    No. Men love women that are, you know, actually hard to get. Chastity is the only way women can protect whatever amount of human dignity they have.

  • Mike C

    I think that guys often make the mistake of thinking that women are instantaneously attracted to a man based on his doing X or Y. It’s more of a gestalt for us. Fatherliness is a definitely part of that gestalt but, no, women don’t drop trou the minute they see a guy pat a kid on the head. Attraction is cumulative.

    Meh…I think this “cumulative gestalt” thing is really code for I can’t nail down the specific things/traits that are sexually attractive. Rather then try to argue my own case, here is what a woman has to say:

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-logical-fallacy-of-female-attraction.html?showComment= 1346858262362#c4844847469754732785

    As a woman, I can tell you the vast majority of us do not wonder what it’s like to be much more aware of one’s internal processes, at least as they pertain to things sexual. Why would we? We are programmed to be passive in this regard. As pursuers, it conveys an advantage to you to understand your own inner workings and, to whatever extent possible, the inner workings of that which you pursue. The better you understand, the more likely you are to catch your prey. But as the pursued, our goal is simply to be caught by the most suitable predator. With that in mind, what advantage does it convey to us to analyze our own inner workings? It won’t affect the outcome of the pursuit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      But as the pursued, our goal is simply to be caught by the most suitable predator. With that in mind, what advantage does it convey to us to analyze our own inner workings? It won’t affect the outcome of the pursuit.

      Whoa! This woman is abdicating the role of female selection! Men display and pursue, women select. A woman who does not understand herself will most definitely have a different outcome than the woman with awareness and insight into her own attraction triggers.

  • Abbot

    “Chastity is the only way women can protect whatever amount of human dignity they have.”

    From the view of romantic minded men. Which is most men.
    Woman are being directed to have various parts of men on whims du jour. Penis today, the rest later. Why? Because men have vagina today, the rest later. The difference? Women are mostly ok with that.

  • Just a thought

    I don’t understand the debates about chastity, as one other poster stated, saving yourself for marriage is a pretty bad/risky idea. And I say this as a virgin, I’m not sure why I’ve waited so long. Guys claim to like chastity, but it really ranks low on the list for most men. For the men whom chastity does matter, many of them are unwilling to dump a girl who has all the other qualities they want, but not chastity, assuming she doesn’t cheat on them. So out of 20 qualities, chastity is like 18 or 19. Why bother?
    Mike C, with all due respect, I think in some ways men do mislead women.
    However, I think what you said about game is true and I concede the point.
    That said, would you rather the feel good movement not lie to women? In our modern world, a woman’s beauty is continually on display. I think without the feel-good movement, very few women would be able to deal with their SMV. Expect suicides. a rise in anorexia and bulimia. More beautiful women, but more screwed up ones too.

    I don’t see the fixation with PUA’s. I’ve read Chateau Heartiste, Rollo’s blog and others. But many of these guys have a short-term mating strategy. I assume that guys here want a girl who loves them for who they are, will stick with them for years and years and sleep with them when they are 80 and unattractive. None of the PUA’s have this girl because you can’t get her with “game”. Perhaps, married man game, ( which to me is a little different) might help, but in the end of the day, these tactics will not make most men here happy. I mean I could sleep with 20 guys by offering sex for free, perhaps, or working as a prostitute, but I don’t need or want 20 guys. I want one. The right one. Similarly, you can learn game and sleep with 11’s and 10’s but what you really want is a woman like Ann Romney or Michelle Obama who will still live with you and love you 20 years later when everything has changed, or you are on your deathbed and don’t make much money or you are so depressed you aren’t up to running game on your wife. In that case, why does Mystery’s game matter? He sleeps with a lot of girls, but he’s also depressed, needs medicine to function and frankly, crazy. The question is : how can I, how can we find men and women who will love us for us and stick with us until we die? is this even possible? That’s what concerns me.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Mike C

    Well….I don’t have 20 years, but I have seen (a) and (b) over and over and over and over in the couple years I’ve been commenting and reading here. For example Susan, when the Instill Dread subject came up the first thing you did was talk about in the context of your husband and your relationship.

    How is that solipsism? First, my relating the concept to my own experience is not a case of my inability to imagine it in another light, or deny another’s experience. I think it’s human nature to bounce ideas off of our own experience in order to understand them.

    For example, in discussing the male desire for sexual variety, you have insisted many times that men experience this as a very strong craving, and it has taken you months to accept that some men, e.g. Ted, Escoffier, Cooper, Megaman, etc. simply don’t share your experience. For the longest time, you identified them as extreme outliers. It’s the same with the female promiscuity topic – you can only square the circle of your own experience by reluctantly concluding, after many hours of debate and much evidence provided, that there is a spectrum of female sociosexuality. Is this stubborn insistence that your own observations represent the “real truth” not solipsism?

    My response to Instilling Dread was a moral one. I understand the experience well by virtue of the instructions I’ve read on how to pull it off. I know Machiavellian tactics when I see them. I also know they do not reflect an accurate understanding of female sexuality of the restricted variety. How is it solipsistic to question that tactic as used on a wife?

  • Plain Jane

    “I told her about soul-gazing and, with house music and dozens of conversations blaring around us, we stared into each other’s eyes and shared a moment together. ”

    Gag. What an airy fairy shemale of a man. Soul-gazing? I’d be like , “laterz, sucka!”

  • Plain Jane

    “As a young woman, you are about 100 times more desirable than most men that surround you daily.”

    “Why is that women and especially feminists abhor such statements? Perplexing indeed.”

    Abhor? Are you kidding? We’d love it if it were true! How is a young woman to know she’s 100 times desireable if she gets IGNORED???

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    I am going to take notice of my interactions with women and watch for ‘I’ and ‘me’ now. Never something I watched for. Report back in a few days.

    Let’s go with Mike C’s easy peasy definition:

    Solipsistic describes a philosphy that nothing is real but the experiences you have. (adjective)

    Why does referring to my own experience or beliefs by using the pronouns “I” and “me” indicate that I believe all other experiences are not real?

    The best example of solipsism according to this definition would have to be the male victims of frivolous divorce, who go apeshit at the idea that some beta men are actually cherished by their wives.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Mike C

    That said, I don’t attack or chastise individual commenters so including this statement here was purely a rhetorical tactic.

    My point was that while you don’t attack individual commenters, you are often a harsh judge of female nature. That sparks defensiveness in readers, which leads to NAWALT. You say “all women want x” and women respond “But I want Y!”

    That is not solipsism.

  • http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com VD

    Hey Susan. I’ve put up the first part of my response, which is not a proof, but simply what I hope will be a useful clarification.

  • Plain Jane

    “No. Men love women that are, you know, actually hard to get. Chastity is the only way women can protect whatever amount of human dignity they have.”

    Men love that the women they are physically attracted to are hard to get, and for many average men, those attractive women are in fact hard to get – for them, which those men then don’t love. Hence the Manosphere.

    There’s a certain threshold of looks and below that, women become invisible and hence hard to get might not be the best card to play.

  • Mike C

    Susan,

    Your responses are basically non-sequiturs to the key issue of what constitutes female solipsism. If I have time later, I will go back and try to find some the specific examples of what I am referring to which is basically someone or some guy making a generalized point and a woman responding as if he is literally speaking to her and her personal situation. To repeat myself again, there is a difference between drawing on personal experience to make some broad generalizations and RESPONDING AND REACTING AS IF THE CONVERSATION IS LITERALLY ABOUT YOU AND YOUR LIFE.

    Vox said he would write a post explaining and giving examples. I have no doubt he will be more effective than me. If I have time to find the examples later I will do so…I think I recall some of the posts that engendered solipsistic responses, but I’ll admit this is a pretty low priority item for me. Truthfully, I’m getting worn out…..which probably will make you happy. :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      Your responses are basically non-sequiturs to the key issue of what constitutes female solipsism.

      How so? Please explain.

      RESPONDING AND REACTING AS IF THE CONVERSATION IS LITERALLY ABOUT YOU AND YOUR LIFE.

      I don’t think this is the definition of solipsism. I also think that this is something you do frequently. Maybe when you explain more I’ll understand better.

  • http://www.femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Re: solipsism,
    It’s funny, my dad obviously never uses the term, but I can’t tell you the number of times he’s accused my mom of being overly self-absorbed, or having to relate everything he says to her own experiences. I honestly think it might be another example of male vs. female communication styles/thought processes, as it doesn’t generally bother me to hear women talk about themselves when I know it’s not out of malicious intent (and I do it too!). I like to share, and I like to hear other people share… which is also why I tend to tl;dr the overly abstract discussions around here (the recent discourse between Marellus and HerrKaiser comes to mind).

    Also, the best HUS example I can think of is the discussion about Doug1’s open relationship. I was literally incapable of not putting myself in his GF’s shoes and being horrified, and I suspect several other female commenters felt that way as well.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Olive

      I was literally incapable of not putting myself in his GF’s shoes and being horrified, and I suspect several other female commenters felt that way as well.

      That is solipsism? Color me confused. I call that empathy, as well as rejection of the supremacy of male sexuality. Is it solipsism when men express strong feelings about cuckoldry?

  • Plain Jane

    But you said before that women employ two different strategies, one for short-term and one for long-term.

    True, but not the same women. Time orientation in mating is strongly correlated to restricted vs. unrestricted sociosexuality, and they vary little over time.

    Therefore, the promiscuous woman’s mix of traits for entry is going to look very different from the restricted woman’s mix of traits for entry.

    Dunno. All seems very confusing. Isn’t there a one size fits all model that our puny human brains can easily compute and file away?

  • Thin-Skinned

    Much discussion of “female solipsism”…

    I’m not convinced that females are by default MORE solipsistic then males.

    From where I stand, both men and women are obviously pretty self-centered beings. If only we would just care for ourselves and think of others a little less. What depresses me most though is all of the time and energy that both spend on jockeying for position, status and esteem among their peers, while at the same time mouthing empty platitudes about being independent and true to yourself.

    What do all the “manosphere” types mean about female solipsism? I think I grasp this slippery little idea, but I don’t feel certain enough to propose satisfactory definition. Could some of us perhaps suggest something?

    I’m certain that a male version exists, how would we characterize that in general?

  • deti

    “some guy reading here is going to take this to heart and actually think he is going to be able to attract some girl by patting on a 5-year old on the head”

    Back when I was a young and dumb deti, I did exactly this kind of thing — tried to display my “dad” cred to try to get in good with some girl. I did this specifically because my mom, my sisters, and other women told me they thought men who liked kids were attractive.

    Never worked. It failed every time I tried it.

    The part they left out was what they actually meant — they wanted attractive, hot, great looking, wealthy men who happened to like kids.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The part they left out was what they actually meant — they wanted attractive, hot, great looking, wealthy men who happened to like kids.

      What you’re missing is that the “liking kids” ups his score.

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

    Please feel free. But it wasn’t boredom, it was bedtime. I live in Europe.

    Oops sorry but since you said that in the imaginary conversation you would be looking for the way out I was thinking you were bored with it as well. You also left me hanging on the “Science is evil” trope conversation so I assumed that you were not interested on this either. Want to continue or we are done? Just checking.

    Anyway, that’s how it is to be a man. You get shot down a lot so don’t feel like a loser about it.

    This is how to date period. Regardless the gender this is part of the process unless you are made out of gold chances are not everyone will like you or want you. That is part of life.

    I think I need to do more approaching in bars, coffee places, on the street and also try to meet more people through friends.

    Don’t get me wrong online dating is ONE tool but other tools are welcomed and required it should be in addition of going out and meeting people unless you are really extremely shy, live in a place where is hard to make friends or too busy.

    The pickup is a high stakes game, and to win you have to play hard.

    I never noticed how Game looks a lot like playing poker. Interesting.

    Meh…I think this “cumulative gestalt” thing is really code for I can’t nail down the specific things/traits that are sexually attractive.

    I think I mentioned before but here it goes again. You are thinking that there is a fixed timeline sluts get their gestalt effect in days or hours, most women need weeks sometimes months before even thinking about sleeping with a guy. Is not that we don’t know is that the plumbing comes with different timeframes depending on the woman’s personality, upbringing or opportunity.
    You know you should try to read a Nympho’s memoirs, they decide to sleep with a man the moment they see him, in fact they report that they only see penises not men anymore that is an extreme type of outlier that might remind you of the spectrum we all live.

    Ted, Escoffier, Cooper, Megaman, etc. simply don’t share your experience. For the longest time, you identified them as extreme outliers

    Add hubby to that list he actually told me that he never had a ONS because he doesn’t stomach the idea of having sex with a woman he doesn’t consider a friend or knows for sure that cares about him on some level, also he doesn’t “stick it on the crazy” and you need to know a woman for a while to know if she is crazy or not.

  • Ted D

    Olive – “I was literally incapable of not putting myself in his GF’s shoes and being horrified, and I suspect several other female commenters felt that way as well.”

    As much as I disagreed with Doug1’s view of the morality of his relationship, I had no issue being overwhelmed with empathy for his wife. To me, he came across as a braggart and my impression of her was that she was either happy to be in an open marriage, or simply too weak to do something about it. Either way, it is her life and her issue to deal with. I can’t even sympathize for/with her if she isn’t willing to do something about it herself.

    Susan – “If a husband needs something anywhere close to asshole Game to keep things going, he married very badly. Perhaps he can salvage his relationship, but it doesn’t sound like it will ever be healthy or rewarding. If I were a man I would rather divorce, even in this legal climate. But I recognize that men may have their own reasons for remaining in the marriage. (Note: Not solipsistic!)”

    I agree, but that wasn’t my point. I am still speaking to your claim that Game is strictly a STR strategy for men, and that its only real use/application is for ST mating. In fact, as has been discussed here repeatedly, most men seem to do just fine using Game to get and keep LTRs as the guys trying to rack up N do with the STR bar flies. Game can and does attract LTR oriented women, but once you get your foot in the door, the strategy needs to adjust to show some long term traits AS WELL AS continuing with whatever alphaness got her interest in the first place.

    I think the bone of contention here is: most of the men believe it is the alpha traits that attract both LTR and STR women at first meeting, and then the STR women eat up more alpha while the LTR women start looking for beta comfort. BOTH are attracted to the “lust” factors first though.

    Or, are you saying that this is true, but these supposedly LTR oriented women (Sassy is an example from HUS. She is very open about her “lusty” desires despite being VERY long term oriented) are still looking at mating from a STR perspective (despite being very selective and looking for LTRs), and there are other women that are literally “turned on” by displays of beta behavior? If there are two separate LTR strategies (one that still looks for ‘alpha’ but needs beta underneath, and one that mostly/only looks for ‘beta’) then it would explain some of my observations and incorrect assessments. Because to the best of my knowledge, I have never met a woman that has a strictly beta mindset. But, I also am attracted to women that are rather “sexual” (again, think Sassy in terms of frankness about her sexuality, but still very selective in her mate choice) and may very well have completely missed women looking for the pure beta. And, to be honest, I wouldn’t be happy with such a woman. I like that my wife lusts for me, and I like that she lusts for me from a place of animal attraction. Its fine that she loves me for my betaness, and I’m even OK if some of that betaness turns her on. But, at the end of the day, I want her to lust for me based on my “manliness”, not my domestic capabilities. A woman that only found my “beta” attractive would not give me the sense of “masculine” I get from feeling that female lustiness directed at me. And since finding the Red Pill, I find that I very much enjoy feeling that lust and wouldn’t want to go without it.

    I’m not sure I explained this very well…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      I am still speaking to your claim that Game is strictly a STR strategy for men, and that its only real use/application is for ST mating.

      I do not claim that. It was written as a STR strategy. Specifically, “how to get beautiful women into bed in 7 hours.”

      I have never claimed that its only application is for short-term mating. In fact, I have been arguing otherwise for nearly three years. I support Game as a way that more LTR-oriented men can become attractive to women.

  • Emily

    Re: solipsism

    Isn’t it almost always the male commenters who reject Susan’s statistics and academic studies because it doesn’t match their own personal experience? (NA-HUS-M-ALT of course.)

  • deti

    @ Emily:

    You said “Isn’t it almost always the male commenters who reject Susan’s statistics and academic studies because it doesn’t match their own personal experience?”

    MikeC’s quote at 273 is particularly apropos in response :

    “there is a difference between drawing on personal experience to make some broad generalizations and RESPONDING AND REACTING AS IF THE CONVERSATION IS LITERALLY ABOUT YOU AND YOUR LIFE.”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “there is a difference between drawing on personal experience to make some broad generalizations and RESPONDING AND REACTING AS IF THE CONVERSATION IS LITERALLY ABOUT YOU AND YOUR LIFE.”

      As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong), solipsism is the inability to believe in the existence of any reality but your own. Some examples might be:

      You see women grinding in bars, so you believe that all women enjoy rubbing their pelvis up against a stranger.

      You see cell phone pics of naked women, so you believe that all women are in the habit of sexting nude pics of themselves to men they are having casual sex with.

      You sleep with cads who dump you, so you believe that all men are cads who dump women after using them for sex.

      You are an asshole, and you get ONSs, so you are certain that all women love assholes.

      You live in NYC, where dating is favorable for males, so you believe that the same dynamics are in place everywhere.

      You found out your gf lied to you about her number, so you believe that all women have high N and lie about it.

      You are aware of hookup culture, so you assume that all students enjoy hooking up. (Oh wait, that is Pluralistic Ignorance!)

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Important to distinguish between solipsism and narcissism. Strong-form solipsism is the belief nobody’s emotions other than one’s own are real (maybe the other apparent humans are simply cunningly-programmed androids); perhaps we can define weak-form solipsism as the belief that other people’s emotions are indeed real but operate exactly like one’s own.

    Narcissism is excessive focus on one’s own thoughts, experiences, appearance, etc…does not automatically imply solipsism since you can perfectly well recognize other people’s emotions as real and different but still be obsessively focused on your own.

    Around mt neck of the woods, there seems to be a rampant epidemic of even-stronger-form solipsism, as indicated by the almost total absence of **turn signals**. Even if all the other people *were* nothing more than cleverly-programmed non-conscious robots, it would *still* be a good idea to let them know what you’re doing, just as collision-free operation of a swarm of drone aircraft would require coordination among them.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @David foster

      perhaps we can define weak-form solipsism as the belief that other people’s emotions are indeed real but operate exactly like one’s own.

      Is it other people’s emotions, or other people’s experiences? It’s the latter I have found referenced, and that’s a very different concept.

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        Vox has responded to the solipsism debate with a post at Alpha Game. At the least, I am very happy to have a working manosphere definition. Sollipsism means self-centered, egotistical.

        Rather than get into a second debate at Vox’s, where the haters will be out in force, here’s an excerpt from his post (bolding mine):

        Now, since we are talking about female behavior, it should be readily apparent that we are not talking about metaphysical, methodological, or epistemological solipsism, but rather an observed predilection for egoistic self-absorption which occurs to such an extent that the woman’s behavior makes it appear as if she subscribes to some form of philosophical solipsism. This is not to say she actually subscribes to it, as I doubt one woman in ten thousand, or one man in ten thousand, for that matter, would even recognize the concept. The point is that most women tend to behave as if they do.

        The rational explanation for such behavior is easy enough to identify. Most Western women are coddled from childhood and are very seldom held to the same standards of accountability and responsibility that boys and men are, whether one considers sports, societal norms, or the law. This lack of accountability and responsibility, combined with their heightened biological susceptibility to emotion, causes most of them to behave in a self-centered manner which makes it appear they believe that their interests are the only ones that exist, their opinions are the only ones that can possibly be correct, and their observations are definitive of reality. This self-absorption also causes them to assume that the actions and comments of others are always directly related to them, a concept which is encapsulated in the popular feminist phrase “the personal is political”, and often inspires them to assign the worst possible interpretation to the statements of others.

        Most Western women are coddled from childhood and are very seldom held to the same standards of accountability and responsibility that boys and men are, whether one considers sports, societal norms, or the law.

        How are women held to a lower standard in sports? Does this refer to Title IX? Are female Olympians held to a different standard that male Olympians? Do women get more “mulligans?”

        Re societal norms, the term “boys will be boys” is far more common that “girls will be girls.” It was used recently by BU hockey coach Jack Parker to excuse debauchery and rape. It is also commonly used to excuse drunken behavior by males on college campuses. For example, the frat who wmarched in front of the Yale Women’s Center chanting, “No means yes! Yes means anal!” defended their actions this way.

        Finally, in the areas of the law where women enjoy an advantage (Family law? Sexual assault law?), the effects are unlikely to be felt before adulthood, so should not be relevant in the formation of character.

        Also, women are outearning men in US urban centers not via AA or softer standards, but by being more competitive. I’m not saying those women are not self-centered, but most female powerhouses have bested many male competitors to get where they are. I’m not clear on the causation here.

        This lack of accountability and responsibility, combined with their heightened biological susceptibility to emotion, causes most of them to behave in a self-centered manner

        While female narcissism is on the rise, it is still well below the male rate in the population, and the self-centered Dark Triad personality type is almost exclusively male.

        I’m not sure what causes men to behave in a self-centered manner, but there is no lack of egocentric males.

        I agree that women have a heightened biological susceptibility to emotion, and I agree that an emotional girl who is coddled from childhood is going to be a princess. I do not agree that you can generalize about the entire female population this way.

        This self-absorption also causes them to assume that the actions and comments of others are always directly related to them, a concept which is encapsulated in the popular feminist phrase “the personal is political”, and often inspires them to assign the worst possible interpretation to the statements of others.

        I do not believe that feminists are representative of women in general. I do think there is something real about the differing communication styles of the sexes. I recently shared a story here from Deborah Tannen’s excellent book about male-female communication, You Just Don’t Understand.

        A husband and wife were driving home one evening after work. As they approached the location of their favorite neighborhood cafe, the woman asked, “Shall we stop for a drink at Rick’s?” Her husband drove past the restaurant, saying, “I’m not thirsty.”

        This is an excellent illustration, I think, of communication at cross purposes. The wife was inviting her husband to join her for some date time as a couple. She liked the idea of unwinding after the work day over a glass of wine, and catching up on the day’s news. Her husband did not hear any of that. He heard someone ask him if he wanted something to drink. He was not thirsty, so he said no. The wife was offended, the husband was perplexed.

        We might say she was overly sensitive – his refusal felt like an emotional slight. At the same time, he was insensitive – does he really not understand that a suggestion about stopping for a drink is not the same as stopping by the office water cooler?

        It is tempting to adopt vocabulary that demonizes one sex over the other – it’s an inevitable by-product of the gender wars I suppose.

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

    As I understand it, the philosophical concept of solipsism is not that only you and no one else exists, it’s that the only thing we know exists is each of us. I may be wrong, though.

    However, the common understanding is that is means only you exist. Psychologists call it narcissism: I exist; you are a thing, part of my play. If the problem gets bad enough, it’s a diagnosed mental illness: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Anti-Social Personality Disorder (psychopath).

    Everyone is narcissistic to some degree; however, I’m not sure women are more narcissistic (or solipsistic) than men. If they are, I suspect how they are treated by men might have something to do with it. Treating someone as if they are special (say a Princess) will feed right into a woman’s inherent narcissism. Expecting special treatment, believing you should be treated as special without special accomplishments, reacting with rage, shame and humiliation to the slightest criticism or rejection, being consumed with envy, being manipulative and predatory…these are the hallmarks of narcissism.

  • Cooper

    @Ted D
    +1

    I think it has to do with the disconnect between sexual and emotional intimacy, in a culture where hooking up long proceeds being “official” in any fashion. (at least in my demographic)
    I know one girl who can’t get her fwb to be a bf, and I had to explain that their relationship was never built with emotional intimacy, so there’s zero evidence to say it will now.
    I’ve recently tried embracing my beta side, more publicly. On dates, I’ve said that I don’t like the way it works today – that we’re expected to want sexual intimacy before emotional. (if the latter at all.)
    And the girls were glowing to see a guy say that, including the girl with the fwb. (she says the two of them are exclusive – I’m friends with the guy though)
    The girls all seemed to say similar things, like if they could stop this hooking up culture they would, and they really want a guy that relationahip-oriented more than anything.

    The thing is they don’t get the disconnect between sexual and emotional intimacy. I’ve had to explain it a bunch of times, and it makes sense.
    Like Susan says about the mix of alpha/beta – that if forced, women choose pure alpha over pure beta – I think young women are choosing sexual intimacy over emotional. And even if there is a appreciation for the emotional intimacy that a beta may provide, since women enjoy platonic relationships more, there’s a chance that’ll never translate over into sexual intimacy.
    It’s said to be easier for a beta to add alpha, than alpha adding beta. What does that say about sexual/emotional intimacy?
    Is it harder to add emotional intimacy second, than sexual, then?
    And if women choose alpha primarily, who’ll seek sexual before emotional, then they’re aren’t they picking the guys who’ll have the hardest time finding them that mix of the two traits?

  • Mike C

    Whoa! This woman is abdicating the role of female selection! Men display and pursue, women select. A woman who does not understand herself will most definitely have a different outcome than the woman with awareness and insight into her own attraction triggers.

    LOL….this response is too funny given the parallel debate about solipsism in this thread. She was talking about women broadly in terms of self-examination of internal thoughts and processes, and in your response you made it about her OWN PERSONAL selection of men because in your mind you read that and imagined yourself in the position of “abdicating the role of selection” rather than recognize her comment was about a broad principle NOT her own personal behavior.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      She was talking about women broadly in terms of self-examination of internal thoughts and processes, and in your response you made it about her OWN PERSONAL selection of men because in your mind you read that and imagined yourself in the position of “abdicating the role of selection” rather than recognize her comment was about a broad principle NOT her own personal behavior.

      No that’s not correct. I did not see it as being about her own personal selection process. Let’s look at it again:

      As a woman, I can tell you the vast majority of us do not wonder what it’s like to be much more aware of one’s internal processes, at least as they pertain to things sexual. Why would we? We are programmed to be passive in this regard. As pursuers, it conveys an advantage to you to understand your own inner workings and, to whatever extent possible, the inner workings of that which you pursue. The better you understand, the more likely you are to catch your prey. But as the pursued, our goal is simply to be caught by the most suitable predator. With that in mind, what advantage does it convey to us to analyze our own inner workings? It won’t affect the outcome of the pursuit.

      First of all, she speaks for the vast majority of women based on her own thought processes. Solipsism!

      Seriously, this part: But as the pursued, our goal is simply to be caught by the most suitable predator. is simply false. That is not the goal of the female.

      That is my objection. I have no idea about her own personal behavior, I object to a factually incorrect statement about a female mating principle.

      I hope that clears up any confusion.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    I think, as with hypergamy, the ‘sphere has taken a word that generally means something slightly different, and applied it in a new way. It probably has some minor validity here (not as much as “hypergamy”), but is wildly overstated by some and assumed to be absolute. I think, for purposes of the ‘sphere, it means that women seem to have more trouble “groking” the experience of men than vice versa. Many women will nod and then get right back to framing things in a way that suggests they are still viewing from a purely female perspective (I don’t just mean on the Net – more in ordinary life). Many men (especially ‘sphere types) do this too, but they are incorrectly assuming that the experiences of other men are just like theirs, which is a little different. Besides, ya know, bell curves and all that. I also think that women who have sons tend to lose this trait.

    However, as with “hypergamy”, I think the ‘sphere tends to overuse the word and apply it willy nilly to things they don’t like.

    @lokland

    “You want proof that female solipsism has been tested and observed. Which anyone would call, in other words, asking for scientific evidence.”

    I think she at least would like something more than naked assertion in a no longer available blog post by Ferdinand.

    @susan

    “The whole wet panties myth is an embarrassment. If you want to hook us up to porn, sure. But no woman’s vagina every got engorged or slippery looking at a guy at the bar. It doesn’t work that way.”

    I think it’s more just an expression. Also, since you have joking used the expression “panty wetter” several times before (IIRC), you’ve arguably lost standing to call it an embarrassment.

    But, again, don’t assume some outliers (especially high T women) can’t experience it. If we men can get a hard on just sitting there looking at a hot woman and imagining her nekked (not so much at my age, but you get the drift), then I would guess some women could do the same. And don’t some women have the equivalent of wet dreams? I’m also pretty sure (though, not being a woman, I can’t pretend to really know) that a woman can get wet thinking about a guy she already knows and has been pining for (as opposed to some guy accross the bar who is good looking and has alpha body language, etc.).

    “Betas cannot be happy, apparently, as they are *Never* desired by their wives.”

    Let’s face it, part of the problem with disagreements over “beta” experiences is that sometimes people (usually women) are referring to men with “beta traits” when they say that, which really means guys who loyal and responsible and take a k-selection approach to mating (parental investment and loyalty, etc.). But when the guys in the ‘sphere refer to betas, they tend to be referring to guys (probably the lower 50% or maybe lower 60%) who just can’t naturally generate sexual interest from the vast majority of women. There may be some modest overlap in the concepts, especially with young women who seem to glom on to assholes and dark triad types, but they are still fundamentally different concepts.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      I think, as with hypergamy, the ‘sphere has taken a word that generally means something slightly different, and applied it in a new way. It probably has some minor validity here (not as much as “hypergamy”), but is wildly overstated by some and assumed to be absolute.

      Exactly. That is intellectually facile at best, dishonest at worst. If I’m going to attract commenters like Hollenhund and other hard core MRA types, it’s going to be necessary to clear up some of the misconceptions, as they appear in the comment threads here.

      I think she at least would like something more than naked assertion in a no longer available blog post by Ferdinand.

      Indeed. This is the heart of the issue. I trace a concept all the way back to….a naked assertion by someone with an agenda. That’s fine – call it a POV rather than a fact.

      I’m also pretty sure (though, not being a woman, I can’t pretend to really know) that a woman can get wet thinking about a guy she already knows and has been pining for (as opposed to some guy accross the bar who is good looking and has alpha body language, etc

      Oh yes! That can definitely happen, and I describe that feeling as a “clit twinge” or pulling sensation. Wetness may ensue. But the key is that attraction has already been firmly established, it’s a man she knows, and it’s the whole package she wants.

      Speaking for Susan, I think she would say that many of you are defining “solipsism” in a manner that pretty equates with “narcissism”. I think she has stated many times that female narcissism is rampant in our society.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/06/28/relationshipstrategies/20-identifiable-traits-of-a-female-narcissist/

      Historically, 75% of those diagnosed with NPD have been male. However, researchers who have recently studied narcissistic personality traits in the American population say it’s an epidemic, increasing just as fast as obesity since the 1980s, and that much of the growth comes from women. Twenge and Campbell, authors of The Narcissism Epidemic, studied 37,000 college students (2006) in an effort to understand modern levels of self-involvement:

      1. In 1982, just 15% of college kids scored high on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, but that number has risen to 25%, largely due to a greater number of narcissistic women.

      2. In the 1950s, just 12% of respondents agreed with the statement, “I am an important person.” By the 1980s, 80% felt special.

      3. In 1967, 45% of American students felt that “Being well off is an important life goal.” By 2004, 74% agreed with that statement.

      4. Nearly 10% of 20-somethings are thought to have NPD, and it’s estimated that 26% of people now in their twenties will have developed NPD by the age of 65.

      Women narcissists often are diagnosed with the subset Histrionic Personality Disorder:

      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 sounds to me like the manosphere term solipsism is really HPD. It’s real and increasing, but not generalizable to the whole population.

  • deti

    As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong), solipsism is the inability to believe in the existence of any reality but your own.

    Close, but not exactly. It seems to me to be a bit broader than that.

    Vox Day’s explanation seems workable, as it is readily observed and observable here and elsewhere. From his post today:

    “Most Western women are coddled from childhood and are very seldom held to the same standards of accountability and responsibility that boys and men are, whether one considers sports, societal norms, or the law. This lack of accountability and responsibility, combined with their heightened biological susceptibility to emotion, causes most of them to behave in a self-centered manner which makes it appear they believe that their interests are the only ones that exist, their opinions are the only ones that can possibly be correct, and their observations are definitive of reality. This self-absorption also causes them to assume that the actions and comments of others are always directly related to them ***.”

    –Self-centered
    –heightened susceptibility to emotion
    –one’s own interests are the only ones that exist
    –one’s own opinions are the only ones that can possibly be correct
    –one’s own observations are definitive of reality
    –a belief that the actions and comments of others are always directly related to the observer

    We’ve seen this on the debates between you saying “but science says women don’t constantly try to trade up! The research says so! “Hypergamy” doesn’t apply to married women! I don’t feel hypergamous and the married women I know aren’t constantly looking to trade in their husbands for better models, so I don’t believe it exists in married women!”

    and the men’s reply:

    “YEah, I get the research, but it doesn’t explain everything, nor what we men see with our own eyes. Hypergamy damn well applies all the time everywhere, and I know it because I’ve seen it! And other men have too!”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @deti

      We’ve seen this on the debates between you saying “but science says women don’t constantly try to trade up! The research says so! “Hypergamy” doesn’t apply to married women! I don’t feel hypergamous and the married women I know aren’t constantly looking to trade in their husbands for better models, so I don’t believe it exists in married women!”

      This is a gross mischaracterization of what I have said. I have said, that the concept of female hypergamy is a time tested one among scholars. Their definition is summed up as “marrying up.” That is all. Any flourishes added are brought to you by the manosphere, without explanation.

      I also never said it does not exist in married women. That is obviously silly. I have said hypergamy exists on a spectrum, and there are some women who are so hypergamous they will never be content with the status of a male. They are generally unrestricted in their sexuality.

      I do reserve the right to give examples of people I know. I’m surprised you find this objectionable, as most of your beliefs are backed up with “I talk to a LOT of people, and they all tell me…”

      “YEah, I get the research, but it doesn’t explain everything, nor what we men see with our own eyes. Hypergamy damn well applies all the time everywhere, and I know it because I’ve seen it! And other men have too!”

      I believe, cough cough, that almost without exception, the men making these claims have been unlucky in their choice of mates. They talk to one another online, which only serves to confirm their experience and falsely leads them to extrapolate. I think there is a large “misery loves company” element to this. “Team Married to Hypergamous Solipsists.”

  • Abbot

    “To find out a girl’s faults, praise her to her girl friends.”

    –Benjamin Franklin

  • Höllenhund

    There are men’s magazines that project fantasy worlds for men. Playboy, Hustler, all the porn mags, etc. Also, there’s an increase in magazines like Men’s Health, which are basically for mimbos, the equivalent of a woman’s magazine. And then there’s Sports Illustrated, which is hardly serious.

    Porn mags have pretty much gone extinct due to the Internet, and they were never anything but mere jerk-off material. With respect to the other mags you mentioned, again, we need to keep in mind they regularly feature columns and interviews about issues that have nothing to do with men’s sexual desires, fantasies and whatnot. The models are there as eye candy, but even semi-serious interviews with them are often featured, often including questions which have nothing to do with men’s prurient curiosity. All this is markedly different from women’s magazines, outliners like Cooking Light and other stuff you mentioned notwithstanding. There indeed were men’s magazines that projected fantasy worlds for men. They were known as Stag and were primarily marketed to war veterans. (lileks.com/institute/stagworld/)

    Especially since more women are going off to college, and more men are hanging out at home.

    Point taken. It also has nothing to do with my argument.

    How does this apply online, where nearly everyone comments anonymously? Online conversation is hardly limited to the manosphere.

    Honest, unrestricted online conversation about women’s sexual nature and male-female relations is pretty much restricted to the manosphere. In every other online venue, certain subjects are taboo and comments are heavily moderated.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hollenhund

      Honest, unrestricted online conversation about women’s sexual nature and male-female relations is pretty much restricted to the manosphere. In every other online venue, certain subjects are taboo and comments are heavily moderated.

      OK, I know this is true of the feminist sites.

      To be honest, I think that there are differences between women and men. We are generally less analytical and more emotional. I do not deny that, and I also don’t disparage it because we have evolved for reproductive success, and men probs wouldn’t want to bang logical and analytical women much. Research shows that men rely heavily on their spouses for emotional intimacy in their lives. That is a good thing.

      What I object to is the pejorative use and bastardization of terms in the ‘sphere, while claiming their validity in a “Because I said so” manner.

      I have no problem being honest about female nature. I’m on record as saying that if shit tests and hypergamy and all the rest of it went away, we’d be dodo birds in no time. La difference is the energy that creates friction and sparks sex. I just think that gender war is not the answer. If some of the male bloggers really had their way, sex would disappear, or perhaps we’d all become homosexual.

  • Joe

    I believe you do have it wrong, Susan. The key point is that someone who is solipsistic believes that there is no reality but their own that matters. Someone else’s reality, even if it’s extrapolated from theirs, does not count.

    You see cell phone pics of naked women, so you believe that all women are in the habit of sexting nude pics of themselves to men they are having casual sex with.

    Rather, the truly solipsistic person says that, since I send naked phone pics of myself, everyone does it.

    Or, since you “grind” in bars, everyone else is doing it too.

    It’s a matter of perspective, and when the perspective starts with *I*, it’s solipsistic, which is different from, and doesn’t preclude, empathy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Joe

      Thanks for that clarification. I really am trying to understand the concept.

      It’s a matter of perspective, and when the perspective starts with *I*, it’s solipsistic, which is different from, and doesn’t preclude, empathy.

      How does starting with I, the self, as the central processing center for abstract ideas and concepts, disallow another person’s reality?

      Doesn’t that require saying, “I grind in bars.” and then “Everyone does what I do.”? “There are no women who are not the same as me?”

      In which case, would a categorical statement by a male that “Sexual variety is extremely important to men” be solipsism if it followed from the claim that “Sexual variety is important to me’?

  • Passer_By

    Speaking for Susan, I think she would say that many of you are defining “solipsism” in a manner that pretty equates with “narcissism”. I think she has stated many times that female narcissism is rampant in our society.

