At the end of the day….
Let’s keep talking.
No related posts.
-
Subscribe for Updates!
Recent Comments
- A Definite Beta Guy on A Good Man is Not Hard to Find
- A Definite Beta Guy on A Good Man is Not Hard to Find
- A Definite Beta Guy on A Good Man is Not Hard to Find
- Just a thought on A Good Man is Not Hard to Find
- A Definite Beta Guy on Drilling Down on OOW Births in the U.S.
-
Recent Posts
Archives
{ 1417 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 »
@ david foster
This is the big problem with genuine benevolent dictatorships. The country becomes too reliant on them.
@ Plain Jane
It doesn’t matter. Men’s IQ scores are much broader, which means the high-IQ range is populated predominantly by men.
“I’ve been hearing that more and more, that female cheating is “worse” and a greater wrong. Do you agree?”
I’ve been trying to bow out of this discussion but I cannot let this go.
The quoted statement above is a gross mischaracterization of the argument. The claim is not that female cheating is “worse” than male cheating or that it is a “greater” wrong. (Besides, I thought you didn’t concern yourself with morality around here.)
The claim is that female or wife cheating has far more destructive and more often fatal consequences for a marriage or relationship than does husband cheating. This is because in turn of the different reasons men and women cheat.
A man cheats for sexual variety. He is still attracted to his wife but wants variety. By stark contrast, a woman cheats because she’s done with her unattractive mate and wants a new one. She cheats because she’s no longer attracted to this mate and is looking for a new mate. So when she cheats, she’s checked out of the relationship. Once that happens, it’s over. You can’t get it back, ever.
I express no moral judgments on any of this. That’s not the point. THe point is that the wrongs occur for different reasons and have different consequences most of the time.
In addition, female cheating can result in the man being duped into raising a child not his own that he is told is his own. Male cheating can result in extramarital children but the woman is never tricked into raising it as her own.
@Ms. Plain Jane #1040:
“That’s the thing. When guys in the M-sphere complain about “nags” and “nagging” what they don’t realize is that the only women who nag are the women who are overly concerned with keeping house – exactly the type of women they claim to want.”
O: That may be – but Ms. J *wasn’t talking about “guys in the M-sphere* – she was talkinng about a personal, IRL situation she found herself in. She rightly called out a girlfriend of hers for busting her guy’s chops – a *good guy*, I might add.
If I may, your example above is what we’ve been talking about here – along with giving yet more evidence that Women do not have the lock on being “good listeners”. Not by a longshot.
“I don’t know too many women of my age or younger who are overly concerned with that. When we come home from work we don’t start cleaning, we get online.”
O: Coolbeans; do you. All of the Men I know have no problem cleaning up/looking after themselves, including yours truly. And by all accounts, you haven’t had too hard a time finding such Men IRL either. So, the question has to be – why do you need to intensely/obsessively focus on what “guys in the M-sphere” do, Plain Jane? Why does it matter so very much to you? Do you feel personally aggrieved by what they say? Please explain?
“I’ve noticed women who nag a lot about the state of the house are my grandma’s age. But the Spherians claim to want young women so they’ll have to make a choice between aging nags and young women who don’t nag, because, well, blogging is more important than housekeeping.”
O: By all accounts, the vast majority of “Spherians” are GTOW. “Problem” solved…
“Not to say we’re complete slobs either. We clean up – after ourselves. But we’re not going to clean up after other grown-ass adults and we probably won’t even notice your socks thrown about the floor or your dirty dishes. I mean, who the hell cares? You don’t, and neither do we.”
O: Again – why is this so very important to you, Ms. Plain Jane? You have made your position crystal clear on the matter, and yet you’re like the proverbial pitbull – you just can’t seem to let it go.
Look, no one’s in the ‘sphere’s stalking you, or hunting you down and forcing you to read what they write ala A Clockwork Orange. If you don’t like what they say, you can simply keep it movin’. After all, you’ve got a (great!) life – right? So why all the b*tching? What point does this serve – that they’re all wet? OK, got that. That they’re racists? Check. That they’re Women haters? Coolbeans. That they’re sour grapes losers in love and life? Tru dat. I mean, who here really disagrees with you on all this? Last time I checked, you had far and away more folk in agreement than not.
So, what gives? It seems like every time I ask you point blank what the deal is with you, you run off. I thought you wanted some real dialogue. It seems instead that what you want is the exact same thing the “M-sphere” wants – *to be heard*.
Well, FWIW Ms. Plain Jane, *I* hear you. I get everything you’re saying. I got it. I get it.
Now, can you give it a rest – please?
Is that asking too much?
O.
@INTJ
You know, your repeated claims Susan’s cited sources were biased and unreliable would actually have some meaning if you could specifically point out which ones were biased and unreliable, and how and why they were biased and unreliable. Your extreme reluctance to be specific is very telling. I imagine a flamingo without even one leg to stand on.
Again, which specific sources that Susan’s cited are lacking in quality? If it’s so obvious to you and not to me, could you please demonstrate how and why, specifically. I’m not interested in generalities. I listed 44 separate sources. Can you show how any of them are crap? I’d really like to know, because I spent a considerable amount of time reading through them all this year.
And yet, you repeatedly claimed that Susan’s cited sources were biased and unreliable, and that anecdotes were *more* accurate and reliable. Even though they have no burden of proof and no standards of data collection? I suppose that makes them as pure as the driven snow, huh? I take that back. If the anecdote conforms to your own preconceived opinions, then it’s a good one.
I recall you conveying this “high-quality, reliable, unbiased” anecdote awhile back. Remember?
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/05/07/relationshipstrategies/can-a-manwhore-ever-really-settle-down-even-if-he-wants-to/comment-page-4/
#522
My mother used to teach at a community college in California. Most girls there either practiced casual sex or got into broken relationships. Community colleges are just as bad as university, though they do manage to keep the partying more out of sight.
#530
They may be dating more and hooking up less, but they still manage to end up having sex with assholes. That’s the only explanation for why so many of them are single mothers or have to deal with post-abortion depression. Sure, thanks to the smaller size and lack of dorm culture, you won’t see them having as many one night stands, but that doesn’t mean they don’t manage to rack up high numbers of broken relationships.
You used this well-thought out conclusion to generalize about 1.8 million female community college students, without any sources other than your mother. And it was secondhand to boot. Your mother told you, and you swallowed it completely. Anecdotes like this don’t = case studies. And they don’t *prove* “what people do vs. what they say.” By definition, anecdotes ARE what people SAY happened, and that’s all. This anecdote not only didn’t prove anything, but it’s just plain factually wrong.
Yeah, if you’re a *neutral* observer of female behavior, then I’m a Hindu princess. : )
I just have to say, reading back over this thread, the exchanges among Susan, MikeC, Escoffier, VD and Desiderius has been nothing short of superb. But this:
“What is game? In a nutshell, game is a massive arbitrage scheme developed by (some) men to take advantage of the fact that (lots of) women do not understand their own attraction triggers. Helping them to understand MUST be part of the conversation here if your mission is to succeed. Otherwise the SMP will just go on as it is, in all its dismal glory, and the girls you want to help will keep hooking up, getting P&Ded, and feeling miserable about it.”
simply stands out.
Indeed, HUS will be little more than an exercise in mental masturbation if it does not help women understand their attraction triggers and how the current SMP works.
And pointing out that a lot of women don’t understand them and frankly don’t care to understand them is not misogyny.
@Ms. J #1005:
“I guess it depends on where you stand. If you’re at Walmart, it’s like being in the middle of a Chris Rock monologue. Ever hear his joke about fat WW offering “more white to love”? I’ve seen some reasonably high SMV BMs with low SMV WWs in lower SES areas.”
O: While I can see why you – and many others, and not just the “Spherians”, as Ms. Plain Jane refers to them – would say this. But the fact remains that being White still very much matters in American life. I know Ms. Walsh doesn’t like to notice this, but White Privilege is very much a real thing. The simple truth is that any one of those Women going missing can and will garner a heck of a lot more news coverage and public concern than the vast majority of the Sistas you mentioned below – and Sistas know it. Indeed, this deeply chaps their collective hides – and to be frank, I can’t blame em. But it is, what it is.
At rate, coming back to the ‘sphere, the point is this: if you’re position is that the Brothas pretty much screw anything that moves and only get the dregs of White Women, why do you care so much? Especially when you spend so much time bemoaning how many White Women are becoming “landwhales” and the like? I mean, if its me, they simply don’t register on my radar, if for no other reason than the fact that I’m focused on the Women that interest me. I think you and I know that there’s something else going on with the fellas in the sphere along these lines than they’re willing to admit; and while I get that this may irritate you and others here, I for one don’t begrudge them that. They need a place to vent, and the sphere is giving them that space. I can dig it. I can make my peace with that.
“OTOH, as we move up the SES ladder, interracial couples seem to have similar SMVs. I’ve never seen a black professional man with a white cigstache. In fact, I’ve never seen a professional man of any color with a white cigstache.”
O: That’s not what the fellas in the sphere say, LOL. But yea, I completely see what you’re saying, and would agree, for I see the same thing – I saw plenty of it last week, in fact.
“BTW, I was in an area over the summer with a large Afro-Carib population. I saw a lot of the women being accompanied by white, Asian, and East Indian men. I found myself wondering what you’d think.”
O: Glad you asked. First question. What did these ladies look like? Did they come closer in appearance to say, Rihanna/Alicia Keys/Beyonce’/Mariah Carey/ -or – did they come closer in appearance to say, Angie Stone/India.Arie/Alex Wek/Grace Jones?
Also: please define “a lot”? Are we talking over/under say, 25% of ALL the couples within you line of sight/360 degrees?
Third: what was the relative age ranges of the couples you saw – did they look to be say, under or over 30, in the main? Did they have kids – and if so, how many per? Did you notice any wedding rings? How many?
O.
I’m going to take the advice of a trusted colleague and take a couple of days off from the blog. While HUS continues to be intellectually challenging and I appreciate the time and energy of the commenters, I no longer look forward to spending time here as I once did. The constant contentious debate, my continued frustration and inability to make myself understood, and the constant pressure from some to alter my mission, my strategy and my views has sucked much of the joy out of the experience, frankly. HUS is my baby, and I’m not going to kill it, but something’s gotta give.
In one of my first forums we have the rules of closing the whole comments section when the level of stupid reached Defcon 3. I didn’t enjoyed it but after a few days off he most hotheaded commenter had time to calm down and stop trying to win just for the sake of whatever and we could retake the issue with a different perspective or realize that the debate reached its natural conclusion long ago and move on on something else.
Not sure how productive that would be for this blog but after you fix the forum section you can just invite them to open a forum if they think they need to discuss the issue further, YMMV.
Esco 1054:
Cuckoldry is yet another reason why wife cheating is almost always fatal to a marriage. If she has cheated, how can a man have confidence that the woman’s offspring are his?
I just don’t see how this is so difficult to understand.
@Ms. Anacaona:
My bad for getting back to you so very late; just wanted to respond to your comments/questions posed to me a little while back.
Look – here’s the deal. I fully and freely accept the fact that you are attracted to a certain kind of Man. I fully and freely accept that you have a wonderful marriage with such a Man. I have absolutely no problem in the least with any of that – and as you are now a part of my American Family (read: you’re a citizen0, I fully support your Right to Freedom of Association. I get it, Ms. Anacaona. I get it.
All’s I’m saying is that I think it’s a huge mistake to say Alpha=Bad, and Beta=Good. The whole Nice Guy(TM) thing, that really is a problem for so many ladies these days – do you honestly think it’s Alpha guys doing that? Come on.
So, yes, I can freely acknowledge the fact that Alphas can and will do all kinds of boneheaded stuff; but I’ve been around too long to deny the fact that they are by no means alone; Beta guys do some ill sh*t too.
That’s all I’m saying.
I wish you many years of loving, happily married bliss with the Man of your choice.
O.
@HerrKaiser.
Fujimori like Pinochet stopped the hyperinflation of his predecessor.
Fujimori like Pinochet broke the back of communism in his country.
Fujimori like Pinochet grew the economy under his rule.
Fujimori like Putin could not be intimidated by hostage-taking-terrorists.
Fujimori had a wife that divorced him, and tried to run against him in an election.
Fujimori’s downfall was more due to his shady spy-chief Montecinos than anything else. Does this exonerate him then ? No.
It does make him human though.
And Fujimori offered his resignation when this scandal came into light.
That makes him honorable though.
If Fujimori was such a corrupt incompetent leader, why is his daughter such a force in Peruvian politics ?
In the end, an electorate will attribute the qualities of the sire to the scion.
HerrKaiser, whatever else you can say about Fujimori, he was the only competent postwar (ethnic) Japanese leader of his country.
Also, in your contentious list, if I am not mistaking, there is a preponderance of right-wingers. That is interesting in light of this Washington Times article :
So I shall respectfully differ with you on Alberto Fujimori.
I must say though, that I like Anwar Sadat as well. He fought Israel to a standstill where Nasser capitulated, and went to Israel where he addressed the Knesset wearing a tie full of swastikas … you just gotta admire that … sort off.
… oh yes yes yes, my splendid offended little marauder mouse … if you can nibble away at this one … you’re getting another medal … and yes, I know … you feel you don’t deserve it … that doesn’t matter to me at all …
@Ms. Plain Jane #919:
“My clients range from Wall Street execs all the way up to Section 8 baby mamas, and I can tell you that Section 8 women ain’t suffering in dangerous ‘hoods like they used to. They also ain’t dyin’ for a husband. Like Obsidian mentioned before, many women have o-o-w babies because they WANT the babies, but not necessarily a man. I know several who do not oblige the fathers to pay child support, legally or voluntarily, because they want nothing, not even a phone call, to do with them.”
