364»

Restricted vs. Unrestricted Sociosexuality: What Does It Mean?

“This restricted/unrestricted business confuses the hell out of me…

Am I right in thinking that it’s more of a measure of attitudes and beliefs instead of actions and results?

Just my opinion, but to me attitudes and beliefs don’t count for much when a person’s actions contradict them.”

Reader Jimmy Hendricks

 One of the most important tasks in selecting a romantic or life partner is assessing the individual’s likelihood of remaining sexually and emotionally faithful over time. Infidelity causes great and often irreversible damage to relationships and families. We can reliably predict someone’s likelihood of engaging in future promiscuous behavior by assessing their sociosexual orientation.

What is sociosexual orientation?

Sociosexuality is a personality trait. The construct of sociosexuality or sociosexual orientation captures individual differences in the tendency to have casual, uncommitted sexual relationships. The term was introduced by Alfred Kinsey, who used it to describe the individual differences in sexual permissiveness and promiscuity that he found in his groundbreaking survey studies on sexual behavior. 

Evolutionary personality psychologists classify men and women on sociosexual orientation between the extremes of unrestricted and restricted. 

Key Features of Sociosexual Orientation

1. Relative to sociosexually restricted individuals, sociosexually unrestricted individuals are more likely to: 

  • Engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships.
  • Engage in sex with more than one partner at a time.
  • Be involved in sexual relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency. 

2. Sociosexual orientation (just like all other personality traits) is half heritable, half environmental.

A study of a large sample of Australian twins conducted by the great behavior geneticist J. Michael Bailey and colleagues shows that sociosexual orientation is another personality trait that roughly follows the 50-0-50 rule.  Their behavior genetic analysis shows that 49% of sociosexual orientation is heritable (determined by genes), 2% is attributable to shared environment, and 47% to unshared environment.  

3. Half of the men and women in the top (withinsex) 20% of sociosexuality had been sexually unfaithful to a steady partner. This is roughly double the average rate of infidelity in the population.

4. Women in the top female quintile of sociosexuality were nearly as elevated in their relevant sexual experiences as men in the top male quintile, even though the 80th female percentile was equivalent to only the 39th male percentile. This provides further support for the idea, considered elsewhere, that female sexuality constrains male sexuality. That is, given a woman and a man with similar inclinations to casual sex, the woman will realize her ambitions more readily than will the man.

Table 1. Comparison of Top  Quintiles on Self-Reported Behavioral Correlates of the Sociosexuality Scale Scores in Percentages (2000)*

  Women Men  
Had sex with someone the same day
you met
59 78
Got pregnant, or got someone
pregnant, before marriage
32 31
Had sex after having a lot to drink 77 88
Was unfaithful to a steady partner 48 63
Had sex with two people in a 24 hour
period
29 50
Ever had a sexually transmitted disease 19 24

*This is not the SOI, for which no scoring information is available, but a sociosexuality scale conceived by the study’s authors.

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

Table 2. Comparison of Top  and Bottom Quintiles on Self-Reported Behavioral Correlates of the Sociosexuality Scale Scores in Percentages (2000)*

  Women Bottom  Women Top  Men Bottom  Men Top 
Had sex with someone the same day
you met
6 59 12 78
Got pregnant, or got someone
pregnant, before marriage
9 32 8 31
Had sex after having a lot to drink 25 77 34 88
Was unfaithful to a steady partner 3 48 5 63
Had sex with two people in a 24 hour
period
1 29 2 50
Ever had a sexually transmitted disease 4 19 4 24

How is sociosexuality measured in the population?

The revised Sociosexuality Orientation Inventory (SOI) is a 9-item questionnaire designed to measure sociosexual orientation on a spectrum from restricted to unrestricted. 

Detailed analyses revealed a highly distinctive pattern of relationships for the three SOI-R facets, supporting their discriminant validity.

An analysis of 8,522 participants from an online study indicates that the SOIR is appropriate for individuals of any normal-range educational level, including hetero-, bi- and homosexuals, singles and individuals of any relationship/marital status, and at least the age range of 18 to 60 years. However, some facets do not work very well for sexually inexperienced and asexual individuals.

The SOI assesses three facets of sociosexuality:

A. Past Behavior in terms of number casual and changing sex partners

1. With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months?

2. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and only one occasion?

3. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse without having an interest in a long-term committed relationship with this person?

B. The explicit Attitude towards uncommitted sex

4. Sex without love is OK.

5. I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying “casual” sex with different partners.

6. I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that we will have a long-term, serious relationship.

C.  Sexual Desire for people with whom no romantic relationship exists.

7. How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with?

8. How often do you experience sexual arousal when you are in contact with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with?

9. In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you have just met?

 

All nine items are aggregated to form a full scale score that represents the global sociosexual orientation. 

The distinctive pattern of relationships among the three areas include the following:

  • Sex differences were pronounced for Desire, mediocre for Attitude and nonexistent for Behavior.
  • Only Desire made unique contributions to the prediction of past sexual and relationship behaviors, observer-rated attractiveness, self-perceived mate value and female flirting behavior.
  • Attitude appeared responsible for the effects of sociosexuality on mate preferences, assortative mating, and a romantic partner’s flirtatiousness outside the relationship. 
  • Desire had strong independent effects on relationships with sex drive, relationship quality, and male flirting behavior.
  • Behavior and Desire, but not Attitude, predicted the number of sexual partners and changes in romantic relationship status over the next 12 months.

Does Sociosexuality Vary Over Time Depending on Age or Circumstances?

Sociosexual orientation is a personality trait, and is relatively stable over the life course; in other words, people are either sociosexually restricted or unrestricted most of their lives. 

What other personality traits predict unrestricted sociosexuality?

  • Findings indicated that both unrestricted women and men described themselves as attractive and not ethically consistent.
  • Unrestricted women described themselves as not being moralistic and as varying their roles, depending on the situation.
  • Unrestricted men described themselves as irresponsible, unproductive, not warm, not anxious, and assertive.
  • Relationships were demonstrated between unrestricted sociosexuality for men and narcissism and psychopathy.

Is unrestricted sociosexuality the same as a strong desire for sexual variety?

An unrestricted individual is likely to achieve a high score in the Sexual Desire portion of the test, but will also have behaved in accordance with those desires, and exhibit liberal attitudes towards uncommitted sex. The desire for sexual variety is just one aspect of sociosexuality.

Sexual Strategies Theory (SST; Buss & Schmitt, 1993) argues that because women, compared with men, have a greater minimal level of parental investment (Trivers, 1972), they are more sensitive to resource limitations and thus have a greater stake in the success of the relationship with their reproductive partner. It follows that women’s optimal strategy for maximizing reproductive success is to establish and maintain a committed relationship with a single partner who will contribute to their offspring’s viability. For men, however, SST suggests that pursuing a variety of sexual partners may have evolved as an effective strategy for maximizing reproductive success. 

Among college students, Buss and Schmitt found the following difference in the preferred number of sexual partners:

Pedersen replicated the study in 2002, and found the same sex differences when plotting the means for each time period. However, Pedersen et al noticed that the mean values were highly skewed by a small number of individuals at the upper end. Restributing the results by median yielded the following result: 

 

 

The debate continues, and it is beyond the capabilities of this blogger to distinguish the scientific merits of each case. At first pass, the data strikes me as compatible in the sense that Sexual Strategies Theory may still apply, though the distribution of individuals would be skewed left.

 

 

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Abbot

    “female sexuality constrains male sexuality. That is, given a woman and a man with similar inclinations to casual sex, the woman will realize her ambitions more readily than will the man.”

    Why do promiscuous women consistently deny this fact?

  • Sassy6519

    This is going to be a field day. I can already tell.

  • J

    Abbott,

    I’m not sure what you mean exactly when you say promiscious women deny that it’s easy for them to find sex partners. I don’t recall ever hearing that claim. It sort conflicts with the definition of promiscuity, doesn’t it?

    The more typical argument on these blogs revolves around the guys saying just about any woman can walk into a bar and get sex and the women saying, “OK, so what?”

  • Abbot

    “it’s easy for them to find sex partners”

    Regarding women, thats not what this states or implies –

    “female sexuality constrains male sexuality. That is, given a woman and a man with similar inclinations to casual sex, the woman will realize her ambitions more readily than will the man.”

  • Ted D

    J – I think you are missing Abotts point, which is easy enough to do.

    I think what he is saying is that in general women (not you or necessarily the women of HUS) are loathe to admit that THEY are the gatekeepers of sex. I think this is true for two reasons.
    1. power. Women have power over men, because they have what men want: sex. Of course women want sex too, but they also know that sex is their trump card. As long as they hold the power, they have some control over the outcome.
    2. Plausible deniability. As it stands now, a woman can play the victem card later in life if she spent her youth jumping from bed to bed. “those bad men took advantage of my naivety” or some such nonsense as a “get out of jail free” card if/when they decide its time to settle down with a “good guy”. If they admit that men CAN NOT rack up high N’s without their own participation (meaning freely looking for and getting casual sex) then they can always claim it isn’t in “their nature” and it “just happened”. The fact is, unless there is rape involved, women ALWAYS have the final say in who gets access to her sexually.

    For men’s part, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a man that wont admit that at a basic level we all work for and strive to get sex. On the flip side, there is an undercurrent from women that implies they are somehow above all that “carnal lust” while at the same time they participate in hookup culture. Men are only now becomming aware of the fact that they are the gatekeepers to committment, because by and large we were all convinced that it was our “duty” to marry and start families, and only recently are we realizing that we can’t be forced into it. Perhaps that seems silly from your persective, but I assure you that I was raised believing it was my lot in life, and that if I didn’t take that path I was a failure. But I think women have known for a LONG time that they hold all the keys to the sex castle, and to this day they seem to be intent on hiding that fact.

  • Escoffier

    Here’s where this goes awry for me:

    My answer to B4 is an emphatic “No”. That’s the left brain+ education talking. But another organ anwswers “Sure, why not?” to B5, “Ideally, but not necessarily” to B6 and “Quite a bit” to C7-9.

    My actual life as it has been live has been restricted but part of my biology is raring to go for some unrestricted fun.

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

      Here’s where this goes awry for me:

      My answer to B4 is an emphatic “No”. That’s the left brain+ education talking. But another organ anwswers “Sure, why not?” to B5, “Ideally, but not necessarily” to B6 and “Quite a bit” to C7-9.

      I’m sure that this combination of answers is far from unusual. Let’s say that puts you in the middle of the pack – your global score will be a reliable predictor of a variety of other traits and behaviors, both past and present. For our purposes, the most important predictive value is around likelihood of cheating.

      If only there were a way to buy this test at the drugstore and make a person take it before having sex!

      IOW, this is a feature, not a bug, there is nothing “awry” in your response.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    When it comes to gatekeepers, he who wants it less keeps the gate.

    I agree that women are more typically the gatekeepers of sex. You see that shown in the info presented in this post and most people would agree that most women can find casual sex with someone at their own SMV than can men.

    I don’t agree that men are necessarily the gatekeepers of commitment. I think you have a lot of women in the 20-30 y/o range that don’t want commitment right now while a lot of men would like it but the women aren’t going for it. Now, change cultures to a place where a higher % of the men are players/cads than in the US (like Anacaona has described the DR to be) and there I would believe that men are the commitment gatekeepers. I don’t believe it is true in the US. I think that to the extent there is freed hypergamy in the US that many of these hypergamous women (at least in their 20’s) are wanting out-of-their-league men for commitment (though they can get casual from them) and this creates an apex-fallacy view that ALL men are the gatekeepers of commitment. The beta 5 or 6 male in his 20’s likely has a different view because he has some trouble in finding a decent LTR.

    Thoughts?

  • BroHamlet

    In the real world scope of things with regards to dating, the discussion of the nuances of SOI will matter more to women than it will to men. Women need to know what type of man they are shacking up with long term. Now, men also need to know what type of woman they are getting, for obvious reasons of risk and long term happiness in a relationship or marriage (because by and large it will end up being his responsibility to make it work or not), but if a woman presents as “restricted” but also has gotten physical fairly quickly in the past, all of this discussion about orientation is pretty much moot to many guys when the rubber meets the road in a dating situation. That is why I have said before that it’s important to take stock of how easy it is for her to be honest with herself. That to me is a telltale indicator of how likely she is to be realistically presenting herself, and is also a good indicator of how introspective she is. I think that’s equally important to finding someone who has an orientation you can live with.

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

      if a woman presents as “restricted” but also has gotten physical fairly quickly in the past, all of this discussion about orientation is pretty much moot to many guys when the rubber meets the road in a dating situation.

      The SOI is designed to factor in the information of what a woman has done in the past wrt uncommitted sex. As for “fairly quickly,” I’m not sure you mean 3 dates, three weeks or whatever, but whether she’s made a habit of something or had exceptions, the number of partners is taken into account, both in total and over the previous year. Additionally, even if a woman has had none of the above but would be willing to (probably a not uncommon occurence for males), the score will reflect that in the other two sections.

      Sociosexual orientation is not an excuse to be deployed, e.g. “I couldn’t help myself, I’m unrestricted,” or a reason to wave the flag, e.g. “I’m restricted and I’m proud!”

      It is simply a measure that correlates to outcomes in life, and in a world of Marriage 2.0, such a reliable measure should be invaluable to both sexes, but especially to men. Of course, you can’t administer the test but you can certainly test your partner with the very same questions asked here.

      The point is, unrestricted sociosexuality is not conducive to monogamy or cooperative relationships. For those who consider sexual and emotional fidelity of strong importance, filtering out potential mates on this basis alone probably removes much of the risk.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    In the last figure,

    Was the question something along the lines of “How many people do you want to have sex with in the next 30 years?” or “how many people would you like to have sex with each year for the next 30 years?” (Where the result was presented as cumulative.)

    I suspect the first but I’m curious.

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

      @Lokland

      Was the question something along the lines of “How many people do you want to have sex with in the next 30 years?” or “how many people would you like to have sex with each year for the next 30 years?” (Where the result was presented as cumulative.)

      You’re right, it’s the first. The number is cumulative in both graphs.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    To expand on the 20-30 y/o segment. Some of these women are also wanting commitment from those men who may not be out of their league but are not looking for commitment. This will tend to be truer though of higher SMV men that have more options.

  • Ted D

    Escoffier – “My actual life as it has been live has been restricted but part of my biology is raring to go for some unrestricted fun.”

    seems you and I are pretty similar here. I think that perhaps some of my particular angst comes from this. My biology pushes me towards sex, regardless of LTR/relationship status. Remember my little lunch experiment where I saw a few dozen women at the mall one day I’d find “hawt” enough for sex? What has kept me from acting on those thoughts my entire life is a strong sense of morality and a little bit of willpower. I’ve very rarily ever been put to the test, because I spend a good bit of effort keeping myself out of situations where I’ll be tempted, partly because somewhere deep in my brain I recognize what lies beneath.

    But this also proves to me beyond all doubt that regardless of peoples orientation, they CAN override it for the better. It takes committment to an ideal, and iron willpower sometimes, but it is within everyone’s power to accomplish.

    My biological father (sperm donar as I commonly refer to him) has half a dozen kids to as many women. He married several times and failed at each one partly because he just couldn’t stay with one and only one woman. The more I think on it, the more I believe that my mother and family may have thought that I would suffer from the same issues IF they didn’t figure out how to control it, and perhaps they went WAY overboard with the female indoctrination efforts. What they didn’t understand or take into consideration is my personality. Left on my own, I doubt I would have been the cad my sperm donar was, because it isn’t something that is part of my being. Certainly it IS part of my biology, but I lack the personality to put that drive into action, and instead of curbing my “natural inclinations” they drove me far too much into betadom when just a little guidance may have done the trick. I get it though, because most people don’t quickly pick up on nuance and/or spend much time contemplating the universe. With just a little information I would have come to the conclusion that casual sex wasn’t my thing on my own.

    I know very little about my sperm donars family other than medical history which I got from a half sibling. (we ended up in the same school district in 7th grade and there was concern that we just might end up “dating”, which of course would have been awkward at least so they introduced us. Nothing like finding out you have a sister at 13) She was more than willing to tell me more, but I honestly didn’t want to know. At that time I was afraid of what I would learn, but looking back it was probably a mistake. I no longer know how to reach her, and I don’t know what good would come from digging up those graves anyway.

    I do know that in my DNA is the capability to be a cad of sorts, although I didn’t get the impression that my sperm donar intentionally played that part so much as simply let himself be led around by his dick. Maybe my mother had it right, and there was a need to really drive me in a specific direction to keep that biology from getting me into trouble. I suppose I’ll never know, but it really doesn’t matter.

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

      But this also proves to me beyond all doubt that regardless of peoples orientation, they CAN override it for the better. It takes committment to an ideal, and iron willpower sometimes, but it is within everyone’s power to accomplish.

      I agree! It certainly can be done. I wouldn’t say it is within everyone’s power to accomplish, necessarily – that would depend perhaps on other personality traits and how they interrelated. For example, if unrestricted in a male is correlated to narcissism and sociopathy, it’s probably too much to expect for that individual to have the desire, much less the capacity, to override their natural desires.

      The point really is that it’s a risk factor, or a red flag. A woman who marries a man who would likely be classified as unrestricted is rolling the dice in a way that she might not with another choice of partner. On the other hand, the excitement and uncertainty of keeping her man satisfied may be something that some women crave. There is evidence that people mate assortatively with regard to SO. And that’s something to be thankful for, I think.

  • Abbot

    A woman does not fear the gatekeeper status until being called on it for allowing herself to be cheapened with multinstapenis and she knows full well that call will only come from a man who wants more than sex

    Women also deny the GK role as it implies that they did not have to convince men to fuck and thus her looks and charm are not as special as she wants to believe

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

      @Abbot

      I do not understand why you preach to the choir here. You’re railing against feminists, and last time I looked there weren’t any around.

  • Ted

    HanSolo – my point is that unless a man decides to marry, a woman can’t get that ring. There are certainly men that want committment and can’t get it, but it isn’t because they don’t have the keys. It is because no one is beating down HIS particular gate.

    Woman hold the keys to sex. Full stop. There is NO WAY to convince me otherwise since sex requires a woman’s full permission outside of rape of course. She can deny it all she wants (I was drunk, he took advantage of me, it just happened, etc) but there is no way do deny her buy in for the sex to occure. It is exactly the same for marrige with men, but as I said in years past men were convinced it was their place to marry and have kids, so a lot of them gave up that power to follow the script. (I know I did…) Now that men are realizing this, the game is changing. Of course that doesn’t help the guys out there wishing for a wife but unable to muster any attraction, but regardless they DO hold the keys to committment.

  • Ted D

    DOH that last comment was me. I lost my D :(

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    Another aspect of commitment gate keeping is that in how you frame your view of many women (and I agree with it) you are acting as if you are constantly being evaluated on how much attraction your wife feels and you worry that if you become sufficiently unattractive (overall, in personality, behavior, looks, etc.) she might leave. Of course, I assume you are also constantly subconsciously judging her and if she crossed the line (wherever you’ve drawn those deal-breaker lines) on character, behavior,
    looks, sex, etc. that you would cut off your commitment too.

    This constant need to be attractive enough (not just looks) to one’s partner for them to stay committed is part of the no-fault divorce environment we’re in. Now, nearly everyone has some deal-breakers. The issue is how hair-trigger or lenient they are. If they’re pretty lenient and that person has decided to make the relationship work the you can assume they’re quite committed. If it’s a higher overall threshold and they’re not that decided then their commitment is less likely to last.

    So, I go back to the basic principle of what it means to be a gatekeeper: whoever wants it less is basically the gatekeeper. Based on that I think most men and women are pretty equally gatekeepers overall, with commitment-avoiding players and those (young) women who don’t want to settle down so that they can pursue career and fun being definite commitment gatekeepers because they just don’t want it much at all.

  • J

    I’m going to be brief because I need to do some other stuff. Regarding women as gatekeepers: While that’s traditionally true, I think to an extent that the horse has left that barn. According to Susan, we have women hooking up for a 12% chance at a relationship. Women may hold power over men because men want sex, but it appears that at least some men are able to exercise power by witholding relationships. I’d hate to be a young women in the current SMP. If I were a mother of girls, I’d be trying to organize a campus sex strike.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    my point is that unless a man decides to marry, a woman can’t get that ring.

    I agree. But the same is true that unless a woman decides to marry the man can’t get the ring. Look at Kate Bolick and her bf, Allan. She broke up with him while he presumably wanted to continue things. So I agree that women are (nearly always) the sex gatekeepers but I would say that both men and women are the commitment gatekeepers. This notion that nearly all women are sitting around wanting to commit and it’s just the men who don’t want to is just wrong in the US. I can believe it when you introduce hypergamy and you have a lot of women (but not all but probably a large minority) hoping for commitment with guys of S/MMV of 1 or 2 points higher than themselves with guys that are either players or that would only LTR someone of equal value.

    From the article “All the Single Ladies,” Kate Bolick says:

    IN 2001, WHEN I was 28, I broke up with my boyfriend. Allan and I had been together for three years, and there was no good reason to end things. He was (and remains) an exceptional person, intelligent, good-looking, loyal, kind. My friends, many of whom were married or in marriage-track relationships, were bewildered. I was bewildered. To account for my behavior, all I had were two intangible yet undeniable convictions: something was missing; I wasn’t ready to settle down.

    And describing the mindset of waiting til after 30 she says,

    We took for granted that we’d spend our 20s finding ourselves, whatever that meant, and save marriage for after we’d finished graduate school and launched our careers, which of course would happen at the magical age of 30.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/308654/2/?single_page=true

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ J

    “Women may hold power over men because men want sex, but it appears that at least some men are able to exercise power by witholding relationships.”

    A majority of women hold power over MOST men.
    A minority of men hold power over MOST women.

  • Thrasymachus

    The Pedersen study has been criticized by David Schmitt here:

    http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165846.pdf

    (In case that link does not work, the paper’s title is “Universal Sex Differences in the Desire for Sexual Variety: Tests From 52 Nations, 6 Continents, and 13 Islands “. I don’t know if it is still available for free on the Web.)

    Schmitt’s international cross-cultural survey shows significant sex differences in the demand for sexual variety in all the countries studied, irrespective of which statistical measure is used. The following articles also survey the literature on the subject and reach the same conclusions:

    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/are%20men%20oriented%20toward%20ST%20mating%20PEG-2001.pdf

    http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/Assets/71520.pdf

    Given the available evidence, it seems to me that Schmitt, Buss and Baumeister win this argument hands down over Pedersen.

    The desire for sexual variety is not the same as unrestricted sociosexuality as defined above. For one thing a person might desire a variety of sexual partners but may not be attractive enough to obtain them. For another there are some people who strongly believe that sex outside a committed relationship is wrong. As such, the desire for variety will not always match sexual behavior or attitude towards uncommitted sex. However, none of this means that in general men and women have the same desire for sexual variety.

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

      @Thrasymachus

      It is important to note that Buss and Schmitt are the authors of the Sexual Strategies Theory and their rebuttals are where the controversy resides.

      I have some questions about the Schmitt response.

      1. Still no median data.

      Rather than look at their original data again and calculate the median, they did another study using the mean, which does not directly address Pedersen’s finding. They did look at data from four states in the U.S. to see if the median difference was significant and found that it was. Unfortunately, they did not provide that data, though they say it is available on request. They also stipulate that if a female median was centered near zero, and the male median was centered near one, the result would be statistically significant.

      Instead, they provide stats on what percentage of men vs. women wanted more than one sexual partner in the next 30 years. For North America*, that was 48% of men and 38% of women. That’s still a majority of both sexes preferring one partner.

      2.* No American data.

      Schmitt’s data is based on 52 countries, but the U.S. accounts for only 6% of the total. We know that SOIs are affected by operational sex ratios within each country. Additionally, SOIs are considerably lower in countries with political and gender equality, including the U.S. In contrast, SOI scores are higher in demanding reproductive environments, characterized by more violence.

      I strongly prefer U.S. data, as hookup culture is primarily an American phenomenon, and feminism is so strong here. I have found that international data is generally not as useful for my particular purposes.

      3. Schmitt’s study is all ages, and includes married people, though they say that many of the participants were college students. Pedersen’s study included unmarried undergraduate students only.

      The Carlson link you provided actually buttresses the Pedersen argument:

      Miller and Fishkin (1997) asked a sample of college students how many sex partners they would like to have over the entire rest of their lives if they were not constrained by any factors such as disease or laws. The mean response by the women was that they would ideally like to have 2.7 sex partners, whereas the men’s mean response was 64. Miller and Fishkin did not delete outliers from their sample, and in fact they noted that the difference in means was almost entirely due to the skew:

      The median was 1 partner for both genders. Thus, large numbers of young men and women aspire to having only 1 sex partner across a lifetime, but there is a minority of promiscuously inclined men that is much larger than the minority of promiscuously inclined women.

      As to your final point:

      However, none of this means that in general men and women have the same desire for sexual variety.

      Correct. My inclusion of the discussion of sexual variety was in specific response to some readers conflating the two concepts. As I explain in the post, the desire for sexual variety is just one facet of sociosexual orientation, which is indeed influenced by environment, culture, upbringing, and of course opportunity.

      As far as I can tell, the takeaway message is that the majority of both sexes desires monogamous commitment, and this desire should be the first and most important prerequisite in mating.

  • INTJ

    That Pedersen study is astounding (in a pleasant way). A large majority of college women and almost majority of college men have an ideal N of 1 for the next 30 years.

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

      That Pedersen study is astounding (in a pleasant way). A large majority of college women and almost majority of college men have an ideal N of 1 for the next 30 years.

      It’s incredible how different the means and medians are, but it matches what I found in dissecting the college sex data. Looking at the mean is almost pointless – it is far more informative to look at the data broken out in other ways, e.g., year of school, sex, N by range, etc. The more specific the data, obviously, the less we are forced to rely on often misleading generalizations.

      I will remind you that the Pedersen vs. Buss controversy is active – they disagree on the degree of sex difference re desired # of partners. I present both.

      As noted in the post however, this desire represents only a portion of the total SOI score. For example, all but two participants in the Pedersen study said they hoped to have one lifelong sex partner within five years, and they were all college students. Therefore, a theoretical “How many sex partners would you like to have?” may be rendered moot by an intent to marry well before the 30 year timeline is up.