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

    Honest, unrestricted online conversation about women’s sexual nature and male-female relations is pretty much restricted to the manosphere. In every other online venue, certain subjects are taboo and comments are heavily moderated.

    I will add that most men self select their groups to chat and don’t care to discuss this things. But then are men curious about this things in the first place unless their reality doesn’t matches their reality I had been part of many male groups and not a single time any has tried to discuss sexual desires, female nature and so on…they usually take for granted whatever they had been though and go on with their lives. Men don’t push for this discussion unless there is something they are lacking from the status quo in my experience. The manosphere most of the time is from men that were screwed up and decided to dig deeper. Many men just assume they got unlucky and keep doing the same, YMMV.

  • Passer_By

    Though I’m not sure why I’m speaking for susan. LOL

  • Höllenhund

    Gynocentrism is female supremacy, which is the opposite of androcentrism. What we see most commonly in the ‘sphere is gynophobia.

    No. Female supremacy is simple, discriminatory ideology akin to white supremacism or the deep-seated racism of East Asian peoples, it’s the idea that women are biologically superior to men. Gynocentrism is more of a social phenomenon and a type of mentality that isn’t adopted consciously. It means that all policies, discourse and media is centered around women, their problems, desires, interests, fears etc. Every possible phenomenon and issue is analized solely according to its impact on women, its importance to women, women’s view of it etc. It means that women’s default behavior and beliefs are accepted as normal, and any other behavior and belief system is considered abnormal.

    (Recommended reading: gynotheory.blogspot.com)

    One textbook example of gynocentrism are the so-called Mommy Wars. On one side are mothers who advocate the SAHM lifestyle, on the other side are mothers who advocate the double income lifestyle and demand more social services for working mothers and their children. The husbands and even the children are completely ignored in the debate. The very idea that men might have different and legitimate points of view about this issue is not even considered. It’s ALL about the womyn.

    Another example is the endless brouhaha about abortion, increasingly dominated by women. On one side are pro-choice feminists, on the other side are tradcon women and de facto feminist women who disagree with 5% of the consequences of feminism. Again, men and their opinions are completely ignored, and they’re shouted down if they want to inject themselves into the debate.

    Men can be gynocentric too. Look at that Stanton dude, or Hugo Schwyzer, or Bill Bennett. This is one marked difference between gynocentrism. Female solipsism is merely an aspect of the peculiar female mind. As I said above, gynocentrism is more than that. I’d say though that female solipsism is a main engine of societal gynocentrism.

  • Höllenhund

    I sugggest the discussion about female solipsism should be continued at VD’s post. This is not the appropriate place for that if you are to keep it fun, enjoyable, inoffensive to women etc.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I sugggest the discussion about female solipsism should be continued at VD’s post. This is not the appropriate place for that if you are to keep it fun, enjoyable, inoffensive to women etc.

      Ha, I’ve already seen the comments there, and I don’t think that’s where I’ll be spending my time. Anyone else is free to head over there.

  • deti

    Susan:

    I deliberately embellished and exaggerated your claims and those of your rhetorical opponents, myself included, in an attempt to be evenhanded and to show that men are not immune from “solipsism” using Vox’s working definition.

  • John G

    Ladies Tees. I kid… Anywho, I can share a mental exercise that I perform. I had paid a professional to talk about my problems and he said that I should ‘allow for the possibility”. It applies to a lot of different assumptions and observations. I’m not perfect at it and I don’t do it all the time. Next time I see the apparently spoilt princess w/the hair, tits, tan, 3 series convertible and all seems well in her world. I get to allow for the possibility that it’s not all it seems. Same for how I feel about my self. Allow for the possibility that I don’t suck so bad. Again, it’s not foolproof and it doesn’t answer any questions or shift any paradigms. Just changes your perspective a bit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @John G

      he said that I should ‘allow for the possibility”.

      Great concept. That alone would produce a marked change in the conversation threads.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    I gotta just say….

    I tip my Kangol to you, Ms. Walsh; you’ve done it yet again. The discussion is quite rich here, and as you might well imagine, I’ve got quite a bit to say about the whole ball of wax.

    Let’s start with the whole “Solipsism Debate”…

    If I may – here Obsidian does his Nixon going to China thing – I think we’re coming at this whole thing all wrong.

    The question here shouldn’t be, whether only Women or only Men are indeed solipsistic; one trip to say, Roissy’s blog, will disabuse anyone of the notion that only Women have the lock on the matter.

    Rather, I think the question should be: *are Women’s bouts of solipsism, called out by/supported by, the wider cultural mileu in which we now live?*

    Please recall the recent “Lying” post a little while back; while Ms. Walsh presented the matter as “unisex”, I broached another line of questioning, proposing two propositions:

    1. That Women lie MORE than Men do; and

    2. That Women are rarely, if ever, called out on it

    I never denied the fact that Men can and indeed do lie. In that Ms. Walsh and I were in agreement – her post did indeed address lying in a “unisex” manner. But the bone of conention between us – and by extension the forum itself, since my propositions garnered much discussion – was whether proportion and scale, mattered. I contended then, and contend now, that both do indeed matter.

    The same can be said of the current “solipsism” question.

    A hella lot of what Women say, do, think, simply is NOT put under the cultural microscope in the same way, if at all(!), the way so much of what Men do, say and think is. I think – and this is just my personal shooting from the hip here, I freely admit – the reason why this is in the case of Women, is because *Women themselves know and understand that they can indeed be quite arbitrary in ways that Men, for both “nature” and “nuture” reasons, not only aren’t *but are expected not to be*.

    I mean, think of the following…

    One of the most popular flicks of the past three decades – Brian DePalma’s Scarface – has a most memorable line – “All I’ve got in this world is my word and my balls, and I don’t break em for nobody.” Keep in mind, that line was uttered by a ruthless druglord, Tony Mantegna. Even among thieves and brigands, a Man’s Word, his reputation for keeping or NOT keeping it, means something.

    Now…

    Please cite to me the female version of that – in popular culture, or in real life? Even the Bible speaks of a “Virtuous Woman”, but *not written by Women themselves*.

    Why is that?

    And perhaps even more to the point – *why doesn’t Society, hold Women to their word*?

    Now, think of the following idea that still can be heard here and there: “A Woman’s Perogative”. The statement itself, freely acknowledges the fact that Women can and will “change their minds” about matters – often seemingly, for no reason.

    Sure, there are guys who are emotive, who are irrational, who are impulsive; but they tend to pay heavy costs for these. Women? Not so much.

    Why is that?

    So, I would like to submit that, again, we are coming at this whole “solipsism” thing all wrong; it’s not that Men don’t engage in it, but rather when Men do, they tend to be held more to account for it, by other Men, often by Women, and perhaps most importantly, by the wider Society – and that Women are rarely, if ever, called out on the carpet in similar fashion.

    And this apparent fact does indeed color Male-Female relations, Sexual Politics, the SMP, you name it.

    Agree/Disagree?

    Holla back…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      A hella lot of what Women say, do, think, simply is NOT put under the cultural microscope in the same way, if at all(!), the way so much of what Men do, say and think is.

      Agree.

      Even the Bible speaks of a “Virtuous Woman”, but *not written by Women themselves*.

      Is this a serious question?

      So, I would like to submit that, again, we are coming at this whole “solipsism” thing all wrong; it’s not that Men don’t engage in it, but rather when Men do, they tend to be held more to account for it, by other Men, often by Women, and perhaps most importantly, by the wider Society — and that Women are rarely, if ever, called out on the carpet in similar fashion.

      And this apparent fact does indeed color Male-Female relations, Sexual Politics, the SMP, you name it.

      I agree! I really do, I have no problem with your assessment of the politics. If you are right, then the answer is surely not to restrict the term to one sex or the other, as a matter of nature and nurture, when the opposite sex may engage in the same behavior, for different reasons and with fewer incentives. That’s just ineffectual bitching.

  • Just1X

    “How are women held to a lower standard in sports?”

    Same prize money (Wimbledon) as the men despite:
    * not being able to compete with the men
    * shorter matches than the men
    * not bringing in the audience (cash) at the same level, so less valuable, but same prize WTF?

    Even if the same number of women as men were interested in a given sport (which they are not, in general), the ability of women is usually much inferior to the men. It’s a musculature thing, add in some coordination, competitive spirit…sorry but it’s not comparing apples with apples:

    manwomanmyth (safe for women)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqb2icrpVVM

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Just1X

      I’m opposed to Title IX, I think every team should have to justify its own existence and fund itself. That’s true for men’s sports as well, IMO.

      Not being able to compete with the men – I don’t have a problem with that. As you say, women are obviously smaller, they’re not going to play in the NFL. I don’t think it makes sense to mix the sexes for competition.

      Re ability between sexes – is this true in all areas?

      For example, are women gymnasts less talented at floor exercises than male gymnasts? Figure skaters? Divers? (I should know this, but I really don’t.)

      Shorter matches, and especially not bringing in the spectators – that’s different.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    On The Mystery vs. Helen Fisher Question…

    I think again, that we may be approaching this thing all wrong; while I certainly can see both sides of the question, in many ways, Mystery and Fisher aren’t really the same thing at all. I liked the comparison of Einstein and Oppenheimer, and I think this applies to the two we are discussing.

    So too, do I think the answer to the question as to whether Women have come up with a viable alternative to the PUAs, has to be an emphatic “No” – and that would be perfectly fine, IF, so many Women weren’t so put out by Game and the like. But, since this isn’t the case, at some point they do have to be confronted with that old saw – to make/come up with a better mousetrap. That so many, despite attempts here and there – Amanda Marcotte’s stab(!) at the matter comes to mind, as do “Female PUAs” like Charlie Nox and Kezia Noble (I think that’s their names), and even Fisher’s “Chemistry.com” – the bottomline is that no one on the female side has yet to improve or supplant, that which Mystery et al hath made.

    I think the reason why has every bit to do again, with Mystery and Fisher themselves; Mystery’s method, pardon the pun, truly *is* a “guy” way of doing things – it’s empirical, and evidentary based, with a brutal focus on what works in the field, in real time. Fisher’s approach is much more in line with the way Women approach things – how relationships work, etc. But she really doesn’t give one, especially guys, the step by step instructions of HOW social interactions go down; she doesn’t flowchart and diagram it; she doesn’t offer live, in field instruction the way they do at bootcamps (and I’ve attended quite a few). Like so many Women, Fisher can map it all out AFTER a relationship actually gets off the ground; but no Woman to date can actually get you onto first base – and that’s in large part due to the fact that the vast majority of Women simply have never had to figure such things out. It is for this reason, that I say that virtually no Woman *can* help Men in this way, that it was/is a problem Men and only Men can actually address, and that despite the many criticisms – some legit, others not – that many Women may have about Game, there will be no real alternative, that actually gets results coming from them.

    Fisher is a great scholar and researcher, and her work merits much due consideration. But Mystery, she ain’t.

    O.

  • Lokland

    @Passerby, Susan

    ““You want proof that female solipsism has been tested and observed. Which anyone would call, in other words, asking for scientific evidence.”

    I think she at least would like something more than naked assertion in a no longer available blog post by Ferdinand.”

    I had nothing to do with this statement.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I believe, cough cough, that almost without exception, the men making these claims have been unlucky in their choice of mates. They talk to one another online, which only serves to confirm their experience and falsely leads them to extrapolate. I think there is a large “misery loves company” element to this. “Team Married to Hypergamous Solipsists.””

    Ok, I’ll bite. If this is true, what do you think causes such men to find each other online? Are you suggesting that personality types are key to this? Are men like myself (INTJ) prone to making bad choices in women more so than you average Exxx type personality? I’m genuinely curious, because there is obviously something at work that pulls people of like mind together. But, of the men here, it seems that many follow a similar story line (Mike C, M3, and myself come to mind in terms of guys that chose badly for first marriage) share a lot of the experiences younger guys like Jason or Zach that haven’t taken the same path. Most of us come from geographically different areas (M3 is in the UK right?) and we are in different age brackets. So, other than similar reports about women, what do we all share in common that explains how we all seem to see and report the same things?

    In some ways, it would be comforting to think that the negative comments we often make about “women” (meaning women in general, not a specific woman) is simply selection bias on our part, and we are all simply looking at the same subset of women. But, knowing how different our stories are (despite some of us sharing some common history) I find it illogical and questionable to simply write it off as selection bias.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If this is true, what do you think causes such men to find each other online? Are you suggesting that personality types are key to this?

      Only in the sense that an INTJ may be more likely to type “why did my wife leave” into a google search box. Can you remember what search term first brought you to Athol’s site?

      I believe that what brings men together is common experience. In this case, poor treatment at the hands of a woman. I get that, and I understand the appeal and the value. I even understand the desire to swap stories and help each other figure stuff out. It’s exactly the same process that brings young women here.

      Where I think things go off track is in then extrapolating one’s experience to represent the world at large. Aaaaand I think I just invoked solipsism. (Which was not intentional.)

  • Passer_By

    @lokland

    Sorry, I meant to direct it hollenhund. I’m not sure why I sometimes confuse you too – he tends to be much more strident.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “I believe, cough cough, that almost without exception, the men making these claims have been unlucky in their choice of mates. ”

    I think the problem I have with this assumption is that, when men held equal power (or maybe more power) in divorce procedings, divorce rates were very low. As we have shifted that to give women the upper hand in divorce procedings, the divorce rate has sky rocketed, despite the fact that the more high risk couples now tend not to marry at all. So, it seems to me that their mates were unlikely to be outliers.

  • Passer_By

    ARRRRGGGGHHHHH. We need an edit function.

    Post to lokand should say “I’m not sure why I sometimes confuse you two . . .”

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh:
    *Quoting me*:A hella lot of what Women say, do, think, simply is NOT put under the cultural microscope in the same way, if at all(!), the way so much of what Men do, say and think is.

    “Agree.”

    O: Excellent! Now, please answer me this:

    WHY? Why is it, that so very little of what Women say, think and/or do, scrutinized in the same way as Men? Please explain?

    *Quoting me again*:Even the Bible speaks of a “Virtuous Woman”, but *not written by Women themselves*.

    “Is this a serious question?”

    O: Not a serious question, but a serious statement nonetheless – especially when compared to the proceeding paragraph, where I specifically mentioned the film Scarface (have you seen it, Ms. Walsh?), which I note you haven’t referenced in your response. This is vitally important – WHY is it that we so heavily expect Men to be “Men of their word”, but NOT Women – especially in a time when so many Women are indeed, occupying spaces that were once the sole preserves OF Men?

    Why is that, Ms. Walsh?

    “I agree! I really do, I have no problem with your assessment of the politics. If you are right, then the answer is surely not to restrict the term to one sex or the other, as a matter of nature and nurture, when the opposite sex may engage in the same behavior, for different reasons and with fewer incentives. That’s just ineffectual bitching.”

    O: LOL, yet another term that by its very meaning, is feminine – is it not? Look, I get that the Manosphere really bothers some here; but I see it as perhaps one of the few release valves guys have. So, while I wouldn’t disagree with the assessments of it that not only you and yours here at HUS and elsewhere have made but so too have Roosh et al, the fact remains that there are precious few venues or spaces where guys can talk like guys…which means a lot of politically incorrect, four-letter language.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      I have not seen Scarface, so can’t comment either way. I did find it amusing that you noted the Bible was not written by women. Isn’t there some talk of a gospel somewhere by Mary Magdalene?

      I do think that feminism has championed femaleness – it’s not that women are not scrutinized, but that the standards for scrutiny are now friendlier to females. However, I believe that there is little expectation today for men or women to abide by their word, as evidenced by an increasingly flexible notion among young people of what constitutes morality. Dan Ariely has a new book about cheating, and he found that men cheat slightly more often than women.

      http://danariely.com/2012/06/10/women-men-and-math-problems/

      the fact remains that there are precious few venues or spaces where guys can talk like guys…which means a lot of politically incorrect, four-letter language.

      Fair enough, but why on earth are Hollenhund et al hanging out at HUS? To what do I owe the honor?

  • Abbot

    “men and their opinions are completely ignored, and they’re shouted down if they want to inject themselves into the debate.”

    Some of these “men have no say” topics or issues not only involve or affect men but they actually directly require their active participation and cooperation!

    How about that whole asinine “hook-up culture is desired by women” projectile vomit flowing from the traps of Rosin and Marcotte? That all rides on the super arrogant assumption that men are just bystanders with erections and if any one those penetration-agents where to speak out about it — oooooh

    .

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Just A Thought’s earlier comments on “The Friend Zone” is yet another example of, if I may, a sort of logical fallacy. Here’s why…

    Because while yes, in a technical and very real sense, both Men and Women can be “friendzoned”, in truth, here again we see the importance of *scale and proportion*; simply put, Men are far and away MORE friendzoned than the other way around…and here’s the real kicker, y’all…

    It’s NOT Women’s fault for it.

    I know that statement runs the risk of my Manosphere Card being revoked, but it’s the truth. Many guys try this strategy, what we in the community call “orbiting” (Dave Buss et al call it “the satellite strategy”) and because it *does* work a distinct minority of the time (like around 20%, per Buss, et al), it has remained with us down through the evolutionary ages. Remember: per EvoPsych theory, ANYTHING that helped us reproduce, even if it only worked a fraction of the time, would have proved useful. Of all the reproductive strategies to employ for the human male, the “friend stategy” is the most low risk, in all facets – in terms of outright rejection (and thus, risking not being able to appeal to other females in the round; you’ll see this in action if you hit the nightspots enough), potentially wasting time and resources wooing a female that just wasn’t that into you, etc.

    The problem with this strategy, of course, is that the vast majority of Women in these cases, DO NOT SEXUALLY DESIRE YOU. They DO, however, value your male friendship because it confers many other benefits – ranging from protection from predators, to gleaning important information about your sex to be used in future dealings with Men with whom she may find sexually attractive.

    Therefore, one of my Maxims for the field is, and has been for years, the following:

    It profits a Man nothing to be a Woman’s “friend”; if she wants a Manformation Consultant, a bodyguard, a therapist or just some eye candy to hang with her to that “plus-one” party, she can and should pay for it, like everything else. Call for easy-on-the-purse rates…

    Since I’ve always known exactly what I wanted to do with a Woman – and made no bones about it – I never sought them out to be “friends”. I prefer to get the rejection out of the way as quickly as possible, so as to free me up to hit up other chicas in the field. Someone’s gonna be down.

    Now, with the ladies, yea, there’s a such thing as “Friends With Bennies” – a sitaution where a guy thinks you’re good enough to bust a nut in/on, but not for much else. Yes, it does happen. But nowhere near as much as the other way around. More often than not, when a Woman finds herself in such a situation, she’s punching way too far above her weight in any serious LTR context.

    There is no one-to-one analog to be made here between the two “friendzones”, because of the inherent asymmetry at work sexually; it’s much harder for Men to get laid than Women, all things being equal. So while again, yea, it can happen to Women, for all intents and practical purposes, being put in the Friend Zone is by and large, a Guy Thang – and largely their own fault. The solution of course, is Game.

    And get a life.

    O.

  • Joe

    @Susan

    How does starting with I, the self, as the central processing center for abstract ideas and concepts, disallow another person’s reality?

    Well, it doesn’t. But the person who is solipsistic *does* start at that point (the “I”), and *then* trivializes everyone else’s reality to the point of non-existence, in his/her mind, of course.

    Doesn’t that require saying, “I grind in bars.” and then “Everyone does what I do.”? “There are no women who are not the same as me?”

    I apologize; my wording definitely made it seem that solipsism implies just that kind of projection. But the point I was trying to make was that it requires a kind of thinking that makes only that one person, the solipsistic person, central and paramount. Everyone else’s existence, and especially their inner lives is so trivial as to be absolutely unimportant. “Everyone does what I do” was meant to indicate a thought process that says “their actions are trivial, so mine are trivially justified.”

    “I committed murder, but I had a really good reason and ‘everyone’ does it anyway. So it can therefore not be such a big thing that I have to worry about it, because only I count.” It’s self-justifying.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Joe

      Thanks for explaining that some more. Now I’m really depressed that so many men appear to believe that women are “made” this way.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Bob Wallace

    Everyone is narcissistic to some degree; however, I’m not sure women are more narcissistic (or solipsistic) than men. If they are, I suspect how they are treated by men might have something to do with it.

    Nature vs Nurture. How long has this been going on ? Was there ever a period where women were held to their word ? Ancient Sparta were quite liberal with their women, and Aristotle mentioned this as one of the reasons for their decline.

    So is this Nature vs Nurture ? The only counterexample I can think of is Margaret Thatcher. She was the daughter of a grocer. She was never mollycoddled. She was raised ‘severely’. Yet she loved her father, and was the only Prime Minister after WW2 that had some balls.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #337:
    “I’m opposed to Title IX, I think every team should have to justify its own existence and fund itself. That’s true for men’s sports as well, IMO.”

    O: While you are to be commended for your stance, you do realize that Title IX *is* indeed a form of Affirmative Action – and one that Women, taken as a group, do NOT want to see go the way you’re suggesting – right?

    And while we’re on the topic of sex differences, lemme hit you with this…

    A little while back you said to me that one of your big beefs with the Manosphere was the idea of repealing the Women’s right to the vote. Now, I personally don’t agree with this. However, what cannot be denied is that Women DO indeed vote differently than Men, on a whole host of issues, and nowhere is this stark divide sharper, than in the area of what I call “Sexual Politics” – reproductive rights, rape, domestic violence, work/home balance, family law, et al, you name it.

    Ms. Walsh, what I want to ask you is this: do you agree, or disagree with what I’ve said above, in light of the recent Democratic National Convention, where one of the featured speakers, in prime time, was none other than Ms. Sandra Fluke? I’m NOT asking whether you agree or disagree with Ms. Fluke et al, but whether you think what I said above about real voting differences per the sexes, is in fact, you know…real?

    Ms. Plain Jane earlier in the discussion, observed the notion among some in the Manosphere, that they should be awarded a comely lass for being a putatively “good guy” – a kind of Sexual Socialism, if you will. I would agree with her assessment – but here again, she always goes half the way with it. You see, it’s not just (some) guys who think the way she asserts, but we can say much the same way about Women.

    For example, and again going back to Ms. Fluke – clearly, the Dems are banking on the Women’s Vote coming out bigtime in their favor in large part because it champions issues that are quite important to them – namely, having the state/taxpayer pay for birth control and the like. I recently discussed the matter with a lady who played a huge role in NARAL, who fully supports the idea of poor Women have their abortions underwritten by the state/taxpayer. And of course, there’s the question of subsidizing daycare for Baby Mamas, WIC, et al. All on my/our dime. Tiger talked about this, in fact, and I’m sure you’re familiar with all that.

    Now…

    Why should I – or indeed, any Man – subsidize the putative “private, personal decisions” (read: SEXUAL) of ANY Woman, WHEN I’M NOT TAPPING THAT?

    Isn’t this too, an example of the very “Sexual Socialism” that Ms. Plain Jane decried earlier?

    Do you see where I’m driving at here?

    OK – holla back…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      Of course women vote differently than men, especially on matters concerning sexual politics. That is hardly surprising. Perhaps without the female constituents, a man could just state with impunity that women who are forcibly raped cannot become pregnant. I think that Sandra Fluke was a ridiculous choice as a speaker, but it doesn’t surprise me. The Left is silly.

      I’m not in favor of subsidized birth control or abortion, so I won’t debate your point.

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

    @ Marellus,

    “Nature vs Nurture. How long has this been going on ? Was there ever a period where women were held to their word ? Ancient Sparta were quite liberal with their women, and Aristotle mentioned this as one of the reasons for their decline.”

    This is a problem that bothers me more than a little bit. If people are given too much freedom many of them abuse it. Judging by the effects of 40+ years of feminism, women abuse freedom more than men. Curiously, the ones who do abuse it don’t see it that way. Of course, they are not happy.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    On Cosmo vs. Men’s Health…

    Here again we see yet another fallacy. The question shouldn’t be whether there are mags out there for Men; clearly there are, and have been for decades now.

    The question is whether the magazines that are extant for Women, do something that the Men’s mags don’t, *and are supported by the larger culture/society*?

    For example, is there *really* a Male analog to Cosmo? Should there be? If so/not, why?

    In what way is say, Cosmo, injurious to Women? In the Black community, Essence would be the closest thing to Cosmo, and I can tell you right now that there is no “Black Male equivalent” – nor do I think there should be.

    Comments?

    O.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “Fair enough, but why on earth are Hollenhund et al hanging out at HUS? To what do I owe the honor?”

    Oneitis?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      “Fair enough, but why on earth are Hollenhund et al hanging out at HUS? To what do I owe the honor?”

      Oneitis?

      No fair, you come around here and make me laugh, then suddenly disappear for weeks without warning. Would you consider being my Ed McMahon?

  • Tom

    @ Just1x
    Even if the same number of women as men were interested in a given sport (which they are not, in general), the ability of women is usually much inferior to the men. It’s a musculature thing, add in some coordination, competitive spirit…sorry but it’s not comparing apples with apples:
    ______________
    The only difference between men and women is size ,strength and speed. Men are naturally bigger stronger and faster. As for talent, coordination, there is no difference.
    Gymnist are probably pound for pound the best athletes in the world. Really I cant see Labron James doing a double twisting back double on a floor exercise, and trust me that is infinately more diffucult than a jump shot or a 360 dunk. The women are just as good as the men in gymnastics.
    Jennie Finch one of the top female fastpitch softball pitchers, struck out numerous men pro baseball players.
    My own daughter would make anyone on this forum look foolish (including me) if we stepped into a batters box to face her pitching.
    I will say this, in most sports, it is the men who get the better coaching.
    I wouldnt believe in title lX if the schools were “willingly” going to give the same advantages to women as we men have always enjoyed. But we all know THAT was never going to happen without a law requiring equality.

  • Höllenhund

    Women DO indeed vote differently than Men, on a whole host of issues, and nowhere is this stark divide sharper, than in the area of what I call “Sexual Politics” – reproductive rights, rape, domestic violence, work/home balance, family law, et al, you name it.

    Indeed: hks.harvard.edu/fs/rpande/papers/qje_all.pdf

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #344:
    “@Obsidian

    I have not seen Scarface, so can’t comment either way.”

    O: I think you just validated Charles Murray yet again! He makes the case that folk like you are so removed or divorced from the rest of the country, that very pop/low culture things like Scarface would completely bypass folk like yourself. Fascinating.

    “I did find it amusing that you noted the Bible was not written by women. Isn’t there some talk of a gospel somewhere by Mary Magdalene?”

    O: Don’t accuse me of being a Biblical scholar, but as I recall, that would be a part of the Gnostic chapters/books; not considered canon.

    “I do think that feminism has championed femaleness – it’s not that women are not scrutinized, but that the standards for scrutiny are now friendlier to females.”

    O: Hmm, this is a most curious – and interesting – statement. But what precisely does it mean? Does it mean that Women simply aren’t held to such “patriarchal” standards, simply because, well, they’re Women? Or what? Please explain, and elaborate?

    “However, I believe that there is little expectation today for men or women to abide by their word, as evidenced by an increasingly flexible notion among young people of what constitutes morality. Dan Ariely has a new book about cheating, and he found that men cheat slightly more often than women.

    http://danariely.com/2012/06/10/women-men-and-math-problems/

    O: I’ll look into it. In the meantime though, what I said via my Scarface example – even if you haven’t seen the movie – still has a goodly degree of cultural force on the male side, and on the female side, the idea of “A Woman’s Perogative” is strong still also. So, my questions on the matter still stands.

    *Quoting me*: the fact remains that there are precious few venues or spaces where guys can talk like guys…which means a lot of politically incorrect, four-letter language.

    “Fair enough, but why on earth are Hollenhund et al hanging out at HUS? To what do I owe the honor?”

    O: Ask the HH-Man himself. Besides, bringing him into the discussion, either way, doesn’t speak to my point about the need for guys to have a space where they can vent. The Manosphere, if nothing else, allows this. And I don’t think it’s asking too much of the ladies to give them that.

    O.

  • Höllenhund

    Fair enough, but why on earth are Hollenhund et al hanging out at HUS? To what do I owe the honor?

    For fun and sometimes amusement, due to hamsters and all that. I hang out on other female-run blogs from time to time as well though.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      For fun and sometimes amusement, due to hamsters and all that. I hang out on other female-run blogs from time to time as well though.

      A transparent ploy on Hollenhund’s part to Instill Dread.

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

    Ok, I’ll bite. If this is true, what do you think causes such men to find each other online? Are you suggesting that personality types are key to this? Are men like myself (INTJ) prone to making bad choices in women more so than you average Exxx type personality?

    Didn’t you just stated that you wouldn’t want a woman that find you attractive because of anything beyond the animal part? Which is how many of us “outliers” start to allow ourselves to develop attraction for our mates. So you already like the type of woman that is more likely to be strongly hypergamic.
    Zach doesn’t want the girl that prefers to sit quiet in a library to learn new interesting stuff but one that wants to go out and socialize, I could point out to the other commenters as mentioned before as much praised outliers get here no man will want them or do the job to keep one. If VD and I little play shows is that he rather keep the gray zone or abandon ship than recognize that I wanted and honest question and give it to me, maybe realizing that I was a quality woman looking to know what kind of man he was. Not to mention he doesn’t feel attraction to a woman that doesn’t have at least 3 Beta orbiters so is kind of obvious that there is a selection bias in terms of sexuality and attractiveness among many of the members interested on this. I’m not saying all of them some like Herb did seriously went for someone that was a sheep on wolf’s clothes but it would be good to have a good perspective on how much male bias for attractiveness and beauty works in this, YMMV.

    Isn’t there some talk of a gospel somewhere by Mary Magdalene?

    Before we got a consensus of what books will constitute The Bible as we know it there were all sorts of Gospel many of them written by Jesus female disciples probably one or two written by women made it. And before anyone claim “male conspiracy” is more likely that they picked the ones that were more useful to what they wanted to communicate and preserve and had nothing to do with the gender of the writer.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    For INTJ:

    Please pardon my tardiness it’s been a hectic day; but I did see your requests for help and advice, and I offer the following for your consideration. I hope the forum and our hostess doesn’t mind, given the nature of the topic…

    Styles Makes Fights — And Game (Peter Parker Remix)
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62202

    “Fans of the Sweet Science will recognize the words in the title of this post; in boxing, its one of the first principles. As much as learning the universal basics of boxing are important, such as the rules, conditioning and so on, so too is it very, very important for a boxer to find a style of boxing that best works for him. Some boxers, being tall, can utilize their superior reach; others, speed; and still others, power. Some boxers, while not having awesome “one-two” knockout power, may nevertheless be able to use their keen understanding of the mechanics of boxing and the human body, as well as being astute students of history and watching tapes of their opponent, to use all of this knowledge to their advantage during the fight, using the “point” system and endurance to wear their opponent down. Other boxers are shorter, more compact, and may do much better as an in your face kind of fighter-which quite a few boxers aren’t able to handle, especially for extended periods of time,
    say three or four rounds back to back.”

    “Shii-Cho Game” & Killing The “Brainy Guys Don’t Get Laid” Fallacy
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62839

    “Yesterday, I spoke at some length about Anti-Seducers, based on the excellent book by Robert Greene called The Art of Seduction; in particular, I mentioned two types of characters Greene mentioned of the Anti-Seduction variety – the Moralizer, and the Bumbler – and I had said that the Manosphere is chockfull of both types. Today, I want to pickup where I left off, while also offering what I hope will be some practical, results-oriented solutions to those who wish to turn their situation around.
    A huge complaint among many Men in the Manosphere, is that Women’s tastes are vain and vapid; that instead of opting for the “good guy” they instead go for the “bad boy” nearly every time out. And to be frank, they be 100% correct; there is a great deal of truth to their observations. But not quite for the reasons they think.”

    Makashi Game: Silver Tongued Seducers
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/68316

    “As some of you might have guessed, my writings on what I consider to be the Seven Forms of Seduction have not been in chronological order, and have appeared here at the O-Files periodically; there is a reason for this.

    It is because I write when I am so moved by inspiration to do so, relying on outer events and inner insights to happen to me first, so that I may sit down to share these things with you all, instead of approaching things in a more rote, cookie cutter fashion. The end result is, I hope, a much richer, “purer” form of writings along these lines, that share my philosophical views on Game and how it can be deployed, using the Jedi combat models. After having reviewed all my previous writings on the topic, I have to say that I for one am quite pleased, and hope that you are, too.”

    Soresu Game – The True Seduction Form
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/67087

    “Up to now, we have taken a closer, in-depth look at three previous styles or forms, of seduction, which I have modelled on the fictional Jedi fighting styles. While this is admittedly a bit geeky, I would caution the reader not to dismiss any of this out of hand too quickly, for it has long been known that the Art of War and the Art of Love, in fact, compliment each other – one is Mars, the other, Venus. Seduction Grandmaster Mystery understood these concepts keenly, hence his labelling Game the Venusian Arts.”

    You Should Be Dancing: Tony Manero & “Ataru Game”
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62661

    “I want to thank everyone for their interest and participation in these Game-related posts over the past few weeks or so; as I was reviewing the site stats for the past month (and which will be released this coming Sunday) I was taken aback by the uptick in reader interest, expressed in unique site views. This tells me what my readers what to see more of, and I hear you loud and clear. So, with that said, let’s continue with our perusal and study of Game…”

    On Short Men, Tall Women & “Ataru Game”
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/66861

    “NOTE: Picking up on a theme from the previous day’s post, The Champ introduces the question of shorter Man and dating, where I gave my views on the matter. As you can see, they expand on my idea of the Seven Forms of Game as discussed previously here, specifically the notion or idea of Ataru Game. It is most definitely worth a read.”

    Being In The Zone: Niman Game
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/64505

    “Niman types are much more inclined towards the philosophical and the mystical than are the more “hard” types of Game practitioners, and the result is a much smoother flowing style of Game that is very much a hit with the ladies, and much harder to grasp for the fellas, especially those who are more “nuts and bolts” oriented.”

    There’s more, but I thought I’d hit you with the above, and let you take it from there.

    Good luck!

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Plain Jane #151:
    “As an average gal, I faced the same options. In fact, I was “settled for” in one very entangling relationship and I know how it feels and it sucks.

    That’s the risk I took when I shot above my weight in looks with this one particular man I did not have a lot in common with.”

    O: Sounds like what Ms. Walsh has been saying about assortative mating; an solid 8 guy is not likely to roll with a gal who’s say, a 6 on the scale longterm.

    Having said that though, lemme ask you this: how would you feel about dating guys who were say, a 5-6? Would/could you be cool with that, or not, and why?

    Given that you’re an Indian (read: “exotic”) I can see how this factor alone could give you a “boost” insofar as the Brothas are concerned; but as your story makes clear above, it can only take you so far. My guess is that an “intangible” like that nets you an extra point on the scale, kinda like really great makeup/clothes/working out, etc does. Not much more than that.

    Anyway, holla back…

    O.

  • Passer_By

    @tom
    “The only difference between men and women is size ,strength and speed. Men are naturally bigger stronger and faster. As for talent, coordination, there is no difference.”

    This is an unprovable assertion, since any difference in performance not related to size, strength and speed can often be attributed to boys practicing more because it’s more important to males (we can argue whether that’s human nature or socialization some other time). For example, I actually would have thought that women golfers would be better putters (softer touch) than men. But, under comparable circumstances, they are not as good, even at the pro level. Similarly, I think men shoot the basketball better, though this is masked somewhat by the fact that the women use a smaller ball with the same sized rim. When I shoot my kids’ youth ball (which is the same as the womens’ size – 28.5 inches), I’m shocked at how much easier it is to make a shot – and it’s not about the weight of the ball.

    “The women are just as good as the men in gymnastics.”

    It depends on how you define good. By and large, they perform different events, but in those shared events, the men are asked to do more difficult things (more twists, etc.), much as they are in figure skating. This could be due to strength and “explosion” in their musculature. I dunno. But it’s an apples to oranges comparison.

    “Jennie Finch one of the top female fastpitch softball pitchers, struck out numerous men pro baseball players.”

    Meh. They are suddenly being asked to do something they aren’t accustomed to doing – different distance and delivery, etc. With enough acclimation, and eventually picking different bats, they would bomb her (and your daughter too). They have faster hands and better bat control – that whole strength, speed thing. They probably have a better natural ability to visually track balls in flight. That’s tough to prove, but I think I’ve seen it done (essentially a trade off for their greater multi-tasking ability).

    “My own daughter would make anyone on this forum look foolish (including me) if we stepped into a batters box to face her pitching.”

    Great, but since none of us has played baseball in decades, and never played fast pitch softball, that doesn’t mean much.

    “I will say this, in most sports, it is the men who get the better coaching.”

    Your probably right about that – especially in sports that have money involved.

    “I wouldnt believe in title lX if the schools were “willingly” going to give the same advantages to women as we men have always enjoyed. But we all know THAT was never going to happen without a law requiring equality.”

    I don’t have a conceptual problem with giving men and women equal opportunity and funding if the whole thing is externally financed. But the problem with Title IX as currently applied is that it results in a system where a bunch of young men, mostly underprivileged, go out and mutilate their bodies and take numerous blows to the head on the football field with long term cognitive consequences, all in order to finance a bunch of scholarships for middle class women. Even the mens’ basketball players are asked to devote a ridiculous amount of time and travel in order to finance the system. Outside of football and basketball, mens’ scholarships are pretty tough to come by, despite the fact that most boys devote more time than the girls in pursuing even the non-revenue sports.

    Out of curiousity, do you have sons? Or just daughters?