O: While you are correct to mention my name along these lines, I feel it important to point out that we need to handle this issue with a bit more care and deliberation. For one thing, we do not know precisely *how* many Women fall into this cohort; I have yet to see any hard stats, and something tells me you haven’t either.
Moreover, we also know that quite a few ladies do indeed want a Man involved with the care of their kids – granted, perhaps not the sperm donor Baby Daddy – but a Man, nevertheless. At any rate, I think Edin & Kafalas’ “Promises I Can Keep” can flesh this issue out better than either of us could.
Don’t you agree?
O.
@Ms. Plain Jane #1047:
“I would have welcomed the Section 8ers. Your people must’ve been under the illusion that Section 8ers are ghetto gang-banging crack dealers. Not the case at all.
Some of my best clients are Section 8ers.”
O: Are you a social worker or something? Not that it matters all that much to the discussion, and you’re more than free not to answer and to tell me to take a hike. Just curious, is all.
At any rate, if you likie Section 8ers so much, you are more than free to get some property and hangout a shingle. Have at it.
O.
@ INTJ:
This is laughable. You cannot claim to be “neutral” when you are an active participant in the SMP you are “observing”.
@ Megaman:
HA! Good one.
@Ms. J:
*Quoting me*: This isn’t true at all, at least as far as I’m concerned, and Ms. J and Ms. Hope are my witnesses.
“True dat.”
*Quoting me again*: On many occasions I challenged what Roissy said – only for my comments to either disappear, or to never appear in the first place.
“You too, huh? A whole post once disappeared after I commented. He was snappish with me for weeks afterward.”
O: LOL, oh yea. I got A LOT deleted from Roissy’s blog, and that, among a few other direct experiences in the (White) Manosphere, after awhile, started to dawn on me what all of that was really all about.
Look, Men simply cannot do the Archie Bunker Thing anymore – that is, if you want to keep you job, still be accepted in polite society and yes, be on any Woman worth having’s radar screen. And while many – perhaps even you – might see that as an on-net good thing, it does come with quite a few downsides. One of them, is the fact that there are fewer spaces – public and private – where guys can just talk like, you know, guys.
Men like blutness, and Women, by and large, don’t. Women deem consensus building to be more important than do Men. Men are much more willing to risk being ostracized, than are Women, over abstract things like “the truth” or “justice” than are Women. Of course I’m making some pretty broad generalizations. But I think most here would agree with me, that they are largely true.
The problem is, we have arrived at a point in our public and social discourse that we simply cannot hear anyone anymore, because we are convinced that our side is right and the other side is “evil”. We just don’t disagree anymore – we demonize. White demonizes Black; Black demonizes White. Men demonizes Women; Women demonizes Men. Right demonizes Left. Left demonizes Right. And on and on it goes – meanwhile, people like you and me, who simply want to at least try and get the facts, we get lost in the shuffle.
As much guff as I’ve taken in the (White) Manosphere, I don’t hate any of those guys; they are not evil to me. They’re just a bunch of very afraid and hurt guys that are in a very real kind of way, facing extinction. And what group really wants that?
Roissy, among others in the sphere, really went hard on Sistas in a way that makes anything I’ve said about them look downright White Knighty by comparison. I recally very well being the lone Brotha there defending Sistas from all the stuff Roissy and his readers would say. I mean, just downright mean stuff, while I freely admitted that much of it was true, nevertheless. What I couldn’t get was why they had to go so hard on a group that so many of them claim to high heaven they had no interest in.
Then, I got it.
A big part of the “mission” of the Manosphere, is to give White Guys a safe fourm where they can speak unvarnished, and uncut, if you will. Political correctness, would itself be hoisted on its own pitard. Black Women are in many ways a “protected class” – this is why the sphere has and continues to have many hard things to say about First Lady Michelle Obama, for example. In many ways, she is the living embodiment of what so many White Guys in the sphere find so vey objectionable about Political Correctness. And you know something?
I can see exactly what they mean – whether I agree with them – whether I like them – or not.
Oh, one other thing. Despite Roissy’s many really meanspirited comments about Black Women, I happen to know quite a few who actually sent their pics to him for his assessment.
But Chicks don’t dig Jerks – right?
O.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
First of all, no one is disputing that male and female cheating occurs for different reasons. But when a guy cheats, the woman takes it as a signal that he is done with the relationship. It does not matter if that is not his intention; that is how it is perceived, and that is how it will play out. So yes, if the woman in question has any shred of dignity, a man’s cheating will have just as devastating consequences to a relationship.
Yeah, but the resources for her own children get siphoned off for the extramarital children. That’s the female getting cuckolded.
And with that, I’m bowing out. This thread went down the shithole and I’d rather spend my day enjoying the lovely September weather.
Peace, fools.
@INTJ
Wow, I knew you had an ideological problem with how statistics are gathered, but you actually blame the entire profession for this preventable tragedy?
I think Morton Thiokol (SRB Contractor) and Lawrence Mulloy (SRB Project Director) covering up design flaws and approving shuttle launches despite evidence of o-ring problems had something to do with it. But you don’t blame the NASA bureaucracy? It’s the statistics that are guilty of negligent homicide, huh?
Do you credit the statistics profession with 133 out of 135 (98.5%) successful flights of the space shuttle program between 1981 to 2011?
Thanks for the material, really. I eat ignorance like this for breakfast.
>> “Not sure how productive that would be for this blog but after you fix the forum section you can just invite them to open a forum if they think they need to discuss the issue further, YMMV.”
This isn’t a bad idea. Maybe if certain “hot topics” are redirected to the forum, it will prevent the comment threads from becoming completely indistinguishable.
“Yeah, but the resources for her own children get siphoned off for the extramarital children. That’s the female getting cuckolded.”
I don’t know if this counts as solipsism or not but the notion that the two things are equivalent is preposterous. “Female getting cuckolded” is just an absurd phrase. When I read things like that, the persistent manosphere anger becomes a little easier to understand.
My bad for getting back to you so very late; just wanted to respond to your comments/questions posed to me a little while back.
Is okay I’m sure you have thousands of things to do. Thank you for taking time to respond.
Look – here’s the deal. I fully and freely accept the fact that you are attracted to a certain kind of Man. I fully and freely accept that you have a wonderful marriage with such a Man. I have absolutely no problem in the least with any of that – and as you are now a part of my American Family (read: you’re a citizen0, I fully support your Right to Freedom of Association. I get it, Ms. Anacaona. I get it.
Not yet need to birth the Anchor baby first. I’m legally here though (in case La Migra is reading
)
All’s I’m saying is that I think it’s a huge mistake to say Alpha=Bad, and Beta=Good. The whole Nice Guy(TM) thing, that really is a problem for so many ladies these days – do you honestly think it’s Alpha guys doing that? Come on.
I really don’t follow this. Do you think the ones pumping and dumping, abandoning, cheating, lying are so on are the Betas?
So, yes, I can freely acknowledge the fact that Alphas can and will do all kinds of boneheaded stuff; but I’ve been around too long to deny the fact that they are by no means alone; Beta guys do some ill sh*t too.
That’s all I’m saying.
Odds Obsidian, odds.
How much percentage of Alphas vs percentages of Betas are causing havoc? What is a safer approach for a woman that wants a long lasting marriage and family? Go for the Alphas or the Betas? Which group of men have more chances of succeed in the long term?
That’s all I’m saying, too.
I wish you many years of loving, happily married bliss with the Man of your choice.
Thank you I wish you the same in both your personal and proffesional life.
Interestingly enough I was doing my hair yesterday and I caught and interesting conversation about the smart brothas and dating. Many of the girl there mentioned that when dating a smart brotha they felt stupid because they had no idea what to say. This women have no hobbies but gossip, don’t read or do anything but watch TV (probably not quality one) and hear R&B music. One of them that is not only dating smart is dating a white guy got the advice of “shut up and smile” from her cousin in order not to screwed it up like she has done before with other smart men, she is really pretty BTW, thin, nice features and of course very well kept using her money to go to the salon at least once a week and she is in mid 20′s. I found that really interesting. What is your take on that? Had you seen something similar?
@Ms. Walsh:
Just wanted to drop a note on something you and a few others have suggested – that the current discourse and that which have taken place of late, has in some way hampered or impeded your stated “mission”.
While I get the premise, I must say that I respectfully disagree.
While it might be ugly, the fact remains that none of what has transpired here over the past few months has prevented any of your audience from getting the info they need and that you present, and from using it to good and great effect.
Over the past month alone, we have no ness than three examples of people who in fact have done exactly this – Ms. Sassy has reported getting a new boyfriend; so has Ms. Scoot. And as for Cooper, as a direct result of your good works, he seems to be on the path toward getting the same as the aforementioned ladies (ie, a relationship). That doesn’t even count Ted D, who actually got married, for a second time, on your watch. These are real gains, Ms. Walsh. Please try not to lose sight of that.
I for one, haven’t.
You are making a difference.
O.
It’s precisely this sort of absurd female reasoning that I compared to a two-headed calf. When you see it, the only possible response is speechless amusement.
@ms anacaona:
The “shut up and smile a lot” advice given to that young lady you were talking about is about right. A truly smart man of whatever color, knows whats truly important. A woman need not be the next steven hawking in order to be a good mate.
O.
*****”What is game? In a nutshell, game is a massive arbitrage scheme developed by (some) men to take advantage of the fact that (lots of) women do not understand their own attraction triggers.**** Helping them to understand MUST be part of the conversation here if your mission is to succeed. Otherwise the SMP will just go on as it is, in all its dismal glory, and the girls you want to help will keep hooking up, getting P&Ded, and feeling miserable about it.”
simply stands out.
Agreed. That statement by Escoffier is probably the most concise, powerfully accurate thing I’ve read on this blog. It is the entirety of everything distilled to its essential key item.
That said….when I read this:
I no longer look forward to spending time here as I once did. The constant contentious debate, my continued frustration and inability to make myself understood, and the constant pressure from some to alter my mission, my strategy and my views has sucked much of the joy out of the experience, frankly. HUS is my baby, and I’m not going to kill it, but something’s gotta give.
I feel that. I don’t want to be an asshole and a person contributing to someone feeling this way. Its not my MO and it isn’t who I want to be. I like Susan, and ultimately I agree with most of what she is trying to achieve here. I don’t want to the guy sucking the joy out of this. Ultimately, it is Susan’s call in terms of this blog whether she believes there are inherent aspects to female nature that need to be communicated to women to produce better outcomes.
I think a grand experiment was conducted here. Can men and women discuss these highly sensitive topics in a very frank manner. I’ve always like the MTV show Real World. The tagline is about putting strangers together, dropping the act, and being real and seeing what happens. I think the answer is ultimately not really…men and women cannot discuss these items because inherently the male style of communication is something most women find very unsettling.
Ultimately, I think the final evolution here is for mostly female participation with little male input except for the men who tend to already be inclined to female style of communication. In terms of the macro SMP, women will simply have to figure out for women how best to navigate different issues.
For my part, I really don’t know what I am going to do. I don’t want to do some grand sayonara and be back commenting in a week. I don’t think I am capable of reading the blog and reading the comments without commenting, and I don’t think I’m capable of commenting in the manner that Susan would want. I think that means I may have to stop reading this blog. If that is the case, I do wish well to all….it has been a learning experience for me.
“Yeah, but the resources for her own children get siphoned off for the extramarital children. That’s the female getting cuckolded.”
It is informative to compare this claim with the commonly heard one about how so many fathers are deadbeat dads and how unmarried single mothers don’t receive much financial assistance. Precisely what percentage of the resources belonging to married fathers end up going to their illegitimate children? I don’t have the answer to that, but if one is going to attempt to make the claim that a cheating husband’s bastards are the equivalent of him being cuckolded and assuming full responsibility for another man’s children, one will need to provide that information.
@ SayWhaat
But I wasn’t an active participant in the SMP… I spent about two and a half years observing the SMP without participating.
The “shut up and smile a lot” advice given to that young lady you were talking about is about right. A truly smart man of whatever color, knows whats truly important. A woman need not be the next steven hawking in order to be a good mate.
Except that as hard is to believe being in the presence of someone that constantly makes you feel less (less smart, less pretty, less accomplished…) is not nice or conducts to bonding. So even if men don’t care, the woman will do…so this relationship is doomed anyway, she will be dating dumb guys in not time, IMO, YMMV.
The mainstream Western approach to religion is a primary example of this, or perhaps the cause.
Fascinating. Let me get this straight. Are you saying that a possible cause of human rationalization is the mainstream Western approach to religion?
@ Megaman
Jeez. It’s just an example of how statistics can be misused or misinterpreted. It’s not an indictment of the statistics profession.
An indictment of the statistics profession would be based on the invalidity of frequentist statistics, not on the Challenger decision.
@ Anacaona
Win!
Win!
Heh interestingly enough Vox had a post about catching the Alpha even if you work the miracle of doing it…is worth it?
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.ch/2012/09/alpha-mail-be-careful-what-you-chase.html
I will add that while reading the book Selfish reasons to have more children…I was reminded of another point against Alpha chasing is that the bad boy is very likely going to breed more tiny Alpha boys, you are going to deal with the same issues with your son (risky behaviour, getting in trouble, skirt chasing…) which will make parenting even more challenging. Too many drawbacks for little gain, IMO, YMMV.