  • Ted D

    M3 – “A majority of women hold power over MOST men.
    A minority of men hold power over MOST women.”

    yes this is what I was driving at, but doing a bad job.

    Susan – Please excuse my thick skull here, but I want to make sure I’m getting your point with SOI.

    I think what you are saying is, regardless of any particular past “encounters” a woman with a restriceted SOI is less likely to cheat, and more likely to remain faithful. She may have a few casual encounters in her past for any number of reasons, but over all her inclination is to monogamy. Is this right?

    If so then this is almost the exact process I used with my wife. I looked at her past, and she had a few dalliances, but over all she has shown time and again that when involved in a relationship, she is faithful and committed. In fact we share almost identical beliefs regarding sex within LTRs. Where we differ is that I grew up with a firm belief in the immorality of casual sex, where she did not. While I was reminded regularaly of the dangers involved with casual sex, her mother gave her practically no guidance at all. (In fact her mother has been married and divorced 4 times. My wife still says she can’t figure out how her mother managed to find 4 willing victems. Her words!) So while I simply refused to forsake my morals, she had none to work from in regards to sex and therfore didn’t feel any need to “control” herself outside of a relationship.

    Its funny, because had our views been different I wouldn’t have stuck around. But because we felt so similar regarding relationship sex, I just couldn’t wrap my head around WHY she would ever bother with casual sex at all. She couldn’t figure out why I was so hung up on “casual sex is bad” when she had no foundation telling her that was the case. I still don’t understand it fully, and I probably never will. This is exactly why your example of “wedding sex” throws me for a loop. IF a woman is restricted, why on earth would she stray from that for a one off? Is it a lack of will? Lack of knowing themselves? Lack of giving a shit because she isn’t in a LTR at the moment?

    I just hate not knowing how something works, and I don’t get how that works at all. If it isn’t something you want, why do it at all?

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

      @Ted D

      I think what you are saying is, regardless of any particular past “encounters” a woman with a restriceted SOI is less likely to cheat, and more likely to remain faithful. She may have a few casual encounters in her past for any number of reasons, but over all her inclination is to monogamy. Is this right?

      Not exactly. Her SOI score takes her past encounters into account. A woman with a past of unrestricted behavior is going to achieve a high score on at least that part of the test, and probably the others as well, since her attitudes and desires likely played a role in her previous behavior. Therefore, the SOI score alone is the relevant indicator, as it incorporates all relevant information.

  • Passer_By

    As to past behavior, there’s too much of an element of “access” for men to have this concept apply, other than for the most desirable men. I imagine every single member of a 1970s mega rock band would score off the charts on these tests. On the other hand, Beavis and Butthead would score very very low if you focus on their past experiences, but nobody would suggest that they actually had low sociosexuality.

    http://www.305ontap.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/beavis-and-butthead.gif

    As to women, if the questions were all phrased as “sex with [fill in the blank movie star]“, the attitudes might change, if they were honest.

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

      @Passer By

      The element of access is taken into account in the design of the inventory, as referenced in the post. What is telling is the global score, as well as the interrelatedness of each of the three sections.

      No doubt some people of both sexes might answer differently if movie stars were on offer, but the test is designed to predict sexual behavior under natural circumstances rather than events with almost zero chance of occurring.

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

    Susan wrote:
    It’s incredible how different the means and medians are, but it matches what I found in dissecting the college sex data. Looking at the mean is almost pointless – it is far more informative to look at the data broken out in other ways, e.g., year of school, sex, N by range, etc. The more specific the data, obviously, the less we are forced to rely on often misleading generalizations.

    Always look at the histogram. Always!

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Robert Sternberg put forth a “Triangular Theory of Love” that, IMHO, can add richness and depth to a discussion of sociosexuality. He argues that we can assess a romantic relationship along three dimensions: Intimacy (sort of a proxy for physical affection, emotional praise/flattery, “loving” gestures and comments, cuddling, etc.); Commitment (exclusivity, resource investment); and Passion (lust, intensity, sexual quality).

    Using these three variables and giving each only a high or low score gives you potentially eight different types of romantic relationship (2 * 2 * 2). So, for example, Sternberg would characterize a relationship that had high Intimacy, high Commitment, and high Passion as “complete love”, while a relationship that had high Commitment but low Intimacy and low Passion would be “empty love.”

    I think that this can be useful because many of the popular, critical relationship models essentially look at one dimension—Commitment—and ignore the others. We can end up simplistically believing that Commitment in itself equals “happy” or “good”.

    In an ideal world, perhaps Commitment would be “pegged” to Passion like a currency might be pegged to the dollar or gold: if the sexual quality of the relationship were to deteriorate, the exclusivity of the relationship would also deteriorate. The sexless, soul-killing “empty love” scenario outcome would be impossible because there would be a self-policing feature in place to cause the relationship to automatically implode if Passion dropped below some minimum threshold and remained there.

    Perhaps what we see with sociosexual orientation is a different priority system being used by different people, with some putting Commitment first and others putting Passion or Intimacy first. The restricted person’s nightmare might be a relationship with high Passion but low Commitment and low Intimacy (i.e., a completely sexualized, emotionally unfulfilling FWB or ONS arrangement), while the unrestricted person’s comparable nightmare might be a relationship that had high Commitment but low Passion and low Intimacy (a cold, asexual-roommates-type LTR).

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

      @BB

      So, for example, Sternberg would characterize a relationship that had high Intimacy, high Commitment, and high Passion as “complete love”, while a relationship that had high Commitment but low Intimacy and low Passion would be “empty love.”

      This could also work with Fisher’s three types of love: Lust, Limerence and Attachment. For example, Sternberg’s Complete Love checks all three of those boxes – a rare thing. His Empty Love actually drills down into Attachment only – assuming the two components of Attachment are commitment and intimacy.

      In an ideal world, perhaps Commitment would be “pegged” to Passion like a currency might be pegged to the dollar or gold: if the sexual quality of the relationship were to deteriorate, the exclusivity of the relationship would also deteriorate. The sexless, soul-killing “empty love” scenario outcome would be impossible because there would be a self-policing feature in place to cause the relationship to automatically implode if Passion dropped below some minimum threshold and remained there.

      Wouldn’t that be awesome – people could assess the decline and decide whether to get out or stay the course, but both parties would be alerted soon enough so that remedial action might immediately be taken.

      Perhaps what we see with sociosexual orientation is a different priority system being used by different people, with some putting Commitment first and others putting Passion or Intimacy first. The restricted person’s nightmare might be a relationship with high Passion but low Commitment and low Intimacy (i.e., a completely sexualized, emotionally unfulfilling FWB or ONS arrangement), while the unrestricted person’s comparable nightmare might be a relationship that had high Commitment but low Passion and low Intimacy (a cold, asexual-roommates-type LTR).

      I’m not sure if this is what you’re saying, but I don’t think restricted sociosexuality = commitment without intimacy or passion. Indeed, it requires all three. Unrestricted sexuality may actually thrive with none of the three. By all reports, most casual sex is passionless. Using the definition of passion as:

      1. Strong and barely controllable emotion

      2. A state or outburst of such emotion

      3. Intense sexual love

      It’s hard to imagine its development without intimacy, though whether it requires commitment might vary among individuals.

      This leads me to wonder what the “just right” amount of sex drive is. Some will say they had their best sex while on heroin. At the other extreme, some people are more than happy with occasional, unimaginative sex. (I dated someone like that.)

      The most important thing has got to be the match. High dopamine sex between unrestricteds during Lust, a wider range of sexual experiences between restricteds, not all of them earth-shattering, though I can testify that some may be. :)

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    I think a Canadian researcher studied French-speaking male Canadians from Quebec and found that, in his sample, 90% of the men were married and about 34% were “habitually promiscuous” (this meant promiscuous currently; there was no assessment of past, pre-marital behavior).

    Robin Dunbar and his team got their hands on the data and did some mathematical modeling. Basically the 1/3 who were promiscuous were gaining 2/3 of the matings in Quebec, while the 2/3 who were monogamous were obviously getting the remaining 1/3 of the matings. If you multiply probabilities and payoffs, you find that this represents an SMP equilibrium state.

    Dunbar noted that if more men became promiscuous, the payoffs per individual “player” would decline as the bounty was shared, while the parallel individual mating payoffs for the now-more-scarce “monogamists” would increase. He felt that the baseline level at the start of play reflected female sexual choices in the SMP.

    I think we should keep in mind that pair-bonding may have evolved as a social strategy for lowering male inter-sexual violence, especially as the lethality of challenge matches increased and weapon use became widespread. Hunter-gatherer dads may never have been particularly sensitive and pleasant dads in the modern, sitcom sense; in fact, one explanation offered for the mystery of female human menopause is the so-called “Grandmother Hypothesis”, in which women lose their reproductive abilities very early in their lifespans (compared to other species) because menopause is tied to the approximate age at which daughters would become reproductively active, thus allowing the more experienced female the natural window in which to assist in the raising of the new generation.

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

      @BB

      Dunbar noted that if more men became promiscuous, the payoffs per individual “player” would decline as the bounty was shared, while the parallel individual mating payoffs for the now-more-scarce “monogamists” would increase.

      Which is why natural ladykillers are not fans of “behavioral correlates.” ;)

      I think we should keep in mind that pair-bonding may have evolved as a social strategy for lowering male inter-sexual violence, especially as the lethality of challenge matches increased and weapon use became widespread.

      Interestingly, in doing the legwork for this post, which included about 20 articles and studies, I found an interesting article that stated that based on the course of evolution as best we know it, it’s likely that the pendulum would have swung back and forth between favoring dads and favoring cads at different points in our history. It was claimed that the two strategies existing side by side would have been extremely unlikely. I don’t think I saved that link, but I’ll see if I can find it.

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

    @SW
    Bravo, for providing some clarity and understanding.

    I think I’ve linked to the Pedersen study twice before in recent discussions, but you know the penchant around here: dismiss the study before even reading it. :wink:

    It definitely needs to be replicated on a larger scale. Similar types of conclusions have been found WRT the single partner issue, though:

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/02_sjoe002.pdf

  • Mike C

    Susan,

    This is a well-written piece that clearly explains the concept and distinction. Good job.

    Just going through the criteria, there is little doubt I am unrestricted. Desire and attitude lean strongly unrestricted. Behavior is more of a mixed bag as I have been in monogamous relationships much of my adult life by choice.

    I can’t argue with the conclusion that restricted women should mostly choose restricted men. The reality is you are decreasing the chance for unfaithfulness, and it is probably a more stable relationship arrangement. My opinion is that the restricted versus unrestricted ties into some other things that I won’t get into detail here, but I think the key point is that women would have to not filter on things that are likely to be more present in unrestricted men.

  • pvw

    @Susan:

    I’m not sure if this is what you’re saying, but I don’t think restricted sociosexuality = commitment without intimacy or passion. Indeed, it requires all three. Unrestricted sexuality may actually thrive with none of the three.

    My reply:

    I think BB might agree with you. It seems he imagines the best case scenario for a restricted person would be to have all 3. BB, if Susan does any podcasts, I nominate you for her list! You really get us thinking!

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

    Susan,

    This leads me to wonder what the “just right” amount of sex drive is. Some will say they had their best sex while on heroin.

    I happened to see this comment before you deleted the “manic phase” portion, and I can testify that manic sex (before the mania escalated into total confusion and paranoia) was probably the best I’ve ever had. But it has absolutely nothing to do with restricted and unrestricted sexuality. A known feature of mania is increased libido, but mania does not represent a person’s normal state.

    Also, I know you deleted it, but I just want to clarify that mania/bipolar symptoms should never be thrown into the same box as heroin use. It’s not a drug, and it’s not a choice.

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

      @Olive

      I can testify that manic sex (before the mania escalated into total confusion and paranoia) was probably the best I’ve ever had. But it has absolutely nothing to do with restricted and unrestricted sexuality.

      Of course, I do realize that. It’s a manifestation of an illness.

      Also, I know you deleted it, but I just want to clarify that mania/bipolar symptoms should never be thrown into the same box as heroin use. It’s not a drug, and it’s not a choice.

      Agreed. I apologize that got to you before I revised it. If you only knew how many times I read twice, then make changes before submitting comments! I quickly realized my error. FTR, what got me thinking about it was an article I read about artists who felt their most creative while manic (including my mother), and the discussion of incredible sex did come up.

      The point I was really trying to make is that people enjoy a wide variety of sexual “highs,” and what seems fantastic to one person might make another anxious, e.g. heroin. Conversely, what seems vanilla or boring to one person might be A+ sex for someone else.

  • Lokland

    Couple quibbles.

    First section.

    I disagree with the prior 12 month bit. I’d extend that period back farther, especially as a person ages.

    My 16, 21 and 25 year old selves would score differently based on this point.

    I do realize its controlled for in the total partner count etc. still I would place more emphasis on recent history.

    Second.

    I don’t think this is a useful indicator of whether or not someone is worthy of a relationship. People lie, always have, always will. Sometimes to others and sometimes to themselves.

    I wouldn’t place an SOI score ahead of my own intuition.

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

      @Lokland

      I wouldn’t place an SOI score ahead of my own intuition.

      I enthusiastically cosign this, especially if your intuition is more conservative than the SOI, as it seems to be. To anyone who thinks that the past does not predict the future, or that “it will be different with me,” I’d say give your intuition plenty of time to recalibrate according to conditions IRL.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I don’t see why the Pedersen data contradicts the Sexual Strategies Theory. Quite simply, the Pedersen data tells us what men and women would consciously wish to happen. It doesn’t tell us what sexual strategies are evolutionarily advantageous or indeed what actually happens (look at what people do, not what they say).

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

      @INTJ

      It doesn’t tell us what sexual strategies are evolutionarily advantageous or indeed what actually happens (look at what people do, not what they say).

      Well, neither Schmitt and Buss nor Pedersen do that. Their research is based strictly on attitudes. I find it interesting and probably revealing, but not nearly as valuable as the SOI, which is a much broader instrument.

      My sense is that Buss and Schmitt believe that people use short-term mating strategies more frequently, and that men are predisposed to wanting a greater number of partners. The question is around statistical significance. If men want 2 and women want 1, that’s an enormous difference but probably won’t raise any eyebrows around here. I believe they feel (rightly, from what I can tell) that Pedersen is arguing that there is little difference between the sexes on this score. Personally, the % differences in each study seem fairly compatible, comparing the Schmitt 48% vs. 38%. I tried to ignore what is clearly an academic rivalry by focusing on the data alone. But I am no statistician – perhaps someone like JQ Mc. will come along and lend more expertise to the question.

  • Iggles

    @ Ted D:

    HanSolo – my point is that unless a man decides to marry, a woman can’t get that ring.  There are certainly men that want committment and can’t get it, but it isn’t because they don’t have the keys.  It is because no one is beating down HIS particular gate.

    +1,000!

    I agree with this. FWIW, I’ve always acknowledged women are the gatekeepers to sex. It’s way easier for women to get sex IF they desire it from men without strings attached. However, my position has always been — “So what?”

    What (most) women want is commitment. Sex and companionship from ONE guy. On the whole, most of us simply don’t crave sex for the sake of sex the way men do. No doubt there are high T and/or high drive women who would disagree. Just as there are low drive/asexual men who would value companionship/commitment over sex.

    Now, admitting this doesn’t mean women don’t care about sex! Quite the contrary! I just mean in the list of priorities for women it’s (1) commitment & (2) sex. For men it’s (1) sex & (2) commitment. For restricted folks of both genders see the two intrinsically linked (i.e., preferring sex & love with ONE person over casual sex & low commitment arrangements).

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan, Lokland-

    I agree with what you’re saying, Lokland. Truth be told, I like the thrust of the SOI. In fact, a lot of our intuition incorporates looking for signs that point to how your significant other would answer some of these questions, even if you can’t directly ask them. Obviously there are degrees and complications that arise with the dynamics of dealing with people (read: real life), but the concepts are there. After reading her qualification in her comment to me, I think she’s correct- this isn’t a catch-all or an excuse, just a starting point.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    pvw, thank you very much for your kind words and moral support. Re: the HUS podcast, I think Susan could and should regularly bring in some of the heavy-hitters like Helen Fisher, Geoffrey Miller, Maestro Buss, Robin Dunbar, GBFM (!) for his Sphinx-like geopolitical commentary, some of the more thoughtful sex-pozzies, and so on. She probably doesn’t need some militarized, unrestricted white-collar criminal ranting about “Fuck Phantoms”…

    Susan: sorry, I really didn’t mean to imply that the restricted types actually favored a Committed but Passionless and Intimacy-less relationship; I meant that this might be a particularly terrifying outcome for a less restricted type. Speaking personally, the potential for this to happen is what has made my efforts to manage LTRs rather problematic.

    I was thinking a bit about your comment re: high T, high E composite faces and it occurred to me that this might explain the confused, tragically-romantic fate of the mixed-STR/LTR strategy player who combines high sex-drive and dominance with high emotional neediness, desire for affirmation, etc. It’s been a real issue for me—I tend to look at an LTR as a kind of series of STRs with the same person, which is quite exhausting come to think of it.

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

      @BB

      I meant that this might be a particularly terrifying outcome for a less restricted type.

      I’m sure it would be! The disasters are going to happen around “type,” I think. The dopamine loving daredevil is going to want to fire on all cylinders, while the traditional homebody is going to enjoy a different pace and probably different practices as well.

      I was thinking a bit about your comment re: high T, high E composite faces and it occurred to me that this might explain the confused, tragically-romantic fate of the mixed-STR/LTR strategy player who combines high sex-drive and dominance with high emotional neediness, desire for affirmation, etc. It’s been a real issue for me—I tend to look at an LTR as a kind of series of STRs with the same person, which is quite exhausting come to think of it.

      That makes a lot of sense – I know one young man (24) who fits this description – he’s the one with an N of 100 who has been pining for the same girl since junior high. It has always struck me as so incongruous, but perhaps this is precisely the explanation. He is absolutely breathtaking facially, has a killer bod, and is super smart (works in PE at the moment). He is extraordinarily successful with women, but really quite supplicating with this one girl, often saying things like, “You know how I feel about you” and “I know there’s something between us. You’ll see.” And speaking of platonic friendship, they meet up at least a couple of times a month to hang. Why?

      I think he may be an example of Hi T/Hi E, though at only 24 he probably comes across as less polished than he will in a few years. Does that make sense?

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

    FTR, what got me thinking about it was an article I read about artists who felt their most creative while manic (including my mother), and the discussion of incredible sex did come up.

    I’ve heard bipolar is the “cool mental illness” to have because it’s associated with intense periods of creativity. I actually even read that some bipolar people don’t experience the depression, just mild mania… essentially, they’re high on life. I wish!

    Also, to change subjects, one thing I’d point out on the SOI: it still doesn’t measure non-sex STM behaviors. I once studied abroad with this girl who had only had sex with her current BF (i.e. she’d lost her virginity fairly late, N = 1… she was a born again Christian, IIRC). But once we were sitting in a restaurant and she started telling us how she’d given head all the time in middle school (dude, I didn’t even know what a BJ was until ninth grade!). And later in the semester she cheated on her BF with this total douchebag pushy type. I wonder what her N is now, 4 years later…

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

      @Olive

      it still doesn’t measure non-sex STM behaviors. I once studied abroad with this girl who had only had sex with her current BF (i.e. she’d lost her virginity fairly late, N = 1… she was a born again Christian, IIRC). But once we were sitting in a restaurant and she started telling us how she’d given head all the time in middle school

      You raise a really good question! How is sex defined for the SOI? I assumed P in V, but increasingly studies also include oral and anal. That was the case in just about all of the studies in the Definite Survey post. I’ll see if I can find out about this.

  • Ted D

    Susan – thanks for the clarification. I’ll need to stew on this a bit as usual before I can figure out how it ties in with everything else around the issue of sexuality.

    I’m still at a loss to explain why someone that is generally restricted might on occasion break from that default and go casual. People just refuse to fit into neat categories for me. ;-)

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

      @Ted D

      I’m still at a loss to explain why someone that is generally restricted might on occasion break from that default and go casual.

      There is cultural, political and peer pressure to do so. Additionally, as I said above, operational sex ratios affect SO. One prime example is the lopsided sex ratio in colleges – the lower supply of guys drives up competition among girls and shift the SO’s upward.

  • Brendan

    I think we should keep in mind that pair-bonding may have evolved as a social strategy for lowering male inter-sexual violence, especially as the lethality of challenge matches increased and weapon use became widespread.

    Interestingly, in doing the legwork for this post, which included about 20 articles and studies, I found an interesting article that stated that based on the course of evolution as best we know it, it’s likely that the pendulum would have swung back and forth between favoring dads and favoring cads at different points in our history. It was claimed that the two strategies existing side by side would have been extremely unlikely. I don’t think I saved that link, but I’ll see if I can find it.

    Which makes sense, and which begs the question of whether we are living in a time when things are cad favored. I doubt that the pendulum between dad favoring and cad favoring is a 100% scenario, such that in some circumstances since 10,000 years ago, cads have been totally favored. But if we take that experience and set the threshold for cad favoring lower, say at 30-50% of all sexual encounters for women as a whole (regardless of SES and so on), then I think we may be living a cad favored age.

  • pvw

    @ BB: pvw, thank you very much for your kind words and moral support. Re: the HUS podcast, I think Susan could and should regularly bring in some of the heavy-hitters like Helen Fisher, Geoffrey Miller, Maestro Buss, Robin Dunbar, GBFM (!) for his Sphinx-like geopolitical commentary, some of the more thoughtful sex-pozzies, and so on. She probably doesn’t need some militarized, unrestricted white-collar criminal ranting about “Fuck Phantoms”…

    Me: You’re welcome, and I must say putting aside the craziness of that possibility in the rant, your ideas on game strategy, economic theory would be useful? I was thinking about that on the other thread “nuclear rejections,” your ideas on restricted alphas appearing unrestricted in order to attract, while an unrestricted beta might appear restricted to do the same, how the permutations might work.

  • HanSolo

    When women don’t need providers as much (like in prosperous countries today) they can look focus more on good genes and the children will survive anyway.

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

    You raise a really good question! How is sex defined for the SOI? I assumed P in V, but increasingly studies also include oral and anal. That was the case in just about all of the studies in the Definite Survey post. I’ll see if I can find out about this.

    Super, let me know what you find! I’ve seen Deti refer to sex as mutual masturbation and beyond (and least, I think so). I’ve even seen “making out with a stranger” thrown in the mix (erm, which I’ve done more times than I care to admit here). So there’s definitely different ideas about what constitutes STM behavior.

  • J

    A majority of women hold power over MOST men.
    A minority of men hold power over MOST women.

    I know this is the usual claim. Susan’s claim that cads and sluts tend to flock together would seem to contradict that. It seems to me that the majority of both young men and women are in some sort of stand off waiting for each other to notice them.

  • INTJ

    @ Olive

    I’ve even seen “making out with a stranger” thrown in the mix (erm, which I’ve done more times than I care to admit here).

    “Making out” here refers to kissing right? I don’t see how that could possibly contribute to N-count.

    Actually I suppose my mom would count it. But as far as I can tell, in Indian culture people didn’t kiss, let alone make out, except for foreplay during sex…

  • J

    in fact, one explanation offered for the mystery of female human menopause is the so-called “Grandmother Hypothesis”, in which women lose their reproductive abilities very early in their lifespans (compared to other species) because menopause is tied to the approximate age at which daughters would become reproductively active, thus allowing the more experienced female the natural window in which to assist in the raising of the new generation.

    I’m aware of this theory but, as the world’s oldest mother of teens, I have my own solipsistic take on it. I don’t think women go into menopause early; I think they have a lifespan that extends longer than what is usual for most animals after the birth of the last offspring because human children take so long to raise. Let’s say our hominid ancestors reached puberty at 12, lived to 20 on average, and continued to ovulate for the majority of their lives, ending at about 18. As the kids became smarter and more neotaneous, the female lifespan began to extend farther and farther beyond menopause until it allowed older mothers to see their kids reach their teens. (There is some research that indicates very low death rates for modern women with kids under fifteen regardless of maternal age when the last child was born.) Eventually those longlived 30 something moms passed on their longevity genes creating grandparents. Lucky children who had 35–40 year old grandparents had the tremendous advantage of living in circumstances where elders passed on wisdom. Men too old to hunt could still advise the younger men; women too old to reproduce could still help their daughters with their grandchildren. You know the rest…

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

    “Making out” here refers to kissing right? I don’t see how that could possibly contribute to N-count.

    Haha no way! It totally doesn’t. But the question is: does making out with strangers count as STM behavior, indicating unrestricted sociosexuality?

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

      But the question is: does making out with strangers count as STM behavior, indicating unrestricted sociosexuality?

      I would say absolutely not. There’s a lot of daylight between making out with strangers and promiscuity. IDK, swapping spit doesn’t seem like a big deal to me – I might think it was weird if someone told me they’d done it 100 times, but it’s about a 0.5 in STM terms.

  • INTJ

    @ Olive

    Haha no way! It totally doesn’t. But the question is: does making out with strangers count as STM behavior, indicating unrestricted sociosexuality?

    Ah lol. Well, near the extreme ends of restricted sociosexuality, I suppose it would. I’m unlikely to make out with a stranger. But it’s not really a big deal to me.

    I suppose it could be used as a heuristic for dopamine-seekers.

  • Passer_By

    @olive:

    “I actually even read that some bipolar people don’t experience the depression, just mild mania… essentially, they’re high on life. I wish!”

    Well, then by defintion, they are “bi” polar, they’re UNIpolar. lol

    I saw a show, I think it was Law and Order SVU, where some bad guy (that’s redundant, I guess, since all guys are bad on that show), would talk this young woman into dropping her bipolar, saying she didn’t need them, because he wanted the thrill of having sex with her in the manic state, then he would just abandon her during the time she was in the depressive state.

  • Iggles

    @ INTJ:

    Ah lol. Well, near the extreme ends of restricted sociosexuality, I suppose it would. I’m unlikely to make out with a stranger. But it’s not really a big deal to me.

    Is it? :lol:

    Who knows. I’m not not the type to make out with strangers either. I don’t think it makes someone a “slut” per se, but I do view it as promiscuous behavior to make out with someone you just met because they’re “hot”.

    Not to sound like a total prude, because I’ve had first date kisses but no make out sessions until date 2 or 3. To me that ‘s a different scenario than a same day/same night hook up (i.e., grinding with a stranger in the club, then making out an hour later). Though, as always YMMV. And FWIW, I can count on one hand the number of guys I’ve ever kissed.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “The element of access is taken into account in the design of the inventory, as referenced in the post.”