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    Joking aside, I suspect the real reason they (and maybe even I) hang out here is summed in this link.

    http://xkcd.com/386/

  • Lokland

    @Joe

    I think your description of female solipsism is similar to my own personal version.

    The ability to trvialize everyone elses existence and experiences to a point of such unimportance that they are not a part of reality.

    What I disagree with most other men her on is that all women do this all the time.

    I think all women have this ability, I’ve seen some do it more than others. Not necessarily all the time.

    As for empathy vs. sympathy. I don’t think many women are capable of empathy for men. Sympathy maybe but empathy is beyond most.

    @Susan

    Do you remember Charm?

    There was a post where VD called her on this point exactly.
    I went a re-read three extremely long comments.
    All and I mean every fricking one of her sentences included some derivative of the word I. Totally incapable of viewing the world beyond her nose.

    Thats the behaviour I would define as female solipsism.
    That behaviour is both extremely annoying and extremely unattractive (for LTRs).

    PS I realise this is rude to call someone out. Feel free to delete my comment I won’t be offended.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      All and I mean every fricking one of her sentences included some derivative of the word I. Totally incapable of viewing the world beyond her nose.

      Thats the behaviour I would define as female solipsism.

      Well, that’s a bit different than self-centered, or at least different than selfish. It might perhaps be explained by naivete, youth, or even lack of imagination.

      I think the ‘sphere is chock full of extremely solipsistic men, e.g. Lackrod’s place.

  • http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com VD

    If VD and I little play shows is that he rather keep the gray zone or abandon ship than recognize that I wanted and honest question and give it to me, maybe realizing that I was a quality woman looking to know what kind of man he was.

    Yes, that’s correct. As I’ve written previously, most players aren’t interested in playing Valmont and despoiling the innocent and virtuous. I always respected the serious good girls and for the most part kept them at a distance even when we happened to find each other attractive. However, it is worth pointing out that a woman who keeps pressing and pressing to get out of the gray zone is extremely unusual. I have no doubt that they exist, but I never happened to encounter one. A lot of women enjoy there being some sense of mystery or potential drama, as it gives the hamster something to chew on.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      However, it is worth pointing out that a woman who keeps pressing and pressing to get out of the gray zone is extremely unusual. I have no doubt that they exist, but I never happened to encounter one. A lot of women enjoy there being some sense of mystery or potential drama, as it gives the hamster something to chew on.

      No doubt, but I hear a lot of women say they are reluctant to be the one to initiate the DTR because their attempt is so often greeted with an eye roll or even a guy slowly backing towards the door. I think most women hope that they can deduce via a man’s actions what his intentions are. Big, big mistake. Never believe a man’s actions, listen to what he says.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Travis #234:
    “It’s been getting played constantly on my local rock station. I usually hear it three or four times a night when I’m at work. I’m not saying their right or wrong (everybody’s already gone back and forth on that to the point of nausea) but the point is that obviously more and more guys are starting to THINK this way. My question is, if we think the SMP is screwed up now, how much worse is it going to be if this point of view becomes the accepted one among younger guys? Is the combat dating “arms race” just beginning? And how are women going to respond if this becomes the mindset of the average guy?
    I’m not trying to stir up controversy. It’s just that this is the first time I’ve really heard the PUA type stuff really being expressed this blatantly in popular culture, and I every time it gets played I wonder what the regulars here would make of it…”

    O: Thanks for this, T. I enjoyed the song, and think I’ll grip up their discography on my iPod.

    They very much remind me of much of Hip Hop, which is really about the same thing – offering an unvarnished, and often raw, accounting of female sexuality in psychological (and other) terms; note how, for all the many critics Hip Hop has, *no one has ever dared to actually examine the “truthiness” of its lyrics*.

    I’ve been saying for some time now i this fourm and others (including my own), that there is indeed a “racial convergence” surrounding issues associated with sex, relationships, mating, et al – what I refer to as “Sexual Politics”. Here, the song you referenced is yet another proof of this fact.

    I’m reminded of a cut by the immortal Tupac Shakur, “Wonder Why They Call U”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it1v00jLPj4

    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/2pac/wonderwhytheycallu.html

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

    Oh, how I love it when a plan comes together…

    O.

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Herb, Anacaona and INTJ (yeah, you too, what the hell?)

    Wait what did I do? I don’t think I said anything about online dating.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Bob Wallace

    This is a problem that bothers me more than a little bit. If people are given too much freedom many of them abuse it. Judging by the effects of 40+ years of feminism, women abuse freedom more than men. Curiously, the ones who do abuse it don’t see it that way. Of course, they are not happy.

    … and your latest post says ‘I don’t like cats’ … shades of serendipity and irony methinks …

  • Just1X

    Can we not be so quick to dismiss AA and specifically quotas in women’s success in business, please?

    I’m not saying that women can’t make it on merit, but last night I watched a BBC documentary about quotas on women board members in Norway, nary a mention of consequences of promotion according to sex has had on business there. Neither was there any discussion as to WHY women should have any given representation on the board? Why should there be equal numbers of each sex?

    Let’s hire and promote on merit alone, then see where we get to.

    Worked for Maggie Thatcher, best leader since Churchill

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Let’s hire and promote on merit alone, then see where we get to.

      For the record, I enthusiastically cosign this. I don’t believe in AA for women, at all.

  • INTJ

    @ Just a thought

    No, I’m not morbidly obese, or overweight at all really. What I am trying to point out is that, when I google friendzone and look at the images, 95% of them are complaints from men who have been friendzoned by girls, but women also get friendzoned by guys they really like too. Why don’t we give the advice to men, hey, you aren’t getting the girls you want? Do you have any girls who are your friends who may like you? Why not date them? I would guess because physical attraction is to girl what dominance is to men, it’s kind of a biological thing no sex can get over,and a man probably shouldn’t marry someone he’s not attracted to.

    But the friend-zone (and rejection in general) is much harder for men because it is generally their job to take the initiative. Norah Vincent talk about her first-hand experience of this in her book “Self-made man”.

    I also was just responding to Mule Chewing Briars comment in #2, awkward, less pretty girls are also complaining, but the were ignored so they have opted out of the SMV and into radical feminism.

    Fair enough.

    Off the cuff, I agree with you about the boobs/makeup. That is analogous to a guy learning game, ( except game has fewer health risks). However, just like game, to me, getting a boob job to attract men means that men are irrational, swayed by pretty bodies over pretty minds. Similarly game working, would mean that women are irrational, swayed by fake displays of dominance over real displays of love.

    I think you’ve got it backwards actually. Good looks are signs of good health. Basic exercise and good nutrition can improve looks dramatically while improving health.

    Displays of dominance on the other hand are quite unhealthy for society.

    I think that it is possible for women to not get much sexual interest. I will assume that most women get some. However, say you are a 5, and the SMV men from 0-3 will be interested in you. The 4, 5 men use game to punch above their weight. Now 1/2 of the 0-3 men will be home playing video games, avoiding the SMV, while the other 1/2 are too scared to approach. Even if you date them, you’d be punching below your weight.

    Most 4 or 5 men don’t use game to punch above their weight. Your description of 0-3 men would actually be a good description of 4-5 men also.

    The only reason I speak, is that most women will not acknowledge their plainness, because if we say, ” I’m not really that attractive,” we are told we have low self-esteem and too ” love our bodies”. Because of such less pretty women often suppress their feelings about how they are viewed on the market. As one of those women who is certainly not Helen of Troy (haha), I think that our would looks completely different.

    This is an interesting point you make. I think we’re seeing another casualty of the feminist “self-esteem” movement. Rather than improve self-esteem, they’re denying reality, which will lead to even more confusion.

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

    However, it is worth pointing out that a woman who keeps pressing and pressing to get out of the gray zone is extremely unusual. I have no doubt that they exist, but I never happened to encounter one.

    I know that I do wonder how that works? Is venues? Or some of this women are just not hot enough to get approached? Or they just hide? I particularly avoided men with “asshole” face or walk but I did had some of them playing this “gray zone” game with me …Maybe you they don’t even remember me? I know many of them got pissed of and moved on to the next target if they got a close specially with a more attractive girl they probably won’t remember that “annoying chick” what do you think?
    Now I feel like calling some of the few ones I still have on my Facebook and ask them if they remember ever flirting with me in any capacity….Had I mentioned I’m too curious for my own good? :p

  • Joe

    Susan, I hate to continue this, because I didn’t start thinking down this road, and this dead horse has been beaten enough. But Tom’s mention of Title IX made me think of it’s relation to solipsism and the more problematical “female solipsism”, which started a long thread.

    Consider that Title IX has affected female sports, ostensibly for the better. But from the point of view of a college wrestler, it’s been a disaster. Those teams and many others have been decimated at the college level for the sake of “gender equity.”

    No, that’s not the solipsism. It’s the many female and especially feminist voices that said “Yeah? So what?” that make the idea plausible.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Joe

      Consider that Title IX has affected female sports, ostensibly for the better. But from the point of view of a college wrestler, it’s been a disaster. Those teams and many others have been decimated at the college level for the sake of “gender equity.”

      No, that’s not the solipsism. It’s the many female and especially feminist voices that said “Yeah? So what?” that make the idea plausible.

      I agree with you 100%. This weekend we were talking with friends about the BU hockey scandal, and how ridiculous college sports have become. There is zero connection today between athletics and the original Greek ideals for them.

      I argued that you either need to follow the profit center model, which is strictly free market. Or you need to say “College athletics is an important part of the student experience,” in which case everyone should have the opportunity to play at some level.

  • Sai

    @Mike C
    I’ve thought about what genuinely attracts me -it’s the guy’s face*. If he has Mr. Universe’s body and a pie face I don’t want to touch him. (That, however, is no excuse to load up on chips.)
    *I have found that if a guy has an okay face but a certain accent I also find him more attractive than I otherwise would.

    “And who are the people sending this “feel good” but ultimately misleading and counterproductive message?”
    Feminazis and people looking for excuses not to work out.

    @Just a thought
    Are you me?
    Just checking.
    Which physical features do you hate (if you don’t mind)?
    I’m with OffTheCuff, if you can get the doctors to help you, do it and don’t look back. It’s a huge decision though, so make sure whatever you do is for YOU.

    Re: rocking out
    I’m not surprised such a song exists… My brother and his friends lament/mock this fact. (One evening I got bored and wrote a sarcastic poem about a man’s unhappy marriage, maybe I should see if I can get that published. But if that’ll help screw up the SMP further I’ll keep it quiet.)
    Also
    “I’m OK with a little “ear candy” in the studio, but if you are a rock band and you can’t sound just as good live, don’t bother touring IMO.”
    Once again Ted makes a very good point (of many).

    Re: Neil Strauss
    So THAT’S what they do.
    I think I would’ve been unhappy enough to walk away after the fake hair comment.
    (“Beauty is common”… we all wish)

    “You missed the point that rich or otherwise higher SMV men might marry women lower in SMV thinking we will be “forever indebted” to them, and not give them the grief hot babes would.”
    I honestly thought that was why/how attractive/rich/etc. men got with less desirable women.

    @HanSolo
    “Today I banged (heads with) some Mormon feminists (yes, they do exist) on feminist mormon housewives dot org about a man in a sexless marriage and that he was being so patriarchal and out of line for wanting more intimacy than 2x in 15 months with his wife who has no health issues, etc.”
    Now YOU made ME LMAO.

  • Just1X

    @tom
    I guess my wait for an F1 female champion will be short then?

    Formula One is all about talent and coordination, no female drivers. I guess that we’re just going to have to wait for daughter to finishh her softball career?
    Please try and keep your BS levels within credible limits. WTF do you know about my abilities in playing colonial Rounders?

    And before anybody mentions the rather mediocre Danica, Formula One is where the best drivers are to be found.

  • Passer_By

    @obsidian
    “but no Woman to date can actually get you onto first base – and that’s in large part due to the fact that the vast majority of Women simply have never had to figure such things out.”

    Elle Woods figured out how to help.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM9WSElLklw

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    JAT,

    There are a lot of guys here that have dismissed girls entirely because of their sexual past or had a great deal of agony over it. I am sure these girls were quite kind and sexually attractive, but they got dismissed anyways, and the proximate cause was them fucking a lot of dudes.

    Maybe not all guys care, but some guys do. And girls should be protecting themselves against that rejection, because most casual sex sucks anyways.

    It’s a horrible, horrible trade-off. If you want pay-offs in the future, if your choice is casual sex now or eat a tub of ice cream because you are so damn sad, eat the tub of ice cream.

    At least you can lose weight.

    You can’t un-fuck someone.

  • Just1X

    @Sai
    An accent you say? *flutters eyebrows up and down*

    I can do a Prince Charles accent if you want…I say old bean

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Just1X

      I just want you to know I amazed a group this weekend with the half blood prince/James Hewitt pics.

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

    Feminazis and people looking for excuses not to work out.

    I think there is also a majority with a false sense of compassion they feel is better no to shame someone than to be brutally honest because it “might hurt her feelings” because you know hurt feelings is the leading cause of death in American women :D

  • http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com VD

    I particularly avoided men with “asshole” face or walk but I did had some of them playing this “gray zone” game with me …Maybe you they don’t even remember me? I know many of them got pissed of and moved on to the next target if they got a close specially with a more attractive girl they probably won’t remember that “annoying chick” what do you think?

    It depends. I think the more successful guys have enough trouble remembering the women they actually had sex with to recall anything about one early flame-out. The ones-that-got-away that men remember tend to be the prettiest women with whom they know they could have had sex, but didn’t for one reason or another. I don’t happen to remember anyone I approached who didn’t at least give me her number and have a few subsequent conversations with me, but then, it’s been a LONG time.

    Since you’re happily married, I strongly recommend letting sleeping dogs lie.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Suzan #285

    Precisely. We have a metrics problem.

    Suzan-deary, if your name was Salome, and if you were in the Bible, I’m pretty sure that King Herod would have danced in front of YOU …

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Marellus

      I think you leave the most intriguing comments…

  • Passer_By

    @offthecuff

    “Four, honestly, if I were female, I’d buy boobs, and other touch-ups via surgery, and live a life of ease. That shit is an amazing investment. ”

    Eh, I suppose so in terms of dumb men just giving you stuff. If I wanted to up my long term relationship appeal, though, I would lose (or gain, if needed) weight by eating low carb, high protein, no junk food, and by doing fairly heavy weight lifting (particularly high intensity squats with real weight – not the kind of stuff they have women do at gyms with 5 pound dumbbells). Just three times a week with two hard sets on the full body lifts. Women think they will get all bulked up, but if most of us guys can’t really do that when we lift, they won’t. They’ll just get great butts. If they want to buy boobs after doing that, then have at it. But first understand that, although they will be eye catchers and bring attention, they will be less appealing to most guys during sex than smaller real boobs (and probably less responsive as well). Also, take fish oil to help the skin glow.

    Don’t be one of those women who goes to the gym and spends an hour trotting on the treadmill at low intensity. If you want to mix in some of that, do super high intensity interval sprints (30 seconds full bore – truely 100%, 30 seconds at a trot), until you can’t do any more.

    This should be a lot easier for women to do than men learning game and/or getting rich, plus it has health benefits too.

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

    Since you’re happily married, I strongly recommend letting sleeping dogs lie.

    I know you heard this one before but there is no danger. I mentioned at Athol the triangle of cheating a concept I borrowed from the triangle of fire: heat, fuel, and an oxidizing agent.
    For the one about cheating is: Spouse/mate, Attraction, Occasion/opportunity.
    I already had some guys showing too much interest in talking to me over Facebook and I just erase them I have a policy of zero tolerance to any show of Atraction from a man (and I will say it pisses me off I have a ring for a reason it should be your “out of limits” sign) and in the case of this guys there is also the lack of Opportunity being back in DR and all that. I know too much about cheating and hate it too much, to get caught in it.

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

    Big, big mistake. Never believe a man’s actions, listen to what he says.

    I will say that this is a symbiotic relationship, IMO. Make sure the words match actions and/or trust but verify.
    I think in the case of VD any person that keeps pressing and is answered with fun should count it as a red flag. The gray zone is always to protect the interests of the person most interested on keeping it, not the other way around. It could be the odd guy that wants to look secure and desirable or the odd girl that doesn’t want to be pushy but chances are is just a player wanting to expand his soft harem or a woman collecting orbiters so if they can’t be honest is a red flag, YMMV.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “This should be a lot easier for women to do than men learning game”

    Game is what most men NATURALLY do. Social incentives just convince us to REPRESS it. Even good ol’ Ted D here was talking about how he had to repress alpha instincts in his old relationship.

    Now learning real tight game, yeah, that I imagine is tough, but I think most guys can internalize the lessons of game quickly, if they are willing to do a little bit of work and break bad habits.

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

    @ Marellus,

    “… and your latest post says ‘I don’t like cats’ ”

    “The trouble with a kitten is that eventually it becomes a cat.” – Ogden Nash

  • Abbot

    “Maybe not all guys care, but some guys do”

    All guys care. Its a matter of degree. Therefore, its in a monogamy-oriented woman’s best interest to manage her penile needs accordingly.

  • http://www.femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    The gray zone is always to protect the interests of the person most interested on keeping it, not the other way around. It could be the odd guy that wants to look secure and desirable or the odd girl that doesn’t want to be pushy but chances are is just a player wanting to expand his soft harem or a woman collecting orbiters so if they can’t be honest is a red flag, YMMV.

    Interesting, my brother is currently in the gray zone with the girl he’s been hanging out with for two weeks. Today he was trying to decide how to demonstrate interest: his choices were 1) make a move physically (he hasn’t yet, in any form), or 2) have a conversation establishing mutual interest (or not) and the “direction they’re going in.” He asked me which I would choose, and I said I’d never been in his situation and need to ask my BF. But I kind of think my BF is going to pick option 1; the other day he was saying my bro needs to make a move ASAP. I generally like upfront honesty in the beginning, but I get the sense it makes people uncomfortable, especially at first.

    Having said that, I’m sure if the girl came out and asked my bro if he was interested, he’d say yes. He has nothing to hide.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “Would you consider being my Ed McMahon?”

    My oneitis requires me to do whatever ridiculous thing you ask, even when you continue to throw yourself at Internet bad boys like Vox after I do it. But does this really mean I have to guffaw super loudly every time you say something, even if it isn’t really funny?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      My oneitis requires me to do whatever ridiculous thing you ask, even when you continue to throw yourself at Internet bad boys like Vox after I do it. But does this really mean I have to guffaw super loudly every time you say something, even if it isn’t really funny?

      No, I would LJBF Ed McM. in a heartbeat. Talk about supplicating.

  • Sai

    @Just1X
    Tee hee! OK, now do Gorbachev~

    @Anacaona
    “because you know hurt feelings is the leading cause of death in American women :D”
    LOL

    @Passer_By
    “But first understand that, although they will be eye catchers and bring attention, they will be less appealing to most guys during sex than smaller real boobs (and probably less responsive as well).”
    I’m glad you mentioned that; Google searches have shown me that some guys are pleased with what they see as a genuine improvement, while others disapprove. Mileage really does vary, eh?

    (Delicious ice cream for all, long life to ADBG)

  • Plain Jane

    Other descriptions of solipsism:

    1. Self-absorption, an unawareness of the views or needs of others
    2. a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism.

    “Solipsism is a philosophical position that nothing outside one’s own mind can be known to exist, or, sometimes, the position that nothing outside one’s own mind does exist. ”

    >> That’s a sub-theory in Quantum Physics.

    “Solipsism Syndrome is, by extension, the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is a dream.”

    >> Amazing. The ancient sages called it “maya” or illusion.

    ” Sufferers become lonely and detached from the world and eventually become completely indifferent.”

    >> Hello Buddha, the Tirthankaras and virtually all great sages of yore.

    If only we could all become so enlightened.

  • Passer_By

    One good thing about Title IX, however, is the trickle down effect it has had on youth participation in sports by girls, and, more importantly, the effect that has had on their butts as they become adults.

    It used to be that most of the girls who got really into sports were either lesbian or just not very attractive. Not all, but a large enough number that it tended to discourage the more attractive straight girls from participating. I remember a lesbian love triangle among the tennis coach and a couple players at Cal State Northridge back when I was younger that ended with one of the three killing a rival. Kind of put a bad face on the program.

    But now, a lot of normal and attractive girls play from a young age, especially soccer, and I’ve noticed that the impact on the tautness and form of their butts and legs as young women is pretty astounding. I say, BRAVO!! I remember back in the 1980s when NCAA softball games were littered with heavy, unattractive dykey women. I watched the NCAA playoffs a couple years ago, and was astounded that almost every girl on the field passed the boner test with flying colors, and caused me to have impure thoughts when I looked at their butts in those tight pants (Sorry, Tom).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      One good thing about Title IX, however, is the trickle down effect it has had on youth participation in sports by girls, and, more importantly, the effect that has had on their butts as they become adults.

      I’m not sure if it has anything to do with Title IX, but my daughter is very fleet of foot. In high school, she was a lightning fast soccer forward, and ran hurdles and sprints in track. She has the most amazing legs (and bottom) – they were clearly formed in adolescence, and I feel certain they would now look different if she’d not been a runner.

      I was a fast runner, without a real outlet. I appreciate the opportunities for girls to participate in high school sports.

  • Plain Jane

    “Game is what most men NATURALLY do. Social incentives just convince us to REPRESS it.”

    Hogwash. If game means social skills then social incentives encourage it. Hell, even jobs encourage it. Computer programmers are expected to be “dynamic team players” (part of all applications and resumes these days) and partake in the social life of the company. Totally sucks for introverts. If anything our culture incentivizes the extroverts who know how to play social games.

  • Plain Jane

    “They very much remind me of much of Hip Hop, which is really about the same thing – offering an unvarnished, and often raw, accounting of female sexuality in psychological (and other) terms; note how, for all the many critics Hip Hop has, *no one has ever dared to actually examine the “truthiness” of its lyrics*.”

    Yeah when my softie friends are all ” they shouldn’t call people bitch, ho, n*gga, pimp, etc, in their songs” I’m like, “Um, have you ever even been to a ghetto? Who the hell do you think lives there? These rappers are talking about their own family members!”

  • Plain Jane

    Obs,
    ” That so many, despite attempts here and there – Amanda Marcotte’s stab(!) at the matter comes to mind, as do “Female PUAs” like Charlie Nox and Kezia Noble (I think that’s their names), and even Fisher’s “Chemistry.com” – the bottomline is that no one on the female side has yet to improve or supplant, that which Mystery et al hath made. ”

    >>> Not even Erika Awakening and Sasha Cobra???

    Obs,
    “Having said that though, lemme ask you this: how would you feel about dating guys who were say, a 5-6? Would/could you be cool with that, or not, and why? ”

    >>> Nope. I’m not physically attracted to average or plain looking men. I’m an artist, beauty deeply moves me. My men are my muses and archetypes.

    For this reason I’ve had to become more pro-active in dating than most women hotter women, which has, ironically enough, landed me better looking boyfriends than my considerably hotter friends who wait for the guy to approach first.

    Obs,
    “Now…

    Why should I – or indeed, any Man – subsidize the putative “private, personal decisions” (read: SEXUAL) of ANY Woman, WHEN I’M NOT TAPPING THAT?

    Isn’t this too, an example of the very “Sexual Socialism” that Ms. Plain Jane decried earlier?

    Do you see where I’m driving at here?”

    >>> WOMEN PAY TAXES TOO! Even lower income women (considered the scum of the earth by some in the HBD/Manosphere sites) pay taxes too! All those Baby Mamas working at fast food drive-thrus? Huge chunks are taken out of their bi-weekly paychecks. THEY THEMSELVES are paying into their own WIC and whatever little EBT money they get for food.

    You yourself cleared this up many a time on the HBD leaning blogs when the Great White Male Readership was complainin’ about all their fellow non-white American citizens who they assume don’t work, pay no taxes yet get free stuff from the Gubmint 24/7, remember? You, Obsidian, had to explain to them Clinton’s Welfare Reform. Ain’t nobody gettin’ a free ride no mo’ son!

    For all their talk of a “societal contract” they fail to understand that we ALL pay taxes! Unless of course we’re rich and connected enough to know how to work the system and avoid the Feds and IRS, but guess what? Lower income people never get the oppurtunity to figure that stuff out and get away with it.

    The societal contract doesn’t mean Da Gubmint assigns us a mate. It means we all pay taxes and the country is paved, hi-wayed, bi-wayed, clean, sanitary, hygienic, and there are not epidemics of polio, typhus and other deadly or communicable diseases breaking out left, right and center every two weeks up in here!!!

    Sheesh! To hear the Manosphere you’d think that they were the only ones to ever pay a single tax on anything. And guess what? When Roissy lost his paper-pushing cubicle GUBMINT JOB – it was your’s truly moi who payed the taxes so he could collect an employment check every month!!!!!!!!

    Thank god Roosh is slumming it up in Europe and I’m not paying taxes to keep his ass alive.

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

    @Susan Walsh

    “I think the ‘sphere is chock full of extremely solipsistic men”

    I believe so, too. Only I call it narcissism instead of solipsism.

    When men speak to me of the “Dark Triad” I ask them if they would want these predatory Game/PUA narcissists going after their daughters. Or better yet, how would they like a predatory homosexual going after their sons?

    Their attitudes suddenly change.

    I saw some porn star on TV several months ago. I don’t remember his name but he was one of the most physically disgusting men I have ever seen.

    He had just had a daughter and the interviewer asked him if he wanted her to go into porn when she grew up. There was fear in his eyes but he said nothing, since he was speechless and had no answer.

    It was okay for him to be a predator toward the many disturbed young women in pornography – but he didn’t want men to do to his daughter what he had done to other men’s daughters.

  • Kathy

    “Fair enough, but why on earth are Hollenhund et al hanging out at HUS? To what do I owe the honor?”

    Because they find you simply irresistable. :D

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrGw_cOgwa8

    “However, as with “hypergamy”, I think the ‘sphere tends to overuse the word and apply it willy nilly to things they don’t like”

    Indeed. I too agree with passer-by, and his general comments re solipsism, Susan.

    One prolific commenter over at Dalrock’s was fond of using the term to denigrate women.

    When I googled the word I could find no evidence that solipsism was a female predilection.

    I also found that the term was used in certain areas of the manosphere.
    That’s when the penny dropped. ;)

  • Plain Jane

    Bob Wallace, “I saw some porn star on TV several months ago. I don’t remember his name but he was one of the most physically disgusting men I have ever seen.

    He had just had a daughter and the interviewer asked him if he wanted her to go into porn when she grew up. There was fear in his eyes but he said nothing, since he was speechless and had no answer.”

    That same old, ugly porn star was on stage a few years ago at Yale Sex Week with a young female porn star. A male student in the audience asked him the same question and he was very hesitant to answer. A few other male students continued to provoke an answer and their body language and way of speaking indicated like they thought it would be a GOOD thing for a father to want his daughter in porn. Finally he succumbed and said, “well if that’s what she wanted to do, yeah I would support her” and THE MALE STUDENTS CHEERED!!!!!

    Porn has become completely normalized, even pedastalized, amongst this new up and coming generation. They do not view it as wrong or damaging in any way.

    The young female porn star was asked what she sees herself doing in the future and she said getting married and having a family. She says most of the people in the industry get married and have kids. A few of the male students proposed right then and there!

    The Abbots of the world are a dying breed. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

  • J

    @HH

    No. Men love women that are, you know, actually hard to get. Chastity is the only way women can protect whatever amount of human dignity they have.

    IME, men like women who are inviting and accepting, though that doesn’t mean being easy necessarily.

    I would like to think that women have more to offer men than an intact hymen, but then I also like to think that I have some human dignity. In fact, one of the nicest compliments I have ever received came from a man who was in the process of divorcing a mad woman; he told me I was dignified.

  • J

    Meh…I think this “cumulative gestalt” thing is really code for I can’t nail down the specific things/traits that are sexually attractive.

    Not really, Mike. Women are simply less attracted to specific traits and more able to trade traits off than men are. For example, a woman may love thick, blond curls on a man, but a man who fits that description might kill her attraction by demonstrating inability to cope by having a screaming fit over a flat tire. She may later be quite attracted to a bald guy who is even-tempered and loves kids. Although he may not have her ideal “look,” he better fits her gestalt that the first guy. Thats’s why you rarely see women rating guys’ looks 1-10.

    Rather then try to argue my own case, here is what a woman has to say…

    I read all of Stickwick’s posts, and I have to say I found them all pretty stupid. Men and women as predator and prey? That’s nuts. I’m not surprised a woman who confuses sex with predation has no idea what is attractive to her.

  • J

    Most Western women are coddled from childhood and are very seldom held to the same standards of accountability and responsibility that boys and men are, whether one considers sports, societal norms, or the law.

    As one who has worked all her adult life in one capacity or another, I can say that boys are no longer held to any standards either.

  • Plain Jane

    J, “Not really, Mike. Women are simply less attracted to specific traits and more able to trade traits off than men are. For example, a woman may love thick, blond curls on a man, but a man who fits that description might kill her attraction by demonstrating inability to cope by having a screaming fit over a flat tire. She may later be quite attracted to a bald guy who is even-tempered and loves kids. Although he may not have her ideal “look,” he better fits her gestalt that the first guy. Thats’s why you rarely see women rating guys’ looks 1-10. ”

    J, all be solipsistic here and say *all the women I know have talked about guys looks since puberty*. I don’t think a man with blonde curls having a one time screaming fit over a flat tire will kill her attraction for curly blonde hunks from there on out, but if she had a consistently and particularly bad relationship with him, then it might produce negative reactions in her when she sees curly blonde hunks for a while.

    I used to love a certain type of hair on a man but then when I had a very bad year long relationship with a man of that hair type, for about an entire year after breaking up with him, whenever I saw men that had that hair or otherwise resembled him, I got a negative physiological reaction in my body. I physically felt sick! But it only lasted about a year, 2 max. I no longer have that reaction.

  • HerrKaiser

    @ Susan, et al,

    Can I get your thoughts on this excerpt from Pearson’s “A National Life and Character”; written in 1896 the general theme of the book is Western decline, but he goes into great detail about the changing domestic relation between men and women. In this excerpt he is discussing changing attitudes toward marriage:

    To put it briefly, the ancient marriage was based on suitability of family connections and fortunes
    rather than on inclination, and as love had not been in the contract the husband was easily pardoned if he allowed himself some license outside the house, provided he rendered his wife all proper respect under the common roof. This mariage de convenance has lasted down to our own days on parts of the Continent, and the liberty enjoyed by the Roman husband has been more or less freely claimed by husbands everywhere; but the tolerance of old custom is becoming a thing of the past. It cannot be supposed that a system which has endured and been approved through so many centuries as the mariage de convenance has witnessed is immoral in its essence, and the gravity of the change which is now overthrowing it cannot easily be over-estimated. Englishmen are apt to think of it as a system under which girls of fifteen, just fresh from the convent, are married to worn-out debauchees of sixty, and it is of course a system under which this abuse is possible, just as under the English system of liberty a girl in her teens may run away with her father’s groom, and a young man of one and twenty tie himself for life to a courtezan. In its practical rendering by the best people the mariage de convenance has always meant the marriage in which the conditions of family happiness were based upon high character, suitability of circumstances, and, if possible, old family friendships. In choosing a wife, he directs Robert Cecil to “enquire diligently of her disposition, and how her parents have been inclined in their youth.”
    In her case, as her father had forfeited the right to control her actions, the decision was practically left in her own hands, and she decided to marry a man twice her age, whose character she could sincerely respect. She considered marriage, as she tells us, “an austere union, a partnership in which the wife, as a rule, takes upon herself to provide for the happiness of both.” l Knowing that her attachment for M. Koland was based upon esteem rather than love, she guarded herself against possible heartaches by sharing her husband’s labours and pleasures, so as to leave herself no time for irregular fancies. Mr. Hamerton tells us that even now there are many persons in France who deliberately prefer the marriage based upon suitability of position and character to the marriage of mere inclination. “I remember,” he says, “being much amused by the indignation of a very beautiful young French lady about a rumour that she had been wedded for love. She reiterated her assurance that it was a baseless fabrication that her husband had only seen her once before her betrothal, and then quite formally in the presence of other people, and that their marriage had been entirely one of convenance. In short, she repelled the idea of love as if it had been a disgraceful and unmerited imputation.

    Some changes have made the marriage yoke more difficult to bear than it was.
    One is that desertion is increasingly common since emigration has become a habit with the working -classes. Another is that the felon, who was formerly hanged without mercy, is now released periodically, and can resume full marital rights over his wife’s person and property, where the law has not been altered to meet his case. A third probably is that the duty to children is less felt since the State has charged itself with the care of seeing that they are not positively starved or allowed to run wild. A fourth is, that partly from experience, and partly through the influence of modern notions of heredity, a wife knows that her husband’s license is a wrong inflicted upon her own children. They only receive divided tenderness, and succeed to a diminished estate; they inherit depravity, if they do not inherit disease. A fifth is, that the legislator has found it convenient everywhere to relieve the married woman from tutelage in certain important particulars; to make her responsible for her acts, capable of bearing witness against her husband, and able to own property in her own right. A sixth is that the religious sanctions of marriage are less regarded since society has become increasingly secular. To all these causes of change we may add, that the law for very shame is relaxing the old harshness which was part of a logical theory. The woman who separates from her husband can now keep her children, so far as is consistent with their own good ; and cannot be tortured, as was once possible, by having to renounce the privileges she bought with maternity if she will not live with a depraved and uncongenial husband.

    So overwhelmingly strong are these reasons, that many even of those who regard divorce with horror and alarm are constrained to support it as a requirement of justice. They feel, too, that it is idle to talk about the sanctity of home -life being impaired where the home has had no sanctity; and that to keep men and women, who are in a false position, miserable and in a condition that inclines to immorality, is a heavy price to pay for the peace of mind of those who, having no discomfort themselves, take a pleasure in thinking that the marriage- bond is indissoluble. On the other hand, even those who regard divorce as desirable and right in itself without regard to cases of extreme hardship, must admit that the transformation of an union for life, determined by many reasons besides inclination into a partnership during good conduct, very widely interpreted, or it may be even during pleasure, is a change that cannot fail to be fraught with eventful consequences. Those who have advocated the marriage of inclination have found a strong argument for it in the fact that, even if the dream of compatibility has proved
    delusive and short, the mere fact that husband and wife came together of their own accord deprives them of the right to murmur, and interests their pride in the maintenance of the marriage-bond. Perhaps this argument tells more forcibly in countries where the two systems are in operation. The experience of those American States in which divorce is extremely easy appears to show that wherever unions are dissoluble a certain percentage of people will dissolve them. On the other hand, it seems certain that as the thought of family duties disappears more and more from marriage, as it comes more and more to be legalised concubinage, in which legal formalities are employed only to guarantee the wife’s self-respect and assure her social position, the whole condition of home-life will be- changed. It is not improbable that in many cases husband and wife, who are not very sure of themselves, will refrain from complicating their relations by having children. They will thus be always ready to quit one another, and the mere fact that they so hold themselves in readiness, will in many cases bring about a separation.

  • VD

    Big, big mistake. Never believe a man’s actions, listen to what he says.

    Very good observation. The risk he is a shameless liar is much lower than the risk a woman will incorrectly read his actions.

    I think in the case of VD any person that keeps pressing and is answered with fun should count it as a red flag. The gray zone is always to protect the interests of the person most interested on keeping it, not the other way around. It could be the odd guy that wants to look secure and desirable or the odd girl that doesn’t want to be pushy but chances are is just a player wanting to expand his soft harem or a woman collecting orbiters so if they can’t be honest is a red flag, YMMV.

    Bingo. The challenge is that the woman has to be able to walk away from a man she finds charming and attractive without conclusive information. Very few can bear to do that, in fact, the more adroitly evasive he is, the more the average woman finds him charming.

    I read all of Stickwick’s posts, and I have to say I found them all pretty stupid. Men and women as predator and prey? That’s nuts. I’m not surprised a woman who confuses sex with predation has no idea what is attractive to her.

    This is amusing. Stickwick is so much more intelligent than you are that she’d probably have to experience brain damage and a lobotomy to operate at only twice your level. If you had any idea what she does for a living, I sincerely hope you’d have the sense to be embarrassed… for your own sake.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      Stickwick is so much more intelligent than you are that she’d probably have to experience brain damage and a lobotomy to operate at only twice your level. If you had any idea what she does for a living, I sincerely hope you’d have the sense to be embarrassed… for your own sake.

      Why the ad hom attack? J is saying that she doesn’t put any stock in Stickwick’s analysis of mating. In particular, this:

      as the pursued, our goal is simply to be caught by the most suitable predator. With that in mind, what advantage does it convey to us to analyze our own inner workings? It won’t affect the outcome of the pursuit.

      She’s got the wrong end of the stickwick here. A woman cannot afford to be passive, because it is her role to decide who the most suitable suitor is. I think predator is a poor word choice here as well. She is not caught as prey, she awards herself to the man of her choice. That is agency, women are not prey in consensual mating.

      Of course, one’s IQ or profession says nothing about one’s understanding of human behavior. In fact, there appears to be an inverse correlation, e.g. the spectrum disorders.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Big, big mistake. Never believe a man’s actions, listen to what he says.

      Very good observation. The risk he is a shameless liar is much lower than the risk a woman will incorrectly read his actions.

      Cads and players operate in a manner that is meant to confuse the meaning of their actions. They frequently evade the truth in a “don’t ask, don’t tell” manner. In fact, they specialize in what we might call Disagree and Mute:

      Girl: Before we have sex, I need to know if you’re seeing other people.

      Cad: Why on earth would you think that?

      Girl: I just want to be sure that we’re exclusive.