@ Megaman
I’m don’t have the time to go through all 44 sources. But for example, Susan’s post on sociosexuality asked men and women to rate attractiveness of certain faces. This was a case of “what do you find attractive” vs. actually measuring people’s behavior. I’d expect that responses (both male and female) were socially conditioned, and do not reflect their actual behavior. This is known as social desirability bias. http://www.dur.ac.uk/l.g.boothroyd/papers/boothroyd_2008_soi.pdf
If I said anecdotes were *more* accurate and reliable, I misspoke. I merely think they should be given a similar level of credibility as statistical studies. And I’ve heard plenty of anecdotes on HUS that don’t confirm to my existing opinions. Generally, this has led me to revise my opinions.
Straw man. This is merely an (admittedly unreliable) anecdote that I was providing as a counter to someone’s opinion (no doubt based on his own anecdotes) about community college students’ sexual behavior. I would never suggest that it be taken seriously if it is contradicted by statistical data.
Ironically, the statistical data backs up my anecdote, so your claim that “it’s just plain factually wrong” is laughable:
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/briefly-unplanned-pregnancy-and-community-colleges.pdf
http://gradworks.umi.com/35/18/3518537.html
@ Megaman:
+1
And I agree with Susan. While studies may have their limitations, they provide a broader picture of aspects of the SMP than anecdotes. As much I love hearing stories and FR, IMO they are more susceptible to confirmation bias.
That is, if “everyone” in your social circle behaves a certain way then you’re prone to think it’s the “norm”. This happens with people who have slutty/manwhore friends who come to believe AWALT and AMALT.
@ SayWhaat:
+1000!
It doesn’t matter if the man intends to leave his wife or not. When his wife discovers his betrayal it changes the tenor of the relationship! The woman may try to work it out and on the surface things may seem to be “okay” but she’ll never look at him the way she did before. It may take YEARS before she fully trusts him again.
When the trust is gone, so is the relationship. Sometimes people can work through it, but often they can’t. The very foundation of the relationship has been mortally wounded.
Men who cheat can’t understand this. It was “just sex”, so they don’t understand how their woman can be so hurt, humiliated, upset, etc.
I would say for women the number one thing that kills relationship is disappointment. It can take months, years, decades even but it catches up in time. When she realizes he’s not the man she thought he was, her feelings begin to die. Unless he can recover in her eyes, it’s over.
Female cheating may signal the relationship is already dead, but male cheating often leads to a slow death. The catalyst for a host of problems between such couple down the road..
@INTJ
Hey, I was just taking your bizarre remark about statistics to its logical conclusion. When you’re done taking vague pseudoscientific positions and want to get down to brass tacks and specific details, let me know.
You live in the East Bay, right? Maybe you need to get some fresh country air. It sounds like the fumes from the Richmond refineries have given you a bad case of epistemophobia.
I can understand Susan’s need for a long break. This place has gotten so PC, it’s gone to the dogs.
@ Megaman
There’s nothing pseudo-scientific about Bayesian statistics. It’s a rigorous mathematical criticism of the prevalent statistical methodology.
That said, as the prevalent statistical methodology tends to approximate Bayesian statistics, I’m not against accepting such an analysis.
As for specific details, I gave some in my other post (#1083), but it’s awaiting moderation, which unfortunately might take a while due to Susan’s break.
Sorry, I’m spending the semester in Austin. If I’ve gotten anything, it’s a case of hipsterphobia.
You can accuse this place of being a lot of things, but political correctness isn’t one of them.
You know, for the life of me i just dont get what all the hub bub is all about over this “cheating” thing. Sure, people can and will do it-but-i thought the info we have on the cohort we’re talking about-and by that i mean, largely white, umc folk-cheating just isnt that big an issue. As ms iggles recently noted, and to which i agreed, if you fall into this group your chances of breaking up are less than one in five. Given the overall state of marriage today, those are some pretty good odds.
Me, i just accept the fact that women will never accept certain things. The idea that cuckoldry is distinctly different from anything they can experience being one of them. I aint mad at em for it or anything like that; i just take it as part of the cost of doing business and keep on gettin up.
Honestly, the real issue, as i see it, isnt “cheating” but rather, *getting the 80% together in the first place*. In my view far too focus is being given to stuff once a relationship has already gotten off the ground and its all for nothing really, since again, cheating and the like is rather low for the target demo ms walsh is focusing on.
Elsewhere on the web, an interesting discussion is taking place, that has direct links to this one. Many black women attend “meet markets”-relationship forum-type events where dating coaches like paul carrick brunson (who was featured here and who has mentioned hus in essence earlier this year) and popular relationship bloggers are on the panel, and where the ladies can, ostensibly, meet the fellas.
Well, as it turns out, it is not at all unusual to have say, nearly 90 women to barely 20 in attendance-and this “man-less” situation aint quite for the reasons you might think.
One of the dirty little secrets a lot of these ladies dont want to admit is that theyve made it clear that, one, the vast majority of guys simply aint good enough; and two, that theyre really there to see guys like brunson-and lets be brutally frank. How many brothas can really compete with him? Hes got leading man looks, has all the credentials, is mad successful, has proven that he can pull women, and, hes got a kid who he dotes over. The vast majority of brothas just dont have a snowballs chance in competing against that.
So…they simply “go their own way”, quietly.
I think this is happening on the white side too-in fact, if what ive been reading over the past few years means anything, im pretty certain this is in fact the case.
Its this “vanishing man” issue thats really the pink elephant in the middle of the room-not “cheating” per se.
Its pretty deep.
O.
Hopefully, it’s a rigorous *specific* criticism of an actual source from the list. There are at least 44 to choose from, but there are plenty more on this site. I did my homework just by taking the time to find and read them.
No, pathological cynicism, prevalent amongst males here. It is an apt description.
In my view far too focus is being given to stuff once a relationship has already gotten off the ground and its all for nothing really, since again, cheating and the like is rather low for the target demo ms walsh is focusing on.
I agree that we should concentrate on the 80%, but we need to remember that the 20% is the one that sets the tone of the market because both sides want them. The men want the sexually available hotties and the women want the attractive Alphas. But I think we should concentrate on getting them to date 3. Entering the relationship doesn’t happen if the people is expecting certain behaviors right of the bat, YMMV.
INTJ, no sense of humor?
“This is the big problem with genuine benevolent dictatorships. ”
What about the M-sphere’s use of the term “benevolent patriarchy”? LOL.
By the way, the comments under that dailymailuk women have higher IQ scores than men now article are a HOOT! Of course you’ve got your obligatory M-sphere commentators who managed to show up and call it “cultural marxism” cry “the tests are rigged!” because we all know that when men were coming out on top, they weren’t rigged of course. At that time IQ tests were perfectly valid and scientific and now they aren’t, but of course!
Susan,
Could you clarify for me this 80/20 thing? I’ve seen elderly men in the M-sphere claim that 80% of women are having sex with 20% of men, with no proof to back this claim up, of course. Then I think I’ve seen you use it here in a different way. Now Obsidian is claiming that 80% of the population is high IQ with awkward or shyness issues that prevent them from mating!
Now, there is no way that 80% of the US population is high IQ or celibate. So what’s this all about?
SayWhaat:
“SayWhaat September 22, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
The claim is that female or wife cheating has far more destructive and more often fatal consequences for a marriage or relationship than does husband cheating…A man cheats for sexual variety. He is still attracted to his wife but wants variety. By stark contrast, a woman cheats because she’s done with her unattractive mate and wants a new one.
First of all, no one is disputing that male and female cheating occurs for different reasons. But when a guy cheats, the woman takes it as a signal that he is done with the relationship. It does not matter if that is not his intention; that is how it is perceived, and that is how it will play out. So yes, if the woman in question has any shred of dignity, a man’s cheating will have just as devastating consequences to a relationship.
Male cheating can result in extramarital children but the woman is never tricked into raising it as her own.
Yeah, but the resources for her own children get siphoned off for the extramarital children. That’s the female getting cuckolded.
And with that, I’m bowing out. This thread went down the shithole and I’d rather spend my day enjoying the lovely September weather.
Peace, fools.”
—————-
I agree 100% that cheating husbands are just as problematic as cheating wives. My question was that, in context with what you shared about some women known to your mom I believe it was, did those men actually run off with their lovers first, OR get caught by their wives who then desired a divorce, AND THEN they ran off?
I’M NOT JUSTIFYING WHAT THE HUSBANDS DID.
Just wanted to make that clear. What they did was WRONG, but again my opinion is that when children are involved, its probably best NOT to jump to immediate divorce when discovering an affair, but to separate for a month or so, work out one’s negative emotions away from the offending party, and then with a cool head decide what would be in the best long term interest of the children.
This might mean staying together, seeking marriage counseling and spousal reform, or it might mean having one’s own affair to bring equilibrium to the relationship, or it might mean a transition into open marriage.
There are alternatives to divorce, and some of them are quite appealing.
Bastard children can be avoided by vowing in blood to use contraceptives. Husbands can also exclusively take only post-menopausal lovers.
“Your extreme reluctance to be specific is very telling. I imagine a flamingo without even one leg to stand on. Ha ha ha ha!
Megaman, YOU are a very funny guy .. Smart, too.
I enjoy reading your comments.
And Mike C?
Please don’t go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-l5FyA3pgo
I’ve skimmed through this discussion, and I think the major disconnect is not between males and females per se. I think it’s the disconnect between Thinkers and Feelers.
I communicate very well with my husband, who is also NF. We view the world in very similar ways. He actually has similar complaints about many of his NT male acquaintances as the (NF) females here often bring up about (NT) males. He has basically concluded that NTs will not bend, so he is the one who has to concede ground and compromise.
My husband also cares very much how people make him feel, and cares more about the intention behind why they did what they did, not just what they did. Another Thinking vs. Feeling difference there. Given that most men are T-types, and especially most men in the manosphere are T-types, it’s not surprising that the friction would arise from this fundamental point.
I would guess that if there were majority NF guys posting on HUS, the tone would be very different. But NF guys tend to not argue for the sake of arguing. Mostly they just want to be happy and enjoy life. General online discussions are dominated by lots of NTs and very few NFs. More friendly but interesting chats, etc. are more up the NF alley.
YMMV, of course.
J, funny, I bet if you had said “Women are naturally monogamous,” D would have attacked you for being a hamsterbating female supremacist peddling the blue pill myth that women are naturally morally superior to men.
LOL, quite possibly.
@Anacaona
I lived off and on for about three years under the dictatorship of Lee Kaun Yew in Singapore; it was excellent! Aside from the humidity, which has nothing to do with its form of government, Singapore is the very model of a civilized country. I have also had extended stays in Kazakhstan under the dictatorship of Nursultan Nazarbayev; he has done wonders with his country, probably the best post-communist leader in the whole former Soviet Union. Don’t get me wrong, I like Putin and I thank God for him every day; he has made me richer than a Saudi prince, but Nazarbayev outshines him.
@INTJ
You are confusing “benevolent” with soft and gentle. Chang Kai Shiek was disaster in mainland China, but he worked wonders in Taiwan. Pinochet killed 10,000+ people in some of the most gruesome manners, but he saved his country from Marxism and placed it on sound economic footing. Even today, Chile is best governed, richest, freest, and most stable country in Latin America; and that is because of the actions of Pinochet. Nobody said dictatorship is fine or easy; there is a reason it is a last resort. Moreover, generally the kinder and easier a dictators rule; the more corrupt and ineffective his governance.
@ David Foster
I cannot say if they are altruistic, but they can certainly be called nationalist; seeking power not for personal enrichment, but rather to reshape their nations according to their conviction. Whenever such a person is able to gain dictatorial power, be prepared for massive transformation. Sometimes it can be for the better like Park Chung Hee’s rule in South Korea; when he took power South Korea was poorer than Sub-Saharan Africa and look at it today, or it could be a nightmare; consider Uganda under Idi Amin. Generally, a nationalist dictator, who is successful, will not be followed by another dictator, but by institutionalized power; such is the case in Singapore, Chile, South Korea, etc. See Max Weber’s “Charisma and Institution Building”.
@ Plain Jane
It is not for the mistake of being “poor” is for the mistakes that lead them to be poor; having children out-of-wedlock, not finishing their educations, not saving, not working, etc. Housing them in existing neighborhoods might be more “efficient”, but why are we giving them money to start? If you cannot live by the fruits of your own effort, you don’t deserve to live.
P.S. Indira Gandhi was a failure, but then again that is the story of India.
@ Marellus
I like Sadat and so do most Egyptians old enough to remember him. However, I cannot be with you on Fujimori; Peru has a lot of problems and Fujimori did not begin to address them. At the end of the day it is result that count; Pinochet left Chile stable and rich (by Latin American standards) and Fujimori left Peru more or less as he found it. As for the “preponderance of right-wingers”, I think you can tell by now that I am in fact a right-winger (of sorts). In fact, the only “leftist” dictator I admire, really more than the rest, is Joseph Stalin; partly because he had a higher hill to climb. Of course, that is a very contentious statement and would involve a longer discussion.
O: Glad you asked. First question. What did these ladies look like? Did they come closer in appearance to say, Rihanna/Alicia Keys/Beyonce’/Mariah Carey/ -or – did they come closer in appearance to say, Angie Stone/India.Arie/Alex Wek/Grace Jones?
J: LOL, thought you might be glad. It’s hard to answer your question. The Caribbean look is different to me than the American “mixed chick” or dark-skinned looks. (And yes I know the Rihanna is from Barbados.) I’ll describe the women–honey toned skin, 3B-type curls or large, loose ringlets that appeared natural, petite builds, oval faces with evident white and Indian admixture.