    Sort of, but if weight is given to the answers in A, it obviously gives men with access a higher score. Also, it seems to me that people tend to rationalize what they experience. So a guy who can’t get sex without commitment (or an implicit promise of commitment) is likely to convince himself that he doesn’t really like that. On the other hand, if most men had easy opportunities for genuinely no strings sex from reasonably attractive strangers (in the way that women often do), their attitudes about it would likely change. This is a bit rare, since there is usually some degree of omission or outright deception for men to get that, or they wouldn’t call it pump and dump. A lot of men just aren’t willing to engage in that deception, so their score might be low (i.e., they get that she will be disappointed if it is a ONS or short fling and they don’t want to hurt her or be a source of disappointment). But if a man (such as a 1970s rock store or an NBA basketball star in the 1980s or 1990s) has genuinely unfettered access to uncommitted and CONSEQUENCE FREE sex from women who KNOW that’s the deal but still value it greatly, then his attitudes toward casual sex will tend to change, IMO. He might not turn into Gene Simmons, but he’s not likely to totally pass on it (the way female rock stars tend to do).

    On the other hand, I don’t think you can remove section A or Section B, because Section C alone would be misleading for women. It’s one thing to have the fantasies and thoughts, but it’s another to be inclined to act on them.

    “No doubt some people of both sexes might answer differently if movie stars were on offer”

    Well, maybe both would, but it would impact women more. This was more a comment on how hypergamy in women would complicate the analysis. Low sociosexuality might really mean high levels of hypergamy. Men don’t tend to value sex with a hot celebrity any more than they do with the young hot intern in Marketing.

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

      @Passer By

      Men don’t tend to value sex with a hot celebrity any more than they do with the young hot intern in Marketing.

      Really? IDK, I’ve heard a lot of talk about various movie stars and models around here. If it weren’t for the guys here I wouldn’t even know who Kate Upton was.

      A guy with a movie star on his arm (or in his bed) would get a huge status bump among his peers, wouldn’t he?

  • Passer_By

    @Olive

    Oops, that should read “Well, then by defintion, they are NOT “bi” polar, they’re UNIpolar.”

  • Passer_By

    @iggles

    “Though, as always YMMV. And FWIW, I can count on one hand the number of guys I’ve ever kissed.”

    Well, then, hopefully you can do the same with the number of guys you’ve had sex with. ;)

  • Iggles

    Passer_By,

    :lol: It would be weird if that wasn’t the case!
    (My N is 2, both guys were boyfriends)

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

    Iggles,
    I’d be interested to know how many people HAVE had the night club-grinding-making out experience. Or just a same-day makeout experience. And if it does constitute promiscuous-ish behavior, how would that change the numbers for promiscuous vs. unpromiscuous?

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

      Re grinding and making out, you can draw the red line anywhere you want to, but personally I don’t consider those actions promiscuous because they’re the norm. (See Barnyard Animals Rutting Theory.) Promiscuity is only useful as a concept to describe one group relative to everyone else. If we call 75% of people promiscuous, we haven’t really understood very much about behavior in the SMP.

      It’s too broad a brush to paint with.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Who says it doesn’t change over time?

    Me, as a teen – 1.1 (1 to 5 composite scale), idealistic.
    In my 20s – 2.1
    Today, post red-pill – 3.3 or so.

    7 is a trick question. Any man who isn’t currently in a relationship by definition will score high there, if he has functioning hardware.

  • INTJ

    It would be weird if that wasn’t the case!

    That sounds like something a slut could do for the purposes of deceiving: “What’s your N?” “Dude, I haven’t even kissed a guy!”

  • INTJ

    Oh and I scored a 1.67 on the SOI. 1.00 on behavior (goes with the territory of being a virgin), 2.67 on attitude, and 1.33 on desire.

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

      @INTJ

      Oh and I scored a 1.67 on the SOI. 1.00 on behavior (goes with the territory of being a virgin), 2.67 on attitude, and 1.33 on desire.

      What was your method for scoring that? Do you know what percentile 1.67 is?

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    Any man who isn’t currently in a relationship by definition will score high there, if he has functioning hardware.

    Uh oh. Hold on a minute while I test my hardware.

    Seems to be working fine.

  • JP

    @TedD: “Men are only now becomming aware of the fact that they are the gatekeepers to committment, because by and large we were all convinced that it was our “duty” to marry and start families, and only recently are we realizing that we can’t be forced into it. Perhaps that seems silly from your persective, but I assure you that I was raised believing it was my lot in life, and that if I didn’t take that path I was a failure. But I think women have known for a LONG time that they hold all the keys to the sex castle, and to this day they seem to be intent on hiding that fact.”

    Also, you have the moralistic undercurrent that it is morally depraved to have sex outside of marriage (akin to treachery or murder) along with the obligation to have children, regardless of whether you had any real interest in the actual raising of the children.

    So, you have the obligation to marry and have children along with the restriction that you will only ever have sex with one person in your entire life.

    So, if you want to have sex, you have to get married to the person with whom you want to have sex regardless of whether you want to get married or not. It’s simply obligatory. No choice is involved or permitted.

  • INTJ

    Oh and I scored a 1.67 on the SOI. 1.00 on behavior (goes with the territory of being a virgin), 2.67 on attitude, and 1.33 on desire.

    To be clear, this was on a 9 point scale.

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

    @SW

    There is cultural, political, and peer pressure to do so.

    Politics probably has the least influence. But the prevalence and misuse of alcohol is a root cause, as well. I witnessed it firsthand. It was pretty sad, getting trashed and doing… whatever, just to fit in to the so-called culture on campus. The costs definitely outweigh the benefits, except for those who opt out completely.

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

      @Megaman

      I was struck by Question #6:

      I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that we will have a long-term, serious relationship.

      I’m certain that a significant number of women who have sex outside of relationships would agree with this statement. They perceive they do not have the luxury or time to make sure they know where the relationship is headed. For some (that 12% again), it works out. But the cultural and peer pressure, including binge drinking, do have a large effect.

  • Passer_By

    @INTJ

    “Hold on a minute while I test my hardware.”

    If that means what I think it means, well, TMI, dude.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    INTJ, you must have the willpower of a monk to score any lower than 4 on question 7.

    Oh, and “sex partner” is anyone you penetrate, or are penetrated by, or create an orgasm with, in my book.

  • JP

    I can count on my hand the number of women I’ve ever kissed.

    And with two of them I was just minding my own business when they started kissing me.

    My N = 1 for basically moral absolutism reasons.

  • Lokland

    @BroHam

    “Truth be told, I like the thrust of the SOI. In fact, a lot of our intuition incorporates looking for signs that point to how your significant other would answer some of these questions, even if you can’t directly ask them. ”

    I agree with this.

    SOI seems to be the questions we naturally ask ourselves about a potential partner anyway.

    I think using SOI would actually be more effective if it wasn’t filled out by the person themselves but by the person who wants to date them.

    Fill in what you know and give some reasonable hypotheticals. It’d probably tell you what you already intuitively know anyway.

  • Ion

    Iggles, INTJ, JP

    “I can count on one hand the number of guys I’ve ever kissed.”

    Count me in too. I’ve kissed 5 guys (and not sure where I fit on the spectrum because one was a stranger–a sexy stranger at a bar last month; can’t say I regret it).

    So my past first-base number is 4.

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

    @Esc.

    My actual life as it has been live has been restricted but part of my biology is raring to go for some unrestricted fun.

    Hmmm…

    For a Happily married, monogamous man, you sure don’t come across as a Happily married, monogamous man… :???:

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    INTJ, you must have the willpower of a monk to score any lower than 4 on question 7.

    Answered 2 (very seldom). And it has nothing to do with willpower – I just don’t get such fantasies.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    2.67 on attitude! You sexy thing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37FGwDMMZEg :D

  • Thrasymachus

    Susan:

    I don’t want to get into a duel of rival studies, but I’m afraid that you have done less than justice to the Schmitt international survey. That survey was composed overwhelmingly of college students. It included c. 2,500 college students in the U.S, as opposed to 266 at one college in the Pedersen study. It also reported median as well as mean results – I’m not sure what your objection is to the way in which the study treated median scores. Schmitt emphasizes that his results hold for all regions, including the U.S., and whether means, medians or other statistical measures are used as indicators. Moreover, Schmitt questions the use of medians in the Pedersen survey. (This is a complex technical issue, and not one that I have time to investigate).

    Nevertheless, Schmitt’s results seem to me to be fairly robust. They are supported by several other studies referenced in the three papers I listed. And that is far from an exhaustive list.

    I understand your frustration when posters reject research results solely on the grounds that these results are inconsistent with their own experiences. This is emphatically not the case here, since I have identified other, larger and better designed studies that contradict Pedersen’s.

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

      @Thrasymachus

      I understand your frustration when posters reject research results solely on the grounds that these results are inconsistent with their own experiences. This is emphatically not the case here, since I have identified other, larger and better designed studies that contradict Pedersen’s.

      I didn’t suspect that for a minute. I appreciate the challenge, since I am truly flying blind here. My own knowledge of statistics is too rusty to do justice to the analysis.

      Thank you for clarifying re the use of college students in the U.S. I had overlooked that detail in Table 1.

      Re median scores, I confess I do not understand the chi-squared value of 367.18 in Table 4, which is the only Median info. I could locate. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

      I have no allegiance to either survey – the facts are immaterial to this particular post. In fact, readers here know that I view Buss as the godfather of evo psych, and cite him so often at least one reader has complained. In any case, it seems reasonable that men desire sexual variety to a much greater degree than women do – the SST is something I’ve accepted without question in the past. For me, the fact that someone questioned it and did the research is interesting from an academic POV.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Really? IDK, I’ve heard a lot of talk about various movie stars and models around here. If it weren’t for the guys here I wouldn’t even know who Kate Upton was.”

    They’re just examples of hot women that other people recognize.

    “A guy with a movie star on his arm (or in his bed) would get a huge status bump among his peers, wouldn’t he?”

    Consider this: a man dating Kathy Bates, vs. Christina Hendricks’ long lost, totally unknown, dental hygienist twin sister. The answer should be obvious…

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

      Consider this: a man dating Kathy Bates, vs. Christina Hendricks’ long lost, totally unknown, dental hygienist twin sister. The answer should be obvious…

      But how about taking Megan Fox out on the town, vs. the Homecoming Queen from your high school?

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

    @IntJ

    It doesn’t tell us what sexual strategies are evolutionarily advantageous or indeed what actually happens (look at what people do, not what they say).

    Let’s see, “evolutionarily advantageous”, I think that’s got something to do with having kids, putting down roots, passing on your genes, etc. Perhaps you could explain this correlation, then?

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/10/fewer-sexual-partners-means-more-babies.html

    Courtesy of the General Social Survey, NORC, University of Chicago. If this isn’t proof of what people actually do, I don’t know what is.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    There no specified way to score these. I took a rough mean of the 1-5 scale, to arrive at 3.3. I’m guessing the others did the same.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    INTJ: “Answered 2 (very seldom). And it has nothing to do with willpower – I just don’t get such fantasies.”

    Does not compute. I am just a simple caveman.

    Do you lie back and think of England or something? Or go all new-age Plain Jane tantra spacey mediationy blank mind astral plane ommmmmmmmmm….

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

    @SW
    No doubt you’re probably right. But my recollection of the 12% figure was that it was an estimate of what % of “hookups” actually turned into monogamous relationships. That doesn’t necessarily mean they all lasted long-term, which I’m guessing is 5% of the time (or less). Again, I’ve only been able to find bits and pieces of data that suggest a much higher % of college students are in relationships (long-distance or otherwise), but it’s highly improbable that all or most are the result of “hooking up”. Particularly if “hooking up” can be as little as making out in the common area in the dorms, which is absolutely ridiculous (to call it that).

    As for men and their desire for sex before the relationship begins, I’ll again quote the results from a 2002 Gallup survey:

    74% of single men agreed that if you meet someone with whom you think you could have a long-term relationship, you will try to postpone sex until you know each other.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    What was your method for scoring that? Do you know what percentile 1.67 is?

    http://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/SOI-R%20Manual.pdf

    According to it, “they can then be aggregated (i.e., summed or averaged)”. I averaged them so that the subscores would have the same scale as the overall SOI score.

    Can’t tell what the percentile for me would be. German males aged 21-25 have an average of 4.89 with SD 1.45. If that were a Normal distribution (which it probably isn’t) then that would put me in the bottom 1-2% relative to young German males. But there’s very little religion in Europe, so it wouldn’t compare with Americans, where many Christians would score much lower on the SOI-R attitude than I would.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Let’s see, “evolutionarily advantageous”, I think that’s got something to do with having kids, putting down roots, passing on your genes, etc. Perhaps you could explain this correlation, then?

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/10/fewer-sexual-partners-means-more-babies.html

    Courtesy of the General Social Survey, NORC, University of Chicago. If this isn’t proof of what people actually do, I don’t know what is.

    I’ve said before that contraception has made thousands of years of evolved sexuality obsolete. It’s good to see that several generations down the road, the unrestricted people will have bred themselves out of the gene pool.

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    Does not compute. I am just a simple caveman.

    Do you lie back and think of England or something? Or go all new-age Plain Jane tantra spacey mediationy blank mind astral plane ommmmmmmmmm….

    Lol. I’m Indian, but that new-age stuff is as foreign to me as it is to you.

    I tend to daydream about math, science, or philosophy. And when I do fantasize, it’s about being in love and in a relationship – not the sex itself.

    There was this one incident though, that I would be curious to wonder what Freud would say about my SOI: I once dreamt that I was married to a wife and then moved to the next scene in my dream where I was kissing this woman who was my mistress. As far as I could tell, I loved them both. Then I woke up and was going “WTF”.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    1. National sampling typically excludes female sex workers. Adding in visits to prostitutes evens the score.

    But they still don’t poll non-locals and dead people. In reality, we’ll only be lucky if the male-female score evens out because there are going to be “leakages” i.e. people in the sample having sex with someone outside the population from which the sample was obtained, even if you include prostitutes in the population.

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

      But they still don’t poll non-locals and dead people.

      Are you saying we need more vacationers and necrophiliacs in studies? :)

      The research on prostitutes was done country-wide, not with a sample. It was a closed population where the mean # of partners must be identical for the sexes.

  • Iggles

    @ INTJ:

    It’s good to see that several generations down the road, the unrestricted people will have bred themselves out of the gene pool.

    I don’t know about this. Plenty of unrestricted folks are having OOW children.

    I think we’re far more likely to see Idiocracy come to fruition, since many of the high IQ, conscientious, and sensible folks are taking themselves out the gene pool by embracing voluntary childlessness (aka the Child-free movement)..

  • INTJ

    @ Iggles

    I don’t know about this. Plenty of unrestricted folks are having OOW children.

    Irresponsible folks, yes. Unrestricted? I’m not so sure. I think a lot of the OOW children occur due to irresponsible attempts at LTRs, rather than STRs/ONSs. As Anacaona would say though, YMMV.

    I think we’re far more likely to see Idiocracy come to fruition, since many of the high IQ, conscientious, and sensible folks are taking themselves out the gene pool by embracing voluntary childlessness (aka the Child-free movement)..

    This is where I really hit a conundrum about the meaning of “intelligent”. I mean, what’s more idiotic than voluntarily removing yourself from the gene pool, when ostensibly there is nothing wrong with your genes?

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

    @SW

    Re: median scores, I confess I do not understand the chi-squared value of 367.18 in Table 4, which is the only Median info. I could locate. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

    Amateur here with the same request: Not sure what Table 4 is saying WRT medians. But Figure 1 is clearly showing mean differences. The Schmitt study is quite large, though, but I noticed something on Page 4, Table 1 (sample size, type, distribution) that’s very important to keep in mind when evaluating surveys. The Note at the bottom of the table says:

    Most samples primarily comprised college students; some included general members of the community. All samples were convenience samples.

    This is an example of nonprobability (nonrandom) sampling, which cannot be used to infer to the general population:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprobability_sampling

    I can’t tell if the Pedersen study was conducted randomly either, but at least it replicated the Buss study and controlled for means and medians. I remember being taught that sufficiently large and random sampling was always the best way to go.

  • szopen

    @INTJ

    “when I do fantasize, it’s about being in love and in a relationship – not the sex itself.”

    Almost same here. When I fantasize abotu sex, even my most violent fantasies abotu which I do not intend tell even my own wife, always involve the girl falling in love and wanting to be with me forever :)

    As for the rest, I think Susan is arguing for Pareto Principle:

    1. 20% of males is getting 80% of AVAILABLE sex
    2. 80% of available sex is provided by 20% of females

    @Rollo Tomasi

    “Observed behavior is the only truly reliable measure of intent and motivation.”

    Definetely true, and at least in my country observable behavior is that vast majority of females get into marriage, majority does not divorce, does not cheat and have low number of sexual partners. For USA I think the data is less rosy, but still I saw that observed behavior is that at least half of woman does not cheat on marriage.

  • pvw

    @BB and Susan:

    BB: the confused, tragically-romantic fate of the mixed-STR/LTR strategy player who combines high sex-drive and dominance with high emotional neediness, desire for affirmation, etc. It’s been a real issue for me—I tend to look at an LTR as a kind of series of STRs with the same person, which is quite exhausting come to think of it.

    Susan: That makes a lot of sense – I know one young man (24) who fits this description – he’s the one with an N of 100 who has been pining for the same girl since junior high. It has always struck me as so incongruous, but perhaps this is precisely the explanation.

    Me: An interesting take on the possibilities which might be found in a high t/high e mix in men. So is it a matter that a balance of alpha and beta traits are useful, but such examples expose the possibilities of what might happen at the opposite poles, where one person shares significant traits of each, almost like having two different identities to grapple with?

    This then got me thinking about high t women who don’t meet the stereotype of what high t women should be like, ie., promiscuous, but instead they might mirror some of the more palatable traits of male behavior, at the same time they indicate some of the traditional female ones: logical thinkers, competence in the world of work, but nonpromiscuous; they are also very feminine in appearance and outlook, ie., high mmv. Might they have more e than the stereotypical high t women?

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

      @pvw

      This then got me thinking about high t women who don’t meet the stereotype of what high t women should be like, ie., promiscuous, but instead they might mirror some of the more palatable traits of male behavior, at the same time they indicate some of the traditional female ones: logical thinkers, competence in the world of work, but nonpromiscuous; they are also very feminine in appearance and outlook, ie., high mmv. Might they have more e than the stereotypical high t women?

      That’s a very interesting question I have no idea! I couldn’t find any info. re that combination, but I did find this:

      While women have about one tenth the amount of testosterone found in men, this hormone plays a vital role in a woman’s “ability to be aroused… and in her appetite for being sexual,” according to Dr. Rosemary Basson, with the Center for Sexuality, Gender Identity and Reproductive Health in British Columbia. Dr. Basson points out that testosterone plays significant roles in women. These include promoting bone growth, increasing bone density, stimulating the production of red blood cells, promoting muscular development, plus improving moods and sex drive. Testosterone may also lower total cholesterol and LDL and decrease insulin resistance.

      A woman with high testosterone is the owner of a lean body with a flat strong abdomen and high energy. She can be sexually aggressive and especially attractive but is not at all masculine. Testosterone (T) nurtures sexual desire and heightens a woman’s sensitivity to sexual stimulation. The result is a deeper sense of physical gratification during sexual intercourse.

      http://www.wellnessmd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=106

      This would seem to support the theory that many promiscuous women are high T – perhaps because they are daughters of promiscuous men?

  • Ion

    INTJ

    “Irresponsible folks, yes. Unrestricted? I’m not so sure. I think a lot of the OOW children occur due to irresponsible attempts at LTRs, rather than STRs/ONSs. ”

    I agree, no woman is going to volunteer herself to be a lonely baby machine, but she makes some irresponsible and bad choices. A lot of these relationships were LTRs (or the woman gaslighted herself into thinking they were in LTRs). Unrestricted women are often leading the way in marriage.

  • Ion

    Sorry, I agree with this too

    “This is where I really hit a conundrum about the meaning of “intelligent”. I mean, what’s more idiotic than voluntarily removing yourself from the gene pool, when ostensibly there is nothing wrong with your genes?”

    Not to mention that if we’re using restricted/unrestricted to determine who’s intelligent and fit for reproduction, then most of Europe and America really shouldn’t be reproducing anyway.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “This is where I really hit a conundrum about the meaning of “intelligent”. I mean, what’s more idiotic than voluntarily removing yourself from the gene pool, when ostensibly there is nothing wrong with your genes?”

    Nothing.
    We’re seeing a reshuffling of evolutionary mechanisms.
    The pill made the old rive of, lets fuck, obsolete in terms of making babies.

    Eventually, it will be people will want children with sex being secondary.

    I disagree with you though.
    It will take a very long time or won’t happen at all.

    Migration is still occurring, which means the old drives will constantly be replicated.
    As well, the settle down after the fun is a common enough event that most unrestricted people will keep going for a few generations, eventually one of their descendants will fuck it up and thats that.

    However, in terms of an evolutionary event. The pill is acting as a new natural selective force against those who don’t want families which tend to be STM individuals.

  • Barkley

    Ted, you are wrong. Your generation of men might work and strive in order to get sex, but that’s because men your age are conditioned to seek your value as a man by having sex with women(female approval). My generation of men(18 years old and below) don’t really care about it. Unless its for free, most of the guys who aren’t alpha will pull out some porn flick and get it over with. Even the most attractive girls, I’m staring one down, right now, and she’s giving back the stare, but I’d rather go home to masturbate with her as my fantasy, than approaching her and all that yayada. My T levels are normal, and I’m not “bitter”. It’s just that sex is overrated, too expensive, and even the tall German 9 natural blonde that digs my bad boy look is just too much work, ya know?

  • JP

    @Iggles:

    “I think we’re far more likely to see Idiocracy come to fruition, since many of the high IQ, conscientious, and sensible folks are taking themselves out the gene pool by embracing voluntary childlessness (aka the Child-free movement)..”

    You’re engaging in linear thinking.

    Life is chaotic, in the sense of chaos mathematics.

    Also, human civlization is punctuated by catastrophes (as in the mathematical theories):

    “Small changes in certain parameters of a nonlinear system can cause equilibria to appear or disappear, or to change from attracting to repelling and vice versa, leading to large and sudden changes of the behaviour of the system. However, examined in a larger parameter space, catastrophe theory reveals that such bifurcation points tend to occur as part of well-defined qualitative geometrical structures.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory

  • JP

    Another problem that isn’t being addressed here is the fact that lots of men marry women who they wouldn’t even be friends with if they weren’t married.

    Which means that they try to avoid their wives because the interactions are generally unpleasant.

    Have fun with this one Susan!:

    “Today, many husbands delight in the times they can escape from their wives. You see it in their sparkling eyes and improved posture as they prepare for their Wednesday night softball game. You hear it in their conversations safely out of the earshot of other women. You see it confirmed on television, in male-oriented situation comedies like “Two and a Half Men”, “Seinfeld” and “Everyone Loves Raymond”, and in beer and hot wings commercials that feature men escaping their wives’ clutches to spend some stolen moments of joy with their drinking buddies in the Land of Party. In the private places men gather, the athletic club locker rooms, the all-male tables at the Lions and Rotary clubs, the office lounges and the local taverns, you hear a familiar refrain. The banter and jokes reveal a deep-seated resentment of their wives, perhaps even a dislike of them personally, no matter how well they perform their spousal role.

    It is easy to understand how such festering resentment poisons relationships. But it is ironic that these same males once publicly professed before hundreds of witnesses their undying love to the women they can now barely tolerate as human beings. Sadly, these women have reached a low point in the modern form of heterosexual love.. Many wives will eventually realize that their husbands not only do not like them as a person, but they also make no effort to hide their contempt. Other women will suffer from husbands who hide their true feelings of resentment through slavish obedience to the letter of their wedding commitment. But in either case their hearts are no longer in the marriage.

    It is easy to understand how such festering resentment poisons relationships. But it is ironic that these same males once publicly professed before hundreds of witnesses their undying love to the women they can now barely tolerate as human beings. Sadly, these women have reached a low point in the modern form of heterosexual love.. Many wives will eventually realize that their husbands not only do not like them as a person, but they also make no effort to hide their contempt. Other women will suffer from husbands who hide their true feelings of resentment through slavish obedience to the letter of their wedding commitment. But in either case their hearts are no longer in the marriage.

    To understand why men want to escape, you need to understand where the resentment comes from. Twitterpated men are committing themselves to women they don’t even know. Once the passion cools, many men discover they are stuck with a person they don’t even like much less love. They then have to make their peace with the mistake they have made and their unsuspecting partner suffers the consequences. The good news is there is a better way to date and mate. We are not all predestined to becoming porcupines.”

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/repairing-relationships/201210/why-do-men-want-escape-their-wives

  • JP

    @Barkley:

    “My generation of men(18 years old and below) don’t really care about it. Unless its for free, most of the guys who aren’t alpha will pull out some porn flick and get it over with.”

    Uh, yeah.

    One of the lessons in life is that you really should be avoiding porn.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Are you saying we need more vacationers and necrophiliacs in studies?

    The research on prostitutes was done country-wide, not with a sample. It was a closed population where the mean # of partners must be identical for the sexes.

    No what I mean is that if an old woman has sex with even older man, and the man dies, then the mean N for women (after adjusting for gender ratio) will be higher than that for men. Because we no longer count the dead man’s N. Similarly, if people have sex with foreigners, than the population really isn’t a closed population.

    The only way you could properly get the means to be the same would be to ask “How many people (who’re alive, live in this country, and would be willing to answer this survey) have you had sex with?” Of course, the person would not have enough knowledge to answer that question correctly.

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

      No what I mean is that if an old woman has sex with even older man, and the man dies, then the mean N for women (after adjusting for gender ratio) will be higher than that for men. Because we no longer count the dead man’s N.

      Are you serious right now? You crack me up. Let’s halt all research in this country! It’s perfection or nothing! We’re not capturing one-night stands in the over 80 crowd!

      If the man is older, he got an earlier start, right? Of course, women live longer than men.

      I think Rollo’s suggestion of only conducting studies with SMV scores for each subject is also hilarious. I wonder who gets to judge, and what may be the motive of a judge with a low SMV? Oh dear, better not to ask too many questions. All we need to know is right here in the ‘sphere!