      Cad: Do I seem like a guy who would double dip? I really like you. Come here and give me a hug, silly girl.

      At this point, the girl can continue to press and risk being called a psycho weirdo, or she can jump in. Most girls jump in.

      Cads will lie anyway, but most players will fess up if you grill them like they’re on the witness stand.

      Good times.

  • Royale W. Cheese

    @Obsidian
    “WHY? Why is it, that so very little of what Women say, think and/or do, scrutinized in the same way as Men? Please explain?”

    Because men are distracted by hot women’s looks and equate good looks with being an essentially good person worthy of forgiveness? There’s also the possibility that the stereotype of being “mostly illogical” gives a dishonesty/ incoherence allowance to (hot) women.

  • Just1X

    @J
    “I’m not surprised a woman who confuses sex with predation has no idea what is attractive to her.”

    once again, you fail to disappoint – respect

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @HerrKaiser

    It is not improbable that in many cases husband and wife, who are not very sure of themselves, will refrain from complicating their relations by having children. They will thus be always ready to quit one another, and the mere fact that they so hold themselves in readiness, will in many cases bring about a separation.

    And this was written in 1896 ?

    That paragraph I quoted from you almost sounds contemporary. The writer also bemoans the decline of marital norms. So how would you go about rectifying this ?

    Any ideas ? Divorce reform ? Game ? Or the philosophies and actions of Cromwell ?

    Also consider what Jung wrote in 1912

    You believe, for instance, that American marriages are the happiest in the world. I say that they are the most tragic. I know this not only from my study of the people as a whole, but from my study of individuals who come to me.

    I find that the men and women are giving their vital energy to everything but the relation between themselves. In that relation all is confusion.

    The women are the mothers of their husbands as well as of their children, yet at the same time there is in them the old, old primitive desire to be possessed, to yield, to surrender.

    And there is nothing in the man for her to surrender to except his kindness, his courtesy, his generosity, his chivalry. His competitor, his rival in business must yield, but she need not.

    There is no country in the world where women have to work so hard to attract men’s attention.

    There is in your Metropolitan Museum a bas-relief which shows the girls of Crete in one of their religious dances about their god in the form of a bull. These girls of 2,000 BC wear their hair in chignons; they have puffed sleeves; their corseted waists are very slender; they are dressed to show every line of their figures just as your women are dressing today.

    At that time the reasons which made it necessary to attract men to themselves in this way had to do with the morals of their country. The women were desperate just as they are today, without knowing it.

    In Athens four or five hundred years before Christ there was even an epidemic of suicide among young girls, which was only brought to an end by the decision of the Areopagus that the next girl who did away with herself would be exhibited nude upon the streets of Athens.

    There were no more suicides. The judges of Athens understood sex psychology.

    On Fifth Avenue I am constantly reminded of that bas-relief. All the women, by their dress, by the eagerness of their faces, by their walk, are trying to attract the tired men of their country.

    What they will do when they fail I can’t tell. It may be that then they will face themselves instead of running away from themselves, as they do now. Usually, men are more honest with themselves than women.

    But in this country your women have more leisure than men. Ideas run easily among them, are discussed in clubs, and so here it may be that they will be the first ones to ask if you are a happy country or unhappy.

    It may be that you are going to produce a race which are human beings first, and men and women secondarily.

    It may be that you are going to create the real independent woman who knows she is independent, who feels the responsibility of her independence and, in time, will come to see that she must give up spontaneously those things which up to now she only allows to be taken from her when she pretends to be passive.

    Today the American woman is still confused. She wants independence, she wants to be free to do everything, to think everything, to say everything, to have all the opportunities which men have, and, at the same time, she wants to be mastered by man and to be possessed in the archaic way of Europe.

    You think your young girls marry European husbands because they are ambitious for titles. I say it is because, after all, they are not different from the European girls; they like the way European men make love, and they like to feel we are a little dangerous.

    They are not happy with their American husbands because they are not afraid of them. It is natural, even though it is archaic, for women to want to be afraid when they love.

    If they don’t want to be afraid then perhaps they are becoming truly independent, and you may be producing the real ‘new woman.’ But up to this time your American man isn’t ready for real independence in woman.

    He only wants to be the obedient son of his mother-wife. There is a great obligation laid upon the American people – that it shall face itself – that it shall admit its moment of tragedy in the present — admit that it has a great future only if it has courage to face itself.

    There is nothing new under the sun. And, hopefully, this time … the men of the manosphere will learn the trade of tempting women.

    I have my doubts though.

    Vae Victis

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Marellus

      The women are the mothers of their husbands as well as of their children, yet at the same time there is in them the old, old primitive desire to be possessed, to yield, to surrender.

      And there is nothing in the man for her to surrender to except his kindness, his courtesy, his generosity, his chivalry. His competitor, his rival in business must yield, but she need not.

      There is no country in the world where women have to work so hard to attract men’s attention.

      …On Fifth Avenue I am constantly reminded of that bas-relief. All the women, by their dress, by the eagerness of their faces, by their walk, are trying to attract the tired men of their country.

      Wow, this is fascinating – that Jung observed this in 1912. What was the source of this malaise in the American male, I wonder?

      This is incredibly prescient as well:

      It may be that you are going to produce a race which are human beings first, and men and women secondarily.

      It may be that you are going to create the real independent woman who knows she is independent, who feels the responsibility of her independence and, in time, will come to see that she must give up spontaneously those things which up to now she only allows to be taken from her when she pretends to be passive.

      Today the American woman is still confused. She wants independence, she wants to be free to do everything, to think everything, to say everything, to have all the opportunities which men have, and, at the same time, she wants to be mastered by man and to be possessed in the archaic way of Europe.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Sai

    Re: Neil Strauss
    So THAT’S what they do.
    I think I would’ve been unhappy enough to walk away after the fake hair comment.
    (“Beauty is common”… we all wish)

    It’s not that profound, is it Sai ? Consider the first date, that uncomfortable cup of coffee at a table with four chairs, and there is you … and there is Mr Maybe … and you’re facing one another across that table … where your words and his responses … are, in truth, moves and countermoves on a chessboard.

    Is it really only you and Mr Maybe at that table Sai ?

    No.

    There are four chairs at that table Sai, and you and Mr Maybe sits on two of them. Who sits on the other two chairs then ?

    Look to your left … where your watch is around your wrist … there is another woman there Sai … and she looks just like you … but she’s wearing red lipstick … she’s in lingerie … she’s holding a drink … and she is unapologetic … and she is explicit … and she is wanton … and she wants only one thing … and Mr Maybe has it … you try to ignore her … but she has a way of commanding your thoughts, does she not ?

    … and while you’re arguing with her you can hear the watch ticking …

    Now look to your right … where no time can be read … another woman is sitting there … and she looks like you as well … but she is completely naked … and men would find her erotic but for one thing … what she’s cradling in her arms … and what is suckling from her breast … she doesn’t say much … she does not want to say much … she only wants to sing lullabies to that treasure in her arms … and her only answer to any question is this :

    “But this child is yours”

    And Mr Maybe, whether he knows this or not, is only talking to one of those women. He doesn’t know who. But you do, don’t you ?

    And let’s say Mr Maybe talks to the wanton woman on your left. He tells her of all the unmentionable and pleasurable things he wants to do with her … the woman on your right will tell you he’s a bad father …

    She’s right.

    And let’s say Mr Maybe talks to the mother on your right. He tells her what a great father he will be … the wanton woman on your right will call him a liar …

    And she’ll be right as well.

    And then there’s you Sai.

    The only option left available is you.

    What must Mr Maybe say to you ?

    Honey, lock up Miss Lingerie in the bedroom. Remember to give her cucumber though. And for godssakes, don’t forget the Johnsons Baby Powder in the nursery, or else I’m driving 9 hours to find an open shop that holds it … it’s the weekend you know … now bring that tub of ice cream … and don’t forget the cookies … we’re gonna watch some Horror Movies tonight !

  • Kathy

    “@J
    “I’m not surprised a woman who confuses sex with predation has no idea what is attractive to her.”

    once again, you fail to disappoint – respect”

    Agree, Just1x.

  • Maggie

    @J
    “As one who has worked all her adult life in one capacity or another, I can say that boys are no longer held to any standards either”

    Agreed

  • Ted D

    Cooper – “The thing is they don’t get the disconnect between sexual and emotional intimacy. “

    Bingo! I think many young women are suffering form not only a disconnect of these, but many seem to be trying to substitute sexual intimacy FOR emotional hoping it will fill the same void. It doesn’t.

    “It’s said to be easier for a beta to add alpha, than alpha adding beta. What does that say about sexual/emotional intimacy?”

    It simply means that a beta guy, being a person that generally already cares about others (in particular women too damn much) they can see the value in and benefits of making changes to attract the women they want to love. Sexual intimacy technically only requires that a man and women get naked together and have sex, but emotional intimacy is a VERY complex puzzle of feelings and chemicals. In short, sexual intimacy is easy, emotional is not.

    “Is it harder to add emotional intimacy second, than sexual, then?”

    IMO yes, it is indeed harder to generate emotional intimacy after the sexual relationship has begun. Especially if either party went into that sexual intimacy without the intention of getting emotionally involved. I think if both parties are open to a relationship, sex first can obviously work. Not for me though, because I would always wonder how many other guys she tried the sex before love with. I’m too concerned with a woman’s N to feel comfortable with a woman that starts with sex first.

    “And if women choose alpha primarily, who’ll seek sexual before emotional, then they’re aren’t they picking the guys who’ll have the hardest time finding them that mix of the two traits?”

    YES!

    Susan – “I also never said it does not exist in married women. That is obviously silly. I have said hypergamy exists on a spectrum, and there are some women who are so hypergamous they will never be content with the status of a male. They are generally unrestricted in their sexuality.”

    With all due respect, this is NOT the message *I* was reading from you and some of the other regulars here on this issues. I firmly got the impression that you and others (J maybe?) believed that once a woman is married, her hypergamy simply stops and all is well. Now you are saying that for “some” women it never stops, and is never satisfied. So, at least for “some” women you are admitting that hypergamy can and does cause divorce. Do you agree?

    “Only in the sense that an INTJ may be more likely to type “why did my wife leave” into a google search box. Can you remember what search term first brought you to Athol’s site?”

    Sure: why did my marriage fail.

    “I believe that what brings men together is common experience. In this case, poor treatment at the hands of a woman. “

    OK, but that doesn’t explain how so many men of various backgrounds and various geography are seeing and reporting the exact same issues. This is what I’m trying to get at: how can so many random guys be finding the SAME exact issues in dealing with women. Is it something that these “random” men are doing that attracts the same type of women, or is it simply that there are many women with the same issues presenting?

    “Where I think things go off track is in then extrapolating one’s experience to represent the world at large. “

    Well, that is my question I guess. What exactly is the scope of female bad behavior as experienced by our semi-random selection of regular male contributors. Because again, either something has attracted men that attract a certain type of female, or there are a LOT of women with the same exact issues running around. I’d just like to figure out which scenario is true, or if it is a combination of both.

    Ana – “Didn’t you just stated that you wouldn’t want a woman that find you attractive because of anything beyond the animal part?”

    NOoooo. I must have written that badly. What I said is: my current wife is rather physically attracted to me, and I’m fully aware of it. Now that I’ve experienced a woman’s raw sexual desire, I wouldn’t be happy being with a woman that did NOT show it for me. Previously my relationships had “passion”, but none of them were based on that “lust at first site” type pull. They were all women I met, chatted up, and over the course of a few weeks decided to LTR them up. My wife was pretty much an instant attraction that I turned into a relationship. Now, that being said, my other LTR mates may have very well HAD that attraction/lust for me up front, but they didn’t express it and I didn’t ask.

    “So you already like the type of woman that is more likely to be strongly hypergamic.”

    Well maybe. I haven’t figure that out yet. Is a woman that finds herself very physically attracted to a particular man more likely to by hypergamous? Sassy might be the right women to ask, since she has a rather aggressive sexuality. I honestly don’t know that hypergamy and lust are directly tied together, although lust for a lot of men probably indicates hypergamy.

    Plain Jane – “If anything our culture incentivizes the extroverts who know how to play social games.”

    Precisely!

    “ All those Baby Mamas working at fast food drive-thrus?”

    I don’t know where you live, but around me babby mommas don’t work. They collect welfare and food stamps while living in public housing. IF they paid taxes, I wouldn’t mind paying for their birth control (which they obviously can get for free NOW and aren’t using).

    “For all their talk of a “societal contract” they fail to understand that we ALL pay taxes!”

    Unless “we” are on welfare and/or in the country illegally.

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

    Somehow, I get the feeling that the whole discussion of the unsuitability of ‘solipsistic’ female thought processes opposed to those of the ‘rational’ male overlook a very important concept – men and women ‘co-evolved’ to be complementary. I am a pretty rational ‘think things through’ kind of guy, but I rely heavily on my wife’s intuitions, as I believe they reflect an ability to see the emotional impact of my decisions on our family and on our community, that is to say, those people who are emotionally important to us, better than I can.

    Selfishness manifests differently in men than it does in women. I want to avoid the word ‘solipsism’ because it is a technical philosophical term and can better be replaced by ‘self-absorption’. A self-absorbed man is most likely absorbed with his goals and purposes to the exclusion of anyone else’s. A self-absorbed woman is most likely to be concerned with her own feelings and emotions to the exclusion of anyone else’s.

    Self absorption is endemic in the modern West because we no longer live in face-to-face communities, but trapped in some kind of awful hologram where images are continually being projected onto the screens of our attention by parties entirely unrelated to us. Gnostic media such as the Internet exacerbate rather than ameliorate this. Symptoms of this are 14 year old girls baring their breasts on the Internet, but also the constant self-referential anime videos my son posts on You Tube. Hits are the currency.

    I wonder what a ‘couple-absorbed’ couple would look like. It has been a while since I have been around one, if I ever really have. It is where the man is fixated on the woman to the exclusion of all else and the woman is fixated on the man to the exclusion of all else. Although I am certain that the arrival of children would radically alter its dynamic, it seems to me that a couple like this would have a very high survival capability.

    Honestly, survivabilty is a function of the couple, no matter how ephemeral, rather than a function of either component. That is to say, a couple who successfully negotiated their complementarity [polarity?] would have a larger degree of success in seeing their grandchildren’s children prosper and expand ‘vis-a-vis’ the descendants of those who were not so successful in maintaining and cultivating their complementarity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mule!!!!

      I didn’t know you were Robert at Vox’s! I just left you a reply there, will copy it here:

      Thank you for saying so articulately what I have been trying to convey. This is exactly the point. Here is my own (clumsier) version of the same principle, left yesterday on my own blog:

      To be honest, I think that there are differences between women and men. We are generally less analytical and more emotional. I do not deny that, and I also don’t disparage it because we have evolved for reproductive success, and men probs wouldn’t want to bang logical and analytical women much. Research shows that men rely heavily on their spouses for emotional intimacy in their lives. That is a good thing.

      …I have no problem being honest about female nature. I’m on record as saying that if shit tests and hypergamy and all the rest of it went away, we’d be dodo birds in no time. La difference is the energy that creates friction and sparks sex.

      I focused more on the sexual aspect of reproduction, while you focus more on the long-term relationship survival, but the point is the same.

      You also make an excellent point wrt media, and the way young people experience it. Social media is extremely self-referential, and both sexes routinely use it to gaze in the mirror rather than through a window.

      Twenge and Campbell have done a lot of work on the rise of narcissism in our culture. While narcissism and solipsism are not the same thing, there is considerable overlap in the area of self-centeredness. Here are some highlights from their research on college students, from a post I wrote on the rise of female narcissism:

      Historically, 75% of those diagnosed with NPD have been male. However, researchers who have recently studied narcissistic personality traits in the American population say it’s an epidemic, increasing just as fast as obesity since the 1980s, and that much of the growth comes from women. Twenge and Campbell, authors of The Narcissism Epidemic, studied 37,000 college students (2006) in an effort to understand modern levels of self-involvement:

      1. In 1982, just 15% of college kids scored high on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, but that number has risen to 25%, largely due to a greater number of narcissistic women.

      2. In the 1950s, just 12% of respondents agreed with the statement, “I am an important person.” By the 1980s, 80% felt special.

      3. In 1967, 45% of American students felt that “Being well off is an important life goal.” By 2004, 74% agreed with that statement.

      4. Nearly 10% of 20-somethings are thought to have NPD, and it’s estimated that 26% of people now in their twenties will have developed NPD by the age of 65.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/06/28/relationshipstrategies/20-identifiable-traits-of-a-female-narcissist/

  • VD

    Why the ad hom attack? J is saying that she doesn’t put any stock in Stickwick’s analysis of mating.

    I disagree, that’s not all she was saying. J also said her analysis was nuts and implied that in addition to her posts being stupid, she was unable to distinguish between predation and sex. To call the predator-prey paradigm stupid, much less claim that a woman of Stickwick’s known intelligence is genuinely confusing the paradigm for the reality, is absurd. Given your own respect for academic authority, to say nothing of academic authority in the very hardest of the STEM fields, you should be able to understand the intrinsic silliness of J’s statements as applied to a woman of Stickwick’s credentials.

    The predator-prey paradigm happens to be precisely the one that is utilized by many, if not most, players. It is not the least bit “nuts” to make use of it and it was noting but pure rhetoric to claim otherwise. So, in answer to your question, rhetoric for rhetoric.

    Cads will lie anyway, but most players will fess up if you grill them like they’re on the witness stand.

    This may be more support for your “the promiscuous pursue the promiscuous” hypothesis. The more a woman grills a player, the more he comes to realize she is not a suitable playmate for him. Players don’t, by and large, see themselves as destructive forces, even when they are. They often adore women, even if they don’t respect them. Listen to “Girls, Girls, Girls” by Motley Crue. The song may objectify women and see them as interchangeable, but is nevertheless a joyful and appreciative homage to women as a sex.

    “I’m such a good good boy. I just need a new toy.” That pretty much sums it up. And boys don’t hate their toys.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      The predator-prey paradigm happens to be precisely the one that is utilized by many, if not most, players.

      Perhaps, but Stickwick was speaking from a female perspective. She said that since our role is to be caught by a suitable predator, understanding our own inner workings is irrelevant to the outcome. This is indeed a good summation of the strategy most often used by highly promiscuous women (who are happy to be prey for players).

      A large part of what I do here is encourage women to reject or exit that paradigm for one in which a woman uses reason and judgment to select her sexual partners.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Suzan.

    Wow, this is fascinating – that Jung observed this in 1912. What was the source of this malaise in the American male, I wonder?

    … the malaise can be attributed to three significant inventions in 1912 : the zipper; the traffic light; and the shopping bag … hence the first Blues song was published in 1912 as well … :-D

  • Ted D

    MCB – “I am a pretty rational ‘think things through’ kind of guy, but I rely heavily on my wife’s intuitions, as I believe they reflect an ability to see the emotional impact of my decisions on our family and on our community, that is to say, those people who are emotionally important to us, better than I can.”

    I find myself doing the exact same thing often. Of course, it is much easier now that I’m not looking at her input as “equal” to my own. Instead, I use her emotional impact assessment as a type of gathered intelligence if you will to aid in my decisions making. My mistake in my first marriage was to give equal weight to my ex’s emotional assessment as I gave to my own logical assessment and it created a stalemate more often than not.

    “I wonder what a ‘couple-absorbed’ couple would look like. It has been a while since I have been around one, if I ever really have. It is where the man is fixated on the woman to the exclusion of all else and the woman is fixated on the man to the exclusion of all else. “

    Yes. I have a cousin that always ends up in these relationships. When she is with a guy, the rest of the world doesn’t exist to her. It is a very unhealthy bonding, but I don’t believe that ‘couple-absorbed’ has to be unhealthy.

    “Although I am certain that the arrival of children would radically alter its dynamic, it seems to me that a couple like this would have a very high survival capability”

    And this is why I say my cousin’s relationships are NOT healthy. She does have two children from a previous marriage, and when she finds/dates a new guy, they practically don’t exist for her. My aunt is genuinely concerned for those kids, and does her best to take care of them when my cousin is off in “love land”.

  • Escoffier

    Can I please inject (no pun intended) a word of caution regarding fake breasts?

    The idea that these constitute an automatic upgrade in attractiveness is preposterous. I don’t know what the percentages are but some very large cohort of men find these repulsive. Don’t go under the knife assuming that you will emerge as the object of desire for men everywhere. Actually, I concede that you might look better in a tight sweater but if you get to the stage where the sweater comes off, you might have a very disappointed dude on your hands.

    OTOH, co-sign everything said about diet and exercise, they never hurt and often help a great deal.

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

    @Ted D

    Your cousin’s relationships don’t sound like what I was referring to, unless her partners returned her obsession. It doesn;t sound like they did. In that, she sounds more like a girl punching temporarily above her weight.

  • Ted D

    I’m with Sir-Mix-A-Lot when it comes to fake boobs:

    “Silicone parts are made for toys!”

    I’ve had sex with an A cup, a C cup, and two D’s and I can’t say that the change in breast size affected our sex life in the least. Yeah, there might be a little more flexibility to be had from really big breasts (although only if your into titty-f*#cking I’d think) but it isn’t like bigger breasts make the sex feel better.

    I would say that if you are a woman and you want to either rack up a really high N having lots of casual sex and/or you want to marry a millionaire business tycoon, give some serious thought to fake hooters. Otherwise, save your money and put some effort into just being in shape and dressing to show off your natural assets. The only men I know that admit to liking fake boobs are also the most “cad like” of the bunch. YMMV

  • Ted D

    MCB – “Your cousin’s relationships don’t sound like what I was referring to, unless her partners returned her obsession. It doesn;t sound like they did. In that, she sounds more like a girl punching temporarily above her weight.”

    Oh no, they return that obsession, for awhile. After some time they all get tired of her constantly doting on them though, and tend to move into a “controlling” role in her life: mostly because she has deeply hidden “daddy” issues. The problem for her is, that level of devotion tends to attract guys that are controlling and obsessive, hence why I say they are unhealthy relationships.

    I knew a couple that had a similar dynamic but they were NOT overly obsessed. They were the parents of a HS friend I had. VERY much in love although at the time they’d been together for 15 years. When they were together, they were each others primary focus. BUT, they both always engaged others in conversation, kept their PDA down when in mixed company. (I’d often see them snuggled up on the couch watching TV when I stopped over, but they would go no further than hand-holding and the occasion ‘smooch’ when many of us were over.) They both had jobs, interests, and friends outside of their relationship. To me, that is a healthy level of obsession and kinda what I strive for in my marriage. I want to be the most important person in my wife’s life (kids aside of course) but I don’t want her to pin her entire existence on me.

    That is my cousin’s mistake. When she is with a man, he IS her entire life. Most of the time he returns that level of obsession, but it turns bad quickly.

  • Travis

    @Obsidian,
    “They very much remind me of much of Hip Hop, which is really about the same thing – offering an unvarnished, and often raw, accounting of female sexuality in psychological (and other) terms; note how, for all the many critics Hip Hop has, *no one has ever dared to actually examine the “truthiness” of its lyrics*.”

    Hip Hop usually isn’t my thing, but I ran across this dude the other day and he blew my mind…

    Lupe Fiasco- Bitch Bad
    http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhw7Izzp1q8yw5zcmv

    Brilliant. Granted, I’m not really the target demographic, but if it was up to me THIS is what Hip Hop would be. I’m not sure if I agree with all the ideas put forth in the video (namely the insinuation that white men are to blame for the situation in the lower class SMP) but if this doesn’t make you think, there’s something wrong with you. And as far as I’m concerned, more songs like this and less “blunts and bitches” would definitely be a good thing…

  • VD

    Can I please inject (no pun intended) a word of caution regarding fake breasts?

    NO TAXATION ON BREAST AUGMENTATION!

    That is all.

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

    Bingo. The challenge is that the woman has to be able to walk away from a man she finds charming and attractive without conclusive information. Very few can bear to do that, in fact, the more adroitly evasive he is, the more the average woman finds him charming.

    I know women like that.I call them idiots. One of the discussions we have here is that women that cannot overcome men’s charms are not “good girls” what is your personal definition of a good girl? Just to see where you stand.

    Sure: why did my marriage fail.

    Ted now that I had been around USA for a while and see many divorced men marrying and dating clones of their ex-wives I think you are on the minority most men think “It was just bad luck” or focus on what they think was the problem but don’t dig around or see information anywhere else. So that search alone makes you an outlier in the divorced cohort. Men don’t fight their programing naturally unless they are pushed violently away from it, YMMV.

    Is it something that these “random” men are doing that attracts the same type of women, or is it simply that there are many women with the same issues presenting?

    I think is both and I do think you have a lowered quality of women in general terms do to the spread of narcissism and the aversion to shame in the culture but I do think that the majority of the low quality ones are in the top 20% attractiveness cohort, mostly because hot girls can get away with murder. With the rest running an spectrum. Game was not advertised to bang random chicks but the hot ones, and also gamers don’t teach how to filter for quality but hotness, so you have to do some work and filter. I think one of the few ones that actually did this was Mike C he recognized the quality of his girlfriend and stayed there but he doesn’t endorse this as strategy so is still the same vicious circle: go for the hotties the rest is not that important, YMMV.

    Now, that being said, my other LTR mates may have very well HAD that attraction/lust for me up front, but they didn’t express it and I didn’t ask.

    Fair enough.

    Is a woman that finds herself very physically attracted to a particular man more likely to by hypergamous? Sassy might be the right women to ask, since she has a rather aggressive sexuality. I honestly don’t know that hypergamy and lust are directly tied together, although lust for a lot of men probably indicates hypergamy.

    I mostly meant that if a woman’s first criteria to select a mate are the superficial ones like looks and attractiveness chances that the she needs strong Alphaness and little Beta traits are high. In the list of 25 things to love about Betas Sassy clearly said that nothing on the list made her tingle not even a little. What kind of woman would you think will be more tempted to cheat or leave if a better looking or more attractive man offered her the chance? And I’m sure Sassy has enough character not to do that, but we are discussing odds and trying to avoid bad experiences.

    Honestly, survivabilty is a function of the couple, no matter how ephemeral, rather than a function of either component.

    Cosign this. Four eyes see better than two it should be obvious but is not…:(

  • Maggie

    ” Stickwick is so much more intelligent than you are that she’d probably have to experience brain damage and a lobotomy to operate at only twice your level”

    Perhaps it’s ad hom attacks like this that make women reluctant to comment. Men just tend to shrug their shoulders or laugh at these things, but as a woman I find this painful, particularly when addressed to someone who has been so thoughtful and helpful to both men and women who blog here.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Maggie

      Perhaps it’s ad hom attacks like this that make women reluctant to comment. Men just tend to shrug their shoulders or laugh at these things, but as a woman I find this painful, particularly when addressed to someone who has been so thoughtful and helpful to both men and women who blog here.

      You raise an important point. There are messages from men that women benefit from hearing, and there are messages from men that are not instructive. For both tone is important. I don’t think we need to walk on eggshells here, but some of the banter gets pretty rough.

      How about this as a guideline –

      Don’t say anything at HUS that you wouldn’t say at a dinner party of 4 couples, two of whom you are meeting for the first time.

  • Höllenhund

    What was the source of this malaise in the American male, I wonder?

    I suppose a toxic mixture of Victorian mentality and puritanism, both of which originate from British cultural influence, plus invididualism and consumerism.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “Ted now that I had been around USA for a while and see many divorced men marrying and dating clones of their ex-wives I think you are on the minority most men think “It was just bad luck” or focus on what they think was the problem but don’t dig around or see information anywhere else. So that search alone makes you an outlier in the divorced cohort. Men don’t fight their programing naturally unless they are pushed violently away from it, YMMV.”

    So you are saying that the fact that I and the men here seem to be more ‘self aware’ than the average man makes us outliers? I can see that, but it’s hard for me to judge because I don’t hang out with or associate with anyone that is NOT self aware enough to at least recognize their own faults. I don’t necessarily expect them to “fix” those faults if they are happy with them, but I DO expect them to be aware of them.

    “I mostly meant that if a woman’s first criteria to select a mate are the superficial ones like looks and attractiveness chances that the she needs strong Alphaness and little Beta traits are high. “

    Then this was simply a misunderstanding. I’m not saying I want a woman that first and foremost is hot for my ass, but I DO want to be with a woman that is hot for my ass all the same. I don’t want it to be her primary motivation for being with me, but I damn well want her to FEEL it for me.

    “In the list of 25 things to love about Betas Sassy clearly said that nothing on the list made her tingle not even a little. “

    Now we are getting somewhere! Here is the thing, *I* personally do not believe that any woman “tingles” for any item on that list of 25. Susan seems to be implying that some do, but I have yet to meet such a woman. (at least that I’ve confirmed this is true for.) So, the reason we are going round and round is simple: *I* (and most of the men here) don’t believe that ANY woman gets a tingle for beta traits. *I* can fully believe that “some” women may NEED to see beta traits before they can tingle for a guy, but when they do finally tingle, it is NOT over his beta traits. It is that AFTER seeing those beta traits, they feel comfortable enough to allow themselves to tingle for his alpha traits. Which means: beta traits are completely useless for causing attraction. Alpha is what attracts, beta is what keeps.

    If we are clear on this, then we can discuss if indeed there ARE women that actually tingle for beta traits.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted D

      Which means: beta traits are completely useless for causing attraction. Alpha is what attracts, beta is what keeps.

      This is not what evolutionary psychology or biology says. It just isn’t. You can claim it all you want, and believe what you like.

      I’ve written at great length about, so I won’t provide the usual links again here. Here’s a summary:

      1. Women vary in what they find attractive, across the board. Example: Some women find arrogance very attractive. Others recoil. Arrogant men will announce they never lack for female fans. That is proof that some women like arrogance. Funny men will make the same claim, and so on. No man is for all markets.

      2. Female sociosexuality (short-term vs. long-term orientation) correlates to what women find attractive. For women with restricted sexuality, long-term traits are part of the mix for attraction.

      3. Female desire may be triggered by one big thing, several moderate things, or a bunch of little things. (Ogi Ogas)

      Female attraction is not a switch. Even with celebrities, a photo doesn’t do it. A woman will always place the man in a larger context, e.g. I thought Russell Crowe was so sexy in Gladiator. Included in that assessment is Crowe’s character’s deep devotion and loyalty to his now dead wife.

      Think of it as a winning lottery ticket. The man I’m attracted to will have shown me at least half a dozen traits that make me tingle in combination. And character-related traits may well be in the mix. It’s the particular combination that triggers attraction. Change just one number, and it’s no longer a match.

      For the record, I’m not offering this as a point of debate. I’m telling you. This is how it is.

  • INTJ

    @ Maggie

    Perhaps it’s ad hom attacks like this that make women reluctant to comment. Men just tend to shrug their shoulders or laugh at these things, but as a woman I find this painful, particularly when addressed to someone who has been so thoughtful and helpful to both men and women who blog here.

    It’s painful for most men too. And most men aren’t anywhere near as vicious as VD. He’s a textbook INTJ (far more so than I am for example).

  • J

    I don’t think a man with blonde curls having a one time screaming fit over a flat tire will kill her attraction for curly blonde hunks from there on out, but if she had a consistently and particularly bad relationship with him, then it might produce negative reactions in her when she sees curly blonde hunks for a while.

    That’s not quite what I’m saying, PJ. What I mean is that a woman can be very turned off by someone who intially seemed to be “her type” if the man behaves poorly. She can also find herself attracted to someone who is superficially not her type, if there are other attractors. I’m doubt think though that the one bad experience with a man who has a particular look will put her off all men with that look in the sense that if she meets on angry blond guy, she’ll grow to dislike blonds. It’s far more likely that she’ll just dislike him, but she’ll continue to find blond men attractive.

  • J

    I just want you to know I amazed a group this weekend with the half blood prince/James Hewitt pics.

    Yeah, that was amazing. I don’t really follow the royals, so the resemblance was quite a shocker to me. The prince is clearly Hewitt’s son though. I would imagine that after conceiving the mandatory heir, Prince Charles lost interest in Diana and went back Camilla. Diana must have had plenty of time to play around. The sad thing is that his mom is going to sit on that throne until she dies, and Charles will never be King. He should have abdicated and married Camilla when they were both young. It would have saved the two of them and their respective spouses a lot of pain.

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

    So you are saying that the fact that I and the men here seem to be more ‘self aware’ than the average man makes us outliers? I can see that, but it’s hard for me to judge because I don’t hang out with or associate with anyone that is NOT self aware enough to at least recognize their own faults. I don’t necessarily expect them to “fix” those faults if they are happy with them, but I DO expect them to be aware of them.

    I hate to use the word “outlier” because it seems like a cope out for “You are an exception your opinion doesn’t matter” but I do think that men want to live a life as simple as possible and for that they need to not torment themselves with all the variables that come in play with relationships and women (and I admit those are a lot) thus if you raise them to believe one thing they will have a hard time seeking something else unless force it. I often wonder of the manosphere commenters with two or three failed marriages. They never mention what meassures did they took to select the other wives or if they found out what was exactly wrong on the first marriage. In the case of the ones married to their wives clones most of the time everyone around them knew they were entering the lion’s den for a second time but they were oblivious so again I don’t think many men do seek wisdom on this or have the emotional tools to do so I dunno.

    If we are clear on this, then we can discuss if indeed there ARE women that actually tingle for beta traits.

    Beta traits can attract too and Alpha traits can repel, the numbers of women lying one way or another is what we are discussing.
    But you won’t believe that would you?
    Maybe we need more personalization to explain the concept. I think Mike C mentioned once that his girlfriend cooking certain stuff he loved gave him a boner, isn’t cooking a Beta trait?
    Had you ever have a sudden surge of raw physical attraction for your wife when she did something Beta like cooking, taking care of you while sick or the kids or something like it?

  • Mike C

    I think one of the few ones that actually did this was Mike C he recognized the quality of his girlfriend and stayed there but he doesn’t endorse this as strategy so is still the same vicious circle: go for the hotties the rest is not that important, YMMV.

    Ana,

    I’m not sure what you mean here or what exactly you are attributing to me. FWIW, I first noticed my fiancee at the gym and there were two things that struck me, first that she was a “hottie” and secondly that I saw her there many times a week at 5-5:30 in the morning (ironically her day was beginning while mine was ending, I would go to the gym after my bouncing shift ended) and I was very impressed with the discipline that demonstrated.

    Ya know, in this thread, and over at Vox Day we are discussing female solipsism so let me point this out. I recognize that different strategies have to be pursued depending on what your objective is. A good example of female solipsism is ASSUMING that whatever your primary objective in terms of relationship/sex is exactly the same as everyone else’s objective. I’m able to step outside my own desires and consider other objectives as well so I can offer up different strategies depending on what that particular person’s objective is. At that time in my life, I was at a crossroads where I could have been happy with casual sex without relationships or deep emotional intimacy or with the deep emotional relationship I found and decided to stick to. Depending on what a guy is looking for, I can customize my strategic advice.

    Now with my fiancee, if there had not been some immediate physical attraction, it wouldn’t have gone anywhere from there. Really, for the vast majority of guys (I’m sure there are exceptions) there has to be at least the slightest spark of physical attraction otherwise it isn’t going anywhere even if she is the sweetest, most emotionally stable, nurturing, feminine woman there is. That said, women shouldn’t freak out on this. Some of the pictures posted on various threads should send the message loud and clear to women, that men really do have a wide variety of faces and body types they can find physically attractive. No matter what you look like, odds are decent some guy out there will find something about you physically attractive, unless you are literally hundreds of pounds overweight with a hideous face.

    Now once I got to know my fiancee over the first couple of weeks/months was when I was able to filter/screen her personality/character and I liked her a lot. She and I bonded over similar experiences. I had no female attention until 22 when I decided to basically live in the gym 24/7 and get a whole new wardrobe. She had no male attention whatsoever until about 31….she started her weight loss regimen at 30 and we met shortly after she turned 32 (she lost about 100 pounds from turning 30 to 32).

    Incidentally, since the subject came up in this thread, I’ll let you know she has implants. There are cases where it might be very desirable. When you gain 100+ pounds of excess bodyfat, and then you lose it, let’s just say it leaves your breasts looking like deflated pancakes. I’m guessing it is what the breasts of a 60 year old look like. In the beginning, I literally had to not look at her chest because it was a total libido killer so I would only look at her face or lower body. About 5-6 months into our dating she got implants, and that was of her own desire and free will. I’ll say I know a thing or two here, and the keys are not to go too big….many women screw up by going too big for their frame, and you really need to see a ton of the surgeon’s work. Its all in the skill of the surgeon. Some jobs look abysmal, and some look phenonemal.

    I’ve thought about this, and I think in some sense meeting her was almost like meeting a 17-19 year old in terms of dating experience and baggage she brought to the table. I mean she had literally no experience dating or with men in high school and her twenties. I think this had some benefits. She had no opportunity to rack up a high N, no chance to get jaded or cynical, and was able to use her twenties to focus on stuff like her singing (she is an amazing classical singer, quite ironically my ex-wife was a tremendous singer as well). For me, I think her personality type is key to our relationship. She is an INTJ which I believe is the rarest amongst women. Judging just from these online interactions, I suspect I don’t mesh well with EFP types especially EFs. That said, I was married before to an E so I am aware of some of the trade-offs with being with an I versus an E.

    I think I was a bit over the map here in this comment but I wanted to hit a variety of things.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      A good example of female solipsism is ASSUMING that whatever your primary objective in terms of relationship/sex is exactly the same as everyone else’s objective.

      I agree that’s a good example, but can you think of a woman here who does not recognize that women use a variety of mating strategies?

      I’ll actually point out a couple of examples where I believe you have been solipsistic – over time you may have modified your views somewhat.