Also: please define “a lot”? Are we talking over/under say, 25% of ALL the couples within you line of sight/360 degrees?
I wsn’t paying that much attention. It was just something I noticed because you had discussed it here.
Third: what was the relative age ranges of the couples you saw – did they look to be say, under or over 30, in the main? Did they have kids – and if so, how many per? Did you notice any wedding rings? How many?
I’m going to say dating couples under 30, maybe college aged on average.
,While HUS continues to be intellectually challenging and I appreciate the time and energy of the commenters, I no longer look forward to spending time here as I once did.
I hate to be an emotional woman about this, but this saddens me.
What I couldn’t get was why they had to go so hard on a group that so many of them claim to high heaven they had no interest in.
You know, I found the nastiness directed at Nicole particularly weird. I didn’t agree with everything Nicole said, but I found her intelligent and personable (and got slammed for saying so).
Despite Roissy’s many really meanspirited comments about Black Women, I happen to know quite a few who actually sent their pics to him for his assessment.
I’m astounded. That’s down right masochistic.
But Chicks don’t dig Jerks – right?
Well, I’d say that the ones who sent their pix do, but to assert that we all do is sort of like saying only a white “warpig”–to use a Roissyian phrase– will date a black man. I guess you see it happening around you enough to believe it but it’s surely not the whole story.
Hi Hope,
Welcome back! Things must be getting less hectic, and you must be getting some sleep if you found the time and energy to tackle this thread!
I think your post is dead on. There may be a bit of male solipsism going on when the guys argue that the NT response is the male response. I’ve known many men who don’t fit well into hierarchies, or who do react emotionally, do seek consensus and inclusion, or do many of the other things that have labelled “female” on this thread. And I’d bet most of them are NFs or SFs.
@ms j:
Thanks for the followup. And by all means dont sweat the relative lack of details-you wasnt doing social dynamics research just noticing a few things while out and about lol. As you might guess, im very much the social scientist observer, kinda sorta in the tradition of hurston and dubois, among others; so, everytime i step outside my door is a de facto social experiment for me to observe.
But from what you have described, i think what youve seen seems to fit where you are, which unless i miss my guess is more center-west of the country, over where i am which is on the east coast. Black folk living out there have a differing dynamic at work for them, which is good if one is in the market to date in the manner youve observed.
And yes, the caribbean piece plays a role as well. This may be harsh to say but the fact remains that american born black women do indeed have an image problem, and can act to strongly dissuade guys from stepping to them. Being relatively thin and “other than homegrown black female” is definitely a plus out there. Im just sayin.
As for your response to ms walshs remarks-i think hus, intentionally or otherwise, has indeed served as a kind of guinea pig in terms of whether men and women can discuss all these issues, and from where i sit the answer is an emphatic “yes!”-but not w/o a goodly degree of discomfort. And i think youd agree thats putting it mildly.
In so many ways, hus is a reaction or response to the many arguments put forth buy the manosphere-and while ms walsh (and others!) are to be commended for their yeomans efforts at numbers crunching, as ive said before, i think theres a point where said numbers blind us all to other crucial points being made, and to be frank im not seeing getting any due consideration. What is that you ask?
Well, you spoke on it yourself when you brought up bill clinton. Hes the ideal male in “a womans nation”. Guys like ted or me, would have a very difficult time getting along in such a world-hence why much of my comments/remarks/observations have tended to focus and center on the social/public policy/”macro” questions these sex differences point to. Whether we all like/believe it or not, women being ascendent in public life can will and does mean that the very nature of the way we will do things, will change. And i for one dont think we as a society havent really satdown to consider any of this-in part because the very act of questioning it, of suggesting that these things just might have some side effects or tradeoffs, is tantamount to wanting to wage a “war on women” and so forth.
I think thats the single biggest takeaway of the manosphere for me-and this comes as, as you know well, one who knows it just about as good as anyone can understand it.
Holla back
O.
@ms j:
Wrt “chicks dig jerks”-of course i dont believe *all women* falll into this catergory, and never did. My parting shot was more rhetorical and “wink/nod” than anything else-that said, i can personally vouch for the fact that quite a few ladies do indeed find themselves involved/entangled with jerks. Not all of course-we can quibble over the relative numbers if you like-but there nonetheless.
Having said that, as hollenhund rightly noted, women never seem to get taken out to the woodshed for stereotyping/generalizing, often in the worst of ways, men as a group/whole. For example, all men dont rape and never have-thats always been the purview of a small percentage of men anywhere barring war zones-yet that fact didnt stop women from asserting that just about every guy they see is a potential rapist. Something that i personally take great umbrage at/with, to tell you the truth.
The other day i was at a poetry reading, and a stream of guys got up there and started doing the brotha version of white knighting-broad brushing black men as to how supposedly “unevolved” we are in relation to women etc. I could barely contain myself, and eventually walked out. See, in this i can dig exactly where the manosphere is coming from, and it most definitely makes me wanna holla. Its like, “what is the problem now?”, you know what i mean? Black men are “unevolved”? Really? Perhaps this joker on the open mic would like to put his theory to the test in the vast majority of countries in africa-id put up good money that the average american brotha chosen at random treats women far and away better than his african counterpart. Yet, i have to suffer through this kind of stuff on the daily. Whens it gonna stop?
O.
@INTJ
Then you probably shouldn’t have said they’re ALL biased, unreliable, and worthless, should you? Thank you for finally admitting that you didn’t even bother to check out ANY of them. That was my suspicion the whole time. And that is the end of that.
@ Megaman
I never said they were worthless. I also never said I didn’t check out ANY of them.
Get back to me when you’re done tilting at windmills.
@INTJ
Well, I do love statistics, and my job requires a high attention to detail.
I hope you don’t mind if I quote you:
#671: Studies cited @ HUS “create the illusion of preciseness” and “obscure the underlying phenomena”
#856: I asked you which of the 44 sources on the list you found unreliable. “All of them?” THEN “all of them fail to go in depth”
#871: Again: “all of them are likely to have a similar bias” AND “Quantity does not always substitute for quality” (i.e. sources are of low quality)
#878: “Not reliable” AND later “these studies are not reliable”
#1025: “They suffer from social desirability bias” AND “Most of the ones I’ve looked at are lacking in quality”
#1081: “An indictment of the statistics profession would be based on the invalidity of frequentist statistics” (still waiting on the indictment)
Note that not once in your comments did you specifically name which source you were referring to. They were all dismissed, collectively. I think a reasonable person could conclude that there’s some denial and bias of your own at work here.
You’ve shifted your position from the first comment to the last. But I’m tilting squarely at what you’ve literally said.
There’s no shame in taking back what you’ve said. But be a man about it and admit what you said in the first place. Why duck for cover? You’re on the record in this very thread.
G’night!
@INTJ
P.S.
By the way, the 2 sources you cited in support of your anecdote DID NOT conclude that a majority of female community college students:
- practice casual sex
- are in broken relationships
- have sex with “assholes”
- are single mothers
- have had abortions
- are depressed
I stand by my assertion that your anecdote was just plain factually wrong. I know of no source or study that’s ever suggested such nonsense.
@Megaman.
I loved reading that spat between you and INTJ.
@HerrKaiser.
Oh well, then we’ll have to disagree then. Have you ever visited Africa btw ? Jim Sinclair seems to think that Africa will boom this century. Do you concur ?
@ms anacaona:
Yes i agree that the 20% can have a powerful influence on the rest of the population, no doubt about it. Yet we also know that in the end, the 80% dont wind up doing what the 20% do-that was the whole point behind ms walshs “big assed college sex survey post” (as mike c calls it), and that was the big takeaway for me in all this.
So, since we know that the 80% arent doing what the 20% are doing ultimately, the question shifts to what im talking about-and with all due respect your poiint about getting them to the 3rd date is again missing the point-its about just getting them together to meet period in the first place(!). And i think (one) of the reasons why this isnt happening can be seen in the “meet markets” scenario out of ebony magazine i spoke about last night-the vast majority of guys dont show up because they know the vast majority of gals simply aint interested. Ms walsh has talked about this and how women should/need to hit the reset button so to speak wrt their hypergamous instinct; well, there you go. The same article also talks about the fact that lots of guys are intorverts (read: nerds, hbd strikes again) and as such, such events are a nonstarter for them. These and other factors are huge disincentives for guys even showing up in the first place. And i think at some point these things are going to have to be addressed if we’re going to have any hope of fixing this thing. Continuing to focus on what are ultimately the problems and lives of the 20%, while interesting, are counterproductive. In the end the reason why the 80% arent even meeting each other has little to do with the 20%-and that article in ebony is the proof.
O.
Hope,
“I think it’s the disconnect between Thinkers and Feelers.”
Agreed.
“He has basically concluded that NTs will not bend, so he is the one who has to concede ground and compromise.”
I’ve seen some NTs bend around here. It does take offering them a plausible rationale (putting things in T terms, i.e. being willing to give oneself to the extent of operating on their turf/in their terms) to facilitate that.
“I would guess that if there were majority NF guys posting on HUS, the tone would be very different. But NF guys tend to not argue for the sake of arguing.”
NTs listening here? Biig problem.
“Mostly they just want to be happy and enjoy life.”
Don’t we all? NF’s have unhappy feelings too, and they’re appropriate when things aren’t as enjoyable as they could (I’ll leave aside should) be.
What I feel missing most is the S (opposite of N) to keep us focused on the practical, but that’s a societal problem (our leadership class is way too N heavy) that just gets reflected here.
J,
“There may be a bit of male solipsism going on when the guys argue that the NT response is the male response”
No, it’s traditionally been considered more male since it is more characteristic of males, with the usual caveats about overlap in the distribution and exceptions.
Solipsism is so widespread because its a decent first pass at understanding people. If one wants to understand a human (in this case, a male human), first understand the one one knows best (know thyself). The problem comes when the process stops there. If the process doesn’t stop there and one goes on to discover actual commonalities with others, that isn’t solipsism, that’s a healthy awareness of what most men are like.
I’m an NF. It’s not solipsism for me to claim that most men are NT (actually, they’re ST, but not on the INTernet) and therefore that NT is characteristically “male”.
@ms anacaona:
To followup on my previous point…
In that this is an election season, i think this is a highly legit point to make: what i call “their own personal obama”. What do i mean?
Well…for so many black women, barack obama represents the kind of black man they most want…and most likely never to get. Think about it-hes tall, good looking, “exotic”/unique in his background/life story; hes incredibly intelligent, with realworld credentials to back it up-columbia undergrad, harvard law school etc. Then theres the fact that he was the first black pres of the harvard law review, and went on to teach constitutional law at the uni of chicago. Next, he worked in the community, and parleyed that into a highly successful career in politics. And on top of all that, hes a committed family man, married to the kind of black-looking women the vast majority of *educated black women can deeply relate to*(!). I mean, Barack obama, like paul carrick brunson, are the kinds of “alpha males”, that the overwhelming majority of *educated brothas* simply cannot compete with. And these brothas-educated ones now-know this. They know that they will never be obama or brunson-which, at the end of the day, is what so many upscale, educated black women, really trully do want. This is what is happening in white america too-recall kay hymowitzs wall street journal online piece, the sheer response to which shutdown the wsj’s server, the first time in its history to do so. Men know the deal-and simply vote with their feet. This explains why these “meet markets”, speed dating, online dating sites and the like, are such utter failures (with all due respect to your situation-online dating worked in your case). Because guys cant be bill clinton, or barack obama, etc. They just cant.
I think the answer at least in part to the riddle of the 80%, lay in what im saying here; and i think that at some point we are going to have to confront the fact that there is going to be a large cohort of them, who simply will not meet due to the aforementioned above, among other things. I dont see women enmasse hitting their hypergamy reset buttons-and i for one am completely, totally good with that. Personally, i dont see all this in right/wrong terms; i simply see it as being the way thing are and are likely to be going forward, and have my peace with that-and so have so many other brothas/white men. At bottom, thats what the whole “mgotw” thing is all about. Guys simply leave the scene without so much as a whimper, and call it a day. They get on with their lives, far away from the media/pop academic spotlight.
We’re going to have a large number of singles in this country, especially women. Because they wont be able to get their own bill clinton/barack obama. And we need to speak to this honestly and earnestly.
O.
@Marellus
I have been to Africa; in fact to every single country in sub-Saharan Africa, would you believe me if I told you there is a five-star hotel in Mogadishu? Africa does have a chance at blooming this century; there is a growing number of highly competent pro-growth African technocrats; I have met many of them and was quite impressed. However, the road to complete societal transformation will be very bloody; lucky as the luster of the West fades and they come to see development is built on order and national discipline, not democracy and human rights, they seem prepared to do whatever it takes. The question being, without Western value, what will they use as the base for their transformation? I have an interesting excerpt:
As for the particular argument that the African elite lack any indigenous higher culture that express the value of civilization, nothing could be further from the truth; such views are born of ignorance and bigotry, both Ancient Aksum and Christian Nubia created centralized bureaucratic empires. Medieval Ethiopia was much less centralized, but no more so than medieval England. Some may argue that these empires did not generate a great body of Classic literature, but this also is incorrect. I suggest you read the 1667 philosophical work of Ethiopian philosopher Zera Yacobs, “Hatata”; it is comparable to Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”, but predates it by over a hundred years. That is not an isolated example, aside from philosophical works; I have come across medieval Ethiopian codices on Law, Math, and Science; most of which have gone unpublished rotting in church in Ethiopia or in the British National Library. I remember coming across a codex on Ethiopian customary law, as opposed to it civil law (found in the circa 1100s work “Fetha Negast”), which I found to be every bit as good (with regard to its treatment of free men, not serfs) as Sir Matthew Hales “A History of the Common Law”. Christian Nubia offers less hope considering the change of religion among modern Nubians and that that the medieval Nubian language has not yet been deciphered.