  • INTJ

    @ Barkley

    Ted, you are wrong. Your generation of men might work and strive in order to get sex, but that’s because men your age are conditioned to seek your value as a man by having sex with women(female approval). My generation of men(18 years old and below) don’t really care about it. Unless its for free, most of the guys who aren’t alpha will pull out some porn flick and get it over with. Even the most attractive girls, I’m staring one down, right now, and she’s giving back the stare, but I’d rather go home to masturbate with her as my fantasy, than approaching her and all that yayada. My T levels are normal, and I’m not “bitter”. It’s just that sex is overrated, too expensive, and even the tall German 9 natural blonde that digs my bad boy look is just too much work, ya know?

    This reads like the textbook herbivore male.

  • Iggles

    @ JP:

    One of the lessons in life is that you really should be avoiding porn.

    +1

    However, Michael/Piper Barkley has a deep seated hatred of women, so he always praised porn in his comments..

  • Ion

    @ Lokland

    “The pill is acting as a new natural selective force against those who don’t want families which tend to be STM individuals.”

    I agree. Doesn’t the pill also trick women’s hormones into thinking the body is pregnant? I wonder if it also lessens their reproductive drive overtime, encouraging one to continue taking them.

    JP

    “Another problem that isn’t being addressed here is the fact that lots of men marry women who they wouldn’t even be friends with if they weren’t married.”

    Heh. For some reason, this made me think of the neighborhood I work, and who I see at development parties for the wealthiest donors in NYC. Now, the neighborhood has a lot of people from the 1% , yet there’s lots of “help” needed for one to conceive (35 year old wives with husbands with 25 yr old mistresses basically). Sure, they in-breed for wealth, but the notion that these people are somehow evolution’s strongest bunch doesn’t make sense.

    I think that people who don’t know what the wealthy look like should travel to Manhattan’s upper west side and midtown. They are just as average looking and miserable as everyone else.

  • Ted D

    Barkley – maybe I did a bad job of explaining my point, but you actually just proved it for me. When I say men are waking up and realizing they are the gatekeepers of commitment, what you describe is EXACTLY what I expect. Some guys will work harder for marriage, but many will simply give up on the concept completely. Now how that pans out in “real life” will vary a great deal from man to man, but my point is that men will NO LONGER be pushed into marriage and families based on exactly what I described: indoctrination to the purpose of being a ‘man’ by older generations. Marriage is no longer the “norm”, and women will find it a hard pill to swallow when they finally decide it’s time to settle down. Unfortunately, I’m not so sure that the men in their age group won’t just take it on the chin and marry anyway. Because after all, IF a man wants children, the best way to raise them is in a two parent household. If men can by and large convince women to co-habitate, then all is well. But I suspect most women will not be so keen on providing children to a man that won’t marry her, and thus the cycle of dysfunction will continue.

    You are right that what I described was indeed what men of MY generation were programmed with. I’ve said elsewhere that I will NOT do so to my boys. IF they want to marry, so be it. But I’ll do my best to make sure they do it on their terms and get the best “deal” they can from it. I’m not sold on the idea that it would be a smart move regardless, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get there…

  • Escoffier

    “Observed behavior is the only truly reliable measure of intent and motivation.”

    Completely agree. So why is that we can’t observe the behavior of happily married, faithful women who are good wives and mothers and draw conclusions about intent and motivation based on that?

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

      So why is that we can’t observe the behavior of happily married, faithful women who are good wives and mothers and draw conclusions about intent and motivation based on that?

      A glimpse of the old Escoffier.

      /wistful feelings

  • Escoffier

    Mega, biology simply is what it is. If you’re in the minority whose biological impulses align with virtuous behavior, good for you.

    Actually, I know what it’s like, just on a different issue. I am quite fond of fancy food and wine but I am thin and I never get drunk. The reason is not so much that I have to discipline myself, it’s that after a certain point–well short of gluttony or drunkeness–eating and drinking ceases to be pleasurable and actually starts to feel lousy. So I am not even tempted to overindulge. I don’t neet to restrain myself at all.

    Lucky me. Not everyone is like that.

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

      If you’re in the minority whose biological impulses align with virtuous behavior, good for you.

      The SOI is not concerned with virtue.

      I really would love to see the distribution curve for SOI scores. The top quintile in the SS study represented very risky behavior:

      78% of men had sex with someone the day they met and 50% had sex with two people w/in 24 hours.
      59% of women had sex with someone the day they met and 29% had sex with two people w/in 24 hours.

      In the bottom 20%:

      12% of men had sex with someone the day they met and 2% had sex with two people w/in 24 hours.
      6% of men had sex with someone the day they met and 1% had sex with two people w/in 24 hours.

      That’s some incongruence right there.

      It would be interested to have the numbers for the 2nd – 4th quintiles.

  • INTJ

    @ Escoffier

    Actually, I know what it’s like, just on a different issue. I am quite fond of fancy food and wine but I am thin and I never get drunk. The reason is not so much that I have to discipline myself, it’s that after a certain point–well short of gluttony or drunkeness–eating and drinking ceases to be pleasurable and actually starts to feel lousy. So I am not even tempted to overindulge. I don’t neet to restrain myself at all.

    Lucky me. Not everyone is like that.

    Lucky you. You’ve found the happy medium. Personally, I have trouble getting myself to eat in the first place.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, I seem to recall several studies–some even posted by you–that show that women DO tend to “lie” their numbers down whereas men tend to lie them up.

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

      Susan, I seem to recall several studies–some even posted by you–that show that women DO tend to “lie” their numbers down whereas men tend to lie them up.

      Yeah, I should have been clearer there. The fudging of numbers in general is not a canard, just the idea that women do it more than men, rendering results invalid. The Definitive Survey post includes everything I’ve ever found or linked on the subject, and I included that in my response to Rollo.

      However, even the infamous lie detector test did not rise to statistical significance. I believe the errors are insignificant today in studies where anonymity is guaranteed, and slut shaming is no longer practiced.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – don’t forget that for “intelligent” people income plays a vital role. I just remarried, and my wife being in her early 30’s is surely capable of having more children. But, she has two and so do I, and we simply cannot afford to have another. I will tell you that secretly I very MUCH “feel” the desire to have a child with her, but I refuse to start over with diapers and formula at 42 years old, when our younges is turning 12. In just a few years, we’ll be free of our obligations to them and can spend our money however we wish (read vacations and “fun”) and I’m not willing to sacrifice that future for another child. Is this a selfish outlook? You bet your ass. But I didn’t have money when I was young and wanted to “have fun”, so I’m very much looking forward to enjoying what life I have left while I still can.

    Give “intelligent” people a break. Some of us that came from poor families simply will NOT bring children into the world if we cannot do so while maintaining our current lifestyle. I have my two children, and my son will carry on my name and lineage. I’ve done my duty to my family and my legacy, and I want whats left of my life to be mine.

  • Ion

    “However, Michael/Piper Barkley has a deep seated hatred of women, so he always praised p*rn in his comments..”

    Lol….good call Iggles….

  • Iggles

    Ted D,

    I don’t think any of us are talking about folks like you. You already have two bio children, therefore have already reproduced.

    I think we’re talking about DINKs – according to the census that’s Dual Income No Kids couples, whether married or cohabitating. Those folks are much better suited to raise kids than teen parents – due to having more resources and being more mature – but many take themselves out of the gene pool by deciding not to have kids.

  • Abbot

    ¨women DO tend to “lie” their numbers down whereas men tend to lie them up¨

    It seems that women do that to adjust to the natural universal male view of promiscuous women and men do that only to appear cool to their buddies. That is a huge impact difference

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

      It seems that women do that to adjust to the natural universal male view of promiscuous women and men do that only to appear cool to their buddies. That is a huge impact difference

      That doesn’t make sense. Women lie down to avoid slut shaming, which confirms the natural male view if anything. Only if women trumpeted large numbers would any adjustment take place. Actually, it already has, as evidenced here by some men.

  • Ted D

    Iggles – I know. But the same applies to them. Kids cost a lot of money, and many smart people realize that their quality of life will suffer if they have them. Boost the economy and you’ll see more smart people having children.

  • Ted D

    Doh I cut a line out…

    My point about bringing my situation up is that on some level I would truly love to have another child. It just doesn’t .make financial sense.

  • Iggles

    Ha! Thanks Ion!

    His comments stick out like a sore thumb, every since he flippped out on me in a malicious rant that Susan later deleted. His talking points are so tired.. :roll:

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “My point about bringing my situation up is that on some level I would truly love to have another child. It just doesn’t .make financial sense.”

    Your actually not who I’m talking about. You have kids, do whatever the hell you want.

    It doesn’t matter if its financial problems, the pill with no desire for kids, infertility etc.
    The result is the same. No kid(s)= no passing on genes.

    Example, kid gets hit by car, never has kids. Sucks, its unfair but in the end their just as much of a failure as the guy who couldn’t get laid.

    I realize theres a total separation between being a failure and choosing to fail. In living life the differences between the two are immense. After death however it really stops mattering how awesome any individual was in life.

  • VD

    So why is that we can’t observe the behavior of happily married, faithful women who are good wives and mothers and draw conclusions about intent and motivation based on that?

    Because that would bring religion, morality, and – shudder – judgment back into the discussion. And we can’t have that.

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

      Because that would bring religion, morality, and – shudder – judgment back into the discussion. And we can’t have that.

      I don’t understand this comment, VD.

      If we can offer up innumerable examples of bad women behaving badly in the sphere as evidence of how bad women are, why can’t we do the opposite as well? It’s not as if judgment or morality has been withheld at any point, that’s Dalrock’s stock in trade.

  • VD

    I would truly love to have another child. It just doesn’t make financial sense.

    Just do it, man. Even the poorest parents have been finding a way to afford children since time began.

  • Lokland

    @Iggles
    Doesn’t the pill also trick women’s hormones into thinking the body is pregnant?

    Yes. Its one of the reasons women are supposed to stop taking the pill over their period, lets them know it happened. They can keep taking it and skip the period but that runs the risk of not catching an actual pregnancy.

    I wonder if it also lessens their reproductive drive overtime, encouraging one to continue taking them.

    Theres a handful of studies that show the pill lowers fertility overall ie. more problems conceiving. However to call the degree of this problem significant is ridiculous. Most women on the pill still manage to have kids when off it.

    What would be interesting would be to examine number of miscarriages (or length of time it took to conceieve) vs. time on pill. Groups of no pill ever, pill for X months, pill for A,B,C years etc.

    I’m not much of a fact checker. I’ll look into this later today and report back.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “Your actually not who I’m talking about. You have kids, do whatever the hell you want. ”

    I realize this. But the financaial situation for me is NO DIFFERENT than it is for any other couple. For many, it comes down to level of comfortable living verses cost of having children. And for many, the cost is just too high.

  • Escoffier

    I don’t think you got my point, Vox.

    Typically (not always, to be sure), those who repeat the “watch what they do not what they say” line only mean it as a way of showing that women are venal. Some of them might talk a good game but what they do is always bad and we should draw all our conclusions based on that.

    OK, what about the ones who actually act well?

  • Ted D

    VD – “Just do it, man. Even the poorest parents have been finding a way to afford children since time began.”

    *sigh*

    Some days I’m really on the fence about this. The truth is, if I have a child next year, I’ll be 63 years old when that child hits 20. (IF I make it that long…) I had friends with much older parents, and although it certainly didn’t seem to hurt their home life, I can’t help but think they missed out on some things a kid with younger parents could provide. (mostly stuff like actually going out and playing with them and whatnot)

    I’ll say this: I’m in better shape right now than I was when my son was 5. If that trend continues (and it will or I’ll die trying) one of my last “hold outs” regarding having another child will be gone. At this point, I’m really weighing the desire to have one against my desire to retire early and enjoy seeing the world in a way I couldn’t as a young man. For this reason I tend to agree with people that say a young person should “see the world” BEFORE they settle down. I don’t have any real regrets, but I find myself wanting to go out and do all that stuff now more than ever, and with our children finally getting older, I might be able to make that a reality. My wife was gung ho for having another child early on, but my pointing out how much we would have to cut back on our “fun” plans got her on the fence with me.

    As it stands I’m leaving it slightly up to fate. She can’t use any kind of hormonal BC (and I’m not sure I’d want her to based on what I’ve learned in the ‘sphere!) and I TRULY hate wearing party hats. So, I track her ovulation and only wrap up when we are in the hot zone. There is always a chance that she might get pregnant anyway, and I suppose that means on some level I’ve already accepted the possibility of another child. I won’t say the decision is made and over, but at this point I’m not purposely trying.

    However it has occurred to me that we have plenty of built in babysitters. And, the youngest is a female. It may be sexist of me, but I’d feel much better leaving young child with a teen female than a male. Our boys aren’t too irresposible, but I don’t know that they’d be trustworthy to provide for any life more complicated than a hamster. :P

  • Iggles

    Ted, I disagree. Your situation is not analogous with most DINKs. They don’t want kids because they want to be child-free. It’s not that they would love to have a child but can’t afford one.

    The biological imperative of a couple in love is strong. They want to reproduce with their spouse, especially after committing to one another for life. Most DINKs aren’t merely scrapping by. Sure they might not be able to afford the high rise condos and world class trips they regularly take if they had a kid. They simply don’t want kids, and that’s their right.

    Couples who really want children have them. Finances do not stop them. It may limit them to have less, but they still reproduce.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “But the financaial situation for me is NO DIFFERENT than it is for any other couple.”

    I get that.
    In the end, the result is NO DIFFERENT.
    Reasons are irrelevant to biology.

    I would go into a discussion that our current political/economic/social environment is making reproduction MORE difficult which is exactly what a society should NOT be doing, for the good of both the society and individual.

    @Iggles

    Didn’t take long and I found exactly what I mentioned earlier.

    Is previous use of hormonal contraception associated with a detrimental effect on subsequent fecundity?

    BACKGROUND: The effects of contraception on subsequent fecundity are yet to be substantiated. METHODS: A total of 2841 consecutive pregnant women in Hull and Sheffield completed questionnaires inquiring about time to pregnancy (TTP), contraceptive use, pregnancy planning, previous pregnancies, age and lifestyle characteristics of each partner. Outcome measures were mean TTP, conception probability and odds of subfecundity after discontinuing each contraceptive method. RESULTS: TTP following long-term combined oral contraceptive (COC), short-term intrauterine device (IUD) or any duration of injectable use were 2.0-, 1.6-, 3.0-fold longer than TTP after condom use, respectively. Within 6 months of discontinuing COC or injectable use, conception probabilities were 0.86 and 0.34, respectively, whereas those relevant to other methods were not significantly different. All levonorgestrel intrauterine system JUS) users conceived within 1 month. Relative to condoms, odds of subfecundity after COC, injectable and short-term IUD use were 1.9, 5.5, 2.9, respectively. The effect of COC and injectables was stronger with long-term use, in older, obese or oligomenorrhoeic women. Similar results were obtained after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in fecundity occurs after COC, IUD or injectables, which is dependent on the duration of use. The effect of COC and injectables is evident in women with a potentially compromised ovarian function. Use of progesterone-only pills or IUS is not associated with a significant effect.

    Author(s): Hassan, MAM (Hassan, MAM); Killick, SR (Killick, SR)
    Source: HUMAN REPRODUCTION Volume: 19 Issue: 2 Pages: 344-351 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh058 Published: FEB 2004

    I’ll let someone else who cares check out the validity I just cruised down to the results.

  • JP

    I don’t think we know what the actually carrying capacity of the planet is.

    I don’t think we know how much energy is actually sustainable/renewable.

  • Ted D

    Iggles – “Ted, I disagree. Your situation is not analogous with most DINKs. They don’t want kids because they want to be child-free. It’s not that they would love to have a child but can’t afford one.”

    Well lets chalk this one up to SES or perhaps geography then. I know of several DINK couples that have expressed the desire to have kids, but not the willingness to give up the “extra” income it would take to do so. Now we can debate if they NEED to have two leased cars, a 250,000 home, and take several vacations a year. But, if THEY think they need it, who are we to say otherwise?

    “Couples who really want children have them. Finances do not stop them. It may limit them to have less, but they still reproduce.”

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. I know of two couples a bit younger than myself that express the desire to have children, but not at the expense of losing thier current level of comfort in life. Perhaps their “drive” to reproduce just isn’t that strong? And I’ll add again that *I* would not have a child unless I was damn sure I could afford it. And *I* am the one that would decide what I could or could not afford. If we can say that there is nothing wrong with a man never marrying because of the possible legal outcomes and loss of family, how can we judge couples that don’t have children based on similar concerns?

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

    Iggles….”Couples who really want children have them. Finances do not stop them. It may limit them to have less, but they still reproduce.”

    I think this is basically true…most couples without kids over recent history didn’t have them because they didn’t want them…but over the last several years, the economy has been so bad, and people are so worried about the future, that financial factors are coming into play even for many couples who really want kids. A woman who posts frequently at Ricochet has described her own situation in this way.

  • Ted d

    Lokland – “I would go into a discussion that our current political/economic/social environment is making reproduction MORE difficult which is exactly what a society should NOT be doing, for the good of both the society and individual.”

    yep. This is exatly my line of thinking as well, but I didn’t want to start a political debate. I think you are right on the money with this line of thinking. And, to make matters worse? I believe that our current climate DOES often promote OOW by provided through the “welfare state”. So, we are discouraging those that SHOULD be having children, and enabling those that shouldn’t.

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

    Note also that the collapse of the public schools in so many areas has made the prospect of having kids MUCH more expensive. If your local public schools really such, your choices are:

    1)Send the kids there anyway, at the cost of little learning, socialization of the wrong kinds, and possibly actual physical danger
    2)Pay for private school, which ain’t cheap
    3)Move to an (almost certainly more expensive) area with better public schools
    4)Home schooling, which is very difficult if both parents work or their own educational levels are limited

  • Ion

    Lokland:

    “@Iggles”

    :-D hehe

    “What would be interesting would be to examine number of miscarriages (or length of time it took to conceieve) vs. time on pill. Groups of no pill ever, pill for X months, pill for A,B,C years etc. I’m not much of a fact checker. I’ll look into this later today and report back.”

    That would be interesting, and you’re just the person to interpret the results. Hopefully you can trek through pharma to find something…current google hits = birth control is great for the skin.

  • JP

    By not having kids you are making your financial situation worse, not better.

    Counterintuitive, I know.

    But true.

  • Ted D

    JP – care to elaborate? I’m genuinely interested on your take on this.

  • Escoffier

    Bad public schools (or really, bad students in most public school systems) is just another tax the UMC has resigned itself to paying. You either pay it through literally higher property taxes in a good school district (plus higher home values) or else through private school tuition. In some parts of NY and California it is actually cheaper to go private than it is to buy a home in (say) Scarsdale or Palo Alto. And often the private education is better anyway, more discipline and less susceptible to fads.

    The UMC does not think much about what happens in those formerly middle class school districts so long as compensation in their favored industries remains high enough to pay for their own kids’ education. But they DO love to obsess about how to raise achievement levels at the very bottom, ideally by spending other people’s money.

  • Iggles

    @ Ted D:

    Well lets chalk this one up to SES or perhaps geography then. I know of several DINK couples that have expressed the desire to have kids, but not the willingness to give up the “extra” income it would take to do so. Now we can debate if they NEED to have two leased cars, a 250,000 home, and take several vacations a year.  But, if THEY think they need it, who are we to say otherwise?

    They don’t NEED it. They WANT it.

    When budgeting, there is a difference between expenditures and necessities.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. I know of two couples a bit younger than myself that express the desire to have children, but not at the expense of losing thier current level of comfort in life.

    Seems like they’ve made their choice.

    Perhaps their “drive” to reproduce just isn’t that strong? And I’ll add again that *I* would not have a child unless I was damn sure I could afford it.

    Again Ted, it’s comparing apples to oranges! You already HAVE KIDS. The reason you cannot afford more is because you already are supporting 4 children.

    A couple blaming the economy for their decision to not have any kids is weak IMO. They need to stand up and take responsibility for their own choices. Delaying have kids, I would buy. Deciding to have less kids, I’d buy. Deciding not to bother with reproducing since it’s too “expensive” I don’t buy! It’s an excuse. If they want a child, they can save up and find a way!

    Lokland – FYI, it was Ion who talked about the pill.

    @ david foster:

    but over the last several years, the economy has been so bad, and people are so worried about the future, that financial factors are coming into play even for many couples who really want kids. A woman who posts frequently at Ricochet has described her own situation in this way.

    Yes, I acknowledge a bad economy affects family size, especially decisions to delay having kids. I don’t buy that makes people decide not to have any kids at all.

  • Sassy6519

    “I can count on one hand the number of guys I’ve ever kissed.”

    I can’t.

    I decided to make a list of all the men I have ever kissed. The number is 31.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, I also recall you recounting stories about girls you know saying things like “Well, that was a rebound hookup so it doesn’t count, and Francois was on my vacation, so really my number is only X.” Things of that nature.

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

      Susan, I also recall you recounting stories about girls you know saying things like “Well, that was a rebound hookup so it doesn’t count, and Francois was on my vacation, so really my number is only X.” Things of that nature.

      That’s actually all one story, lol. One of my focus group subjects rationalized her number from 36 to 6, because her bf was at 6, and she knew she was toast if she exceeded his number. She was super slutty (obvs), but she’s been with that guy for three years now. I believe they are planning to marry.

      In any case, that’s different than a study. My guess is that on an online survey she’d happily cop to 36. She certainly wasn’t shy about that information before he came along.

  • Escoffier

    I think that even if you count all the phonies who try to air kiss me at social events, I have not kissed 31 women in my entire life.

  • Ted D

    Iggles – you do realize that sounds very similar to all the “man up” crap we discuss here often, right?

  • Ted D

    I’ve kissed somewhere around a dozen. I may be forgetting one or two, so I’m making a ballpark here.

    I’ve “made out” with six. I’ve had sex with four. I’ve had children with one.

  • pvw

    @Susan, re. the study on high t, thanks–very interesting to read, as I think about the possibility of testosterone’s role in keeping Mr. PVW slim and trim….like feeding a teenager, he can eat out the house and not a pound of weight gained, He will just lose it by lifting a few weights. I have to figure out a way to steal his metabolism.

    Regarding high t/high e, str/ltr, it seems the best anyone can do is to be aware and work to change for the better in light of the awareness. It is what Mr. PVW did–he easily cleaned up in the STR strategy, but more often than not, it lead to problems down the line. He needed a better LTR strategy, which he eventually pursued with success.

  • Escoffier

    My comment about virtue was not about SOI, it was in response to mega’s assumption that I must be miserable because the little head, even at this advanced age, retains a mind of its own.

    If he really does not feel any biological impulse to screw around, I would call that unusual, but lucky. The same way that I think it’s unusual, but lucky, that someone who likes food and wine as much as I do does not have to restrain himself from overindulging.

    I don’t actually have to restrain myself from cheating, either, because–lucky me–women are not throwing themselves at me. But if they were, it might take a little effort on my part.

  • Iggles

    Ted D,

    Nope. I’m big on personal responsibility. It annoys me when people don’t acknowledge the choices they’ve made and the personal agency that they possess.

    Some things are beyond our control — death, a crappy economy, being laid off, illness, etc.

    But there are quite a bit that is under our control. Budgeting to have a child is one of those things. You may not be able to stretch the dollars to have more than one, but regardless of the economy DINKs who live in condos can cut back and afford ONE child if having a child is more important to them than living in luxury.

    Again, Ted I am NOT talking about divorced and remarried folks who ALREADY have kids of their own. Taking care of the children you have take precedent over bringing new babies into the world in which you have little money for.

    I’m talking about DINKs who have taken themselves out of the gene pool by deciding not to reproduce.

  • Ion

    JP

    “I don’t think we know what the actually carrying capacity of the planet is.”

    Ever hear the old wives tail that if we added all people on the planet, they could fit in Texas, and it would only be as dense as NYC?

    http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/

    People would likely have to quit overusing though (1 person in the U.S. consumes as much energy and resources daily as roughly 30 Kenyans).

  • Ramble

    If it weren’t for the guys here I wouldn’t even know who Kate Upton was.

    She is on a lot of magazine covers (including the SI Swimsuit cover), advertisements and is referenced quite a bit by the various “mags”.

    “You may not know this, but I am quite famous”.

  • Ramble

    I don’t consider those actions promiscuous because they’re the norm.

    Well, by that logic, then, Hooking Up should not be considered promiscuous either. I mean, in come places, Hooking Up is the “norm”.

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

      Well, by that logic, then, Hooking Up should not be considered promiscuous either. I mean, in come places, Hooking Up is the “norm”.

      P in V hooking up is not the “norm” anywhere in the bell curve sense. It may be the norm within subsets of the population.

  • Ramble

    @Iggles

    I think we’re far more likely to see Idiocracy come to fruition, since many of the high IQ, conscientious, and sensible folks are taking themselves out the gene pool by embracing voluntary childlessness

    Yes. However, it should be added that the non-Idiocrats are learning more and more about the efficiency of tall fences. One day, we too will have our own Paris with the accompanying banlieues.

  • JP

    @Ion:

    We’re talking about ecological carrying capacity, not physical carrying capacity.

    Energy is almost irrelevant to the issue because the issue is the sustainability of the biosphere.

  • JP

    @Ted D:

    Pensions depend upon the replacement of the population (and generally growth of the population).

    Also, children are, to a certain extent, the social safety net.

    DINKs ignore this at their (economic) peril.

    Demographics are one of my areas on interest, as are multi-generational trends.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    However, even the infamous lie detector test did not rise to statistical significance. I believe the errors are insignificant today in studies where anonymity is guaranteed, and slut shaming is no longer practiced.

    That says more about the sample size in the lie detector study than the insignificance of false reporting. The number of sexual partners varied from a high of 4.4 to a low of 2.6 for the exposure threat sample, so there could be a large difference due to false reporting that is masked by the small sample size. However, it should be pointed out that that study did have a statistically significant difference regarding self-reporting of porn and masturbation.

  • INTJ

    @ Ion

    Lol at the Houston graph. Houston is so freaking empty. I just don’t get why they don’t fill up the city instead of sprawling so much.

  • Ion

    JP

    “We’re talking about ecological carrying capacity, not physical carrying capacity.”

    For the record, you lost me at biosphere.