      The first is your understanding of the male desire for sexual variety, and the degree to which you believe men experience this. It is only through repeated claims by other men that they do not crave it that you eventually conceded that men may be on a spectrum.

      The second is your statement that you believe men, or at least most men, do not have a desire for children. IIRC, you have expressed that this is much more important to women than most men. There is a great deal of data that suggests otherwise, which doesn’t seem to affect your perception.

      You tend to label men with different views than your own “outliers.”

      If I understand the term solipsism correctly, these examples qualify.

  • VD

    Perhaps it’s ad hom attacks like this that make women reluctant to comment. Men just tend to shrug their shoulders or laugh at these things, but as a woman I find this painful, particularly when addressed to someone who has been so thoughtful and helpful to both men and women who blog here.

    Do you realize that she not only called all of another woman’s posts “pretty stupid”, but claimed that the common paradigm utilized by that other woman was “nuts”, then went on to say “I’m not surprised a woman who confuses sex with predation has no idea what is attractive to her”?

    There was nothing that was NOT ad hominem about J’s comments concerning Stickwick. Nor was there any substance to them. Do you truly believe J should be able to engage freely in ad hominem attacks on other women while not being subject to them – even in response – herself? Why do you find an attack on her to be painful while not finding any problem with her unprovoked attack on another woman? If women are increasingly reluctant to comment, it may be that they want the ability to criticize others without facing any criticism themselves… even criticism of their criticism.

    It is perhaps useful to understand that whenever you think an extremely intelligent individual’s statements are either stupid or crazy, that is a very good sign that they have gone completely over your head and you should consider them more deeply. Vox’s First Law may apply here: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.

  • Just1X

    @H

    oh no, you guys have puritanism on a whole different level to us. From anecdotal accounts from commenters from around the world the US is in a league of its own.

  • Royale W. Cheese

    @INTJ
    “I think you’ve got it backwards actually. Good looks are signs of good health. Basic exercise and good nutrition can improve looks dramatically while improving health.”

    Good health does not endow you with a lot of the features that men consider hot. A slim figure does not make you gain boobs, a chiseled face, long legs, and other modelesque features. I always get a good laugh whenI see those ladies weight loss and workout ads where c-cup boobs are perched atop a washboard stomach. Yeah, exercise will get you the stomach, but definitely not the boobs.

  • VD

    It’s painful for most men too. And most men aren’t anywhere near as vicious as VD.

    (wipes away a single tear) You are so sweet! Hugs all round! Your observation is precisely why I found it so amusing to find myself accused of handling Susan with kid gloves, which simply isn’t true. I treat her with the basic respect she merits, and she is gracious enough to do likewise. It’s pretty simple. Be polite and respectful and others will be polite and respectful with you. Snap, snipe, and snarl, and sooner or later a bigger dog will roll you.

    One of the discussions we have here is that women that cannot overcome men’s charms are not “good girls” what is your personal definition of a good girl? Just to see where you stand.

    A girl who consistently abides by either a) Christian morality or b) the dominant morality of her civilized culture. If unmarried, a virgin or very low-N girl. Not necessarily to be confused with being a decent human being; there are some very bad girls who are decent human beings. I respect good girls, perhaps even admire them. I just tend to find them tiresome and don’t really enjoy them.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Your observation is precisely why I found it so amusing to find myself accused of handling Susan with kid gloves, which simply isn’t true. I treat her with the basic respect she merits, and she is gracious enough to do likewise. It’s pretty simple. Be polite and respectful and others will be polite and respectful with you. Snap, snipe, and snarl, and sooner or later a bigger dog will roll you.

      True. And you, VD, are a big dog.

      Sometimes I lash out irrationally with the snark, and I almost always regret it. Granted, that’s because I usually get called out for it. Then I have to apologize, which is never fun.

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

    A good example of female solipsism is ASSUMING that whatever your primary objective in terms of relationship/sex is exactly the same as everyone else’s objective. I’m able to step outside my own desires and consider other objectives as well so I can offer up different strategies depending on what that particular person’s objective is.

    You had stated at least twice that trying to find an outlier was not a good strategy for men, even though you did find one and I’m assuming is working out nicely so far. That is all I meant.

    In the other thread I just said that filtering for character first and attractiveness second works better and probably will help the 80% disconnect match, than the other way around for both genders. Mostly because the hot ones can get away with gray zones and promiscuity and exercise that gift for as long as they can for the most part.
    I never stated to match with women that are unattractive or ugly but try to remember that lack of character comes with all the things men fear the most: cuckolding, cheating, trading up… so is wise to try to remember that for practical purposes.

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

    A girl who consistently abides by either a) Christian morality or b) the dominant morality of her civilized culture. If unmarried, a virgin or very low-N girl. Not necessarily to be confused with being a decent human being; there are some very bad girls who are decent human beings. I respect good girls, perhaps even admire them. I just tend to find them tiresome and don’t really enjoy them.

    Okay, thank you for the answer.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Kidding about boob thing, as I was using it really as a proxy for upgrading your appearance, while sort of being amused how something so small can generate SO much free stuff in your life.

    To the haters, Esc, I will say this, though – not all fake boobs look fake. Most women have discreet upgrades or repairs, rather than stripper-basketballs-on-sticks. My wife and I sat in plastic surgeon’s office while researching a possible lift, and the giantic portfolio clearly showed that only a tiny amount of women actually go for that look.

  • J

    This is amusing. Stickwick is so much more intelligent than you are that she’d probably have to experience brain damage and a lobotomy to operate at only twice your level. If you had any idea what she does for a living, I sincerely hope you’d have the sense to be embarrassed… for your own sake.

    Nice ad hom, but apparently neither one of you understands metaphors, predation or love. A predator selects the least fit from the herd and then destroys it in order to benefit itself by feeding on it. I would hope that in a healthy love relationship, both parties select the most fit person they can find and nuture him or him. I stand by my observation that those posts contain ideas that are nutty, although they may well appeal to some dominance fantasies you and Stickwick (your wife or gf?) have. I really don’t care what Stickwick does for a living, but unless she’s really Helen Fisher I would guess her profession doesn’t necessarily make her an expert on human relations. In fact, I would assume the opposite is true. She may be the proverbial rocket scientist, but her ideas about what make a love relationship work are still off-kilter. And I sincerely hope the both you would have the sense to be reexamine your notions of love… for your own sakes.

    And BTW, if she would like to discuss this with me personally, it might well more be more productive than your white-knighting and ad homs.

    The predator-prey paradigm happens to be precisely the one that is utilized by many, if not most, players.

    And that’s fairly indicative of why players don’t generally boast of happy marriages or LTRs. Such an ugly model and one used by some of the most loveless people on the planet!

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

    I remember reading in a female blogger’s post that after swallowing the “Red pill” she didn’t see so much Alpha men and Beta men, but rather different men having Alpha moments and Beta moments, and responding to that.

    That seems to correspond to what my daughter tells me she likes in boys – acting manly when appropriate and kindly when appropriate, according to her lights, of course.

    She really likes it when boys treat their sisters well.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mule

      I remember reading in a female blogger’s post that after swallowing the “Red pill” she didn’t see so much Alpha men and Beta men, but rather different men having Alpha moments and Beta moments, and responding to that.

      That seems to correspond to what my daughter tells me she likes in boys — acting manly when appropriate and kindly when appropriate, according to her lights, of course.

      She really likes it when boys treat their sisters well.

      Yes, that’s an accurate reflection, I think, from both women.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Instead of predator-prey, maybe a better metaphor would be seller-buyer. The seller is probably more pro-active in chasing the deal, but it is in the interest of the buyer to be “caught” by the best seller. (“Best” in terms of what is being sold, which may or may not be correlated with the seller’s sales skills)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @david foster

      The seller is probably more pro-active in chasing the deal, but it is in the interest of the buyer to be “caught” by the best seller.

      I think buyer/seller is exactly right, but I don’t think sellers “catch” buyers. They win buyers – it is always the buyer who decides, and therefore the buyer’s understanding of her “inner workings” are paramount in choosing the best seller. From the seller’s standpoint, a “win” is also a “catch” in mating terms. But the buyer has the agency.

  • INTJ

    @ VD

    There was nothing that was NOT ad hominem about J’s comments concerning Stickwick. Nor was there any substance to them. Do you truly believe J should be able to engage freely in ad hominem attacks on other women while not being subject to them – even in response – herself? Why do you find an attack on her to be painful while not finding any problem with her unprovoked attack on another woman? If women are increasingly reluctant to comment, it may be that they want the ability to criticize others without facing any criticism themselves… even criticism of their criticism.

    Stickwick is not a commenter here, so an ad hominem can’t drive her away from HUS. Furthermore, J was attacking Stickwick’s posts which are clearly stupid for everyone to see. You could have simply argued about J’s views, but instead you chose to make a despicable attack on J herself.

    I have never seen J make any ad hominems against other commenters at HUS, or anything for that matter that would drive people away from HUS.

    As for this:

    It is perhaps useful to understand that whenever you think an extremely intelligent individual’s statements are either stupid or crazy, that is a very good sign that they have gone completely over your head and you should consider them more deeply. Vox’s First Law may apply here: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.

    It’s just a way for you to spew bullshit without getting called out on it.

    As the saying goes: “Any scientist who can’t explain to an eight-year old what he is doing is a charlatan.”

  • Ted D

    Ana – “Beta traits can attract too and Alpha traits can repel, the numbers of women lying one way or another is what we are discussing.
    But you won’t believe that would you?”

    If you can present a good argument for it, sure I will believe that some women are indeed actually turned on by beta. What I’m asking for is a discussion showing this so that I can make a judgment on if it is compelling. I’m not so set in my ways that I won’t change my opinion of something, but I won’t change an opinion simply because someone else tells me I’m wrong, They kinda have to prove it to me by outlining the thought processes that brought them to the conclusion that I was wrong. IF that process is sound, and the evidence is trustworthy, I will change my opinion and state that I was wrong. That being said, it’s tough to convince me. :p

    “Had you ever have a sudden surge of raw physical attraction for your wife when she did something Beta like cooking, taking care of you while sick or the kids or something like it?”

    Nope. I often find myself looking at her and feeling that raw physical attraction, but it is never because of something she is doing. She might be cooking and I look over and think to myself “Damn that woman is hot shit” but it probably has more to do with the yoga pants she is wearing WHILE cooking than the actual act OF cooking itself.

    Mike C – “Really, for the vast majority of guys (I’m sure there are exceptions) there has to be at least the slightest spark of physical attraction otherwise it isn’t going anywhere even if she is the sweetest, most emotionally stable, nurturing, feminine woman there is”

    Cosigned and +1. This is exactly how I feel it works for the vast majority of men (and women for that matter).

    VD – “Why do you find an attack on her to be painful while not finding any problem with her unprovoked attack on another woman? “

    Simple. J is a member of Susan’s “herd” while Stickwick is not.

    Susan – “Don’t say anything at HUS that you wouldn’t say at a dinner party of 4 couples, two of whom you are meeting for the first time.”

    ROFL. Susan, if I use this metric, I might as well stop posting. I wouldn’t bring up a single bit of what we discuss here at HUS with people I just met. I also don’t discuss politics and religion with new people.

    “For women with restricted sexuality, long-term traits are part of the mix for attraction.”

    I see it more as “for women with a restricted sexuality, long-term traits are part of what they require BEFORE they allow themselves to feel genuine physical attraction”. Small difference, but meaningful.

    “Female attraction is not a switch.”

    I’m not saying it is. What I’m saying is this:
    Two women, woman A and woman B
    Woman A is immediately turned on by a man with arrogance. Woman B is turned off by that same man. But, later that day women B sees a man patting a 5 year old on the head. She is impressed by the display (NOT turned on) and decides to chat him up. As it turns out, this man is also arrogant, but since he ALSO showed his tenderness towards children, women B is now turned on by his arrogance BECAUSE he also displayed a beta characteristic she finds attractive. However she is NOT turned on by his display of tenderness towards the child, she simply used it as a filter to look further.

    “ A woman will always place the man in a larger context, e.g. “

    Would you like to rephrase this? Are you implying women that get picked up by players in a bar are seeing men in the larger context?

    “The man I’m attracted to will have shown me at least half a dozen traits that make me tingle in combination. And character-related traits may well be in the mix. It’s the particular combination that triggers attraction. Change just one number, and it’s no longer a match.”

    I can agree with this, but I think you are attributing sexual attraction to traits which you are not actually sexually turned on by. I don’t care how much you want/like/desire a particular beta trait. The bottom line is: does that trait actually make you desire to have sex with him? If not, then it may very well be a filter trait for you, or even something you require, but it will be IN ADDITION to whatever alphaish traits the man displays.

    Again, I’m not trying to tell YOU how YOUR attraction works. I’m asking you if perhaps you are simply viewing your attraction with your own bias, and not realizing what exactly IS turning you on about your husband. You keep bringing up how beta traits are required, but they are ONLY required in the larger context of a relationship. The ONLY way those traits would matter in regards to sexual attraction is if the ONLY way you would have sex is WITHIN a relationship. That may be the case for you now, but it wasn’t always. So, you may have “learned” to adapt what you believe you are attracted to, but perhaps you just got better at filtering.

    Sorry, not trying to be a PITA here. It is these ‘devil in the details’ that I’m aiming to ferret out.

    “For the record, I’m not offering this as a point of debate. I’m telling you. This is how it is.”

    And I’m not asking for a debate. I’m asking for you or some woman that is genuinely ‘turned on’ be beta traits to explain it to me so I can understand. My goal in all things is to understand them.

  • VD

    Nice ad hom, but apparently neither one of you understands metaphors, predation or love.

    Let’s get this straight. You’re the one who claimed she was literally confusing sex with predation and now you’re claiming that neither Stickwick nor I understand metaphors? You’re the only one who is taking the predation metaphor literally, as you are pointing out that in the wild, predators go after the weak and the sick! Furthermore, switching to a hunting paradigm would not change her observations in the slightest, while blowing away your literal objection to them.

    I stand by my observation that those posts contain ideas that are nutty, although they may well appeal to some dominance fantasies you and Stickwick (your wife or gf?) have.

    And I stand by mine that she would need to experience brain damage and a lobotomy to be operating at your level of intelligence. The fact that you claim you wouldn’t care if she’s a rocket scientist only tends to underline your foolishness in persisting in attempting to defend your previous ad hominem attacks. And no, Stickwick isn’t my wife or my girlfriend.

    BTW, if she would like to discuss this with me personally, it might well more be more productive than your white-knighting and ad homs.

    Oh, you should only hope I stick to the ad homs. I haven’t even begun to take apart your claim that men are no longer held to any standards. I’ll get to it after I put together my Solipsism Quotient test for Susan.

  • INTJ

    @ Royale W. Cheese

    Good health does not endow you with a lot of the features that men consider hot. A slim figure does not make you gain boobs, a chiseled face, long legs, and other modelesque features. I always get a good laugh whenI see those ladies weight loss and workout ads where c-cup boobs are perched atop a washboard stomach. Yeah, exercise will get you the stomach, but definitely not the boobs.

    It’s gay men in the fashion industry that like chiseled faces and other modelesque features. Take a look at the pictures I posted in the “Women need men” thread for example. Certainly not chiseled faces.

    As for big breasts, in general, they will make you “hot” in a STR way, but LTR-seeking males generally don’t care about breast size as long as the breasts are noticeable (i.e. you don’t like like a guy) and not too big.

    It’s really sad how distorted women’s perceptions of male preferences are. :(

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

    That seems to correspond to what my daughter tells me she likes in boys – acting manly when appropriate and kindly when appropriate, according to her lights, of course.

    That is the key to ALL romantic heroes. They act manly when its desired and they are your best girlfriend when desired too. Unrealistic of course but not much than the hot girl that takes a look at you and just have sex right there because you are so attractive on your own without even knowing your name in porn.

  • VD

    It’s just a way for you to spew bullshit without getting called out on it.

    Famous last words, my friend. Do you have any idea of how many people have tried to claim that before realizing, usually with horror, that I will go into whatever degree of detail is necessary to drive the facts and logic home to them?

    I don’t do bullshit. There are hundreds of Dread Ilk just waiting to call me out for even the smallest error. And I fully encourage them in that.

  • Mike C

    Perhaps, but Stickwick was speaking from a female perspective. She said that since our role is to be caught by a suitable predator, understanding our own inner workings is irrelevant to the outcome. This is indeed a good summation of the strategy most often used by highly promiscuous women (who are happy to be prey for players).

    I don’t think so….I’d bet a good chunk of cash Stickwick was NOT making a normative prescription with her comment, but making an analytical statement of empirical reality (I think you do realize there is a difference between the two). She wasn’t saying this is how women should behave…but that is how they evolved to behave.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      . She wasn’t saying this is how women should behave…but that is how they evolved to behave.

      And I disagreed with her assessment in my first response. Women have not evolved to be prey. We have evolved to select from among presenting males. You found that very funny for some reason.

      As Vox pointed out, players employ the predator paradigm. Predatory and exploitative behavior as male mating strategy has been widely studied. It is not the norm.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “Unrealistic of course but not much than the hot girl that takes a look at you and just have sex right there because you are so attractive on your own without even knowing your name in porn.:

    Nah, that *may* happen to a select few guys in the world. The fantasy is that such a woman would ONLY have that reaction for one man…

  • Mike C

    I agree that’s a good example, but can you think of a woman here who does not recognize that women use a variety of mating strategies?

    I’ll actually point out a couple of examples where I believe you have been solipsistic -over time you may have modified your views somewhat.

    No, I think you are still confusing solipsism with other things such as overgeneralizing. There are some good example of solipsism that people are listing over on the Vox thread. For example, one is the example of the eulogy and the woman talking about the death in the context of “I” and how it made her feel. The key to solipsism is all discussion and analysis is self-referential. Someone made the point about looking in a mirror. That is spot on.

    I’ll give you another example….I’ve been trying to think about stuff that depicts solipsism. Here is a criticism that I have literally ***NEVER*** heard from a man discussing an issue, but heard a gazillion times from a woman or female commenters on a blog. Issue X is being discussed, and the woman will chime in with “Why do you care so much about X, it doesn’t affect you or your situation”. Perhaps the clearest example of this is women criticizing/questioning a man (ahem) for analyzing marriage issues who has a happy marriage. They literally cannot fathom/conceive why a man would care about or analyze something that doesn’t have direct personal implications on his life. That is solipsism. Everything is about the self, viewed through the lens of the self, or reflected back in the mirror.

    What I will concede is I have been guilty of overgeneralization. In other words, I’ve taken, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many individual cases with common factors and abstracted them out to general principles. What I will further concede is because of how I’ve lived my life, who I’ve befriended, the types of activities I’ve engaged in, the men I find myself naturally drawn to as companions and friends, I probably self-selected out individual cases with other factors not in common. This isn’t meant to be offensive, but IRL I’d probably never be friends with a guy like Megaman. We wouldn’t hang out and swap stories and odds are his natural proclivities are 180 degrees away from me. What I’m not sure of, and truthfully you don’t really know either is what percentage of guys are represented by the Megamans and Coopers and what percentage by guys like me.

    So to summarize, solipsism is a different mental effect than overgeneralizing. You continue to confuse the two in many response. This is being well covered in the Vox thread. I’m probably one of the least solipsistic people you’ll find. I can almost always take the devil’s advocate view. As a stock trader, even if I am bullish, I need to be able to put myself in the perspective of the bear. I CAN STEP OUTSIDE MY OWN SELF. I do sometimes overgeneralize. I’ll cop to that. Now your error is putting way too much faith in social science surveys oblivious to the potential issues in either premises or methodology, and WAY TOO MUCH APPEAL TO AUTHORITY in terms of academic authority and credentialism. It is almost becoming cliche that for certain topics you just keep cutting and pasting the same excerpt from Buss. He wasn’t handed his conclusions from God like the 10 commandments to Moses, and it is possible that the total body of knowledge does increase from a book published in 1994 I think. Vox has tried to point you to the error of assuming academic research on a subject has Biblical authority.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Issue X is being discussed, and the woman will chime in with “Why do you care so much about X, it doesn’t affect you or your situation”. Perhaps the clearest example of this is women criticizing/questioning a man (ahem) for analyzing marriage issues who has a happy marriage.

      OK, a couple of examples here.

      Last week Joe Blow railed against marriage 2.0, saying though he was married to a good woman and had a family, he wishes he had never married and was still single having no-strings sex, only because family law favors women. His own wife is good and faithful.

      To me that is just bizarre behavior. I don’t think men leave good marriages because the legal climate is prejudiced against males in this country. In fact, I’ve never heard this sentiment before, on any blog, much less my own. It seems to me that it is completely reasonable to “smell a rat” or at least experience complete bafflement, because the motives as reported don’t jive with what I know about human behavior. I use my experience, my learning, and my powers of reason to note that the story doesn’t hold together at first glance.

      Another example might be a man who claims to be a happily married father, who is obsessed with the issue of frivolous divorce. How unusual! I have never heard of such a thing. What might explain such an unlikely hobby? I’m curious about the psychological underpinnings of that.

      I don’t see how that is “egoistic self-absorption.” On the contrary, it is a matter of curiosity in order to increase understanding about something outside my own frame of reference.

      What I will concede is I have been guilty of overgeneralization. In other words, I’ve taken, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many individual cases with common factors and abstracted them out to general principles

      In the two examples I gave, you drew very directly from your own personal feelings on the matter, giving examples from your own life.

      I CAN STEP OUTSIDE MY OWN SELF. I do sometimes overgeneralize.

      This is what is in question. I see you primarily step outside yourself as a way of getting additional examples to confirm your own perceptions. I do not observe a spirit of open inquiry, but I do see a lot of confirmation bias and exception bias.

      Now your error is putting way too much faith in social science surveys oblivious to the potential issues in either premises or methodology, and WAY TOO MUCH APPEAL TO AUTHORITY in terms of academic authority and credentialism.

      That’s a fair criticism if you can back it up with examples of faulty premises or methodology. IIRC, you tend to dismiss all social science inquiry out of hand, if it does not confirm your already held beliefs. I suspect you are more amenable to Roissy’s many posts citing studies.

      It is almost becoming cliche that for certain topics you just keep cutting and pasting the same excerpt from Buss. He wasn’t handed his conclusions from God like the 10 commandments to Moses, and it is possible that the total body of knowledge does increase from a book published in 1994 I think.

      I share your frustration at the need to keep citing Buss. Part of that is due to the fact that there are always people new to the topic – or at least seem to have flawed understanding, as in the thread at Vox’s.

      Part of it too is the incredible stubborness of some male commenters in defying all common sense and knowledge around certain concepts. In fact, Buss’ book is still considered the Bible of evo psych. But I have provided many other examples of research around female sexual attraction – this is a richly studied topic. The fact is that the more I read and learn, the more off-the-wall some other ideas sound. At this point it is not unusual for me to find, when I explore a concept that is taken for granted in the ‘sphere, a dead end or circle of Game bloggers passing the idea back and forth. I think it’s very telling that “female solipsism” literally does not exist as a concept anywhere in the world other than the manosphere.

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

    If you can present a good argument for it, sure I will believe that some women are indeed actually turned on by beta. What I’m asking for is a discussion showing this so that I can make a judgment on if it is compelling. I’m not so set in my ways that I won’t change my opinion of something, but I won’t change an opinion simply because someone else tells me I’m wrong, They kinda have to prove it to me by outlining the thought processes that brought them to the conclusion that I was wrong. IF that process is sound, and the evidence is trustworthy, I will change my opinion and state that I was wrong. That being said, it’s tough to convince me. :p

    I don’t follow this. How can we present the argument in a way that works? Having a guy having a ONS because he was playing with a kid and some hot girl told him “take me now”? Or something along those lines?

    As it turns out, this man is also arrogant, but since he ALSO showed his tenderness towards children, women B is now turned on by his arrogance BECAUSE he also displayed a beta characteristic she finds attractive. However she is NOT turned on by his display of tenderness towards the child, she simply used it as a filter to look further

    What about woman C. She sees him patting the kid, tries to chat him up and once she finds out he is just an arrogant prick that happens to like children she excuses herself and leave never to return?

    Or Woman D, She does the same as woman C but instead of running for the hills she tells to herself “I’m sure I can change him and make him less arrogant with my love and magical vagina?”

    Or Woman E. She sees him with a kid and assumes he is a sexual predator and chats him up to make sure he won’t be doing shenanigans and her arrogance makes him dislike him even more and she calls other women to keep an eye on him.

    There is no simple scenarios with women BTW. ;)

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Don’t say anything at HUS that you wouldn’t say at a dinner party of 4 couples, two of whom you are meeting for the first time.”

    Uh, this is a site that talks about sex, so that means I can’t post anything on topic at all!

    Perhaps you mean tone, rather than subject. Sex is usually not a first-meeting topic. Perhaps a bit of silly innuendo when buzzed, but certainly no down-to-earth, un-PC discussion like we have here.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

      Perhaps you mean tone, rather than subject. Sex is usually not a first-meeting topic. Perhaps a bit of silly innuendo when buzzed, but certainly no down-to-earth, un-PC discussion like we have here.

      Haha, thanks for clarifying! I was definitely referring only to tone. It’s fine to be direct, but let’s not club each other over the head.

  • INTJ

    @ VD

    Famous last words, my friend. Do you have any idea of how many people have tried to claim that before realizing, usually with horror, that I will go into whatever degree of detail is necessary to drive the facts and logic home to them?

    Translation: people call out Vox Day on his bullshit. Vox Day proceeds to spew a stream of ad hominems, semantic arguments, and other verbal skullduggery without addressing the content of the issue at hand. People have better things to do than to nitpick Vox Day’s meaningless arguments, so they choose to spend their time doing something worthwhile. Vox Day declares victory and continues his internet chest-thumping.

  • Pingback: The Attraction Doctor » Solipsism: Is One Gender More Selfish Than The Other?

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

    Nah, that *may* happen to a select few guys in the world. The fantasy is that such a woman would ONLY have that reaction for one man…

    I’m talking about looking at man, dropping panties sort of scenarios. No matter how slutty a woman is she will at least know something about you before sexing you up.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    And I disagreed with her assessment in my first response. Women have not evolved to be prey. We have evolved to select from among presenting males. You found that very funny for some reason.

    As Vox pointed out, players employ the predator paradigm. Predatory and exploitative behavior as male mating strategy has been widely studied. It is not the norm.

    Exactly. Even when women choose players, they’re doing just that – choosing. A prey does not choose to be preyed upon.

    Women are not passive actors in the sexual marketplace – they’re very much active actors, even if they choose to appear passive.

  • Mike C

    VD – “Why do you find an attack on her to be painful while not finding any problem with her unprovoked attack on another woman? “

    Simple. J is a member of Susan’s “herd” while Stickwick is not.

    Hahahahahaha….SO TRUE……..SOOOOOOO TRUE…..I said this elsewhere but one of the reasons I participate here is sort of the meta-analysis of watching the dynamics amongst a group of women. One interesting dynamic is when you have a group of female “friends” even online they will be very, very, very reluctant to call out each other’s bullshit. It goes against the friend dynamic. One woman has a hard time telling another who is a friend “Hey, what you just said is dumb” because hurt feelings will ensue. If you pay attention, there is clearly sort of a core group of “friends” here who won’t go after anything another one says.

    Susan – “Don’t say anything at HUS that you wouldn’t say at a dinner party of 4 couples, two of whom you are meeting for the first time.”

    ROFL. Susan, if I use this metric, I might as well stop posting. I wouldn’t bring up a single bit of what we discuss here at HUS with people I just met. I also don’t discuss politics and religion with new people.

    With all due respect, this is a silly standard…at least if the intent if for a serious site and discussion and not just puret levity. The purpose of a dinner party is socializing just for its own sake. There is no intent for substantive dialogue, meaningful deep exchanges of profound thought, or attempts to “figure shit out”. Those sorts of things are necessarily abrasive from time to time. It is inherent in the exchange. Dinner party conversation is superficial surface stuff…the point is to avoid abrasiveness and make everyone “feel good”.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      There is no intent for substantive dialogue, meaningful deep exchanges of profound thought, or attempts to “figure shit out”. Those sorts of things are necessarily abrasive from time to time. It is inherent in the exchange. Dinner party conversation is superficial surface stuff…the point is to avoid abrasiveness and make everyone “feel good”.

      I guess we go to different dinner parties. Last weekend, we discussed Title IX in college athletics, sexual assault and false rape allegations on campus, Obama – apologist or not?, Obama – supporter of Israel or not?, the Arab Winter, the Quran’s limitations on borrowing and lending, and the effect of that on economies, Bobby Valentine, Tom Brady’s submission to his wife (she says it’s OK if his nose is broken). I think that’s it. Things got a bit heated, but civility was maintained at all times.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “I don’t follow this. How can we present the argument in a way that works? Having a guy having a ONS because he was playing with a kid and some hot girl told him “take me now”? Or something along those lines?”

    Not at all. I would like you, or Susan, or J, or Hope, or some other women that claims to be “turned on” by beta traits, to explain HOW it works. If you can’t figure out exactly what is going on in your head/heart in that moment, then you truly DO NOT KNOW what it is that is turning you on.
    I can tell you exactly what I’m thinking and feeling at any particular moment IF I concentrate on it. So, what EXACTLY are you feeling when you get “turned on” by some beta thing your husband is doing. Is it ACTUALLY the beta thing turning you on, or is it that you adore that beta trait AND you find your husband sexually attractive… Does that make sense? I’m asking for beta loving women to actually pay attention to what is going on in their heads at that moment. This is how I determine what my motivating factors are for any particular action, so I’m hoping to figure out what motivates “some” women to be sexually attracted to beta traits, or if they really ARE sexually attracted to beta traits at all.

    In regards to women C, D, and E. I get it. But I’m not asking about those women. I’m asking about “beta loving” women: what motivates/instigates a sexual attraction queue in them from beta behavior.

    And thanks for not being offended by my inquiries. I’m getting the impression that we are making progress, and I tend to get over excited when I feel like I’m about to discover something important. That usually presents as me becoming VERY pushy and VERY arrogant. But the truth is, it is because I’m actually considering evidence that may support an alternate view to my own, and learning new things always gets my motor running.

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

    They literally cannot fathom/conceive why a man would care about or analyze something that doesn’t have direct personal implications on his life. That is solipsism. Everything is about the self, viewed through the lens of the self, or reflected back in the mirror.

    If you are using the same commenter example I’m thinking of is an entirely different thing in that thread the man was regretting his marriage and saying he wouldn’t do. I mentioned that Ladrock analyzes marriage and even warn against it for most men unless the woman passes certain tests, which is Athol’s philosophy too, but he never stated he wouldn’t do it himself that is a difference thing. Is different to analyze than to bash and you could ask the same for women like Hope, J, Susan and me why do we care about the SMP if you are out of it forever, hopefully we are still here.
    Now that you mention it I asked you, and you didn’t responded, if you would think that if your girlfriend started to bitch on the Internet that she thinks no woman should cohabitate and if she had more information about the deal she wouldn’t had done it on the first place what would you think of it?

  • Ted D

    Mike C – “It goes against the friend dynamic. One woman has a hard time telling another who is a friend “Hey, what you just said is dumb” because hurt feelings will ensue.”

    And generally the exact opposite is true of male friends. We often make it a point to call each other out on bullshit, and I expect my friends to tell me when I’m wrong or being an asshat. Of course, I’ll expect them to follow up with proof of my asshatedness, and if they don’t have it I get to tell them they are the asshat.

  • J

    @J1X, Kathy

    once again, you fail to disappoint – respect

    Thanks for your support. I always appreciate respect. : -)

    but as a woman I find this painful, particularly when addressed to someone who has been so thoughtful and helpful to both men and women who blog here.

    Thanks, Maggie. I try to be helpful, so I truly appreciate the acknowledgement of my track record here. Not to worry though, I wasn’t particularly hurt by Vox’s comment. It’s sort of a schoolyard witticism, albeit from the yard of a school for the gifted and talented.

    In truth, I regard Vox as a very bright and interesting guy, but I see that remark as high IQ, low EQ. He’s mad that I, in his mind, insulted his friend, but he can’t couch his anger in those terms. Instead he’s launching into an intellectualized schoolyard defense of her indefensible ideals.

    @VD

    Of course, one’s IQ or profession says nothing about one’s understanding of human behavior. In fact, there appears to be an inverse correlation, e.g. the spectrum disorders.

    Um, yeah…At least in the case of STEM professions. I would guess that doctors and lawyers tend toward high EQs.

    There was nothing that was NOT ad hominem about J’s comments concerning Stickwick.

    Actually, as you yourself observed above, all the language in my comments is based on “her posts” or “her ideas.” That’s not technically ad hom, though I understand that you are making the jump of equating stupid idea with stupid person. I generally don’t do that. You generally pride yourself on your logic; you surprise me.

    I still find Stickwick’ ideas unsubstantiated and contradictory to all we know about sexual selection. Though none of her posts contained any hard data and were sort of self-referential and, shall we say, solipsistic, I’d be happy to discuss those ideas in an unemotional way with her
    as opposed to rebutting your angry ad homs. Surely a woman in her stellar profession, whatever that may be, would be happy to make short work of trouncing a lobotomized moron such as myself. But I don’t think she will–because love simply is not predation, no matter how any PUA-types (Nice appeal to authority there, Vox.) think it is or how confused Stickwich admits she is is about her own attraction cues

  • http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor Dr. Jeremy

    Dear Susan,

    You have started an interesting debate about solipsism here. You can find my thoughts on my own site here:

    http://attractiondoctor.com/social-gender-issues/solipsism-is-one-gender-more-selfish-than-the-other/

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dr. Jeremy

      That is a great post! I hope everyone will click through and read the whole thing, but I’d like to excerpt a bit and comment here.

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

    @Ted
    I’m a bit reluctant to share examples of my husband because I feel like, I don’t know, like inviting strangers to our bed.
    I will use an example of something really curious about me that I think matches.
    You know how that I like my men like I like my milk: Hot, white, right before going to bed. ;) As an extra no mustaches (daddy has a mustache I’m not that perverted), a bit taller than me, not religiously fanatic and very single.
    When I was in college I meet this professor he was short, really dark skinned, with the icky mustache, fundamental Christian and married. My teacher was very Beta, extremely nice, extremely smart, respectful, he unlike most college teachers wasn’t devouring young girls with his eyes everytime they passed in front of him or attempted a hook up, gentleman like.
    I got a crush with all the biological signs: my heart used to beat fast, I was flustered, and one of my friends caught me drooling (that was embarrassing) out of this personality traits only and it happened on the course of a week and I had never crushed on any teacher before, really my mother is a teacher I always though of her male colleagues as uncles.
    I of course never did anything about it but it was a very bizarre experience back in the day when I was younger and was very into my type only…how does that sound?

  • J

    @Obs

    Unlike Susan, not only have I seen “Scarface” several times, but my dad was a boxer–as was his brother who was sort of famous back in the day. I love straddling those class lines. ;-)

  • INTJ

    @ Dr. Jeremy

    That post was brilliant. I don’t think solipsism is inherently more common in either gender, but I do think that the cultural power structure we have in the United States today has made certain females extremely solipsistic.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    I’d like to throw in my support for you also. ;) (I don’t know if I agree with your opinion or not – heck I don’t even remember what the original debate was about – but I certainly back up your argument as being thoughtful, respectful, and meaningful – in contrast to VD’s vitriolic response).

  • Ted D

    Ana – “I’m a bit reluctant to share examples of my husband because I feel like, I don’t know, like inviting strangers to our bed.”

    I completely understand.

    “I of course never did anything about it but it was a very bizarre experience back in the day when I was younger and was very into my type only…how does that sound?”

    Interesting to say the least. But, (don’t answer if it is too personal!) during that “crush” did you ever actually lust for him? Did you find yourself sexually attracted to him, or were you simply enamored by his personality?

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

    Interesting to say the least. But, (don’t answer if it is too personal!) during that “crush” did you ever actually lust for him? Did you find yourself sexually attracted to him, or were you simply enamored by his personality?

    You mean if I wet my panties? Not in the classroom no, but I did have the tingle going on for him and no one else. I actually selected another teacher for the follow up class. Temptation is to be avoided.

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    Interesting to say the least. But, (don’t answer if it is too personal!) during that “crush” did you ever actually lust for him? Did you find yourself sexually attracted to him, or were you simply enamored by his personality?

    This is interesting when I think about it. When I consider my view of which girls are “pretty” (and thus which girls I’d want a relationship with), it isn’t solely based on who would make me have a boner. It also considers who would make my heart beat faster, and who I’d want to cuddle with.

  • J

    Ted

    You alluded to my feelings regarding hypergamy. IIRC my college courses in anthroplogy, hypergamy is the tendency to “marry up.” I don’t recall any social scientists ever ascribing it to all women or only to women for that matter. Gigolos, I suppose, are hypergamous. This is what I think: we all want to find the best spouse we can. For some, that may mean a higher status mate. Others may be satisfied with equal status or lower status if there are compensating factors. Still others may look for different attractors.

    I personally was looking for a bright, funny, morally good man whom I could respect. I found that; I’m satisfied. I live in a neighborhood where there are plenty of men who have greater status than my DH. If I wanted to, I could probably dump him for doctor, lawyer, or maybe even a secret, millionaire handyman. But status isn’t everything to me. I wouldnt trade in the quarter century of history I have with a man who “gets” me to gamble on an unknown guy just because he has some bucks. I have all I need materially.

    OTOH, if DH leaves me for a younger women, retired doctor, here I come–beause my mother always told me that it’s just as easy to love a rich man as a poor one. ;-)

    Nevertheless, when I married DH, I had a small bank account and he had to go collect on a debt to buy me a ring.