The Swahili trading cities may also yield material, but they were generally decentralized and I have not found any translations of the codices they produced. However, West Africa offers a wealth of material. The remnants of the library of the University of Sankore (popularly known as Timbuktu), have been found abounding in higher culture; founded in roughly 998AD and destroyed in 1591 by a Moroccan invasion; over 700,000 (most of which are single copies) books remain extant today. Of the dozen or so translated book I have read, among them are works of History, Law, ethics, economics (yes, economics), and math; I find the philosophical outlook to be akin to the German Historical School, but predating it by at least 400 years. Moreover, the free market and humanist ethic expressed by the authors stand head and shoulder above anything produce by their contemporaries in other civilizations. It is interesting that their grasp of mathematic seems to have reached the level of what we would call pre-calculus.
For any who would claim, that these books where really written by Arabs; the authors (who were mainly students at the university) inscribed their names in the books with ethnic monikers, e.g. Al-Fulani or Al-Sudani (the black). All of this could serve as a source of indigenous higher culture for Africa’s elite. Again, the social transformation is not the complete adoption of the higher culture of a previous age, but rather using that higher culture as a starting point and then selecting and modifying that high culture to reinforce your desired values and instilling them in the masses. All of my examples show that Africa’s elite can do so without resorting to Aristotle, Kant, Marx, or even Confucius.
Ana,
“‘Because she is a person with good morals, good impulse control, and is long-term oriented?’
Do you realize this is the same wish Alpha chasers have? A man with options that only wants to be with them? Sorry to break it to you but you cannot have it all in a mate. You must choose or at least be aware of the consequences and not blame it on others for not doing the job of creating the unicorn you want.”
A woman with good morals, good impulse control, and a long-term orientation is a unicorn? If that is true, God help us all. The thing is, its not close to true. The task is to help women find ways to express those traits (that are so evident in their academic/professional lives) effectively in their relationships with men.
Susan,
A note for when you come back. Solipsism is a word that comes up now and again in (mostly post-modern) literary criticism, used in roughly the sense that it is being used here. If one reads the Times Book Review, one will be vaguely familiar with it. It’s seeped from there into the mainstream.
See here, for instance.
@ms j;
I want to go back to your mention of bill clinton, in relation to ted and myself.
You said that clinton possessed traits/abilities/talents that took him very far in life. In this you get my 100% agreement. If i could vote for him again, i would.
But he is not an “honest man of excellent character”-something ms walsh said of/about me, in this very thread. Indeed, the very public record has shown bill clinton to be the very antithesis of me-dishonest and of very poor character.
And yet there he is. As a gentleman i was chatting with at an art showing recently put it, the vast majority of women, if they could, would most definitely have a roll in the hay with clinton; even after a decade of being out of the white house, and having suffered at least one heart attack, hes still got it. “It” being those traits/qualities you spoke to-NONE of which, includes honesty or character.
Ms j, i can tell you that my being honest and having good character has NOT been a factor in being success out there on the smp; indeed if anything, i can say that my being honest and having character has worked against me, lol. Im not mad or angry or even sad about any of that; it is what it is. Simply put its been my experience, that women just dont put as high a premium on “honesty and character” as many would like to believe; other things-including, perhaps especially, those things you said about clinton, take precedence. Like i said recently, of all the women ive dealt with in my life, only *one* has ever told me that my honesty and character counted for something. *One*.
If politics means anything, then its clear what women in this case, truly do value; bill clinton, and to a large extent obama too, represents the kinds of things they (women) most like in a leader. And it has become crystal clear to me, that honesty and character, aint it-at least they dont rank as high as many would like to believe.
I cant speak for ted, but i gotta tell ya, knowing that, doesnt make me feel good. I spend a lot of my time working very hard to focus on the light, but it is a very real, very difficult, minute by minute struggle. Being a “good man”, for all the lip service so many pay to it, simply doesnt count for much. Id be a baldfaced liar if i said otherwise.
And i think youd agree, that of all the many things ive been called, a baldfaced liar, aint one of them.
O.
An ur-text, perhaps. Note Rollins’ strong masculine features.
Obs,
I’m feeling you – a lot of truth there, but at the end of the day a woman wants a man with balls. If that’s there, then honesty and goodness do count. A generation of boys raised on Mr. Rogers has the honesty and goodness covered all too well. Courage, manliness, the capacity defend oneself (and thus her too) – those are the scarce commodities.
All tit and no tat beats fat, drunk, and stupid, but its still no way to go through life.
@ Desiderius:
You just contradicted yourself there.
If most men are ST, than being ST is the characteristically “male” viewpoint.
On a forum about personality types, a commenter summed it up as:
So male NTs relentlessly focusing on a specific argument until someone yields it’s not a universal male trait. It’s a universal NT trait, or even a common N trait due to the emphasis on exploring theories.
IMO, harping on the same topics for pages and pages is a big reason why this thread and other like it has been a battle. I get that it can take varying amounts of time for folks to reach common ground but many of us tune out (either by “lurking” or visiting other blogs) when the conversation just keeps repeating. I agree that taking some topics off the comments and to the forum would alleviate things.
@ Megaman
My conclusion based on the anecdote was that “Community colleges are just as bad as university, though they do manage to keep the partying more out of sight.” Having seen the data, I must admit this conclusion was false. Community colleges aren’t just as bad as university. They’re much worse!
The data are pretty damn conclusive.
Students in general: 62.7% of community college students had more than one sexual partner in the past year, as opposed to just 32.4% of university students. 43.9% of community college students had an N>6, as opposed to just 24.5% of university students. Community college students are 2.4 times more likely to be single parents than students attending four-year institutions.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss4606.pdf:
N>6: 2-year female students 36.7% & 2-year male students 43.4% vs. 4-year female students 27.5% & 4-year male students 33.5%. (Note that the reported male Ns are much higher, which suggests that either males or females or both are lying.Generally women tend to have sex with older males which should mean that the college-age male Ns should be lower if anything. That or there’s a 60/40 rule going on here.)
56.1% of female students attending 2-year institutions got pregnant as opposed to 30.9% at 4-year institutions.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006184_rev.pdf
Only about 30% of community college students are married (20% with children). Additionally, 15.4% of community college students are single parents. We can safely assume that nearly all of these are women, so since only 59.1% of community college students are female, we can conclude that about a quarter of female community college students are single parents.
@ Desiderius:
That’s taking what Ana said out of context.
Ted D was also talking about a women with a high sex drive & high SMV but who only wants him for sex. (i.e., despite amble opportunity for her to have sex she is chaste/LTR oriented)
I do think this is analogous with women who want an Alpha “with options” who doesn’t explore them (i.e., he only commits to her and does not cheat!).
It’s a numbers game, and it is what it is. Most women and men who fit that description will be STR oriented. Therefore, it is search for a unicorn. Ted has admitted this, and so has Sassy. Both have found great partners, but they acknowledge that the qualities they were looking for in mate are hard to find in one person.
A woman with good morals, good impulse control, and a long-term orientation is a unicorn?
We are talking about a really hot women with a sex drive that drive her insane for sex. Not the typical average looking woman with a normal sex drive.
@desi:
While i wouldnt necessarily disagree with what youve said, i do think they miss the mark wrt the point(s) ive made. After all, neither clinton nor obama strike me as rough-and-tumble guys – nor are those qualities what *educated professional women* have made clear they most value in men. What youre talking about is far more likely to be openly expressed by ratchets, man. Lol. The ladies who most desire a clinton or an obama? Nah. They most want the kinds of traits these two men possess, and “honesty and excellent character”, while no doubt a plus, isnt a dealbreaker if not in evidence-indeed, given the state of tensions between ms walsh and myself (keep in mind i was quoting her words she said about me), it can be strongly argued, that “honesty and excellent character” can prove a huge disincentive insofar as doing well with the ladies goes-and this extends from the personal, to the political. Youre a very sharp guy, so i know you can see exactly what im talking about.
O.
@Mike C
Aww, please don’t leave…
@Desiderius
“actually, they’re ST, but not on the INTernet”
That’s funny.
@Obsidian
“As a gentleman i was chatting with at an art showing recently put it, the vast majority of women, if they could, would most definitely have a roll in the hay with clinton”
I believe you… but why? I don’t think that’s how ‘respecting your elders’ is supposed to work. Is it because he has money?
(I really hope we don’t get a dictator for a while. People like that have multiple reasons to kill people like me.)
I was going through some of the earlier posts here and I have two questions I should have asked before today:
1. Obsidian isn’t pleased with black girls who like white guys? For all I know it’s an exaggeration. But I can’t help but wonder why. (Unless you mean the type who complain ‘n(bleep)s ain’t s(bleep)’ then I understand why you can’t stand them.)
2. Fake boobs vs. push-up bra -I just remembered Chris Rock saying that women lie because of their shoes/extensions/underwear (“you aren’t that tall/busty”). When men find out their women wear push-up bras, do they feel cheated and angry?
(and are guys really all right with flat wide bottom-heavy faces? Sarah Jessica Parker gets some ridicule for her long face, I don’t want to be next in line)
INTJ…community colleges….a blogfriend who teaches at a community college said that students there do not fall into the traditional “normal distribution” curve, but rather into what she called the “bra curve,” with two peaks. There are the students who don’t really care and are only there because their parents insisted, and there are the ones (typically a little older) who view CC as kind of a last chance and are taking it very seriously.
@ms hope:
Congrats on the new edition; i take it that all is well.
I just wanted to say that youre right about the fact that there are quite a few guys who are “feelers” in the way they approach the world; this doevtails with the convo ms j, ted and myself were having about bill clinton. And as ms walsh herself rightly points out, we havent arrived at “a womans nation” solely by the efforts of women themselves; men like bill clinton, et al, have also played a huge role.
The question becomes-where do guys like obsidian and ted, fit into this new world-or do they indeed, fit in at all? Mind you, ted and obsidian are NOT the spherians, to use ms plain janes term; far from it. But they do indeed possess a kind of way of doing things, that is clear to me is deeply unsettling to downright offensive to the way so many women see and approach the world. Where do the teds and obsidians go? Do we even care?
By her own admission, ms walsh has agreed that what ive said about the ways in which women approach the world can and will have huge impacts on what i call sexual politics-and they will be aided, at the least not obstructed by, the “feeler” guys you mentioned. But where does that leave the teds and obsidians-men who again, by ms walshs own admission, possess the very traits of honor and character she, and so she says, so many women deem so very important?
Does anyone see what im saying here?
O.
@ms sai:
I posted an admittedly lengthy response to ms walshs remarks about my supposed “issues” with black women who “swirl” but she deleted them. Ive saved those comments and will post them at my blog either today or tomorrow. They speak directly to your questions and makes crystal clear my position(s) on the matter. When they become available ill let you know.
As for clinton…if i may, you might want to go back to what ms j said about him, as well as reviewing my comments about obama/brunson. At that point everything should be clear to you as to why i said what i did about clinton and why he remains so very popular with the ladies.
O.
@ms sai:
I really do think that women for the most part simply dont grok just how men are willing to accept the costs of doing business. Women wearing makeup/heels/pushup bras/extensions et al, arent dealbreakers at all for most men; indeed if anything theyre a plus.
The problem though, is when women get upset over say, game-which is the male equivalent to the aforementioned things above-thats what gets the fellas in an uproar. But i think the problem really lies in evopsych-and our relative ignorance about it.
See, i know why women are so deeply concerned about game. Its because, through it, a man can present himself to be something other than what he actually may be-and that can prove disasterous to a woman in terms of her reproductive capacity. If a woman chooses the wrong guy to have sex with, she could be ruined for life. Even in an age where more women have more control over just about every area of their lives, this remains to be the case.
So, i get it.
Now, lets examine it from the guys side.
Sure, it can be irritating that the hottie you met at the club last night at the same woman laying next to you this morning-but hey, you got lucky in the end-and besides, if she dont look all that great in the light of day, no big whup-simply move on to the next one.
Do you see what im saying here? In a perfect world, one governed by cold logic and reason, *both* game and makeup etc would be whacked. But evopsych trumps logic and reason. A woman getting gamed is worse than a man getting gamed, if for no other reason than the fact that women get stuck with the kid if things dont work out. Guys dont.
O.
@Obsidian
I think you are kind of missing a couple of things about how much should we talk about the 80% disconnect vs the 20% at the top. I do think we should have more effort on the 80% but the 20% needs to be recognized as the minority and not the best example for the 80% to aspire to or follow
The culture promotes the 80% 24/7. Take a look at the top 10 shows. Are they about the pretty people and all the sex they are having with no ill consequences, no heartbreak, no issues at all or they are talking about the people that have no boyfriends or girlfriends and quietly despair while hating their jobs and getting in college debt?
Sadly given the times parents are very “well is their life I can’t do much after they are grown ups” so the only thing left to follow are their peers and the media, and see how the media quickly spun the Kate Bollick situation to make it look better than it actually was and is paying good money to keep the lie going. I say having someone saying “Hey is all smoke and mirrors” is as good as having some articles talking about how to connect with your equals in SMV, YMMV
@ms anacaona:
The problem here, since youve brought up the role or lack thereof, concerning parents/the wider society, is one of ideology.
Ms plain jane has on several occasions, noted that other cultures have a decidedly different “take” on how people should get together. Arranged marriages is still the norm in much of the world, and parents play a huge role in how things go down.