    But I still think that link is really cool.

  • Ramble

    2)Pay for private school, which ain’t cheap
    3)Move to an (almost certainly more expensive) area with better public schools

    Like I said, nice tall fences.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I was supporting your contention that means are rather meaningless, and medians/percentiles should be looked at instead…

  • Ion

    INTJ

    “Lol at the Houston graph. Houston is so freaking empty. I just don’t get why they don’t fill up the city instead of sprawling so much.”

    Yeah! You’d think Houston would’ve done better for itself, right?

    I forget sometimes that America is just MASSIVE. Because of all the thruways, highways, and an immense amount of space between destinations (I’m always reminded though when I leave NYC and go to my hometown, it’s literally 20 miles just to get to a convenience store). Meanwhile, Manhattan is only 2.5 miles wide.

  • Ramble

    I decided to make a list of all the men I have ever kissed. The number is 31.

    Sassy, I am curious, how exciting and satisfying do you find, and did you find, those 31 makeout seesions? I understand that not all makeouts are created equal, but, in general, how exciting was it?

    Or, to put it another way (assuming that you are unattached), how excited are you about your next makeout? You know, you meet some guy at the theater, you exchange looks, next thing you know you two are sharing drinks at some hip lounge with nice lighting and music that is not too loud and he starts to lean in…how excited will you get at that moment and how satisfied do you think you will be afterwards?

    (Any girl here who has made out with more than 10 guys is welcome to answer this question as well.)

  • Ted D

    Ramble – tall fences are fine for those that can afford them. What about those of us with children that have the capacity to “be more” but lack the funds to pay for that future? This is precisely why the DINK couples I know aren’t having kids.

  • Ramble

    It may be the norm within subsets of the population.

    That’s what I meant. A very large majority of attractive girls living in hip, densely populated cities will never be “promiscuous” because they are apart of the norm and are simply NOT going to compare themselves to those living in Des Moines and Grand Forks.

  • Ramble

    Ted @182, that was my whole point.

    Those wealthy people ARE the non-Idiocrats. They support feel-good policies and erect tall fences to insulate themselves from those policies effects.

  • Ted D

    Ramble – gotcha. This is why I tend to beat up our gracious host when it comes to the UMC. I’m no class hater, and I don’t begrudge anyone for being successful. But if there is any hope of creating more wealth and original ideas in this country we simply can’t put all our eggs in the UMC basket.

  • Ted D

    Escoffier – “I don’t actually have to restrain myself from cheating, either, because–lucky me–women are not throwing themselves at me. But if they were, it might take a little effort on my part.”

    Exactly! I’ve always said that IF put to the test, I certainly hope my morality would get me past with flying colors. The few times I’ve had a woman “throw” herself at me, they were the wildest and worst of the groupie set, and frankly even the hot ones were scary enough to keep me in line.

    Now, put a really hot and “clean” (for lack of a better term) women in front of me really pouring on the IOI’s? *shrug* I think I’d survive now, but at my age I’ve got a LOT more control of my, umm, “facilities” than I did as a young guy.

    Iggles – “Nope. I’m big on personal responsibility. It annoys me when people don’t acknowledge the choices they’ve made and the personal agency that they possess”

    I agree 100%

    “Budgeting to have a child is one of those things. You may not be able to stretch the dollars to have more than one, but regardless of the economy DINKs who live in condos can cut back and afford ONE child if having a child is more important to them than living in luxury.”

    Do you have kids? Not a dig, but I’m asking. Because there are a LOT of issues regarding cost, and they aren’t all a matter of stretching a dollar. For instance: child care.

    If both parent work, someone will need to watch the kid. Now when I first married, my grandmother was still kicking and babysat for us for free. Not only did that save us a bundle, but personally I was very happy that my daughter got to spend her youngest years in the company of such a wse woman. When my son was born, she was far too old to deal with a baby, and the cost of childcare was SO rediculous that my wife just quit working complety. We figured it out and just about 100% of her income would have gone directly to child care, and NO ONE provides for a child like family.

    So your average DINK couple not only has to consider cost in general, but what if one of them has to stay home? That would be a MAJOR hit on the two couples I know. They would need to move, (and good luck selling a high dollar house in the Pittsburgh area right now) and make some major changes in lifestyle. I’m not talking about skipping a few vacations either.

    “Again, Ted I am NOT talking about divorced and remarried folks who ALREADY have kids of their own. Taking care of the children you have take precedent over bringing new babies into the world in which you have little money for.”

    We can just drop my ever mentioning my particular point at this time. I really wasn’t trying to rally for us divorced/remarried/with kids folks, I was just giving an example of the financial burden based on my own finances.

    “I’m talking about DINKs who have taken themselves out of the gene pool by deciding not to reproduce.”

    And I still think that you are not realizing the importance of financial stability to some of these folks. Look, one of the two couples I know in particular really seems to be interested in kids. They keep saying “maybe in a few years”. But, they are closing in on mid-30’s and time is running out. From a biological standpoint I completley agree with you, but for many people it is simply NOT an option to have children UNLESS they can do so AND maintain a lifestyle they are accostomed to. Do you think this couple would still be as happy with each other if they had to stop travelling? If one of them had to quit working? Do you think that the unhappiness might affect the childs home life? End in divorce?

    I get it, I really do. I find it unfortunate that our current financial situation (the economy mostly) puts many otherwise good people in a place where they feel children is a bad option. (in much the same manner that I feel about current family law and its effect of driving men away from marriage.)

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “A guy with a movie star on his arm (or in his bed) would get a huge status bump among his peers, wouldn’t he?”

    Yeah, but I think it’s just talk. Bragging rights is different than sexual desire. Men don’t get more of a boner for celebs (as opposed to the cute girl next door) in the same way that women get more of a tingle. In fact, faced with them in real life and without the benefit of the camera, a make up artist and lightin, they might get less of one. I was behind Paris Hilton in line at Starbucks about two or three years ago. She does have a pretty face, but all in all, I could throw a rock into a crowd on Sorority Row at UCLA and be likely to hit a girl I’d rather bang. And I was never really into sorority types.

  • INTJ

    @ Passer_by

    To be fair though, UCLA isn’t exactly an average sample. UCLA has the hot girls that USC does with the academic quality that Cal does. :D

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    2 points:

    1) I like you so I think you should pass on more of your genes and have that last child, if it’s something you really want. :D You’ll find a way to make it work financially and as far as vacationing I bet you could leave this future child with your daughter or son (possibly they’d have a partner by then too) for a week every once in a while so you can go exploring the world with your wife.

    2) Can you explain more why you think men are the commitment gatekeepers? I agree that many men are and more should be but in this SMP I also see many women who are acting as commitment gatekeepers, especially amongst those of the UMC and MC 20-30 y/o crowd that are avoiding commitment to pursue career and fun. I would say that amongst older women and LC women that I can see that they are probably less acting as the commitment gatekeepers because of less sexual and economic power, respectively. Also, I can see men as the commitment gatekeepers amongst whatever portion of the female population that is hypergamous, since a higher S/MMV male is less likely to commit to a lower value female and thus he will be the decider. But that very same hypergamous female (NAWALT) is going to be acting as the commitment gatekeeper to the males of her same value that would love to LTR her. I would also say that amongst the high S/MMV that the males could be seen to be more of the commitment gatekeepers because a lot of them are either picky or players, but such men are a small minority. The more medium-high-value and under males, in the 20-30 y/o crowd, and even some older ones, don’t have as many women of equal value wanting commitment from them so they aren’t really able to even be gatekeepers. Also, men on campus probably have it better due to the ratio but then all the men off campus will have it worse due to their less favorable ratio.

    So, I just don’t see how all or the vast majority of men are THE gatekeepers of commitment. I see it that overall men and women are pretty much equal commitment gatekeepers, with different segments exercising that role more at different ages and SES conditions.

    Thoughts?

  • JP

    Here’s a fun link on economics.

    Enjoy.

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct12/upward-mobility10-12.html

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – I appriciate your faith in my DNA, but I’ve got a biological son so I’ve passed that on. Luckily for him he looks a lot like his mother, but has my brains. (maybe NOT so lucky for him. LOL)

    “But that very same hypergamous female (NAWALT) is going to be acting as the commitment gatekeeper to the males of her same value that would love to LTR her. ”

    Surely in many cases women DO act as the gatekeeper to committment. But, at the end of the day, a woman cannot “offer” committment to a man in the same way a man offers it to a woman. Men can and will bang any women willing to let him do so (in general of course) but most of those same men will NOT offer committment to most of those same women. Even while many of those women MAY be trying to GET committment from him by allowing sex to happen. In this way, a man always has the final say on who he marries or commits to. Of course women get that same choice, but they aren’t in the position (again in general) to even offer it, since just like the poor beta looking for a wife, she can only choose from the men actually making her the offer.

    So, women always have the final say when it comes to who gets access to her body. And men always have the final say on who gets access to his resources. (again, generally speaking of course)

    It is only men with very little attraction and women with a very large amount of attraction that can “change the rules” a little, so to speak.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    I agree with what you’re saying if you limit it to those men who want commitment less than the woman they’re banging. I also agree that in the vast majority of cases (and ignoring cases where the man is like 4+ points higher in value than the woman) the woman is the sex gatekeeper.

    But I have had sex with women I wanted to LTR but they decided not to, either because they were just looking for casual or didn’t like me enough in the end for whatever reason. These were women of roughly equal or maybe higher SMV (yeah, I lucked out, what can I say? :D ). More in line with what you’re saying I have had sex with women of lower SMV than myself and virtually all of them wanted to LTR me and I didn’t want to LTR them. I also imagine guys like Cooper would share my same sentiment of noticing a lot of women of equal value not wanting to get into an LTR as much as he does because those women are either just out for casual or are hypergamous. Maybe we’re beta-hearted outliers but even if we are it shows that there were women who in the end were the gatekeepers of commitment, and in my case, even after sex.

    I have personally experienced the effects of hypergamy that everyone talks about: the 6 using sex to try and LTR me, the 9 willing to LTR down a bit in value (she was higher in SMV than me so presumably the other 9 males weren’t interested in commitment) who was trying to LTR me and we had sex but then I broke up with her later because she criticized me way too much over insignificant things and I finally couldn’t take feeling like shit when I was around her. I’ve had 8’s who both wanted commitment from me more (making me the gatekeeper) and from whom I wanted commitment from more (making them the gatekeeper). So, in the person whose experience matters most to me, namely me, I have seen both male (me) and female taking on the commitment gatekeeper role. I also see a lot of other men facing the same situation I have.

    Now, I can appreciate that your own experience has been different than mine and so that makes you believe that all men are the commitment gatekeepers in the end. But just based on my own experience and some guys I know I had to share the other side of the story.

    In the end, what % of men are gatekeepers of comm.? Don’t know. I just think it’s lower than what you are saying. Feel free to respond or if you just want to agree to disagree that’s fine.

    And even though we’re disagreeing I still think you should pass on your genes one last time (assuming you really want to). I mean, really, we want to make sure that the Teddism genes survive so that my kids and grandkids can enjoy the pleasure of reading a Teddism just as much as I do. :D

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – “But I have had sex with women I wanted to LTR but they decided not to, either because they were just looking for casual or didn’t like me enough in the end for whatever reason.”

    Sure, and at your age (20’s right) that is probably often the norm. But brother, wait a few years until you hit your prime, and the tables WILL turn. When all those women that wouldn’t LTR you up in their 20’s hit their 30’s and want to “settle down”, all of a sudden you and guys like Cooper will be the hot commodity. Why? Simple. YOU are willing to actually offer committment, and that is what they want.

    It is only because of the current SMP that things are so screwed up for guys like you. If women werent so easily able to simply provide financially for themselves (and no laides, I’m not suggesting you all get back to the kitchen here…) things would be different. If our current society actually encouraged young women to think long term instead of “exploring their sexuality” things would be different.

    I have no desire to take us back to the 1950’s. But the truth is, marriage is the best place to have and raise children. If women simply put a third of the effort they use to “hookup” towards forward thinking, the Cooper’s of the world wouldn’t be stuck looking for a committment while being offered tale like it grew on trees. I’m not going to start telling guys to sex it up as much as they can in their 20’s, but the hard fact is that most average guys (and many above average guys) will simply have to accept that real committment isn’t going to be an option for them until later in life. But ya know what? That isn’t so bad actually. Use that time to learn a skillset that will make you money. Get in the best physical shape you can, and don’t spend your nights lonely. Try to get what you’re looking for, but don’t expect it. And, if you do find it? Man, hang on to that shit! I’m not suggesting any guy should marry at 22 simply because he found a great gal. But I AM suggesting that if such a man did find a good woman (however he defines that) that it would be in his best interests to do what he can to keep her around. I’d say that any woman actually expressing interest in a real committment (normally marriage but whatever arrangement you can make in your favor will work) should be clearly told what your future plans are, and that you would like her to be part of it. Don’t use that trump card until you are damn sure she is interested in playing that game though, because as has been demonstrated ad nauseum here, that can backfire in a BIG way.

    Committment IS your trump card. It’s a full house. It is the game changer for you. BUT, you have to find the right audience, and unfortunately the way the game is played today, you may have to simply bide your time with a lesser hand until you get the right cards.

  • JP

    How on God’s Green Earth can you even ascribe a point value to women on the scale of attractiveness?

    With respect to attractiveness, I have two categories:

    (1) Women who are attractive enough to date;

    (2) Women who are not attractive enough to date.

    I’ve attempted to date #1, which absolutely failed. So, I need a base level of attractiveness.

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – and to be clear, I’m not disagreeing with what you see at all. I believe you and Cooper, sadly enough. The thing is, you need to realize that you are looking at this from pretty close to the starting line, and I’m kinda at half-way looking back at you. I’m not trying to pull the “wise old man” thing here, but what I’ve learned since finding the ‘sphere is that nothing has changed in regards to the actual mechanics of marriage and committment. The underlying rules are still the same in many ways. What has changed is the focus on younger people to “explore” instead of simply focussing on what is best long term. In short, life in many ways is FAR too easy for young people today, and the result is that they can and do behave rather irresponsibly without reprocussion. But, once reality smacks them in the face, you see a return to the norm regarding the search for “deeper meaning” to life. In days past a guy in his early 20’s with a good job had to be pretty bad off in other areas to find himself with a lack of options for a wife. Now? You can be the perfect example of “manliness” with a six figure income, and yet still find yourself with few marriage options simply because marriage isn’t something the women of his age are looking for. Now such a man would certainly have it easier, and I’m pretty confident that IF he found himself in this spot, a change of venue would probably net him some stellar results. But it is a sign of how screwed up the SMP/MMP is that it takes a guy like this any effort at all.

  • Lokland

    @Esc

    “So why is that we can’t observe the behavior of happily married, faithful women who are good wives and mothers and draw conclusions about intent and motivation based on that?”

    We can. No one cares though. Everyone wants the bad news.
    Actively focusing on the good does make life more enjoyable though.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    I agree that the SMP is messed up…. I think we agree overall…we were just looking at different parts of the SMP and from different perspectives. I will also acknowledge that I have been too picky in hindsight about some girls that wanted to LTR me and there were some girls who, IMO, were also wrt me.

  • Ramble

    With respect to attractiveness, I have two categories:

    (1) Women who are attractive enough to date;

    (2) Women who are not attractive enough to date.

    So, you are currently dating Lisa, who is a nice girl whom you met through a friend. Nice looking, but she does not blow you away.

    Her father, a man she adored, died a few months back and she is still trying to understand her feelings. While you have only been seeing her a few weeks, you have noticed that she has gained a few pounds, but, honestly, it is nothing to worry about…everyone gains (and loses) a few pounds here and there.

    Soon enough, however, 5 lbs turns to 10 and then 15. Is she still in category A or has she moved to B? When was it, at 10 or 15 lbs? Then it is 20 and 25 lbs. Is she still in Category A?

    =======================

    The story is just there to provide some reality to how one person can go from physically attractive to not attractive, or, in a different scenario, vice versa. The numbers that people use is just short hand. That’s all. Regardless if any particular person ever utilizes a number when thinking of someones attractiveness, almost everyone has employed some sort of grading (Susan has two new girls, sisters, introduced to her discussion group. She meets the one sister and instantly thinks, “what a lovely young woman. Graceful, shy, and kinda pretty.” Then the other sister, who had been parking the car, walks in and Susan immediately thinks, “Good God! She is gorgeous! I wonder if she is in movies or modeling or something. And her hair, my god. Wow.”).

    The numbers are just shorthand. People who are better with words and more expressive can often describe the varying degrees beauty without relying on it, but it can help describe someones physical attractiveness quickly, easily and simply.

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

      @Ramble

      What is it with your obsession over women who could lose a few pounds? No one is asking you to date a Large Marge. Give it a rest.

  • Ted D

    “We can. No one cares though. Everyone wants the bad news.
    Actively focusing on the good does make life more enjoyable though.”

    FWIW I do my best to focus on the good in my personal life. However when it comes to this stuff, I see a lot of what is going on to be the canary in the coal mine. And when it comes to making large social changes, many times it can only be accomplished through extreme means, including extreme points of view.

    I think the risk is that a person like myself can be seen as “crying wolf”. However we all here can agree that the wolf exists. Whether that wolf is outside the door or off running in the woods is a matter of perspective.

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    My looks rating is kind of based on how I would act romantically and sexually:

    6 — boner inducing and would bang if I were looking for casual and horny enough (I’m not at the moment but did that a bit in the past)

    7 — definitely would bang if looking for casual but I’d have trouble wanting to commit to her

    8 — pretty enough to LTR with no complaints at all, no pining for variety or hotter girls

    9 — more than pretty enough and I’d have to pinch myself every so often to realize that I wasn’t dreaming

    9.5 — you feel like you’ve been punched in the gut

    10 — a goddess and the hottest in a group of maybe 100,000 population-representative women

    I dated a girl who was a 9 but could get up to a 9.5 when she did herself up just right and I literally had the clenching of the stomach feeling when I saw her like that. W/o makeup though and waking up in the morning she was more of an 8.5

  • JP

    @Ramble:

    “So, you are currently dating Lisa, who is a nice girl whom you met through a friend. Nice looking, but she does not blow you away.

    Her father, a man she adored, died a few months back and she is still trying to understand her feelings. While you have only been seeing her a few weeks, you have noticed that she has gained a few pounds, but, honestly, it is nothing to worry about…everyone gains (and loses) a few pounds here and there.

    Soon enough, however, 5 lbs turns to 10 and then 15. Is she still in category A or has she moved to B? When was it, at 10 or 15 lbs? Then it is 20 and 25 lbs. Is she still in Category A?”

    Which does raise the question of what do people do when their spouse gets to the point where they are physically repulsive to the other person?

    Meaning that you are married to someone you would never date or interact with romantically.

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – damn man you are a pocky bastard!

    Good for you! But don’t bitch too much that you aren’t locking them down. LOL

  • Ted D

    Picky* damn phone…

  • JP

    I suppose that with respect to commitment, it seems like it’s just something that you have to will yourself to do.

    You simply decide on the action and then take it.

    And the force of your will keeps you from breaking the commitment (because being committed is somewhat boring and dull).

  • Ramble

    7 — definitely would bang if looking for casual but I’d have trouble wanting to commit to her

    8 — pretty enough to LTR with no complaints at all, no pining for variety or hotter girls

    Most beautiful girl (in the room)

  • Ted D

    JP – “Meaning that you are married to someone you would never date or interact with romantically.”

    Well speaking from personal experience, it ends in divorce. This is what happened to my first marriage, although it didn’t start with me gaining weight. (although it ended there and I’m still digging my way out of THAT hole)

    This is the part of the Red Pill I recognized right away, and it set off my “but its not fair” alarms. Yeah, truth is in some ways it really isn’t fair, but it’s life. The thing is, I should have stayed in decent shape for my own health and well being, not just to keep my wife attracted. I get that now, and it is why I’m putting in the effort. Do I like that my wife finds me hotter now than when we first met? Hell yeah! How many guys find themselves in that position? But I also would like to be around to see my grandkids (provided my children can actually get into a relationship that fosters that goal) and I find myself wanting more time to use now that my outlook on life is so different.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    I was too picky in the past…but am toning it down a bit–it’s hard to find someone who’s an 8+ in all the areas you might want–aka, the unicorn.

    I personally divide it into 3 broad and not exactly exclusive categories: mind, heart, looks. I have found it not so hard to find someone that has 2 of the 3, even to my picky standards, but finding someone with all 3 is rare, and then even rarer that they like me back. So, I think that for me looks, heart and intellectual curiosity are still super important but I can give some leeway on achievement and raw intelligence. I used to not like women who were studying the “easy majors” like exercise therapy or elementary ed (my perception independent of whether easy or not) but now I don’t really care that much.

  • Ramble

    @JP

    Which does raise the question of what do people do when their spouse gets to the point where they are physically repulsive to the other person?

    That was an interesting non-answer.

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    I have found that my attraction threshold is higher for that initial commitment and falling in love but lessens for me once I’m in the relationship. Kind of like tough requirements to get an entry visa to my heart but the requirements to keep her visa valid aren’t as stringent. I think it’s my genes wanting to keep not-as-cute genes away (Sorry if that sounds arrogant or mean but just keeping it real) but once in the relationship putting on 10 or 15 lbs isn’t going to change things that much because I will have fallen in love with her already.

  • Mike C

    Pensions depend upon the replacement of the population (and generally growth of the population).

    Also, children are, to a certain extent, the social safety net.

    JP, you are correct on this

    DINKs ignore this at their (economic) peril.

    Demographics are one of my areas on interest, as are multi-generational trends.

    But this does *NOT* follow. At least right now, Social Security checks and Medicare benefits don’t depend on how many children you *personally* produced (in aggregate it will matter). Social Security is based on your wages while you were working, not whether you had 5, 3, 2, 1, or 0 kids.

    Hope’s and Ana’s kids will be paying for my Social Security check (hopefully they will have more). :) I guess that makes me a free rider of sorts. In aggregate, the current system is unsustainable but that is still years down the road. Even when benefits cannot be “afforded” the last ditch solution is simply monetizing the debt and all liabilities. There is no limit to the amount of dollars the U.S. can create and send to people. That would probably lead to a very high inflation but there are ways to escape that as well.

    Anything is possible, and I mean anything but I don’t foresee legislation in the U.S. that ties social benefits or taxes to one’s status as a bachelor or married, or whether you had kids or not.

    The kid debate here is kind of interesting. I fully support everyone who decides they want to be a parent and have the parental experience, but I am getting a distinct sense of subtle animosity towards those who choose to not have kids. I told my fiancee that I’d maybe like to get a dog and she said “No way, who are you kidding, I’d end up doing 100% of the work”.

  • Ted D

    JP – “I suppose that with respect to commitment, it seems like it’s just something that you have to will yourself to do.”

    I see it the same in many ways. But, you should ONLY “will” yourself into it IF it is truly what you want.

    “You simply decide on the action and then take it.”
    This can be applied to much more than committment. I’ve decided to “take action” about my health. Does it suck? Every damn day (my quads are aching so bad right now that getting up from this desk takes effort) but it is a goal of mine to be in the best shape I can be. If one of your (or anyone’s) goals is to get and stay married, then a great deal of the “work” involved will be getting the will in place to do the rest.

    “And the force of your will keeps you from breaking the commitment (because being committed is somewhat boring and dull).”

    Awww. This statment hurts my romantic sensibilites… If you really feel that way about committment, maybe it just isn’t for you. There isn’t anything wrong with that, but it seems to me that forcing yourself to do something you find this tedious is asking for trouble. Your resolve will be tested every single time a ‘hawt’ woman walks by.

    For my part, I completely enjoy being part of that “boring” thing called committment. I don’t want or look for novelty or excitment, and in fact I dislike how my body reacts to large shots of adrenaline, so you won’t catch me jumping out of an airplane anytime soon. But I derive a great deal of pleasure knowing someone has my back. I practically adore knowing that there is someone that wants to be with me despite the fact that most days it will be mundane. And at the end of the day, I function best when my life is very routine and planned out. I dislike change, and I usually do my best to avoid unforseen pitfalls by putting a lot of effort into thinking about those worst case scenarios. In other words, I was practically MADE for marriage. If you aren’t, don’t do it.

    The only real issue here is children. If you want kids, you have to weight the negative of dealing with that boredom against the advantages of raising them with a committed spouse. If that is where you are, then I feel for you. It isn’t an easy choice, but most things in life worth having don’t come easy anyway.

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

    Just do it, man. Even the poorest parents have been finding a way to afford children since time began.

    I always found the argument of “I can’t afford children” coming from people living on the USA weak at best. I’m pretty sure I grew up poorer than anyone that says that and I still had 3 siblings. I spent my first years of discovering the Internet using the public library computers having sometimes to save lunch money for the fare for public transportation there and back, I had a lot of hand me down books, clothes, borrowed a lot of stuff, shared a bed with my sister till I got married practically and my vacation time was spent in short travels, reading, doing paperwork (oh boy getting a passport in my country is pain in the neck) and/or working to save up for other stuff. I turned out more or less okay in spite of that, so unless you are actually homeless there is always enough money to feed at least one kid if you really want them,YMMV.

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – “I was too picky in the past…but am toning it down a bit–it’s hard to find someone who’s an 8+ in all the areas you might want–aka, the unicorn.”

    Brother my comment wasn’t critism in any way, shape, or form. In a way I’m glad you are that picky, because it means you are more likely to get what you want.

    “I personally divide it into 3 broad and not exactly exclusive categories: mind, heart, looks. I have found it not so hard to find someone that has 2 of the 3, even to my picky standards, but finding someone with all 3 is rare, and then even rarer that they like me back.”

    Yeah it comes down to that dreaded word: settling

    I think the key here is to make sure you NEVER feel like you sold yourself short. It is one thing to simply decide that a woman’s degree isn’t that important in the long run, versus getting with a woman DESPITE her liberal arts degree.

    “So, I think that for me looks, heart and intellectual curiosity are still super important but I can give some leeway on achievement and raw intelligence. I used to not like women who were studying the “easy majors” like exercise therapy or elementary ed (my perception independent of whether easy or not) but now I don’t really care that much.”