  • J

    I thought Russell Crowe was so sexy in Gladiator. Included in that assessment is Crowe’s character’s deep devotion and loyalty to his now dead wife.

    LOL. I never find him attractive out of character, yet I LOVED him in Gladiator for just that reason.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh:
    I guess the big problem I’m having with you is, *why do you spend so much time and focus so very much on “Cads”? By now, we all know that the vast majority of Women – especially per your target demographic – simply don’t select for them. Moreover, as I’ve said quite a number of times at this point, players and the like don’t hide who and what they are; they are quite easy to avoid. So I’m left wondering why you continue to be so vociferous about them – especially in light of the fact that you’ve already “purged” your blog of such voices to begin with?

    I have a few theories as to why this is, but I’d really like to hear from you on this.

    Please explain?

    Thanks!

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I guess the big problem I’m having with you is, *why do you spend so much time and focus so very much on “Cads”? By now, we all know that the vast majority of Women — especially per your target demographic — simply don’t select for them.

      Because the damage they do is considerable, given their numbers. Warning women about cads is no different than warning them about which neighborhoods to avoid at night, which outfits to wear, how much to drink, etc. Cads are predatory. They beguile women.

  • Plain Jane

    My analysis of Jungian analysis:

    Jung,
    “The women are the mothers of their husbands as well as of their children”

    >>> Having travelled far more extensively than Jung, I can say this is a common trait amongst many cultures in the world. Men actually WANT to be mothered by their wives, that’s why they expect them to cook, clean and pick up after them as if they were children who never learned how to cook, clean and pick up after themselves.

    Men complain about “nagging” but they would complain even more if instead of nagging them to pick up their socks, their wives left their socks there forever and never picked them up and laundered them, which is what men EXPECT when they leave their dirty socks around. Same with dirty dishes. The only women who nag are those who actually care if a man leaves dirty clothes and dishes around. For those of us that don’t care, we neither nag nor pick up those clothes and dishes. They just sit there til the man, LIKE A GROWN ADULT, cleans up his own mess.

    How would Jung like them apples?

    Jung,
    “There is no country in the world where women have to work so hard to attract men’s attention…….On Fifth Avenue I am constantly reminded of that bas-relief. All the women, by their dress, by the eagerness of their faces, by their walk, are trying to attract the tired men of their country.”

    >>>Seriously Jung? Come on now. You hadn’t figured out by then that women dress primarily for themselves and other women?

    Jung,
    “But in this country your women have more leisure than men. Ideas run easily among them, are discussed in clubs, and so here it may be that they will be the first ones to ask if you are a happy country or unhappy.”

    >>> Yep, they did. That was called Second Wave Feminism, son, and they figured out we were an unhappy country!

    Jung,
    “It may be that you are going to create the real independent woman who knows she is independent, who feels the responsibility of her independence and, in time, will come to see that she must give up spontaneously those things which up to now she only allows to be taken from her when she pretends to be passive. ”

    >>> See above.

  • J

    You could have simply argued about J’s views, but instead you chose to make a despicable attack on J herself…I have never seen J make any ad hominems against other commenters at HUS, or anything for that matter that would drive people away from HUS.

    Thanks, INTJ. Your observation about my behavior here is much appreciated.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Another example might be a man who claims to be a happily married father, who is obsessed with the issue of frivolous divorce. How unusual! I have never heard of such a thing. What might explain such an unlikely hobby? I’m curious about the psychological underpinnings of that.”

    How about he has sons and doesn’t want them to fall pray to a EPL?

    J – “You alluded to my feelings regarding hypergamy.”

    Not directly, at least that wasn’t my intent here. I’m not asking what keeps you, or Ana, or Susan with her husband right now. That may be important later, but right now it is strictly about “what turns you on” more than anything else. I’m trying to figure out if higher hypergamy and higher sex drive are directly related, or if it is simple circumstance that more promiscuous woman tend to be more hypergamous. Sassy is NOT by any leap of the imagination promiscuous, but she by her own words IS indeed hypergamous. She has also been very up front about how she feels and reacts to men.

    I’m kinda looking for that same level of frankness from you and the other women here who are self proclaimed beta lovers. Sassy easily identifies what “turns her on” about a man, and exactly WHY those traits turn her on. You and the other ladies here married to/happy with beta have said many times what turns you on, but never much about WHY. It is the why that is important, because WHY is where motivation for action lives. If we know WHY a person does a particular thing, we can then use that info to promote the same reaction in another person with the same motivators.

    Put another way, if we can figure out what makes a beta loving woman’s “panties wet” (I agree that this is a terrible phrase…) then men can replicate that behavior to attract beta loving women.

    What I’m getting at is this: Susan, yourself, and some of the other women here seem to imply that Game does NOT work on beta loving women. I disagree. But, if what you say is true, then there should be some OTHER “game” that can be played to attract such women. The way to prove that is to understand what and why beta loving women FEEL attraction for a man. If there is NO explanation, then to me it implies that Game works on ALL woman, but beta loving women are simply keying off of/filtering based on beta traits alone.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Anacaona:
    I for one have no poblem whatsoever as to what you, or Ms. Walsh, or Ms. Hope, or Ms. J, find sexy or attractive in your mate(s); and if you (all) say that it’s the Beta qualities that did it for you, I for one am perfectly and totally good with it. Got no problem in the least at all with that.

    The problem I do have, first with you, is your notion that Beta=Good, while Alpha=Bad. While I can grok that you and perhaps some of the ladies in your social circle back home in the Domincan Republic might have gotten burnt by some guys who might characterize themselves and/or you/your lady friends identify as “Alpha”, the fact remains that just because THEY were bad news doesn’t necessarily mean that ALL Alpha guys are bad news. Nor does it mean that all Beta guys are great news either.

    The problem I have with you is that you tend to make these value judgment distinctions, based purely on your own experiences, both direct/personal and indirect/observational. While you are certainly free to your own views, I find them objectionable, for the reasons you’ve stated.

    I get that this is a forum that is at least in part a *reaction to the Manosphere as you, Ms. Walsh et al perceive it*; often, it seems much “bigging up” of the Beta Guys is a direct response to said ‘sphere. I get that. I respect that, too.

    But I do think it’s going way overboard. Again: I have no problem with what gets your motor running. But I do have a problem with the idea that Alphas are inherently bad (Ms. Walsh has a very bad tendency to do this too btw), and the whole thing seems to veer more into the territory of advocacy, than truth-finding for its own sake.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh:
    To follow up on what I said to Ms. Anacaona, now addressing you:

    I have no problem with what you’re trying to do here at HUS; nor do I have a problem in the least with what you find sexually attractive, etc. I recall you giving a description of the physical traits etc that you found attractive about your hubbie; to be honest, it’s NOTHING like that which the ladies I know would find attractive, and hey, I’m good with that.

    The problem I have with you is that in your zeal to “promote” certain things, you lose sight of the Big Picture; take the whole “Male Faces” thing. While I’m completely good with the fact that Women like yourself might not find say, Ray Lewis’ face to be sexually attractive, the find remains that the country is chockfull of guys with faces like his who are deemed quite sexually attractive – and no, not just by the Ratchets of the world, either. Middle and UMC Women can and do find such faces sexually attractive, all the time. Do I have countervailing studies to back me up? No, I do not. All I have is years of impersonal observation on the streets – streets, I might add, that are a far sight *more diversified* than yours. As Murray has noted in his book Coming Apart, this matters, for a whole host of reasons.

    So, again: I have no problem with Women like yourself swooning over the kind of features/qualities a Mr. Walsh would have; or a Robert Pattinson; or a fill in the blank “Emo” guy, and so on. Do you.

    But the idea that guys with “hyper-masculine” faces somehow just aren’t picked much if at all by ladies?

    Rubbish.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But the idea that guys with “hyper-masculine” faces somehow just aren’t picked much if at all by ladies?

      I never said that. If hypermasculine men appealed to no one, they wouldn’t exist in the population.

      I said that in a controlled study of women who ranked photos of faces for attractiveness, hypermasculine faces got lower rankings. That is a statement of fact, not a declaration that high T men do not mate.

      Similarly, women rank men of unrestricted sexuality as less attractive, though not for STRs.

      Both sexes are able to identify cheaters’ faces through photographs alone.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “You mean if I wet my panties? Not in the classroom no, but I did have the tingle going on for him and no one else. I actually selected another teacher for the follow up class. Temptation is to be avoided.”

    “wet panties” is just such a horrible term, but yes that was what I was driving at. More to the point, was there any kind of initial sexual attraction for you? Have you ever felt such an attraction to any man in real life? (movie stars don’t count!) I’m starting to wonder if perhaps there are some women that never in their entire lives feel an instant and overwhelming lust for a man. More along those lines, I wonder if it is simply that those women don’t have that “trigger” at all, or that they simply never met a man that tripped it.

    INTJ – “This is interesting when I think about it. When I consider my view of which girls are “pretty” (and thus which girls I’d want a relationship with), it isn’t solely based on who would make me have a boner. It also considers who would make my heart beat faster, and who I’d want to cuddle with.”

    See, now as much as I am all about LTR (which means cuddling, beating heart, love, tenderness, etc.) I’ve never once looked at a woman and considered ANY of that before I’ve determined IF I would ever sleep with her. Period.

    Now, IF I decide I would have sex with her, THEN I start to narrow down my decision based on things like her personality, her character, etc. In short, FIRST I select for the ability to give me a boner, THEN I start filtering.

    I wonder if “beta loving” women simply start filtering FIRST, and THEN run him past the “tingle test”.

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

    @Ted
    Interesting I don’t remember Sassy telling us why she likes Alpha traits myself. A refresher to know exactly what you are looking for?

    I also think key ingredient is that all Beta lovers at HUS want marriage and children. The reproducing instinct is probably strong correlated to loving Beta traits and be sexually attracted to them. Because you know “That man can and will provide for the kids we make together” I have a hard time thinking this important part of survival of our species is not ingrained sexually specially considering that the Beta traits had have evolve before we have a conscious if not they wouldn’t had existed on the first place.

  • Ted D

    Ana – I’m hoping Sassy will stop by to clarify, but in short she liked men with “edge” and “exciting” lifestyles.

    “I also think key ingredient is that all Beta lovers at HUS want marriage and children. ”

    I understand, but I am asking for you and them to set this aside for a moment if possible. You see, one of my pet theories is exactly this: women that are very relationship focused would obviously want to filter for beta traits. So, if a woman is DEAD SET on a LTR, does she essentially “fool” herself into thinking she is sexually attracted to beta traits when in fact it is still alpha she finds hot, but simply doesn’t acknowledge those feelings UNTIL a man meets her beta requirements?

    Can you see where I’m going? If a woman is very traditional and wants marriage, does she really find beta traits attractive, or has she set her filters so high that she DOES NOT feel attraction at all for any man UNTIL he reaches her beta threshold? IF so, then it is STILL alpha traits that turn her on, but she does not allow ANYONE to turn her on without providing those beta traits first.

    Or, are there really women that are physically and sexually turned on by a man presenting beta traits? If so, would those women be literally repulsed by alpha behavior? If these women exist, how would a man go about attracting one? I mean, the only real “wisdom” out there for men to attract women is basically “Game” and/or the old Blue Pill “be nice, be yourself” shtick which clearly doesn’t work…

  • J

    Oh, you should only hope I stick to the ad homs. I haven’t even begun to take apart your claim that men are no longer held to any standards. I’ll get to it after I put together my Solipsism Quotient test for Susan.

    I’m flattered to be so important that I’ve made my way onto your busy schedule and, of course, your reiteration of your schoolyard insult only makes it even more true.

    I’ve still yet to see a factual defense of Stickwick’s “predation theory,” so I assume there’s none forthcoming. Again, I’d be happy to explore the idea further with Stickwick, who is “a member of your herd,” should she so desire. I’d even attempt a rational discussion with you about love really is if you so desired. In the meantime, I actually have real children whose schoolyard battles I need to deal with, so I’m going to save my emotional energy for this afternoon’s discussion with a school principal to whom I need to intimate that further abridgement of my son’s rights may result in, best case scenario, a chat with the superintendent of schools.

    Endless bickering about what, at heart, you believe to be an insult to your friend is fruitless, no matter in whatever guises you try to frame it. If you want to discuss THAT on an honest emotional level, I’m willing to do that to, but this high IQ, low EQ happy crap is below the both of us.

    Otherwise, this whole thing is far more meaningful to you that it is to me.

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

    More to the point, was there any kind of initial sexual attraction for you? Have you ever felt such an attraction to any man in real life?

    What do you mean real life? This was my teacher it was a man I talked to and interacted in a two days a week basis. And no as my teacher I didn’t saw him that way till after a week of interaction.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “the motives as reported don’t jive with what I know about human behavior.”

    Just a pet peeve – the word is “jibe”. “It ain’t cool bein’ no jive turkey so close to Thanksgiving. ”

    “Another example might be a man who claims to be a happily married father, who is obsessed with the issue of frivolous divorce. How unusual! I have never heard of such a thing. What might explain such an unlikely hobby? I’m curious about the psychological underpinnings of that. ”

    Perhaps he is concerned about how this is impacting greater society, the well being of men and the future, even for his daughter. The problem with your viewpoint is it is sort of an argumentative trick that negates every man’s standing to raise this issue because those who have experienced are just bitter outliers to be ignored and those who haven’t should stop complaining about it.

    At the risk losing my newly-minted beta orbiter status, I might ask why a woman who claims to be happily married and unharmed by her pre-marital sexual experiences is so concerned about the difficulties faced by young women in today’s sexual market place that she started a blog to try to address the issue. What’s the psychology behind that? It’s fascinating, no?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      Thank you for the correction. Were you also the person who clued me in to the difference between loath and loathe?

      Perhaps he is concerned about how this is impacting greater society, the well being of men and the future, even for his daughter.

      Perhaps, that seems reasonable. In that case, though, the extreme and emotional nature of the rhetoric is puzzling.

      The problem with your viewpoint is it is sort of an argumentative trick that negates every man’s standing to raise this issue because those who have experienced are just bitter outliers to be ignored and those who haven’t should stop complaining about it.

      It’s not a viewpoint, it’s just something I find curious, as I said.

      At the risk losing my newly-minted beta orbiter status, I might ask why a woman who claims to be happily married and unharmed by her pre-marital sexual experiences is so concerned about the difficulties faced by young women in today’s sexual market place that she started a blog to try to address the issue.

      Of course, you have every right to be curious about me as well. My blogging about hookup culture at my age is odd! I am constantly met with surprise when people learn of it.

      I initially started blogging as a way for a dozen or so female high school friends at different colleges to keep in touch with each other (and me) about the challenges they were facing in their dealings with guys. That followed a couple of years where these girls were a weekly fixture at my kitchen table.

      I remember being puzzled when my blog stats showed 100 visitors one day. I figured the girls must be spreading the word to their new friends in college. I didn’t even know what Google indexing was. It snowballed from there.

      Today, that crop of women is mostly settled or otherwise well equipped to handle the SMP. I continue to write for the experience, the education, the community, and the potential to help young men and women. I hope I do so without prejudice or anger.

  • Escoffier

    I have to say, Susan, I do get annoyed when you say things like “If you’re married, why should you care?” I mean, isn’t it obvious why we care? You know, the inherent importance of the topic to society at large and to (potentially) our own personal lives?

    So, to speak for myself, I care about understanding this stuff for several reasons. One, because I like philosophy and I want to understand the world. Two, because understanding it has VASTLY helped me to analyze past events in my life and see them for what they were. Three, because it might help me not to blow it in the future. And four because I have kids and I want to help them too.

    Constantly questioning my motives as if I were some kind of perv for wanting understand human behavior and motivation gets old.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      I have to say, Susan, I do get annoyed when you say things like “If you’re married, why should you care?” I mean, isn’t it obvious why we care? You know, the inherent importance of the topic to society at large and to (potentially) our own personal lives?

      I didn’t say that. I questioned why a man married to a good woman, with children, would use Marriage 2.0 as a reason to do it differently next time. Literally wishing his children out of existence if he had the chance, and while he’s at it, getting plenty of NSA sex. Methinks the legal concern is a cover for a frivolous urge to separate from wife and family.

      In any case, I found it curious, as did several other people, including males.

      Constantly questioning my motives as if I were some kind of perv for wanting understand human behavior and motivation gets old.

      I was not the only person to observe your tenacity over weeks and months re the hypergamy concept. I found it curious and still do, to some extent. I believe your explanation for why you think it’s very important to understand, but I don’t think asking you your reasons implied you were a perv.

  • Escoffier

    Yeah, one more thing. So, on the one hand you question the motivation and standing of the bitter men who got divorce raped or otherwise screwed over by a woman. They can’t have a legitimate point because it’s just the pain talking.

    But then you also question the happy men who like their spouses because, Why the hell are they so invested in this debate? There must be some latent psychological issue driving them and your blog is not a psychiatrist’s office.

    OK, whom does that leave among the male sex with standing to comment? Players and monks?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So, on the one hand you question the motivation and standing of the bitter men who got divorce raped or otherwise screwed over by a woman. They can’t have a legitimate point because it’s just the pain talking.

      I question the opinions of anyone motivated by anger or bitterness. That does’t mean they are wrong, but getting through all the baggage to the truth is difficult and tedious, often impossible. It doesn’t help that these emotions are usually accompanied by great hostility.

      But then you also question the happy men who like their spouses because, Why the hell are they so invested in this debate? There must be some latent psychological issue driving them and your blog is not a psychiatrist’s office.

      IIRC, my question to you was sparked by some personal things you’ve shared here, including feelings you’ve expressed about your past experiences with women. You said I was off base, so fine.

      I confess I also have found some of our debates frustrating for several reasons, including time spent and some rather aggressive accusations by you regarding my honesty and fairness, particularly during the 3-male-pileup a couples of weeks ago. I may have been snarky in the heat of the moment, in which case I apologize.

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

    @O
    I invite you to study an environment with a high concentration of Alphas and get back at me about your observations and findings. I didn;t got slapped/rejected by one Alpha and decided to hate them all. This stance is the work of 25 years more or less of observations, experiences, papers and statistics. You know a couple of Alphas that are productive members of society and probably you consider yourself among themselves. Good for you and them but as a general rule Alphas are to be treated like sluts sure some of them can become good mates and mothers but why risk it? In the same vein the Betas that are bet for all sorts of relationship are minority so why not take a safer approach?, YMMV.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “What do you mean real life? This was my teacher it was a man I talked to and interacted in a two days a week basis. And no as my teacher I didn’t saw him that way till after a week of interaction.”

    By the “real life” comment I just meant that “tingling” for a movie star doesn’t count.

    So, you have never once in your entire life felt an overwhelming sexual desire for a man you didn’t know?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So, you have never once in your entire life felt an overwhelming sexual desire for a man you didn’t know?

      NEVER!

  • Ted D

    Escoffier – “Yeah, one more thing. So, on the one hand you question the motivation and standing of the bitter men who got divorce raped or otherwise screwed over by a woman. They can’t have a legitimate point because it’s just the pain talking.

    But then you also question the happy men who like their spouses because, Why the hell are they so invested in this debate? There must be some latent psychological issue driving them and your blog is not a psychiatrist’s office.”

    Its funny. My wife knows I read and post here, and on occasion she asks me why I bother. It is almost as if for most women, if an issue does not affect them directly, it doesn’t exist. Kinda on topic in regards to Solipsism. I don’t understand WHY it is so hard for people to understand that *I* might be interested in something that doesn’t affect me directly because I don’t think it is fair/correct/good for society.

    If all I did was concern myself with what affects me directly, I would be a very self-centered, selfish, and shallow person. Of course, this might explain why I think “people” suck so much. Most people DO NOT care about things that don’t affect them directly.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh:
    “Because the damage they do is considerable, given their numbers. Warning women about cads is no different than warning them about which neighborhoods to avoid at night, which outfits to wear, how much to drink, etc. Cads are predatory. They beguile women.”

    O; But by your own massive study/post recently, this statement doesn’t make any sense; the “20%” tend to deal with each other; moreover, as Murray et al have clearly pointed out, the 80% do indeed find and marry each, without much incident.

    It would appear that you are being just a weebit alarmist.

    Even in the ‘hood, the gals know who the players are, and can either go their way or not. Again, it isn’t like these guys are hiding who and what they are; they aren’t. If you avoid the clubs, and on the college campus the frats, you’ve pretty much got the whole thing beat. The stats backs this up.

    As you know, I have three younger sisters – who are Black, came from working class roots and never attended college as you focus on it here (they all went to school in their adult years, two of whom did so after they got married). NONE of them got burnt by cads, because they understood what I said above.

    So, the question has to be – if Black Women from working class, inner city America knows this – why don’t White UMC, sheltered Women know it?

    Your response?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Even in the ‘hood, the gals know who the players are, and can either go their way or not. Again, it isn’t like these guys are hiding who and what they are; they aren’t. If you avoid the clubs, and on the college campus the frats, you’ve pretty much got the whole thing beat. The stats backs this up.

      First, I said cads, not players. Cads often run false nice guy game for the express purpose of hoodwinking females, especially freshmen.

      Second, women should not have to avoid parties on campus (nearly all are thrown by frats) or clubs, or anywhere else just because they’re crawling with predatory males. If a woman knows and uses Defense Against the Dark Arts she will be just fine.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, the reason it was important is because I thought your definition was A) wrong or at least incomplete; B) internally inconsistent and; C) “exculpatory” toward women in a way that undercuts your core mission.

    I explained all that at great length.

    I still love my wife and have no regrets whatsoever about marrying her so please don’t lump me in with Joe Blow.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      Susan, the reason it was important is because I thought your definition was A) wrong or at least incomplete; B) internally inconsistent and; C) “exculpatory” toward women in a way that undercuts your core mission.

      I explained all that at great length.

      And I responded at great length. We disagreed.

      Oh, and yes, I noticed too that a lot of people noticed my tenacity, but a lot of people saw my points and agreed with them. Not (quite) all of them were male, either.

      Did you notice the observations about your manner of debate? Or your preoccupation with Red Pill issues?

  • Escoffier

    Oh, and yes, I noticed too that a lot of people noticed my tenacity, but a lot of people saw my points and agreed with them. Not (quite) all of them were male, either.

  • Ted D

    “I still love my wife and have no regrets whatsoever about marrying her so please don’t lump me in with Joe Blow.”

    On this: why is it that people jump to conclusions based on simple statements. I love my wife, but I may very much dislike her political views. By disagreeing with her politics, I am in NO WAY loving her any less.

    So, why is it that saying I don’t like hypergamy or “female nature” as described in any current thread is often equated to me loving my wife less? I can love my wife and hate her behavior at the exact same time. And, me making a statement that I hate female behavior X does not mean I love my wife any less either, just because she is female and may or may not do X.

    Fortunately for me, she doesn’t behave in any way that I hate, but the two things are not related directly.

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

    So, you have never once in your entire life felt an overwhelming sexual desire for a man you didn’t know?

    No. Heh not even with movie stars.

    Its funny. My wife knows I read and post here, and on occasion she asks me why I bother. It is almost as if for most women, if an issue does not affect them directly, it doesn’t exist. Kinda on topic in regards to Solipsism. I don’t understand WHY it is so hard for people to understand that *I* might be interested in something that doesn’t affect me directly because I don’t think it is fair/correct/good for society.

    Hubby asks the same. “We are happily married why do you care?” I think this more probably a Myer Briggs thing than a letter function we ENt/fJ need to make sense of the world. When I was studying American culture many things didn’t made sense to me specially Gender wars. Hubby always tell me “Some things don’t make sense honey” I don’t believe that I can accept I might not have enough information or not smart enough at the time but someday I’m going to wake up and think “Oh that is why” and probably move on to something else or write a book about it. ;)

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Returning to the Question of Male/Female Accountability…

    As I’ve said above, both Ms. Walsh and Ms. J have made the case that Men/boys in our time are not held to account for their bad behavior; Ms. Walsh spefically cited the recent Boston University rape/sexual assault scandal(s) as proof of this.

    My response?

    DUKE.

    Crystal Gale Mangum accused three young Men of gangrape, and got away with it. Indeed, we know for a fact that Women can and do lie about these things; how many Black Men have literally hung from trees, because of this?

    TO suggest that “Men do it too!” doesn’t in any address the argument – that Women, simply are NOT held to account for keeping their word, or pay any costs for lying, et al.

    In our recent revisting of the Kate Bolick issue, it occured to Ms. Walsh that perhaps a reason (if not the major reason) as to why so many Men in her cipher found Ms. Bolick’s actions so deeply repugnant, was *because of the utter lack of character she showed* in presenting herself one way, and then doing a complete 180 when it came time to go on the Today Show, to say nothing of being able to profit off of her misery. That she went from, as Ms. Walsh put it, “mildly anti-feminist” to full-tilt “Team Woman”, AND, to “cash-in” on the whole affair, is for me – and here I want to make it clear that I speak for no one but myself – utterly disgusted. I wouldn’t pump her with my absolute worst enemy’s d*ck at ten paces.

    Moreover, in my remarks about Ms. Bolick, I was careful to draw what I considered to be a very meaningful comparison to Ms. Jessica Shairer, who Ms. Walsh has also written about. I made it clear that I have infinitely MORE respect for Ms. Shairer, than I ever will for Ms. Bolick. Why?

    Because, while Ms. Shairer has NONE of the outer qualities that Ms. Bolick has – looks, ability, talent, raw IQ, money, etc, the one thing she does have, is character. In her videotaped interview that accompanies the NY story that features her, she makes it clear that she blames no one – including her absentee Baby Daddy – for where she is in her life, and that she takes full responsibility for the life decisions she’s made. In my eyes, that alone made her a hella lot a better Woman, than Ms. Bolick will ever be. That this point seems to have alluded Ms. Walsh (to say nothing of the other lady regulars – and to be frank, fella regulars of HUS, too – is quite fascinating to my mind). Indeed, the first few lines of Ms. Bolick’s piece in The Atlantic is littered with words like “players and deadbeats” in an attempt to blame anything and everything for her failures in love. They say that tough times don’t create character – they reveal it. And when one simply puts Ms. Bolick’s and Ms. Shairer’s stories side by side, it becomes crystal clear, as to who has character, and who does not.

    Deep.

    While I’m on the point, please allow me to note that I have noticed that the LC Women tend to sound a heck of a lot more like Ms. Shairer, than Ms. Bolick – while the UMC lady losers at love, tend to sound a heck of a lot more like Ms. Bolick, than like Ms. Shairer. Make of that what you will, and to be sure I have my theories (if you haven’t guessed by now, I have lots and lots of theories), but I think I’m on to something here…and just might explain why we see that at the least, the Jessica Shairers of the world at least will have their genes go into the future, while the Ms. Bolicks of the world find themselves, by themselves…and not by their own choice, to let them tell it.

    Could that have anything in the least to do with what I’ve said above, and the male response to same – a kind of voting with one’s feet?

    Hmm…

    O.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, what I have said was that I can now look back on some bad relationship dynamics and say, today, “Aha, now I understand why that was so bad” thanks in part to red pill/manosphere teachings.

    You have several times taken my simple declaration that I am a beta as some form of self-loathing, when I have many times tried to tell guys that there is no shame in being a beta and that feeling ashamed of it only contributes to the problem. Since you like to praise betas and tell girls they ought to go for them, it seems weird to me that you call my self-description as a beta some cry of deep psychological pain.

    I have also said that I never was player and would make a very bad player were I to try, which you have also interpreted as a sign of self-loathing. But that seems to me inconsistent with your “exoteric” pro-beta teaching and, in a way, an implicit admission of admiration for the player.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Since you like to praise betas and tell girls they ought to go for them, it seems weird to me that you call my self-description as a beta some cry of deep psychological pain.

      I have also said that I never was player and would make a very bad player were I to try, which you have also interpreted as a sign of self-loathing. But that seems to me inconsistent with your “exoteric” pro-beta teaching and, in a way, an implicit admission of admiration for the player.

      I think it was Jesus Mahoney who came to that conclusion in a discussion about Game. For my part, I don’t see psychological pain or self-loathing. Your level of self-confidence seems, um, robust.

      I do find it interesting to know what motivates people. It often tells the story that is not being voiced. I usually can tell when something is up, or off, but not always. I accepted your explanation for your own interest in these topics, even if I felt you had dug your feet in. In which case, why debate?

  • J

    @Ted

    OK, one last post, and I’m off to school.

    I’m not sure my DH is a “straight” beta. As I’ve said before, I would consider his business and people/leadership skills as alpha. Of all the descriptions I’ve read on the net, the one that best fits his personality is Vox’s sigma–the guy who wins socially without even trying. Ironically, that description, coupled with one of his commenter’s correlating sigmahood to being INTJ, has been extremely helpful to me in understanding and appreciating my husband. All that being said, I think that real love to a certain degree is about nuture. The job of two married people is help each other be the best they can be and to suport each other. To get and give that, a woman has to tap into a guy’s beta traits. I can’t imagine having any sort of LTR, much less a marriage, with a pure alpha or pure sigma. They lack humanity.

    I don’t BTW believe that women “settle” for betas. It’s more like coming to an understanding that if one wants a real relationship, one has to look for real value in a man and that the emotionally healthy traits that lend themselves to building love, family, and civilization are the so-called “beta” traits. One of the first comments I made at Dalrock’s involved my objection to relationship building traits being called “beta” as though they are less than alpha. They aren’t. They are the glue that holds couples together. My DH is no pushover, but if he had a total lack of beta triats, I’d have left. In fact, the majority of our issues come from too much sigma and not enough beta. And I’ve never been attracted to alphas.

    Also, I don’t know that beta traits are “panty-wetters” in the “magic bullet” sense that men would like. Mike C. is right that seeing a guy pat a kid on the head doesn’t cause women to throw themselves on a guy, BUT it is necessary as part of gestalt of attractive traits. This weekend, I saw a male friend of ours pull a toddler out of a potentially dangerous situation. I have to say it gave me a warm feeling that came close to a tingle—not quite the twinge that Susan so accurately described but to that warm, fuzzy pre-twinge feeling that would allow a women to let a guy get closer.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “No. Heh not even with movie stars”

    Fascinating. D you think you simply haven’t met the right man, or do you think you simply don’t haventhentriggers for such an event?

    Every woman I’ve known well enough to talk to about this stuff has told me that at least once in thier loves they encountered a man that simply made them hot. Most of them never acts on that impulse, but they all felt it. That is the type of attraction I would want from a woman IF she exhibits that trait at all. In other words, the fact that my wife has in the past encountered a man that made her “horny” on site means that I would want her to respond to me in that fashion. (which happily she does). The problem would be IF some other man ever triggered that response in her, but I didn’t.

    To me a woman that never feels such raw physical attraction is a safer bet in terms of cheating, but may also not be very enthusiastic in bed. (not implying you are or are not adventurous with your hubby. Just a general statement.). So, being that sex is so important to me, I tend to find myself attracted to women with very responsive sexuality, but I also want them to be as picky as Sassy is, and I want to fit the bill for her pickiness.

    Thanks so much for the honest answers. I’ll need to stew on this a bit…

    “Hubby always tell me “Some things don’t make sense honey” I don’t believe that I can accept I might not have enough information or not smart enough at the time but someday I’m going to wake up and think “Oh that is why” and probably move on to something else or write a book about it”

    I suffer from this as well. In fact, it is the reason I will often repeat the same concept in different words if I’m not getting an answer I expect. I tend to believe I’m simply not being understood. To me there MUST be a reason for everything, and an answer for every question.

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

    You see, one of my pet theories is exactly this: women that are very relationship focused would obviously want to filter for beta traits. So, if a woman is DEAD SET on a LTR, does she essentially “fool” herself into thinking she is sexually attracted to beta traits when in fact it is still alpha she finds hot, but simply doesn’t acknowledge those feelings UNTIL a man meets her beta requirements?

    I would go for that but there is a key point I mentioned before but I think you probably missed. The men smelled bad to me. Like stink I used to go to the gym (trying to get firmer) and I quit because I couldn’t stand the smell of the men around all of them Alpha in features and behaviors, square jaws, lots of women around. My cad friends I tried to support their softball and baseball games but I used to leave as soon as could because again the sweat smell was just unbearable. Some men smelled neutral but usually the ones less aggressive. My husband smells really nice and his friends smell neutral to me not bad or good I did noticed that my husband’s smelled neutral while I was on the pill take that as you want. I actually hug my husband when he comes back sweating from work and I really like to cuddle with him before he takes a back. I cannot hamsterize my sense of smell that one is reptilian brain and I started to notice this correlation when I started puberty (at the old age of 12, with my first period starting at 14) which will make sense if I wanted to make sure I was only going to reproduce with Beta’s, YMMV.

    Can you see where I’m going? If a woman is very traditional and wants marriage, does she really find beta traits attractive, or has she set her filters so high that she DOES NOT feel attraction at all for any man UNTIL he reaches her beta threshold? IF so, then it is STILL alpha traits that turn her on, but she does not allow ANYONE to turn her on without providing those beta traits first.

    Aside from the smell thing I remember at 16 or 17 I was once at a house party I though it was going to be a nice party and when I crossed the threshold everyone was making out with everyone (no chaperones) and my crush (he was the smart kid of the class of course but aside from that I didn’t knew anything about him) was there not making out with anyone and took a look at me and smiled. Before I noticed I was out of the door on my way home. I didn’t made the conscious decision to leave ,my body impulsed me it was one of the gut actions you do and then you think “Why did I did that?”
    So my body agenda doesn’t like strangers at all, if they are attractive they go into the “Fly or Fight” box till I know more about them and can get then in the very tiny “sex box” and that only has happened 3 times in my life and I married the third.
    Is funny now that I think about it we have a name for women that after certain time lose interest on me “She got dried up” In Oscar Wao we have that with his mom just having three big loves and then losing interest in men altogether I wonder if is an insular thing.

  • Escoffier

    “Did you notice the observations about your manner of debate? Or your preoccupation with Red Pill issues?”

    No, I didn’t. In fact I don’t recall anyone complaining except you.

    I find it rather amazing now that you are resorting to this playground tactic now (“Jill doesn’t like you, whisper whisper”) when in this very thread you have a full blast, and really quite nasty, fight going. Have you ever seen me do anything close to that?

    What the hell, Susan? If I wanted to be a dick, I would say that’s you winking at an alpha going 105 in a 55 but hammering the poor beta for going 56.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      I find it rather amazing now that you are resorting to this playground tactic now (“Jill doesn’t like you, whisper whisper”) when in this very thread you have a full blast, and really quite nasty, fight going. Have you ever seen me do anything close to that?

      I asked you that question out of genuine curiosity, not as a tit for tat. There was some discussion on the last contentious thread about the agressive pile-on of you, Mike C and Ted. Aggression was not the issue, it was the blatant accusations of intellectual dishonesty and other tricks on my part. I assumed you hadn’t seen it because it generated apologies (sort of) from the other participants.

      Someone else (a male) noted your transformation from White Knight to Dispenser of the Red Pill over recent months. It’s an apt description, IMO. No reason to feel insulted, this was all out in the open. No whispering.

      If I wanted to be a dick, I would say that’s you winking at an alpha going 105 in a 55 but hammering the poor beta for going 56.

      I assume you mean that you are the poor beta, but who is the alpha?

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Anacaona #502:
    “@O
    I invite you to study an environment with a high concentration of Alphas and get back at me about your observations and findings.”

    O: Assuming I followed your instructions/suggestion, it still would not respond to my argument with you in the least. All it would “prove” is that I “studied” a given “Alpha rich environment”. *shrugs*

    “I didn;t got slapped/rejected by one Alpha and decided to hate them all. This stance is the work of 25 years more or less of observations, experiences, papers and statistics.”

    O: I could just as easily say “Black Women ain’t sh*t” based on the very same “metrics” that you are proferring here; but such a thing doesn’t mean that it’s sound. All it means is that I would have a in-born bias against Black Women, just like you have an in-born bias against Alpha guys – and please keep in mind, I made it clear that I have no problem with any of that. What I have a problem with is your notion and promotion of the idea that Beta=Good and Alpha=Bad. I am saying to you, that such a notion is demonstrably bunk.

    “You know a couple of Alphas that are productive members of society and probably you consider yourself among themselves.”

    O: If you have noticed, I have never referred to myself is either a Beta or an Alpha; that is something for others to determine, most notably Women. But the fact remains that it is indeed possible to be an Alpha Male and also be a productive member of society. It happens all the time, in fact.

    “Good for you and them but as a general rule Alphas are to be treated like sluts sure some of them can become good mates and mothers but why risk it?”

    O: This is a very telling statement. Fellas, are you seeing this?

    “In the same vein the Betas that are bet for all sorts of relationship are minority so why not take a safer approach?, YMMV.”

    O: Because it presumes, again, that Beta=Good. This isn’t necessarily true at all.

    Everything goes a lot better once one learns how to argue with logic…

    O.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @PlainJane

    Men complain about “nagging” but they would complain even more if instead of nagging them to pick up their socks, their wives left their socks there forever and never picked them up and laundered them, which is what men EXPECT when they leave their dirty socks around. Same with dirty dishes. The only women who nag are those who actually care if a man leaves dirty clothes and dishes around. For those of us that don’t care, we neither nag nor pick up those clothes and dishes. They just sit there til the man, LIKE A GROWN ADULT, cleans up his own mess.

    How would Jung like them apples?

    PJ … my willy nilly boomstix silly little marauder mouse … if you keepses this ups … you’rses gonna goomsagallah towel-head Allah explodies toadies, in a doodah hookah casbah … now singzies them femzies melodieez … and eatsies da peacheez Jungian applezies … oh dearzies … and I will also pickses ups … all them smelly bloody socks … so that PJ can clock them ducks … as she washes her fricken frilly frocks !!!