The trick though, is such things run counter to the american way-which is predicated first and foremost on choice…and most importantly, *on female choice*. As a relative newcomer to american shores, clearly you would agree with me that the american way of going about all this-as messy as it can and often is-is just a sight better from where you came from. Right? And notice that for all her bigging up of arranged marriages, ms plain jane isnt in a rush to go grab her one for herself. Simply put, women in the west very much like the idea of getting their own mates based on their own choice.
But that does come with a tradeoff-and thats what we’re discussing here. Back on the college sex survey thread i made the case that we could end the hooking up problem overnight if we wanted to-but the problem is that to do it we’d have to trample on quite a few of our most cherished ideals. As you might imagine, ms walsh was not at all enthusiastic about my proposal lol.
Thats why i think this whole sex differences discussion is so fascinating-because it raises some very fundamental questions. Not only do women want maximum choice along sexual lines-but its clear that they (a simple majority now) want the state to do all it can and should do to facilitate it-from daycare/work-home balance, to abortion rights and so on. Of course, the question has to be, at what cost? And who will pay for all this?
Women want choice. That much has been made emphatically clear. But choice aint free. Somebodys gotta pay. Who will that be?
A big part of the reason *why* the 80% aint coming together, has a heck of a lot to do with this very dilemma ms anacoana. Yea, kate bolicks situation plays a role, but nowhere near as big a one as you and perhaps others might like to believe. Arranged marriages, by their very deinition, are dictatorial. But its clear that women in the west dont want that.
So…now what?
O.
@Ana.
True.
And then you have Escoffier’s soon-to-be-famous arbitrage comment, and people like Herb who’s looking for a hookup method that has nothing to do with Game.
You have deti who tells us that to keep your family intact, you’d better be tough with your wife. And then there is Hope.
You have the good intentions of Suzan, and the good reasons of those that argue with her.
… and Obsidian that paints it all black … as he is justified.
And the common theme of all of them is a rage against the bitterness.
No matter what ideological position you take in this debate, you’re gonna get called out … and ONLY get called out … for they have no answers either.
There is nothing simple about this. Nothing.
So just be simple, and have a few laughs … that’s how I see it.
@HerrKaiser.
Ultimately the fate of Africa is tied to the fate of South Africa. And though South Africa is a gnat on the world economic stage, on that Dark Continent, South Africa is a Superpower.
So if the light goes out there, it’s gonna get pretty dark, pretty fast in the rest of Africa.
How many South African Doctors are setting up shop in your area HerrKaiser ? I hear the Canadians love them.
FFS messed up the blockquote.
A distinction needs to be made between sexual cheating and emotional cheating.
Sexual cheating by a wife harms the husband as he risks being cuckolded.
Sexual cheating by a husband doesn’t necessarily harm the wife because he doesn’t have to support the children sired by that cheating.
Emotional cheating by a wife doesn’t necessarily harm the husband just as long as that emotional cheating doesn’t lead to her fucking the guy, i.e. a wife can receive chocolates and flowers from other guys and that won’t harm the husband.
Emotional cheating by a husband harms the wife as that results in the husband directing his commitment and resources (time,love,protection,wealth) towards other women, even without fucking her.
Studies indicate the women react more jealously to men’s emotional infidelities and men react more jealously to women’s sexual infidelities. cf. David Buss.
So when you say that
“Yeah, but the resources for her own children get siphoned off for the extramarital children. That’s the female getting cuckolded.”
you need to realise the siphoning off of resources only occurs when the man is emotionally unfaithful, not sexually unfaithful. (This was the case in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, now with child support laws you could make the case otherwise. However, people’s gut reaction to the morality of an act rarely takes into account such modern extraneities and instead I believe are primarily, if not solely, the product of evolved psychological adaptations centred around the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.)
Wow, Obsidian is on a serious hamster hunt today. Keep it up!
The disconnect isn’t between the bottom 80% of men and the bottom 80% of women. As our old pal Brendan once explained:
@Mr. Marellus
You’re welcome. I try to be polite, but some things really irk me. Willful ignorance, discarding sources arbitrarily, and dissing community colleges for no good reason.
I’d have admired his persistence if he was consistent. Unfortunately, equivocation takes coordination. It’s ironic as hell that he’s now using the same statistical methologies that he previously flushed down the toilet to try to prove idle gossip.
@Megaman.
Heh.
@hollenhund:
Thanks, man. In the end, i simply want the truth, whatever that is, wherever that leads. Even if it hurts me.
Thanks also for posting what brendan said. I miss his incisive analysis of many aspects of the smp, both on the female and male sides. Ive found him to be a very reasoned thinker and writer.
While what b’s said may chap the hides of a number of ladies here, i for one do think hes onto something. After all, ms plain jane is prima facie evidence of everything brendan has said above. Her very screen name points to the fact that shes, at best what, a 5 on the scale-yet by her own admission shes been able to punch way above her weight in terms of appealing to hot guys 7 and above. Shes even laidout how she goes about it-*she approaches them*. Whatever she lacks in terms of sheer hotness, she more than makes up for in what shes got between her legs-and in the end thats what counts. So long as she has that, and makes it a point to offer herself up to said hot guys, they can and will take her up on her offer.
Another thing about ms plain jane is her consternation at what she rightly refers to the manospheres “sexual socialism”-and shes not alone. As ive noted previously, women dont much like the idea of not having much say in who they get with.
Having said that though, ms plain jane is just as much for/into “sexual socialism” and shes not alone in this either-millions of women, measured in terms of political participation, feel the same way. They just want it on the other end of the spectrum-they want their sexual choices to be underwritten by the state in various ways-again, home/work balance, being able to bring their baby to work and breastfeed it on the job; free/subsidized daycare, along with other “healthcare” options. In this i see little, if any, difference btw ms plain jane and the manosphere she so regularly vilifies; indeed, the more i read her, and read many other women in the femosphere, the more convinced i become that she/they are little more than the mirror image of the manosphere itself-just with a heck of a lot more influence in public affairs.
Thanks to the very “four sirens” roissy has noted, women like plain jane can and most likely will have a go with the 7-plus guys-this is something ive been seen and experienced directly, way too many times to count. Nor do i see it slowing down anytime soon-as that ebony article i pointed to suggests, if anything its likely to speed up. No, *all women wont do this*. Granted. But clearly, enough do to make things interesting.
Ms plain jane is the proof.
O.
lol at commentary, you don’t have a clue about hunting or guns? but i gotta say that is still the best explanation i’ve seen for why it sounds like women talk about themselves alot. not saying i agree that men do it as much but i totally get what your saying about men’s talking coming from themselves too. i am gonna listen closer to other guys next week and see if thats what it sounds like.
O,
” After all, neither clinton nor obama strike me as rough-and-tumble guys ”
What do they have in common?
Chutzpah. In other words, balls. The big lie only wins when good men lack the balls to tell the truth. That’s why Susan likes Ryan. He’s getting there. His predecessors weren’t even close, nor are the legions of supplicators.
@desi:
I didnt know that ms walsh was a fan of congressman ryan; and that only drives home my previous point even more.
For ryan has been roundly criticized by the left and the msm; surely by now youve heard what happened when he told a group of aarp members the truth about medicare right?
Ryan proves the point that women as a group dont value honesty and character as much as they value other things…things that clinton and obama exemplify.
Also, and ms walsh has spoken to this about the male faces study: women who live closer to realworld violence tend to select for guys who know how to deal with such things. I dont think its unfair to say that i in fact live a bit closer to that kind of world than either clinton, obama or for that matter the vast majority of you-and thats what i meant. In my world, “balls” means more than mere posturing.
Makes sense?
O.
“That’s taking what Ana said out of context”
I was going by what she chose to quote in her comment. The only other requirement that Ted ultimately has is that she feel a passion for him (which is in fact something a woman does have some agency in developing/maintaining, especially if she’s chosen a man with whom she can communicate effectively) and that she pass the boner test for him. Shouldn’t be anything unicornish in that combo for a society functioning properly.
@INTJ
I think you just shot yourself in the foot with this comment.
One of the sources you cited defines “traditional college-age students” as between the ages of 18-24. This happens to be Susan’s target demographic for analysis.
This is a very key point, also from one of the sources you cited:
Students in 2-year institutions were more likely to be aged 25+ years (63.8%), whereas students in 4-year institutions were more likely to be aged 18–24 years (65.4%).
Age is the MOST important variable at work here, probably followed by SES. Therefore:
Please control for age. Then you can make a valid comparison between the behaviors of students at 2-year community colleges vs. 4-year unversities
Understand? Please take the time to check your homework for accuracy. You may then resubmit it for a better grade. I’m genuinely interested.
I’ll add the U.S. Department of Education to the list, by the way. But why the change of heart on using the CDC as a source? I thought it was biased, unreliable crap? Let me guess, you found something “good”. Or rather, something bad, even though it has yet to prove your anecdotal (gossipy) argument.
The sad part about this nastiness directed at community colleges is that they’re a very cost-effective way for people in their late 20s, or 30s, or 40s, some married, some single parents, or unemployed folks down on their luck, etc. to improve their education. They’re primarily there to advance their job prospects. This isn’t feasible for them at 4-year universities. It’s not a surprise that people with limited means, perhaps with only a high school education, would take the CC route to improving their lives. But none of that matters to you, sir. The point you seem to want to make is that *most* or *all* (not sure which) women at the community college level are either nuts or sluts, welfare moms or basket cases.
OBS,
“So, since we know that the 80% arent doing what the 20% are doing ”
>>> Since I’m in moderation I think you missed my question. A page or 2 ago you asserted that 80% of the population had problems mating with each other because of high IQ and the perceived issues such as awkwardness and lack of social skills that accompanies high IQ.
My question is – do you really believe that 80% of the US population is high IQ? If so, why do you believe this?
Do you also believe 80% of our population is celibate or close to it? Again, what makes you believe this?
“The “shut up and smile a lot” advice given to that young lady you were talking about is about right. A truly smart man of whatever color, knows whats truly important. A woman need not be the next steven hawking in order to be a good mate. ”
>>> LOL. Tried it. He said, “she’s boring.
Now I’m back to discussing the differences between Advaita and Dvaita Vedanta.
“Thanks to the very “four sirens” roissy has noted, women like plain jane can and most likely will have a go with the 7-plus guys-this is something ive been seen and experienced directly, way too many times to count. ”
Yeah, and?
Surely you’re not suggesting people date who they are not attracted to? Besides, its not like I’m an ogre. I scrub up pretty nicely, I’m just not stopping traffic, and I seriously doubt anyone else commenting here is either.
J, I’m tethered for 10-15 minutes at a time when I pump, which is when I read Internet stuff.
Iggles, yes, that is very true. The majority out there would be Sensing types. NTs make up probably less than 20% of men.
J:I guess it depends on where you stand. If you’re at Walmart, it’s like being in the middle of a Chris Rock monologue. Ever hear his joke about fat WW offering “more white to love”? I’ve seen some reasonably high SMV BMs with low SMV WWs in lower SES areas.”
O: While I can see why you – and many others, and not just the “Spherians”, as Ms. Plain Jane refers to them – would say this. But the fact remains that being White still very much matters in American life. I know Ms. Walsh doesn’t like to notice this, but White Privilege is very much a real thing. ….
J: You just lost me, Obs. What is it about white privilege that makes overweight white women attractive to reasonably nice looking black guys? Or do you mean something else?
@Marellus
South Africa! No, I expect South Africa to do very poorly over the next 20 years; the ANC is still in power and they haven’t given up on their dream of European socialism, in short they have yet to give up Western values; my impression is they simply haven’t learned their lesson yet. The Zulus (who are the majority) have an emerging “Christian Party”, it looks really interesting, but surprising the population is more loyal to the ANC than tribal allegiances. The future looks brighter in Ghana, Angola, Kenya, Mozambique, even Ethiopia. Of all the bright African technocrats, with whom I was so impressed, none were from South Africa. I would say we are about 10 years away from seeing breakout growth in Africa, but when it comes it will have nothing to do with South Africa, but rather those countries which have had their delusion melt away and have nothing left to lose.
It is a risk.
Not.
Worth.
Taking.
As a relative newcomer to american shores, clearly you would agree with me that the american way of going about all this-as messy as it can and often is-is just a sight better from where you came from. Right?
I wouldn’t call it a sight better but a lot better. Female choice here is just not properly guided, they create more incentives for the top promiscuous to seek the sex they want and many punishments for the other types. Is a complex problem IMO
There is nothing simple about this. Nothing.
Yeah but it doesn’t mean we should give up but calibrate.
The reality is that due to the wide open SMP, you have 5-8 women cavorting with 7-10 men in carousel hookups — in fact it is the 5-8s that are the majority of this. So, it isn’t that men in the 5+ range are bitching about apex women (most men get over that in high school), but that their peers in objective SMP (that is, unadjusted for age/freemarket) are carouseling. It isn’t so much an apex fallacy as an observation of hypergamy in action. And I think this is what most of the manosphere is talking about — not the beauty queens.
But if the survey shows us something is that their peers are not carouseling they are not paying attention to them because they only see the idiots that do the walk of fame. That is the disconnect, men only notice the women the Alpha’s are getting if occasionally one or two of their peers get burned by them they are thinking all of them do it. Is the same phenomenon of women saying that all men are jerks, when is the Alphas that jerk around. I think this is the real disconnect everyone assumes the worst of the other gender based on perception and maybe a couple of personal experience, YMMV
Ms plain jane is the proof.
See? Why ONE commenter is more proof than J, Hope and me?