    You elitist! Intelligence to me is a threshold more so than an actual raw number. I’ll take a woman with a good sense of intellectual curiousity without a high IQ any day over a woman that “knows it all”. And here is something to chew on. In some cases that elementary ed degree at least shows you that the woman in quesiton has some ambition. Again if you have to balance it all out, doesn’t it make sense to give her some due credit for doing something with herself? Besides, I have a feeling those exercise therapy girls know a thing or two about anatomy. Being married to an MA comes with some good medical benefits, but I was surprised at just how much her knowledge of basic anatomy comes in handy. And not only when it comes to sex!

  • Ted D

    Ana – “I always found the argument of “I can’t afford children” coming from people living on the USA weak at best. ”

    Well there is no dout this is a “first world” problem. But I have to point out that with divorce rates as crappy as they are in the lower SES here in the U.S. do you honestly believe that having kids at the detriment to a couples standard of living won’t increase the chances of it ending badly? Many people simply don’t have the intestinal fortitude to weather the truly rough patches as it is. Add a child or two in there and it is a recipe for disaster.

    Can you raise kids on a small income? Surely. I grew up in a household that had a total income (three people working!) lower than my own yearly salary. But I won’t lie and tell you that for me, standard of living IS a big deal. I’m not willing to give up my opprotunities for “fun” simply to have a child. Now I know, I already have mine. But if I didn’t, I don’t know that I’d be wanting to at this point anyway. In some ways its a damn good thing I had my son when I did, because as much as I love that boy I also very much enjoy the freedom that comes with more expendable cash. And I’m not saying that my wife and I are rolling in money. We had to save aggressively to get married in Vegas, and I’ll tell you it stressed our relationship out a good bit. I can’t imagine how much strain it would add if we had a baby to take care of. THAT more than anything else is what has me on the fence about another. I think we’d make some damn smart and attractive kids, but I like where we are now.

    So what about those childless couples that like where THEY are now?

  • JP

    @Ted D:

    “There isn’t anything wrong with that, but it seems to me that forcing yourself to do something you find this tedious is asking for trouble.”

    Life itself is tedious, but you still have to force yourself to do things.

    It’s not like I have any interest in showing up to work every day or being productive. But I still do it.

  • HanSolo

    @Ramble

    The video made me smile.

  • Ramble

    @HanSolo

    They invented Rap. In New Zealand. In 1988.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    I previously wanted more of an engineering or business chick. Now, I don’t really care that much and not because I’m settling. I just came to realize that intellectual curiosity was more important than IQ and having some drive (in the case of the elementary teacher a lot of Mormon girls were just studying that or something “easy” while hoping to get married) is good enough. So, I would say we’re in agreement on this.

  • Ted d

    JP – “It’s not like I have any interest in showing up to work every day or being productive. But I still do it.”

    Well I guess that was kinda my point. :P

    I see work as a means to an end. I need money, therfor I work. Would it be nice to have a career that I “loved” and was excited about? Of course. But I have a job that I can do well and most days it doesn’t drive me insane, so I count my blessings.

    But when it comes to relationships, keep in mind that there is very little to keep someone with you IF they get the impression you are less than enthusiastic about being there. And to be honest, would it be fair to go ahead and do it just because when they might possibly find someone else that truly wants to be with them and committed?

    Not accusing you of anything, just tossing out food for thought.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ramble

    Sassy, I am curious, how exciting and satisfying do you find, and did you find, those 31 makeout seesions? I understand that not all makeouts are created equal, but, in general, how exciting was it?

    Or, to put it another way (assuming that you are unattached), how excited are you about your next makeout? You know, you meet some guy at the theater, you exchange looks, next thing you know you two are sharing drinks at some hip lounge with nice lighting and music that is not too loud and he starts to lean in…how excited will you get at that moment and how satisfied do you think you will be afterwards?

    (Any girl here who has made out with more than 10 guys is welcome to answer this question as well.)

    I’ve found all of the makeouts highly enjoyable. I’ve been pretty lucky, considering that I have viewed only 1 of the men I have kissed to be a bad kisser. All the others were fun to kiss.

    I get a lot of enjoyment out of kissing. I’ve always been really excited at the prospect of kissing someone new. When I’m in a relationship, I can’t get enough of kissing that person either.

    I think I’m one of those rare women who enjoys sex/foreplay just for the sake of it. If it weren’t for my own restrictions on myself, and my desire to be in relationships, I’m almost positive that I would be capable of having casual sex without a problem. When it comes to sex, I have a relatively masculine view of it. I’ve yet to meet a man whose sex drive matches my own, in real life. It’s frustrating on my end because I end up wearing guys out. I don’t know what to do about that, to be honest.

  • Ramble

    Sassy, thanks.

  • Ted D

    Sassy – “I don’t know what to do about that, to be honest.”

    Is it still called a harem when a woman keeps several men in rotation? :p

    Just kidding. I know that you want committment and monogamy. It sucks that you have such a hard time finding a guy that can keep up with you, but I hope you don’t mind when I say that whoever you finally lock down is going to be a very lucky guy. Of all the problems I’ve ever had, I can’t say that a woman with TOO MUCH sex drive has been one of them.

    I’m hoping that my wife’s drive will increase now that she is exercising with me. Not that I have any complaints, because she has never once turned me down for a romp. But, I’ve heard that it is common for men and women to get more sexually ‘agressive’ with increased exercise, and I wouldn’t mind it if my wife tried to put me in an early grave by sexing me to death.

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

    But I have to point out that with divorce rates as crappy as they are in the lower SES here in the U.S. do you honestly believe that having kids at the detriment to a couples standard of living won’t increase the chances of it ending badly?

    Statistically speaking couples without children have more chances of divorce:
    http://www.smartmarriages.com/divorce.factors.html

    And there is this study on buyers remorse that shows that you are more likely to regret not having children than to regret having them:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/9091/Desire-Children-Alive-Well-America.aspx

    Like most first world problems this is in the head of the person. Now I’m not trying to convince anyone to have kids just to show that the reasons are just hamster running. I would welcome a bit of ” Yes I’m happier with more money than with a family” that at least will be honest most childfree people are so damn dead set on making it look like the “smart” choice that is become breedershaming (breeders is a pejorative term that they use for our kind in case you were wondering). Is not smarter than picking mustard over ketchup, is a complex issue that shouldn’t be used as metrics of IQ at the very least, YMMV.

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    “The kid debate here is kind of interesting. I fully support everyone who decides they want to be a parent and have the parental experience, but I am getting a distinct sense of subtle animosity towards those who choose to not have kids.”

    I’d like yo clarify my position as I tend to be very fervent on the no kids = fail and I realize Susan wants a happy, fluffy place.

    I don’t care about the economy or any other reason.

    What I find annoying is the classification that having no kids is somehow a success if you live a good life.

    Its similar to the fat is curvy movement.

    Theres nothing wrong with being fat, theres nothing wrong with having kids. Classifying either of them as better than not doing so is erroneous on so many levels.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ted D

    Just kidding. I know that you want committment and monogamy. It sucks that you have such a hard time finding a guy that can keep up with you, but I hope you don’t mind when I say that whoever you finally lock down is going to be a very lucky guy. Of all the problems I’ve ever had, I can’t say that a woman with TOO MUCH sex drive has been one of them.

    It’s funny that you mention that. I spoke with the bf yesterday, and he admitted that he wanted to have less sex with me. I was absolutely floored. I don’t know if it’s a bad omen or whether it’s a red flag. I’m not taking it personally, but I am keeping my eyes open.

    Something just seems off.

  • Esau

    “So, women always have the final say when it comes to who gets access to her body.”

    Can I mention again how icky and foreign I find the word “access”, as in describing sex as “getting sexual access”, as though other people are some kind of machine? I can state categorically that “sexual access” has never been a good description of what I ever wanted, and I really find it creepy that people use the term so handily.

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

    @SW
    Hot off the press! I can’t say I’m all that surprised, though, having grown up in the Bay Area, CA:

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/us/california-fantasy-slut-league-school/index.html

    How do you think these upstanding young men would score on the SOI?

    It’s been pretty clear to me for some time that the college “hookup scene”, with it’s obligatory binge-drinking and fraternity-style debauchery, has it’s origins back in high school, where the usual excuses just don’t apply…

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

      @Megaman

      It’s been pretty clear to me for some time that the college “hookup scene”, with it’s obligatory binge-drinking and fraternity-style debauchery, has it’s origins back in high school, where the usual excuses just don’t apply…

      But that slut league is right out of the fraternity play book, and goes back at least a generation. I think that hookup culture is filtering downward via older siblings. Certainly I became aware of it when my daughter was a high school junior, but then it was a case of a few girls giving BJs behind the school, not enough sex to keep score and award winners.

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

    The kid debate here is kind of interesting. I fully support everyone who decides they want to be a parent and have the parental experience, but I am getting a distinct sense of subtle animosity towards those who choose to not have kids.

    That’s interesting, upon skimming I sort of got that sense as well. It kind of reminds me of that wave of posts in the sphere about vasectomies. There was definitely a Join Hands in Solidarity and Right On Dude air about many of them, but I did get this tiny little taste of “bitch, look at me. See this? You wanted this right here? *snip* well TOO BAD!” It was almost comical to watch some of the female commenters say “aw man, it’s men like YOU who should be reproducing.”

    My thoughts: if you want to have kids, have them. If you don’t want them, don’t. It’s a personal decision.

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

      You wanted this right here? *snip* well TOO BAD!” It was almost comical to watch some of the female commenters say “aw man, it’s men like YOU who should be reproducing.”

      I actually saw one of those women leave a comment saying, “But we need more Dark Triad males in the population! You’re the leaders and innovators!”

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

    @LL

    We can. No one cares though. Everyone wants the bad news.
    Actively focusing on the good does make life more enjoyable though.

    This is probably the only time I’ve ever heard a guy be candid and honest about this phenomenon @ HUS. Sounds like a married man, too… :wink:

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

    @Esc.

    It was in response to mega’s assumption that I must be miserable because the little head, even at this advanced age, retains a mind of its own.

    I actually wasn’t suggesting you were miserable at all, only that you don’t seem all that… enthusiastic about monogamous married life.

    I find quite few women other than my wife physically attractive. Not most, but enough, and I take notice of them. However, as I once argued with my good friend JM, I don’t get hard-ons for them (as he did), nor do I have any desire to flirt with them, sending any mixed signals, or cross the very obvious line that exists on my ring finger.

    Even when I was single, I only “had eyes for” and pursued one girl at a time. I honestly don’t think that’s unusual or uncommon. Most all male friends I’ve had over the last 15+ years have operated similarly.

  • Mike C

    What I find annoying is the classification that having no kids is somehow a success if you live a good life.

    Let me wax philosophical for a moment. I’m a big believer in self-fulfillment and self-actualization. To me “success” depends on a person figuring out what really makes them tick, makes they happy and then living a life congruent with that. We had a training seminar at work and one of the interesting things was talking about VALUES and how most peoples’ values are formed at a very early age and usually unchangeable. Clearly, one of your core values is passing along your genes and a “genetic legacy”. I really have no issue with that at all. But at least for me, it is a bit offputting if people define “success” for me. There is a presumptuousness and arrogance that comes along with that. You are telling me your values are superior to mine.

    As a side point, it is one of the reasons I get annoyed with the “let’s bash/demonize promiscous men”. I am fully supportive of people who only want LTRs and sexual activity within the context of LTRs and I fully support giving them the support/strategies/tactics to achieve that. I’ll admit that it annoys me when promiscuous men sort of get turned into “bogeyman”. I don’t think the latter is necessary to achieve the former.

    So at the end of the day, I am all for everyone doing what they feel allows them to reach their own personal happiness and best state of mind. If for someone that means being obese, then God bless them. Now it does get tricky when people’s decisions result in explicit costs that they expect society to subsidize. The argument can be made person A shouldn’t have to pay for person B’s happiness through taxation and redistribution. Of course, this gets into very complicated territory about the nature of man, the role of government, individual interests versus societal interests. Brilliant minds have been debating such things for milennia.

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

      Now it does get tricky when people’s decisions result in explicit costs that they expect society to subsidize.

      Precisely. I’ll leave the entitlement programs for you to wrestle with, but I will say that promiscuity costs society a great deal in dollars, unwanted children and disease, and a general coarsening of the culture leading to the rutting that is common today. I do believe we have surpassed even the ancient Romans for lurid debauchery.

      Manners and social life fell into debauchery. Under Justinian, entertainment grew bawdier and more bizarre. Orgies and love feasts were common.
      Similar patterns can be found in other civilizations. In Greece, the music of the young people became wild and coarse. Popular entertainment was brutal and vulgar. Promiscuity…and drunkenness became a daily part of life. And all moral and social restraints were lost leading to greater decadence.

      Promiscuity destroys civilizations.

  • JP

    @Olive:

    “My thoughts: if you want to have kids, have them. If you don’t want them, don’t. It’s a personal decision.”

    Nah.

    Let’s hook that social obligation onto retirement.

    Want to collect your Social Security retirement? Then you better show us evidence that you have two kids.

    No free riders!

  • JP

    If by “Dark Triad” males you mean the sociopaths, then what we really need is the headsman’s axe.

    Problem solved.

  • Ion

    @ Hansolo, 200, perhaps that’s the disconnect (many young women want someone above average, many men old and young men want a young woman), yet, very few people (men and women) perceive themselves as below average in attractiveness.

    Girl version (btw 5 is likely about on par with Paul Adelstein in attractiveness).

    5 — Better have a great personality and be wealthy or willing to provide.

    6 — He’s decent looking, willing to see what happens (I suspect that most “good catches” fall in this category).

    7 — Definitely good looking, perfect man, I hope he picks me! I deserve a man like him.

    8 — God he’s hot, I don’t know if he’s got the “whole package” but he’d be fun to show off to my girlfriends; willing to postpone commitment for a guy this hot; I hope he doesn’t break my heart.

    9 — He’s too good looking, is some wrong with him? I better play hard to get/flirt as hard as I can.

    10 — Are you kidding me? He’s gay.

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

    Want to collect your Social Security retirement? Then you better show us evidence that you have two kids.

    I was under the impression that SS is taken out of your own wages while you are working, and given to people who are collecting SS in that moment. In other words, shouldn’t it have been enough that you contributed to the system, regardless of whether you created two people who will contribute to the system in the future?

  • Passer_By

    @Ted, Sassy

    I think Sassy could use Nola Darling as inspiration.

    http://www.amazon.com/Shes-Gotta-Have-Spike-Lee/dp/B000XJD34S

    “Of all the problems I’ve ever had, I can’t say that a woman with TOO MUCH sex drive has been one of them.”

    Depends on whether you start getting chaffed or too physically drained to get up for work. :)

  • JP

    @Olive:

    “I was under the impression that SS is taken out of your own wages while you are working, and given to people who are collecting SS in that moment. In other words, shouldn’t it have been enough that you contributed to the system, regardless of whether you created two people who will contribute to the system in the future?”

    The only way you sustain social viability is through replacing the population.

    Look at Japan.

    They are so dead.

    Watching Japan die is one of my hobbies.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/30/japan-population-crisis-shrink-one-third_n_1241350.html

    “Japan’s rapid aging means the national population of 128 million will shrink by one-third by 2060 and seniors will account for 40 per cent of people, placing a greater burden on the shrinking work force population to support the social security and tax systems.

    The population estimate released Monday by the Health and Welfare Ministry paints a grim future.

    In year 2060, Japan will have 87 million people. The number of people 65 or older will nearly double to 40 per cent, while the national work force of people between ages 15 and 65 will shrink to about half of the total population…”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/30/japan-population-crisis-shrink-one-third_n_1241350.html

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Under Justinian, entertainment grew bawdier and more bizarre. Orgies and love feasts were common.
    Similar patterns can be found in other civilizations. In Greece, the music of the young people became wild and coarse. Popular entertainment was brutal and vulgar. Promiscuity…and drunkenness became a daily part of life. And all moral and social restraints were lost leading to greater decadence.”

    Uh.

    Um.

    You realize that Justinian was the emperor in the East, right?

    The Eastern Roman Empire.

    The one that lasted for 1,000 years.

    After the Western Roman Empire fell.

    The one that only fell because the Crusaders (centuries after Justinian) butchered the Empire.

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

      @JP

      You realize that Justinian was the emperor in the East, right?

      Damn that’s what I get for cutting and pasting some random source.

      Actually, my entire knowledge of the Roman Empire comes from I, Claudius and the play Julius Caesar. I’m hopelessly ignorant on that score. Please amend the comment to insert the appropriate emperor. The point remains the same.

  • Tom

    “Sociosexual orientation is a personality trait, and is relatively stable over the life course; in other words, people are either sociosexually restricted or unrestricted most of their lives. ”
    _____________
    I dont see how this is true. The vast majority of promiscuous people end up in a relationship or married. Those people make a CHOICE to change their behavior, and most do. Most peoiple in relationship do not carry on with promiscuous behavior, meaning having regular sex with multiple people.

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

      @Tom

      . The vast majority of promiscuous people end up in a relationship or married. Those people make a CHOICE to change their behavior, and most do.

      You can see in Table 1 of the post that 63% of men and 48% of women in the most unrestricted 20% cheated on a partner. Their divorce rate is much higher.

      That’s not to say it cannot be done. I’m sure many unrestricted types go on to successful relationships. It’s a risk factor. You know that.

  • JP

    Also, Justinian completely smashed the Ostrogoths, the ones who took over Rome.

    The Roman Empire only ended in the 15th century.

    A.D.

  • JP

    @Mike C:

    “You are telling me your values are superior to mine.”

    Some values are superior to other values.

    If you value beating people up for fun, then that’s an inferior value.

    The trick is to be able to distinguish between positive, neutral, and negative values.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    This is why I hate the baby boomers. They didn’t save any money and they didn’t create enough of us to comfortably pay for their retirement. Basically they promised themselves social security and now my cohort is going to have to uphold a promise we never had a say in making.

  • Mike C

    I was under the impression that SS is taken out of your own wages while you are working, and given to people who are collecting SS in that moment.

    Olive, yes, that is exactly how it works. Off the top of my head, you the worker pay something like 7-8% and the employer pays the other 7-8%. That is how current SS recipients are paid. The “trust fund” is basically an accounting fiction. It is simply an accounting entry

    In other words, shouldn’t it have been enough that you contributed to the system, regardless of whether you created two people who will contribute to the system in the future?

    No, for the exact reason above. Current benefits are paid out of current taxes. Therefore, the ratio of workers to current recipients is critical. When SS was first established, I think it was something like 10 to 1. I believe…again off the top of my head…the current ratio is 2 to 1. Many Western liberal democracies like Japan and Italy have even worse worker to retiree ratios. What happens when you get 1 worker to 1 retiree. Every single worker is supporting one retiree. Either taxes have to skyrocket or benefits get cut dramatically or some combination. Theoretically, if you are a parent, you invested in and produced a future worker. You put money into producing a productive worker for the future to pay benefits. A childless person did NOT produce a future productive worker but is benefiting from someone else’s children. In economics, this is called the “free rider” problem.

    Now it is more complicated then that. If I live in town A and pay property taxes then I am supporting a school system that my ZERO kids are not utilizing. So I am paying for something I do not use, and am paying to educate other peoples’ kids. So I am investing in them as well to make them productive workers.

    In any case, there are limits to how much support the older retirees can receive from younger workers before social strife results. With the Boomers now starting to retire, we will see in the next 10-15 years what happens. In a sense though, the Baby Boomers will be supported by their children the Gen Yer’s.

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    Hey, you’ll still get 70% of what was promised!

    The max amount is now about $2300 per month.

    Which means that if you are maxed out in retirement, you will get…$1600 per month.

    That’s enough to retire, right?

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    I’m a millennial. I have no idea what the state of social security will be by the time I retire. I’m more worried about the short term and what is going to happen to the government debt because my generation will have trouble generating enough wealth to pay for the baby boomers’ social security.

  • JP

    People tend to forget that everything is related to everything else.

    Also, if you have too many children, you also cause a mess.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/10-countries-on-the-verge-of-a-demographic-crisis-2010-2?op=1

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “I’m a millennial. I have no idea what the state of social security will be by the time I retire. I’m more worried about the short term and what is going to happen to the government debt because my generation will have trouble generating enough wealth to pay for the baby boomers’ social security.”

    This is one of my hobbies, too.

    The debt will be defaulted upon, either through inflation or direct default, probably in the 2020-2025 range.

    Social security is a pay-go system and doesn’t need to be affected.

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

    Mike C (and JP),
    Thanks for the info/clarification. It occurs to me that there’s another piece to the puzzle, which is more about population dynamics. I don’t have time to go into it now, but hopefully I can come back to it later. Suffice it to say there’s a very distinct pattern of pop. growth and subsequent stabilization that a country experiences during development/post-development. There’s also something about population shrinkage that I can’t remember at the moment, but must research.

  • Tom

    Rollo
    IOW, the commitment-minded “sociosexually restricted” 32 y.o. woman of today was the 22 y.o. “sociosexually unrestricted” coed banging the hawt guy in the foam cannon party on spring break while she was in the proliferative phase of her menstrual cycle.
    ___________
    Wow I actually agree with this. people can and do change.(especially with age.

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

    A childless person did NOT produce a future productive worker but is benefiting from someone else’s children. In economics, this is called the “free rider” problem.
    Mmm this is an interesting remark so you resent that the values of us breeders shouldn’t be triumphed even though the values of the childfree do create a problem for society? How come? Do you think Values are neutral regardless of the impact in other people?

  • Escoffier

    The hotness of UCLA girls has been in decline for at least 20 years whereas USC chicks are as hot as ever. And, ahem, the academic quality of UCLA has never and will never equal Cal.

    Anyway, the hottest chicks in California are at the top-tier JCs, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara City, San Diego Mesa, and above all OCC.

    Sadly, nothing up north really compares though Cabrillo is good for hippie chicks.

  • Passer_By

    I picked UCLA because it’s down the street, not because the girls are any hotter than at USC, or Santa Monica City College or whatever. Well, that and I know my way around there well enough to escape after throwing a rock at a bunch of women. :)

    Actually, my impression a while back was that UofA girls are the hottest in the West, but that might have changed.

  • Mike C

    Some values are superior to other values.

    If you value beating people up for fun, then that’s an inferior value.

    The trick is to be able to distinguish between positive, neutral, and negative values.

    JP, you are correct, and I agree with you here. I’d say though that having children/”passing on your genetic legacy” is more of a neutral one and highly context and situation dependent. Take a woman living in abject poverty who already has 3 kids, and has a fourth. Is that a “positive” value?

    You correctly point out the demographic issues with highlighting Japan in terms of reduced child replacement. I think you were also the one that highlighted the carrying capacity of Earth so I suspect like me you are well aware and well versed on the pros and cons in each direction about a growing or shrinking population both at the overall global level and individual countries. There are many complicated issues involved especially in terms of resource utilization. I really don’t have the answers, but I know 99% of people don’t have the first clue of even the right questions to be asking. I do believe on the positive side we might see some astronomical increases in productivity in the next 10-30 years due to technology, but that is the optimist in me.

  • Mike C

    The debt will be defaulted upon, either through inflation or direct default, probably in the 2020-2025 range.

    Yes, it will be defaulted through inflation. I find it close to unimaginable of a direct default from the U.S. Most importantly, it isn’t necessary. The U.S. is the sovereign issuer of its own currency (unlike say the Euro with Italy or Spain).

    Social security is a pay-go system and doesn’t need to be affected.

    Raise the age to 72-74. Raise the tax by 5% and reduce benefits by 20%. Problem solved. Now get that done politically. That is the tough part.

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

    @JP
    Now I’m curious you are talking “The talk” but are you walking “The walk”? Meaning do you have kids or are taking steps to get into that direction?

  • Brendan

    The hotness of UCLA girls has been in decline for at least 20 years whereas USC chicks are as hot as ever. And, ahem, the academic quality of UCLA has never and will never equal Cal.

    Agreed. IME, USC always had hotter chicks than UCLA did, although that’s really only judging from my annual roadtrips down to LA during my college years up north. In general, though, the NoCal schools are better academically (Cal and Stanford), while the SoCal ones have hotter women (USC and UCLA, and of course the rest of the non-Pac-12 SoCal schools).

  • JP

    Kids? I’ve had two kids for a while.

    Most people who we are friends with seem to have more.

    One physician couple just had their fifth.

  • Mike C

    Mmm this is an interesting remark

    I was playing lawyer and laying out one argument. The totality of my views are much more complex and nuanced. I noticed you cut and paste that part, but NOT the part about paying property taxes supporting schooling.

    so you resent that the values of us breeders shouldn’t be triumphed

    Nope, no resentment. Like I said, I am for people choosing their path to fulfillment. This is well beyond the scope of this blog….I suspect Escoffier and I could have some interesting discussions on this but in terms of the battle between individual “liberty” versus societal “duty” I tend to lean strongly towards individual liberty. I have reassessed some of those views in recent years…but still believe more in people living for their individual pursuits rather then a larger collective. That is a highly complex debate that can’t be solved in a few soundbites. Both too much “breeding” and too little “breeding” pose problems so I figure my personal decisions are balanced out by someone like you at the aggregate level.

    Do you think Values are neutral regardless of the impact in other people?

    I corrected myself on this, but as I mentioned above that is a tough debate about individual choice versus societal duty, and the question of “impact” is how direct or indirect is that impact.

  • Passer_By

    Jeez, guys, the comment was about mens’ desire for attractive celebs vs. run of the mill cute young girls. No need to get all NorCal snooty or to get into a debate about about various schools. Sheesh.

    I could have just as easily made the comment about Cal State Northridge. I probably couldn’t make it about Cal or Stanford, since all the women at those schools have always been butt ugly with hairy legs and mustaches. :)

  • Yan

    “VD October 24, 2012 at 10:51 am

    So why is that we can’t observe the behavior of happily married, faithful women who are good wives and mothers and draw conclusions about intent and motivation based on that?

    Because that would bring religion, morality, and – shudder – judgment back into the discussion. And we can’t have that.”

    Then keep going with unstable marriages, broken families, abortions galore, etc.

  • JP

    “This is well beyond the scope of this blog….I suspect Escoffier and I could have some interesting discussions on this but in terms of the battle between individual “liberty” versus societal “duty” I tend to lean strongly towards individual liberty.”

    You have the obligation to do what is the highest value, regardless of what you want or society wants.

    Error, whether personal or collective, has no rights.

  • Escoffier

    I was actually always more impressed by the talent at ASU then UofA but I haven’t been to either in about 10 years.

  • Mike C

    You have the obligation to do what is the highest value, regardless of what you want or society wants.