  • Escoffier

    Susan, if we were to call a pure manosphere perspective the “far right” and Jezebel/feministing the “far left” in this debate, with HUS somewhere in the center right, I am so NOT on the far right, especially compared to several others who comment here. In fact, that seems so obvious to me that, just as you are puzzled about why I am interested in mating issues, I am puzzled about why you consistently single me out as some manosphere avenger hell-bent on proving that women are terrible.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      I love you. I think you are very tingle worthy. :)

      In fact, that seems so obvious to me that, just as you are puzzled about why I am interested in mating issues, I am puzzled about why you consistently single me out as some manosphere avenger hell-bent on proving that women are terrible.

      I do not see you this way. I’m sorry if I appear to be picking on you. You drive me crazy sometimes.

  • J

    Ms. Walsh and Ms. J have made the case that Men/boys in our time are not held to account for their bad behavior

    OK, one more “one more.”

    What I actually said was that kids in general, not just girls, but also boys, are not held acountable any more. I’m not sure you read my actual comment or Vox’s attempt to put words in my mouth, but if you scroll up and look at the actual context of the comment, what I actually said should be clear.

    As I have said, I have spent my professional life in working with adolescents. One thing that I have noticed is that everyone, regardless of race, religion, class, etc., is loathe to have their child held accountable for anything. There’s a tremendous amount of narcissism among parents that prevents them from allowing kids, regardless of sex, to face the consequence of their actions. Additionally most kids, male or female, have a tremendous sense of entitlement. When I have worked directly with kids, I have not noticed a difference in the rate at which the genders required discipline around those issues or the amount of negative parent contact generated as a result of disciplining kids of either gender. And it’s equally damaging to the character development of boys and girls as well.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “I would go for that but there is a key point I mentioned before but I think you probably missed. The men smelled bad to me.”

    I did miss this. Truly fascinating… Do you think it was the higher T levels these guys probably had? I know you don’t know for sure, but I wondered if you had any theories.

    I have to say, your accounts strike me as very different than anything I’ve experienced with all of the women I’ve known well throughout my life. I’ve known chaste women, slutty women, and all in between. (of course I wasn’t in LTRs with all of them, but I was a beta orbiter for many, and they told me way more than I ever wanted to know about what turned them on and all…) Not once have I ever met a women that never had raw sexual attraction for some men. Never once have I met a woman that didn’t admit that they like “bad boy” traits on some level (of course it varies a great deal, but they all liked something we here at HUS attribute to alpha). Never once have I met a woman that is truly turned on by a betaish man. I’ve known some that were with betaish men. But, for the most part, those relationships either were very female led, or the beta in question had at least a minimum of alphaness to him that he satisfied her desire for “manly” behavior in some way. Hell, the most extreme example I know of is a woman that is tremendously turned on by the fact that her husband can hack. No lie, she will sit and watch him “work” to get herself all revved up. To her, his ability to break into computer systems IS an alpha trait. The fact that having computer skills is generally considered “beta” doesn’t even enter her mind.

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

    Fascinating. D you think you simply haven’t met the right man, or do you think you simply don’t haventhentriggers for such an event?

    I don’t think so. I mentioned that I need months to get a first impression of people male or female. Most of the time when I meet someone I look them in the eye and my first though is “I wonder how the world looks from their POV?” the I work from them. Maybe I’m too cerebral? But I need to make sense of people to a point before they “register”. I had meet men that look gorgeous specially during modeling, and for me they were like statues nice to look at but not tingle or attraction. I remember once they needed to get oiled up for a catwalk and some of the assistants were falling all over themselves to oil them I was like “here you can have my oil, I’m checking my make up” and it was not me being all bitchy it was just me being bored by the prospect of oiling strange men no matter how good looking.
    Heh now I will like to test myself with some diodes in my nether regions interacting with attractive men and/or gamers Vox is probably laughing at my naivety thinking that probably my vag wouldn’t agree with me. Who knows he might be right, why I have to be so curious God…

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    “This is interesting when I think about it. When I consider my view of which girls are “pretty” (and thus which girls I’d want a relationship with), it isn’t solely based on who would make me have a boner. It also considers who would make my heart beat faster, and who I’d want to cuddle with.”

    See, now as much as I am all about LTR (which means cuddling, beating heart, love, tenderness, etc.) I’ve never once looked at a woman and considered ANY of that before I’ve determined IF I would ever sleep with her. Period.

    Now, IF I decide I would have sex with her, THEN I start to narrow down my decision based on things like her personality, her character, etc. In short, FIRST I select for the ability to give me a boner, THEN I start filtering.

    No no I don’t mean I filter for personality or character early on.

    My superficial judgement of looks (which happens long before I know about personality or character) is really composed of two things:

    First, she needs to be able to give me a boner. Generally, the majority of girls on a college campus would pass this filter. Second, I also make a subjective judgment of her looks as to wether she her looks are really good at giving me a boner, wether I would feel like cuddling with her, and wether the sight of her causes butterflies in my stomach.

    The first is an objective filter that everyone needs to pass. The second is really just one factor that gets considered along with personality, character, etc. to determine desirability.

    So rather than define looks as 1-10 based on sexual attractiveness, a proper rating system for me would be to use pass/fail based on sexual attractiveness, and then further rank those who pass into A, B, and C grades based on various factors.

  • Ted D

    Ana – thanks again for all your replies. if nothing else, you’ve given me lots of food for thought.

    It also has occurred to me that I tend to be keying on some concepts of what *I* feel is attractive for myself that are inherently “femalecentric” for lack of a better term. I am not against sex out of wedlock, but favor serial monogamy as the preferred method of promiscuity. (the ‘sphere claims this is VERY western women in attitude) I also seem to want a woman that has options, but chooses not to exercise them. (very much like the fantasy women have for the alpha that isn’t a cad) I want to feel VERY sexually desired by my mate, which is supposedly a very female point of view.

    I’m not sure if this is all nurture (meaning I picked up these femalecentric desires because of my environment in a single parent, female run home) or if it is nature in that I just have a head full of crossed wiring. (meaning I was born predisposed to “femalecentric” traits in what I’m looking for in a mate) In the end I guess it really doesn’t matter as long as it all works for me, but as we both discussed, I simply can’t leave well enough alone. I truly want to understand why I want a sexual woman that is super selective in who she shares it with. (madonna/whore complex? perhaps, but I think its much more complex than that) It bothers me that I desire I high level of sexual attraction from my mate when it seems other men don’t concern themselves with it at all. (insecurity? To some extent probably, but again it just isn’t that simple.)

    But hey, at least you and everyone here should know that I’m still just as puzzled by some of my own behavior as I am of theirs. :D

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “I didn’t say that. I questioned why a man married to a good woman, with children, would use Marriage 2.0 as a reason to do it differently next time. Literally wishing his children out of existence if he had the chance, and while he’s at it, getting plenty of NSA sex. Methinks the legal concern is a cover for a frivolous urge to separate from wife and family. ”

    Hmm. I haven’t seen that. I see men who say that knowing what they know now, they probably wouldn’t take the chance they took. But that isn’t the same as what you’re saying – it’s saying that they got dumb lucky on a foolish risk. If a man literally said he regrets getting married despite everything turning out right, I would guess you are correct It might be that he resents now living in fear of the other shoe dropping (after all, most victims of divorce rape probably thought they were happily married), but that’s sort of like the crazy feminists who claim to live in constant fear of being raped.

  • Passer_By

    Susan ,for what it’s worth, Escoffier was run out of Dalrock’s comments threads on a rail for being a white knight. LOL. In fact, I think they may have been rougher on him than on you, although he was a bit more of a white knight in those days.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Susan ,for what it’s worth, Escoffier was run out of Dalrock’s comments threads on a rail for being a white knight. LOL. In fact, I think they may have been rougher on him than on you, although he was a bit more of a white knight in those days.

      Haha, I recall it. I believe they also informed him his wife was a cheating whore and that she should hire a good lawyer.

  • Ted D

    INTJ – “So rather than define looks as 1-10 based on sexual attractiveness, a proper rating system for me would be to use pass/fail based on sexual attractiveness, and then further rank those who pass into A, B, and C grades based on various factors.”

    That makes sense. To be honest, I haven’t spent much of my adult life without a LTR, so I usually don’t view women past the boner test. But, yes. If I was assessing a woman as a possible mate, my process would start very similarly to yours. Boner test? Check. Look like someone I could cuddle up to? check. and from there it would progress.

    I sometimes forget what its like to judge a woman on her merits as a mate to be frank. I just don’t have very much experience with it, since I’ve mostly been in LTRs since I was 16. The few times I was single, I really didn’t “window shop” or “test drive” much at all. I pretty much looked for a women to partner up with until I found one and started an LTR. I never once tried dating several at once in order to select from the best. It seems like a brilliant idea, but I don’t think its something I could comfortably manage. I’m just not social enough for all that meeting and greeting, and the idea of “spinning plates” causes me a little anxiety.

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

    I did miss this. Truly fascinating… Do you think it was the higher T levels these guys probably had? I know you don’t know for sure, but I wondered if you had any theories.

    Could be, it could be the similar genes tough I come from an overpopulated island maybe at this point there is too many similarities and this was a way to help our genetic variety, but then aside from the violence I don’t think we have a lot of genetic issues there. I also have a slightly larger ring finger than that the index one (is just 1 mm difference and I used to have a square jaw myself that magically disappeared after puberty) so it seems I was exposed to too testosterone in uteri maybe my body rejects more? I’m still gathering info about this.

  • Escoffier

    LOL at me being a “white knight” at Dalrocks’s. “Those days” were not even one year ago and my views have not changed at all.

    I was run out of there for not being part of the amen chorus, for picking holes in Dalrock’s “logic” and for standing up for the idea that moral principle has a natural, as opposed to solely relgious, basis. The latter idea especially got everyone, Dalrock above all, very very angry.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “Were you also the person who clued me in to the difference between loath and loathe?”

    No, that must have been Mahoney or Vox, or some other super-high IQ dude. Though I’m fully aware of the difference, I’m not smart enough to be bothered by it.

  • Ted D

    Escoffier – “The latter idea especially got everyone, Dalrock above all, very very angry.”

    IME very religious people tend to get their panties in a bunch when you start questioning their faith. My extended family is full of very traditional Catholics, and none of them like even the whiff of doubt in regards to a biblical basis for anything. If the Bible says so, well then it just IS. Of course, for someone like me that always wants a concrete answer, that doesn’t fly. It got me in a LOT of trouble while attending Catholic grade school.

  • Passer_By

    I didn’t think Dalrock was angry about your position on that. I explained in that thread why I, as an atheist, could still frame a compelling moral objection to the actions of PUA’s. He seemed to accept my argument. Maybe I’m just more philosophical that you are. :)

  • Escoffier

    RE: frivilous divorce. Susan, I wonder if you would admit that the following reason for my interest is legitimate or at least not disturbing and strange.

    Before I found the manosphere, it had never crossed my mind that my wife might cheat on me or leave me–unless I cheated on her or beat her or something truly awful like that. Then I found the sphere, with its mix of anecdote and theory. As it happens, an acquaintance of mine was, around this time, ditched by his wife of 11 years. He hadn’t cheated, beaten, drank or drugged. She justs said “I don’t love you any more” and that same day her father and brother came and moved her out of the house. It was all premeditated, with the full support of her family. (Yeah, he got to keep the house but it was a rental. I have no idea how the asset split went down.)

    So that was rather shocking. It got me thinking.

    Now, I still believe I have a good marriage and I would be shocked if my wife up and left me like that. But you know what? SO WAS THIS GUY! So were ALL the guys who write about this in the sphere.

    So that naturally led me to wonder, how did that happen and are there any signs of it happening to me that maybe I am not, at present, equipped to notice? Also, are there things I can do to make it less likely?

    The sphere has been somewhat useful in that regard. And so has HUS.

    A while back you wrote a post in which you detailed eight passive aggressive signs that your woman is losing attraction for you. That was useful to know.

    Since it appears to be all on us men to keep track of our ladies’ moods and adjust our behavior accordingly, lest they fall out of love and leave us and it will have been all our fault, I don’t see a practical alternative to doing the best I can to avoid that. Which in turn requires understanding female nature.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      Now, I still believe I have a good marriage and I would be shocked if my wife up and left me like that. But you know what? SO WAS THIS GUY! So were ALL the guys who write about this in the sphere.

      So that naturally led me to wonder, how did that happen and are there any signs of it happening to me that maybe I am not, at present, equipped to notice? Also, are there things I can do to make it less likely?

      The sphere has been somewhat useful in that regard. And so has HUS.

      Fair enough. It’s just that sometimes I have felt that you are very invested in the outcome of the debate. To the point where you seemed to need to believe that all married women have a hypergamy itch they try not to scratch. That we have a base desire to trade up that we must suppress. As I said then, we have many flaws, but I am not aware of any such trait as part of female nature (remembering that it is on a spectrum, and there are undoubtedly women of every conceivable stripe).

  • Escoffier

    Dalrock was also very slippery about the n>1=slut business. He likes to insinuate it and then state arguments that require that as a conclusion, but when you try to pin him down and get him to say whether or not he believes it he just slithers all over the page and goes on the attack.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      He likes to insinuate it and then state arguments that require that as a conclusion, but when you try to pin him down and get him to say whether or not he believes it he just slithers all over the page and goes on the attack.

      He goes into hiding and lets the Flying Monkeys do the attacking. He is also great at willful misunderstanding.

  • Ted D

    Escoffier – “Since it appears to be all on us men to keep track of our ladies’ moods and adjust our behavior accordingly, lest they fall out of love and leave us and it will have been all our fault, I don’t see a practical alternative to doing the best I can to avoid that. Which in turn requires understanding female nature.”

    My sentiments exactly…

  • Escoffier

    Ted, there is absolutely nothing about a natural basis for morality that entails “questioning” one’s faith. Until religion lost it’s mind beginning a century ago, the judeo-Christian tradition had taken this point as foundational for more than 2,000 years. The fact that anyone can see that as an attack on faith is evidence of how wretched our education system has gotten and how bad our public discourse is.

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

    @Ted
    Another idea try to check all this women you know. Races, social standing, parents divorced together? intelligence, are all Americans? See if you see patterns.

  • Passer_By

    @escoffier
    Also, on this:
    ““Those days” were not even one year ago and my views have not changed at all.”

    People’s views sometimes change a lot in even less the time when first introduced to the sphere. In the span of one year, Mahoney went from “love stuck pedestalizing puppy” with his then girlfriend to raging red piller who believed all women hypergamous sluts looking for the next alpha to fuck (check out his comments from around June or July of last year), and then back to love struck puppy who felt his new girlfriend was a snowflake. And he was a smart guy.

    I’m wondering, if you were to go back and read all of your comments on Dalrock’s blog from when you first found it, might you say “I said that? That’s probably not what I meant.”

  • Passer_By

    @escoffier
    “Ted, there is absolutely nothing about a natural basis for morality that entails “questioning” one’s faith. Until religion lost it’s mind beginning a century ago, the judeo-Christian tradition had taken this point as foundational for more than 2,000 years. ”

    Tell it to Torquemada!!

  • Escoffier

    As I recall, I started by questioning two things: n>1=slut. I am certain my views on that have not changed and just as certain that Dalrock refused to engage on the point because, while that is what he really believes, he understands how extreme it sounds and thought imprudent to be clear on that point.

    Second was their constant demonization of the “tradcons” with Bill Bennett as their Emmanuel Goldstein. I showed how the views they ascribe to these people are not what they actually believe. I sympathized with the position that “tradcon” arguments had done much inadvertent harm, but I also showed how their definition of “tradcon” was flawed and inconsistent. Nothing there I disagree with today either.

    I certainly would not take back one iota of my argument regarding natural right. In fact, I found it hilarious that on a blog dedicated to defending traditional morality, I was the only one who could state a rational defense and I was eviscerated for it.

  • Starviolet

    @escoffier

    Logic does not go over very well on dalrock’s blog when that logic contradicts his points. He started out by accusing me of being emotional about manosphere issues instead of logical. When I showed him evidence that contradicted his claims of unfair child support paymente and asked if he had any stats to support his views he basically told me that I was a bad person because I was unable to empathize with men. When I again posted evidence that disproved his claims and asked if he had any evidence to support his position he banned me from posting.

    The MRA’s/manosphere claims of frivolous divorce for “cash and prizes” is nonsense. They offer no evidence and then start making personal attacks when you dare ask for something other than “because I said so” as proof to support their position.

  • VD

    He’s mad that I, in his mind, insulted his friend, but he can’t couch his anger in those terms. Instead he’s launching into an intellectualized schoolyard defense of her indefensible ideals.

    I understand you don’t know me at all, but I assure you, I am not the least bit mad, for any reason. I am merely amused by your contentions, as are many others.

    Actually, as you yourself observed above, all the language in my comments is based on “her posts” or “her ideas.” That’s not technically ad hom, though I understand that you are making the jump of equating stupid idea with stupid person. I generally don’t do that. You generally pride yourself on your logic; you surprise me.

    Ah, let’s get pedantic. Very well. Please inform us what part of this sentence refers to “her posts” and “her ideas” rather than Stickwick herself: ” I’m not surprised a woman who confuses sex with predation has no idea what is attractive to her.” Also, you are falsely categorizing my response. What I observed is that you attacked both her posts and here. I wrote: “J also said her analysis was nuts and implied that in addition to her posts being stupid, she was unable to distinguish between predation and sex.”

    It’s not wise to try this deceptive and evasive nonsense with me. I will catch you out every single time.

    Translation: people call out Vox Day on his bullshit. Vox Day proceeds to spew a stream of ad hominems, semantic arguments, and other verbal skullduggery without addressing the content of the issue at hand. People have better things to do than to nitpick Vox Day’s meaningless arguments, so they choose to spend their time doing something worthwhile. Vox Day declares victory and continues his internet chest-thumping.

    I repeat: Vox’s First Law. The relevant point isn’t that I declare victory, it’s that everyone else does. Do please inform me of what “content of the issue” I am failing to address here.

    What I actually said was that kids in general, not just girls, but also boys, are not held acountable any more. I’m not sure you read my actual comment or Vox’s attempt to put words in my mouth, but if you scroll up and look at the actual context of the comment, what I actually said should be clear.

    What you said was perfectly clear. I didn’t put any words in your mouth. In response to my claim that girls are not held accountable, you claimed that boys are not held accountable anymore either. You are wrong. Boys are likely held less accountable than they were in previous decades, but they are still being held far more accountable than girls. I’ll be demonstrating this in detail in a future post at AG, but simply noting the sex breakdown of Ritalin prescriptions will suffice to show that you are completely in error. Which should be embarrassing, considering that you have spent your professional life in working with adolescents, while I have spent mine keeping as far away from them as possible.

  • Escoffier

    RE: dinner parties, everything on your list could be discussed at SOME parties I know of but sex/mating/hypergamy/game/red pill/dominance & submission definitely could not.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      RE: dinner parties, everything on your list could be discussed at SOME parties I know of but sex/mating/hypergamy/game/red pill/dominance & submission definitely could not.

      Agreed, but can’t we keep a civil tone? I would never go to a dinner party and talk about how much feminism sucks. I find that I am able to engage listeners much more effectively when I point out that the lopsided sex ratio on college campuses will have real and troubling effects on their sons and daughters.

      There is something to be said for speaking to people with respect, and perhaps even tailoring the message so that it can be at least considered, if not absorbed.

  • Plain Jane

    OTC, “Perhaps you mean tone, rather than subject. Sex is usually not a first-meeting topic. Perhaps a bit of silly innuendo when buzzed, but certainly no down-to-earth, un-PC discussion like we have here.”

    Not long ago I totally turned off one very interested suitor by discussing issues raised in the Manosphere. The Manosphere thinks that, given a chance and absent Feminist brainwashing, ALL men think like they do, but they do not. That guy thought I was a nut and stopped calling.

    Thanks for ruining romance Manosphere. Your ideas are boner killers.

  • Passer_By

    @escoffier

    “RE: dinner parties, everything on your list could be discussed at SOME parties I know of but sex/mating/hypergamy/game/red pill/dominance & submission definitely could not”

    Gotta agree. Every time I start ranting about the stupidity of the 19th Amendment at dinner parties, I never get invited back.

  • INTJ

    @ VD

    I understand you don’t know me at all, but I assure you, I am not the least bit mad, for any reason. I am merely amused by your contentions, as are many others.

    http://www.theuniversalsolvent.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/We-are-Not-Amused-300×225.jpg

  • INTJ

    @ Passer_By

    Gotta agree. Every time I start ranting about the stupidity of the 19th Amendment at dinner parties, I never get invited back.

    I wonder why…

    Doesn’t take a die hard feminist to support the 19th amendment. ;)

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

    Defense Against the Dark Arts she will be just fine.

    Love this! :D

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “Second, women should not have to avoid parties on campus (nearly all are thrown by frats)”

    No, just the ones they would consider going to. The computer science club probably throws some absolute ragers at which they regale each other with awesome jokes like “There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary number systems and those who don’t.” But, despite the flyers, the young lassies don’t show up.

  • Passer_By

    “Someone else (a male) noted your transformation from White Knight to Dispenser of the Red Pill over recent months”

    ****Passer_By quickly puts on glasses with fake nose and mustache*****

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Second, women should not have to avoid parties on campus (nearly all are thrown by frats) or clubs, or anywhere else just because they’re crawling with predatory males. If a woman knows and uses Defense Against the Dark Arts she will be just fine.

    The problem is that in modern society, all the women have been taught by Dolores Umbridge.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The problem is that in modern society, all the women have been taught by Dolores Umbridge.

      LOL

  • Plain Jane

    ” If a woman knows and uses Defense Against the Dark Arts she will be just fine.”

    Women who are light do this anyway. Birds of a feather….

    “First, I said cads, not players. Cads often run false nice guy game for the express purpose of hoodwinking females, especially freshmen.”

    Correct.
    Players are harmless. They make no bones about their intentions so you know what you’re dealing with, and if you’re down for some no strings attached play, you can go for it and extricate yourself without damage.

    This is what the socially conservative wing of the Manosphere doesn’t comprehend when they diss PUAs and the women that get with them. They are angry that women go for these guys, but why not? They are not dishonest in their dealings and many women are up for NSA and short flings too. Its a win/win.

    Men who feign genuine relationship interest just to get into our pants though are another story.

  • Escoffier

    I did not accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. I said what I said above: I thought you were wrong/incomplete, internally inconsistent, and exculpatory toward the females. Not based on any low motive, though if I had to speculate, I would guess that my/our argument was just, at the present moment, a “bridge too far” for you to accept.

    I don’t think you successfully refuted any of it. In fact, I saw you moving in our direction as the debate progressed or else just silently dropping points you couldn’t answer and didn’t want to deal with.

    Vox has written some psychological observation about you and this blog and why it’s valuable to debate here but why there are limits to how persuadable you are on certain subjects and to how effective pure dialectic can be in such discussions. It was respectful if not altogether flattering, and based on his view of “sex differences” which I can’t really find fault with.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      In fact, I saw you moving in our direction as the debate progressed or else just silently dropping points you couldn’t answer and didn’t want to deal with.

      I felt that there was a meeting in the middle on some aspects of the debate. As for silently dropping points, tbh, sometimes I get very fatigued with the debates, especially in that case where every other woman was in hiding. To top it off, I was on Cape Cod and should have enjoyed that beautiful weekend instead of pounding the keyboard. That’s on me, but eventually I got outta there.

      Vox has written some psychological observation about you and this blog and why it’s valuable to debate here but why there are limits to how persuadable you are on certain subjects and to how effective pure dialectic can be in such discussions. It was respectful if not altogether flattering, and based on his view of “sex differences” which I can’t really find fault with.

      Wow, now who’s slinging the cheap shots?

      If you agree with Vox then I invite you to move along when you find that reasoning with a woman proves futile. I trust Vox will do the same.

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

    The problem is that in modern society, all the women have been taught by Dolores Umbridge.

    And the position is cursed so its not like the have good teachers all the time either. :p

  • INTJ

    @ Escoffier

    No, I didn’t. In fact I don’t recall anyone complaining except you.

    I find it rather amazing now that you are resorting to this playground tactic now (“Jill doesn’t like you, whisper whisper”) when in this very thread you have a full blast, and really quite nasty, fight going. Have you ever seen me do anything close to that?

    What the hell, Susan? If I wanted to be a dick, I would say that’s you winking at an alpha going 105 in a 55 but hammering the poor beta for going 56.

    Now that I think about it, Susan’s treatment of some of the male commenters here parallels how girls will entertain the asshole and hope to reform him but then go back and complain to the nice guy about how men are such assholes.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Now that I think about it, Susan’s treatment of some of the male commenters here parallels how girls will entertain the asshole and hope to reform him but then go back and complain to the nice guy about how men are such assholes.

      Ah, you have piqued my curiosity! I assume you are referring to Jason and Zach? If so, I can assure you I have no intention or hope of reform. I’m much more interested in reforming you and Cooper. :)

  • deti

    “Last week Joe Blow railed against marriage 2.0, saying though he was married to a good woman and had a family, he wishes he had never married and was still single having no-strings sex, only because family law favors women. His own wife is good and faithful.

    To me that is just bizarre behavior. I don’t think men leave good marriages because the legal climate is prejudiced against males in this country. In fact, I’ve never heard this sentiment before, on any blog, much less my own. It seems to me that it is completely reasonable to “smell a rat” or at least experience complete bafflement, because the motives as reported don’t jive with what I know about human behavior. I use my experience, my learning, and my powers of reason to note that the story doesn’t hold together at first glance.”

    Susan, Joe Blow didn’t say he was leaving his marriage or even that he wanted to leave his marriage. He said if he had it to do over again, he would not have married. You are putting your own interpretation on his comment because you find it distasteful. Then you springboard from it to state you just don’t understand it.

    Surely you have some empathy here. Perhaps marriage 2.0 and what it and his wife could do to him scares him shitless. Perhaps it’s dawned on him that his wife could leave him on a whim and there’s not a damn thing he could do about it.

    In fact, echoing Esco’s point above, this just happened to a friend of mine. Married 16 years, 2 teenage sons. He was essentially divorced for the crime of being an unambitious beta who loved her too much. Think Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine. He didn’t cheat, beat, drink too much or abandon her. He was and is just an unambitious schlub who didn’t make enough money to prevent her from having to work; they struggled financially; and he chubbed out.

    The thought that that could happen to me has crossed my mind many, many times. And there is NOTHING I could do to stop it.

    Susan, I’d commend to your reading Danny’s post “To the Woe of Women”.

    “Another example might be a man who claims to be a happily married father, who is obsessed with the issue of frivolous divorce. How unusual! I have never heard of such a thing. What might explain such an unlikely hobby? I’m curious about the psychological underpinnings of that. ”

    See above. Lots of men out there are happily married who find out their wives aren’t happy (no extra “a’s” so as to prevent mockery). Sure, the men are happy, then they hear from their wives that those wives never loved their husbands. Perhaps a man might like to find out just how bad it really could be. Also, he could have found out that he thought he was making a good decision and found out he did not.

    Your comment expresses curiosity about the “psychological underpinnings” to a man investigating the truth of frivolous divorce. Essentially what you’re saying is a man who expresses interest in this has something wrong with him or is psychologically unbalanced in some way.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @deti

      Surely you have some empathy here. Perhaps marriage 2.0 and what it and his wife could do to him scares him shitless. Perhaps it’s dawned on him that his wife could leave him on a whim and there’s not a damn thing he could do about it.

      As others observed at the time, his spent more ink on the lure of fresh punani than family law.

      Think Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine. He didn’t cheat, beat, drink too much or abandon her. He was and is just an unambitious schlub who didn’t make enough money to prevent her from having to work; they struggled financially; and he chubbed out.

      OMG! Are you serious? I would divorce that guy in a heartbeat! He woke up every morning hung over in his Barcolounger! Good God.

      Call me frivolous. Please.

      Essentially what you’re saying is a man who expresses interest in this has something wrong with him or is psychologically unbalanced in some way.

      I believe I used the word obsession, which is accurate, IMO. I also referred to a strident, enraged persona. I have already stated openly I believe him to be an unhinged sociopath. Clear enough?

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    Riffed on the solipsism theme, thought you’d be interested:

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

  • Escoffier

    The accusation of “white knighting” at Dalrock’s arose from my disputing the charge that “n>1=slut.”

  • Plain Jane

    “He goes into hiding and lets the Flying Monkeys do the attacking. He is also great at willful misunderstanding.”

    The D-cock is incredibly disingenuous. He doesn’t have much real world dating and relationship expericence with women (just his wife) because he is a very socially conservative religious man. That’s fine but then he should stick to what he knows. His world is tiny and sheltered. He discovered the Manosphere, wed himself to a few of their memes, such as “women hate nice guys and love thugs” and ran with it, without ever having first hand experience of anything they write about. Thus, he now filters everything about men and women through that skewered theoretical lense rather than his experience.

    His attempts at trying to fit everything he does experience into that box are laughable.

    Please see my comment above #544 for his definition of a “bad boy”.

  • Plain Jane

    “Joe Blow didn’t say he was leaving his marriage or even that he wanted to leave his marriage. He said if he had it to do over again, he would not have married. ”

    Similarly, I’m always amazed at the number of parents, both moms and dads, who tell me if they had to do it over again, have kids that is, they wouldn’t.

  • Escoffier

    That’s not an insult. He wrote a defense/account, aimed at his more strident commenters who say “She’s hopeless, why do you post there!!!” to say, “Here’s why it’s valuable to post there and she’s not hopeless.” In the course of that explanation, he made some points about how the male style v. the female style of debate don’t always mesh.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      In the course of that explanation, he made some points about how the male style v. the female style of debate don’t always mesh

      And I agree with that in principle. Women and men communicate very, very differently. News at 11.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, re: hypergamy (again), you met me more than halfway when you admitted/conceded/stated that, yes, if your husband went totally beta/lazy/supplicating/out of shape on you, you would lose attraction for him. That’s not necessarily a “base desire to trade up” but it is a threshold below which a man, once chosen, should not allow himself to fall.

    If such a circumstance occurs, what would stop you from being bad is character, which I believe you have. Not all women do.

    My main point of contention on that side debate was your initial insistence that a successful marriage shuts off hypergamy forever, which really cannot be logically true.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      Susan, re: hypergamy (again), you met me more than halfway when you admitted/conceded/stated that, yes, if your husband went totally beta/lazy/supplicating/out of shape on you, you would lose attraction for him.

      Isn’t there a direct parallel for males? If a woman turns into a fat, lazy harridan wouldn’t we expect her husband to lose attraction for her? And if he did, might he not find himself dreaming of trading up, and doing so if he did not have character?

      My main point of contention on that side debate was your initial insistence that a successful marriage shuts off hypergamy forever, which really cannot be logically true.

      No, I always allowed for hypergamy to reasssert itself with any change in the relative status of the two people. Which is pretty much what you have described above. What I did insist (and still do), is that the concept of hypergamy refers to a woman’s desire to mate long-term with a man of higher status than herself. Once mated with a male who has met her hypergamy needs, she is satisfied, and barring a change, will not be perpetually tempted to trade up.

      I actually have to go out for the evening, so please do not assume I am dodging your argument, though in truth, we have covered all this ground before and I can’t imagine either of us will profit from reopening the debate.

  • Escoffier

    re: cape cod, I didn’t make a single comment when I was in Santa Cruz.

  • Abbot

    “Would you let your daughter move to a sketchy neighborhood with those odds? Now, would you pay $50,000 for the privilege of those odds?”

    Better parenting and less mixing with men will lower female promiscuity, increase worthiness and thus marriage rates

    http://news.yahoo.com/ladies-firsters–why-the-new-sex-segregation-is-great-for-women.html

    .

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW

    You tend to label men with different views than your own “outliers.”

    An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs. (F.E. Grubbs)

    Many male regulars do this here as well, and practically all women who comment have been labeled outliers, as well. Nobody agrees on what the sample is anyway, so the term doesn’t have much meaning. But it’s truly the argument of last resort. Just based upon his opinions, even Tom, whom I greatly appreciate though don’t agree with on much, isn’t an outlier.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “I have already stated openly I believe him to be an unhinged sociopath. ”

    Wait, what? You think ladrock is an unhinged sociopath? Seriously?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      Wait, what? You think ladrock is an unhinged sociopath? Seriously?

      Actually, it was my husband who said that, but we must take his loyalty to me into account. He’s not unhinged, as he appears to function. For laughs, I glanced at Hare’s Sociopathy checklist. I’d say he ticks 7 of the 20 criteria for sure, but I know too little about him to weigh in on the other aspects. It may be that he just plays a sociopath on the interwebz.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Ah, you have piqued my curiosity! I assume you are referring to Jason and Zach? If so, I can assure you I have no intention or hope of reform. I’m much more interested in reforming you and Cooper.

    No I meant that commenters like Obsidian and VD often make personal attacks against women at HUS, whereas people like Ted D, Mike C, and Escoffier don’t. Yet you seem to be very conciliatory with Obsidian and VD (barring certain instances where Obsidian has crossed the line really far), but then complain to guys like Ted D, Mike C, and Escoffier about how aggressive they’re being and how bad a place HUS has become because of the aggressive male comments.

    It seems to strongly parallel price-discrimination.

  • Plain Jane

    Abbot, I agree with much of the link you posted;

    http://news.yahoo.com/ladies-firsters–why-the-new-sex-segregation-is-great-for-women.html

    However as someone from a culture that is very much still socially gender segregated, I will say there are some pitfalls that need to be guarded against. Too much segregation also leads to dysfunctional behaviour.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #550:
    “I never said that. If hypermasculine men appealed to no one, they wouldn’t exist in the population.”

    O: Fair enough; but you must admit, such faces aren’t your focus at all here at HUS – yes?

    “I said that in a controlled study of women who ranked photos of faces for attractiveness, hypermasculine faces got lower rankings. That is a statement of fact, not a declaration that high T men do not mate.”

    O: Yes – but WHO was being asked? Yes, I am questioning the study design, for reasons that by now should go without even asking. I want to know who they are, their ages, race, SES level, what colleges they went to, etc. This matters.

    “Similarly, women rank men of unrestricted sexuality as less attractive, though not for STRs.”

    O: OK. Who does this though? What Women?

    “Both sexes are able to identify cheaters’ faces through photographs alone.”

    O: I don’t deny that; after all, racial profiling does indeed work. ;)

    O.

  • deti

    “I believe I used the word obsession, which is accurate, IMO. I also referred to a strident, enraged persona. I have already stated openly I believe him to be an unhinged sociopath. Clear enough?”

    Believe who to be an unhinged sociopath?

    He Who Shall Not Be Named?

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    I think that sex differences can be transcended if and when marriage is de-romanticized and seen as a small business partnership that “produces” certain domestic goods. It brings with it three basic economic advantages:

    1. Production Complementarities. This is just the domestic version of the advantages gained by specialization. If a household must produce clean laundry, nice meals, an attractive lawn, and so on, then there could be advantages gained by having one partner specialize in becoming very good in some production areas and another specializing in the others, perhaps based on comparative advantages.

    2. Consumption Complementarities. Most people would concede that everyone will need/want a safe home, a comfortable bed, a couch, various gadgets, and so on. If you can share some of these with another person, you can both save money—1 couch instead of 2, 1 bed instead of 2, etc.

    3. Risk-Pooling. We could get sick, or be fired, or have cars break down, or just get old, and it would be nice to have someone around to watch out for us.

    All of these economic incentives for marriage have been systematically undermined. In most cases this was not because of some conspiracy of feminist agitators, although they have played a role in changing the “Risk-Pooling” dynamic so that hideous new risks (family court system) have emerged that men have had to absorb. Risk-Pooling is so fucked up right now that I won’t even get into it.

    -Production Complementarities Argument. Major appliances such as washer-dryers and dish-washers and the availability of easy foods have reduced the advantages gained by domestic specialization. You basically need a higher level of expertise in these household activities in order to attract on the basis of this value proposition. However, many of the young women in Susan’s target demographic are not majoring in elementary education and taking high-end cooking classes—if anything, they are moving away from these skills and towards $$$-making careers.

    This does put these women in a bit of a bind if they later decide to become domestic goddess types, because they may now come complete with law school student loans that society “meant” to be self-liquidating (i.e., paid for by students becoming lawyers). So the male who is chosen—let’s say that he is an attorney as well—is going to need to be able to liquidate both his student debt and her debt, and provide above and beyond this.

    Consider this from an economic perspective—he’s basically being asked to now pay “lawyer” costs for a “domestic specialist” (who may have dubious domestic qualifications). Can he even afford it? Perhaps they can wait and maintain both of their lawyer careers until they have paid down their debt levels, but this will of course have its own consequences.

    Consumption Complementarity arguments are doing a bit better, but only if the assumption is made that both parties have very similar lifestyle goals. I think this is probably a reason why “compatibility” is such a big deal—it should become an even bigger deal over time. One could predict that personal mate-search type ads are going to increasingly stress high-consumption activities such as vacations and lifestyle/entertainment, since the center of gravity of marriage is moving more towards consumption synergy and away from domestic specialization efficiencies.

    It is akin to saying, “Look, I’ve busted my ass in school. I’m going to work my job and you work your job, so the domestic specialization stuff can suck it. We’ll outsource most of it to contractors. But we’ll have fun together and share those costs. I like museums, pornography, and jet-packs, and I don’t need to spend much of my $$$ on selfish, non-complementary goods like clothes. My discretionary income will go into a shared consumption slush fund, so I need to know that the consumption activities are *things that I’d do by myself if my partner was not around*. Since I will be paying a big chunk, I want to do stuff that I actually like. So…what do you like to do?”