The only other requirement that Ted ultimately has is that she feel a passion for him
Sassy like passion. Ted never had expressed he wants someone like Hope for example, who also passionate about her husband but not a hottie according to her own modest assessment, don’t you think that talks about his preference for high SMV women and not the average ones? And as mentioned before if a woman is hot enough to get away with being promiscuous what would stop her? Is again like an Alpha of he can have any woman he wants why wouldn’t he?
I’ve been reviewing “Sex and The Pareto Priniple;”
if 20% of men are having 80% of the sex, of what % of women is that with?
A very promiscuous like-20%? (leaving a like 80% left out)
Or are the 20% sleeping with 50%, 60%… or 80% of women?
If I’m correct in my understanding that the rule means 80% of guys are essentially “out of play,” what percentage of girls are similarly being left out? (It’s not 80%, right?)
Ana,
“Sassy like passion. Ted never had expressed he wants someone like Hope for example, who also passionate about her husband but not a hottie according to her own modest assessment, don’t you think that talks about his preference for high SMV women and not the average ones? And as mentioned before if a woman is hot enough to get away with being promiscuous what would stop her? Is again like an Alpha of he can have any woman he wants why wouldn’t he?”
Not sure how to put this diplomatically, but I’ll try. Ted posted a pic of his wife. Now that smile would get her in the door for me, and I have no doubt she’s a ten for Ted, but she’s not out of his league by any means. Men tend to think the women to whom we’re attracted are high SMV (I mentioned that being a problem for me when I then assumed they were out of my league). Does not therefore follow that we’re overshooting or holding out for unicorns.
I linked the picture of Bolick that most turned me on. Do you really believe that such a woman is out of my league looks-wise? Maybe they’re underrating their own value too, and that’s getting in the way of us getting together.
Ana,
“And as mentioned before if a woman is hot enough to get away with being promiscuous what would stop her? Is again like an Alpha of he can have any woman he wants why wouldn’t he?”
Because they want a family like the one that raised them and made them so appealing in the first place? Don’t you think that’s what Zach ultimately wants? Travis? Alphas take the STR because that’s all that’s on offer, whether STR-oriented women doing their thing, or LTR-oriented trying to compete on unfamiliar turf instead of drawing on their strengths (as I’ve pointed out, that’s a game I used to play going the other direction due to relative insecurity).
I wasted a lot of time on STR-oriented women because they were the only ones who showed interest. Now working much more patiently on the LTR-oriented ones, but other generations worked together to facilitate that a lot more smoothly.
J:I guess it depends on where you stand. If you’re at Walmart, it’s like being in the middle of a Chris Rock monologue. Ever hear his joke about fat WW offering “more white to love”? I’ve seen some reasonably high SMV BMs with low SMV WWs in lower SES areas.”
….. J: You just lost me, Obs. What is it about white privilege that makes overweight white women attractive to reasonably nice looking black guys? Or do you mean something else?
___
J, its important to note, and I already did, that while those Black men may be in better physical shape than those overweight White women, they are NOT higher than them on the socio-economic scale. That’s where these couples balance each other out.
As they move up the socio-economic scale, Black men mate with better looking women, white and otherwise.
Obs,
“The reality is that due to the wide open SMP, you have 5-8 women cavorting with 7-10 men in carousel hookups — in fact it is the 5-8s that are the majority of this. ….. Ms plain jane is the proof.”
Proof of nothing. I don’t “hook up”.
O:
“Makes sense?”
The MSM and AARP* are corrupt. As Roissy says, feminism (and the politics that support it) has become a massive shit test for our society. We saw how Walker did. Let’s see how Ryan does before we draw any conclusions about what women ultimately want.
* – you sell your own progeny to extend your life, you’re getting into late Numenorean territory. Not sure if you’re enough of nerd to get that reference – if not, ask someone who’s read the Silmarillion.
From the above link:
“But recent work by the Urban Institute calculates the amount of the transfer to an average retiree. An American man retiring in 2011 could expect to receive Medicare benefits worth $170,000 (in 2011 dollars). If he had worked from age 22 at the average U.S. wage each year, he would have paid Medicare taxes (plus interest) worth $60,000 (also in 2011 dollars). So the average male worker retiring in 2011 will receive benefits worth almost three times what he paid in. And the transfer to that retiree will be $110,000 from younger Americans, perhaps including his grandchildren.”
SHAME
“Smug virgin at Fox says most women are “floozies.” Floozies collectively shrug shoulders, go back to awesome banging.”
—Jessica Valenti
Stated in response to this -
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/14/staying-celibate-before-marriage-was-best-thing-ive-ever-done/
Yes Jessica, men are being banged awesomely and will switch to the smug pile whenever they feel like it
“The male strike can take the form of not marrying, not going to college or working at low-paying jobs and taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women.”
http://www.iwf.org/modern-feminist/2789205/Portrait-of-a-Modern-Feminist:-Helen-Smith
.
” And the transfer to that retiree will be $110,000 from younger Americans, perhaps including his grandchildren.”
SHAME”
An old person’s transfer should come from his/her offspring and grandkids. There is no “shame” in that.
See. In most cultures around the world grandchildren don’t mind paying for stuff for their grandparents. In fact, we don’t even mind LIVING with our grandparents.
That’s called “family” and I highly suggest Americans try it sometime.
Might choke the pharmaceutical industry as there would be a lot less loneliness. Can’t have that now, can we?
But from what you have described, i think what youve seen seems to fit where you are, which unless i miss my guess is more center-west of the country, over where i am which is on the east coast. Black folk living out there have a differing dynamic at work for them, which is good if one is in the market to date in the manner youve observed.
The Walmart example is local; my seeing the lovely young Afro-Caribbean women happened on the east coast.
And yes, the caribbean piece plays a role as well. This may be harsh to say but the fact remains that american born black women do indeed have an image problem, and can act to strongly dissuade guys from stepping to them. Being relatively thin and “other than homegrown black female” is definitely a plus out there. Im just sayin.
I hear what you’re saying, but I find the tendency towards male exogamy to be universal, not just a black thing. While women tend, statistically speaking to prefer men of their own backgrounds, men tend to like to branch out more, even to the extent of fetishizing women of different backgrounds.
As for your response to ms walshs remarks-i think hus, intentionally or otherwise, has indeed served as a kind of guinea pig in terms of whether men and women can discuss all these issues, and from where i sit the answer is an emphatic “yes!”-but not w/o a goodly degree of discomfort. And i think youd agree thats putting it mildly.
I think that maybe more true of discourses on the net then IRL–for a variety of factors that range from the tendency to be rude to people one can’t see to the kinds of people these blogs aggregate. At any rate, the idea that Susan now dreads reading her own blog has me heartsick–and I tend to be a comparatively unemotional woman.
Well, you spoke on it yourself when you brought up bill clinton. Hes the ideal male in “a womans nation”.
I know you think that. Nonetheless, he was not elected soley on the women’s vote. I’m sure his touchy-feely style appealed to many women, but at the same time a lot of women sensed that he was about to give the nation the equivalent of a “pump and dump.” And even among feminists there was ambivalence after the Monica incident; disgust with his behavior was brushed aside because he had backed the feminist agenda and so had Hilary.
Wrt “chicks dig jerks”-of course i dont believe *all women* falll into this catergory, and never did. My parting shot was more rhetorical and “wink/nod” than anything else-
I knew that, but I gave a serious answer anyway.
Having said that, as hollenhund rightly noted, women never seem to get taken out to the woodshed for stereotyping/generalizing, often in the worst of ways, men as a group/whole.
I find that a bit overblown.
For example, all men dont rape and never have-thats always been the purview of a small percentage of men anywhere barring war zones-yet that fact didnt stop women from asserting that just about every guy they see is a potential rapist. Something that i personally take great umbrage at/with, to tell you the truth.
Who says that? Boy Scout den mothers or Friedman and Marcotte? I think the rhetoric gets overblown on both sides of the fence. Obviously, few men at potential rapists.
I have no idea what to say about the guys at the poetry reading.
“There may be a bit of male solipsism going on when the guys argue that Cis the male response”
No, [the NT response] traditionally been considered more male since it is more characteristic of males, with the usual caveats about overlap in the distribution and exceptions.
Correct in the sense that men are probably 2-3 times more likely to be NT, but false in the sense that NT is common among either men or women.
Solipsism is so widespread because its a decent first pass at understanding people.
That’s clever. Empathy is putting oneself/imagining oneself in another person’s circumstance. You’re on to something, Des.
… most men are NT (actually, they’re ST, but not on the INTernet) ….
OK, so I’m not telling you anything you didn’t already know. Cute wordplay, BTW.
@Obsidian, Re: #1107
“The other day i was at a poetry reading, and a stream of guys got up there and started doing the brotha version of white knighting-broad brushing black men as to how supposedly “unevolved” we are in relation to women etc. I could barely contain myself, and eventually walked out.”
That sounds like a plain case of pandering. Isn’t this game? Disingenuous, but probably as effective as the same game that ministers in the black Churches have been sing as of late. Your disgust with this strikes me as a little contradictory, given how much you promote game.
I hate open mic poetry. It’s just a platform for intellectual light weights to wax pontifical about nothing clever or important.
Men tend to think the women to whom we’re attracted are high SMV (I mentioned that being a problem for me when I then assumed they were out of my league). Does not therefore follow that we’re overshooting or holding out for unicorns.
Except that Sassy is not shy about how much she gets approached all the time everywhere and she has her pic proudly displayed since day 1, she also has shared more details about her wild sexuality. Is like a neon sign and Ted responded to it. Hope has been around longer but shy is modest and shy, doesn’t give sexual vibes and doesn’t show her pic. Are you going to tell me the fact the highest SMV woman on the board that claims that needs to get herself tie down during ovulation just happened to be the more interested out of coincidence? I surely doubt it.
Do you really believe that such a woman is out of my league looks-wise?
Maybe I’m mistaken but you are not Ted are you? I have no idea why do you think this is an attack to your personal tastes. I’m mostly pointing out that hotties get the attention and thus their character gets a pass.
Don’t you think that’s what Zach ultimately wants? Travis?
Had you read their accounts? I don’t think they want monogamy just yet, even Zach ditched a girlfriend because she was boring…doesn’t that remind you of a similar situation with females ditching/not dating men because they get boring?
Alphas take the STR because that’s all that’s on offer, whether STR-oriented women doing their thing, or LTR-oriented trying to compete on unfamiliar turf instead of drawing on their strengths (as I’ve pointed out, that’s a game I used to play going the other direction due to relative insecurity).
After all the readings here only a handful of male commenters, you included, are trying to win over good LTR women. The proof is in the pudding, if they were after a home and family there is no shortage of women that want the same. Is just they are probably 5 and less so they don’t notice them till all the hotties reject them or break their hearts, is just simple men may be adjusting their expectations too little too late or maybe never till they reach a sexual wall, because they are still aspiring to get one of the hotties that only have eyes for Alphas. I don’t deny that many women do the same too, but this is a beast with two heads.
@HerrKeiser
[quote] the only “leftist” dictator I admire, really more than the rest, is Joseph Stalin[/quote]
You can’t be serious?!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr9NpfQq780
@Desi
Oh I wanted to mention that we had a similar commenter with a similar effect on men. Really hot and forward Aldonza. If you can dig the files and check how the guys here acted about her you could see a similar pattern than with Sassy.
@Szopen
In under a generation, Stalin turned a country of illiterate, innumerate, superstitious peasant substance farmers into an industrial nation of workers and a superpower. Was there a terror and the death of 10 million+ people in the process; Yep, but no pain, no gain. Moreover, the Terror was a necessary part of the process. Stalin took, not the sons and daughters of peasants, but rather those same peasant and made them physicist and engineers. The book “Stalinist Values” covers quite a bit of the policies Stalin used to force the peasantry into modernity; everything from education, to personal and public hygiene, to manners, and traditional family values; often carried out with the threat of starvations or exile for failure.
Many would argue the price was too high; I say bull sh*t. How many have died in third world from starvation, war, disease; seems like the death of a fraction of that total for complete industrial development, modernity, and superpower status is a pretty good bargain.
The point is, any claim that any nation is predestined to success and that some nations are not capable of ever achieving modernity and first world status is to be dismissed out of hand. The idea that these nations should content themselves with ecotourism and abandon any hope of manufacturing is a slap in the face. The climb from the third world to the first can be done; the question is are you prepared to make the sacrifices.
STALINIST VALUES (Google Book)
http://books.google.com/books?id=z1dKz5rxeG8C&pg=PA2&dq=stalinist+cultur…
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8XIWrEwE-mMJ:www.nber.org/cha…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_future_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
@Royale W. Cheese
“I hate open mic poetry. It’s just a platform for intellectual light weights to wax pontifical about nothing clever or important.”
+1
@Abbot
I have decided to (continue to) not sleep around and then have a party at the reception. If the couple has done the responsible thing I don’t see a problem as long as no one is black-out drunk.
@Desiderius
“you sell your own progeny to extend your life, you’re getting into late Numenorean territory. Not sure if you’re enough of nerd to get that reference – if not, ask someone who’s read the Silmarillion.”
I LOVE YOU~
Iggles,
“You just contradicted yourself there.”
When it’s that blatant, probably a good indication that you’ve missed something. In this case context, which I also provided. If one is discussing the internet, or, crucially, our leadership class (i.e. Susan’s target audience), then one is talking a group that is heavily N-weighted. In that context, NT is characteristically male.
“So male NTs relentlessly focusing on a specific argument until someone yields it’s not a universal male trait. It’s a universal NT trait, or even a common N trait due to the emphasis on exploring theories.”