    Error, whether personal or collective, has no rights.

    You still have dodged the central question in your answer. How do we determine what is the “highest value”? What is a higher value? Following my own individual desire or what possibly produces a higher net societal benefit when they conflict? Human beings are not ant colonies nor are they islands in the sea.

  • Escoffier

    Mike C, first, it helps to discard the word “value” which presumes a rejection of the underlying premise.

    Second, it is certainly possible to rank the various human goods according to various categories, including ultimate importance. I can’t promise everyone will agree with the ranking but the metaphysical premises of why such rankings are sound are ironclad.

  • Iggles

    @ Ted D:

    Do you have kids? Not a dig, but I’m asking. Because there are a LOT of issues regarding cost, and they aren’t all a matter of stretching a dollar. For instance: child care.

    No worries, I didn’t take offense :)

    No, I don’t have children. I do want them someday.

    You bring up a good point about the logistics being an impediment to having kids. The lack of extended family in America (either being close to relatives — relationship-wise and geographically or not having relatives do to death and/or being from a small family) does pose a problem. Not having that network of extended family to lean on makes things tougher.

    But I’m with Ana. This is a first world problem.

    @ Ana:

    I turned out more or less okay in spite of that, so unless you are actually homeless there is always enough money to feed at least one kid if you really want them,YMMV.

    ^^ This! +1,000

  • Iggles

    @ Ted D:

    From a biological standpoint I completley agree with you, but for many people it is simply NOT an option to have children UNLESS they can do so AND maintain a lifestyle they are accostomed to. Do you think this couple would still be as happy with each other if they had to stop travelling? If one of them had to quit working? Do you think that the unhappiness might affect the childs home life? End in divorce?

    I may be naive, but IMO it doesn’t sound like they have a strong marriage if having a baby would strain their relationship to the breaking point!

    Honestly, how can you say “til death do us part” if not being able to travel could lead to divorce? As for the financial stuff, god forbid, but if one spouse gets sick you’d have to recalibrate to live on one income. Health is a wildcard. If your spouse can’t support you through sickness, what kind of marriage is that?? Not any I’d want to be a part of if we can only handle the good times… Life ebbs and flows.

  • Iggles

    @ JP:

    How on God’s Green Earth can you even ascribe a point value to women on the scale of attractiveness?

    With respect to attractiveness, I have two categories:

    (1) Women who are attractive enough to date;

    (2) Women who are not attractive enough to date.

    :lol: Me too! For the life of me, I cannot assign SMV numbers to men!

    While I can acknowledge I find some men more attractive than other, for my purposes I’ve only been concerned with 1 + 2 classification.

    Men who fall into camp 2 are ignored. Men who are in camp 1 are nice to look at. If I’m single and I know them in real life (i.e., not rating celebrities for example) then they become potential crushes and/or relationship material.

  • Iggles

    @ Mike C:

    Hope’s and Ana’s kids will be paying for my Social Security check (hopefully they will have more). :)

    You’re in your 30’s, right? By the time you reach retirement age (which no doubt will be increased considerably from the initial age of 65 to somewhere like 72 by then) if social security is still around, due to inflation and budget cuts it’ll hardly be enough for a month’s grocery bill.

    The current model is not sustainable and the Boomers will bring the system to its needs. Those of the next generation who are without reasonable savings, a pension, or their own IRA will be in for some tough times…

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    ” I really have no issue with that at all. But at least for me, it is a bit offputting if people define “success” for me. There is a presumptuousness and arrogance that comes along with that. You are telling me your values are superior to mine.”

    Some things are right, others are wrong.
    I could walk into your business/office and examine some pointy lined graphs describing some aspect of finance and try to interpret them. I’d probably do it wrong. you’d probably do it right.
    Vice versa for you trying to do something in my lab.
    Success is not individually definable there is a rather universal standard depending on the topic at hand.

    I would concede that we can place different amounts of emphasis on certain topics (core values in your speak), in which case achieving one over the other is possible.
    I disagree that achieving success in one area negates failure in another area.
    Ex. Your self actualization may be a very large success, not having children will be a biological failure.

    I don’t think anyone should feel bad about failing a task they don’t care about, ask my philosophy prof how much I cared. I still failed however (didn’t actually but it was really close.)

    Also, your commentary on the financial magic stuff is both enlightening and interesting.

  • Iggles

    Like most first world problems this is in the head of the person. Now I’m not trying to convince anyone to have kids just to show that the reasons are just hamster running. I would welcome a bit of ” Yes I’m happier with more money than with a family” that at least will be honest most childfree people are so damn dead set on making it look like the “smart” choice that is become breedershaming (breeders is a pejorative term that they use for our kind in case you were wondering).

    Ana,

    I know exactly what you’re talking about! I seen it first-hand with comments I’ve read elsewhere on the ‘net. The attitude of hardcore Child-free folks* irks me. They’re very defensive about their choices and try to frame it as the “better” way to live. Plus some of them are downright nasty about their anti-child views and distain for parents.

    Personally, I don’t get it. We need tiny humans and for people to continue having tiny humans in order for our species to exist. Without parents and children we do not have a future.

    I don’t think there should be hostility on either side IMO. The decision to have a family is an individual choice.

    Note * : Child-Free is a political term. It’s not the same thing as currently not having children.

  • Passer_By

    @iggles

    “Those of the next generation who are without reasonable savings, a pension, or their own IRA will be in for some tough times…”

    I’m looking forward to when SS collapses so I can use my “provider game” to get myself a harem of widows who all make really good cookies.

  • Iggles

    @ Ion:

    Girl version (btw 5 is likely about on par with Paul Adelstein in attractiveness).

    5 — Better have a great personality and be wealthy or willing to provide.

    6 — He’s decent looking, willing to see what happens (I suspect that most “good catches” fall in this category).

    7 — Definitely good looking, perfect man, I hope he picks me! I deserve a man like him.

    8 — God he’s hot, I don’t know if he’s got the “whole package” but he’d be fun to show off to my girlfriends; willing to postpone commitment for a guy this hot; I hope he doesn’t break my heart.

    9 — He’s too good looking, is some wrong with him? I better play hard to get/flirt as hard as I can.

    10 — Are you kidding me? He’s gay.

    Ion for the win! :lol:

    This is hilarious but quite on point. A male 10 is rarely ever straight!!

    On this scale, I probably wouldn’t date a 9. I have a cut off if a man is too attractive. I’ve seen it before and deduced that it’s no fun seeing woman trip over themselves to flirt with your hot boyfriend. (The woman I knew in this situation had it rough. She was beautiful, but her boyfriend was a rare level of attractiveness. She was batting them off with a stick!)

  • Ted D

    Iggles – not that I’m disagreeing with you, but honestly how can marriages be strong with such a high divorce rate? In a perfect world (or maybe one without no fault divorce…) til death do us part might be real. As it stands now for many people its til I get tired of dealing with your shit, or get bored, or catch the eye of a hotter guy/gal.

    Not saying this is how MY marriage works, but I’ve seen plenty of them that seem to almost be a delicate balance and the slightest push sets it tumbling. Add it to the list of things I find truly sad about our current state of existence. Many people simply DO NOT deal with adversity, they run from it.

  • INTJ

    And, ahem, the academic quality of UCLA has never and will never equal Cal.

    Ahh yes. I admit I was being somewhat generous to those folks in LA. :D

  • INTJ

    @ Passer_By

    I could have just as easily made the comment about Cal State Northridge. I probably couldn’t make it about Cal or Stanford, since all the women at those schools have always been butt ugly with hairy legs and mustaches.

    The Stanford ones ain’t bad looking. Sure, they don’t wear loads of makeup or slutty clothing, but they shave their legs and keep themselves fit. :D

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

    This is well beyond the scope of this blog

    That has never stopped us before…but if you don’t want to talk about it there is no need.

    I could have some interesting discussions on this but in terms of the battle between individual “liberty” versus societal “duty” I tend to lean strongly towards individual liberty.

    I do remember when Hope mentioned some measure a government could make and you mentioned how horrific the idea was, so I guessed that I also wanted to add that you are also unrestricted sexually more or less socialized to be restricted but still biologically speaking. I think this is the sort of things that don’t manifest alone in sexuality, but that bleeds in other aspects of their lives.

    Health is a wildcard.

    Life is a wildcard you can be the best executive work your ass off and get fired with little to keep but what you can carry on a box to protect higher ups or to pay for a big mistake. You can get sick, get an accident, get pregnant accidentally. There is no such a thing as a 100% predictable life anyone marrying hoping things will always be the way they wanted to are going to crack at the first test of life. Is easy to love and to stay around a person during the “good times” the bad ones are the ones that make or break a couple and avoiding all possible risks only means that the cardboard house hasn’t still got rained on, not that is waterproof, YMMV.

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

    @JP

    Want to collect your Social Security retirement?

    I don’t think I’ll be factoring it into my retirement plans at all. I wish workers were allowed to opt out, to some degree anyway.

    Any “retirement” system that entitles most recipients to more than they ever paid in, that taxes more than it needs to begin with (Trust Fund? no, gov’t bonds!), that doesn’t take into account demographic change or vastly increased longevity, and that has a 1% rate of return when inflation is ~2%, is structured very badly indeed.

    And then there’s this:
    http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

    Why should anybody my age (or younger) bank on this behemoth?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Esc

    I don’t actually have to restrain myself from cheating, either, because–lucky me–women are not throwing themselves at me. But if they were, it might take a little effort on my part

    Might not be as tough as you think if you’re a restricted type.

    There’s an extremely flirty girl at my work. She seems to have taken a little bit of a crush on me, and it seems she has lost attraction for her unemployed boyfriend. She has asked for my opinions on swinging and three-somes.

    I am not seriously tempted to even escalate this let alone actually act on it.

    One of my friends, we used to have a thing a while back, college years. The backstory doesn’t matter, but the short version is that I wouldn’t let her cheat with me. During one BBQ party this past year, she sat down on the chair next to me, started talking about sexting, and placed her arm on my crotch.

    Again, not tempted, I pulled out of the situation, and let her know that I wasn’t going to be cheating on my SO.

    If you’re restricted, you’re restricted. There is no “it just happened,” you take action to avoid those situations because it makes you uncomfortable.

  • Ramble

    What is it with your obsession over women who could lose a few pounds? No one is asking you to date a Large Marge. Give it a rest.

    Like I said, there are, as far as I can tell, 2 taboos in America (the West), Race and Women’s Weight. I don’t talk much about race here out of respect for your blog, but the other, I bring up plenty, as you have noticed.

    I hate Political Correctness and all that it has caused.

    We are fatter than we have ever been and pop culture will still not touch it in any real sense. And our non-pop culture is usually no better.

    You say things like, “Well, every girl knows that if she is overweight and is having trouble getting or keeping a boyfriend then she needs to lose weight” (or something to that effect), but it is flat out not true.

    We are so terrified of hurting someones feelings that we usually only deal with the most obvious cases, like the obese, or trotting out niceties, like saying that you should “get healthy”, which so often does not address the issue (especially since it is very possible to be quite healthy and still have a somewhat unattractive body).

    So, to a degree, some things are improving, I think. As far as I can tell, guys are more willing to express their desire for things like longer hair, or non-short hair, and feminine clothes.

    However, try to find a positive example of this in pop culture:

    “Girls should be careful about their weight if they are interested in sexually attracting a man. Extra weight, in general, is unattractive and can affect your boyfriends sexual interest in you. While there are many factors that go into what attracts a guy to a girl, her looks are often a major factor.

    If you do attempt to attain, or maintain, an attractive look, you will not sacrifice your health in doing so.”

    Like Bastiat, I also used to peruse through relationship books, which are almost always aimed at girls, and I never found one that even came close to saying anything like that. “Get Healthy”? Sure. “Look your best”? Of course. “Lose some weight if you have a muffin top”? What are you trying to do, cause anorexia?

    And these books often claim to cut through the bull and tell you what is really wrong.

    A few threads back Sassy offered a bootcamp for girls to better attract guys (after Jason had done the same for guys). I asked her what would be the first thing she would recommend. She said, (paraphrasing) “Lose weight, if you need to.” So, for those that are willing to be honest and not worry too much about who they might offend, it is usually one of the first things they will mention, if not the first. But, for everyone else, they are too scared to say anything because they don’t want to be the bad guy.

    And, the few times that the subject does get addressed, it is almost always in the context of marriage. So, there is all sorts of talk about how they can work on these things and start walking together and all that. You can never find an example of two people dating and the boyfriend being disappointed with the girls growing waistline.

    Lastly, I will leave with this anecdote: I used to be a Psych Major and would read many a forum post on psychoanalysis and therapy sessions. Well, this one post was about this husband having sexual problems with his wife. He was in a room with a group of therapists asking him questions. All sorts of questions were asked about love, and care, and comfort and all that. Finally, this one therapist got to ask a question (the therapist who had posted the story) and asked, “Do you find your wife sexually attractive?”, to which the patient replied, “No”.

    The therapist then looked at all of the other therapists and they, according to him, just had this deer-caught-in-headlights look.

    And, for the record, I don’t think that anyone is making me like large marge.

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

      @Ramble

      I think the fat acceptance movement is bogus, and I don’t make excuses here for gluttony of any kind. However, this obsession with female weight is nearly always off topic. If I write a post about how to be attractive to men, it’s fair game, otherwise not so much.

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

    @Ramble
    Oh I remembered an example of pop culture showing a positive male that wants to sleep with a variety of attractive women. Tony Stark on Iron Man I for what is worth.

  • Ramble

    Although it is from the DailyMail, this seems appropriate:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2220926/Stella-Boonshoft-Woman-sparks-debate-bikini-picture-Facebook.html

    Stella said:’I know what I am trying to do, which is help young women struggling with their body image and expose the hypocrisy and cruelty that is sizeism, is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT whatever feelings I may have about myself.’

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

      @Ramble

      I totally support Stella Boonshoft’s right to like herself, including her body, and to reject a lifetime of bullying that began when she was 5. I honestly don’t see what this has to do with you. Let her eat cake.

  • Ramble

    Tony Stark on Iron Man I for what is worth.

    Eh, sorta. I never saw the sequel, but in the original, they basically make it out as a hedonistic lifestyle where he has no one but Pepper Pots, who, when meeting his latest conquest,

    Stark’s recent fling is walking around his apartment, looking for him. She instead encounters Pepper, who is holding the woman’s clothes which have been dry-cleaned and pressed. The woman, a reporter, knows Pepper, and sneers at Pepper’s menial tasks that she performs on behalf of Stark.

    But instead of flustering about, or standing there with her mouth open while the reporter walks away, Pepper looks at her coolly and says that she indeed still arranges the dry-cleaning.

    “I also take out the trash from time to time,” she adds, clearly not phased by the woman’s remarks and laying in one of her own.

    (quoted from PinkRayGun.com)

    However, if you want, I’ll give it to you. It’s close enough.

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

    Eh, sorta. I never saw the sequel, but in the original, they basically make it out as a hedonistic lifestyle where he has no one but Pepper Pots, who, when meeting his latest conquest,
    I think it was positive and Pepper comment was a way to show that she wanted Tony and to open for the relationship I saw more as female competition than male shaming. Also his driver pretty much tells him “she is fine” for Tony to make the moves on her. No judgement or snark just wingman doing his job of spotting the cute ones.

  • Ion

    “Like I said, there are, as far as I can tell, 2 taboos in America (the West), Race and Women’s Weight. ”

    If by “taboo”, you mean pervasively discussed throughout all forms of pop-culture, sure…

  • Ion

    “Ion for the win!

    This is hilarious but quite on point. A male 10 is rarely ever straight!!”

    Iggles, hahaha. By women competing for a limited pool of men, I assume that it’s men 5-8 in attractiveness. There is “too hot” that seems to make a man asexual and pretty to a lot of women.

  • J

    I think that people who don’t know what the wealthy look like should travel to Manhattan’s upper west side and midtown. They are just as average looking and miserable as everyone else.

    Interesting. I was in that neck of the woods recently, and I also made that observation. In fact, as exciting as NYC is for a short time, I thought the quality of everyday life was lower than in my area.

  • HanSolo

    @Ion

    I liked your list. :D

  • J

    I spent my first years of discovering the Internet using the public library computers having sometimes to save lunch money for the fare for public transportation there and back…

    Ana, your determination and ability to take the bull by the horns never ceases to amaze me.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Ramble:

    Ha. Of course that chick goes to NYU. She’s actually attractive, if she lost weight she would be stunning.

    She’s most likely feeling the pressure, too. It’s hard to find overweight students at NYU. It’s hard to find overweight people in NYC, for that matter…

  • SayWhaat

    On this scale, I probably wouldn’t date a 9. I have a cut off if a man is too attractive. I’ve seen it before and deduced that it’s no fun seeing woman trip over themselves to flirt with your hot boyfriend. (The woman I knew in this situation had it rough. She was beautiful, but her boyfriend was a rare level of attractiveness. She was batting them off with a stick!)

    Iggles, I’m the same. I think I’ve only gone out with one guy who I truly considered to be way above my level. We went on a few dates and it fizzled out. Yeah, I was disappointed at the time, but I was also kind of relieved. I found him super-attractive, and I didn’t see how that could ever pan out in a positive way.

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

      @SayWhaat

      I think I’ve only gone out with one guy who I truly considered to be way above my level. We went on a few dates and it fizzled out. Yeah, I was disappointed at the time, but I was also kind of relieved. I found him super-attractive, and I didn’t see how that could ever pan out in a positive way.

      A young woman told me about a date she went on with a guy who she considered the handsomest by far who had ever taken an interest in her. He excused himself to use the men’s room, and as he made his way back to the table, walking by the bar, he was intercepted by three different women, including one who my friend overheard saying, “Those blue eyes of yours are so ugly, you should see an ophthamologist.” (That is truly the worst pickup line I’ve ever heard, btw.) Anyway, she immediately felt that this was not something she wanted to deal with day in and day out.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Sassy:

    I spoke with the bf yesterday, and he admitted that he wanted to have less sex with me. I was absolutely floored. I don’t know if it’s a bad omen or whether it’s a red flag. I’m not taking it personally, but I am keeping my eyes open.

    Ha, I went through that with my boyfriend a few months ago! Saying it that way is a bit odd, but it could just be that your sex drive overpowers his. I think you’re handling it fine by not taking it personally but being alert for any other signs.

    Side story: Some time ago, my boyfriend bought me my first vibrator. Something about taking care of myself because he wanted to get some damn sleep after coming twice in one night. >__>

  • J

    @Sassy

    I spoke with the bf yesterday, and he admitted that he wanted to have less sex with me. I was absolutely floored. I don’t know if it’s a bad omen or whether it’s a red flag. I’m not taking it personally, but I am keeping my eyes open…..Something just seems off.

    It may just be that he has a lower sex drive than you do. The usual complaint is that the woman has the lower drive, but the converse does happen. I don;t know if it’s a red flag, but in the long run it can be pretty frustrating. I know several women my age who tear their hair over it.

  • J

    most childfree people are so damn dead set on making it look like the “smart” choice that is become breedershaming (breeders is a pejorative term that they use for our kind in case you were wondering).

    When I was a La Leche League member, one of the other moms called my attention to a “childfree” blog that referred to babies as “sprogs” and “crotchdroppings.” I LMAO’ed. You’d think someone was holding a knife to these peoples’s gonads and forcing them to have kids. I continue to read the blog for a while. Ironically, 80% of these people have “furbabies.” LOL.

  • SayWhaat

    Human beings are not ant colonies nor are they islands in the sea.

    According to Jonathan Haidt, humans are 90% Chimp and 10% Bee. We can be very selfish and very self-interested, but we are also very groupish (why else do we join teams, clubs, frats, etc.?). Certain things or events can trigger a “hive switch” where we suddenly transcend our individuality and feel part of a larger fabric (e.g., 9/11).

  • SayWhaat

    @ J:

    What is a furbaby? Do they mean pets?

  • Ramble

    I think it was positive and Pepper comment was a way to show that she wanted Tony and to open for the relationship I saw more as female competition than male shaming. Also his driver pretty much tells him “she is fine” for Tony to make the moves on her. No judgement or snark just wingman doing his job of spotting the cute ones.

    Yeah, I hear you. And, I really liked Iron Man. OK, I’ll count it. Granted, the initial writing for that kind of womanizing pre-dated PC and Feminism. Still, it was shown today.

  • Ramble

    If by “taboo”, you mean pervasively discussed throughout all forms of pop-culture, sure…

    Right. We see Race talked about honestly and openly all the time in Pop Culture. That must be why the most successful book ever printed on the subject, The Bell Curve, was immediately denounced as racist, never got a 2nd printing (which is unheard of for a book as successful as it was) and was “rebutted” by that hack Stephen Jay Gould.

  • Ramble

    … if she lost weight she would be stunning.

    It’s funny, because, apparently someone had said that to her and she hated her for it. Granted, I understand why.

    She’s most likely feeling the pressure, too. It’s hard to find overweight students at NYU. It’s hard to find overweight people in NYC, for that matter…

    In general, the less driving and more walking one *has* to do, the less likely they are to be overweight.

  • J

    What is a furbaby? Do they mean pets?

    LOL, yeah. I’m gonna start calling my kids “skinbabies.”

  • Sassy6519

    @ SayWhaat & J

    To clarify, he told me that he only wanted to have sex with me once a month. He actually explicitly gave me that figure to work with.

    I dumped him tonight, and for good this time.

    If anyone wants to give me any condolences, save it.

    I think it is best that I go on a dating sabbatical. I’m burned out on the dating scene, for now.

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

      @Sassy

      To clarify, he told me that he only wanted to have sex with me once a month. He actually explicitly gave me that figure to work with.

      WTF, my gaydar is blaring.

  • Cooper

    Well, I’m real late to the entire discussion – I’ve only read the first page. (Ted@#5 – nailed it!)

    I just wanted to pop in with my opinion. I think partly why some people, a few, have reported high N women doing well in the marriage market, is cause – at least how I think about it – a woman that has accepted her past, as what it is and wished to have a go at a LTR, seems like a nearly-less risky than one that seems to have a restricted SOI, yet has a history of incongruent behaviour. To me, the restricted SOI vs incongruent behaviour is just an additional inconsistency, to the whole picture.

    And, Sassy, sorry to hear.

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

    Ana, your determination and ability to take the bull by the horns never ceases to amaze me.

    Funny that you mentioned that I told my husband a story he didn’t knew about how I ran away from home when I was 17 (it was mostly so my parents stopped the helicoptering and let me do dangerous things like getting a job and doing my own errands I know the sure path to debauchery and sluthood…) and when I asked him if he was surprised he said “no you are stubborn” I spent ten minutes trying to tell him that I was “a nice easy going girl” not stubborn and he just looked at me and let the works sink in…Yeah I couldn’t deny it ever again. Now looking back I totally see it but if you had asked me I wouldn’t had considered myself the fighting type.

    On this scale, I probably wouldn’t date a 9.

    Is funny I can’t rate men like that either I personally never saw anyone as too good looking to date more like too caddish to date. I consider my husband the most attractive man in the face of Earth and any woman that doesn’t see it, is just stupid and I don’t listen to stupid people anyway. But then the few times I had seen a woman smart enough to notice him I just want to slap her till my hand falls off and use my best “what is your problem bitch” face so is an interesting contradiction you are whether stupid or a candidate to worm food. I guess I’m lucky there is not a lot of smart girls around us :p

    Ironically, 80% of these people have “furbabies.” LOL.

    Well is different animals are better than humans, humans suck so the less the better for everyone…Humanism is not part of the reasoning in those cases IMO, YMMV.

  • Mike C

    I think partly why some people, a few, have reported high N women doing well in the marriage market, is cause – at least how I think about it – a woman that has accepted her past, as what it is and wished to have a go at a LTR, seems like a nearly-less risky than one that seems to have a restricted SOI, yet has a history of incongruent behaviour. To me, the restricted SOI vs incongruent behaviour is just an additional inconsistency, to the whole picture.

    Cooper, this is a very interesting point, and I think a correct one. I think the more someone acts with incongruent behavior, the more it gives the impression they are sort of “out of control”.

  • Cooper

    @JP, Iggles, Ion

    “I can count on my hand the number of women I’ve ever kissed.

    I think mine stretches over to my second hand, by one or two.

    “And with two of them I was just minding my own business when they started kissing me.” -JP

    Same! But with me, the two were together when it happened.

  • szopen

    @JP
    <blockquote?
    Want to collect your Social Security retirement? Then you better show us evidence that you have two kids.

    No free riders!

    Yeah! I was arguing exactly the same for years now. Last time I made this argument in jaymans blog :) Anyway, some libertarians does not understand that this is not problem of Social Security, and the problem is the same if everyone cares for themselves. Imagine everyone is working hard and is saving a lot of gold (libertarians are veeeery fond of gold). ANd in order to save more, they have no kids. At the end of the day, they have piles of gold, but there is nothing which could be bought for this gold.

    A money, no matter of its form, is a promise of service or goods in the future. No future workers, no future services or goods. The future value of your money (no matter whether that money is in the form of paper currency or silver or gold) depends on future workers.

    You have no kids, you are free rider. A society can afford to have some percentage of free riders, but after some point it will simply break.

  • Ion

    “The Bell Curve, was immediately denounced as racist, never got a 2nd printing ”

    Pop culture has repeatedly argued for example, that blacks are dumb but good at sports. So yes, it’s premise has been covered many times in pop culture. Anyway, there’s no need to discuss it (I am almost certain you brought it up here for an audience anyway).

  • Ion

    “I think partly why some people, a few, have reported high N women doing well in the marriage market, is cause – at least how I think about it – a woman that has accepted her past, as what it is and wished to have a go at a LTR, seems like a nearly-less risky than one that seems to have a restricted SOI.”

    Cooper, you’re 100% right here.

  • Ion

    @ J

    “Interesting. I was in that neck of the woods recently, and I also made that observation. In fact, as exciting as NYC is for a short time, I thought the quality of everyday life was lower than in my area.”

    In rich neighborhoods if you look up during the summer, you see their a/c units in the window. It took me a while to get over the fact that they didn’t even have central air :-/.

  • INTJ

    @ Sassy

    To clarify, he told me that he only wanted to have sex with me once a month. He actually explicitly gave me that figure to work with.

    Holy crap WTF.