    The near-total destruction of the Production argument apparently requires a pound of flesh, and this is coming out of the Consumption side: under traditional conditions, a man would go into a Consumption deficit during courtship because he would be expected to cover the costs of dating, the engagement ring, etc. Basically he would continue to suffer this deficit throughout the relationship, but in turn his wife would take on the lion’s share of the household production specialization (maybe he’d do some basic task like taking out trash, lawn maintenance, or grilling, but she was really the household manager and this was generally expected).

    This has all changed, of course, and with these changes will be some brutally hard lessons for all concerned.

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

    @BB
    You forgot production of children. ;)

  • INTJ

    @ Bastiat Blogger

    And no fault divorce has severely damaged risk-pooling.

  • Mike C

    Ian,

    You killed it in that post. Great work.

  • VD

    Vox has written some psychological observation about you and this blog and why it’s valuable to debate here but why there are limits to how persuadable you are on certain subjects and to how effective pure dialectic can be in such discussions. It was respectful if not altogether flattering, and based on his view of “sex differences” which I can’t really find fault with.

    Hold on there. This is not an accurate characterization of my post at AG. I didn’t say anything about any limits of Susan’s persuadability, nor could I, as I’ve never previously attempted to change her mind about anything. I don’t see her objecting to my pointing out the complete definition of solipsism and she’s already indicated that she can be persuaded on the subject, it just hasn’t happened yet. There is no reason to believe Susan is solely of the rhetorical class, given her preference for science.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      There is no reason to believe Susan is solely of the rhetorical class, given her preference for science.

      Perhaps you won’t be surprised then that I am making peace with what I believe is a real and definable difference between men and women in the way they experience the world, and how that might relate to the concept of solipsism.

      My thinking has been influenced by the conversations here and at AG, and also by the posts by Jeremy Nicholson and Ian Ironwood. There has been much said that I believe is worthy of serious consideration. I’ll write about it shortly.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    ROFL

    “Second, women should not have to avoid parties on campus (nearly all are thrown by frats) or clubs, or anywhere else just because they’re crawling with predatory males. If a woman knows and uses Defense Against the Dark Arts she will be just fine.”

    Second, I should not have to avoid the African savannah just because its crawling with predatory lions. If I know and use my special lion killing ninja skills I will be just fine… unless of course that is I pull a human and make a mistake and get eaten by a lion.

    You don’t get to choose where the predators are.

    No exceptions.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      Your point is well taken. A woman at a frat party can make very good decisions and still get roofied. She can also drink too much and get gang raped. Such incidents are not unusual at all.

      Unfortunately, it’s just not realistic to expect women to avoid these gatherings if they’re basically the only social game in town. Passer By suggested that women might avoid the Comp Sci department shindig, but I don’t believe those are common. (Although if they were, I agree that women would not attend.)

  • Mike C

    No I meant that commenters like Obsidian and VD often make personal attacks against women at HUS, whereas people like Ted D, Mike C, and Escoffier don’t. Yet you seem to be very conciliatory with Obsidian and VD (barring certain instances where Obsidian has crossed the line really far), but then complain to guys like Ted D, Mike C, and Escoffier about how aggressive they’re being and how bad a place HUS has become because of the aggressive male comments.

    It seems to strongly parallel price-discrimination.

    Interesting comment INTJ. I’m going to disagree with your assertion that Obsidian and VD often make personal attacks. I see it more as extreme truth telling but it probably “feels” like attacks. But this is interesting…so let me give you my take on some things you touch on here.

    Obsidian – He was gone for a long time and when he showed back up on the scene was treated like the long lost prodigal son. But he started going too much into racial issues which pissed off some of the black female commenters and got his card as “favored male” revoked.

    VD – I find the VD/Susan dynamic fascinating. Here is why. Susan despises Rollo Tomassi with the fire of a thousand burning suns and considers him a sociopath dispensing evil advice. But here is what is funny about that. I’ll guarantee my entire trading account that the totality of VD’s views are much closer to Rollo Tomassi than Susan’s views. I’ve read enough of VD to know he has some very strong views about women, female nature, and intergender dynamics. I happen to agree with him for the most part. What is interesting is that Susan excludes him from the misogynist label that she applies to other men who basically hold the identical views.

    Escoffier – I’m not saying this to kiss his ass, but I recognize a first rate mind when I see one. The truth is his intellectual capacity is leaps and bound beyond both myself and Susan. Either of us trying to debate him effectively without resorting to rhetoric or sophistry is going to be exposed for the errors in logic and thinking. But I sense he is gentlemen so some might think by going on the extreme offensive and attacking him is a viable way to get him to back down from continuing an argument.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @INTJ #587:
    “No I meant that commenters like Obsidian and VD often make personal attacks against women at HUS, whereas people like Ted D, Mike C, and Escoffier don’t. Yet you seem to be very conciliatory with Obsidian and VD (barring certain instances where Obsidian has crossed the line really far), but then complain to guys like Ted D, Mike C, and Escoffier about how aggressive they’re being and how bad a place HUS has become because of the aggressive male comments.”

    O: This is silly. I haven’t said anything in the least *personal* about Ms. Walsh or Ms. J, nor have I made “personal attacks against” other Women here; if anything, I’ve been personally attacked by Women here, LOL.

    Moreover, per Ms. Walsh’s direct quote, I to date am the only male member among the guys you’ve noted that has been placed in permanent moderation; surely if I said *anything beyond the pale, Ms. Walsh wouldn’t allow it here*.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Mike C #596:
    “Interesting comment INTJ. I’m going to disagree with your assertion that Obsidian and VD often make personal attacks. I see it more as extreme truth telling but it probably “feels” like attacks. But this is interesting…so let me give you my take on some things you touch on here.

    Obsidian – He was gone for a long time and when he showed back up on the scene was treated like the long lost prodigal son. But he started going too much into racial issues which pissed off some of the black female commenters and got his card as “favored male” revoked.”

    O: Very interesting synopsis – and please note, that once again, *my arguments were never dealt with; only that they made others “uncomfortable” – which is indeed a core “tenet” of the way in which Women do things – and which DO indeed have a powerful “say” in the public square.

    Hmm…

    O.

  • Sai

    @Marellus
    I will devote a great deal of time to thinking about what you’ve told me. I like that metaphor a lot.

    “NO TAXATION ON BREAST AUGMENTATION!

    That is all.”
    SECONDED

    “The problem is that in modern society, all the women have been taught by Dolores Umbridge.”
    LMAO

    @Lokland
    “You don’t get to choose where the predators are.”
    Fair enough… is it all right to visit a club or party every now and then -not to be a ho, but just to dance?

    Re: how to look good
    So I probably will never get implants (I have actually asked about repairs before but didn’t like the photos and the lady at the office actually talked me out of it)… I’ve heard about the fashion industry controlled by gay men… What do straight guys like? Long hair, healthy skin/teeth, healthy weight, .7 hip-to-waist ratio… What comes after these? If you still fall short, is that the point where you throw up your hands and go see the doc?

  • VD

    If you agree with Vox then I invite you to move along when you find that reasoning with a woman proves futile. I trust Vox will do the same.

    Actually, when one cannot reason with an individual of either sex, the solution is a simple matter of resorting to superior rhetoric. I prefer the dialectic, but the freedom of the rhetorical level offers its own distinct pleasures. An ability to utilize either at will appears to be confusing to most people. Most capable of dialectic despise rhetoric while most on the rhetorical level cannot grasp the distinction and genuinely believe they are using reason when they are not.

    dispensing evil advice

    And therein, I suspect, lies the difference. Most game blogs advise. I’m more interested in the abstract and getting at the truths of the matter. My views, to the extent they cannot be substantively supported, are irrelevant and if I can’t substantiate female solipsism, I’ll readily recant. I’m delighted that Susan challenged it. At least it’s not another spin on free trade or any of the other old chestnuts.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    @Ms. Walsh #553:
    “First, I said cads, not players. Cads often run false nice guy game for the express purpose of hoodwinking females, especially freshmen.”

    O: Ahh, OK. Now we’re cooking with gas!

    So, let me make sure I got you straight here – your beef isn’t so much with *Players* per se, but rather, *guys who fake the funk, using aspects of Game but aren’t really true to the Game, so to speak, like the proverbial PUAs* – am I following you?

    Because if you say “yes”, my response would be: I agree 100% wholeheartedly.

    I have always said – that true Players NEVER have to hide who they are. The issue, is that we have *pretenders* – and I will be 100% honest in acknowledging that they do indeed exist. In this, I cannot be mad at you or anyone else, for being concerned about them. That is legit.

    “Second, women should not have to avoid parties on campus (nearly all are thrown by frats) or clubs, or anywhere else just because they’re crawling with predatory males. If a woman knows and uses Defense Against the Dark Arts she will be just fine.”

    O: I have no problem whatsoever against Women protecting themselves along the lines you are suggesting. Having said that though, the simple fact of the matter is that if one knows that trouble lies “over there”, the most sensible solution is to *avoid it*. Yes, this might mean that you won’t be at all the parties, but it’s a tradeoff well made, especially considering the very real downsides.

    And this isn’t something that’s abstract for me. I used to love to hangout in Black dive bars. I liked the people, the sights and sounds, even though I don’t drink.

    But the problem was, shootouts would frequently breakout at such places (this was/is true for many Black niteclubs, too btw), and on quite a few occasisions found myself in the middle of a firefight, often between people I don’t know, and almost always over a Woman.

    Then one day, an odd thought occured to me:

    Perhaps I might live longer, if I stopped going to Black dive bars etc.

    True, I wouldn’t have as much fun as I did..but I’ll live.

    And I came to the startling conclusion that I actually liked living.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obsidian

      So, let me make sure I got you straight here — your beef isn’t so much with *Players* per se, but rather, *guys who fake the funk, using aspects of Game but aren’t really true to the Game, so to speak, like the proverbial PUAs* — am I following you?

      I didn’t say I’m a fan of players, but as you pointed out, I spend my time warning women against cads. If a guy is out as a player and a woman goes for it, I assume she’s either down with the short-term scene or stupid. I don’t defend people from their own stupidity.

      Yes, this might mean that you won’t be at all the parties, but it’s a tradeoff well made, especially considering the very real downsides.

      This is precisely the conclusion that most college women come to. Fraternity parties are almost always crawling with freshmen girls who arrive at college excited for a new social scene and hoping to meet guys. Attendance drops off sharply after that, even among sorority girls.

  • HerrKaiser

    @Marellus
    Thank you for commenting; you were the only person to comment, I know the post was long, but really. Anyway, yes the book was written in 1896 and the general theme of the book is the ongoing changes in the West that are bringing about decline. One of the changes Pearson cites is changing attitudes toward marriage; he points out how “mariage de convenance” had previously been the only form of marriage found among civilized people. He defines “mariage de convenance” as “an austere union, a partnership in which the wife, as a rule, takes upon herself to provide for the happiness of both”. Not only was this type of marriage normal, but it was considered to be the only moral kind of marriage; for example he says, “I remember being much amused by the indignation of a very beautiful young French lady about a rumour that she had been wedded for love. She reiterated her assurance that it was a baseless fabrication that her husband had only seen her once before her betrothal, and then quite formally in the presence of other people, and that their marriage had been entirely one of convenience. In short, she repelled the idea of love as if it had been a disgraceful and unmerited imputation”. However, he points out that there was a growing tide against “mariage de convenance” , especially in England, and that it was quickly being replaced with “marriage of inclination” or as we would say love. He mentions that many hoped that such marriages would be long lasting and result in fewer divorces; we know and he predicted that it would not, but rather become a form of “legalised concubinage”. So perhaps all the turmoil we find in the modern SMP and MMP is a result of modern Westerners having seen to many romantic comedies; we have confused lust and infatuation with love and esteem while turn our back on the true meaning and purpose of marriage. So all the heartache and handwring we do is over something that has never been nor can never be; as we can see from “mariage de convenance”, it is a man job to provide stability and financial support to the wife and the wife’s job to “takes upon herself to provide for the happiness of both”.
    P.S.
    Lord, raise up an Oliver Cromwell !

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HerrKaiser

      P.S.
      Lord, raise up an Oliver Cromwell !

      I confess I have skimmed your posts. No offense, they were fairly OT and I am consistently pressed for time as it is. However, I must respond to this.

      Long live Wolfe Tone.

  • Mike C

    Ana,

    If you are using the same commenter example I’m thinking of is an entirely different thing in that thread the man was regretting his marriage and saying he wouldn’t do.

    Nope, I wasn’t thinking about that at all with my comment.

    Now that you mention it I asked you, and you didn’t responded, if you would think that if your girlfriend started to bitch on the Internet that she thinks no woman should cohabitate and if she had more information about the deal she wouldn’t had done it on the first place what would you think of it?

    I didn’t mean to dodge the question the first time…I forgot…but since it is that important to ask a second time :)….I’m a bit unclear on what you are asking me, but I’ll answer what I think you are asking. My fiancee (not girlfriend anymore :) ) has only lived with one guy…me. So if she said no woman should cohabitate….sure I would take it personally and assume it reflected on the actual personal experience of living with me. That said, I could see her saying that from a perspective that isn’t directly related to the experience of living with me. I know in our case, she wanted the engagement earlier, and I think us living together in her mind maybe delayed things so I could see her making that statement from the perspective of wanting to get a marriage committment sooner and not that living with me was a bad experience.

    Going back to the original point, again we have some evidence of female solipsism in subsequent comments. Again, the key thing here is everything is about the SELF. Both Escoffier and Ted D have commented about discussing, analyzing, understanding from a big picture view while the assumption keeps getting made about some inner psychological motivation. This is key. That assumption is being made because that is how most women think therefore they are projecting that same assumption on to men. Yes, we can really discuss and analyze something and be interested in something WITHOUT it having something to do with the SELF. It can be an external focus not an entirely internal one with the perspective of how does this affect me.

  • Abbot

    Sex differences expressed in anger –

    “Slut-shaming occurs when women are demonized for having sexual feelings and partners”

    But not by those partners, of course…

    “men are taught/assumed to lust after these skankazoids and then “their women” also become threatened by the world’s trampires”

    Wow, what a mess men have made

    “slut-shaming was created by men. But the kicker is that it’s primarily proliferated by women…The best way to oppress a large group of people is to train them to oppress each other through internalized self-hatred.”

    Oh, those menz! Blame them, they can take it.

    http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=15627

    .

  • INTJ

    @ Sai

    So I probably will never get implants (I have actually asked about repairs before but didn’t like the photos and the lady at the office actually talked me out of it)…

    Yeah don’t get implants. They can cause back problems, and cause your breasts to sag faster, which is a much bigger issue than breast size.

    I’ve heard about the fashion industry controlled by gay men… What do straight guys like? Long hair, healthy skin/teeth, healthy weight, .7 hip-to-waist ratio… What comes after these?

    Everything that you said, is good. In general, beyond just losing weight, an athletic body is attractive (I second what Passer_By said about Title IX and its effect on attractiveness).

    Of course, facial looks are also important. Here, guys really have a wide variety of preferences, and you unless you want to act in Hollywood, there really isn’t a preferred look. The main exceptions are facial symmetry and healthy lips (chap stick, vitamins and minerals are useful for the lips). Other than that, your looks tend to reflect your personality so they will help you attract a suitable guy.

    If you still fall short, is that the point where you throw up your hands and go see the doc?

    Unless you’ve got some physical abnormality or something (in which case you should see the doctor), you wouldn’t fall short at this point. You’d be at least a 7 with all of those.

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

    So if she said no woman should cohabitate….sure I would take it personally and assume it reflected on the actual personal experience of living with me. That said, I could see her saying that from a perspective that isn’t directly related to the experience of living with me. I know in our case, she wanted the engagement earlier, and I think us living together in her mind maybe delayed things so I could see her making that statement from the perspective of wanting to get a marriage committment sooner and not that living with me was a bad experience.

    Like I said Athol is very “no marriage till the women proven otherwise” If I remember right there was no issue against this Joe Blow was regretting his marriage entirely and wishing he was single with game to bang multiple chicks hence the answer.

    Again, the key thing here is everything is about the SELF. Both Escoffier and Ted D have commented about discussing, analyzing, understanding from a big picture view while the assumption keeps getting made about some inner psychological motivation. This is key. That assumption is being made because that is how most women think therefore they are projecting that same assumption on to men. Yes, we can really discuss and analyze something and be interested in something WITHOUT it having something to do with the SELF. It can be an external focus not an entirely internal one with the perspective of how does this affect me.

    I totally believed till a few months ago. You surely did noticed that when Susan published the big ass college survey talking about the 80% disconnect with a sample size bigger than any study ever published or documented on the manosphere there were plenty of male commenter that attempted to deny the results using their personal experience and reports from their acquaintances as proof. And I don’t mean personally you, or Ted it seems like you are just taking your time to incorporate the new info and actually Obsidian seems to be doing the same, while Ted is probably on the side that the results might be demographics and social class.
    But it does shows doubt that this is an objective position for most of the manosphere members, it actually does looks like like there is a personal investment on making sure there is a particular POV being accepted as the universal truth? What is the explanation for this if not that?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But it does shows doubt that this is an objective position for most of the manosphere members, it actually does looks like like there is a personal investment on making sure there is a particular POV being accepted as the universal truth?

      A personal investment. Solipsism? I think so.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    But it does shows doubt that this is an objective position for most of the manosphere members, it actually does looks like like there is a personal investment on making sure there is a particular POV being accepted as the universal truth? What is the explanation for this if not that?

    In this case, statistics are suspect, and it flies in the face of ALL personal evidence of a lot of men. Also, certain personal experiences are a lot more salient in the mind, because they were a lot more emotional.

    It’s not that men are necessarily invested in one version of the truth or unable to see something outside of it, it’s that it flies in the face of EVERYTHING we see and all established wisdom that we have. Thus it is viewed with GREAT skepticism.

    There was a study a while back that “proved” people may be psychic and “proved” neutrinos go faster than light. Both were disproved eventually.

    That’s skepticism, not solipsism.

    In my case (yay solipsism), I really had to go over past experiences to see that, yeah, the 80% thing really does jive with personal experience, if you look hard enough. You just are looking at the wrong things…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ADBG

      In this case, statistics are suspect, and it flies in the face of ALL personal evidence of a lot of men. Also, certain personal experiences are a lot more salient in the mind, because they were a lot more emotional.

      Yes, and it should be noted that “ALL personal experience” may be very limited experience. An individual may read a study with a sample of 3,000, but he will still value his personal experience more, even if he is in a small minority. Which is understandable.

  • Escoffier

    “Isn’t there a direct parallel for males?”

    Absolutely, and it’s much as you say.

    However, the phrase “trading up” is not quite right. The situations are not analogous. A man is not looking to “trade up” in the same way that (some) women are. He doesn’t want a wife of higher status or greater dominance than himself. He will, however—at least biologically—be tempted by someone hotter and younger than what he has now. Lots of things pull against him indulging that temptation: love, empathy, character, etc. But the biological impulse is always lurking somewhere beneath the surface, lower or higher depending upon the man. Maybe in rare cases way out on the left tail there are men who never feel tempted at all, not even biologically, but they are rare.

    “the concept of hypergamy refers to a woman’s desire to mate long-term with a man of higher status than herself”

    True, but not exhaustive.

    “Once mated with a male who has met her hypergamy needs, she is satisfied, and barring a change, will not be perpetually tempted to trade up.”

    Well, yes and no. She is satisfied, yes, but that doesn’t mean that her attraction triggers can’t be pulled by a man of sufficiently high status, dominance, wealth, fame, hotness, in whatever combination is most likely to turn her on.

    Certainly there is a distribution curve here too. On the left tail, you have women of zero or very low natural hypergamy who, once satisfied, simply never feel attracted to anyone else. Move a little to the right and you have women who can feel a general sense of attraction but never feel a genuine temptation to act on it. This might be mistaken for good character but really isn’t in the last analysis. In the middle are women who will acknowledge the attractiveness of a fairly large cohort of genuinely attractive high status males. The ones with good character and satisfactory spouses will be fine. The ones whose hubbies go beta will have a problem that only good character can save them from. The ones with bad character, men need to watch out for. Then over on the right tail are the women of above average to extreme hypergamy. Probably some portion of them can control that, provided they have sufficiently good character AND find a mate who is sufficiently dominant. But the women at the extreme right tail are bad news nearly all the time and their character is probably never sufficient to overcome their natural hyper-hypergamy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Escoffier

      Certainly there is a distribution curve here too. On the left tail, you have women of zero or very low natural hypergamy who, once satisfied, simply never feel attracted to anyone else. Move a little to the right and you have women who can feel a general sense of attraction but never feel a genuine temptation to act on it. This might be mistaken for good character but really isn’t in the last analysis. In the middle are women who will acknowledge the attractiveness of a fairly large cohort of genuinely attractive high status males. The ones with good character and satisfactory spouses will be fine. The ones whose hubbies go beta will have a problem that only good character can save them from. The ones with bad character, men need to watch out for. Then over on the right tail are the women of above average to extreme hypergamy. Probably some portion of them can control that, provided they have sufficiently good character AND find a mate who is sufficiently dominant. But the women at the extreme right tail are bad news nearly all the time and their character is probably never sufficient to overcome their natural hyper-hypergamy.

      Cosigned. Shall we break out the champagne?

  • J

    She wasn’t saying this is how women should behave…but that is how they evolved to behave.

    So we’re going to throw out everything Darwin said about sexual selection? Do peacocks grow flashy tails because it makes them more efficient predators? Last I read, loads of male anatomical features and behaviors across many species of animals were considered to have evolved because they advertised traits that made individual males more attractive to females. To regard females as being passive and prey-like as opposed to active selectors of males is really rewriting the book as far as evolution goes. And if you throw out Darwin, perhaps you should throw out evo-psych as well.

  • Mike C

    I totally believed till a few months ago. You surely did noticed that when Susan published the big ass college survey talking about the 80% disconnect with a sample size bigger than any study ever published or documented on the manosphere there were plenty of male commenter that attempted to deny the results using their personal experience and reports from their acquaintances as proof.

    This isn’t solipsism though. It may be overgeneralizing and confirmation bias. If you haven’t done so, I would highly encourage you to read Ian’s post and the Vox Day thread on this. I think the eulogy example was the perfect illustration. A person died and she delivers the eulogy as if it is about her. I’m not going to argue that men don’t overgeneralize….I’ll concede I’ve probably been guilty of it from time to time. Here’s the difficulty for me….I realize my own personal experience cannot be extrapolated to the total population. At the same time, I know enough about academic research in other areas besides the SMP to know often they are complete total horseshit. Here is an example from the investment field:

    http://alephblog.com/2012/09/15/book-review-the-missing-risk-premium/

    This book is two things: it is a teardown of modern portfolio theory as posited by the academics, and the establishing of a new theory that suggests that we get better returns by avoiding volatility of investment returns.

    Here’s part of the problem: Scientists are human, just like you and me, and they occasionally defend wrong ideas because they propagated in a time where some novel but wrong papers/books were written, and seemed right at the time, and the consensus accepted them, because it agreed with their biases.

    The long story short here is that much of the academic theory developed regarding investments from about 1950-1980 from the University of Chicago PhDs regarding efficient markets and modern portfolio theory is complete, utter poppycock, and many people believed that utter crap for years and years because they were respected PhDs who developed the Bible on financial markets.

    So for me, when someone trots out that such and such PhD did such and such study and found that women are X or Y or attracted to Z or whatever, it just really doesn’t mean much to me. I’m well aware of how much crap research gets done and published. Unless I read the study myself and can ascertain their premises and methodology, no way, no how am I going to take their conclusions as Gospel. For example, I have no idea how Buss did his research and formed his conclusions. So I’m not going to accept on blind faith that women are sexually attracted to resource provision when everything in my real life experience tells me that is bogus.

    And I don’t mean personally you, or Ted it seems like you are just taking your time to incorporate the new info and actually Obsidian seems to be doing the same, while Ted is probably on the side that the results might be demographics and social class.

    I think it is a little of everything. There does come a point where I am finally willing to move on from additional debate irrespective of what I actually think, and willing to grant the presumption for purposes of continued discussion. I still believe getting honest information on surveys is difficult…maybe if we could take the surveys with penalty of death for providing false information I’d feel more comfortable that any analysis resulting from them isn’t GIGO (garbage in garbage out). But for purposes of discussion here, I’m willing to go with the 80/20 thing. That said, Obsidian is correct to note if that is the case that the 20 don’t sex up the 80, and here the focus is on the 80, then the question becomes why all the obsessive focus on cads and players. Let them do their thing with the 20% of “sluts”.

  • J

    I understand you don’t know me at all, but I assure you, I am not the least bit mad, for any reason. I am merely amused by your contentions, as are many others.

    Of course, you’re angry. You feel I insulted your friend. If that weren’t the issue, you’d be discussing the predator/prey theory as I invited you to. And BTW the consensus of feeling on this thread doesn’t seem to be amusement at me but annoyance and frustration with you and at the ad homs.

    I have felt a lot of support for me on this thread, which I thank people for. Rather than having you continue to threaten to trounce people I like with your “superior rhetorical skills,” and given that you prefer to use those skills rather than engage in non-adversarial discussion as I offfered, I’m going to bow out. I’m sure you’ll claim victory, but I think you’ve made an impression on many that differs significantly from one of the superior rhetoritician.

  • Jackie

    @J
    Hi J,

    I took a break from the internet and beloved HUS recently and swung by today and wanted to offer you support, as well. (Though I am going
    going to swing right back to working on personal stuff. There’s a lot of it!)

    I don’t know VD or his work, though I do believe he is incredibly IQ-intelligent and has a lot to offer. If he ever takes on Dickens vs The Wire –or, better yet, this Victorian mash-up of them both: http://hoodedutilitarian.com/2011/03/when-its-not-your-turn-the-quintessentially-victorian-vision-of-ogdens-the-wire/ — I will definitely read with fascination and interest!

    I wonder, though, if he has heard the adage that my mother told me:

    “People won’t remember what you did; they will remember the way you made them feel.”

    Seeing as his interactions with you, me, Charm, Courtley, your blog-daughter ;) (who I also haven’t seen since her & VD’s earlier skirmish) plus the feedback from people like Maggie and INTJ, were not exactly positive experiences, it is something for reflection.

    I could be completely wrong about this– tone is really tough to call on the internet. And it’s very tempting to want to diminish those with whom we disagree or feel personally slighted by. As in all things, xkcd has the answer:

    http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17eucs1i2p53npng/original.png

    Peace :)

  • HerrKaiser

    @ Susan,

    Women are not the only ones who should avoid drunken frat parties; I have known several cases of young men drugged and raped. Needless to say they didn’t report the incident.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HerrKaiser

      Women are not the only ones who should avoid drunken frat parties; I have known several cases of young men drugged and raped. Needless to say they didn’t report the incident.

      That is horrible. I assume you mean same sex rape. Total debauchery.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @ADBG

    It’s not that men are necessarily invested in one version of the truth or unable to see something outside of it, it’s that it flies in the face of EVERYTHING we see and all established wisdom that we have. Thus it is viewed with GREAT skepticism.

    Well, if the response is almost always negative and reactive, it doesn’t really sound like “truthseeking” after awhile. It sounds like orthodoxy.

  • J

    @SW

    I’m looking forward to that post. What did you think of this: “Finally, as some parting advice, it might be wise to rethink how and why you voice concerns about the solipsism of the other gender in general.”?

  • J

    Hi Jackie!

    Good to see you!

    Thanks so much for the support. You’re a sweetie. I’m happy to see that so many people here see me as helpful and as having something valuable to share with them.

    THIS!:

    I wonder, though, if he has heard the adage that my mother told me: “People won’t remember what you did; they will remember the way you made them feel.”

    People really underestimate how important people skills are, especially people who have been served well by their IQs. I’ve known a lot of people IRL with tremendously high IQs but little ability to empathize or fit in with others. They generally overestimate the importance of IQ to others, who are often impressed but not necessarily enamored.

    Seeing as his interactions with you, me, Charm, Courtley, your blog-daughter (who I also haven’t seen since her & VD’s earlier skirmish) plus the feedback from people like Maggie and INTJ, were not exactly positive experiences, it is something for reflection.

    A pattern? I was sorry to see those gals vote with their feet. I assume that you are busy and will pop back when you’re free, but I’d guess Courtley is gone for good. Too bad. I miss her. She had interesting things to say.

    I could be completely wrong about this– tone is really tough to call on the internet.

    No, I think your perceptions are accurate.

    Anyway, good luck with whatever is calling you away, school I assume, and take care.

    J

  • J

    In the middle are women who will acknowledge the attractiveness of a fairly large cohort of genuinely attractive high status males. The ones with good character and satisfactory spouses will be fine. The ones whose hubbies go beta will have a problem that only good character can save them from.

    I would think that most women would acknowledge the attractiveness of a fairly large cohort of genuinely attractive high status males, though I think that what constitute high status will vary from woman to woman. I find the whole high status thing to be sort of circular. High status men appeal to women. Who is high status? A guy who for one reason or another appeals to women.

    The ones with good character and satisfactory spouses will be fine.

    Sure.

    The ones whose hubbies go beta will have a problem that only good character can save them from.

    That’s OK as far as it goes, but I’m not sure that the only thing that would cause a woman to cheat is betaness.

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

    sometimes I get very fatigued with the debates, especially in that case where every other woman was in hiding.

    Oh I wanted to comment that during Ladrockgate I didn’t showed my support because I tried to pick battles that make sense and from my POV it didn’t.

    That’s skepticism, not solipsism.

    Fair enough.How is female skepticism towards male or a certain male group is different from solipsism?

    Unless I read the study myself and can ascertain their premises and methodology, no way, no how am I going to take their conclusions as Gospel.

    I actually agree in not taking anything as Gospel and that sometimes methodologies can trick the results but then not taking anything as Gospel should include personal anecdotes, and Game reports don’t you think?
    We already established that most happy men are not connecting with this issues so how do we control for that? How do we know the real numbers?

  • Plain Jane

    @Ms. Walsh #553:
    “First, I said cads, not players. Cads often run false nice guy game for the express purpose of hoodwinking females, especially freshmen.”

    O: Ahh, OK. Now we’re cooking with gas!

    So, let me make sure I got you straight here – your beef isn’t so much with *Players* per se, but rather, *guys who fake the funk, using aspects of Game but aren’t really true to the Game, so to speak, like the proverbial PUAs* – am I following you?

    Because if you say “yes”, my response would be: I agree 100% wholeheartedly.

    I have always said – that true Players NEVER have to hide who they are. The issue, is that we have *pretenders* – and I will be 100% honest in acknowledging that they do indeed exist. In this, I cannot be mad at you or anyone else, for being concerned about them. That is legit.

    No. Susan isn’t talking about non-players pretending to be players, but rather cads pretending to be nice guys (i.e. interested in a genuine relationship), when all they want is NSA sex.

    If the non-players pretended to be players it would be alright. In other words, they would be acting like all they want is NSA sex, so if that’s the case there’d be no deception.

    The most important thing is honesty so that women know where you stand. Want sex and that’s it? Make sure she knows it! There are plenty of women out there today who are up for NSA sex so its not a problem.

  • Mike C

    O: Very interesting synopsis – and please note, that once again, *my arguments were never dealt with; only that they made others “uncomfortable” – which is indeed a core “tenet” of the way in which Women do things – and which DO indeed have a powerful “say” in the public square.

    Hmm…

    Yes…since I’m in a meta-analysis kind of mood…the go to tactics are a sort of indirect ostracization and shaming. Witness the exchange here between Jackie and J

    Seeing as his interactions with you, me, Charm, Courtley, your blog-daughter (who I also haven’t seen since her & VD’s earlier skirmish) plus the feedback from people like Maggie and INTJ, were not exactly positive experiences, it is something for reflection.

    A pattern? I was sorry to see those gals vote with their feet. I assume that you are busy and will pop back when you’re free, but I’d guess Courtley is gone for good.

    So that bad, nasty VD man ran off Charm and Courtley off this site. This generally works well….look at yourself you are in moderation. Now VD is VD so this won’t work to get Susan to take any action towards him, but for most guys it will work. It is that you are part of the herd or you are not. Actually, I’ve developed my knowledge here by Anacoana’s comments. She is very astute when it comes to female group dynamics.

    FWIW, I agree with you that your greatest sin was making some people “uncomfortable” and that the things you were saying had a lot of meat on the bone so to speak. FWIW, if we ever went into battle I’d want someone like you by my side. If there is one word I think of with you, it is tenacious.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      This generally works well….look at yourself you are in moderation. Now VD is VD so this won’t work to get Susan to take any action towards him, but for most guys it will work. It is that you are part of the herd or you are not.

      I did call VD out on his ad hom, and I also debated the point that Stickwick made. There is no comparison between Obsidian’s constant baiting (HMMMMMMM????) and Vox’s reasoning. Nor has Vox ever told women they are unlikely to be successful in the SMP. Obsidian makes almost everything personal. Oh wait! SOLIPSISM!

      As for the herd, would you describe Dalrock’s fan base as comprising a herd? If not, why not?

  • Mike C

    High status men appeal to women. Who is high status? A guy who for one reason or another appeals to women.

    Status.

    Brad Pitt the Hollywood actor has status. Brad Pitt the waiter auditioning for parts does not.

    The CEO of Fortune 500 company has status. The janitor collecting trash in the evening does not.

    The guy who walks into the nightclub and appears to “know” everyone who immediately attracts a crowd has status (in that environment). The guy standing by himself by the wall does not.

    Status is simply an elevated position in some hierarchy, and it is contextual. For example, I have no status in my workplace, but I have status at the gym I work out at. Interestingly, a very high ranking executive works out at my gym. He is just another Joe Blow in that environment while obviously during the daytime at work he is a Big Dog.

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

    @O
    Fair enough…. How about Alpha (have dark triads, engage on risky behaviour,cheat, no commit) is more likely to be bad and Beta (engage on safe behaviour, commit, don’t cheat, be empathetic…) is more likely to be good?

    Actually, I’ve developed my knowledge here by Anacoana’s comments. She is very astute when it comes to female group dynamics.

    Heh except that I belong to Susan’s herd that hardly makes me impartial, just more likely to not bring out stuff unless I think HUS benefits from it. Although I consider myself a hybrid, in school I was part of both all male groups (Pack) and all female groups (Herd) depending on the day and then I took at least a day to befriend the lonely kid to keep him/her company.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ana

      I was part of both all male groups (Pack) and all female groups (Herd)

      Interesting, what would you name as the key differences between pack behavior and herd behavior?

  • Mike C

    Game and the Red Pill are very important for that, and Vox believes that my writing has the potential to influence young women, who are key constituents in that development.

    Just for the record I believe this as well. Although we disagree vehemently on many core foundational principles such as female nature (such as hypergamy and solipsism), the nature of female attraction, I do believe the gestalt of your message to young women is a very positive one.

    In contrast, (since you asked),

    Actually, I didn’t….ask anything that is….I simply remarked that their core beliefs are probably very similar.

    Agree 100% on Escoffier’s first rate mind. This is not a matter of personal opinion, he is a bit famous. Not a household name, but one of the American intelligentsia for sure.

    Hmm…I’ll probably never know but you have me curious…

    If I think too much about his credentials, I feel too intimidated to argue with him.

    I think he would be the first to tell you ignore the credentials and focus on the quality of the argument. FWIW, I think you have a strong tendency towards credentialism. I think this is a serious error. Obtaining a certain credential often means you were able to jump through a certain sequence of hoops. I’m not saying they are meaningless, but academic pedigree doesn’t guarantee correct thinking or analysis. Ben Bernanke said in 2006 at the height of the housing bubble that home prices were justified by the economic fundamentals. Alan Greenspan (The Maestro) testified before Congress not too long ago that apparently he had been operating under incorrect theoretical principles for the past few decades:

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

    In my view, over the past several months to a year, you’ve started to rely way too heavily if not exclusively on academic, credentialed analysis to completely form your view of the SMP.

    Personally, from an SMV POV, Escoffier is the closest thing to the whole package I have seen at HUS.

    Maybe he should “instill some dread” and tell his wife some woman online thinks he is the total package. :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      In my view, over the past several months to a year, you’ve started to rely way too heavily if not exclusively on academic, credentialed analysis to completely form your view of the SMP.

      My view of the SMP has been formed for a long time. I have also had several hypotheses of my own and skepticism of some claims that are routinely bandied about. The more I read, and learn, the closer I come to confirming those hypotheses. I have also learned that my skepticism has been very well placed. There are many ideas that were introduced or pimped by Roissy, and no one has questioned them. The mentality in the ‘sphere is almost cult-like. If they’re valid, they will stand the test of being brought into the light.

      I value credentials because they signal that a person has met some standards of intelligence and academic rigor. Although plenty of professors do have agendas, mostly of the liberal variety, the opposite is true in the area of mating. Most of the academics studying sexual behavior must be prepared to go up against feminists regularly and defend their work.

      The idea of lending equal credence to the sales pitch of a YaReallyPUA is laughable.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      Although we disagree vehemently on many core foundational principles such as female nature (such as hypergamy and solipsism), the nature of female attraction

      Respectfully, as a capable thinker with a vagina, I believe I edge you out there. Frankly, you have embraced some back asswards notions that are so clearly DLV it compromises your credibility, IMO. It is perhaps significant that you do not implement in your own relationship some of the tactics you defend.

  • Mike C

    Heh except that I belong to Susan’s herd that hardly makes me impartial,

    Haha….yup….I got kicked out :)….thats OK…I’ll still give you *kiss on cheek*

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com