The stopping point for NT work done well is (a decent semblance of) truth, not victory. As long as the rhetoric of those seeking the latter blocks the (common) pursuit of the former, a good NT is right not to relent . That’s the conflict, and F’s can’t abide that too long, so we periodically withdraw.
NT’s need to be aware of that dynamic and pick their battles/strive for conciseness to maintain a high-trust environment; NF’s to feel the beauty of (again, relative) truth achieved, and the ugliness of falsehood.
Ana,
Women require courage in men. If only the bad men are showing it, they’ll take the bad over the good. Men require interest in women. If only the bad women are showing it, they’ll choose likewise. It’s about more than “shyness”.
Ana,
“Maybe I’m mistaken but you are not Ted are you? I have no idea why do you think this is an attack to your personal tastes. I’m mostly pointing out that hotties get the attention and thus their character gets a pass.”
Misread. No attacks happening here in any direction. You’re trying to make the case (using Ted as an example) that men are holding out for unicorns/choosing the wrong women. Ted’s example does not support either theory.
Ana,
“Zach ditched a girlfriend because she was boring…doesn’t that remind you of a similar situation with females ditching/not dating men because they get boring?”
No, he ditched her because he feared they would not be intellectually compatible. Same mistake I made. But the point is well-taken, the perfect being the enemy of the good is definitely a problem for both sexes. We agree on that. Doesn’t mean that monogamy isn’t in fact the ultimate goal. The (pluralistically ignorant) prejudice that it isn’t blocks those seeking monogamy from getting together. The perfectionism (the 463-bullet-point list) is an ex post facto rationalization of the results of the prejudice.
If this was not so much on the minds of Western men (aka the captive audience) there would not be all these articles, diatribes, books and rants.
Here are two recent ones among the dozens from this year alone -
http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/can-you-have-meaningless-sex-while-you’re-looking-for-a-long-term-relationship/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/9553083/Slut-Selfish-Sad-No-just-a-single-woman.html
This is NOT about this so-called “slut shaming” thing that was contrived by feminists to hide behind. Rather it is about the actual core disturbing reality for many so-called “modern women:” men still want and will do their best to only dedicate their love and commitment to women who did not sleep around.
.
Ana,
“After all the readings here only a handful of male commenters, you included, are trying to win over good LTR women. The proof is in the pudding, if they were after a home and family there is no shortage of women that want the same. Is just they are probably 5 and less so they don’t notice them till all the hotties reject them or break their hearts, is just simple men may be adjusting their expectations too little too late or maybe never till they reach a sexual wall, because they are still aspiring to get one of the hotties that only have eyes for Alphas. I don’t deny that many women do the same too, but this is a beast with two heads.”
Sorry, this is not accurate. It has not ever been the “hotties” I’ve aspired after. Again, look at the Bolick pic I linked. Those women feel “hot” to me, but that doesn’t make them “hotties” in the SMV, especially not in the sense that “hotties” means promiscuous (cf Abbott).
Yeah, my big one that got away was in fact a prom queen, but my own high school chose our prom queen (and king! he was 5’1″!) more on the basis of character than “hotness”.
Here’s how the prejudice plays out (cross-posted from dead thread):
(1) Restricted/LTR-seeking woman sees attractive man.
(2) She assumes he’s out for cas/unrestricted/STR-oriented (prejudice/apex fallacy/experience whatever), especially if he has masculine features.
(3) She puts on the stinkface/bitch shield/indifference/aloof game.
(4) There is a strong norm taught to men since birth not to “bother” women out of his league/not interested (Brendan wrote about this I think)
(5) The only men who approach her are men who don’t pay attention to norms (STR-oriented men – if they paid attention to norms, they’d be more LTR-oriented) or men who are unaware of norms (creeps, supplicators with stars in their eyes). Where are all the good men?
(6) LTR-oriented attractive man only gets interest from STR-oriented women interested in his looks.
(7) He approaches these women, but gets shot down (no sparks, not fun enough, tendency to employ “interview questions” –> Roissyism) when he shows LTR-orientation (see Susan’s example of pre-med student with nanny)
(8) He underrates SMV, way underrates MMV, either becomes apathetic or learns to be a player to get with STR-oriented women.
(9) Has difficulty maintaining attraction (his own or hers) with STR-woman and bails/get’s bailed on.
ooooh, so many women in Great Britain are in deep shit -
“My advice to any girl is: don’t tell, particularly if your figure is above ten. Most guys will think worse of you.”
Just lie lie lie lie lie lie….those poor men over there, stuck with marrying lying town bikes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2198813/Ten-perfect-number-partners–promiscuous.html
.
@Cooper
The SMP:
20% promiscuous females
20% ” males
80% low N females
80% low N males
In reality, the promiscuous numbers are probably somewhere between 8% and 15%, but 80/20 is close enough.
@Desi
Do you really believe this? Or perhaps I have misunderstood?
Alphas prefer STRs, and work hard to get them, end them, and move on to the next one. Remember, men who have high N are not necessarily more attractive than other men. They invest heavily in securing NSA sex with STR-oriented women.
@Iggles
Color me confused. I cannot explain the role-reversal in the recent “disagreement” between myself, a moderate (and lowly) ISFJ, and the infallible Mr. INTJ.
“Alphas prefer STRs, and work hard to get them, end them, and move on to the next one. Remember, men who have high N are not necessarily more attractive than other men. They invest heavily in securing NSA sex with STR-oriented women.”
Why are you using Roissy’s definition of Alpha rather than your own? Do you really believe that men who legitimately achieve prestige through building and leading effective teams consider selfish behavior in the SMP to be the best they can do?
Susan,
Due to the least interest strategy employed by LTR-oriented women (and the not unrelated relative insecurity issue), it often appears to men, alpha and otherwise, that STR is all that’s on offer.
Fair question. I guess because most people here are not sold on my definition? If I want to be understood, I use the definition most commonly accepted, even if I don’t like it. Actually, I’m about to reference a Vox Day post that you won’t like either…
LOVE YOU TOO, SAI
Here’s hoping we can get things turned around before we end up sharing Earendil’s fate.
“I guess because most people here are not sold on my definition?”
They’re reading your blog – don’t sell yourself short. Why do you think Zach is here? Travis? For that matter, BB?
You’re the apple of your father’s eye. STR’s don’t make Susans.
Holy cow the comments section at heartiste can be really freaky!
Susan, this place is a manicured garden by comparison!
“They invest heavily in securing NSA sex with STR-oriented women.”
Thus rendering them increasingly undesirable for little else…
Couldn’t you take steps to change that womans (on in this case LTR women’s) impression of him? It kind of seems like you want LTR minded women to respond to you the same way that STR minded women do while admitting that you give off the STR-only vibe. You’re saying its harder to win over a LTR minded woman, so you’d much rather focus on the STR women but in the end, where does that leave the you?
I think Abbot has it right. After a while, men like this become good for nothing other than STRs. Its all they know. Old habits die hard and all that.
Well the edit function isnt working for me.
So corrections:
“you” instead of “him”.
omit “the” before you.
“its harder to win over a LTR minded woman”
Many more men would pursue the “win over” if there was certainty that such a woman had always engaged in LTR mindedness. For men, sexual worth is a huge matter. Imagine how much more out of control the current female behavioral crisis would be if that were not the case.
J, its important to note, and I already did, that while those Black men may be in better physical shape than those overweight White women, they are NOT higher than them on the socio-economic scale. That’s where these couples balance each other out.
Maybe, but being significantly overweight is often an indicator of being lower SES. Wealthier people tend to be thinner, healthy, live longer, etc. Additionally, in many of these couples, other factors like the vocabulary you might overhear when these women speak, seems to indicate a level of educations and SES status similar to that of the guys’. These appear to be lower SES women who attended the same integrated schools and live in the same integrated areas as the men. These girls aren’t significantly better off than the guys.
Aside from my RL observations, I do notice that it’s become sort of a staple in black movies and stand up comedy that there are some black men who will pass up a classy beautiful black woman in favor of fat or unattractive white women. For example, in “Jungle Fever,” Samuel L. Jackson’s comments to Wesley Snipes that Annabella Sciorra is pretty, unlike the type of woman who you often see black men with. The Wayans satirized gang movies in a film called “Don’t Be a Menace…” There’s a scene where a black nationalist character dumps a model-pretty black girl for a buck-toothed, cock-eyed blonde. I saw both films originally as part of a diverse audience and the black people around me found these moments hilarious. There’s obviously some recognition of real life playing out in the film or people wouldn’t laugh. It’s a real phenomenon that I’m curious about. It’s a sincere question.
As they move up the socio-economic scale, Black men mate with better looking women, white and otherwise.
No doubt.
@ Anacaona
Hmmmm, interesting.
I have noticed this in my life from time to time. I’ve mentioned before that men typically approach me even if there are women with me who are more comparable to them, in the SMV department. Looks are important to men, which I understand, so it doesn’t really surprise me.
In a way, it could be considered a male fantasy. I imagine that a good portion of men want a very attractive and sexual woman, despite her plethora of dating/sexual options, that chooses to date them. They want an attractive and foxy minx to share her beauty and sexuality with only them. It makes sense to me. It’s just relatively hard to come by.
I have been very restrictive of my highly sexual nature, for my own benefit. I have had to practically lock myself in my home during ovulation. I like being in relationships, and I would like to marry a wonderful man someday, so I try to consciously control myself. I don’t think many women in my situation are as self-aware to do that though.
“I have been very restrictive of my highly sexual nature, for my own benefit. I have had to practically lock myself in my home during ovulation. ”
Upon learning that, Marcotte would hunt you down, drag you out, strip you naked and throw you into a pit of penis vipers.
>> ” Men require interest in women. If only the bad women are showing it, they’ll choose likewise. It’s about more than ‘shyness’.”
I feel like this is some solid Girl Game advice. At the very least, it explains why awesome guys sometimes end up dating crazy bitches. (“Because she’s hotter” works for some situations, but it doesn’t explain all of them.)
Women require courage in men. If only the bad men are showing it, they’ll take the bad over the good. Men require interest in women. If only the bad women are showing it, they’ll choose likewise. It’s about more than “shyness”.
I can agree to that as a general rule, but I do think you are making it more “innocent” than it is.
Sorry, this is not accurate. It has not ever been the “hotties” I’ve aspired after. Again, look at the Bolick pic I linked. Those women feel “hot” to me, but that doesn’t make them “hotties” in the SMV, especially not in the sense that “hotties” means promiscuous (cf Abbott).
Bollick describes herself as someone that never was alone without a boyfriend and has dated men 11 years younger. Don’t you think that places her in the top of attractiveness?
I have noticed this in my life from time to time. I’ve mentioned before that men typically approach me even if there are women with me who are more comparable to them, in the SMV department. Looks are important to men, which I understand, so it doesn’t really surprise me.
It doesn’t surprise me either I had been around hotties all my life and observing their dating habits, this always happens. Is like men’s dicks are a compass towards this type. I don’t care except if the man whines about how “all women are bad” specially if I had personally see him ignoring the good girl for the slight chance of getting a hottie or dating the same type time and time again just to have the same results.
I mostly mention it because now that we have numbers, we can tell mention this this blind spot they need to add to the complex equation of why the SMP is so screwed up.
But it looks like admitting that they might need to do a clear SMV of themselves before approaching is as hard as woman making a SMV test for herself. Which makes no sense…If 80% are going to pass the boner test anyway why not focus on other stuff before going after the ones that are so many points on top of them? It should be easier, not harder. Does. Not. Compute. :/
@emily.
Men DO require interest from women, most especially the guys who are LTR-oriented. (ask Ted – he recenlyt explained how important a physical-attraction is to him.) The guys looking for long-term are definitely going to hold out for a girl who shows some initial attraction, cause to us it demonstrated a certain level of hypergamy being satisfied, and that signals we won’t have to be constantly in a dominant-frame to keep you. (which, I think is safe to say, majority of guys looking long-term are going to be considering)
Could the bottomline be: LTR-guys require more, overt IOI?
Desi made a comment earlier about wasting a lot of time on STR-women. It’s totally the truth.
For most guys, (even the LTR ones) we go off of what we observe in the SMP. It’s why guys cry about women selecting sociopaths, cause from their POV the othet guy is farther along that spectrum. It also results in LTR-guys chasing STR-women because all we have to go off of is how those with unrestricted sexuality are acting.
With the way unrestricted sexuality is, well practically, encouraged and that physical intimacy is expected to proceed emotional, it has a lot of, potentially LTR-oriented, guys thinking that emulating unrestricted sexuality, and seeking strictly-STR, is the go to way to get a relationship. (and that the STR-girl are the ones to try for)
Ana,
“I can agree to that as a general rule, but I do think you are making it more “innocent” than it is.”
Heh- we’re in the trust-building non-judgmental stage here, remember?
All joking aside, assuming value-neutral (as opposed to value-negative) motivations can alleviate some of the distrust plaguing the SMP.
@Susan
Re:80/20
I may have to create a forum thread for this.
Is there a problem with 80/20? Where would like it? 70/30? 50/50? (90/10!?)
I’m assuming both sexes want to lower the 80%, thus having more successful pairing, right?
It just seems to me that men are ever seeking access to sex, so aren’t they innately attempting to bring the “80%” lower?
And if women are the one in control of restricting access to sex – they select – then it must be their pickiness that drives the bottom number (the % of low-N) up.
So, are both sexes reenforcing the 80/20 rule from opposite ends? How does one, of either sex , work towards having “more pairing”?
We are trying to eliminate the rule, right?
« 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 »
{ 2 trackbacks }