  • Iggles

    Sorry Sassy :(

    I do agree that making a clean break now is for the best. It’s really odd and suspicious that he gave you an exact figure – and once a month would be having sex 12x a year! That’s on par with a sexless marriage.

    I think Susan’s theory is plausible. Perhaps he’s gay or asexual. In any event, both are dealbreakers.

  • Escoffier

    “Those blue eyes of yours are so ugly, you should see an ophthamologist.”

    That’s a pick-up line? Wait, did the girl say that to the guy or vice versa?

    I feel so old …

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

      @Escoffier

      That’s a pick-up line? Wait, did the girl say that to the guy or vice versa?

      The girl said it to the guy as he walked by. Apparently, he does have piercing blue eyes. She was trying to waylay him – perhaps she did not realize he was on a dinner date. Or perhaps she didn’t care.

  • Ted D

    “Cooper, this is a very interesting point, and I think a correct one. I think the more someone acts with incongruent behavior, the more it gives the impression they are sort of “out of control”.”

    I think Cooper and Mike C are indeed onto something here. Pulling from my experience, I can say that my wife’s past bothered me in general, but the fact that her early behavior seemed so out of line with the person I met was a large concern of mine. It was only after she “filled in the blanks” that I began to understand how it all happened. Indeed she WAS acting incongruent because of drinking, some drug use, and how she reacted to her home environment at the time. Some people act out, others pull in. She went the former route while I took the latter. (maybe it is related to E vs. I personalities?)

    But yes, I’ll take an honest women that knows herself over a woman that claims one thing and does another hands down. At least you can guess what to expect from someone that knows what they are about.

  • Ted D

    Sassy – That sounds a lot like the last five years of my first marriage!

    Not to make light of your situation, but it’s always good to know you aren’t alone when these screwed up situations occur. And your right, it was a bullet dodged beyond all doubt.

    As to what’s up with his sex drive? Susan might be right. Or it could be any number of things. What is important is that his and yours were NOT compatible. Full stop.

    Taking a break might be good. But I’d just suggest NOT putting much effort into it right now, but being open to opprotunity IF one occurs. Every time I’ve found a LTR mate, it was when I was NOT actually looking. Maybe that’s just when my quirks around “women” don’t show, or maybe it’s just that actively looking sends off an air of “desparate and needy”. *shrug* You’ll be fine. ;-)

  • Thrasymachus

    Right. We see Race talked about honestly and openly all the time in Pop Culture. That must be why the most successful book ever printed on the subject, The Bell Curve, was immediately denounced as racist, never got a 2nd printing (which is unheard of for a book as successful as it was) and was “rebutted” by that hack Stephen Jay Gould.

    Um… most psychologists and geneticists do NOT consider The Bell Curve to be “the most successful book ever printed on the subject” of race. The only people who do so are race-obsessed HBD advocates who interject race into every discussion. There’s a lot more that could be said, but this isn’t the appropriate forum for addressing this issue.

  • Mike C

    That’s a pick-up line? Wait, did the girl say that to the guy or vice versa?

    I was wondering the same thing. The way it read, it sounded like something the girl said to the guy. If so, that is a good example of a girl trying to imitate Game (use of neg) and failing miserably. A neg should either have some humor or some ambiguity (back-handed compliment). But that is just a flat out direct insult.

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

      A neg should either have some humor or some ambiguity (back-handed compliment). But that is just a flat out direct insult.

      She was attempting humor via sarcasm. Apparently, this guy has amazing eyes that are frequently remarked upon. She was indeed negging a 10.

  • Escoffier

    Re: Bell Curve, I think it was the most successful in the sense of biggest selling. Then again, I disagree that it was all about race. One of the great ironies is that race is actually only a few pages in a really long book but everyone thinks it was all about race.

    And, re: counter-claims by other researches, Murray is not above a little politely-toned gloating and has kept track of psychometric studies since the book came out and he can show that pretty much every single one confirms what he and Hernstein said.

  • Thrasymachus

    Murray is not, to put it mildly , the most objective assessor of the extent to which subsequent research has confirmed his arguments. It’s a bit like Roissy always finding that science has confirmed Game’s tenets while ignoring studies that present alternative findings.

    For example, this study, published earlier this year, summarizes the current state of research on intelligence. It is clearly inconsistent with the view that “every single study” – or even the majority – confirms what Murray and Herrnstein said.

    http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf

    There are far, far more researchers who agree with Nisbett and his colleagues than they are who agree with Murray.

  • Escoffier

    Fair enough, Murray’s summaries are apparently out of date, though I have to say, when I see something that endorses “stereotype threat”–an intellectual epicycle if ever there was one–my BS radar starts to beep loudly. Murray and others have done a great job of demolishing that one over the years yet it never goes away because the other side needs SOME explanation for obvious, persistent patterns.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    WTF, my gaydar is blaring.

    I’ve been suspecting the same thing. That wasn’t the first thing about him that set off my gaydar a little bit, but it definitely was the final straw. I cannot imagine having sex with a guy I really care about only once a month. He also wouldn’t go down on me, he cracked way too many gay jokes for my own comfort level, and he was eerily attached to one of his male “friends” in a way that really set my gaydar off.

    @ Ted D

    Not to make light of your situation, but it’s always good to know you aren’t alone when these screwed up situations occur. And your right, it was a bullet dodged beyond all doubt.

    I definitely feel like I dodged a bullet with this guy. Also, I’ll be open to new opportunities while not actively searching for any. I really do feel like I need a break from dating, to be honest.

    @ Everyone

    Thanks for the support. I just feel really nauseated over the entire situation. That’s how I knew that I had to end it. I honestly think that he wanted me to be his beard, and it’s really upsetting.

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

      He also wouldn’t go down on me, he cracked way too many gay jokes for my own comfort level, and he was eerily attached to one of his male “friends” in a way that really set my gaydar off.

      OMG, Sassy! I am so sorry, that is terrible. I do not get it. Why would a gay guy in 2012 even consider taking advantage of another human being in that way, when it’s completely unnecessary to be in the closet?

      I know you’re upset right now, and I won’t belabor the point. At some point, this may be worth dissecting on your part.

  • Ion

    Sassy,

    ” He also wouldn’t go down on me, he cracked way too many gay jokes for my own comfort level, and he was eerily attached to one of his male “friends” in a way that really set my gaydar off.”

    These are all good clues (that combined with acting…honestly)

    Please don’t take it personally with this guy. Seems he has a bunch of issues he needs to work out.

  • Escoffier

    Mike C is right, sounds like a girl trying to employ the neg and not getting it.

    Of course I am just jealous because no one every tries to pick me up except for the occasional gay guy.

    Though I recall one exception from about two years ago, I was waiting for someone at a hotel bar and I ordered an absurdly expensive glass of wine because I had always wanted to try that producer and what the hell, it was cheaper than a bottle. Two women were at the bar and they played a sort of good cop/bad cop routine on me, with one of them going all gushy about what a conoseuir I must be and the other one denouncing me for being such a status whore as to spend that much money on wine. It was odd.

  • Ted D

    “Of course I am just jealous because no one every tries to pick me up except for the occasional gay guy.”

    Yeah what the crap is up with this? I’ve been “propositioned” a few times this way. (although one of my ex-LTR mates had several gay male friends, so perhaps it was guilt be association?) I’ve only been directly “hit on” by women I wouldn’t even consider. My guess? I’ve had plenty of IOI’s sent my way and I was oblivious. Either than or I’m considered hideous to most of the female population. :P

  • Ion

    Thrasymachus

    “It’s a bit like Roissy always finding that science has confirmed Game’s tenets while ignoring studies that present alternative findings.”

    I’ve noticed this. Maybe it reminds me too much of convos I’ve had with religious people being agnostic.

    Me “I don’t really believe in religion”, them “well, that’s because now it’s p.c. to be anti-religion!”, me “not saying that, I just don’t believe in religion or that it explains the existence of the universe, such as xyz”, them “well find me some evidence that religion DOESN’T EXIST!”, me “what evidence do YOU have?” them “Exodus 12:1″.

  • Escoffier

    I will say, Ted, that getting out of San Francisco has cut down on the # of gay approaches. 80% of the occasions it has happened to me have happened there. 15% in LA and the others in NY.

    I think in SF it is now so unusual to wear a suit that anyone dressed up is automatically assumed to be gay. The old suit culture “Wall Street of the West” of my dad’s working life is long gone. Straight boys in SF today work in the tech sector and they all wear khakis and polos.

  • Ramble

    However, this obsession with female weight is nearly always off topic.

    You’re probably right. I probably interject it way too often. It is one of my hobby horses.

    For the record though, I am not obsessed with female weight, but the culture of what is and is not acceptable to say.

    I honestly don’t see what this has to do with you.

    It was the quote that I included (i.e. culture of “Sizeism”) and the top-rated comments on the page, which were interesting. Of the top 3 rated comments, 2 of them said this:

    Good for her but it has to work both ways, a slim girl should be able to show her body without being called a stick insect or being told she has the body of a 10 year old boy.

    and

    I love how everyone slags off slim people in these articles. I’m naturally a size 6. I’m not anorexic. I’m a real woman too. You can find this woman attractive without making slim people feel bad about themselves!!

    And these comments help highlight the acceptable narrative (which is my “obsession”, not weight), which allows our (pop) culture to be mildly disrespectful to “skinny” people but not to people who are a little heavy or moderately overweight.

    And, in that vein, your comment here is telling, “I think the fat acceptance movement is bogus, and I don’t make excuses here for gluttony of any kind.

    You should know by now that my comments rarely, if ever, have to do with gluttony. But, declaring ones disapproval of gluttony or obesity fits in the narrative.

    So, with all of that said, and knowing that this will be the last time I interject this hobby horse for a while, think of this:

    Tons and tons of TV shows and popular feature films show guys and girls getting together, breaking up, getting into arguments, working out issues, etc. And, in these shows/movies, the various guys and girls are shown to have all sorts of problems that are made aware to them (i.e. you are too controlling, you are too jealous, you overreact, you are no longer fun, you are no longer romantic, you are too superficial, etc.). Can you think of any TV show or movie where the husband, or, even better, boyfriend, said to his wife/girlfriend that she has gained a few pounds and he does not find her physically attractive and he was NOT shown to be an ass? Again, not a scene where someone needs to lose weight for “health” reasons. Not a scene where someone takes it upon themselves to lose weight so that they can feel better about themselves (being self involved is quite OK in our modern culture, as long as it is done with the proper nuance).

    Again, whether referencing Helen Fisher, Susan Walsh, Sassy or almost any other adult woman who has thought about these things for more than 5 minutes, they will tell you that physically attracting your mate is of the highest priority. And yet, that scenario that I outlined, is, as far as I can tell, never addressed.

    And, one last, last thing: obesity is not a problem in the SMP/MMP. Of the people in the SMP that “need” to lose weight, very few are obese. The grand majority (of those that “need” to lose weight) need to lose 10-40 lbs to get down to fighting weight. Very, very few single (white) people in the MC/UMC that are under 35 are obese.

    =============================

    You are right. I interject it way too often and I will STFU about this on future threads.

  • Ramble

    Um… most psychologists and geneticists do NOT consider The Bell Curve to be “the most successful book ever printed on the subject” of race.

    Thras, I was talking about sales. I amy be wrong, but, at the time, it sold something like 600,000+ copies which was, at the time, a record for a Sociology book.

    Also, I am not attempting to claim that Murray is the end-all-be-all on the subject. My point was that Race is most definitely a taboo in our modern Politically correct culture.

  • Ramble

    OMG, Sassy! I am so sorry, that is terrible. I do not get it. Why would a gay guy in 2012 even consider taking advantage of another human being in that way, when it’s completely unnecessary to be in the closet?

    The guy may not be closeted. He may simply be confused.

    Also, what about the likes of Andy Dick? He is most definitely NOT closeted, yet, he will, I understand, approach girls from time to time. That’s probably not happening in the case with Sassy, but, still, it is an example of a non-closeted man who regularly has gay sex but may also dabble with girls every so often.

  • Jackie

    @Sassy, Susan
    :shock:

    Sassy, that is terrible! Yikes. Definitely a bullet dodged!

    (BTW, I had a quick, easy question for you– could you email me @ hussie.jackie (at) gmail, if it’s not an imposition?)

    Re: Why a guy would do that in this day and age? Didn’t you say he is from an old Southern Family? (Like FFV?) My grandmother, “Norma Desmond,” was from the South and there is a LOT to unpack from certain families. (In my grandmother’s case, we had to tell her that racist lawn ornaments, among other things, were not acceptable. I’ll spare you further details! In the words of my dad, You just don’t want to know. :( )

    I actually dated a guy from the South– who was religious, like me, and was cool with not pushing past a certain point. I thought, Huzzah! He respects me! The house I was living in at that time had a big plasma tv and he brought over movies for our date. OMG, his choices:

    Brokeback Mountain and another (can’t remember title) about the life of Oscar Wilde! :shock: Most. Uncomfortable. Movie Date. EVER!

    I will just say it didn’t work out (obv!) and I think he is now dating another religious guy.

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

      Brokeback Mountain and another (can’t remember title) about the life of Oscar Wilde! Most. Uncomfortable. Movie Date. EVER!

      LMAO! Seriously, that sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit. Good thing you ended it. You probably missed out on Harvey Milk for date #3.

  • Jackie

    PS: Also, he constantly implored me to chop my hair– like Anne Hathaway or Carey Mulligan short (super pixie cut) and was less than enamored of my figure. Talked about how awesome Keira Knightley’s “aesthetics” were (i.e. not exactly curvy). At the time I was :( and :cry:

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

      @Jackie

      PS: Also, he constantly implored me to chop my hair– like Anne Hathaway or Carey Mulligan short (super pixie cut) and was less than enamored of my figure. Talked about how awesome Keira Knightley’s “aesthetics” were (i.e. not exactly curvy).

      This would make a great short story. It’s too rich. Really hilarious. Keira Knightley? She is downright pointy.

      I heard a story along these lines but the woman let it go on for a long time and the relationship was sexual. Guess what he liked best? :P She finally caught on.

  • Ion

    “Why would a gay guy in 2012 even consider taking advantage of another human being in that way, when it’s completely unnecessary to be in the closet?”

    Good question, yet I know several girls who have had similar experiences, in NYC no less, all thinking they are somehow “attracting” gay guys.

    I went on a date once with a guy who wore a suit on the date and brought 40 long stem roses and chocolates, he also picked me up at my door. Normally, these would’ve been sweet over-the-top gestures, but something seemed a little “off” about him, like he was trying on a gender role. Over dinner he discussed what it was like to be a manager of a computer company located in Westchester, and how he felt pretty incredible fitting in so well there [later I assumed he meant with other men since he was a former graduate of my college 10 years prior to when I graduated-- a school with a very high percentage of GLBT. His daddy got him that job].

    Anyway, over dinner he said “what is something you’ve done that not many people know about” (already inappropriate). When I asked what he did, he talked for 5 minutes about being a former stripper. When I asked what was his favorite part of stripping he said “what happened in Chicago, stays in Chicago”, with this really girly grin and wink.

    He tried to kiss me after the date in his car and I backed away, and I deleted his # . He called like 2 weeks after that and I ignored. How do your eyes fill up with glee at the thought of stripping???? Not acceptable.

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

      Anyway, over dinner he said “what is something you’ve done that not many people know about” (already inappropriate). When I asked what he did, he talked for 5 minutes about being a former stripper. When I asked what was his favorite part of stripping he said “what happened in Chicago, stays in Chicago”, with this really girly grin and wink.

      HAHAHAHA

      One girl I know hears from a guy every 4 months or so. He flirts via text, they go on a fabulous date, and at the end of the night he runs away. This has been going on ever since they worked together during college – 5 years. She never expects to hear from him again, then the cycle repeats. She is utterly baffled, but thinks it has to be either:

      1. gay

      2. micropenis

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Once a month? Ouch, I am sorry! Gay, bi, or, maybe wants you in slot #7 on his harem. Since you’re in theater… I’m going with #2.

    Ion – you are confusing pop culture, with what can be overtly said an still be PC. That Stella pic went around on Facebook, with 900 billion comments saying she’s beautiful at any weight. Anyone saying that she is overweight and would look better with a few pounds would get shouted down. We can simply observe the amount of comments on an issue like that, to see what is PC and what isn’t.

  • HanSolo

    @Ramble

    Race is most definitely a taboo in our modern Politically correct culture

    It’s taboo except for the politically correct to call anyone racist who disagrees with them.

  • Ion

    “Ion – you are confusing pop culture, with what can be overtly said an still be PC. ”

    Maybe you’re right OTC. Because I do see weight being discussed consistently, and I see race being discussed consistently, although I feel like we’re disagreeing on what constitutes exposure on the subject.

    Case in point, “obesity epidemic!” in capital letters with accompanying charts, and flashing pie charts, and graphs, and statistics no one really understands, diet books and cleanses, organic vs. protein, etc.,. I see fat hawaiians, obese black women, and fat spanish nannies everywhere on TV. I see “real women have curves” and dove campaigns.

    Yet vogue and every magazine still has skinny women on it as ideal. Every Hollywood actress and model is still thin (including teen idols), every romance has a thin woman (except “Bridget Jones”). If a few fat chicks want to embrace their bodies, fine with me, because there’s plenty of conflicting images that show what “ideal bodies” look like and they are fit or thin. No one is saying that obesity is beautiful in my opinion, these women have chosen to gaslight themselves, which is coming from a different place than what’s acceptable in pop culture.

    I feel similarly about that to race. Plenty of NBA exposure, hip hop exposure, crime stats exposure. None on what the middle class of all races are doing (making ends meet, being normal human beings). Blacks only make up 12% of the population and 50% of every story it seems like. Which is why people can look at T.V. and then the ghetto and feel like they have a grip on “the black experience”, and feel compelled to buy Bell Curve. Pop culture “exposure” is closer to Bell Curve line of thinking than the reality of for example, than black middle class life (unless we count The Cosby’s or Private Practice :-P).

    There is also “proof” in that there’s a huge group of people of different backgrounds here who get along unless someone is trolling to create decisiveness, and that we all can read and articulate should stand for “evidence”. There’s also a huge number of women here who’ve said they seek to remain/get in better shape than there are those “embracing their gut”. But if someone’s “beliefs” go against that, I cannot argue with “beliefs” (see my reason on religion above).

    I agree with you though.

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

    @Susan
    Maybe we should have a corner for “The most bizarre/strange dates ever had by the HUSies” it seems that there is a lot of weird happenings in the single world.

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

      Maybe we should have a corner for “The most bizarre/strange dates ever had by the HUSies” it seems that there is a lot of weird happenings in the single world.

      How about the humor section in the Forum?

  • J

    To clarify, he told me that he only wanted to have sex with me once a month. He actually explicitly gave me that figure to work with.

    Yeah, that’s a problem.

    Gay, super low T, undiagnosed medical issue, secretly 90 year old? Glad you are steering clear.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jackie

    Sassy, that is terrible! Yikes. Definitely a bullet dodged!

    (BTW, I had a quick, easy question for you– could you email me @ hussie.jackie (at) gmail, if it’s not an imposition?)

    Re: Why a guy would do that in this day and age? Didn’t you say he is from an old Southern Family? (Like FFV?) My grandmother, “Norma Desmond,” was from the South and there is a LOT to unpack from certain families. (In my grandmother’s case, we had to tell her that racist lawn ornaments, among other things, were not acceptable. I’ll spare you further details! In the words of my dad, You just don’t want to know. )

    I actually dated a guy from the South– who was religious, like me, and was cool with not pushing past a certain point. I thought, Huzzah! He respects me! The house I was living in at that time had a big plasma tv and he brought over movies for our date. OMG, his choices:

    Brokeback Mountain and another (can’t remember title) about the life of Oscar Wilde! Most. Uncomfortable. Movie Date. EVER!

    I will just say it didn’t work out (obv!) and I think he is now dating another religious guy.

    I sent you an email. :)

    He is from an old southern family with a lot of money. I wouldn’t be surprised if he felt pressure to date women because of it.

    It’s also good to know that I’m not the only woman who has been through this sort of thing. From your description, the guy you dated sounds like a real doozy. Hindsight really is 20-20, and I’ve been remembering other things about him that add support to my hunch that he is gay/bi-curious/closeted/confused. I’ve never been more proud of myself for bolting from a dating situation. My skin has been crawling since yesterday.

  • Sassy6519

    Maybe we should have a corner for “The most bizarre/strange dates ever had by the HUSies” it seems that there is a lot of weird happenings in the single world.

    The stories I could tell………

    Oh the stories…………..

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue at 349. Failure to escalate is gay or micropenis? Harsh! Lines like that make it seem calling women whores or sluts, if they so much as date a man, entirely justified.

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

      Failure to escalate is gay or micropenis? Harsh! Lines like that make it seem calling women whores or sluts, if they so much as date a man, entirely justified.

      15 dates over a period of 5 years is strange. She’s racked her brain trying to figure this dude out. He’s flirty and eager to meet up, the chemistry during dinner is off the charts, then he hugs the door in the cab and avoids eye contact while murmuring goodnight.

      I have to think something’s up – or odd.

  • J

    Well, I finally made it to the end of this thread. I’ll join the majority–gay.

  • SayWhaat

    Hey Sassy, sorry to hear about that. :( Something was definitely off though, and you made the right call. Once a month, are you freakin’ kidding me??

  • SayWhaat

    Of course I am just jealous because no one every tries to pick me up except for the occasional gay guy.

    Is it weird that I actually kind of enjoy the attention my bf gets from gay guys? It’s funny, and when I get introduced as the girlfriend they’re still all charming and sweet. :)

  • INTJ

    @ Ramble

    Regarding the Bell Curve, argument based on aggregate popularity is not valid. 50 Shades of Gray is a best-selling romance/porn novel, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good novel.

  • Ramble

    Regarding the Bell Curve, argument based on aggregate popularity is not valid. 50 Shades of Gray is a best-selling romance/porn novel, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good novel.

    The analogy would not be that 50 Shades is great literature, but that it is the break out “romance” novel of it’s generation and the publisher then deciding to never give it a second printing because it was “Politically Incorrect”.

  • Jackie

    @Susan

    :shock: at that last story. EEK

    Things with him actually got even more beyond odd –if that was possible! Before the dime dropped when he picked those flicks, he invited me to some kind of a epicurean festival. Part of it was beer-tasting, wine-sampling, I think.

    Anyway, I think I was just clueless (or maybe, oblivious!) to the crowd he was running with. He was off to get the samples and I was just waiting there and a girl started talking to me. I thought, Awesome, another chance to practice some charm school getting-to-know-you! But her “personal space” was waaaay too personal.

    When she said, We should hang out some time — while stroking my upper arm with her knuckles and reaching towards my hair — I felt supremely uncomfortable. This was NEVER addressed in the family charm school anecdotes! Finally, I said, Well I think my *date* is here, she said, Cool, he can join us, too.
    :shock:

    Anyway, the hilarious thing in retrospect was at the time on one of my religion blogs I was considered “edgy” for being cool with wearing shorts (and unbeknownst to them, halter tops). If they only knew… Bwahaha!

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Late on this… but thanks, I understand now.

    Agreed that SSO isn’t the end all be all, but a good first filter.

  • Tom

    That’s not to say it cannot be done. I’m sure many unrestricted types go on to successful relationships. It’s a risk factor. You know that
    ___________
    Yeah I realize it is. There are exceptions, but a lot “loose” women are of particular personality types.

  • Pingback: Improbable Research » Blog Archive

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

    @Rollo Tomassi

    Observed behavior is the only truly reliable measure of intent and motivation.

    To the extent that this information is available, it is indeed a valuable predictor of future sexual faithfulness. Often, the factual history is not readily accessible, in which case I strongly recommend attempting to ascertain a person’s views, e.g. “Do you think casual sex is OK without love?” etc.

    The statistical reliability and validity of the measure, which successfully correlates with infidelity and divorce, suggests that behavioral history, professed attitudes, and experiences of sexual arousal are all important facets of sociosexual orientation.

    Promiscuous people are half born, half made. It behooves either sex to know how promiscuous their potential SO is.

    Women have a far greater social investment in underreporting their sexual wants and activities than do men.

    This turns out to be just another ‘sphere canard:

    Statistical Inaccuracies By Gender

    There’s the persistent problem that men, especially in the general population, report more sexual intercourse partners than women do. It is logically impossible for men to have a different total number of sex partners than women in a closed heterosexual population. Obviously, this discrepancy is more meaningful and problematic when discussing countrywide statistics.

    Several factors have been shown to influence self-reported sexual activity by gender:

    1. National sampling typically excludes female sex workers. Adding in visits to prostitutes evens the score.

    2. Women report more sexual partners when they are assured anonymity, reducing their fear of a sexual double standard.

    3. Changing gender norms for sexual behaviors is reducing the discrepancy between male and female reporting. The oft-cited “lie detector study” did not rise to statistical significance. According to its authors:

    Several recent sexuality surveys have found no sex differences in self-reported sexual behavior (Browning, Kessler, Hatfield, & Choo, 1999), incidence of casual sexual interactions (Maticka-Tyndale, Herold, & Mewhinney, 1998; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000), number of sexual partners in the past year (Brown & Sinclair, 1999), or desired number of lifetime sexual partners (Pedersen et al., 2002). The lack of sex differences in these studies and in our analysis may reflect currently shifting gender roles and their subsequent impact on normative expectations and expressions of sexual behavior.

    4. Some studies have found that men admit to greater dishonesty than women, as they tend to round up to larger numbers when recalling the number of past sexual partners. (Their numbers tend to end in 0 or 5.) In one study, removing the men who acknowledged exaggerating eliminated all gender discrepancy in the number of reported partners.

    5. According to researcher and sociology professor Lisa Wade, a recent online survey notes that 60% of older teenage men lie about their sexual activities.


    The Definitive Survey of College Students’ Sexual Behavior By Gender

    Studies such as this have difficulty (if any effort is made at all) in accounting for variables such as SMVs of the participants, stage of life, socio-economic pressures, hormonal fluctuations in women, etc.

    How on earth would you judge SMV? There would be absolutely no way to control for all the factors.

    Stage of life was accounted for – I believe all the studies used college students.

    The SOI has been deemed statistically valid and reliable regardless of SES class, based on the data of more than 8,500 students.

    Hormonal fluctuations is women are not relevant. Unrestricted women seek higher T males during ovulation, while restricted women continue to prefer the faces of restricted males.